Planning & Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

How's this new restaurant next door?

Recording in progress.

Let me record how the restaurant is. I'm going to call this meeting to order at 6 o'clock. If you could please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. We need to approve the minutes from our last meeting.

Motion to approve the minutes. Second.

Hello, can you hear me?

All in favor? Aye.

Chair, if you don't mind, let me do the roll.

Oh, okay. Sorry.

Board Member Abramson. Here. Board Member Lozada is absent. Board Member Murphy.

Here.

Vice Chair Gonzalez. Here. Chair Shaw.

Present. Okay. Roll call approval of minutes. Public comments? No? Okay. So we have two items.

At the request of our village attorney, Mr. Rezio has requested item 6C, which is an ordinance on signs in Chapter 15 to be deferred to the next meeting.

Okay. That was a fun one.

Yeah. So that's going to be deferred to the next meeting.

All right. So we have 6A.

Let me read the title. Item 6A, an ordinance of the Mayor and Commission of North Bay Village, Florida, amending chapter four, administration and enforcement of the Village Unified Land Development Code by creating a new division for reasonable accommodation procedures in a new section 4.25 to establish procedures and certify recovery residences, provide them for survivability, provide them for conflicts, and provide them for codification, provide them for an effective date.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, if I may.

Yes, you may.

Thank you. So this ordinance 6A is in front of you because the state of Florida deemed it necessary for all municipalities to adopt these types of ordinances to address certified recovery residences. Certified recovery residents are essentially, they're also known as halfway houses and those types of facilities where people recovering from various diseases addictions and other... mental incapacities have a place to recover. And the state of Florida has deemed it appropriate for all municipalities to allow these within their jurisdictions or to at least provide for a process to allow these. So what you have before you is the the minimum necessary to comply with the state statute, which provides for an administrative process for the approval of these types of facilities.

Just out of curiosity, who came up with this?

Who? Yeah. State of Florida, the legislature.

Why? Somebody lobbied them and said that we need this?

Laws are made in all kinds of ways.

And were cities pushing back against this before?

Yes, cities tried to push back on these.

I've got just one question. Yeah. I know you're saying that we're actually just in the process or trying to develop a process. But these locations, these places, they're professionally run. Yes. They have to be licensed by the state. I would not equate it because it's not the same thing, but basically the same model or concept as an ACLF, for example.

Similar. Similar. Similar licensure process.

So would they be allowed in residential areas?

They would. They would be allowed. No. following this process even despite what our charter says really it's it's the the state legislature has directed this is that something we can restrict or uh we have so we do not presently allow them per se we are providing a process where if someone wants to establish one they have to go through a process what can we talk about the process absolutely yes Do you have a process? That's what we're creating in this section.

So in the process, can we state that these only could be formed in commercial areas or areas that are not part of the residential?

You mean the single-family homes?

Single-family or residential areas. Would that be an infriction of the state? We can...

We cannot prohibit them. What we can say is we have criteria that we've established and that's on line 77 through 119. On line 77 through 119 in your text in exhibit A. Whether the applicant has established that they are entitled to protection under the law whether the applicant has established the requested accommodation is reasonable and necessary to afford a disabled individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the property, whether the requested accommodation would impose an undue financial burden or administrative burden on the village, whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the land use and zoning regulations of the village. So that's Ms. Abramson, that may be one that we can work with the charter. If applicable, whether alternative reasonable accommodations could provide an equivalent level of benefit That the applicant adheres to all applicable state and federal laws relating to certified recovery residences and can demonstrate the same. Basically, that they have their licensures and credentials. That the licensed service provider must have a paid certified employee on call during the time when individuals are at the community housing location. that the recovery residence is actively managed by a certified recovery residence administrator, approved for a minimum of 100 residents pursuant to Florida statutes. That has to do with licensure. It's very hard to say that. That does not mean we have to allow 100 residents. There's a reasonable number of residents that they would be seeking accommodation for. But the state law has some requirements in terms of how many professionals have to serve basically to look after a group of a certain size. That does not mean that we have to allow any size that they propose.

Question.

Yes.

The nursing home that currently exists behind us.

Yes.

What zoning are they in?

RM40. Yeah, that's RM40.

So that's residential multi-use?

Multifamily residential. Multifamily residential, yeah.

Is that considered what this is for?

No, I don't know what their licensure is. Behind us, I don't know if it's a convalescent home. There are certain degrees. There's the ALF adult living facility. There's group homes, which are small. So group homes are allowed in any residential area. The most we can impose are spacing requirements. These are similar uses. These are not this.

Spacing requirements is... Between them. How many...

Between them. How much space between them. The state requires a certain space, and we are allowed to require... Do we have spacing requirements here? We do not.

Okay. Could we potentially add spacing requirements?

I don't believe we can. Well, first of all, we don't allow them, technically.

But we have to.

We have to allow a process to apply to put one in. And I like your concept. Maybe that could be part of your recommendation to whether it's to require certain spacing or to make spacing between them one of the criteria that you can look at. I really like that. That's a great idea.

I'm capping it off with a certain number or a small village. A certain number of these locations.

I think we could work. I think that could be additional criteria that, that, that it does not overly proliferate, you know, or there's no overproliferation of this use within a given neighborhood or a given one of the islands or something like that.

Let me ask you a question. This has to be, this has to be, it's going to be a facility.

So first of all, not necessarily. They could take a single family home and call it a group home.

a certified recovery residence yes or but they have to find an actual property they can't just plug you into like the apartment moda they can't just pick two units there and just say hey we're gonna rent two units and put people in there i mean potentially they probably condo or a condo building they would have to literally that's an interesting question because like a residential home literally that is like a property that's one property that's a parcel or they buy a piece of land and build 20 units so let's say a 20 unit building

right they put it just say hey i'm going to go over to pagani because there's a build a unit for rent in there for 10 grand a month and we're just going to rent it well this okay so this is this is the state the state legislator can direct us they can't impair contract rights so that condominium declaration is a contract right so that's going to stop any of that happening in one of those buildings the condo docs the condo docs yeah yeah yeah what about an apartment building like If the owner, well, first of all, the apartment building is going to be owned by one apartment owner. So if they wanted to rent, they're going to have rules and regulations. I suspect, I mean, if they want to allow that, they could conceivably.

