Planning & Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

We had an amendment that was completed to add a sort of an additional height bonus. I'm in stereo. In connection with the the bonus for TDRs, right? So 30% TDR transfer, 30% bonus height to accommodate them. And at that point we were at 312 feet maximum. on top of the 70 feet base and the existing bonus of 90 feet, right? So what this bonus would do is it would allow for the commission to consider the approval of up to an additional 188 feet over and above the maximum attainable height of 312 feet. The intent of this amendment, as it has been presented, is to provide for the consideration of that additional height in connection with the provision of public waterfront access and open space for enhanced access to the island walk and improvement to existing public parks. If you have had the opportunity to review the language that is being proposed, there is... a section with legibility conditions that kind of limits the universe of the properties that would be eligible for this bonus because we have a minimum size threshold, which is three and a half acres of net lot area as proposed. And this is calculated prior to the dedication or conveyance of open space. This will have to be a property that in addition to that receives development rights transfer pursuant to Section 8.13. that maximizes the bonus height available pursuant to Section 8.12b2 and be a project that is subject to a development agreement approved by the Village Commission. So those are sort of the conditions. There is another series of items that are proposed in the language there that would be required to be included in the development agreement for an eligible project that have to do specifically with the dedication or conveyance to the village of waterfront public space. The amount that you see there of square footage, 7,000 square feet, this is a minimum. We have been talking to all of the developers that are sort of in conversations with us now about potential projects. Because one of my concerns, I know that this is primarily focused on the island walk, but my side of that conversation is that, you know, we have a concurrency requirement for parks and recreation in the comprehensive plan. We have that concurrency requirement also in the code. And so the village needs to be very proactive in trying to move towards achieving concurrency incrementally. So that's what we're gonna try to do. These cannot be, at least from my perspective, they should not be just sort of leftover spaces. They need to have some kind of usable design. So all of those conversations are being had with the different developers that are not necessarily related just to this amendment, but in general, thinking more about parks. and recreation facilities. So we did our analysis for consistency with the MBB 100 comprehensive plan and the MBB 100 master plan, which you see there, there's a number of policies, objectives and policies. in several of our different elements that this amendment would be consistent with. Likewise, with the pillars of the MBB 100 master plan that are relevant to this amendment. And we find it generally in compliance with the intent of the, not in compliance, I'm sorry, consistent with the intent of the provisions of Section 8.10D, which has to do with RM70, which, as you recall, we kind of overhauled also about a year ago. So what this would allow is for certain properties that have a minimum of net land to reduce the bulk of the towers to also reserve some of the space on the ground for additional access to the waterfront and additional provision of open space. UM AND UM THAT'S GOING TO BE I GUESS UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME THAT'S GOING TO BE THE BULK OF MY PRESENTATION UH WE YOU KNOW FOR OUR RECOMMENDATION AS I MENTIONED THIS IS GOING TO BE A SPONSORED AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER DARO AND CO-SPONSORED BY VICE MAYOR SHERBANI AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS LET ME KNOW

Okay. So if you're going to go to 50 stories, you know, 500 feet, what's your density? How many?

The density is the same. In other words, for RM70, we have the base density that we have of 70 units per acre, and that's not changing.

You're going to go to a 50-story building and have 70 units per acre. Okay.

Yes.

It's not going to work.

What this would do, this is the amendment. All I'm going to say at this point, Mr. Murphy, is that we start getting into a conversation about density, then we have to go back to a comprehensive plan. You have to understand that we can't change the density here without amending the comprehensive plan because that's the density that we have in the policy with respect to high-density multifamily residential.

Well, then I'm not sure which is the best scenario, whether you go back now or later, but you're not going to make a building work with a density of 70 units per acre in a 500 foot building. It's just not going to happen.

Do you have something?

If I may, just to clarify, you don't need to go all the way up that high. It's an option to go up that high. I believe you can stop short.

