City Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to tonight's meeting of the South Miami City Commission. Today is Tuesday, May 5th, 2026. The time is about 7.04 p.m. Again, before we start, if you could please silence or turn off your cell phones, we would be grateful. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll, please?

Yes, Mayor Fernandez?

Present.

Vice Mayor Corey?

Present.

Commissioner Rodriguez?

Here.

Commissioner Bonish? Here. Commissioner Kaye?

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you. If you please stand for a brief moment of silence, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice Mayor Corey. Vice Mayor? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty Please be seated. Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone register for public remarks? Thank you. So if you register public remarks, we will call your name shortly, and we will recognize you for three minutes. Thank you. Actually, before we begin, is it in order to reference any deferrals that we may have? I know we had a request. I believe we had a request from counsel for the applicant for the subtext project. Thank you. For a deferral of items 3, 4, and 5? That's correct. Correct. Is it to a date certain?

Yes, a date certain two weeks from today, May 19th.

Okay. Are there any other items anyone on the commission would like to defer before we open up the floor for public remarks? I'd like to move to defer item 6 to May 19th. I just want to talk to council about an issue related to a recent legislative change.

Which one, Mayor?

Item 6, which is the sustainability ordinance. Yeah. So I'd like to move that to May 19th, so we can hopefully adopt it then. Any other, anyone that would like to consider a deferral, any other item? No? Okay, can I get a motion to defer items 3, 4, 5, and 6? I'll move it. To the meeting of May 19th. We have a motion by Commissioner Kaye. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, so a motion by Commissioner Kaye, a second by Vice Mayor Corey. Madam Clerk, you want to call the roll on the deferrals?

Yes. Commissioner Williams? Yes. Commissioner Kaye? Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez? Yeah. Vice Mayor Corey? Yes. Mayor Fernandez?

Yes.

Items 3, 4, 5, and 6 is deferred to May 15.

May 19, I'm sorry. May 19, OK. OK, with now the agenda and its final posture, let's go ahead and open up the floor for public remarks. And we will recognize everyone who's registered to speak on any item, starting with Chris Hudson. Please come forward. Good evening, sir. If you still, you're welcome to speak on the item. If you'd like to, just give us your thoughts. I know there's a lot of ongoing conversation happening, so we'd appreciate your perspective. Good evening. Sir, can you just hold on? John is asking you to hold on one second. I apologize. Okay, you're recognized, sir.

That's okay. I'll talk loud. I got a big mouth. I am here on items three, four, and five. I am totally against that. Not the project itself, but first of all, I am against the project being set aside for university students only. I think it should be divided evenly one third, one third, one third. students, affordable housing, mixed-use workforce. I think everybody in this community should be given an opportunity to live in such a beautiful city. I am totally against the height of the project because it impedes to those residents on 57th Court, 58th, and 59th. And I live on 59th Court. And even when they have events over there, I can hear the music in my residence to the point to where it disturbs my peaceful living. And so with that being said, I ask you to send them back to the drawing board to consider something that's less intrusive. on the residents of this community. You say cities of South Miami is a city of pleasant living. I lived here all my life, except when I did my stay with the military. So there's no other place I would rather be than in the city of South Miami, and no place I would rather live because of its commute. And most of all, with that project, I just don't see how they will be able to accommodate the traffic on that 57 Red Road byway. Right now, it's one of the most congested roads here in South Miami. I don't know if you had the opportunity to travel like morning traffic or evening traffic. It's really congested at the time to the point to where I see almost accidents daily. So I just ask you to reconsider the project, not abolish it altogether. I think it's a great idea. I think it's a great plan. But I just think that that height and with the construction of that building, it would be intrusive to the residents there on 57th Court as well as those residents on 58th and 59th. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comment, sir. Next, Mr. Reynolds-Martin. Good evening, sir.

Good evening. I'm Reynolds Martin. I live at 6201 Southwest 61th Street. I don't live in that area, but I came in support of some of my friends and neighbors that do. And I think this thing ought to be reconsidered. And some of the points that Chris made are some very good points. And I think if we talk about that, we can come up with something that's going to be commensurate and fair for everybody. So I wish you would reconsider this and move forward and do something in the best interest of everybody. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Dale Andre, please. Good evening. Mr. Mayor, is it possible if I could be the last person to speak? Sir, just sign the signing sheet. They'll bring it up to me. Thank you. Again, if anyone would like to sign up to register in public remarks, there is another signing sheet here by John. Please come forward and sign up. Good evening. Sorry.

Good evening. Dale Andre, 6820 Southwest 65th Avenue. I'm here also to question the way this whole project has been brought forward. I think the things that Mr. Hudson said make so much sense. I've had a chance to meet with the developers, both in a community, in one of their community gatherings, and also one on one. And what I feel is that they brought the project to us. or to this community. It wasn't a question of what was needed by the community or suggestions. It was just a way to tell the community what they were doing. And they took their time. They did a wonderful presentation. But it was really just about offering that information and not seeing what the community could do. Even though it's private property, I think it has to probably come from the commission to determine what are the permits for a project like that. The idea that it could be multi-use, that there could be low income housing within that to move out all the people that are there now for student housing. Student housing is great. But how is there a way to incorporate the community? And that might be a little bit too optimistic. But I think we can think in new ways. We can approach this in new ways. What can be unique to South Miami? Because this is our community. So we don't want to lose our community for new projects, which we also want. And we need to be able to house more people, whether it's students or whatever. HOW CAN WE THINK IN A MORE CREATIVE WAY THAT WE CAN KEEP OUR COMMUNITY HERE AND KEEP IT SOUTH MIAMI AND NOT BECOME ANOTHER TOWN? THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NEXT ON THE LIST, MICHELLE REEDEN. IF YOU JUST ARRIVED AND WANT TO REGISTER FOR PUBLIC REMARKS, THERE'S A SIGNING SHEET UP HERE IN THE FRONT. PLEASE ADD YOUR NAME TO THE LIST AND WE'LL RECOGNIZE YOU FOR THREE MINUTES. Michelle, good evening. Good to see you.

Attorney, the attorney, Senate Mayor, the attorney. Here I am again. I live on 57th Court adjacent the project. And again, I'm just like Chris and Dale. The project just does not fit our community. It takes away. From the unity that we have in our community. I know that the City Commission the Planning Board did go ahead and design But I'm wondering did they even take any notation when they did that that there was a residential area residential Family home in that particular area I'm not sure if there's any other project that has gone on in South Miami where it faces a residential area and I think it's really slapping our face on 57th and even in our community that we have to indulge in stuff that is not good for us. That we have to take, to me, whatever is left over or whatever is pushed in our throat. And I'm just thinking that because we are a city of pleasant living that we can do better than that. We've been homeowners there for over 60 plus years. And like you said, we're not against the project, but we're against that particular project because it's facing us. We're against that particular project because it's going to bring in more traffic. Then I'm told that the county is on the, I think it's on the west of us, the left of us.

North of us.

They're going to have eight story, nine story projects, eight or nine. And then we're just going to be locked in with concrete all around us. We already have railroad coming, as you know. So we're not against student housing. We're just against the actual place that it's being held. And so we ask that you please consider that for us as homeowners that have been there for years. We have children, grandchildren are going. There are people that's on that street that's ill. And we just know that, unfortunately, that's not where we would want it. We try to change it where there will at least be some spacing. They said they weren't able to do that. And the apartments that are there, if they have gone and did something with those apartments, like we said, we're not against it. We just know that it's a lot of people, 700 plus people plus 254 beds. That's more than what is due in that community. So we hope that we can reconsider it or do something that will do it to our area. Thank you so much.

And just for folks who may have just joined, the items have been deferred at the request of the sponsor. So I know there's been a lot of ongoing conversation happening with the community. My expectation is that conversation will continue. And hopefully, if it comes back on May 19th with more support, we can consider at that point in time and move it forward or ultimately consider not adopting it. We'll see what happens at that point in time. But again, the goal, I think, is on the part, as I understand, of the developers to continue the conversation and see if they can get a point where there's greater acceptance for what they're proposing.

And another thing before I leave. Yes, ma'am. We have Red Road Commons there. We have the cluster there where there are all on 57th Court. It's not as if we haven't donated anything to the university for their kids. So it's just that we just feel like that is not the place for this particular...

And again, I just want to, for the benefit of the audience, we don't get to dictate what happens with respect to all the uses. Again, I know Mr. Garcia-Serra, who represents the applicants since we've been kids. And there's a request here that makes their particular project Nettleson, which is the variance. And I think we, I personally have nothing against student housing. But it is, again, in your part of the city, the most like a market-ready product, right, in terms of what people want to bring forward. That is their specialty of the sponsor. I don't know if they have a desire to accommodate the mix of uses, but hopefully that's something you all can continue to discuss, and we'll see where we end up here on May 19th.

Again, we say we're not against it. We're just the way the project is being put up. We're totally not.

Thank you.

But Michelle, I do want to be for again, because this condition of a three story condition against a single family neighborhood, given what we've done from a rezoning perspective is not atypical because we're trying to create a transition back down to the neighborhood. So again, so that I hear the people feel they're being put upon as a community. That language to me is nettlesome. And so what I would say is we just approved a project that had a similar transition on 62nd on the west side, right? So it's not just happening. These are edges. And we're trying to make sure that when the transitions happen, they happen in a way that's as respectful as possible. I understand there's concerns about You know the intensity we've all expressed them, you know, or the I don't know the massing of the building. Excuse me. Uh, we all had that conversation the last time. I'm assuming it'll be for the refinements, but I don't want anyone in this neighborhood to think it's just an issue affecting them. And I'll further add if you missed our conversation earlier today, we were talking about another site that's in public hands where we are choosing to step into the zoning. to try to make sure that we try to strike the best balance, because they were talking about nine stories against a single family neighborhood just 15 feet from a property line. So I understand you all feel like we This is imperfect, and admittedly, all these conditions are. I will tell you that we are not shying away from these conversations. If you want to try to fashion a resolution, whether it's on this property or another one that at least protects our single family neighborhoods to the greatest extent that we have, that we can, right? We could defer it to... SOMEONE TO BRING A LIVE LOCAL PROJECT OR AN RTZ PROJECT, BUT WE'RE CHOOSING TO GET IN THESE CONVERSATIONS SO THAT WE CAN FASHION A RESOLUTION THAT MAKES FOR THE MOST OPTIMAL LIVING CONDITIONS FOR OUR NEIGHBORS, WHICH YOU ARE, OKAY? I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYONE WHO'S HERE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. MOVING ON TO DEL TRAVIS WILLIAMS, PLEASE.