Is that not considered transient use though?

This is not considered transient use under this. It's considered a single family use, just like a group home. Yeah.

Okay. This process is going to be subject to public scrutiny. In other words, before a license is issued to anyone, you're going to have the public here comment on it. I can imagine what's going to happen when somebody wants to put one of these things next to my home or say North Bay Island or somewhere in Treasure Island. You know what I'm saying. Nobody's going to want one of those things close to to where they live.

Unfortunately, because of that, that's right. Because of that, we're putting it in the hands of Craig, essentially. Craig makes that decision. I'm sorry, Craig. The village's planning and zoning official makes the determination. It's an administrative determination.

Where does code compliance come in with Any sort of like, you know, like use issues, any complaints, any of that kind of thing.

Yeah. If there are violations on the property, any kind of violations on the use.

Right. Like, you know, kind of not too different than what we did with the short term vacation rentals where it was like two strikes and your license gets revoked. Could we introduce something like that?

I don't think so. I don't think so.

So going to, to George's point, can you take it out of the residential single family zoning and only allow it in like high density or commercial zone?

Again, we don't allow it technically. It's not a permitted use anywhere. They have the right to come in and ask us to, for a reasonable accommodation for this use. It's all based on, you know, the, the concept is that this is a, this is, These residents have a disability and they should be entitled to live like anyone else. That's the concept behind it. So the answer is we don't permit it anywhere, but they would have the right to ask to do it. And we can't say you can't ask.

Whoever holds the license, do they have to apply for a business permit for that? A business license in North Bay Village?

They're technically a residence.

The person who holds the license?

They're treated like a residence. The house is treated like a residence. Like it's a residential use. And they're licensed by the state of Florida. But it's run by someone.

Yes. Correct.

And it's for profit, I imagine.

To that point, aren't the people running the facilities supposed to be licensed?

They are licensed by the state of Florida.

So why would it not suppose a license then? A business license? I wish I could answer you. I wish I could answer you. I think there's a lot of questions that need to be answered in the whole thing. It's crazy. It doesn't make sense.

Does this include rehab houses for alcoholics and drug addicts?

Yes, it does.

That's a halfway house.

Can they call those disabled?

I'm not sure I like that.

So the current process, sorry, I think we already went over this. Just one more time. It looks like what for someone to apply?

We don't currently have a process. That's why we're doing this.

that's why if we're formulating a process why can't we say the process has to be that hey you can come in here and ask but it has to be in a commercial or high density zone and take the entire property well that would limit them from to really a north bay village to find anything if you took it out of the residential realm i think that's what the state of florida is trying to avoid what recommendations do you have

Our recommendation is to adopt this because the state is telling us we need to adopt it. The other option is trying to sue to stop this, but I don't recommend that.

And then more for the criteria. I just want to go over those again.

How about we find out who sponsored it and not vote for him?

We can provide that information to you. you think it's possible we can apply for a waiver based on the size of our community probably no i don't know that that's an option for this so what do we do just say yes well we can review these you can review the criteria you've already made a couple of criteria yeah and so 6b fall into

6A here?

No, 6B is completely different.

Isn't that height?

I promise you it's very different.

Who's going to put the process together? Who's going to work on implementing the process?

Who's going to work on actually implementing the process or creating?

We don't have a process.

You're looking at it. This is what's in front of you.

There's eight criteria that are listed here.

Yeah, the process is what 6A is. It's providing for that process.

Is that it? Yeah, this is the process. There's not going to be any more scrutiny to that?

Well, it goes to you guys and then it would go to the commission. The commission gets two cracks at it.

Do we have any consultants working on this that can give us feedback as to their experience in other municipalities or what? This was crafted. We're not experts at this. No, of course.

This was crafted based on what we've seen in other municipalities and a number of other municipalities. We've been facing this. We represent a number of municipalities. We've been facing this.

So what's Coral Gables doing or like Sarasota or?

What about- I can look that up. What's Surfside and Bay Harbor Islands, for example?

Surfside actually has had a reasonable accommodation provision in their code for years. And how about- They provide for it already.

Bay Harbor Islands?

I don't know. I can look it up, see what I can find. I don't know if they already have one. I don't know if they already have one. If not, the directive from the state of Florida was to get this done before January 1st.

And Miami Beach already has one, I assume? Yeah.

I don't know the answer to that. Again, another thing I can look up. I just, I don't have that answer. Yeah. I can tell you every municipality was directed to get this done before January 1st. That's why you have it in front of you.

So just curious, going over the criteria, how is it that they would prove that they're protected under these applicable laws?

That's up to them to show that, that they meet the criteria, that they meet the certified recovery residence definition.

are different levels of certified recovery residences they would have to show that they're that's what that's the service that they that they are providing okay well i i think this is going to be a high impact item in the community if we bring it out people know what's going on so to do this before january 1st now holidays and just rush everything through

A little bit of this is that it's a corporation that's coming in to figure it out, but they have to be licensed by the state. The state's basically telling you you have to accept it. So, to some degree.

The state is saying that you have to have an application process, I think.

I mean, if you really think of this high level

how many of these facilities would say they're going to come to north bay village i mean they're probably going to try dade county or city of miami or something like that i would think first i think your property values are going to protect you right in a large way right you know that's not to say it's impossible but well it's just not inexpensive to to live here so right you know not alone right however you never know so i i think that while we have the opportunity

Can we limit to high end? They have to be a celebrity like Kim Kardashian?

No, we cannot.

I'm sure. Kardashian only. Yes.

Well, I recommend approval for your sake. I know the city has to do it, so I recommend approval.

