Planning & Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

All right. You ready? If you could raise your right hand and repeat after me. I state your name.

I, Ryan Shaw.

Illegal resident of the state of Florida.

Illegal resident of the state of Florida.

In North Bay Village.

In North Bay Village.

And being a planning and zoning board member.

And being a planning and zoning board member.

Do hereby solemnly swear.

Hereby solemnly swear.

That I will support and obey. But I will support the Constitution of the United States and the state of Florida, and that I will, in all respects, observe the provisions of the charter and ordinance of the village. Congratulations.

Thank you. So now we're going to select the chair. We have the chairperson, which I would like to nominate myself for.

I'll second. Second.

I'll roll.

Okay. Chair Shaw?

Yes.

Board Member Abinson? Yes. for member Lozada? Yes. For member Gonzalez?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

Thank you. Congratulations. Now we need to do vice chair. Does anybody want to nominate themselves? I'll nominate myself for that one.

Nomination for? Vice chair.

For you? Yes.

Okay. Do we have a second?

Second.

Board Member Gonzalez? Yes. Board Member Lozada?

Yes.

Board Member Abramson? Yes. Chair Shaw?

Yes.

Motion carries. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you.

Do we have any other chair people? That's it, right?

That's it. Okay.

okay the approval we need to approve the minutes from the last meeting in november 14th i'll make the motion second you want to call roll call sure board member abinson yes board member gonzalez yes board member gonzada yes chair shaw yes motion carries great thank you we have one one item oh Let me bring one thing up. We have one board member missing tonight. I'd like to make a motion. I'm allowed to make a motion to give him an excused absence for the situation that he's in.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion carries.

Great. I believe we can move on to the first ordinance and the one item on the agenda for this evening.

good evening board good evening welcome to the new members I look forward to working with all of you

No? Oh, okay. I hear you. I see you shaking your head, so I'm always scared when I see you do that. This requires going back a little bit. In October of last year, the board heard an item, which was an amendment to the high bonuses section of the code. The board made some changes to that ordinance and sent it on to the Village Commission. The item was on the Commission's agenda on December 10th, and the Commission considered and approved it on first reading. But then on January 21st, just past of this year, at second reading, the commission elected to defer the item and consider the exploration of an alternative that was proposed by Mayor Streifeld. And as a result of the discussion, staff was directed to go forward with that exploration. And what we have in front of you tonight is the result of that effort. So what this is, I think at least some of you who have been on the board for a while are pretty familiar, and perhaps all of you are, with the special area plan process that we have in our code today. in Chapter 15, which is the chapter that holds all the regulations pertaining to the T6 transit zone. That is the zoning district, essentially, that encompasses the two sides of the causeway through Treasure Island. And the special area plan in that context has been a tool for master planning properties that are at least two acres in area. And not only does it allow for the master planning of such properties, but it also enables those property owners essentially to re-sown their properties to the special area plan that they are creating. They come in with a set of regulations that manages whatever changes they're making to the underlying regulations, whether it is building height or more the allocation of building height, the distribution of building height within the master planned area. No density and no intensity. That's kind of out of the game. But almost anything else can be modified as part of that master planning effort in order to accomplish a vision or goals for that master planned area. That set of provisions has only applied to this zoning district, T6, which again is only the properties on both sides of the causeway. What this amendment does is to expand the scope of applicability of the special area plan provisions, along with some amendments that are appropriate in order to do so to um the multi-family districts in the village and there's two one is the medium density resident medium density multi-family residential which is rm40 There are some properties behind us that are zoned that, as well as some properties on the southern portion of this island, sort of on that side of the island. And then the RM70 district, which is the high-density multifamily residential, which applies to properties along the east edge of the southern part of Treasure Island and all of Harbor Island. So this amendment would expand the scope again to encompass those two districts in addition to the one that it already applies to, which is this T6 zone. And there's a few other changes that we have made. I'm going to let Danny keep going on that. The one thing that I will tell you is that based on the direction that we received from the Commission, the way that we have structured this expansion is by creating a tier system or different thresholds for how the master planning effort would be qualified. In the T6 zone today, The minimum land area for qualifying to do a special area plan is two acres. And that would stay the same way. In this new amendment, in this new system, the iron... Now, let me go back the other way. In RM70, it would be 1.75 acres. That would be the minimum land area to qualify for a special area plan. And in the RM40, it would be 1.5 acres. so land area in accordance to the zoning district and taking into consideration the um the existing lot sizes existing land area that's you know is within those districts and danny i'm going to pass it on to you to talk about some of the other changes that we have sure

Thank you, Sylvia. I think you pretty much summarized it. Just I guess if you guys have any questions, specific questions about the provisions, for the most part, the procedures from Chapter 15 are staying the same. We've just moved. We had to move things around in the code so that it made sense. And so now this new section is going to live. in section 4.19 of the ULDC. Soumya mentioned the minimum land area changes that we've made. And on line 305, I figured it might be important to point out that one of the One of the reasons why a SAP or if Mayor Streifeld wants to expand on this, but one of the ideas from the bonus height ordinance was or one of the issues was that really height should be addressed as part of a special area plan for larger developments. And so line 305 through 314 address flexible allocation of development capacity and height. And finally, another important point is that this process now is going to require a community meeting. So any applicant that's seeking SAP approval is going to host at least one community meeting to explain the development proposal and the application. And I believe this was a directive from the commission.

Yes, that is correct. Then if I may, there's one or two other things that I will mention. Another driver of bringing this out from the T6 zone and onto the rest of the ULDC to apply to these other districts is to give the Commission the ability to. TO NEGOTIATE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR THE CIVIC SPACE THAT IS REQUIRED AS PART OF A SPECIAL AREA PLAN. THAT'S ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT HAS BEEN IN THE CODE. AND IN CHAPTER 15, IT WAS A MINIMUM OF 5% OF THE AGGREGATED LOT AREA. um there's a there was a definition of civic space there that was i i i think from from my perspective i thought it was a little broad and if you recall the um original version of the bonus height ordinance there was um a pretty robust section in there that had to do with the um a conveyance or dedication of open space uh in exchange for the ability to get that bonus height so we are kind of bringing some of that language in here but also we are um defining i hope it's a better definition of civic space that also includes more clearly open space that was not necessarily clear before um And I think that is important because the goal with the bonus height ordinance was to make sure that the village actually got more recreation, more parks and recreation land, right? That's what we need. We don't necessarily need a plaza or a concrete little auditorium that's very nice to have but the level of service standard for that we're deficient for is parks so um that's that's something that that's in there um civic space has been defined and those definitions have been brought into the definitions section of the uldc um we also have are recommending uh increasing from the five percent of civic space to at least seven percent um that may be something that needs to be discussed because you know it could be it could be more um as well so i wanted to mention that and i don't know if i'm skipping over anything else that was kind of a significant change danny yeah i would just mention the

you covered it a bit but the waterfront open space considerations lines 341 through 363 address or allow an application for a special area plan in the rm70 that seeks height that would exceed the 312 feet would be required to include a dedication or commands to the village of waterfront public open space of at least 12,500 square feet. And so, again, this was something that was sort of adapted from the bonus height ordinance and incorporated into this – into the SAP procedures.

And that waterfront space is in addition to, on top of, the island walk dedication, right? It can be, but no, actually it's not. It's not. In this case, it's not. So it's on top of the civic space that you have to provide. That's the direction that we got from the Commission. Correct.