DEL TRAVIS WILLIAMS, 5942. I'm going to begin with this. I'm getting out of the MetroConnect across the street from my house. I'm walking across the street, standing in front of my mailbox about to get the mail out. Here comes this giant brown 4x4 truck. That's a UM student. I know it's a UM student because I followed it. He parks in front of the football field, so it's possibly a football player. He comes through the neighborhood going 40, 50 miles per hour every day, three, four times a week. Almost got hit just trying to get my mail out of my mailbox. Why can't we get speed bumps on 62nd Street? I've been coming here since 2014 when Walter Harris was sitting up there and Mayor Stoddard. And I know I didn't get them then because Carlos Jimenez blocked it. I know about that. But why can't I get them now? I can't even walk across the street. I got a cane. I'm a veteran. I can't even get outside the car, coming from work to get my mail. I got a fear for my life because a student doesn't have patience to wait till the Go Connect takes off. He wants to come around and wants to run me off the damn road. That's my first issue. Second issue. We're not affordable here. We're building all these apartments for these students. And I would love to stay here. I would love the rest of my days here, but I don't know if I can do that. Because they're asking for $2,000 for one bedroom apartment. That doesn't fly, I'm sorry. What if you got a family with three or four, well, three kids, they want what, $3,800, $4,000 for a three bedroom? Well, if both of the parents together don't even, might make $70,000, $60,000. We're pushing this out of our neighborhood. Railroad Commons. Right across the street. Can't think of the name right now. Somi Park. We were told they're going to be condoms. I'm sorry, not condoms. Condominiums for rent. Well, rent and eventually to own. I'm being told that's out the picture now. What happened to keeping families here? Four or five generations of my family lived here at one time. This is not fair. It's not fair. And I voted for you up there, and I didn't think it was going to be like this.

Thank you, Dill Travis. And Dill Travis on that project, again, remember, it was an RTZ project. So we unfortunately did not get to approve SOMI Phase 2. Diana Brown is next on the list. Again, if anyone else would like to sign up in public remarks, please come forward. I'll give you back this one so you can. Good evening.

To everyone, I'm here to reiterate what Del Travis said about speeding. They speed down our street. It's a residential area. They should be doing 25, 30, and they're constantly doing about 50 or 60 going through there. So we do need to have speed bumps on the street. It's really bad. In the afternoons, I sit outside and I say, I wish I had nails. I would throw them in the street so when the cars run over them. But I can't do that. But we really need to consider having speed bumps on 62nd Street.

Tana, before you go, can I ask, what segment is the worst?

I'm sorry.

Sorry. Excuse me. We're going to keep a order here. If you want to come back up and be recognized, I'm happy to do that. I will call you back up. I asked Diana a question, if I may. Yes. Ms. Brown. Yes. What segment is the worst, if you can just share, so we can ask the chief to hopefully put some motors out there to do some traffic enforcement?

My address is 6100 Southwest 62nd Street. Okay. Del Travis lives there. Close to the 59th Avenue.

From 59th Avenue to 62nd Avenue.

Okay, fair enough. Thank you for that clarification.

Thank you very much.

Have a good evening. Thank you. Okay, is there anyone else who would like to address this commission in public remarks?

I have someone on Zoom.

Okay, someone on Zoom. Patricia Thomas, you're recognized. Please unmute yourself.

Let me unmute.

Good evening. My name is Patricia Thomas Conklin, and I'm a longtime resident at 6531 Southwest 57th Place. I've seen firsthand everything that everyone is talking about that goes on with campus housing, off-campus housing. No, we're not opposed. But I would love for the commission to change their language This is not a feeling. This is our community. This is our reality. And so when the kids come in, there's intrusion. And so it just disrupts the city of Pleasant Living. So this is not a feeling. This is a reality. And we don't need a reality check by having students come in and be disruptive and be intrusive. So I agree. I know we can't stop the project, but what we're trying to say is keep into the fold of how we feel because it is a residential, and I understand about the mixed use of it, but this is a residential community, and what's going to happen, it will be destroyed by all of the concrete, by all the confusion, by all of the intrusion. This is a reality. This is not a feeling. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Madam Clerk, is there anyone else online?

Anyone else on Zoom, please raise your or vote your hand if you'd like to speak.

And if there's anyone else in the chamber, please come forward at this time. Okay, seeing no one online and no one in the chamber, we will close public remarks and continue with the balance of the agenda. Is there a motion to adopt the minutes of April 21st, 2026? I'll move it. Is there a second? I'll second. Madam Clerk, if you can call the roll. We have a motion by Commissioner Bonnich and a second by Commissioner Rodriguez.

Yes. Commissioner Bonnich? Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez? Yes. Commissioner Kaye? Yes. Vice Mayor Corey?

Yes.

Mayor Fernandez? Yes. Minutes past 5-0.

And again, if anyone is here on subtext, just to reiterate, at the beginning of the agenda, there was a request for a deferral. We deferred four items. The three items related to the subtext project, they've asked to have it reconsidered on May 19. And item six on the agenda, which is the sustainability ordinance on second reading. I saw some people walk in afterward. I just wanted to make that announcement again. For the record, everyone who's here, OK? Mr. Manager, your report, please.

Good evening. The beach volleyball court improvements at Dante Fussell Park are complete, and that court is now open for the public. Parks also has registration open for youth summer camp, lifeguard junior camp, which is for teens, as well as Grego's football and cheer programs. More information can be found on the printed manager's report or with our parks department. I also just wanted to clarify one item from the last manager's report as it relates to PD hiring. It indicated that there were zero applications received for sworn officers. But that's only because in the prior reporting period, there were 70 applications received for cadets. and 13 for sworn officers. So PD and HR were going through the process of reviewing those, and they had paused applications. So updated as of today, we have 50 sworn officers, and 51 is hopefully coming on board next week. So just to clarify that point, it's not because we're not receiving applications or moving through them. We have several applications. And I know that PD and HR are working very hard to get people on board as quickly as possible.

If you can remind me, Madam Manager, do we have in the report how many folks are in drop and when they're scheduled to roll off? So we have a few. I think it's three to five is my recollection.

I don't know if it's in that same report we had provided previously, but we can refresh that list. There's two. There's one that's already an officer and Assistant Chief Corbin is coming up in June. Those are the two that I remember offhand for this year.

I can circulate it.

Yeah.

I think just for the next one, we can kind of add a note just to address that so we know when those folks, how many we have in the program and what the dates that they're rolling off.

And we have, Mr. Mayor and Commission, we have four individuals that just graduated from the academy that are doing a little bit of their onboarding, and I met them today. So those are the ones that we were waiting for to graduate from the academy.

And those would be onboarded as 51, 2, and 3? No, they're part of the count for 50.

Yeah.

Okay, so they're part of the count for 50. Okay, but they're not yet on patrol.

They'll be at full staffing pretty soon, which is the conversation about the grant that we had and whether we trigger that because you can only do it when you're at full staffing and if we do a plus one.

Understood. Any questions of the manager regarding the report?

Commissioner Rodriguez, you're recognized. Really quick, regarding to the police officers, aside from the ones that are on the drop, have we lost any other or we've maintained everybody else? Nobody's left?

We very recently lost one officer, went to Miami Beach, or City of Miami.

City of Miami, okay. Thank you.

Further questions?

Sorry, further questions? Okay, seeing none, thank you, Madam Manager, for your report. Mr. City Attorney.

Just some very minor updates. We spoke about at the last of the Sunshine meeting the city hall status and the RFP on affordable housing. One other item, the CRA, the redevelopment plan that you all approved, that's sitting as a CRA, or not approved, approved the transmitted law to the county that has been transmitted to the county, and it will be going also before our own planning board next Tuesday.

Can I ask a question about that? They contacted George Frantz. Does it have to be to our LPA or theirs? I thought that was not delegated. I thought that was their province.

It was their province. We are getting feedback from them saying to take it to our LPA because that's what the statute requires. So there's a little bit of a disconnect. We were going to take it to our LPA anyway because it's in an abundance of caution.

I just don't understand that response because they're technically the governing body, the county commission.

It's only delegated to us through the interlocal. Yeah, I would add that their resolution says it goes to their PAV expressly.

I don't understand. Again, I don't have any... I don't have any aversion to our planning board seeing it, but it just seems to me that we need to get our story straight.

Yeah, we're going to be meeting, I believe, Madam Deputy Manager is setting up a meeting with the Commissioner's office.

I missed a call from George Fernandez, because they're a county commissioner still, but he called while I was in the meeting, so maybe we get a break, we can call him. It's not too late.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

Any further questions of the city attorney? No?

Okay. Let's move on then. We've got two discussion items, Madam Clerk. If you can read M1 and M2 for the record, please.

It's M1, Summer Commission and Budget Schedule, July Meetings. M2, Timing of Community Contribution and Sunset Welfare Amendments.

Okay. Let's take up the schedule quickly. Does everyone have a copy? Okay. Any questions regarding the dates? Again, we're looking at June 9th as being the only meeting in June, July 7th and 21st, and then August 18th as the sole meeting in August, and then budget hearings on the 8th and 22nd of September, as well as our regular city commission meeting. Commissioner Rodriguez, do you recognize me for a comment or question?

For July, do we just keep it to the 21st?

I think we need a trim meeting, correct, for July?

21st would be. Okay.

I'll be out the 7th.

At the last regular meeting we discussed this and I think the only month that was left That wasn't we're sure we're what day was was in June. The other days have pretty much been secured July or July. I love it. So yes on the 21st. We will be adopting first That'll be our budget workshop at 4 p.m Scheduled right now and then at night the adoption of the millage that will be advertised on the trim notice Just just with respect to the commission question

What are the dates we anticipate we're going to get the CRA items to come back? Because that's the only, I think those are the dates that, that's the one item that's going to, I guess, come back this summer. And so I'm trying to understand from a scheduling perspective, I just want to make sure that we're keeping that program on task. I have no problem canceling the July 7th meeting. Maybe we just preserve the June 23rd meeting as an option if we need it. No, you already have a conflict?

why don't we just okay we went through june already yeah we went through june okay yeah the meetings the meetings in june were combined into the ninth and that would also serve as a cip workshop and your commission meeting so you had combined as a as a cfo said the july 7th was the one that was in question i think and and that was a part of your discussion today since we can't touch july 21st

Okay. Do we anticipate to you or the city attorney needing to preserve the July 7th date to make sure we take up any items related to the CRA and or I think Sunset Place had some items that were possibly coming through as well.

I don't know if those are going to be ready. I was just discussing with Madam Clerk about the planning board meeting because we have to go to the planning board as well. So we'll have to reschedule that. The normal date for the planning board was June 9. So we would have to shift that date to hold the special meeting.

Or could they be virtual just for that one meeting?

They can't meet virtual, but we could change the time, have them meet before.