With a couple of additions, I think.

Okay, what are we approving now? We're approving moving forward with developing a process? Yes. We're actually approving this process.

You will be approving this process.

And the limiting criteria that we have here.

Correct.

Maybe we could expand them a little bit.

Yes, you can make that part of your recommendation.

Right.

So you mentioned one of them was spacing between?

Right, a spacing requirement, yeah.

Okay. Okay. whether it's a requirement or just criteria.

Okay.

Okay. We also talked about avoiding overproliferation. Okay. Or overconcentration, let's call it.

And the non-residential, if that's possible.

If it's possible. Right. If possible.

So just like a condo declaration, know regulates a condo i'm still confused how our charter doesn't do the same thing it's it's a great question that would be the lawsuit that i mentioned before um can we add any kind of like an application fee to this

You know what? Make that part of your recommendation.

Sure. Let's consider an application fee.

A million, million and a half.

You have to pay for the sewer upgrade. Put one over in Harbor Island, for sure.

So then, I mean, while we're talking about the over concentration, can we limit the number of... Well, I guess we're not issuing... license so then potentially not i don't understand the question i'm sorry so like the city is not issuing any sort anything except an approval potentially correct we don't issue the license the state issues it um after he formulates everything what it's just going to the commission it would go if you guys recommend that this move forward they will go to the commission

with these as your recommendations.

And then the commission is probably going to have something with people, public comments.

Yeah, and it's going to have to go through two readings. It doesn't look like we're going to make the first. But we need to show that we're trying. Did we have a first reading already? Oh, we did. Yeah, I think you're right. Yeah, I wasn't at that meeting. So yeah, we are going to make the January 1st That's right. You're absolutely right.

Do you remember any of the conversation from the commission on this on the first reading?

Far less than what you're saying.

Frank, your mic's not on.

I love it. So I believe they got the points.

I just want to read a few more of the criteria real fast before I move on. Sorry.

And they can be added to Paul's if Paul's okay with his recommendation.

And just maybe if we just couch it, you know, to the extent legally, you know, legally permissible.

That's fine.

Yeah.

I just want to make sure that this residence, wherever it is, would have to comply with code compliance. No different than any other residents in North Bay Village. There's no exceptions.

Right. Yes.

And if they become a nuisance?

If they become a nuisance because they're keeping their garbage out like any other resident? then we could send code enforcement and enforce against that nuisance. If they become a nuisance for just the fact that they are the type of patient that is staying there, our hands are going to be tied.

Right.

Yeah, there's two different scenarios. Okay.

So we can add those to Paul's recommendation?

Yes. So if they're licensed by the state, there's nothing that we can revoke from them?

No. We just have to follow the order.

We can't stop them from continuing to operate?

Correct. Once they're approved? Now, if they're in violation of the state regulations, we can try and work with the state to get enforcement.

But I do think it says here that it would impose an undue administrative burden on the village if code compliance has to be involved in that.

It's something to consider. How do you know that, though, on the front end? Right. And maybe that's where you limit the number of people. You could say, no, that's too many people. Administratively, we can't handle that. Correct.

How do we write that in?

That's the same overconcentration? Well, no, overconcentration, too many of them in a small space, in a small area, right? Maybe we can work with occupancy, like with fire codes and that kind of thing, because they can't violate fire codes. So I'll think of something for occupancy.

Yeah.

Yeah. Right. They're going to have requirements from the state anyway.

Okay.

In terms of the number.

Okay.

Or limitations rather. You good, sir?

Yep.

All right.

Somebody want a second?

Second.

You want a roll call? Please roll.

Sure. Do you have all the entire motion, Tony? Yes, ma'am.

Would you like me to repeat it? Sure. To the extent legally permissible. So the recommendation is for approval and with the following proposals to the extent legally permissible to modify the criteria to account for or to address spacing between. Certified recovery residences, avoiding over concentration of certified recovery residences in any one area. If possible, to keep it to non-residential areas, to consider an application fee, and to address occupancy limitations.

Okay.

The occupancy limitations would include

that would that's where the administration administrative burden would also be involved yeah would be tied to that okay so uh maybe that's that's the tie we can we can add that to to better clarify that the occupancy limitations based on the administrative burden to the village

Board Member Murphy. Yes. Board Member Abramson. Yes. Vice Chair Gonzalez. Yes. Chair Shaw. Yes. Motion carries.

Motion carries. Thank you. 6B. 6B. All right. This looks much more fun than that.

Item 6B, an ordinance of the Mayor and Commissioner of North Bay Village, Florida, amending Chapter 8, zoning, Section 8.12, bonus height in Chapter 15, form-based code Section 15.7B, summary table and illustrations, T6-224 and T6-24MU municipal use. And 15.7C, summary table and illustrations dash T6-30 to provide for height bonuses in T6-24, T6-24MU, and T6-30 transit zones, provided for severability, provided for codification, provided for conflicts, and provided for an effective date.

OK. So this is pretty straightforward. We currently allow a height bonus in RM70 and a density bonus in T6. T6 is all the properties on Kennedy Boulevard. You guys have seen many projects along there. This is an additional height bonus in T6 because we keep getting approached with these special area plans, modifying the height. But it's a very modest one. It would increase the height by up to three floors or 30 feet whichever is less it's just a capper up on the top and it would be subject to the same fees uh as our as we provide for in our schedule of fees and fines and um so let me stop there for a moment see if you guys have any questions on that basic part of it. And then we're going to talk about the fees because at the last commission meeting, there was a presentation by these two fine gentlemen here, Mr. Dolcart, Mr. Curtis. And I want to walk you through the, what they are proposing. They were retained by the village to look at our fees and see if there was a better way of capturing the value that is being generated by our bonus structures. So do you have any questions on the height bonus itself?

Yes. What provoked this?

What provoked this? There were... There are currently three projects that I know of that have sought this kind of increase, a very modest increase to have more flexibility, get, you know, actually be able to accommodate their units, maybe have higher floor to ceiling heights overall. So that's what they're looking for. Okay.