Well, I understand that. But I mean, if you're going to get into it, you maximize your height and you maximize your square footage. And that's what we all do on all of our properties. But this isn't going to work with the density of 70 units per acre.

um something that your net acres let's kind of be specific to boil this down it's it's targeted for for one location because i don't believe there's another thing there's not another thing yeah i understand on the island that can develop correct this this is not a targeted amendment necessarily but it's for the whole island

It could, if there were an assembly of land elsewhere on Harbor Island that had the same conditions, it could apply. I'm not saying that that's necessarily feasible, but yes.

All right.

It would apply to any assemblage in the future. It's not limited. What properties may take advantage of this as they sit right now, that may change in the future. The three and a half has to be contiguous? Yes. I think it's the only way that it's going to work. One development site.

All right, let me.

Paul, you've got to remember that people can buy additional units on Harbor Island from the city. It might have already been done.

Yes, I mean, that's the whole point.

You can do 30%. You can do 30% of where you're at, if I'm correct.

Do you want this one? Push the button to call it? It like unplugged or something. Do you want this one?

No, I didn't. But anyway, no, Mr. Murphy. Yes. 70% is the maximum base density. But remember that there's a condition in this language that says that you have to be the recipient of transfer for development rights, which takes you up to 91 units per acre, right?

Yeah.

So that's what it would take.

How many TDRs do we have left?

Oh.

Let me get back to you on that. So we're voting on up to 500 feet in height for a development site of three and a half acres or better.

With the other conditions that I mentioned.

With the other conditions that you put in there.

If you want me to read

If you want to read them, that would be fantastic, but you usually do a good job.

So the specifics are as follows.

What's your open space requirement?

It has to be... I'm sorry?

What is the open space requirement? How big can the building be?

Let me take one at a time because I don't have all these things open in front of me. So let me do this first. Sherry asked me about how many TDRs are left. Yes, I'm sorry. Open space requirement. Okay, so let me start by sort of recapping the description of eligibility conditions. They will have to be at least three and a half acres of net lot area. This is calculated prior to the education of conveyance of open space. They have to receive development rights. They have to maximize the bonus height available pursuant to 812th. and they have to be a project that is subject to a development agreement approved by the Village Commission, which would be pretty much any site plan approval, right? In addition to that, the amendment stipulates that the development agreement for a manageable project must provide for each of the following items. The dedication or conveyance to the Village of waterfront public open space of at least 7,000 square feet This is exclusive of the required island walk dedication outside of the view, public access, or corridor. So in other words, this is in addition to, right? On or before the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any portion of the development project, Development and improvement of such open space by the applicant and appropriate provisions for the future maintenance by the applicant in perpetuity. Maintenance of insurance over the public open space that names the village as an additional insured in such coverages and amounts acceptable to the village manager and a public parks enhancement contribution made on or before the first building permit of $17,500 per lineal foot of bonus height over and above the bonus height permitted under Section 8.12 , which contribution shall be offset by $115 per square foot of open space dedicated or conveyed pursuant to Section 8.12 . Okay, so those are the sort of the parameters that shape this.

Okay, can we break this down real simple? You have a site that's over 150,000 square feet, correct? Three and a half acres? Yes, sir. 152,000. So in your mind, how much open space would it be between setbacks and open space front and side?

Yeah, let me get that for you. This is not in my mind. This is in the code. Thankfully, I don't have to.

I'm just trying to figure out what your square footage of the building would be and what the setbacks are as you're going up because most cities have that.

As you know, we have that too. RM70, which we overhauled not that long ago. Let's see. Where are we? All right, let's see. So remember we have setbacks here of... 25 feet for the front, 25 feet for the rear or waterfront setback, and one side, one interior side, 15, and the second side interior, 20% of the lot, but no less than 20 feet to accommodate the rear quarter, which is required for the island walk, right? So those are the setbacks.

Okay.

Let's see. The minimum pervious area at ground level is 30% of the total lot area and 30% of the front yard area. And then there's also a minimum of 20% green space requirement of the total lot area, which has to be maintained as an obstructed space and shall be landscaped.