So we have a workshop, a CIP workshop that day. Also, what is it, 5 p.m.? 4 p.m. On June 9th, correct? Correct. That's why we combined meetings, commission meeting and workshop to do it on one, so you don't have to come back and forth multiple days. But the attorney pointed out about the planning board.

As far as the CRA, the CRA next week will be going to our planning board, which I believe is all that's needed.

We're going to confirm that with the county, but subject to confirmation from the county, if we have that, we could meet as a CRA.

When is it scheduled to go to the county commission or the county's planning board?

It is not. They have 60 days to act on it. If they don't, then it comes back to us. OK, four. Yeah, but we are, again, we're getting indication from them that they did not believe it needed to go to their PAV despite the express wording of their resolution.

So we expect, hopefully, if everything goes as planned in the planning, it'll be back before you in a resolution on June 9th, the CRA item. OK. And then it goes to the county.

OK. I'm fine with the schedule. I just, you know, we may, to preview things to come, we may have a request from Sunset Place, I think, to possibly take up a zoning modification. And I know their schedule was tracking late June to the middle of July. So my only concern is making sure we get the CRA adopted in place before the summer's over. OK. Anyone want to move the calendar as presented?

Just for clarification. So July 7th will be cancelled and we're going only with July 21st Whatever the will the body is do we want to cancel?

Yes, I would say yes because we I think we've got it Any objection if we if we need to call a meeting we will I mean but for now I have no problem canceling. Okay, so show the will show the schedule modified with the cancellation of the July 7th meeting

It doesn't show up here, so I think we'll move it.

It's highlighted in the back.

Oh, I'm looking at this.

Yeah, the circle meeting dates are here. I guess these are key dates that they've identified in the back. Okay. But the actual meeting dates are on the 2026 calendar. So we'll just show, again, so everyone's on the same page, us eliminating the July 7th date. Okay?

I'll move it.

We don't need a formal motion, correct, Madam Clerk?

I have a resolution at the next meeting with all the dates.

OK, fair enough. So we'll take it up then. Thank you. OK, if you can read, you've read M2, correct? Yes. OK. Mr. City Attorney, are you handling this presentation? Sure. OK.

And one of the proponents or the proponent team is here if you have any specific questions. But essentially, this is a proposal for modifications to the TSTD bonus provisions. Essentially, the way our code currently works is for public benefits that are not in-kind public benefits that are paid for. Those public benefits are due within 90 days of site plan approval. This is a proposal to extend that to 120 days. So that's part of this proposal, 120 days from site plan approval. The other side of this coin is our code has the TDR provisions. in connection with rehabilitation of structures that are already on Sunset Drive. The idea is to keep them small and to encourage reinvestment. And that money, the money that is spent on that, there's a formula to convert that into TDRs based on what they leave on the table that they don't take advantage of. And then they can convey those, they can sell those TDRs And those can be applied towards bonuses. The way it currently works in our code, you have to get all that done before you get site plan approval. This proposal would allow some time after site plan approval in order to get that done, basically to allow applicants to obtain site plan approval and then to encourage people to spend that, invest that money, and generate those TDRs so that they can purchase them and apply them. Ultimately, what it means in the big picture to the city is potentially less money in the city's coffers for public benefits, but also on the flip side, more money. This could encourage reinvestment on Sunset Drive, which I believe was an important factor for you all. So that's the summary. Happy to answer any questions you have.

Yeah, I'll just quickly build on that. It's my way of background. So one of the issues we have is when we drafted the TDR ordinance, frankly, it was not my intent to. We set up the district. We set up where they can go. I DID NOT REALIZE WHEN WE ADOPTED THAT WE WERE ACTUALLY REQUIRING US TO APPROVE THE USE OF THEM, RIGHT? I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO DECIDE FROM THE MENU OF PUBLIC BENEFITS OPTIONS WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO CHOOSE OPTION A, B, C, OR D. AND SO I THINK THIS LANGUAGE PUTS US CLOSER TO THAT WHICH IS AN OPEN MENU. and you can choose to satisfy your public benefit operations from any one of the available categories without having to come to the board and have that prescribed and done in conjunction with the site plan. So, you know, staff, when the project comes in for building permit, would verify that they've actually acquired the requisite public benefits before a permit's issued, right, consistent with the code. So that's the main change. I think the other thing is, you know, Working in the world of development, I understand that having to pay those fees at 90 or 120 days is burdensome, right? But I kind of view these as site acquisition costs, right? Where money's coming to us or money's going to a third party for the benefit of being able to use that additional real estate capacity. You know, I've heard from a number of sponsors that they like more time and like to pay a building permit. For me, that's not acceptable. It's too far down the road. I believe also, Mr. State Attorney, this proposal would allow people to satisfy or evidence that they've satisfied their public benefits contribution acquisition by presenting a contract to staff for all of the public benefits that are required or a portion to the use of TDRs. So it does also create an incentive for people to actually go and acquire the TDRs because they don't have to come out of pocket for the full amount of the public benefits, right? So that's the... Rationale behind the proposal it's both to encourage these seaters be acquired and also to Provide some modicum of relief in terms of the timing of the delivery of the payment Obviously the parties will contract privately on the TDR side whether that some payment is due immediately at contract execution or whatever later did they choose so Just want to add that by way of background for the discussion Let's start with you, Madam Vice Mayor. Sorry, gosh. Madam Commissioner.

You can call me Lisa.

I know, sorry. Old habits die hard.

Why is that so loud? So it's funny that this comes up after I've had a discussion on something similar. As we're all aware, there is a property on Sunset that has been and is being fixed up, made beautiful, whatever. And you just said something that I thought was very interesting, which is, They need to fix their properties to be able to sell their TDRs. Where they're making their money is on the TDR. I don't think that it was envisioned when this conversation happened for the repairs to happen to these buildings and then to raise the rent of the tenants to the point where they're choking on it to recoup that money. So I think we need to be a little bit more aware, I don't know if that's the right word, that The idea that was had may not be the reality of what is happening. And the tenants are feeling the squeeze. And I don't know if that's on purpose by mistake. I wouldn't guess for them. I just think that something that looked like it might have been an amazing benefit and it would have helped not only the facades but the shopkeepers is not helping the shopkeepers. In my opinion, we all know I was not a fan of the TDRs, but now I feel like that's insult to injury because the same things you're trying to preserve may be the very same thing that you lose first. I don't need an Abercrombie & Fitch. I don't need an Ann Taylor. I don't need any of those things. Similar to what we have, I want to be able to go to my dog room or to my jewelry salon, to my jewelry store, to all of those things. If we don't figure out, I think, a smart way to balance this, we're going to see this over and over again. Because you have to make the improvements first before you can sell the TDRs. So you're making these improvements, you're pushing whatever the cost is to the tenants, hoping that your TDRs will sell. But in the meantime, they're suffering. I don't know if that was the intent.

I don't know that... I mean, we had a long conversation about this when we talked about the policy, right? What can we do to stop landlords from being, you know, excessively aggressive with the rents? And the truth is, there's really not much, right? So I think we had that conversation ad nauseum when we discussed this initially. You know, I think just like it's hard to dictate, you know, what someone does with their private property as to a particular use, whether they want to have student housing or they want to have market rate housing or sell for sale product or, you know, have affordable housing, right? It's hard to tell people what to do with their individual tendencies. You know, I would hope that If they're getting a benefit from the ability to use, you know, latent rights and improve the capital facility they're building, that they don't have to try to recoup all that investment on rents. But, you know, the goal here was to preserve, I mean, what we're trying to preserve was the aesthetic and the context, operating context on Sunset Drive. I don't know that it's possible for us to preserve every one of the tenancies.

No, not even the tenancies.

Yeah.

It's like, to me, it's as tone deaf as Marie Antoinette letting me cake.

I don't, yeah, I don't. It's one opinion.

Well, think about it. Think about it. You're getting, you know what? You're getting it here, and then you're getting it here.

I mean, I think the reason we require the improvements is so that they don't get a benefit and never reinvest back into the building. Yes. And have the buildings obviously suffer wage because, correct. So that's why there's that nexus. But I understand the sensitivity. I don't know. I'm open to an idea how to address it. And again, this is a discussion item. So that's what we're here for. Yes, sir.

No. So when, and I remember because we worked on it to make these five requirements. The purpose of this was we're giving all these other blocks additional height, a ridiculous amount of height. But Sunset Drive, we wanted to keep the small town feel to it, keep it at two stories. And this was an incentive so when the eventual design of this sunset neighborhood is done or sunset drive so that place urban center whatever whatever it becomes is brand new that all these other building owners or property owners on sunset drive didn't really tell us well you didn't give us anything too bad we're not touching our building so the incentive was and now yeah it becomes a double-edged sword i guess at this point But I don't think that it was kind of like letting me cake either. What we were trying to do is incentivize them to rehab their building. And by the way, they were all against the fact that they had to put up the money first. They dealt with it because they got the TDRs at the end, but it wasn't like they wanted that. They wanted to basically say, we get our TDRs, and then once we get them, we'll do the rehab. No, it was do the rehab first, put up the money, and it was even get a CO first. So close your permit and then you're eligible for the TDRs in order to upgrade all these buildings on Sunset Drive so then when we do the placemaking, the new Sunset Place area comes to life, we have a vibrant new Sunset Drive. Like the mayor said, yeah, it sucks that they're raising the rents, but how do we control that? You know, trust me, I don't want to lose footworks, you know, for, like you said, an Ann Taylor or whatever comes in, for example, or, you know, Foot Locker, whatever. But it's hard to, I guess it's hard to eat your cake and have your cake and eat anything. Yes, here you go. More cake metaphors. Yes.

Anybody else? Mr. Chair, I guess what you're looking for is feedback.

Mr. Chair, I guess what you're looking for is feedback. So whether we should take this to the planning board for discussion?

That's the, yeah. Whether we should take it and then if we're going to take it, if there's any comments to.

Anything we'd like to modify or add as it was presented, correct? Correct. Colleagues, do we want to make a referral? What's the pleasure of the board?

What do we feel about the 120 days versus what we had before the 90 days? I don't understand what 30 days are going to do.

A little bit more time to come up with the cash, honestly. Again, this is not the last time we're going to see it. The question is we can send it over, come back, and choose to make the modification or not make it.

What's the standard there? Is there any standards out there in other municipalities or counties?

So I would tell you in other jurisdictions where people pay plenty of benefits, they probably pay them concurrent with getting their building permit. So ours is probably a little bit atypical and more aggressive in terms of the timing.

That's accurate.

Yes, sir. You're right. I'm sorry. And I have a question and the reason we're sending it to the planning board is for them.

To consider an ordinance modification planning, we're going to look at any land development regulation and give a recommendation to this commission. Right.

Okay. With us saying we would prefer the 120 or the 90 or.