Question. We, I feel like we just had this conversation. I know it was on.

harbor island about the equipment on the roof or something like that right yeah there was one so there was a proposal that came before you a few months ago yeah excuse me uh that that was for exactly this but it was it ended up being rejected as by the commission yes yes um and it was a proposal to change the text to allow for this

that was actually ultimately rejected by the commission okay and they said they said explore this that's what they said make it more of a bonus structure so this is going to be for rm70 and the t zone no only the t6 only t6 yeah arm 70 has what it has we're not changing okay right so this is to increase it in another 30 feet or three floors whichever is lower correct or whatever is less we want to say it and then these gentlemen are going to tell us about what what it should cost

Yes. First, I'm going to walk you through some of their analysis and they're going to jump in and better explain it.

Another question. So we're talking about adding 30 feet or 340 feet. Yeah, I guess if we could talk about overall heights, that would be a little helpful.

Sure. So currently in T6, so there's two districts. There's T624 and T630. T624 is south of the causeway. T630 is north on the water. Okay. So first, south of the causeway, the current height limitation is 30 stories or 240 feet, whichever is less. So that would go up to... If you qualified for the bonus, that would go up to 33 or 270, whichever is less.

And this does not have anything to do with density. We're just talking about height.

That's right. Okay. Okay. Density, there's already a bonus structure for density in T6.

For the T624 and the T630?

Yeah. Yeah. So the base density is 70 units per acre. You can get up to 150 units per acre. under the current bonus structure.

Is the height at the roof level or above?

This is the structural roof. Yeah, this is not the mechanical and all that. Correct. The mechanical would still have the other limitations.

Which is 25 feet.

25 feet, that's right.

So if we're looking at the ordinance on the paragraph, which actually talks about the heights, this is the proposed height or is this what's available now? Right here? You're looking at exhibit B, the chart? No, I'm not looking at Exhibit B. I'm actually looking at the proposed ordinance, the whereas.

Oh, yeah. Sorry.

Let me go there. It's the third, fourth, I think it's the fifth paragraph, the fifth whereas. Now the Roman numerals, one, two, three.

Mm-hmm.

if we look at the TT T six 30, for example, it's saying that the maximum height would be 30, 30 stories or 340 feet, whatever is less. Yep. Is that the maximum after the bonus or is this what's allowed?

No, that is the, what is allowed now that is current.

That's the T six 30. Correct. Currently the T six, we just did 24 30 is 30, 30 stores or 340 feet. 3340.

No, no, for T630.

T630 is 30 stories or 340 feet.

So what would be the proposed maximum bonus? 33 stories or 370 feet. Another 30 feet.

Can I add a little perspective to this? I might be wrong on what my thought process is, but... sunbeams in a sap yep and their height is at like 550 right yep so and and continuum was just approved for their second phase at what like 450 i think it was yeah i think i think both are a little higher right so you're talking let's just say 500 and 550 we're talking about the in-betweens and maybe on the south end of the causeway to go up 30 feet which isn't even going to touch those other two projects that's right

So then let me ask you this. Is the real conversation about how we build in fees? Because quite honestly, I think the height is happening in my opinion. So now I think the conversation moves to how are we fairly compensated for the height?

You got it.

Okay. So tell us how much money we're going to make.

All right. Can we do it via example on the table that they provided on the report? Because I have a question on that as well.

Do it by example. Miami Economic. We can. We can. I have actually have. Okay. Yeah, I'll show you now.

Yeah, let me put it up for you.

Let me make this thing run. There we go.

And since we're before they speak, who are you guys with? So we know like your expertise for that. Tony's going to tell us. You can stand up and talk in a microphone, please.

I think the mic is not on there.

Hold on a second.

Let's press a button in the front.

It's on now.

Okay. Again, my name is Andrew Dahlkart. and I'm the president of Miami Economic Associates with offices in Pinecrest. With me is Rob Curtis, who's the head of Curtis Group, which is a planning firm based in South Miami. Okay.

And you guys were the ones who put together this report that's attached to it.

Well, I don't know what's attached. I'm assuming they have your report. Oh, okay. Yes. We are the ones that did that. As Tony said, we were retained by a vote of the city commission to look at the question of bonus fees and to basically create a more formulaic and transparent way to address them in the future. Okay. All right, so we'll have Tony go over it, and then he'll start it, and then I'll get up, and then he'll finish.

Okay, so we know where it came from.

It's a team approach.

Awesome. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, sir. So we've got two types of bonus. Okay, we've got the height bonus, the density bonus. We already talked about that. Height bonus in RM70, you've got a base height of 150 feet. You can bonus up to 240 feet. And then you can actually get the 312 if you have transferable development rights. You don't pay for those. You pay for the TDRs, okay? The density bonus, I told you guys before, starts at 70. You can bonus up to 150, okay? The current formula for the height bonus, it's every 10 feet of bonus building height, it's $750 per unit, okay? That's how we calculate. So you have three aspects. You've got 750 every 10 feet of height. How many units? And that's what goes into it. I'll walk you through that. Let me give you an example. 7940 West Drive. We know that project. If we were to apply that bonus to this project, it's a 70-unit project. They maxed out their height at 312. So what they're paying for is to go from 150 to 240. That's a 90 feet of increase. So the formula is 750 bucks times the number of units, which is 70 for every 10 feet, which is 90 feet, right? That comes out to $472,500. That's what they paid. Current formula for the density bonus on T6 here on the causeway, okay? It's a very simple formula. It's $20,000 a unit. Okay, so an example, continuum, it was 547 total dwelling units, 292 of those were bonuses, were bonus units. So those 292 units times $20,000 per unit, $5.8 million. That's current. Now, we get to the proposal. There's, and I'll let, and if you wanna walk through the policy basis.