Can that be part of your pervious area? I mean, pervious and green space are usually together.

Yes, but they don't, they overlap, but they're not the same percentages as you heard.

All right. So let's just say you go 50% for the whole site, all right? Maybe that's too much, but that's 125,000 square feet building. That's a big building.

Yes.

So even if you go five, six, seven, eight stories for your garage, you're still going over 40 stories for your building. So let's just say that you do 80% of the 125. Hopefully, you all aren't upset. So 125 times 0.8, that's the building going up. That's 100,000 square feet, OK? going up per floor, according to this. So times 40 is 4 million square feet, right? How are you going to make that work in a building?

This is not necessarily for me to figure out. This is for the applicants to figure out.

Okay, pretend I'm the applicant. I can't make this building work.

What's your concern?

My concern is the number of units you're going to have. You have a building that potentially you could do 4 million square feet and you have 318 units.

We don't do FAR.

No, we don't have FAR.

You don't have FAR?

No, because Mr. Murphy didn't want it.

Because what?

Because you didn't want it in this district. But listen, let me just say this. We're not talking about a specific project here, but obviously there has been an applicant that is interested in this particular amendment. I only have to imagine, assume that they know how they're going to make their project work with these particular conditions. They have been part of the conversation. And I don't know, Alex, if there is an opportunity for the public to speak on this matter?

Absolutely. The public, you guys will have to open this public comment before you guys both. Yes.

Okay. So maybe that will clarify some of your concern.

Okay.

So what you're saying is all of that square footage is... too much to build 245 units.

Well, you can build a total of 318, you know, with your, because you can do the 30% and then another, you can get up to 318, 19 units on this site.

So you're suggesting that you don't need all that height for it?

No, you don't. Or if you're going to go that tall in something that large, then you need to limit how big the floor plan can be And maybe you do two or three buildings of the same height.

Yeah. This particular applicant is doing, they were doing three towers. Okay, great. And now they're doing two. Okay.

So even if they do two, then going up, that's 50,000 square feet per floor. And I'm not sure how you're going to make that. Okay.

So you think that this is too much height?

It's unnecessary height, I think is what he's saying.

So I like the height. I prefer 50 stories. But you don't have enough units to accommodate two 50-story buildings.

If you can prove to me that this is too much height for the number of units... I would prefer then to recommend less height than more units, because again, that's, you know, and I'm not making a recommendation on this at all.

Let's stick to the ordinance that they're asking for, because this is kind of specific.

So you're approving something that's not going to work. Let me give you an example. Let's say that I have a property that's twice this. So there's two of them, which is a thousand foot. And we have 1,000 units per acre, all right? So we get to build 1,000 units in the same size building that you're building, and you're building 318. It's just not going to work.

So, I mean, that's kind of what we're here for.

I'm just suggesting you don't have either decrease the height or increase the number of units because you're not going to make this thing work with the units that you have.

We cannot. I'm sorry. We cannot increase density today because this would require an amendment to the comprehensive plan. So either you make a recommendation to the commission to increase the height, which I'm not sure what the reception is going to be, or you can make a recommendation to lower the height that is in this ordinance. I think that's what he's saying makes sense. Why don't we open it up?

Let's open it up to comment, and then we can have a brief conversation and then vote. Sure. I want to open it up to comment. Please come up and state your name and address. Is that right?

Yes.

Good evening. Laura Tauber, 1801 Northeast 123rd Street, Suite 300, North Miami 33181. As a developer, I'll just speak in general. Your points, Mr. Murphy, are well made. But I think that you're assuming a footprint of a building. You're obviously very experienced here. And I think that a lot of the thought, at least me as a developer and many developers that are in my field, We're trying to have more green area and more green space and so it's not necessarily a density thing. I consider myself a responsible developer. I wouldn't want more density. I don't think that would be responsible. I think you were very wise historically in limiting your density in the RM70 with the bonus. However, green area is very precious. As Miami continues to build and build and build, there's less green area. If a building can be taller, the footprint doesn't have to be the 50,000 square feet you're calculating. It can be much smaller and so you have a slimmer building and it affords two things. One is more green area on the ground, And one is more view, because less space in the air is taken up by a building. And my understanding of, as I'm hearing the proposed code amendment being read, and I read it, that seems to be the intention. More green area, bigger view corridor, and less units per floor. Because that's another way your math is very astute, but there is another way to do that mathematical calculation.