Why don't we anything under the sun that comes back to us from that word? Correct.

They would, they would make the recommendation. Right. Yeah, so what are we deciding? We're just deciding to send it to them?

All we're deciding is whether we want to send it or not or whether we want to kill this baby in the crib. That's basically it. Oh, okay.

There, that's the answer I was looking for. No problem. Okay, so we either kill it or we send it to the planet, right? Correct, yes.

Yes, Commissioner Bonic.

There's one thing that if we talked about it, I missed it. It says, specific to TDRs, the revision proposes to clarify that eligible properties may consist of portions outside of the Sunset Drive buffer area. What does that mean?

There are certain properties that have a piece inside the sunset buffer and... Our recollection, can you tell us where the boundary is for the sunset buffer area?

Absolutely.

So the sunset buffer area is mid-block. Mid-block, sunset, coming down to 73rd, imagine right down the middle of the block. So there are some properties... To the alley. To the, well, where there's an alley. Okay. Where there's an alley.

Just for, okay.

Correct, correct. But yes, yes, roughly where the alley is. If you were to extend the alley all the way to 57th Avenue. So there are some properties, at least one property, that extends well past that, all the way to 73rd. So those properties, that they would not be ineligible simply because they weren't able to, that they... Yeah, that they would not be ineligible simply because they have property outside of that. Now, I think this may go one step further and say that it's money that was spent on that property because it's all part of the same property. For the bonus of that, an applicant shall be entitled to achieve its bonus floor area through any of the means described above. No, I'm sorry. I'm reading from the front.

So Madam Commissioner, I think just to build on the City Attorney's comment. The question is, you have one building, right, that is in the buffer area, but the building, it's all one integrated unit, one integrated building, but a portion is outside. If they're improving the entirety of the building, should they get credit for the improvements made to the portion outside the buffer area? I think that the effect of the change would be to allow them to get credit for the improvements to that as well. So they could sell more TDRs.

Okay.

But the TDRs, again, to clarify, are they calculated based on the totality of the property or just the square footage within the buffer area?

They should only be based on the buffer area to the extent that this goes further.

It would not change the amount of TDRs that you can sell? It would just allow them to, assuming, claim more of them sooner?

It might allow them to claim more of them sooner because of an investment into the property. Okay.

Okay.

Do you have another question? I'll just go down the line. Mr. Vice Mayor.

I guess I just had a question. How does that help us accomplish our goal for the character on Sunset Drive if we give them more outside of Sunset Drive?

I'll let someone answer if you want. Nick, you can answer. Yes, you're welcome to. You're recognized, sir.

Good? Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Commissioners. Nick Noto from the law firm of Bills and Sundberg. Keep in mind, this would increase the buffer area that we can use for TDRs beyond to the mid block where the alley is, because there's buildings going across it. In order to utilize this program, you have to place a restrictive covenant across the property, to your question, Vice Mayor Corey, preserving the building form at at what it currently is right so this preserves kind of the the low-rise two-story um existing structure of sunset and that that covenant would apply to the entire property that would be utilized for the tdr program so so it does but it would preserve more than just the area within the buffer if we're using more than what's in the buffer and i'll defer to city attorney on that, but that was my understanding of the change.

I think the result of what we have right now is you're going to have a property burdened by the requirements without any correspondent benefit because a portion of it's outside the footprint of the buffer area. Am I expressing myself correctly? Yes. Okay.

Yes, ma'am, you recognize, can you give examples of who this could be? What buildings?

Well, definitely the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the,

Or they have, I believe.

The only others I would tell you are, the bank does not run, well, the bank does run the 73rd. That's what I was saying. The bank, yes. The bank, that's right.

Those would be the two that would be beneficial. But would that restrict the bank from building up on 73rd?

If they chose to. Again, they have the option.

So yeah, just to clarify, they are restricted in terms of how high they can go on sunset.

They're not restricted outside the buffer area.

Correct.

They are not restricted outside the buffer area. If they're choosing to keep it, they are imposing the limitation. They're giving up something. They're giving it up, and therefore, we're trying to give them the benefit of foregoing that additional envelope. So that would be true for, thank you for clarifying. I forgot about the bank, but the bank building does run the 73rd. So remember the back parking lot near Boogie's. But they do have that portion. So essentially, they could go, I think, to six stories there? Yes. Right? So they would be foregoing going to six stories in exchange using the envelope. Four stories. Four stories for sellable TDRs instead. That's right.

So just so that I understand though, this is just for like a continuous building that goes back? So all, but then all the other properties on 73rd wouldn't have the benefit of this option? No, just these two properties.

Just the ones that are integrated integral. I don't know if the right word is buildings, right? Single buildings. Contiguous, maybe? Not really. I don't know if that's right.

Anyways. Yes, sir. So I would say for the crossroads, If you want to keep and maintain a two-story on turning on 57th and turning on 73rd to not just have a big building there, this would be a good option. But then, to me, my opinion, contrary on the bank building, I don't think it works well there because I think in the back they can put something, you know, I don't know, we're restricting the bank building or bank owners to do the option. We're not.

It would give them the option. It would give them the option. They're not required to. So they're, again, you can just bring those buildings or portions that are outside the buffer area into the footprint of the TDR program.

yeah so so they have it's just an option that they can they want to take or not they can yeah they want to preserve the front half and sever it close it off and then build a new building from the midline back they can do that to the maximum level i i think if crossroads want to do it and they want to maintain with the two-story height on 57th right there i mean that's that's their

My discussions with the bank ownership is they want to keep the bank's structure. They're just going to modify it and restore it. That's what they've been communicating to me in my private conversations. So it could be that we have that building treated the same way. But we'll see what happens. Again, we don't have to decide all these issues today. We'll get another bite of the apple. The question is, do we want to refer it to the planning board?

I'll move it to the planning board. We have to move it?

Any objections to sending it to the planning board?

Okay, seeing no, let's just consider it referred. I don't need to think we can take a vote on it. Okay. Madam Clerk, if you can read N1, please.

Yes. Richard Rick Urban has been appointed by Mayor Fernandez to the Design Review Board as per City Charter Article 2, Section 8A for a two-year term ending May 5, 2028. Okay, great.

Colleagues, move on to Items 1 and 2, which are consent agenda items. Anyone have any questions regarding Items 1 or 2? Okay, Madam Clerk, if you can read Items 1 and 2 into the record, please.

Yes, Item 1, a resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Southland reported that Agnes Squire patent bonds as specialized bond and disclosure legal counsel for the City Hall Redevelopment Project. authorizing the city manager to execute a retainer agreement with Squire Patent Box for the legal services. Item 2, a resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, selecting Policinelli as specialized legal counsel in connection with a request for proposals for a mixed-use affordable housing project on city-owned property located at 5890 Southwest 69th Street, authorizing the city manager to execute a retainer agreement with Policinelli for the legal services.

Thank you. Colleagues, is there a motion to adopt item 1 and 2? I'll move the motion.

I'll second.

I'll give a motion by Commissioner Rodriguez, a second by Commissioner Bonich. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez. Yes. Commissioner Kagan. Yes. Commissioner Bonich. Yes. Vice Mayor Corey. Yes. Mayor Fernandez. Yes. I'll send an agenda pass 5-0.

If you can read item 7, please.

Yes. Item 7, an ordinance of the Mayor's City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, amending Article 8, Transit Supportive Development District, to amend regulations to provide new definitions, clarify existing provisions, and modify procedures and criteria within the Transit Supportive Development District.

Thank you. Mr. Albers, I think this is your item. Good evening, sir.

Good evening, Mayor, Good evening, Commission. Mark Alvarez, the coordinator group, staff, Miami planning staff. Yes, there we go. So this is an item of, we're calling it an omnibus, some cleanup, some clarifications that have come through as we've enacted, as we've approved developments with the TSTD, we found a number of things that need to be clarified or adjusted. Starting with the first section, there are some definitions. Most of them refer back to other changes we're making except one, which would be alley. It's more of a clarification. We know that some properties do have the alley on the side. That's actually up by 68th. We have that situation. The alley northwest of Commerce. One of the things we wanted to clarify was the off-campus student department. We had a long discussion about how to measure bedroom sizes. And with the commission, we had decided to measure bedroom sizes individually, but a lot of conversation about ensuite bathrooms and closets. Through two of the proposals that have come through, one has done that, one has not, and we also find that it's a very difficult thing as we go through the permitting process to note, to be sure that those bedrooms will stay the same sizes. So we are proposing a different method, and the method is actually following what we do in the multifamily residential. In multifamily, we take the whole apartment, we divide by the number of bedrooms, and that is our standard. So here we're following the same methodology. The added column on the table for Section 20-8.4 is for student housing. And we're taking basically the same methodology. It's about 100 to 150 square feet smaller for student housing. And we take the entire area of the apartment. We divide it by the number of bedrooms. And that's what we would use. And we feel more certain than as this goes through permitting that we would We're going to have the same apartment sizes, so we don't have to worry about walls moving internally to the apartments. So that's one of the changes, and that's something that we would like to, we're really promoting that as staff because it would be much easier and more reliable to go forward with that. And the diagram kind of shows you what we're doing. We're taking the entire area, dividing it by bedrooms, same as multifamily, and then right now what's in the code would require us to take each bedroom, combine it with the bathrooms, and kind of add all those areas together. The second change is we are removing adult entertainment from the uses section, from the non-residential uses section. It occurs right now under entertainment uses in category C. It will be removed. There is another ordinance tonight about adult entertainment that will regulate that in the future. Since adult entertainment is also closely allied with nightclub uses, there's been language added to the code to exclude it explicitly from nightclub uses, again, because we're going to have an ordinance right after this that will address the Adult entertainment and so these are these are both tracking together first and second ordinance We can't write it in right now because we don't know what will be decided for adult entertainment We would presumably put it into the code. So it will be codified Yeah I can go on without the slides. OK, there we go. So for parking, we have gone through a number of approvals. And thank you, Commissioner Bonnich, for reminding us that scooters count, electric scooters, electric bikes. And it turns out, actually, we were collecting some data on student housing. And the Vox 1 and Vox 2, we got there not the requirement, but the demand for bicycle and electric scooters. And electric scooters double what pedal bicycles are in each case. So we know we're doing the right thing on this one. And we are, oh, we went back, sorry. I'm just going to keep going with it if we can't get it to. So we're changing the language in that from we're basically striking bicycles and riding in personal mobility device, or PMD, everywhere in that table and in that section. So the bicycle counts would apply to personal mobility devices, electric scooters, electric bikes, anything that one person rides around.

Your question? Mr. Roberts, we have a question from Commissioner Bonnich. Yes.

How are we going to deal with that when it comes to electricity? Because they have to plug in.