Right.

so so basically what it's being proposed is a change from the first reading the second reading from two to one point seven five is that because you mentioned two first and then no there was there has been no first reading of this ordinance okay of this particular one this is this is this is the first uh sort of uh public uh discussion about it so how do we offer like you mentioned two first and then one point seven five i'm trying to understand oh yeah so the first meeting was on the bonus height ordinance okay so that Came to the planning zoning board. It was approved with some recommendations for changes. It went to 1st reading. And at that point, for the purposes of discussion, the, I'm sorry the commission. Approved it to go to 2nd reading, but at 2nd reading, they decided to defer it indefinitely while we explored this path. okay so let's put that aside i'm just giving you that context because some of the language that was in that ordinance has made it into this one as danny mentioned some of those ideas some of those concepts but this is a different ordinance a new ordinance and has not been reviewed by the commission so what we've been asked to consider now is on the rm 41.5 and on the rm 71.75 You are you are being asked to consider the entire this entire ordinance, including. This idea of kind of having a tiered threshold of land to qualify for a special area plan, according to your zoning district. Okay.

So, in the last ordinance that we approved, and now it's getting kind of reworked here to this new version. We had three and a half acres and then it's going to go to a sap. But this is, I mean, look, let's face it, this is all to control the height. And at three and a half acres, I had myself voted for it because I didn't mind the height of that. But if you start going to lots that are less than three acres, we need to control it because they should not be going very high. to know that the height's not going to happen on these smaller lots. I think 175 is way too small to be able to propose what was going to happen at three and a half, 100%.

Are setbacks also being looked at?

No. So I know it's got to be a plan that comes, but it's got to be. Right. So what it is is the underlying zoning district has setbacks already in place, right? If you come in with a special area plan, you can modify those setbacks to match your site plan or your vision that you have for the master planning of that property. It's one of the things that you can modify as part of the special area plan. But the underlying district has setbacks already that are set for the district. And they're different for the T6 zone, they're different for the RM40, and they're different for the RM70. we're not modifying those that if if any modification happened to those it would be through the special area plan that would be reviewed by yourselves as well as the commission that is a by the way uh done through an ordinance process just like this one so it will have to come to you first and then it will have to have two public hearings um in addition to the public meeting that is being proposed as a separate issue that the developer will be responsible for with the community mr chair if i may you may thank you

First of all, congratulations. It's really great to see the four of you up here. I have all the confidence in the world that you guys are going to make great decisions for the future land development of our beautiful village. I wanted to provide a little bit more context for this process since I basically drove it. When the ordinance came before us on second reading, the one that you all approved, which applied to waterfront properties that were three and a half acres or more, that had also purchased TDRs. There were three criteria to be able to get that bonus height. in exchange for that bonus height, the requirements were all written into the code. So a property owner could say, all right, I meet these three criteria. What do I have to give North Bay Village in exchange for being able to achieve this bonus height? They cross the civic space and the other things off their list, and then they come to the commission. I did A, B, and C. Now I'm entitled to X, Y, and Z. That was the way the ordinance was written. There are a couple of serious concerns that I have. One, the requirements to obtain that bonus height in terms of what are you giving to the residents of North Bay Village? What are you doing in exchange for that bonus height? I felt were too narrowly tailored and that given the needs that our community has and how those needs fluctuate on a daily basis, that it would be prudent for us as a body of public servants to be able to respond to the needs of the village as opposed to being locked into what's written in our code. And that's what the special area plan allows us to do. It allows the legislative body, the commission, to negotiate in a more flexible way, one project at a time. I also was concerned that creating an ordinance that is so specific such that it only applies to properties that meet that three and a half acres on the water purchasing TDRs. still leaves out a lot of property owners who are looking at different areas of North Bay Village for redevelopment in the future. And I wanted to create a legislative mechanism that would be more all encompassing so that we don't have to go back and create a new ordinance for the next guy who has acquired 1.6 acres or 1.9 acres or 3.2 acres or whatever it is. We know that redevelopment is happening. It's not just happened when the SAP ordinance was first drafted. The goal pursuant to NBB 100 was to incentivize redevelopment on the Kennedy Causeway. So we created the SAP ordinance specifically for the Kennedy Causeway. Well, now we have a lot of redevelopment happening on Harbor Island, and there are projects that are probably coming to Treasure Island as well. And so as opposed to having each property owner come before the village asking for variances, I believe that a variance should be based on hardship. a real and true hardship, not just, well, the project that I want to design and build doesn't fit neatly within your code and therefore I'm asking for a variance. I don't think we should be giving variances for that. So I wanted to create a process. I wanted us to have a process whereby we could be flexible. So Mr. Chair, your point about certain heights not being appropriate in certain areas of the village, I could not agree with you more. Totally agree. But this is about a process. How would a property owner present a plan before the village to receive public feedback to negotiate with the decision makers to get something across the finish line that is appropriate for our community? And I'm here to answer any questions that you have.

I understand if anybody has any other questions.

Does she want to say something? I just. Alright, we're talking about the SAP plan. And I understand what the mayor was just explaining about, you know, it allows flexibility. I also show the concern of the chair as far as, you know, the size of the lot or the footprint and then, you know, open spaces, setbacks, green areas, all that stuff. What are the limitations that creating an SAP ordinance would put on the village in terms of we have to provide a certain uh set of guidelines that are the same for everyone can we be as flexible as we can depending on uh who's applying for this sap what does sap put in limitations on what can the village approve as it's being proposed now we're limited by density you cannot ask for additional density through a special area plan okay Is that the only thing that's limiting it right now?

No, it also limits the amount of times that they have to come before planning and zoning, which is just the one time. Once an SAP is approved here, it then just goes.

It's an administrative approval for each of the buildings.

Right, so they can do whatever they want, and it's within the guidelines, but we will never see it again.

Okay, so once it's approved, it's.

Once we approve it, that's it. It goes, it's an administrative process, and there's all sorts of changes that can and will be made. And we will know nothing about having said that having said that.

The special area plan establishes the framework for reviewing the administrative permits, right? So, when we review administratively, it has to meet those criteria has to meet those. guidelines and if not the administrative process can result in a denial but it could also result in like you just said the flexibility in allocating height within the parameters of approval of the special area plan so if the special area plan says in this area we're going to only permit 240 feet but knowing that we could go higher In this area, we reallocate the remainder of that height to this other part of the site that's established through the. And when the permit comes in, if they're showing me that instead of the 240 in this on this site, they're going 600. I know that that's against the parameters, right?

If they come in with a 1000 feet, you're going to say no. However, just keep in mind that the special area plan removes a lot from. From us from the commission, because once it's approved, they do not come back when they come with our 1st, the, I mean, they're going to go to us.

They have to make a presentation to the city or to the residents.

We already did that. Like, that already happened. We approved an. And we saw nothing too, and we saw nothing no plans. No.

Show me was especially that was the 1st, 1 was the pioneer special area plan. They came back with an amendment to their special area plan a couple of years ago and the other 1 was zombie. right so yeah i mean you're not going to see you're not going to see the buildings necessarily the design or anything like that although they can and they actually did bring some concepts right but after the framework is approved through the special area plan they they can go back and each one of the sites that was approved for a building they go through more detailed design and planning of the specific site. And that is what, within the parameters that were approved as part of the site, the special area plan, they submit for a special area plan permit, which is, as Ms. Abramson pointed out, an administrative process.

don't they have to give at least the height of what it's going to be at the presentation? Right. How it changes after that, I mean, they already got the height, so they could change it however they want.

Sylvia just said that they have flexibility in allocating height once it gets to the administrative.