Okay, let me just make the comment that in most cities you have both green area and open space, both combination. And the combination of both of them is rarely over 50%. In fact, I don't know of any other city that does more than 50%. And if you're buying by acre, then that acre is based on how much you can build on that site. That's the value. So I just... Even if you don't have FAR and you just build the building, then you have to divide the space by the number of units you're permitted. So this makes no sense to me.

But you're dividing perhaps horizontally as opposed to doing it vertically. So if you're talking about a 50,000, in your example, I think you used a 50,000 square foot footprint. So you do two 25s. But then you don't have to, you're not looking for more density. The height leaves more green area on the surface because your footprint is smaller. And I think that for me, everybody has a different opinion. For me as a developer, I don't like to maximize my sites. I like green area. I grew up in the Midwest. We have a green areas is everywhere because it's not as dense as in Miami. And here I, oh, I'm out of time. I'm sorry. Thank you. Excuse me.

Can you have a minute? Okay.

Please and thank you. So I think there's, you know, if you have, if there is a site this size and a developer has the opportunity to take advantage of it and not maximize the footprint of the buildings. and make it very, very green. Maybe other developers will follow in the future. I think it's a very respectable thing to do in a municipality and for the land itself. I'm personally a huge believer in parks, green area, and height. If we're standing, I mean, maybe I'm not as tall as you, but I probably, I know I'm not, but But we can't see with our eyes the difference. Once a building's tall, we don't see the difference in height. We don't perceive it. But boy, do we perceive what we're seeing around that building. Is there water? Are there open corridors? And there is not another municipality in Miami-Dade County like North Bay Village where you're surrounded by water. You are the heart of the Bay. And I think it's really respectable and nice to leave those views. That's my thought.

Thank you for the extra minute. Thanks, Laura. Does anybody else want to speak?

Can I comment on that? When you look for a piece of property, You have three things to consider. The first one is land. How much is your land? Is it on the water? Is it on the park? Is it off the water? All of them have different prices. So say you're on the water and your land is going to be 20% of your total sale. So your total sale is based on the number of units times the square footage of the unit. and you don't want to build something here more than about 2500 square foot max right so you have all this space there to build then you you do your land and your hard cost and your soft cost and if if if you are more than 75 percent of what you can build and sell then you don't buy the land. So I don't know what you're paying for the land or what you're selling it for, but that's the only way you can make sense out of buying a property is to figure out the land hard cost, soft cost. So I don't know. I just don't think you have enough units. If you don't want to build that many units, that's your prerogative. But at least you should have them there available if you need them. That's just my opinion. I wouldn't buy this land if I could only have 318 units on it. Oh, we got it.

Can I just remind also the Planning and Zoning Board that a change in density is a different amendment, right?

Yeah.

that it could impact the density across the board.

It's going to be very hard to get any more density. We've been through this too. We also, and I think with the comments that we just heard, we're taking into consideration also the neighborhood. Most people aren't going to be happy with the 500 feet, but to go down to a very skinny building, one, two towers, whatever it is, is going to be more beneficial to the island with the density that's there than to go try to put 500, 600 units on that island.

Because people are not going to be happy with that. All right.

So I think with what's being proposed is a fair thing, but we want to hear the rest of the comments. Okay. All right. Anybody else want to speak?

Chair Shaw, I just want to recognize the new board member, Zach Thompson, is on Zoom. Okay. He needs to be in person today. Mr. Thomas.

Hey, everybody. I'm just listening in. I don't have any comments at the moment. I'm just listening to all the feedback that everybody's giving. But this is my first meeting. Looking forward to having much more. And it's a great conversation.