That one's already been paid, right?

continuum continuum was it had its own uh situation so well even even before the sap well we had that conversation yeah so the way continuum worked we had we had a provision in our code or in our in our enacting resolutions that said it was basically uh an incentive to move forward with a project. And it granted certain discounts for projects that move forward.

Do you remember that conversation?

Yes.

Yeah. So that. I'm happy to get into it, but I don't know that... No, I'm fine with it.

I just wanted to explain that part of it.

Because they did not pay $5.8 million.

It wasn't enough, right? No, but that's fine. Because that's the actual one site I see something happening on, so I'm cool. Mm-hmm.

Sorry, just before you start, so I don't interrupt you. So... For example, I'm just going to, there's a project that has not been built in the village yet, right? But they have already, they've already applied, but they have not gone vertical yet.

Okay.

So at what point is it that we can revoke either their approvals, permit, something so that they have to ever reapply to get any of these bonuses again?

They would have to, so their approvals would have to expire. Or they would be in violation of their conditions to the point where we have the ability to revoke something like that.

Where's that stand?

They have a building permit.

But they didn't go vertical by the date that they were supposed to. And we watched the performance here about I don't have any money and then my project just won't go forward and still nothing has happened.

Yeah, there was a modification of their... requirements after that meeting performance after that conversation uh so there there were changes made there was an amendment to the development agreement that was eventually approved after several meetings did we get any money for it We did and they paid for their permits and they paid for their permits as well.

The permits are good for what six months, six months and.

Yeah, and they have some total in time exactly.

So the proposed somebody speaking. The projects that are being proposed right now. Yes, you've got applications for how many would fall under. I mean this new proposal versus ones have already been approved.

The ones that have already approved, we can't do anything about, obviously.

What are we talking about in terms of how many already have been approved on the old and how many would fall under the new one?

Products by number? We've got on Kennedy, one, two, three projects. They're massive projects, some of them. I'm thinking of Sunbeam, Continuum, and Shoma. And then in RM70, which would be the height bonuses, we've got 7940, 7913, 7918, and 8000 East.

Okay, because what I'm thinking is, in terms of equitable treatment, right, you want to be fair to everybody. Right. Which would be less expensive to them? The old, the current way of doing it versus this, you know?

I think you're about to learn that the current way of doing it is... It's not... capturing the value of those rights.

So whatever projects going forward would capture this new formula that we're going to talk about right now. If it's adopted. But the other projects that have been approved, it is what it is. Unless they expire.

Right, so that's my question, is about them expiring.

Correct, if they were to expire.

But that's all right. Okay, so let's listen to this gentleman while he patiently waits, and then we'll ask some questions. Okay.

Thank you. As I said before, we were retained by the village commission to come up with a formula approach that everybody could understand and they would know what they're getting into if they ask for above this. And in doing that, we started with the basic concept, which is that the developer's rights on a piece of property are based on the size of the property and the zoning that is applicable to the property. The request for extra height or density is a request to use air rights. And air rights are a community asset. And therefore, if they're going to use that community asset, there should be compensation. That's the underlying theory of the formula. Next slide. Now, the formula basically says the community benefit fee should be based on the bonus square footage times the land value divided by the base square footage. Or essentially, the second part of that produces an amount that the developer paid when he bought the property that is the price of land per square foot of building. And so that's what the bonus fee is multiplied by. The bonus square footage is square footage above the zoning limit, whatever that is. The land value is a critical issue in this and it needs to be verified and it needs to be based on an arm's length transaction or an appraisal. And lastly, the base square footage is the maximum allowed under the current code. So that's the elements in the formula. Next slide. In terms of the land value, which I said is a critical element, that can be either determined by an actual purchase price from an arm's length transaction within 24 months of the time the application is being filed. It can also be determined if there has not been a closing on the property by a purchase and sale agreement, an arm's length transaction, again, within 24 months of the time of the application. or a certified appraisal that is performed within six months of the date of the application. In terms of if an appraisal is being used, the village maintains the right to have a second appraisal done by an appraiser of their choice, of its choice, but the developer who is requesting is responsible for the fee that would need to be paid to get that second appraisal. Next slide, Tony.

Here's the example.

If we have a property that has a land value of $25 million, the base allowance under the current code is 200,000 square feet. And the bonus that is being requested is an additional 50,000 square feet. The fee would be 50,000 square feet times 25 million divided by 200,000 and will come out to 6,250,000. It's a fairly simple formula.

So it's basically the buildable square footage price times the extra square footage.

I'm sorry, my hearing is not great. Basically, the buildable square footage price.

basically the buildable square footage price times the additional bonus that's correct and basically it's the same price he paid for the original right and we're saying that the city should should be getting paid for its air rights on that same basis that's that that's the thing at this point we'll show you some exam some actual examples we'll just go back to those same two examples and show you how it works in practice you've got 7940 west drive if it was under this formula

the, and we use the land value just for this example, the appraised value in the property appraisers, you know, website, just because that's readily available. So it's close to the 6.5 million bucks. Um, there, the average FLR, we took this average 6.65. Uh, we do not have an FLR limitation. So we, we backed into it based on what you can build in RM 70, depending on the size of your lot. Uh, 6.65 is like a middle-of-the-road approach on a two-, three-, or four-lot solution. Base allowance then for this property would be 223,000 square feet, roughly. The bonus that they got, those 90 feet or nine floors, Their floor plate was close to 12,000 square feet per floor. That's a total of 107,325 square feet of bonus floor area that they got. So when you apply the formula, you get to $3.1 million. Remember, they paid $472,000. That's the big spread. Next one, continuum. Now this is how it would apply to density. Land value on this one, which is a whopping 95 million bucks between the two projects. So it's a huge project. Max FLR and T6, there we do have a maximum FLR, that's 13. So the base allowance for that site is over 2 million, close to 2.1 million square feet. The bonus that they got was 292 units. We took an average of 2,000 square feet per unit. That's an all in calculation, an FLR calculation. So that's counting circulation. That's also counting parking because you've got to park this thing. So at 2,000 square feet per unit, that's 584,000 square feet. Applying the formula, you get to $27 million. Compare that to the 5.8 that we calculate under the current formula. That's so...