We have added into that that such a bicycle room would have electrical service a rate of one to four. In other words, for every four PMDs, there would be some kind of outlet. That probably needs a little refinement, because as it goes through building code, but we wanted to put something in the code as a placeholder for that, realizing that you have to charge them.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. Okay, so along with this and it's not in your package So I want to advise you that this is something that we meant to put in but we did not make it for the for the package on the first reading One of the things that's been difficult for us has been that the bicycle regulations, the bicycle requirement is based on the parking requirement. So as you know, with TSDD, we wanted to reduce parking and over time probably reduce car parking and increase bicycle parking. And tying those two together didn't make sense. And most any other jurisdiction will have bicycles per development unit. So we're switching that, which you see there, again, this is not in your package right now, but we would add it if you're interested. approve us to do that, we have taken the bicycle count, which is generally 1 to 10 or 1 to 15 car spaces, worked that through the numbers on the car parking, and kind of come to a number, and then rounded it one way or the other. In some cases, we found those numbers to be kind of far out of sync to what other jurisdictions do. And one of the places that that happens is in residential. Right now we require with the parking and everything. We're requiring one bicycle space per 15 residential units That's kind of far to the low side Very urban New York does one to two Less urban in Broward County. We found Pembroke Pines of all places has a one to five So we're proposing one to three as a sort of compromise. We're fairly urban, but I And again, keeping in mind that most of the bicycle requirement isn't very burdensome, most of that's occurring in the sort of off spaces of the garages that are not usable for cars. So we haven't had, even when we required a lot, we have not had a lot of pushback on bicycle parking because it's fairly easy to provide. The other one that needed some adjustment was the the student housing bicycle parking in the other direction is was very We asked for a lot of bicycle parking and we've made an adjustment to that based on Looking at dormitories and because there's not a lot of off-campus student housing uses that we can find regulations for, but based on dormitories and across the street from our Vox 1 and Vox 2, they come up to about 1 to 10. So for every one unit, I'm saying that wrong, for every 10 units, one bicycle space or PMD space as it is. So this is an add-on, and if you wish to include it for going to the second reading, we would work with that. Second, the other issue is open space. So we've had some issues and discussions about what we call vertical encroachment. In other words, if we have open space, do we want to allow the building to go over it? The first part of that has a situation where the open space has nothing to do at all with a bonus. We bounced it back and forth and decided that the best option on this would be to look at each situation and include it as a waiver. So in other words, if there is an open space that has no connection to a bonus and that the applicant has an attractive project that works well for the commission and that situation and everything that's going on, it would be available for a waiver. which is a fairly simple grant for encroached open space. And there you see the Student Commons at the university has that going on. And that one is actually in Ohio State. It's the Knowlton Center for Architecture. It's where I graduated. So So anyway, and there are many examples I think you can walk around the lake at University of Miami and see a lot of buildings that come over their open space And they're fairly attractive, especially if the height is very high up. So that's been included There's been a greater emphasis to divide public open space and private open space. They were not well Stated as being very distinct and now the changes There's a lot of small word changes in there to make sure that those are really terms of art in our open space plan The second situation is when the open space relates to a bonus and then all of the issue about waiver goes away We are proposing that it's strictly not allowed where there's a bonus that's applied forth with that open space and this is probably better with a picture so On the left, we would have a building without an encroachment. The green part would be the required open space. The blue part would be an application for open space for a bonus. And the light blue floor on the top is the bonus. Once that gets encroached, on the right side, The building is coming over it at the third floor, and it's now sort of red squares. What we look at is, well, now the green part, the required open space, has to displace some of what used to be the bonus open space. It has to move over into that bonus. And so there's less bonus available. So the way we worded it and the way we're hoping we worded it is that under no circumstances can any encroached open space apply to a bonus, whether it's applying to the base amount or to the bonus amount. street hierarchy plan we have and we again I will go over this a little later but that was inadvertently two three paragraphs were left out of what's in your package that addressed this but we have continuously realized that we have a requirement to dedicate the additional right-of-way that we need to accomplish the landscape and the sidewalk and the streets that we want In the case of a county road or a state road, we don't want to dedicate it because it doesn't belong to us and we don't control it. So we have in each of the developments that have come through accepted easements instead and we've brought that before the commission for the approvals. We want to codify that basically. So that's also been included that whenever it's a state or county road, we use an easement instead of a dedication. And and this is sort of an example. This is from a prior Approval that's now past us and you can see that you know there's we're always asking for what comes down to about five feet in most cases and If that one was on a county road, so it was an easement But if it had been on a city road, it would be a dedication in that little space that five foot space.

I

Also, we have similar to this situation on the street hierarchy. I know this has building, location, massing, and form, but this relates together. On our street hierarchy, we had a number of streets that did not have any designation at all, neither primary nor secondary. They usually occurred at the edges, the backs TSN a proper blocks 57th Court which we've been talking about 62nd Court which we've talked about in the past all those had no designation again we've had no problem with each approval working with the applicants to get what we want on those streets and the kinds of facades that we want on those streets but again to be certain that we want to make sure that we have this codified. And right now, it actually affects the ones that we've seen so far. I checked through to the south on 74th Street and 76th where they're actually included in the plan.

So we don't need it there.

But again, we want to be safe and make sure that we address those streets. The issue of floor plate. So we have a regulation that's to control a very generic regulation that was intended to control massing on towers. We discussed this at great length during the zoning. And we decided that a 20,000 square foot floor plate would do the job for us. And we would allow waivers on oddly shaped blocks or on certain blocks that were six stories with certain uses. There is a problem with the word floor plate. Floor plate in the building code means it can be connected. It's all one building as it appears, but it's separated by firewalls and fire doors. So we're changing that to contiguous building floor area long term, but we don't want to use floor plate. And a contiguous building floor area would have to be entirely separate buildings with, again, just as a placeholder, an air gap of 10 feet. A small thing in the code that we shall receive a question from you. Sorry.

I just wanted to confirm So it is a gap of 10 feet that goes all the way down Correct all the way to the ground all the way to the ground.

Yeah well No, not the way this is being written. Excuse me. We're thinking of two different things. But for that code, as we're amending it, it would be all the way down to the fourth floor. So I know there's going to be a separate item that we're going to have to discuss when we get to the six-story buildings. But for this case, we wanted to change that word floor plate to something else.

Can we just, if I could just put the question more bluntly, which is how would this impact the application that was deferred earlier today? If this provision was adopted, they're now seeking a variance to allow for the continuous floor plate. How would the adoption of these rules on second reading impact that applicant, either positively or negatively?

It would be harder. First of all, they would not work under the word floor plate anymore. They would have to separate, in that case, a garage. And tell me if I'm saying something I shouldn't. They would have to separate a garage from the habitable areas by at least 10 feet. Still only on the fifth and sixth floor based on this piece We also I'm jumping ahead three slides But we would also how we propose that there will be a waiver Instead of the variance and that more addresses the idea that we have to go through a variance which is a very difficult process to approve The last piece that would be necessary, I think, in a lot of people's minds, and stop me if I say something, would be that we would want to have the waiver go with the process that we would decide. We'd have to have more discussion. We'd have to decide what that floor plate will be, or not floor plate, contiguous building floor area would be. It would go down to the ground, and we would have a space, some kind of a space between the buildings. In other words, we would cut the long blocks. In pieces, and this will occur not only on the red road project, but also. South of 74th street, we would have a number of blocks that could assemble into 600 600 foot long blocks. So it's something that we should have a discussion on, but we don't have that in this right now. We have two of the pieces.

Yeah, if I could expound upon it, please. The concept is so right now. what he is describing is a clarification of what our existing code is so far, the provision that he's gotten, which is you have a floor plate limitation above the fourth floor. It's a different term that Mr. Alvarez is proposing just to clarify, to distinguish it further from the building code. We don't apply the building code definition. We apply what he is describing anyway. So that would be a restriction on that plate on any portion of the structure that is above the fourth floor. The second thing that he described, which was allowing for a waiver of that, to allow that to get bigger, one of the concepts that we have been considering is for the criteria for getting that waiver, they would allow you to get more than 20,000 square feet, up to some number. But then the trade-off is you've got to bring that separation all the way down to the ground. So you want to do a bigger building, a bigger floor plate than you're allowed to do? Great. We'll let you do it, but you've got to bring a separation all the way down to the ground. That would be the give and take. Please.

You're recognized. Sorry, sorry. No problem. It's not what I asked earlier? Yes. I just wanted to explain. But you said it was only up to the fourth floor. Right.

What's in front of you right now, what the three different changes in the code, and we've got two of them in here right now.

Yeah, so this is what's existing. We're just rewriting it, and then we're going to bring a new aspect to it, which is go all the way to the ground.

Right, when you go over a certain size.

And we haven't picked that size yet.

We can discuss that this evening.

All right. Thank you. Certainly.

Yes, Madam Commissioner, you're recognized.

Okay. So as it stands right now, I just am trying to visualize it. Ground to fourth floor, just changing the verbiage, we can have something long and the floor plate smaller when you get to the top, you know, five, six, seven, whatever it is.

Correct.

Okay. The second thing that we're saying is, hey, forget this now. We already know what that means. If you want a bigger floor plate, then we're going to make you give the 10 feet all the way down to the ground.

That will be a proposal, yes.

Okay.

Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you.

Very small item for sustainable buildings almost every application comes in with a lead Equivalent and we have our code is silent about who gets to decide that The code is not silent in the bonus section is the city manager and we're correcting this to be the city manager Building elevations, we have two things. One was to quantify. We don't allow mirror glass on our buildings. It was a small movement towards bird safe. We wanted to not have bird safe in the code because it's very complicated. And that we're adding a definition, which would be 15% reflectance value or less. So in other words, no mirror glass. And it's actually not a good idea for pedestrian kind of streets, because you can't see in. So there's no points of interest inside. Also, we have had a number of applications where the question was asked, You know the way the code is written where you have to have glazing requirements on It's just no mission on the code glazing requirements on the driveways and on the back of the house We've clarified that so of course you don't need glazing requirements on back of house or the driveways or delivery entrances And then on building encroachments, again, just easier with this diagram, there's been some confusion in the way the code was written as to the encroachments can exceed the build to line, in other words, where the building goes to, or the property line. It is the property line, and we're correcting the language in there to make sure it's clear that it's the property line. So again, this was a prior approved project. It does have some balconies. They go up to the property line. And finally, what I just discussed before, we have a provision in the waiver section that would include the contiguous floor area I can't even say it all the time, like a floor plate, to allow that to go through a waiver instead of a variance. And again, that piece is more because a variance is a very difficult thing to go through that process. Those are all the changes. I know the big question is the six-story blocks, and we would need one more piece to that, which would be a policy decision. I guess it would have to be referred back to the planning board to go through a, I mean, no, yes? I don't believe.