No, that's not necessarily what I said. I mean, again, it has to be within the approved special area plan regulations, right? So it cannot exceed the height that is approved for the different areas of the site at SAP approval. Let's just talk about Sunbeam as an example, because that's a pretty clear example. There's an area of their special area plan where 240 feet are allowed, another one where 340 feet are allowed, and one area where 600 feet is allowed. If they decide to come back and all of a sudden say, well, the 600 feet doesn't work for us, it needs to be 700, they will have to amend their SAP, come back through the whole process. But they could design their building to be less than the 600 feet. And through the, the administrative process, they could do that, but not not more, but they couldn't move it.

So, let's say on the peninsula, they decided that they don't want to go 600. right? They only want to go to 400. they can't take that additional 200 feet in height, but they're not using in that particular area and move it somewhere else.

Sure, they could, they could distribute that to 1 of their other buildings. No, no, no, they cannot want to exceed 600, but they can take 1 of the other towers.

No, not not through that process. They will have to come back to you and amend their special area plan because the special area plan. That that was approved by the commission says. This area, the maximum that they have is this much height. This other area gets this much height.

Correct. The maximum height, but not the maximum number of buildings they can build at that height. They still have the same density. I understand that.

Yeah.

But let's say they propose one 600-foot tower.

In that location.

Yes. Understood. So if the density allowed it, they could then say, sorry, we rethought this. We're building two 600-foot towers there instead. Because that lot allowed it only if they actually not.

Yeah, but that's actually not accurate because the site plan, a special area plan is approved tied to a site plan. Um.

At least that's how I recall when we did this on the site plan that you normally see it. It's, you know, but it shows the areas of building with the setbacks, the setback. The boxes of setbacks that they have to meet all of these different things that are approved through the special area plan process. And it's an ordinance. Remember that these are regulations that they put in place and they get adopted into the code.

so they they have to abide by their own regulations that they put in place so right so i think to address what sherry's saying is there a way to make it a little bit more detailed i mean look i know that things can change but if they come in and say hey we're going to build two towers at 600 feet then it stays at two towers you can't just even though we gave them 600 feet they can't arbitrarily come back and make a side deal at three towers

Well, no, because the density wouldn't wouldn't allow for the density is going to be the density and intensity as well.

That that cannot be changed. Right? So. When we say it's 1000 units or 500 units or whatever it is, that's it. You know, if if you try to put more buildings. You only have these many units to accommodate. In those cases, it's not going to, what it's going to mean if you make those changes is you're going to be lacking units to put somewhere, right? Or square footage.

Again, if I heard the mayor correctly, she said that site plan is tied to SAP. Correct.

So in other words, with the example, it's a site plan.

So it's not going to be as granular in the sense that you're going to see the width of a loading zone.

In the site plan, like you typically more concerned about the charges, 2 buildings going to 3 buildings. That would be a huge change. No, then they would have to come back.

That would have to be cleared up.

It is clear in the black and white language of the code. So your building placement. Is conveyed on the site plan. And the special area plan is approved with that particular site plan that travels with it. So, if the building placement says. 1 building, that's what you're doing. if it says two buildings and you only want to build one you can do that within that footprint all right and that would include setbacks and everything else that was approved at the time yeah the setbacks within the sap are going to be contained within the regulating plan of that sap and that sap lives as an appendix to our code and the regulating plan which is the zoning code for that specific development lives within the code

Perhaps the only area where I can think of, and this is something that, you know, we could address to make it clear, is that projects in the T6 zone that include density bonuses are required to go through a development agreement.

Projects in the RM70 that get a high

bonuses or acquired TDRs have to go through a development agreement process. But I don't believe that a simple special area plan, like a plain special area plan, if it doesn't include any of these other components, has to go through the development agreement process.

Yes, it absolutely does.

Where is that language?

It's online. Did we put that in there? Yeah, we put it in there. It's line 298. Okay. I apologize if I overlooked that.

That's okay.

That's something we added. Okay. That's good. Good, good. It's in there. What line? I'm sorry. Line 300. 300. Okay.

All right. Just wanted to make sure because that really is the other tool that the commission has to make sure that all the rules that apply to the project are clear.

Correct. And the development agreement has to establish the allocation of civic spaces, the thoroughfares, height, and building area among the building sites. Okay.

so that's the specific language okay my last two my last two questions and then we can maybe open it up is um Civic space I think we should bump up I mean seven and a half you might as well bump it up to ten and and then um are these the 1.75 and the 1.5 that's contiguous right we're not gonna have like parcels across the street that are just arbitrarily added on to somebody's property correct It should be contiguous.

Properties across the street are included.

Let's make it contiguous. I think it should be contiguous as well. So I'll be completely honest. Anything RM40, I'm voting against it. There's not even a chance I would consider it. I think it's totally inappropriate. I'm actually really frustrated this is even in front of us. I think that the T6 zone is its own thing. It's waterfront. It's across a causeway. It doesn't have the same impact as Harbor Island, as Treasure Island. I think this is in poor taste knowing that an RM40, which is behind us, which abuts single-story, single-family homes that you even could conceive height bonuses for. It's, I would love to hear how that's appropriate at all. So I think the SAPs have been a tool for manipulation and they make me so uncomfortable. You know, like I know that the negotiations are done, but it seems all very, you know, behind closed door. I don't like the process that the planning and zoning is pretty much left out of it. Even the commission is left out of it. And I understand there's a framework Sylvia, and I respect that, but it's not, it's not enough to make me as a resident comfortable at all, because I think that the code is being, it's there, but it's also kind of let's interpret it like this, like that. So like I, anything that comes up tonight is going to be a hard no for me. I mean, I'm after comments, I'm ready to make a motion to deny this. I think it needs a lot more work. I don't think that, that lots across the street. I mean, even knowing that there's a developer who's manipulated the SAP to move their workforce housing from a waterfront set of lots to an infill lot, I don't think that's on the up and up. I don't like that. I don't think it's appropriate at all. So those are just some of my feelings.

All right, so I open it up to public comment. Can I ask you just one more question? We can ask a couple questions after the public comments.

I just want to know how many SAPs have been applied for and how many potentially could qualify? Just again, I do have the extent of the problem.

At minimum lot size, it opens it up to a dozen.

With the current version of the SAT, which again, only applies on properties around the causeway, they have taken two that have been approved by the commission. Shoma and Sambi. Shoma and Sambi. I don't know. I mean, I think that there's a few more that perhaps could come in in this area. But I do believe that the... Lower thresholds and aren't 70 and aren't 40 could could open up a whole bunch of different possibilities are available everywhere.

Not just in not a single family.