That kind of circles me back around to my question before the gentleman made this presentation. I think one drawback of this is actually rewarding people that just bought the land a long time ago at a lesser price and just sat on it for a long time and now... You know, they're obviously having to pay less as a result of now this being applied. My other question is the projects that are, that's why I asked before how many projects are fall under the old versus this one. This one seems to me like if we look at the example of 7940 West Drive, if we were to apply the old standard, what would they pay? The old standard was $477,000. Okay. And we're talking about $3.1 million. Yes. Now. That's right. So for those projects that haven't been built yet, haven't been sold, that will go up pretty much at the same time as the new project falling under the new standard. Aren't we basically impacting the competitiveness of the price of the units to the developers when putting the thumb to scale, so to speak, by charging more for those that are applying under the new one versus the old standard? given that they're both going to probably hit the market at the same time?

It certainly will impact, obviously, the bottom line, any more money, but they're also paying more for the property because the land value is higher now than it was five years ago.

That actually is an aggravating factor, not a mitigating factor. Agreed, agreed. It is an aggravating factor. You buy now. Yeah. You have... more expensive now fees versus someone that bought a while back, the land's appreciated. So they've already gained that appreciation and they're still, you know, receiving the old standard or being, being priced under the old standards. Yeah. You see the discrepancy that I'm talking about?

I do, and I think this is an important point.

And we're talking about millions. We're not talking about little money. We're talking about a lot of money, and that might have an impact on the competitiveness of these different developers when they're all coming into the market pretty much at the same time. Right. I don't know to what extent that will have an impact, but you have to consider that.

That is fair input. The concept – behind this. So our resolution, our enacting resolution for these fees and any new one would have the same the same provision enables some amount of negotiation on the fee. It's just this is creating a starting point. for that. Because every one of these projects has to go through a development agreement process. And there is...

But when we're starting off from... 400 you said 400 and something 472 or 478 versus 3.1 million yeah it's a huge it's an enormous spread yeah and that can be your that can be your input that can absolutely be your imagine the 95 million dollar project right the land value how much is that you know 27 million dollars absolutely one those projects have already been approved so it'd be anything that was coming forward

And realistically, those projects aren't going to be competing because these will be already done. And if the person sat and didn't do the project now, then that's kind of their problem.

No, but it will be competing in the sense that the units will probably be hitting the market relatively at the same time. They've just been sitting on it. Now they're going to start developing it, but they're developing it under the old standard, which is costing them less.

That's the point that I'm trying to make. If I may. One other question why you're going to speak to that is how's this information compared to other cities and municipalities?

Currently, I'm familiar with at least two cities that are moving in the direction that we're proposing conceptually. One was the city of Miami that has moved in that direction, and the other is the city of Miami Beach. The notion is that when somebody's asking for extra development right and they don't own land, they didn't buy land, they need to pay something commensurate with what they would have paid for land to get the same amount of development. And that's becoming a philosophy that other cities are adopting. The question about the competitiveness, the competitiveness in terms of the sales that will occur is going to be set by the market. That's not set by the formula. Tony is right. It doesn't change the pricing. It changes the bottom line.

Well, the point I'm starting to make is that if under the new standard, the cost per square foot, if you want to put it that way, the developer is going to incur compared to the old standard. They're going to have to price their units up higher.

If he doesn't want to pay that price, he can stay with his existing rights. I mean, that's a choice that he's going to make.

No, no, no. I'm saying the new projects, if this is adopted.

The guy with the new project, if he doesn't like the notion that he's going to pay this extra amount, he can stay with the development rights that he already has.

What is a bonus? We're talking bonus. So if you're asking for more, I mean, now you've got to pay for it.

Okay, so I'll make sure I understand what you're saying. So the developer will be given the choice to either, if we adopt this, to go with one or the other?

Yeah, sure. You can always build.

No, no, I mean, they want the bonus site. Let's assume the bonus site is something that they want.

They just need to pay for it. Everybody's going to want it. Do they want to pay for it? you don't want to pay for it, then just do your 200,000 square feet.

Correct. But again, your competitor just got the bonus height at the lower old standard way of calculating it. You see the point that I'm trying to make? Absolutely. If you decide to build less, that's also going to impact the competitiveness.

To give you just a comparison point, our current standard for Pagani, let's say, comes out to $4.40 a square foot for the bonus that they paid for. The city of Miami and Mr. Murphy, you know their rates. For bonus square footage to get height, you are paying, depending on where you are in the city of Miami, anywhere from the high $10 a square foot to 15 and change a square foot. That's two to three times what we were charging for the same extra, for the same bonus. It's just a comparator. I get you. I'm just trying to give you a comparison point. Your point is still well taken. It's an important point. Is this too high? Is this too rich?

I think it was the opposite. I think it was too low. I wish that we had had this conversation three years ago and not right now. This is long overdue. It's far as i'm concerned and and again if this you know changes somebody's opinion of doing business here then so be it there will be somebody with enough money and this matches their figures to continue developing here you know there's only so much waterfront property that is to be developed and so if you want it and you want to go higher than pay for it right no no and again i i

I'm not speaking to whether it's low or high. That's not the point that I'm trying to make. Maybe it was low. What I'm saying is that in terms of the project already been proposed, have been applied, that these folks already bought the land. They're getting ready to move forward. Now they're at the point in which they want to buy bonus height. Those that fall under this new standard, they can't say, okay, forget it. I don't want to do it. I want to go home. I want to do what I want to do with the land. They just can't turn back. So, I mean, for future projects, what you're saying makes sense. But for those projects that have already been started in terms of they bought the land, so how do we make sure that we as a city don't put the thumb on the scale in terms of the competitiveness of the land? between these two different projects by charging, in one scenario, $3.1 million, and another scenario, $470,000.