So I think the planning board already saw the concept of adding this as a waiver. So my thinking is that if you're modifying the criteria for that waiver, that's well within the context of the title and what they reviewed.

OK. That's it. We'll take your referrals on the question items.

Colleagues, any questions for Mr. Alvarez?

I'm sorry, Mayor. There was one more clarification that Mr. Alvarez brought to my attention. In section 20-8.9a, there were two provisions in the street hierarchy plan that were inadvertently deleted from the version in your agendas. They basically dealt with whenever you're on a state road, instead of requiring a dedication, we would take an easement so that we have control over that area. And the other one, these are more minor things, wherever there's a cross section, let's say on a county or a state road, wherever there's a required cross section, if that conflicts with ours, that the manager can modify what the requirements are just to meet both.

And I'm sorry, I wasn't actually concluded. John reminded me of the last slide. We have an error, kind of a picture Scrivener's error, that occurred when we first did the map on the TSDD. We included two of the Baptist Hospital properties. Those were approved by plan unit developments, PUDs, and we can't rezone those. So we're going to remove those from the map, and it's the ones that are outlined in blue. Thank you.

Thank you. OK, colleagues. I do as well. So do we want to try and dispense with this item, then we'll take a quick break? Okay. Is there a motion on item seven? Yes, sir, you're recognized.

Wouldn't we have to decide on what that maximum floor plate is going to be before we make a motion? There's no maximum. If they go over 20, they just have to cut down all the way to the floor, whatever structure it is. So what is the maximum that we're going to allow for them to go? 50,000? 30,000?

Or is there a linear dimension that we have as a maximum?

We do not currently have a linear dimension. That's one way to look at it, right? Instead of a floor plate, it's whenever there's a linear dimension longer than 200 feet, 250 feet, whatever that happens to be, so that you get a break for that long span.

Travers, how big is the typical block in South Miami in the TSTD? How long is it?

They vary, but when we were doing the code, we were basing it on a 300-foot block concept. So we're dealing with a 550-foot block and some potential 600.

I think 300 feet would be the outer limit that I would suggest that, right?

So you're saying at the 300 feet? At the 300-foot mark, yeah.

My point is I wouldn't go beyond 300 feet. Oh, I agree with that. The question is do we want something shorter or not? And again, I want to ask this procedural question. I do not want members of the public who are not here now to accuse us of changing the rules in the middle of the game to do an applicant a favor. I am concerned about the confluence of this conversation with the other application that is pending. if we were to adopt this on second reading, right, that, you know, the next meeting or one in June, is that applicant able to modify their application to conform with these standards? I just want this commission to act with full knowledge as to what the impacts may be on that pending application.

So if we, if they have, if there has not been a final disposition of their application and we modify and we get through second reading, they can, they could modify their application. They could take advantage of the new

So I just want to make sure that whatever we do as a board, you're comfortable with the fact that they could come in and activate the site consistent with these changes, right?

Yeah, they would have to redesign the whole thing.

They would. It might happen anyways, right? It sounds like they're heading in that direction based on the fact that they're not making quite the progress I think they had hoped, but... I just want, again, and I think we should, if we do this, I think we should telegraph to the neighbors that this is happening. And they will have that option, right? So I just don't want anyone to feel like we're kind of catching people unaware with this regulatory change. So I just want to get that out there. I'm sorry, Madam. Madam Commissioner, you had a comment?

I just keep thinking about the conversation we just had of the 300 feet. We're looking at a regular block at being 300 feet, and I get that. But in a regular block, you have so many changes happening. Think of how many storefronts fit on 300 feet. So I think that to say if you've got a contiguous block that's more than 300 feet, you have 300 feet to make the break, I don't think that that's really getting you guys where I think you want to be. I think if you're saying, hey, you've got 550, you've got 600, then you've got to see a break, I think, before the 300, because if not, then you've got these big squares, no?

Again, I just ask the question so we know what the typical condition is of what a full block parcel looks like. It's 300 feet on one side. If you wanted to say, we said 200 as one number. If we wanted to, so 66% of the block can only be on one face occupied by a single monolithic structure, that's fine. I mean, it kind of gets to the concern people have about Avalon Bay being A big box. A big box, right? So... very active now, big box, but yes, a big box nonetheless. So again, where do we want to land that conversation?

I'm not necessarily, I think, the right person to make that decision because I think you guys have a different vision than what I would.

Or what would you recommend?

250, 200, what's the right? I think instead of saying the block can be up to 300, I think if we say that the block, a block over 300 would divide itself into, and that allows the architects some freedom to move that division around on the block.

But over 300 would still allow someone with a 300 foot linear block to have a 300 foot linear mass on one side, correct?

Or we could say it would be over 300, we have to have two. What I'm trying to get at is maybe not getting a definite length, but try to do a little more math in there. That triggers some breaks.

Maybe make it 250 then to...

I'll say E200. I'm going to say this. Maybe this needs to marinate another meeting. I don't know. And we can bring it back with your recommendation. Like a good number. And with some examples of what the standard is elsewhere. What creates a good urban condition. Okay. I don't know that we need to do this immediately, right? So I prefer to kind of get that recommendation with some standards adopted elsewhere. Okay. So we know with typical block conditions, maybe some other urban cores, and see how we break it up. But that's just my thought. Did you want to ask something else?

May I? Yes, you're recognized. I think we should also put it in the record that what we're doing here is we're cleaning up current zoning things that we've found as we've gone, we're not trying to do it because of one specific person who just so happens to coincidentally be doing a project in which we're talking about this very thing. So we're just doing cleanup. We're not really trying to modify for a certain developer.

There's multiple issues here, but that's one. And I want to be sure that we're not, again, perceived as doing something to change the rules after the fact, correct?

And this would be applicable to other properties in the TSTD, to other blocks?

I would recommend that we move to defer this item to May 19th.

I'm fine.

Okay. Is there a second? Second. Okay. So we have a motion by myself, a second by Commissioner Rodriguez. Let's show this item deferred without objection to May 19th. Okay. Let's read Item 8, please. Wait, no. I'm sorry. Yes, ma'am. Oh, you need, yes, my apologies. I forgot. So if we could take a five-minute recess. Thank you.

I thought you had something to say.

No. I'm sorry.

Recording in progress.

Hey, good evening. We're now back in session. Madam Clerk. Guys, are you ready?

Okay.

Madam Clerk, if you please read item A in the record.

Item 8, an ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South New Florida amending section 20-8.2 definitions and section 20-8.5 permitted and special non-residential uses of Article 8 transit supported development district of the land development code to revise regulations related to adult entertainment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Mr. City Attorney, you're recognized to present the item.

Thank you, Mayor. So the adult entertainment uses, so Right now, it is treated in our code as a conditional use. That's what was in our code and requires 1,000 foot spacing between it and uses such as parks, schools, religious facilities. following our adoption of the TSTD code with that provision in it. We received several letters, actually, regarding some constitutional infirmities that were alleged in our code and in the language, specifically that if you apply the requirements of our code, that 1,000-foot spacing and requiring it that it only be in the TODA sub-district, there is no real physical place where you can actually locate it. There are constitutional issues with that. There was the allegation, essentially, The dancing, and specifically nude dancing, these are constitutionally protected speech. The Supreme Court has recognized that. So to the extent that we were essentially prohibiting it, we were concerned enough about it to address it. And the result after several months of our own internal review and of bringing it to the planning board several times is the ordinance which you see before you. What it does is it moves adult entertainment from a conditional use to a permitted use, but subject to several requirements. The first requirement is that it it occur only in conjunction with a full-service restaurant, that that establishment front either on Progress Road or on Commerce Lane, the reason we chose that is because that is particularly the most CURRENTLY THE MOST INDUSTRIAL AREA OF OUR CITY. I WOULD SAY IT'S THE INDUSTRIAL AREA OF OUR CITY, EXCEPT THOSE ARE EXISTING USES. THAT'S NOT REALLY THE FUTURE OF THIS AREA ACCORDING TO OUR TSTD PLAN. BUT IT IS THE MOST LIKE THAT, AND IT'S THE MOST APT TO STAY THAT WAY FOR SOME TIME. additional conditions. It can only be accessible to pedestrians and vehicles from Progress Road or Commerce Lane, so it cannot have any kind of opening to any other street. The structure's entrance and exit is at least 400 lineal feet from the pedestrian entrance to any public charter or private school or a day nursery. public library or public park and that's measured as a linear path of travel but someone would actually walk uh that was when it was presented to the planning board that was 300 feet that was increased to 400 feet based on their input they had requested it be it'd be more uh we have our we have concerns about making it more than that uh as it would further restrict the area of the of uh where these can go and there there's just there's a level where it has to be uh potentially feasible to locate the use. Whether commercially a potential user can locate it, within that area is a different question. The Constitution does not guarantee them a place to do it. But we can't cut off all places to do it. And we can't make it so restrictive that, hey, that you can only do it in this one tiny spot. So we've provided two streets. We believe that that would pass constitutional muster. Alcoholic beverages would have to be, to the extent that they're served, would have to comply with our code obviously. Any signage would have to be oriented towards Progress or Progress Road or Commerce Lane. The signage is not to be visible from any other public right of way. The exterior paint colors would be muted. they would have to avoid any kind of colors like neon, fluorescent, day glow, anything that attracts too much attention or is garish or is out of compatibility with the businesses around it. In terms of outdoor lighting, the lighting would have to be oriented downward, shielded, so as not to create a problem for other properties. All of these things are meant to combat what the Supreme Court has recognized as secondary effects of this type of use. That's where we can restrict and we can place restrictions. So they are all intended to implement THOSE LIMITATIONS TO ADDRESS POTENTIAL SECONDARY EFFECTS. SO AMONG THOSE, CONTINUE WITH THE CONDITIONS. THE NEXT CONDITION IS THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT HAS TO EMPLOY A PRIVATE SECURITY OR AN OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER UP TO 8 PM And thereafter, until closing, they would have to provide three of those. They would have to basically address loitering, disturbing the peace, or basically serve as a deterrent in the area, also to stop people from parking on properties that are not the establishment properties. It would require site plan approval by the development service director after taking it to the DRB, but specifically to address configuration of the parking, the site access, the paint, the colors, the signage, the lighting, not the use itself, but all of these other effects of the construction. And then in terms of the hours of operation, THE REQUIREMENT AS PRESENTLY DRAFTED IN FRONT OF YOU IS FROM SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, WE'RE PROPOSING HOURS OF 3.30 PM TO 5 AM THE FOLLOWING DAY AND FRIDAY AND SATURDAY FROM 3.30 PM TO 7 AM THE FOLLOWING DAY. And then during any of the adult entertainment hours of operation, all patrons would have to be 21 years or older. And last but not least, well, there would be the windows have to be treated to fully obscure view into the structure to the extent that there are windows. And then lastly, this was an addition from the planning board comments, that an establishment providing adult entertainment shall be located no closer than 500 feet to another establishment providing adult entertainment. That was based on their input. They had actually proposed 750 feet, which I am not averse to. If you'd like to increase that, we can certainly go down that, we can talk about that and implement that. In terms of how other cities or neighboring cities treat these uses, the city of Miami allows them in industrial areas subject to 1,000-foot spacing. The Coral Gables actually has a district where they allow them, the design district, which is basically around Merrick Park. SUBJECT TO A THOUSAND-FOOT SPACING. IT IS A CONDITIONAL USE IN CORAL GABLES. IT IS A PERMITTED USE IN THE CITY OF MIAMI. SO BOTH OF THOSE CITIES ALLOW THIS USE. I BELIEVE PINECREST HAS AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENT ON US-1. So these are not unheard of in other cities, and there are rules in place to allow for them in other cities. So what we have before you is an attempt to address the concerns that were raised.