We have this conversation at 1 of our last meetings. How many properties could there be? Because. you have to qualify for three and a half acres and purchase TDRs so with the limited TDR pool there was like nobody nobody could because they've been they couldn't be moved off of Harbor and there were other things so now are we eliminating purchasing TDRs from qualifying for a special area plan I'm sorry say that again do you have to purchase TDRs not not at the SAP

all right i'm going to open it up to public comment please state your name and your address

So, we've had just close to 2 acres of property for 13 years in North Bay village. We've been carefully thoughtfully waiting for the opportunity for North Bay village to get to the point of being able to develop. We have never been like many in terms of just trying to flip our land or this and that. We are serious about trying to do something special here. And I do commend everybody involved in terms of taking a step back from the first version that came forward and kind of saying, is there a better way of doing this? issue that we have that if you look at what we're currently motivated to do is you're motivating us to do about 575 foot wide building at 312 feet that blocks everybody's views of the bay And so I personally think, and I know it's ludicrous as a developer to say this, but I actually think that the height for our site is too much. I don't even know how you could use it because, as was said before, we're limited by density. We have bought 23 TDRs that we need because, as most of you know, part of the challenge on Harbor Island on like 79th corridor is these are what we call vertical homes. These are harder to sell because the only way you can make the economics work, if you're building 2,500 to 3,500 square foot units, which I think is a plus, but It's harder to sell those. And so we need to we want to be able to design something that is aesthetically beautiful where you've got better view corridors. And so, yeah, we definitely think that you're better off having 2 slightly skinnier towers nowhere near 500 because I think Mr Murphy's not here today, but he asked at the last, like, how do you make this work without more units? I agree, but I do think that there's a better way of doing it in terms of just smarter development in terms of engagement. I have no problem with what was mentioned earlier about having the developers come back and showing design elements. I agree with that. But the current code does not work. And we're just going to have to sit on our land, which we have three empty lots that look like crap that the neighbors continue to shit over with their dogs and this and that. And that's what the community wants. That's fine. But we're trying to do smart, beautiful designs here. And the way the code is written right now does not generate that.

Good evening, Mr chair, vice chair board members before I give my comment, I want to congratulate you all for being sworn in and on your respective elections. Madam mayor city staff. Good evening. Pleasure to be in front of you all tonight. My only comment here on behalf of 1755 owner for the record. My name is Christopher. Associate Ackerman LOP, whose office is located at 98 Southeast 7th Street, City of Miami. My only comment today is that if we could clarify in the enacting ordinance that these updated SAP regulations only apply to applications filed after the effective date. Thank you.

Thanks. Can I ask a question?

Why would it matter that it only applies to somebody applying after this date? Why wouldn't you want it retroactive?

This is working. So typically ordinances don't apply retroactively. They apply, you know, to anything that is going to happen moving forward. If an application is in the pipeline and you have the language that says that, you know, doesn't apply to active applications, then, you know, that's kind of what I think Mr. Piniella's comment is about because his client just submitted an SAP that has been, they have been working on it for 1725 and 1819 together. Where is that? That's the former Best Western and Shocker's property. Both of those have approved cyclones. Right now they're owned by the same entity and they're wanting to come back. to amend it as a special area.

I thought the Causeway SAP wasn't. That's going to change too with this?

Well, this is still the T6.

It is T6. And the threshold of land, it's two acres according today and also according to this proposal. These two properties together exceed two acres.

I know that. Is there anybody else that wants to make a public comment? Come on.

I apologize, I forgot one last thing. I think there's a, I could be wrong, a typo in the proposed code where the language in one place is 7% is allocated for open space, but then in another place it's a minimum of 12,500. 12,500 on 3.5 acres is 7%, but on a 1.5 to 1.75 is over 20%. So I don't know if that's a typo or not. It's not. Okay.

Commissioner good evening.

You shouldn't have comments from well, it wasn't really a comment.

It was going to congratulate them for them since I'm here. Good evening everyone. I just wanted to extend my congratulations. I was part of the planning and zoning board many years back and I know how amazing it was and I'm happy to see new faces and I am really looking forward to working with all of you. I commend you for taking the time and also for asking so many questions, because that's really what we need. And I'm listening to everything you guys are saying, and I'm taking all of that in and into consideration, and that's the way it works. And everyone in the community, we all really appreciate what you're doing, and that's why I have to say that. Thank you, and congratulations again.

Thank you, Commissioner. Any other public comment? I'm going to close public comment. Public comment closed. Oh, do we have anybody online? No? All right, perfect. So do you guys have any further questions?

I think I said my piece. I would make the motion to deny. Flat out. Not even with the changes. Just deny it. Come back. Rework the whole thing.

What does that mean?

I mean, I think that the minimum lot size is Far too small, I think, including RM 40 is inappropriate. Okay, I have a special area plan process. I don't think it needs to be changed.

No, I'm just, I'm sorry that the is not effective in the residential district.

For good reason, not not in the multi family residential. It would never be.

That's what I'm 70 and 40.

what sort of direction do you want to give it no it's like i understand you're posing specifically how do we want to proceed what do you i i think that build within the code you know like they have the opportunity to to you know hey look you own this land and you want to develop it there's nothing stopping you do it go for it i don't care how many lots you own own them all

So scrap the whole SAP concept.

No, no, no, no, no. So what exists, I think it basically it has, in my opinion, and please correct me if I'm wrong, it's kind of maxed out. We're probably not going to see another SAP. Well, there's one.

That would be on the causeway. That's allowed, even if this doesn't take effect.

Just for my, I guess for Danny's and my understanding. One, you have to rework this whole ordinance, which is different from, like this is a complete change from what's in the code. We're deleting what's in chapter 15, we're bringing it into another section of the code,

mean the amendments like what we're looking at so let's let's let's be honest with this really is the concern is and this is you know being driven by the residents out there and what it was supposed to be and then it moved into this was all based on height So at three and a half height, we were three and a half acres to give height to where it was going to go, whatever it was. I think everybody on the board was fine. I think it was actually unanimous vote.

Yeah, because we had the space to move things around.

So it sounds like to make this work and everybody wants to be able to have some type of SAP if they have certain land size to maybe make some lenient changes. outside of the actual code that is now. But I think height has to be addressed, especially, you know, people don't want, people want to know they're not going to get 50 tall buildings, even though, as the gentleman said, you know, the density and stuff, and you have to be a very experienced developer to, you know, go pretty much past what the 312 is now. I mean, that's just a fact. And you probably don't have the units. I mean, so a little bit of this is that, you know, that height's probably not going to be achieved outside of maybe one or two locations, which those two locations probably, you know, in some respect deserve it. Outside of that, probably not. If we keep it within the three that we were talking about.

i can i agree with what you're saying because you know when you're talking about in my opinion a peninsula lot you know assemblage or along the causeway i think that we're talking about a different it's just a different type of lot than your average rm40 for sure and i think you know for some of the rm70 i mean you have to think that this would really have a very strong impact on all of harbor island what's what's the hype on rm40 that was never changed either was it no it's um 55 55 feet yes We have it now. We have a 50 foot building, whatever, more or less, and not a street, nothing. It literally shares a lot line with a single family home. I don't think that height should increase, not one foot there.

What about amending the language specifically pertaining to RM40 with a caveat that says if the parcel is adjacent to R1 or R2? If the parcel is adjacent to the R2 zoning district, there's a max height.

I would, if RM40 is removed, then I think it's, that's one thing, sure. I mean, kind of making different carve outs for it, still no. But I mean, I don't know if you guys are on social media or you were at the last commission meeting, like, did you not hear all of the residents of Harbor Island speaking about the height increase on Harbor? We're talking about one lot, one project. You're now opening this up to so many more lots on Harbor.

Oh, yes and no. I just...

Wait, I mean, it's like yes and yes. What do you mean yes and no?

Well, there's not, there's not, if you look at it, there's not too many.

There's only probably one or two other options, but... Yeah, the 1.75 minimum lot size limits the possibilities in terms of who's eligible for an SAP on Harbor Island, let's say. I completely appreciate what you are saying, Board Member Abramson. I understand. The goal with this was to have a process where we could facilitate redevelopment in a consistent and organized way. And while I hear what you're saying about RM40, I mean, people call me pretty frequently wondering about whether or not they can redevelop some of those waterfront properties on South Treasure Drive that are zoned RM40. I get questions all the time. And with the height limit of RM40, we're basically precluding a developer from being able to do structured parking um and telling them that they have to have surface lot parking which is something we want to eliminate also so just to just think about i i appreciate the aversion to height increases but i think there are some realities one reality being People are going to want to come in here and redevelop. And the other reality being a height limit at 55 really does mean you can't have a garage.