I think you could recommend when this becomes effective.

That could be part of any recommendation. That would work.

Yeah. By the way, this is not, this is a sub conversation to the actual item that's before you, right? You're not making a recommendation at this point on this. Now, the commission wanted us to have this conversation so they could get your input. So we can certainly convey that concern that you have.

There's a few things. One. Most every project that's important to the city has already been approved, so this isn't going to affect them at all. So if you're new Johnny Joe that just came in here and bought Benihana's and turned it down because it's greasy and going to build a new condo, then you're going to be subject to this new thing. But every other project here, they've already paid or approved. The other thing, it's like being born in 1900. You had a horse and carriage. Now you have a Tesla because you were born now. So it is what it is.

I have a horse and carriage. No, but that's why my first question was how many of the existing projects fall into one first standard versus... And you said there's some...

So all the ones that...

So these are not just new ones, right?

Yeah. All the ones that I mentioned have approvals.

Okay.

They're approved. The two examples we looked at, they're approved projects. They're insulated.

If we look here at 1775 Kennedy-Coswell, it's part of the presentation. Yeah. Okay. That's one that's being proposed under the new standard.

No, that's continuum. Okay.

Yeah, 1775 is continuum. Those were just examples. Those are just showing you how this is processed.

These are not actual.

No, these are not.

These are not applications.

No.

So the numbers here are good? The numbers that you cited on this table, are they valid numbers? Because I had a question on how you arrived at the 214,000 bonus square footage on that particular property. I tried doing some numbers.

I think that was based on their application.

Yeah, but if you look at it, if you're saying that you're allowed three more stories, how do you get 214,000 square feet?

Basically, it was 2,000 square feet for 107 units is what it was. The 2,000 square feet is what it was, as Tony said, is an all-in figure. I mean, we don't necessarily have site plans, so... It's sort of the average size of a unit coupled with the standard amount of circulation space and back of the house space and parking. That's where the number comes from.

So this property falls under the T630. That's the north end of the causeway.

Mm-hmm.

Based on that, you have another 30-foot, three stories. That's the maximum budget. Correct.

They wanted to take advantage of this. Yes.

So their buy right is $359,853. That's what they can build. Yes. And they want an additional $214,000. That's what this table says.

Yeah. Again, that's for an example. What would actually happen is when they came in, they would have a site plan, and those extra 30 feet would be shown on their plan, and they'd have a floor plate. So if they've got a tall, skinny building, very narrow, very small floor plate, it's going to be less money. because they're doing less floor plate. So the floor times three, whatever that is. So if they've got a 6,000-square-foot floor plate, it's very different from if they have a 20,000-square-foot floor plate.

Right. Okay, so these numbers are not based on any real calculations. No.

Plus, you want to know why we're on the right path? It's because I don't see any developers in here standing at the podium right now. Uh-oh. Wait till the commission meeting. Well...

What do you think? As a developer, you're killing the competition between buildings. You know, if you have to pick You have land between 10 and 15. You have your hard costs or soft costs. Everything has to be 75%. We all try to make 25% profit because you never do, but you have to plan for that. So if your land price goes up substantially, you're killing how much you can build and you avoid those properties. You all know Isaac. I mean, over the last five years, we've done 31 projects in all the counties here in South Florida. And that's the formula we use for every single property. And we look at the competition. So we take the property values that are selling in that area And if you have to pay more for land or hard costs or soft costs, then your eventually sales price is going to kill the project. And you pass. So what you're doing right now is killing it.

I think that's what Mr. Gonzalez was saying. Yeah, that's what it was.

Yeah.

Right?

Absolutely.

That's the concern.

You don't have to always get the bonus.

And two, if you have other people that have a bonus, then they have a big advantage over what you're doing. You sell more, you have more units, you have less price, and you make a decent profit. But you pay for a lot of bonus in the city of Miami. You pay for that, but it just depends on where it's located and what your competition is.

Yeah, the geography has to be taken into account.

Geography. You have to look at that, and if you can't make competitively the cost of your project at 75% of what you're going to sell it,

then you're going to have to abandon the project you have to assume that everybody's going to want to build as many units as they possibly can because on a per per unit basis your cost comes down right so uh if if if the bonus is going to cost someone you know 100 200 300 more than their competition that's going to put them at a disadvantage when it comes time to sell the project now these projects were were faced very far away from each other say one was going to be sold uh next year and the other one 10 years from now then you can say well the market grows everything else but we're thinking that these projects are going to start you know within the next five to ten years they're pretty much going to be coming to market they've already been approved so it'd be anybody coming in new and second

from writing the code, from being here through that whole process, we've allowed enough buildable square footage for the units that are there. And I don't believe there's really much more units to purchase from the city to really have to go do a lot of bonus. So if they're doing height, they're using the units that are there. They're not really... it's not going to be about a unit thing because the unit and the buildable square footage is almost on par for what the project is. And one thing, it's going to be negotiated down because they're going to come in here and negotiate and say, we're not going to do the project and the city's going to say, okay. And the second, where the one part that I wouldn't go to is like, hey, I bought my property today. But I'm not going to go for approval for five years. That's the next cycle. The property is appreciated. Instead of doing this whole appraisal thing, it might should be just based on what you paid. Because then when I go in and I'm buying the property, I'm paying five million bucks for whatever. I know that that's my buildable price. And then if I want to do the bonus later, then that's going to be the price. It's not going to be on the appreciation going forward. Whoever comes in and buys then, they're buying at that point. But I bought now.

Yeah, the one thing I would caution you is there's the possibility that, because developers are intelligent people, right? If you tie it to the price that the applicant paid, then it's, well, or the applicant is always going to be the seller. Because they bought 10 years ago And they're going to say, use my price. And then they're going to turn around and sell it the next, you know, as soon as they have the approval. It'll be under contract and we'll do it. So it's just a tricky thing.