Mr. Attorney, just a quick question. Are we constituted obligated to make space for more than one?

I don't believe that we are constantly obligated. We presently have one for a city of our size. I think we would be fine to have one.

Or to allow for one. Not to have one, to allow for one. No, to allow for one, again. Right. You just have to provide the opportunity, not necessarily guarantee it. Okay. And so, I mean, for that reason, with respect to the spacing, the one standard I'd like to see changed is the spacing of 500 to at least 750, if not the full 1,000. It's been at least adopted elsewhere.

Okay. Yeah, the 1,000 would be commensurate with other jurisdictions. Okay.

Colleagues, any other thoughts on the standards? Yes, Commissioner Rodriguez.

I agree on the 1,000.

You're recognized, sir.

The linear feet from schools and parks, something I have a concern with at 400 linear feet, because it's really close to a school and to a park. At 500, we're already getting close to... we're at a park and we're at a school so um the signage visuals being on commerce lane or prospect lane are essential here i don't want it on 50 where the mobi building is what street is there The mobile event is on 68th Street. 68th Street. So anything facing 68th Street on that corner is something that I don't want to be as visible. I mean, we have kids going through the schools. And the timing here is at 5 a.m. and sometimes at 3.30 start time. Kids are going to be going through that area all the way until 6 p.m. That's when our after-school care still goes through there. So something that I want to see how we can limit that. Just thinking outside the box a little bit, I know we have it here in the industrial area that we have. Applying it to somewhere specifically where we can open it up to, let's say, just hear me out for a second, Sunset Drive. Is that something that would be feasible that might help in this situation here where we can increase the distance from schools and parks and maybe apply it to a more retail-oriented place like Sunset Drive, for example? Is that something that we can do?

That's a policy determination.

That's possible if you wanted to locate as long as it's... Yeah, I guess my follow-up question to that, Mr. Attorney, is what is deemed... acceptable for the federal guidelines or whatever the judgment was, like what is it to say what's deemed feasible and not feasible?

You just have to provide for the opportunity. Right. I mean, you could choose to provide it in any number of use, any number of districts,

No, so my point is if that's the case, then why don't we just designate one building? No, no, no. That's what I'm saying. So that's my point.

It can't be one property. That's what I'm saying.

So how many properties can it be?

Yeah, so you guide yourself by the case law, right? One case said that 4% of a city's commercial land was too small, too small an area, not a meaningful enough opportunity. So got to be, we would think, more than 4%. So that's why that was my concern with limiting it only to one street.

So is that the number, 4%?

Yeah, 4.1, more than 4. But that doesn't mean that 5% is necessarily constitutional. They just said 4% was too low. That's the guidance that we got.

Mr. Guy, do you have a follow-up question, or do you want me to come back to you? Come back to me. Thank you. Mr. Vice Mayor, you're recognized.

Thank you. So I think this was a wise decision, if we're going to have it anywhere, to have it in progress in Commerce. But I feel like it defeats the purpose if we're allowing it to be anywhere where there's an intersecting road. Because essentially, the establishment, instead of being inside our industrial area, is exposed to it.

as corner lots are facing. Can I maybe suggest something? It doesn't seem that if we make this a conditional use, there's any sort of constitutional firmity with that. And so right now, I'm going by the fact that Carl Gables Is there an issue with it being subject to review?

There is some case law.

Yeah, there is some. Let me just kind of give you the reason for the question, because what I'm sensing is even within this footprint that we are looking to authorize, there are concerns about aesthetics, orientation, and signage. And so and we are essentially delegating this decision as you know i'm sure that none of us it's not a decision i'm sure any of us really want to make but if someone's going to make it i feel most comfortable this board makes as opposed to delegating to the design review board right to address these concerns so is there a process by which we can uh maybe it's a site plan approval uh for this use specifically maybe not a conditional use IT JUST REQUIRES SITE PLAN APPROVAL BY THE CITY COMMISSION SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THE SAME CONCERN THAT THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WOULD BE ADDRESSING. SO WE WOULD BASICALLY RETAIN JURISDICTION IN THE CASE OF THIS ONE USE TYPE.

CERTAINLY. YOU COULD DO THAT. YOU COULD ESTABLISH A SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS. THE ONE THING WE HAVE TO BE I GUESS WE COULD WRITE We've done that with what we've proposed here. So we would keep kind of the same structure, which is limited.

We would evaluate all the same conditions.

Yeah, it would have to be limited to that because it can't be used. The concern is, and the concern the course expresses, that it would be used as a proxy to prohibit the use.

Understood. Understood. And again, but what I'm sensing with the board is that there's some anxiety about just adopting it and never seeing it, right? Because there may be, you know, there may be some signage that is oriented, you know, that's partially visible from 68th Street, right, at an intersection that would defeat some of the orientation standards that are here or, you know, again, us having the comfort of being finally the ultimate arbiters of the approval. Is that Is that something, am I?

That resolves my specific issue with a specific lot. But going back to, I'm just thinking here about the 5% here that's got me really thinking about this. So we have the opportunity to do on, just hear me out, guys. I just want to see what you guys think about this. On Sunset Drive, if we open it up to there, it gets past 5% easily. What would be the issues with that?

Can I ask a question related to that, which is, can you give, I mean, facts matter in these cases. So we said it was a 4% threshold. In this case, it was recognized as being constitutionally infirm. Do we know anything about the size of the jurisdiction in which it was being?

I think it was a large jurisdiction.

It was a large jurisdiction.

Yes, if I remember correctly. I don't remember which city it was, but yeah. Yeah, I don't think it was the size of our jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is much smaller.

I mean, again, I just want to make sure. Is that a standard, really, we should be? We tend to get fixated with numbers. And I don't know that numbers always translate perfectly well across cases, because these become You know, there's standards, and there's some fact-based, you know, analogies that get drawn from one jurisdiction to another. So I guess I don't want to get fixated on 5%, but, you know, to try to draw a very tight net around this. I certainly think we should create an opportunity for one and one, if that's all that's required, which is why I want to increase the distance requirement from 500 to 1,000. If I'm hearing from this board that we want to retain jurisdiction over approving the site plan for these uses, I'm fine with supporting that. Again, just to make sure that we kind of keep as much oversight on the execution of whatever may come forward so that it's done in the least impactful way to wherever it's cited.

We could certainly, I mean, again, if we, as long as we narrow the scope of the decision making. Correct. I think we would use the same criteria.

That would be appropriate. And we'd be limited to. Yeah. It's not if or what, it's not if the use can happen, it's is it complying with the criteria. And it's almost as if we've given it a final once over to make sure that we are comfortable as opposed to delegating that decision to the DRB, which is doing the same thing. We would basically just be substituting ourselves.

For the DRB.

For the DRB. Right. Yes, sir. You're recognized.

In the proposed location, what is the... What is the proposed location? Progress and Commerce.

It's a corner lot.

Well, it could be anywhere on Progress and anywhere on Commerce. Down those two blocks. So my question is, how does this affect the fellowship? Or does the fellowship affect its location? Do you know where is the fellowship? It's the corner right next to the Popeyes. Across the street?

Oh, the one on the east side of 57th Avenue.

No, it's... Yeah, it's on the east side.

Sorry, on the west side.

On the west side, right here. It's not a religious facility, though. This one? This building? That's Popeyes here.

Yeah.

This one.

Okay. That's one of them.

Yeah, is that a religious facility? I don't believe it is a church.

No, it's called the Fellowship House, but it really is a behavioral services addiction services center.

Thank you for that. They pay full freight on taxes. They do not have a religious exemption.

Just that question. My second thing is I would be very apprehensive to, I mean, I'm happy that it's getting off Sunset at the entrance of our city. I don't know if I would want to put it on Sunset Drive, which is our main road. I don't know if I can do that.

No, and hear me out. Me neither, by the way. I'm not saying that. I'm going to watch my words here. I don't know how to say this the way I want to say it. I'm at a loss for words. We'll talk about that later. I'm going to take it offline.

Can I ask, there was a question made about hours of operation. Do you have any sense of what the market is for the hours of operation? I'm concerned personally about the 7 a.m. close on the morning after the Friday and the morning after the Saturday night. I have seen in the limited reachers I've done that most places close at 5 a.m. So now, my preference, again, not to open it earlier on weekdays, but on Saturdays and Sundays, whether someone's there watching a football game and someone dances at 12 o'clock, I personally don't care. I think it's the overlap in the early morning hours where I observe that we have THE MOST SECONDARY EFFECTS. WE HAD THAT ONE ISSUE A FEW YEARS AGO THAT REQUIRED US TO ACT AND REDUCE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SERVICE HOURS FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, AS YOU'LL RECALL. IT WAS A SHOOTING THAT INVOLVED A PATRIOT OF ONE ESTABLISHMENT IN SOUTH MIAMI. So again, I'm more concerned about the very early morning or later morning activity, because it kind of has an aggregating effect with people coming from elsewhere. And those folks, this might be their final stop after a series of stops. AND THEY MAY COME IMPAIRED ALREADY. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE FAULT OF THE OPERATOR, BUT IT JUST HAS THAT KIND OF POTENTIAL NUISANCE ATTRACTION VALUE. SO MY PREFERENCE IS IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CLOSING TIME, IT WOULD BE 5 A.M. ACROSS THE BOARD. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE ALL LOOKED AT THE, MR. SURE, IF YOU LOOKED AT THE MARKETPLACE, WHETHER THAT'S A TIME THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE HOURS FOR THESE USES BEING REGULATED ELSEWHERE.