Great. Thank you. Hopefully we'll see you here in person. Do we have any comments? So no comments. Anybody else? All right. So comments closed. Does anybody have any questions or thoughts? Want to make a motion?

Do you want to kick it back to the Commission to consider the reduction of height?

Can I make a motion?

I make a motion to approve it as is with Sylvia's, whatever comments Sylvia put in there.

We'd like to get it from someone who's not the chair. Yeah, that's what I thought.

What do you think?

Or you can pass the gavel and if you'd like to make the motion and maybe miss Abramson. Act as the chair, then you can make the motion and then she may 2nd.

Well, what do you think I like your emotion? I. To defend you, you know, honestly, and that's what I'm thinking. You're the developer. Even if you want to have 60% or 70% green space and you're going with two 500-foot buildings, you need more than 318 units. So you don't.

I don't.

You've already designed it?

I've done the math.

It's what?

Not interested at all in more density. Okay. It's not, if that ever comes before you, it's not going to be me. I'm very respectful. The street is, I don't think it can handle it. It wouldn't be fair to the neighbors. But I think the height is important because, again, the view corridor, it's just, it's spectacular. And why put big, you know, like stocky buildings there? That's what exists now. And you drive down the street and you have to kind of find the water. This should be pristine and beautiful. And you see it, it sparkles. Okay.

If you're happy with the density.

I'm very happy with the density.

Because it's the only piece of land like this, right?

Today, that is correct. But there could be assembly of other properties. I mean, there are certainly a number of properties that are underdeveloped, that are adjacent. I don't see anything in the horizon, but in the next five, 10 years, who knows?

Sure, I'll let you make the motion.

Well, I mean, only on, you know, thinking down the road, that could potentially be a concern, that if we're allowing that height, then it would only be natural for, not in this case, but another developer to say, then I need more density.

Yeah.

So I...

But also by not, we can't have a density conversation. Sylvia's plainly said that. I mean, you're going to have to go to a whole, I think, batting the state. A lot of different things would have to happen. And we've already went through this, what, just a year ago? And had this conversation, and that's what it is.

Obviously, it's not that the conversation cannot be had. I don't think we can address that issue today.

No, no, no. I'm not suggesting it be addressed today.

Right. And I understand where you're coming from, Sherry, but I think there's also a number of legibility criteria. It's not just the property size that has to be met. And so while there is a chance that somebody could assemble another three and a half acres on Harbor Island, They also have to meet all the other conditions in order to qualify for this.

I think looking at this very macro, one, we did a huge town hall, many of them, Sylvia did a great job. And I believe trying to add more density would be, it would not be good that we had a lot of people here that did not want it. I believe that with what Laura has laid out here with skinny buildings, whatever it is, is the ideal situation. We're being put in front of us, the height for this project at three and a half acres, and knowing all the lots and the sizes, I think it'd be hard right now, anytime in the near future that somebody is going to be able to put together this amount of land. So it's kind of is targeted, in my opinion, regardless if that's what it's being said as. But I think we need to focus on what's being presented. And I think it's fair.

I understand the skinny towers. I get that. But they're all the towers are being built on the same podium. So skinny or not, I mean, from the street, your experience is going to be the same. Plus, we're requiring a setback 20 feet and 15 feet, right?

And 25 for your island walk.

Yeah. No, no.

I mean, from the street to sides. The side setbacks is 20 and 15?

A minimum of 20, 20% or 20 feet, whichever is greater. Right. Yeah. So that's the standard that is in the code, right? Now, if you're talking about a particular property, that setback is going to be much greater because there is going to have to be a dedication of open space that is going to be added to the view quarter that goes to the island walk.