RM40 was never changed, right? We never had it. So I think in the scheme of things right now, with RM40 barely ever being discussed in anything ever in the last, since I've been here seven years, six years, whatever, that I think maybe we take RM40 out at the moment, let RM70 be. And I think there should be a threshold that you can't do, you know, maybe we make the land size at the, you know, it has to be three acres plus to go above the 312 feet that's already in there. And then you can do your SAP for less than that, but you're not gonna get any type of, no matter what I bonus above what's in the zoning code, unless you're at three acres above. And take RM40 out right now. I mean, look, it's going to be their design and however they want to approach it at that point. I mean, but I think most people's concern is the height. So if you're not going to give it to them, then, you know, the project's going to be the project. I mean, we're not sitting here approving design. We're not approving design status for the most part anyway.

Totally understood. But I'm saying if that's the case, then why do they need the special area plan at all if we're not giving them the height?

If I may, just to address your question, I think the idea with the special area plan is really less about what we're giving the developer and it's more about what the village is getting in return. The idea is that we are looking at, we're developing a large site and in return for certain And what we're getting in return is laid out in the special area plan, but the idea is to mitigate the effects of the development. And that's done through the development agreement and through the special area plan procedures.

I mean, if you look at the facts, look, Pagani is on a 33, 600 square foot site, if I'm not mistaken. And it's a beautiful project. Everybody loves it. It had a phenomenal party. And every other site would be much larger. And I think they're at 312 feet or maybe 314 now. so i think that's very reasonable maybe i think they came in for two additional feet so i mean look if if somebody had to five six ten ten okay so if somebody needed 10 feet for a 1.75 but if you're talking what we approved last time for three acres i think it needs to be on that large of a site and we just take rm40 out in the meantime and like danny said i mean this is to in some regards help the city out with negotiation with the civic, which I think should be 10%. And instead of 7%, and some other whatever options that the city wants to be able to have in their toolbox, per se. Is this correct?

But don't we ask for all that anyway? We try to get as much as we can out of developers.

in terms of their contribution to the city whenever there is a project that is subject to the development agreement process that the city does negotiate for the best possible outcomes for the city no I think what I'm hearing a lot is uh you know there's there are areas within the village that

Some things may apply it and there's other areas that don't make any sense. And that's something that we should be able to define and understand. If you're talking about the north end of the causeway. Of course, you know, you can go up higher there. There's more. There's more room to build the acreage situation applies, but then you go somewhere in the arm 40 or. in Treasure Island, and it might not make sense to approve an SAP that's, you know, based on height. So I think we need to – and that's why I asked the question earlier, how many of these different locations that are applying for SAP or may potentially apply for SAP in the future would impact us in that sense, because that – If I'm talking about, you know, sunbeam, if I'm talking about, you know, shuckers, all that, it makes a lot of sense for me that this height would not be an issue. First off, there's a location, a waterfront right next to the causeway, et cetera. If you're looking at somewhere in the middle of Treasure Island and somebody wants to put a, you know, a tower there next to a single family home, that, you know, that wouldn't make any sense to me. So how can we dimension the issue that way so that we know what we're... we're facing in terms of approving these SAPs.

I think the challenge is trying to imagine how many potential SAPs exist. There are some assemblies that are in place now, but in the future, Obviously, there isn't that much land. There's hardly any, if at all, any land on Harbor Island, for example, that is vacant, that is continuous, that you could assemble easily. But 10 years down the road or 15 years down the road, that could change because even existing buildings have a lifetime life cycle right and uh you know somebody that could be looking for the opportunity to acquire uh obviously many of these buildings are condos but we also know what the situation is right now with condo buildings so I I cannot give you Sylvia yes it's hard for the people on Zoom to hear you Johnny can you help please

so while we work on that i do want to say because that's a very good point you know i don't want to shrink the minimum acreage and encourage any more condo buyouts you know where a developer is like great all i have to do is just buy you know those two condos i'll buy as many as i can i'll break up bankrupt the association and all of that and great then i can go ahead with my tower you know i think that we're really minimizing the acreage to allow for this redevelopment i think is a mistake in a lot of ways and i think that's that's definitely there's only there's only a few condos that want ones that that could be potentially bought out i would ask everyone to pay attention to how close you are to the microphone because there are people listening on there

I don't believe there's that many condos. And a lot of these condos that are here, they would love to get bought out for the most part because they might collapse. I mean, they're older. They're older. They need a lot of work. They can't afford with the association. There's just a fact that these people can't afford the association.

To a point, I understand what you're saying. Insurance rates have gone crazy high. The cost to maintain buildings know waterfront with you know the salt air i it's very expensive i understand what you were trying to say i hope but i just i think that we're kind of encouraging it even more if we're like okay now our minimum acreage is you know is smaller so i just want to say one thing i disagree that a lot of these condos want to get bought out because a lot of them are actually fighting to maintain the condos

And I don't think that it's a fair assessment to just assume that most of the condos wanna be bought out. I think that, and I forget which of you said it, so forgive me. One of you made a comment about differentiating the various opportunities, and I think that that would be the smarter way to go to make it more reasonable, palatable, and fair.

I don't think that we can pick and choose. It's gotta be what it is for the whole zoning district. You can't say, you know, these lots in RM 70, yes, those no. It is what it is for the district.

But to your point, maybe for the moment, removing the RM 40 might be the best route to go while we just figure out what the future would look like for that opportunity.

Oh yeah, agreed there. But RM 70 would apply, correct me if I'm wrong, to all of Harbor.

It would only be the east side of Treasure, which, I mean, in some ways, we kind of got to be honest that some of this stuff needs to be rebuilt. And 175, I think there's really only one or two options in the I mean, you've got to look at what's there. If you look at West Drive, there's three buildings at the end at Moda that I don't even believe they would add up to over an acre. They want to get to the 175. And then there's only one opportunity, and I believe the gentleman spoke on East Drive, And the only way you can maybe do something else is if you put the Lido together with 7915 and the other condo over there, which, you know, so there's only really one or two opportunities. And if all those condo associations decide to sell out, then that's, you know, that's the free market they decided to do it. So I don't believe the RM70 is really being affected that much. I do believe that under three acres, the height really needs to be considered or limited to, I think that 312 is enough. If Pagani got away with it and they're happy or 316 or whatever it is, 10 feet, then so be it. And if you take out RM40, then I think that needs to be addressed on its own.

So let me ask you then, if you would not give RM70 any height and you're leaving it at 312,

312 is the maximum, but I think what I'm hearing Mr. Shaw said is that any SAP that wants to go above 312 would have to be at least a certain higher acreage. Is that what I heard?

Right, right. Is that where we are? Yeah, yeah. Okay.

But is that even an SAP?

It can be, sure. I mean, there are other things that, again, the SAP is not just about height. It's about, it can be about setbacks. It can be about the passages. It can be, you know, there's all kinds of elements that are outlined in the SAP that could be amended through an SAP process.

Except density.

Except density and intensity.

So that's why I think the way to best explain the SAP is that they can make a few more changes that they might like, but it's also about the city. Hey, maybe the setback is a little bit further over to the property line on this side, but you're going to get more civic space on this side. It's going to be more of that.

But they come to us for variances for that.