They'll flip it. They'll hold it and they'll flip it. Yeah. And they won't develop it. Right.

And they have no intention to build or they'll have a deal already with the developer. And then, you know, they'll sell it for however much more.

But you said that's not what we're...

That's not actually what's in front of you. I want to transmit your comments and concerns to the commission so that they have that as context. What's actually before you is just the hype bonus, the 30 feet or three stories.

It's part of what they're asking us to analyze in their report.

It is, and I'm not suggesting don't don't give us comments. What I'm saying is your recommendation, the specific recommendation when you do make a motion is on the height bonus itself, the ordinance.

Well, the other thing I'll point out is that if you said city of Miami is 10 to 15 feet, most- 10, 15 bucks. Yeah, 10, 15 bucks an additional foot. I would say most people, that's a fraction of what the actual buildable price when you buy the land. So the $25 million or whatever that was, whether it was 50 bucks a foot, you know, buildable foot, then, you know, you're going to the city and only paying 10 to 15, which is, you know, 20% of what you're, what you're paying for on the land. So I don't know if it should be on, on par, if you want to take into, um, George's and Paul's thought process. Yeah.

I mean, I will tell you those were the numbers imposed in 2011 by the city of Miami and they were supposed to be adjusted every year. They just never haven't gotten around to it.

So it's all going to be a negotiation. It's not going to be what it is. But if you really think about it, it's not on the buildable price per foot on the land is not on par with the bonus, obviously, but from the examples that you're saying.

Right, right.

Okay, so question. Do we have to go with the three floors 30 feet?

Do you have to? No, there's no. The state legislature is not directing you to do that.

Because you already have continuum higher and sunbeam higher. What's the matter with one building in the middle?

Because that's not the only zone that we are. No. Aren't we also talking about

No, it's only those two. It's only T624. Correct. That's the only ones affected by this bonus.

And T624MU is going to be the city hall, so they're not going to go up 400 feet because they can't afford it.

That's exactly right. That's very true. Thanks for reminding us.

Just to make sure I'm getting it straight.

Just speaking facts up here, you know.

So what we're voting on is strictly allowing the height bonus. Correct. We're not on this new proposed. It's not actually.

No, no.

They wanted to hear your comments because they're going to discuss it again.

And then if they want to move forward with it, there'll be a resolution that comes about.

Does somebody want to make a motion just on the height for the ordinance?

I'll move that.

I'll second it. Roll call, please. Oh, do I have to do public comment on this?

Yes, you do. I didn't do it on the last one. Public comment on this height post? I don't think there's anyone here. Public comment closed?

Is anybody online? No one online. Okay.

Sorry.

Vice Chair Gonzales? Wait, I'm sorry.

Before we do that.

Sorry.

No, it's okay. So can we tie in our recommendation for the proposal to... Yeah, that's fine. So then I would like to recommend that we move forward with the proposal for the fee schedule.

Shouldn't that be a second thing?

You can make that just a second motion. Okay, that's fine. So you have two.

So we're voting two different things.

Yeah, so the first one is for approval of the ordinance as presented.

The proposal is not presented. And I will...

Support that, yes.

So we have a yes and a second.

And a second, yes.

Okay. Vice Chair Gonzalez? Yes. Board Member Murphy? Yes. Board Member Abramson? Yes. Chair Shaw? Yes. Motion carries.

Fantastic. Now, do you want to make a motion for you?

Yes. This is just a recommendation on your right.

I want to make a recommendation for the increased amount.

Yes. Yes. Or your comments on it. We can do it that way. We can do it either way.

I'm against that.

am very much for it and wish it had taken place a couple years ago yes is that a motion or i think we're just giving comments okay comments okay anybody else want to make a comment for the record on no it's on the proposal um All right.

The first comment that I made that I share with Paul, that's my strongest comment. The other suggestion that I would make is on land value. They're proposing a recent purchase price, proposing signed purchase agreement. I think we should simplify that a little bit more. And the way I see it that I think could probably make this less complicated would be, first of all, purchase price. If anybody's applying for a bonus, they should have already purchased the land, not be on the just contract to buy the land, right? So the purchase price contract, Unless it's a close deal, it could always be changed through legal means, etc. So I would eliminate that as a way of valuing the land. And then the other thing I would suggest is that in every case we get an appraisal. And we compare that to the purchase price and take the higher of either. So if the appraisal comes in higher, take the appraisal. Because again, some of these lands were purchased 10 years ago and the land value has gone up. So why leave that money on the table? So go that way. If it's a recent purchase and somehow it's higher than what the appraisal came in, obviously take the purchase price. And as far as the... the second appraisal request. I would not burden the developer with the second appraisal unless there's a reason to. If we don't trust the first appraisal, because for some reason we heard the company was not trustworthy, but I'm I'm assuming that we're going to use licensed people to do this. But if we do require a second appraisal, I think then the village should pay for that. I don't think we should burden them. If it's something that we're requiring and not them, if they want it, then they pay for it. But if it's something that we're requiring, we should pay for that.

Okay. And are you a yes move forward subject to these or are you a no like Mr. Murphy, but you have these comments?

I still can't get over my first one. You want me to put it right down the middle? But I'm going to be a yes. A yes? Okay. Okay.

Paul, do you want to add anything? No, I think you're killing development here. That's my personal opinion.

Okay. Any other comments?

Do you want to take a position?

I already said a lot. Basically, I said the buildable square footage based on the land is too high. Maybe it should be a little bit more. It should be maybe somewhere in the middle. It's going to be negotiated anyway. Everything's a negotiation. It's a starting point. I was fine with continuum unlike another board member over here because they're actually breaking ground. If you move and look pretty, then you can get away with things.

It could potentially generate more money for the village. But then again, I have a concern that Paul has.

I'm with everybody. Vote for me. Meeting adjourned. Wait.

No, you voted on the one you needed to vote on.

Meeting has been adjourned. Oh yeah, meeting adjourned.

Really?

Yeah.