One more comment.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I know you closed. Absolutely. My name is Miguel Diaz-Laporte. I'm an attorney at Gunster. I represent developers. Just to add a little bit of perspective to the discussion, the very good discussion you're all having, what we're talking about is a vision for a development program, potentially, right, that has not only the skinnier buildings but the narrower silhouettes providing for better buildings view quarters but also entails the dedication of a minimum of 7 000 square feet of open space the setbacks that you're discussing are minimum setbacks meaning nothing uh says that you can't have more of a setback right so if you're talking about properties that are three and a half acres minimum three and a half acres that have a minimum requirement of a seven thousand square foot dedication of of open public space right And in addition to that, a contribution in the amount of $17,500 per million feet, when you're talking about a vision for something that is very pleasant to the eye, potentially, in terms of view corridors, in terms of open space, in terms of public amenities and public benefits to the community. And again, this would allow it. But ultimately, somebody has to come up and build it, right? And that project has to come specifically before the board, and the board has to ultimately move forward with it. This just creates a vehicle in the code to create that possibility. And that's the perspective that I wanted to add with all respect. Great. Thank you.

Let me ask a question. Would I be rude to ask you how much you're paying for the land?

It's already been purchased.

It's already been purchased? How much did you pay for the land?

It was two properties. The Biscayne C Club was... A microphone, Laura. I believe it's public record, but Biscayne C Club was $47.5 million. $47 million. Right, and the Majestic Isles was just shy of 16 million. 16? Correct.

Okay, so you're at...

No, I'm just a little concerned about getting into a process of actually designing a project, which is not what we're doing here right now. You know, we're passing an amendment to the code, and I understand, you know.

This is what's before us. It's not really a density question on this thing. It's conveyed by a lot of height.

But if she's already got it, then...

We've already, it's public record. We've already purchased it. And I think we've been doing this for a long time and it's comfortable. We're trying to be very responsible and contribute to the city and to the green areas. And I hope to pun intended lead, L-E-E-D by example. And maybe some other developers will pick up on the idea of nice green space and respectable and responsible construction.

And I can tell you this, Mr. Murphy. You don't have one floor condos going up 50 floors? I said, it's just you on one floor?

Mr. Murphy, I think that, just to comment, one is that I think that, you know, there... There are different approaches to development. I think that we have to be respectful of their approach, although I fully understand that they can benefit from your extensive experience. But the other one is that on behalf of the village, I will continue to push for more open space on these new developments. More and more because the village is under the level of service of parks, facilities, parks and recreation. We're not going to get more land. We're not. There's no more land. And so we need to make sure that these developments provide parks and recreation facilities. In addition to, you know, whatever contributions they negotiate.

Right now, based on her. land cost, you'd have to sell this for $1.3 billion. That's how much the units would have to sell so that you'll make money on this project. But that's just my calculation. What do I know?

So do we have a motion? No motion?

I'm going to let Sherry make the motion. Whatever she wants, I want.

No pressure. Okay.

um i know ryan wants this something i want i'm just being i i got i look at macro from macro perspective i know what the neighborhood wants they don't want more units a hundred percent they don't want a 600 unit condominium at the at the end of the block with traffic coming in and out they just don't want that all somebody's asking for is the height whether they build that high at the end of the day or not, we're not going to know until the plans come in here. But having two skinny buildings is going to be knowing living at the West Drive corner, being able to look out and not see two big fat or three big fat buildings, which are going to take up your whole views and people in other condos views. I think it's a smart decision to allow it. I don't think this is really, this isn't a density conversation per the ordinance. Do you want to allow to go skinny towers, 50 floors for what still be laid out and anything extra? If you want to have a density conversation, we can ask them to rewrite the code in a couple months and have town hall and see what the neighbors say.

I know the answer to that. My concern is now that we have allowed for the height, naturally should a three and a half acre parcel become available and assembled, it's only going to be going down the road of, well, I have all this height, why don't I have the density? So I understand that at the moment we're speaking sort of specifically, but down the road, we're not. So we don't know the developer that's coming next. That is my concern.

I don't think three and a half acres is possible to be assembled knowing each piece over there. I mean, there are about 22,500. So three and a half acres would be 560. 23 by 16 times 3.5 would be 152 divided by 22, 500. I mean, you would need six parcels. I don't think there's six parcels contiguous without there being a historic building or a condominium already in place or somebody that, I mean, no one's going to pay $100 million for a condo to knock it down to have one extra piece. It's just not going to.