We're trying to limit that. It's just the variance. And if they approve it, then that's fine. As long as they get the civic space, what's the big deal? I mean, as long as the height is addressed, I mean, that comes from the residents. I mean, that's just a fact. But I think the city is also looking out for themselves as far as the civic space, space on the water and the boardwalk.

Those are going to be main issues and other mitigation considerations. Right? I mean, I think 1 of the biggest concerns that I personally have about harbor island is the 1 way in 1 way out congestion at the entrance to harbor island. I mean, it's just an unworkable scenario as we sit here today. So, personally, 1 of the things I'm very interested in is discussing. traffic and pedestrian safety mitigation with future SAP applicants, particularly on Harbor Island. And the ordinance that was before you in November didn't allow us the room to do that.

So what does that really even look like? You know what I mean? Like that isn't changing. It is a one way in, one way out. You're right.

And this is a public meeting and I'm not ready to show my entire sort of strategy and cards in this public meeting right now. OK, but the bottom line is there are ways to mitigate The situation that we're in, and to have better flow of traffic and more pedestrian safety, and we can work with our private sector, private developer partners to to achieve that. I think through the SAP process and remember. There's still density units available for sale. The commission is gonna be discussing whether or not to put those up for sale at the March commission meeting. all of the density that's been sold so far has been sold to harbor island property owners so there is additional density on harbor island that we need to address and mitigate and if we are not allowing an sap process that would Um, facilitate height increases what we're looking at instead are bigger, wider, bulkier masses of buildings and less view corridors. Um, and you all know, I've been consistent for years that I would like to see open space on the ground and nicer view corridors. And if the trade off for that is. height, then that's what it is, but it has to be a very meaningful trade-off. I'm not interested in approving projects that are getting height bonuses, but they're not providing meaningful B-quarters on the ground.

I can't get behind that. I'm sorry, I can't.

That actually leads into a question that I was just going to ask, and then The purpose behind these high bonuses, the SAP, right? They want a high bonus. Do you see it more as that they want to make thinner buildings so we can have more open marine areas? Or is it in order to accommodate the additional density that they've purchased?

There is no additional density.

In Harbor Island, I mean.

No, it is. And remember that the 312 foot bonus for purchases for properties that have TDRs, that's where we got 312 from.

Yes, there's a bonus that is independent of the TDRs, which is going from 150 to 240. Then if you purchase TDRs, you can go from 240 to 312.

Okay, so then the question is, just because they're getting the height bonus doesn't mean that they're going to – that necessarily means that their design is going to provide for more open space. They just need to accommodate the additional density that they purchased.

There is a tool, though, because if you're getting a height bonus and or TDRs, You negotiate through your development agreement. Okay.

So, and we also have open space requirements in the code, obviously, that have to be met.

Open space and green space requirements in the code, which is what we're talking about earlier the setbacks, but that's also. In terms of the, that's also something that. The developer is able to negotiate within the correct.

So, when you're when we're talking about view corridors. I mean, I've been to Sunny Isles many times and there's different amounts of space in between the buildings. I've never driven past a distance between two buildings and said like, wow, that's really nice. I like how much space there is. It doesn't work like that. This whole notion of view corridors is like fantasy. It doesn't exist because there's landscaping, there's gates, there's all sorts of things where at the pedestrian level, that view corridor does not exist. So maybe as the building got taller, it got a little more narrow. So if you live in a high rise across the street, you could see a little bit more water. But this whole thing of like, oh, yeah, we're going to get these like great views. You are not going to get views of anything. It's not going to be there. There's a walkway to the water pretty much across the street from us. And I have never stood there and been like, oh, beautiful day on the water. Because you can't see it. But that is a view corridor. But it doesn't matter. It doesn't mean anything. It sounds good, though. Sorry, that's my piece.

What's the actual benefit if we just do RM70 for an SAP for this compared to what the zoning is today?

What's the benefit if you do it through an essay?

No, just yeah, just just do the. On arm 70, what's the benefit over what the actual zoning is today? Using this ordinance that is being this ordinance if we carve it out, if we carve out the arm set 40, and we just kind of focus on it with.

Well, the mayor mentioned that in the underlying Sony. there are open space requirements, but there are open space requirements that are pretty basic to the site, right? One example of a benefit would be that the SAP allows the village to get more open space, more waterfront open space, as well as civic space. So that would be one benefit, for example. I think that as a planner who's looking out for your level of service in Parks and Recreation, to me that is a significant benefit. And also I think that it gives the village generally more ability to work with the developers in getting a... master-planned, cohesive, coherent design for the overall site with buildings that are, you know, kind of looking in a certain way or providing a certain aspect and, you know, like the issues related to the building height. Those are benefits that I think the SAP would give the village.

And the other benefit is that they have to make this, if they do an SAP, they have to do a town hall for their project.

In this version of the ordinance, the developers would have to go out to the community in a meeting prior to going through the process of public hearings.

Which they don't have to do now if they just do a regular.

Correct.

And then they ask.

And in the zoning, they don't have to.

So for RM70, As the way I see it, what's the concern?

The minimum lot, the decrease in the acreage, I think is my only concern. But I kind of see where you're going with this. So we can introduce the SAP, which just really gives the city and Sylvia a little bit more room than they currently have in terms of design and negotiating civic space. Okay, that's a win, right, by introducing the SAP. You're not allowing height bonus beyond 312. That's a win for the residents, because they don't want to see that anyhow. So then I guess the only other thing there, I mean, I like your idea of removing RM40 entirely, great. So then the only thing to talk about is the minimum acreage, the minimum area.

The minimum acreage shouldn't even matter at that point. Why not? Well, it should stay, but it doesn't need to get bigger. The only way that height would increase would be significant is if it's above three acres.

And what is it right now for arm 70? 1.75? Proposed?

Yes, for the SAP.

So the only thing is that we're not asking them to purchase TDRs in order to qualify for an SAP. We are now, but we will then not be.

In this proposal, acquiring TDRs would not be one of the qualifications for an SAP.

There's only 24 left. What is this conversation of more being introduced from where?

more TDRs being introduced? Yeah. I'm sorry, I don't...

There are TDRs that have yet to be sold.

Oh, the 24, yes. Yeah, that's it. Yeah, so there's only 24 left. Okay, yeah.

So, I mean, once they're out, I mean, it would be like they wouldn't, that line in the code saying that you have to purchase them, there's nothing to purchase.

The pool would be depleted and that's basically...

So then what would take somebody from 240 to 312?

that point there would be no no way for them not possible no i i i that that i think that's true i'm sorry albert just reminded me of something and i'm sorry because you know i haven't been directly involved in the drafting of that but uh the um there was an amendment that facilitated the rfb for the tdrs and i believe that those who purchased those tdrs are allowed to resell them is that is that correct danny do you know i don't know if that i don't know if that matters because i wouldn't be that be purchasing from a third party it wouldn't be purchasing from the city that's correct this is this is sort of at that point this is sort of a real location it's not more tdrs created it's the same basically but let's just transfer to a different transfer to a different

But for the purposes of understanding the TDR issue, I would love clarification on that point. If you purchase TDRs from a private property owner, are you still eligible to get that height bonus up to 312? We should know the answer to that.

Well, I was going to mention, you might not like this, but at the since those are almost gone i think if you're in an sap you should be able to go up to the whatever pagani is with 316 322 whatever that is the 1.75 acres you should be able to go up to that that height regardless if you purchase them because they're almost sold so you wouldn't have any to purchase you'd be able to go up to that on the sap above three acres then you could then height is whatever is negotiated that's going to be so tough so how did we require develops because we're in the right and now we don't because there's no there's only 24 left to be so there's got to be a dollar amount associated with allowing that height how many had to be purchased with that wasn't there a certain amount like 10 or 30 percent

In order to get, well, it's more like the maximum amount of TDRs was 30% above the base density, right? And with that, you could get 30% above the maximum density that you have.