SO I BELIEVE BOTH The two nearest ones, which I believe are on US 1 and 120 some in Pinecrest, that closes at 5 a.m. The one on the just east of Coral Gables in the city of Miami industrial area, that one closes at 5 a.m. as well. And certainly our alcohol code allows for a maximum of 5 a.m. with city manager approval. Otherwise, it's 4 a.m. So those would all line up at 5 a.m. And every other component of the business

If they wanted to operate earlier, just not as an adult entertainment use, but wanted to open up as a bar at 11 o'clock, they could? Or noon?

They would be able to, yeah. They could open up as early in terms of the restaurant component of the business. Correct. Without the adult, they could open up as early as, they could serve alcohol as early as nine under our alcohol code.

Okay.

9 a.m. 9 a.m.?

Yeah. Okay. Further questions or observations, colleagues? Don't be shy. You never have to.

I know. No, I just... I don't have anything that would be constructive other than this dance that you all already know that I have on this.

This dance, pun intended. Yeah, exactly.

There you go. Yeah, there you go. So, you know, they have a right to exist. we need to make it so that that is possible. They've been a business here for many years. They pay their taxes. Their employees pay their taxes.

And while some people might find it unsavory, let's... And in fairness to the operators, I mean, we have other properties that generate a lot more secondary effects, right? Yeah. Again, we don't know what we're going to get by way of a future operator, but certainly the current one is... I think in my limited time here had a fairly good operating record.

I think, you know what, make it so that they can actually find a spot. Because if not, we'll be having this conversation next year.

So colleagues, yes. Mr. Vice Mayor? I guess I just still have a little bit of concerns that if we don't at least restrict the outer edges of the progress in commerce, that we will end up with something that is a little too facing toward parks, schools, things like that. I think the location is great for it. It just has to be tucked in a little bit more into the streets.

Yes, Commissioner. I have no idea what property they would be interested in. I don't even remember. But let's say that you're worried about the corner. So if it was a corner and the signage said, you know, parking, blah, blah, blah. Would that be offensive or is it visual offense? Like, I think that what you're saying makes a lot of sense. I just think that we need to be a little clearer on, you know, because we can't say you can't operate on the corners.

So can I, so Mr. C. Turney, I mean, we have pretty wide latitude in regulating commercial speech.

Constitutionally commercial speech. Yes, right.

Yes, we can't regulate the dancing. We can't limit that use okay with respect to the establishments commercial signage Yep, advertising the use we can sit priest we can set pretty strict standards with respect to where can be placed And limit what can be said correct or not The answer is yes

but not necessarily singling out this use. So it's got to be for all commercial speakers.

OK, so again, I don't know if we've looked at our signage code. But I mean, it's been a long time since I've had a signage case. But it has been. Last one was a mural. It was a lot of fun. But again, I'm wondering whether some of these concerns we have about the use being readily identifiable, we just need to look at our code with a bit more exacting set of eyes and see if we can address that aspect of this use this way. Obviously, I think we're trying to in these conditions by requiring that the forward-facing parts of the use be oriented towards the two streets on which they want to locate.

That's right.

And I would say that, you know, again, most people that are going to these places know where they are. They're not really, you know, they're not getting there by accident, right? So I don't, you know, the signage is that, you know, I'm going to drive through Progress and Commerce to, oh, stumble across this fantastic establishment. I mean, I'm sure that that happens, but it's probably, you know, the rare exception. So... I think we've got a good mix of standards. I don't know. I think if we want to retain jurisdiction so that we can, you know, politely encourage an applicant to consider, you know, modification here or there and negotiate that without prejudicing their opportunity to locate in a particular area, it's probably the best outcome we're going to be able to achieve at the moment. I don't know if that addresses your concern, Mr. Vice Mayor, or not.

Yeah, just my concern is with the signage and generally speaking, the activity. There will be people in and outside all around the establishment late at night, maybe earlier in the night, early in the morning.

That's why I prefer to really close.

Yeah.

Further comments?

I would say the only modification I'm agreeing with you, I think five is more than enough. I don't think it should be more than, especially you already have the cases of the other two closest scenarios to close at five. You can't serve liquor past four unless you have an exemption, so I think five is more than enough.

Okay, this is a public hearing item, Mr. City Attorney, correct? Yes, it is. Okay, so why don't we open to the public hearing. If there's any member of the public online or the chambers would like to address this commission on item number eight, please come forward this time.

Anyone on Zoom, please raise your virtual hand.

Seeing no one online and no one in the chamber, we will close public comment here on first reading. Colleagues, anything before we want to... What direction do we want to get the city attorney with respect to modifications? 1,000-foot spacing? Is that consensus? Yes? Yes. Hours of operation? Yes.

Five.

So five. Okay. And then from a process perspective, do we want to retain jurisdiction to apply the conditions that are identified in the ordinance as opposed to delegating it to the DRB?

Yeah. Okay.

Can I ask a question on the linear footage from the schools or parks? Yes, you recognize. We currently have it at 400. I've seen some code as well up to 500. Is that something we're entertaining? Can we entertain that?

We can. Let me ask, let me run some scenarios.

Is this the first reading, second reading?

Yes, it is. This has to come back. If you allow me to run some scenarios in the next couple of weeks.

So I think let's move it with two modifications. The first would be. distance between establishments from 500 to 1,000. The second being the hours of operations. Those are the easiest to analyze. And then, Mr. C. Attorney, if you can bring back a recommendation regarding the process change and the maximum distance that we can have it from those other adjoining uses. Okay. Those are the two issues I'm hearing, correct?

I have a different idea that I want to ask the attorney, but we'll bring it up for the next meeting.

Okay. Okay. Fair enough. Does anybody else agree with the idea of not having it on an intersection? I do. But there's no intersection. Well, on both sides of the. Oh, you're saying that. So having it more central. Yeah, just eliminating that so that it can't kind of wrap around to.

Well, I think that's where the linear footage plays into place there a little bit. That's why I want to.

Yeah, I mean, if you're at one corner, the linear footage is going to connect you to those, right to the Mobley building. So I think that that one's off. The other one is right by the fire station.

Look, I think the challenge with not including corners is that you're going to push it closer to uses that are uses that are incompatible from a distance perspective. So again, I'm literally pulling up the map here to take a look at this right now. But that's my initial concern with the proposal. It's not that I don't disagree, because I can see that you could be, in one case, driving behind the back.

So you're saying you know, it's not it's not as it's not as a crow flies, right? Yes, you're recognized

I'm going to use BTs as an example because they're literally across the street. If you didn't know what BTs was, you're not going, oh yeah, that's it. So I think when it comes to innocuous signage, I think we're essentially there. I wouldn't venture to say that they're going to put Hooters on the middle of the signage.

Well, I mean, again, let's be honest with the fact that I think that was kind of a negotiated resolution. I'm not sure if there was actual litigation. There was. There was. So that was the byproduct. The signage became one of the items that was negotiated, right? So maybe we get... Because this is the only location that that chain, for lack of a better way of describing it, owns that's, you know, gut science has dominated that way. So...

So maybe we take whatever that verbiage was and add it to adult entertainment instead of making it signage for the entire city. Can't we do it youth specific?

No, I think that's what the city attorney said. We have to be viewpoint neutral in the rules.

Okay. And then second, if we were to keep the corners, I'm not saying we should or shouldn't, but if we were to keep... Corners that wouldn't be obviously forward-facing Could we make them cover it so you don't necessarily see it? I'm trying to find a way to address what the vice mayor is saying and Well, at the same time, not reducing the possible footprint. So we end up in more trouble.

You recognize I think that we have, we have more than enough time to kind of go through that and kind of actually do the research on all that stuff. So. I mean, if we keep it as we just proposed with those. Those comments, Mayor, maybe we just move forward and we'll come back. That's fine.

I think if you want to, again, I think we can incorporate two modifications today and have them bring back some proposals with respect to process and what was the other, sorry, what was the second issue? Location. Just the distance, yeah. Mr. Attorney?

Yes, is there is there like a deadline that we need to have this corrected in our code or anything like that?

No, no, as long as I mean just bear in mind that that. The allegation is that at present, our code effectively does not permit the use.

But the usage is still in use as we speak today. So until the usage is not allowed, because it's being used right now, right?

Yes, the current operations. What I'm saying is that the allocation against our current codes, the current code prohibits it.

All I'm saying is we got some time.

I would just add that with respect to time. There's one other use on that same assemblage that's already been abandoned. Correct. We have time. There's another adjoining use that's already been abandoned. We have time, but I don't think we can stall it forever. Yes, sir.

From what I know, their current location will close in July.

Okay.

So I would imagine that they would have to start making arrangements prior to that, so I don't really think we have. Well, that's my question. A whole lot of time. That's what I was asking for. Yeah, July. I don't know those timelines. Yeah, July is when they're closing, the current location.

So the only impact to us is we leave ourselves in some sort of limbo.

That's it.

But I mean, it's not our issue to solve the relocation timeline. It just does create that issue. OK. OK, so can we get a motion to adopt with two modifications, one as to the hours, the second as to the distance between similar uses, and with direction of the city attorney to bring back an ordinance to second reading with recommendations with respect to the process and maximum distance in excess of possibly 400 feet.

Minimal distance.

Between other uses or the other?

From schools or parks.

Other uses, not similar uses. We have that clarified. Other uses meaning religious facilities, schools, parks. OK.

But it's minimal, not maximum.

The maximum minimum distance is what I was trying to say. My apologies. OK. Are we clear? Can I get someone to move the ordinance on first reading as modified?

I'll move it as first reading with the modifications of 1,000 feet and closing at 5 AM.

OK. Is there a second? I'll second it then.

I was going to say, I'll second it.

This is a motion by Commissioner Rodriguez and a second by myself. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll, please?

Yes. Commissioner Bonniche? Yes. Commissioner Kaye?

Yep.

Commission Rodriguez? Yes. Vice Mayor Corey? Yes. Mayor Fernandez? Yes. And I'll pass this first reading.

OK, Madam Clerk, did I miss anything on tonight's agenda? Or are we? Number nine. Number nine, see? I'm glad I asked. OK. If you can read item nine on the record, please.

Item 9, an ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Southern Florida retroactively extending the previous moratorium of the enforcement of Section 20-3.6W of the City's Standard Development Code relating to residential requirements for solar photovoltaic systems.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Ms. Cabrera, anything we need to add for the record, or is this just an extension of the existing moratorium? So, any questions, colleagues? Seeing none, is there a motion on Item 9? I'll move it. Is there a second?

I'll second.

A motion by Commissioner Gaya, second by Commissioner Bonich. Madam Clerk, if you can call the roll, please. Yes.

Commissioner Gaya? Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez? Yes. Commissioner Bonich? Yes. Vice Mayor Corey? Yes. Mayor Fernandez? Yes. Item passes 5-0.

Thank you. Seeing nothing else on the agenda, we stand adjourned. Thank you, everyone.