Just to clarify, there are no designated historic buildings.

The Pink Lido is not?

That's the only one.

that's the one i was talking about okay so that we're talking about that would be have to be and i still don't think 22 500 times five that'd be five parcels i don't think that would get there and just to to be clear the the density question if it comes up will have to come through the whole you know with the whole process and so you guys will have plenty of input and if Sorry. No, you just brought to mind, look, because one person is willing to do this on this site and go that high, which has some significant costs. And I don't believe this is an end cap in the middle of the bay. You're not going to get another end cap. So you're probably not going to get the sellout prices on any other piece. And anybody else, one, I don't believe can put together 3.5 acres. And let alone have the fortitude to do a project like that with the limited number of units that they would have anyway. Because most of the people, all the units have been bought up from the city. So you're only going to be at 70 units per acre. So if you'd be at like 200 units, you would never be able to go that high again.

And to kind of go back and answer your question, I think, and we can confirm this because my tracker is a little outdated, you know, that there was this auction. And so I don't have those latest, but we believe that there might be 37 left altogether.

So it wouldn't make sense for anybody else. want to have the they want to have the density or the the the the track record to probably do something like that i mean it just wouldn't happen i don't think i think this is a one-off i wish it was presented a little bit differently but it's this is what's being asked on the ordinance one question the buyer this wonderful young lady here are you happy with what you have and what you can do okay

If you want, I would say no. If you are, I would say yes.

We still have a motion for you to say yes or no to anything. Well, I'm waiting for Sherry.

Or pass the gavel. Brian, you can pass the gavel.

I don't know. Can I pass this?

You can pass the gavel and you can make the motion yourself. Pass it to Mr. Murphy.

She's the vice chair. She gets to do it. And then Mr. Shaw can make the motion and whoever else would like to second, may second.

I'd like to hear what Sherry has to say.

Oh, man.

Come on, you're sharp. You're sharp at this.

I think your question, your concern, it's not possible. It's theoretically not possible. Because anybody else's development would want to be Paul's, and it's just not going to happen. The sites are not going to be big enough to make it happen. And not only that, if you think about it, the lots, what are they, 80 feet deep on the side streets? They're not even 80 feet. No, they are 80 feet. 140? It's very low.

But Harbor is not the only RM70. No. That is correct.

There are properties behind us over here.

But they still want to have the units because the city is only limited now to 37 units.

37 transferable units. Yes.

So is that accurate?

It's close enough. I can tell you it is within that range. 36, 37, I don't know. It's around there. And I'm happy to confirm and email you because I need that number myself.

What properties did you say right back here?

Those would be the properties on the east side

Only on the water. On the water.

Yes, that's correct.

And there's three and a half acres easy there.

Together, there would be, yes. But remember that there's two rental properties bookending a condo property. And then there is the Grandview Palace.

The number of units is going to limit anybody else for their height, even if they... And to buy those condos, but the only other one with treasure on the bay, what's the one that's kind of a little bit run down?

That's the one she said. Yeah, what are they called? Wake, Caribbean Towers, and what's the other one? I forget.

So there are other implications besides just Harbor Island.

There are.

But by the math, I don't believe that that could take place because they wouldn't have the... that number of units they would only have 200 units not 300. this site has 312. the other ones would be at 70 units per acre they're 70 units per acre yeah but they're the extra units were purchased there's only 37 all right it's up to you make the motion to approve i second it

FOR YOUR BENEFIT.

BOARD MEMBER ABINSON? YES. BOARD MEMBER MURPHY?

YES.

BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON?

YES.

VICE CHAIR SHAW?

YES.

MOTION CARRIES.

we count the uh virtual board members both yeah all right 6b um item 6b an ordinance of a mayor and commission so i will win in so much detail i apologize

UNIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY CREATING A NEW SECTION 5.23.1 PROVIDING FOR WAIVERS OF PLAT BASED ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE PLATTING REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED IN CHAPTER 28 OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES PROVIDING FOR SUBLABILITY, PROVIDING FOR QUOTIFICATION, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

I think that this will be a little bit easier. It's a little bit more opaque.