Whatever percentage of units you purchased, you were able to get that percentage of height?

To accommodate it, yes. Okay.

So we just allocate a dollar amount. We just allocate a dollar amount for that. So if it's 100,000 on the water, even though you're not purchasing them, you have to do 30% of whatever units that you're building at 100 grand.

That's a conversation for another day, but I see what you mean. But that's true.

That's going to be part of the negotiation in an SAP anyway.

I don't think we can resolve that tonight.

I think that point that was brought up about third-party sales, that's an important issue because the village will actually lose control of who gets these TDRs and who, you know, once they're sold. Right, but the village has been selling them. Now, if we allow resale, which is what I think I heard, or I don't know if that needs just to be clarified, then, you know, what was reselling? And it's not really looking at how who's getting it and where is it being applied to. You know, they're just basically selling it for the highest bidder, I guess. That's what I would do. if i was you know just looking at the business aspect of it so i would i would be real careful as far as allowing that uh without city input uh without somehow it coming to to either this board or the commission to have just someone who says i bought it i don't need it and then i can sell it to anybody uh we might not as a as a village we might not want to see that height in that particular uh you know might have other implications that we would lose control over if we allowed to

them just to sell it at the at their will I think that's already been discussed and laid out and that if that has to be well defined that will have to be done at a later date I think we just don't have the answer tonight okay so back to so back to this ordinance for the sap for our just the rm70 how do you want it laid out what have we discussed so far Sylvia to make this work

Here's what I think I have heard. Remove RM40 from the entire equation for the time being at any rate. I have been sort of back and forth, but I think where we are with the minimum site area is that 175 can remain for RM70 and that this is what I heard Mr. Shaw said, but I'm not sure if there's consensus that you could go up to 312 without the need to purchase TDRs because there might not be any. But in order to go above 312 feet, you'll have to have a minimum site area of three acres.

Those are the two main things that I've heard.

No, I said there had to be a monetary compensation for whatever's in the code now, but you're not going to have any units to purchase to get that.

Right.

So if somebody wants to go up the height.

So that's kind of the bonus height that we already have, right? Which is the 150 to 240. You buy the height in increments of 10 feet for a certain amount. I suppose you could do it, but I'm not sure.

I think that between getting the answer to selling tdrs figuring out if there is a getting the height after tdrs are depleted so i want to make a motion to defer i think that we need to continue this conversation it's a really valuable conversation but i don't think that we're ready to vote on this tonight

Board Member Ableton, I'm sorry. I just want to point out, I have a response on just the TDRs. So only TDRs that were purchased from the village through the auction can be resold. So we already covered that. Okay, that was not the question then. I'm sorry.

No, the question is, if the TDRs are resold, can that second purchaser still get the hype bonus?

So TDRs, as I understand it, can be sold, but they have to be sold through the village for a fee.

Right now, or up to now, the only owner of TDRs for sale has been the village. That's been the only pool of available TDRs that's been on the market so far.

Right.

If we were to, again, table this as has been suggested, what sort of impact would that have to the whole thing that we're trying to do here with the developers and how much would it delay everything?

Well, there is... a another ordinance which has been deferred by the commission indefinitely um there is one project which is in under review um which is the 8 000 each drive project um i know that that developer has been waiting to find out which direction the village is going to go in order to make adjustments to their design we have reviewed the original like a development review committee we have reviewed the original proposal and i know they have been working on a redesign um i'm sort of holding off um about this kind of place out so um that I think that would be the major impact right now.

Can I propose something to progress some things along and maybe this comes back in a little bit different fashion is that since we had already approved three acres that we make this RM 70, a minimum 3 acres, the SAP with the civic space of 10% instead of the 7 or 7 and a half. Whatever you said. It has to be contiguous the 12,500 for water. And I think then at least. That puts us on the same footing as what we were in the last meeting, except for it falls under an SAP for all of it. So if you have three acres, somebody else can go forward too. And then we can readjust this at a later date for if we want to discuss smaller footprints.

Can I reconfirm with you? Because I'm not sure if I heard you correctly. So T6 would stay at two acres.

Correct.

And RM70 would go up to three acres.

Yes. Okay. That was what the number was last time, right? Three acres. Yes.

And three acres takes you from 312 to purchasing the TDR?

It's really not tied to... There's no...

It got you over 240.

okay so that's it basically we're we're maneuvering kind of what we approved last time under the sap but and so it can kind of you know move some things forward i agree and then we can come back and discuss smaller footprints at a later time and taking out rm40 But the civic space jumps up to 10% instead of the seven or whatever it was.

I guess my question goes more along the three acres. Is this a hard three acres or depending on the height that the developer wants to purchase, it could go anywhere from 1.75? No, no, it's three or above.

So that acreage is basically the threshold to qualify you for the SAP.

Three and above. So you want to go by Biscayne Bay and add 10 acres and put it all together.

And again, contiguous, in other words, it has to be one lot. Correct. One three-acre lot. Correct.

That's not what contiguous means.

What's that?

Contiguous means the lots are next to each other, not that it's one lot.

Oh, well, yeah, you can have multiple parcels, but as long as it adds up to, you know, Do you want me to draw it off?

No, I, I contiguous mean 1, 1, lot of butts to the other, a lot of lots to the other, but as long as they're next to each other. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to say 1 lot. I understand that. Yeah. As long as they have to each other. Right.

So the contiguous qualification that you're talking about would be for the minimum site area.

I think it was already in there. Yeah. Minimum for three acres.

Can you please read what we have, Sylvia? It's a book at this point.

So please correct me if I'm missing something at this point, but I'm understanding we're removing RM40 from this ordinance. We are increasing the minimum land area for SAPs in RM70 to three continuous acres of land. and we are increasing the proposed minimum uh Civic space yes that's exactly right that's what I got did I miss anything yeah you had a couple others what were they

I think that's it. Oh, shoot, the 12,500 was already on there. That's in there, yes.

Yeah, I know you had a couple before, but they were sort of going back and forth tied to building height, which I think were... No, no, it's fine. That's it. Yes.

Okay. How does the SAP define contiguous? Do you know?

We don't have a definition for contiguous. That's not there right now. We have a definition that was added in to define abutting.

That's fine. It's fine.

However, in this definition, abutting properties may include properties across a street when the property lines would be shared if they extended to the center line of the street.

So then we'll have to just add a definition for contiguous that would remove that fine detail about something being across the street.

Okay. Think of a situation in which that would limit development in terms of, let's say, for example, you wanted parking separate from the structure. You want to create a parking garage or something like that that would discourage or somehow limit development. You might have three parcels that add up to two acres, and you might want to do two parcels, two and a half acres, and then you might want to do a separate garage. And that's the exact case. Yeah, and that cannot be a budding, and then that would actually put a limit in that kind of development. Do you really want to consider that in terms of making that?

No, I think that the contiguous is important. I think that lots across the street are lots across the street. I'm talking about lots that share a lot line.

Yeah. No, I'm thinking in terms of Harbor Island, you know, our space is very limited. You may have mentioned that. So I don't even think we have three acres in Harbor Island.

I think we're moving that along for one thing in mind.

There's one project at three right now. Only one? Only one. However, Mr. Navas' property does include a lot across the street. It's not 3 acres, but it includes land on the East side of East drive and 1 lot. On the West side of.

Excuse me the language that says, if they have, but across the street. Has that always been there, or is that something new?

That's in the new definition of abutting. Abutting was not defined in the code.

So this is a new language.

I'd be fine with removing that.

That might have to be part of the future discussion.

Yeah, I think that might need to give us some more thought just to understand what implications that would have. in general.

So then we're deferring?

No, no. I'm just... Was the language added by amendment or by board?

The language is for you all to make a recommendation. So there's been no decision. This is a proposal that is being presented to you all. So with that said, Alba, please remind me. Sherry had made a motion, but there was no second.

Yeah, there was. There was a second. No, no, no. I'm talking about the first one, I guess.

The first one, which was the motion to deny. No second.

No second.

But now we have a motion to defer with a second. Yes. So...

i'm kind of thinking what the chair proposed is something that might make sense going forward with the arm with the rm70 but not necessarily changing the language on the uh on the body at this point whoever made the motion or whoever seconded the motion

You want to withdraw your motion? Okay.

So I'm on a motion.

So motion dies.

The motion dies.

So then where do we stand with the definition of abutting or contiguous? So at this point.

Do we have to make that part of the vote today? We don't have to.

Well, yes. You could make a new motion to move this. with these amendments?

Well, the motion that I'd like to make is to move the chair's proposal of RM70, eliminate RM40 with this 10 instead of 7, 12.5, right? That's standard. And yeah.

And the water part maybe talk about 12.5.

Yes, that's in there. right and until we can get a better understanding of what a budding uh means i would i would if it doesn't have to be part of the of that vote i would probably just table that get a little bit more i like to understand that but can we add the definition of contiguous to it you can add a definition of contiguous what we would not want to do is to have two contradictory terms definition right so you can make it part of your motion

But abutting is already in the code, right?

Abutting was not in this section of the code. This is a new definition, and it includes this language that says that in the context of a special area plan, abutting properties may include properties across the street if extending their property lines would mean that they would share.

Where is that language at right now?

It doesn't exist. It doesn't exist? What does currently exist?

nothing nothing nothing I'll just share that I am the person who added this definition and I added the definition consistent with the overall spirit of what's before you tonight which is to give us more flexibility to master master plan law aggregations um Within Harbor Island, obviously you have two streets. So there are four sides of the street. I think we're going to get better projects if we master plan them, period, full stop. And the way that the language that you guys are discussing right now with the three acre minimum contiguous leaves us without any flexibility. You're going to have very few special area plan applications because they're not going to meet this criteria.

So we need with her definition of what I agree.

so okay so you're saying we leave that okay we're going at it but we could refer back to that that's what that her definitions that she has in there now that's that's the definition that the mayor refers to which has that language about across the street no i understand what she's saying no no i know i just want to make sure that i understand what's going on yeah we need that Yeah, okay.

I don't understand. Sorry. We're really driving this one to the ground. That lot would have to be across the street, not across the street over there or across the street there, but across the street.

Yeah, across the street such that if the property lines on both sides to the center line of the road, they touch.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So it can be like three lots.

Is that specific to current ownership? I'm curious. It's odd. And then what would the design criteria be for the larger assemblage versus the step sibling across the street? You know, what happens there? Do they both get the same height? No. But how do you differentiate? Because it's... Because it's the size of one.

I mean, you need to speak on the mic, Ryan, but I can answer board member Everson's question. It's not specific, actually.

But it should be, yeah? Should it be?

Perhaps, but then we have to refine it because in this case- Can you take the density from that lot and bring it over to these? Yes. But again, this is not specific to a project.

Pardon?

What did you say? It's not project specific, the definition. Because as you said, it doesn't apply to a lot across the street that is not directly lined up with the property across the other side of the street. It's not like diagonally.

It's your motion. You want to finish it? Yeah.

Wait, sorry. So then the density that is then transferred across the street to the larger assemblage, what if they're equal? What if the two lots across the street are the same size?

Then they're going to get the same height. Maybe, potentially. You don't know. I mean, it's going to be more redundant.

But now it's 300 on both sides. We closed public comment.

No, we're good. We're good.

Can you read back my motion?

All right. So we're going to let him finish and we can vote on it. If you don't like it, you don't have to.

I just want to, if the language is already there, then let Sylvia explain it. Does it exist? Does the language exist in the special area plan?

For the definition of a body?

Yes.

there is no definition right now but it's in the code no it's not

I just look as a as a professional, you want to have as much clarity as possible in the code because, you know, like, when you're when you're coming in any gray area, you're going to seek to maximize that for your own benefit. So, for us, as the city, it's better to have clarity. And that's why I added the definition, but I think there is no clarity. A budding, I mean, it's, it's more clear than it was before a budding means across the street.

i mean abutting in its actual definition doesn't mean across the street but as far as how what it means to design there is no definition it's so today in chapter three which is the definition section of the code and mind you there is a separate definition section in chapter 15 that pertains only to the t6 transfer in that section there is no definition. In Chapter 3, there's no definition. So we are introducing the definition of abutting in the manner that I read to you before, which includes that statement that says, in the context of a special area plan, it shall mean not just that it shares a property line, but also that if they are across the street, and if you extend the property lines, they would meet in the middle of the street, in the center line of the street, then that also qualifies as a buy.

And I think the reason that's being proposed and the mayor proposed is to give flexibility to the master plan, right? Yes. And again, site plans would have to be approved. They would have to come in front. It's not that they can just go and do anything they want. I think it's just a matter of being flexible because we don't know what's going to be proposed down the road. That's why I think the language would just remain. And I say we vote on the RM70, removing RM40.

I think she's... You're making a motion and somebody has to second it.

yeah i'm just clarifying i actually already made it i'm just clarifying because i don't think she had it so the motion as the chair had uh proposed it is that we we remove rm7 arm 40 trying to keep arm 70 and i believe the other change was just going from seven to ten correct correct from seven percent to ten percent civic space and we're leaving the twelve thousand five hundred waterfront yeah leaving that but also to raise the minimum

land area for rm70 to three to three things not not contiguous anymore right well contiguous as for our definition right well a buddy i don't know it's still worth salad to me contiguous do we have a second i'll second roll call

Vice Chair Gonzalez?

Yes.

Board Member Lozada? Yes. Board Member Abramson?

No.

Board Member Turbides?

Yes.

Chair Shaw? Yes. Motion carries, 4-1.

I'm sorry, we haven't sworn in Maximo as Board Member. and I would ask that we do the vote one more time after he's first and thank you.

You can just raise your right hand and repeat after me. Aye.

Aye.

State your name.

Maximo Turbides.

Illegal resident of the state of Florida and North Bay Village.

Illegal resident of the state of Florida and North Bay Village.

And being a planning and zoning board member.

And being upon the board member.

To hereby solemnly swear.

To hereby solemnly swear.

That I will support and obey.

That I will support and obey.

The Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution of the United States.

And the state of Florida.

And the state of Florida.

And that I will in all respects.

And that I will in all respects.

Observe the provisions.

Observe the provisions.

Of the charter and ordinances.

Of the charter and ordinances.

Of the village.

Of the village.

Congratulations.

Thank you. Congratulations.

okay one more time you want to do the reboot so the motion was by myself the vice uh the vice chair gonzalez and it was second by board member losada vice chair gonzalez yes board member losada yes board member abramson no board member turviles yes chair shaw yes motion carries for one great

Any other comments? OK, meeting adjourned.

Recording stopped.