My brain is hurting already, so...

Maybe we should have had this one first. In any case, as you probably are aware, Chapter 177 of the Florida Statutes provides minimum requirements for the plotting of land and allows for additional regulations by local ordinance. We, in our code, in the comprehensive plan, actually we have two policies that require all properties within Norby Village to be legally subdivided. However, neither the comprehensive plan nor our implementing regulations, we do have planning regulations in the code, provide exceptions to the planning requirement, nor procedures to determine or process such exceptions. However, Section 28-4 of the Miami-Dade County Code does include certain exceptions to the planning requirement to be determined by a non-existent village plat division. So the intent of this proposed ordinance is to establish a clear and explicit process that is consistent with county process and criteria to determine when planning requirements may be waived. We haven't had this language in our code. And so this would essentially add the language that has been missing, which is a whole new section under under Chapter 5, would be Section 5.23 , which establishes the process and criteria for waivers of PLAT. Okay. And The language that is provided here in the proposed ordinance, it provides for the village manager to make the determination that a property may be exempt from the planning requirements. This would be pursuant to Section 28-4 of the Miami-Dade County Code and also on conditions established in subsequent subsections, including that the property was previously platted or a remnant parcel of unflatted land surrounded on all sides by previously platted land, rights of way, public property, or water, and that the property consists of previously recognized, which means documented in this case, building sites. The proposed amendment also provides a similar exception for public facilities and public property that essentially meets condition number one and meets the planning exception pursuant to section 28-4 of the county code. So this ordinance is meant to fill a gap that we have in our code. We just don't have a waiver of process. And so this would establish that process and the criteria to evaluate.

Why don't you go right to the public comment?

I've got a quick question. In layman's terms, why would you want a waiver of plat? I don't really understand.

Do you want to answer that, Alex?

Platting is a very long and expensive process. It involves Miami-Dade County. You have to hire a surveyor. You have to produce 15 copies of this and 15 copies of a boundary survey, show all the utilities. It's essentially the same process as if The replat is essentially the same process as if you've never plotted the land before and you're looking out for curb and grade, sidewalks, all sorts of utilities and infrastructure that may already be there. when you're talking about remnant pieces of property and lots that may or building sites that may encompass several pieces of different platted lots where you don't need to go through all that process where we can recognize this has been already that the city's police, fire levels of service are all good recognizing this as a building site and you don't have to go through the whole dog and pony show.

And if I may add something, we have some situations that we haven't encountered here in the village where land is serviced, it's developed, etc. And where, you know, we have found that there's no previous plot or there is an unclear plot condition. And in those instances, having to go back and do that process is pretty cumbersome. So we haven't had this language before to allow us to at least put that consideration, and this would fill that gap. County code has it, and most of the municipalities that I work in have a waiver of plat process. Thank you.

I'd like to open it up to public comment.

Maybe I'll talk plats.

There is one person.

There's one person? Okay.

Pamela?

Close. close public comment.

I think Pamela wants to talk about it.

Who does?

It was in regards to the last amendment though. Not acknowledged in time. On another note, so how does that amendment affect our density options moving forward?

It doesn't.

It's simply height. Density does not change. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Public comment closed.

All right. Let's make a motion to approve this. Yeah.

I second it. I second the motion.

You ready?

Go ahead. Roll call.

Board member Abramson. Yes. Board member Murphy.

Yes.

Board member Thompson. Board member Thompson.

Maybe he thought we were done.

He's not into plaques.

Not paying attention, I guess. He went for the coffee. I don't know. Vice chair. Yes. Chair.

Yes.

All right. Motion carries 3-1. 3-0. Sorry. 3-0. All right.

All right. Thank you.

Any other items?

Not tonight.

All right. Closed meeting? Meeting adjourned, thank you.

Recording stopped.