##VIDEO ID:9vPCgD2QLvw## [Music] hey [Music] hey hey he he hey hey he [Music] [Music] hey hey [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] please take your seats the meeting is about to be begin remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record please stand by we are going on air in 5 4 3 2 one oh yeah good afternoon and welcome to the special land use and sustainability Committee of November 5th 2024 it is 3:10 p.m. Mr attorney if you uh do a roll call sure I'd be happy to commissioner Dominguez here commissioner Suarez here Vice chair bot here and chairman Fernandez presentent we have a quorum uh and Mr attorney if you would do the virtual meeting participation announcements today's meeting of the land use and sustainability committee will be conducted in a hybrid format with the committee physically present in the commission Chambers at Miami Beach City Hall and staff and members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom to participate virtually the public may dial 1888 475 4499 and enter the webinar ID which is 8505 9923 037 pound or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which again is 8505 9923 037 anyone wishing to speak on an item must click the raise hand icon in the Zoom app or dial Star 9 if participating by phone thank you Mr attorney um Madame director uh are there any changes withdrawals uh to today's agenda um yes Mr chair item number six discuss possible agreement for development and conveyance to the city of public uh to the city of a public parking garage at 12:47 to 1255 West Avenue for City Garage this item is being deferred to a future date okay um and I'll just just stated even though we're not discussing this item I am so happy that the item is being deferred because I have a lot of concern over over not this specific item but the uh companion development uh item that is associated to this and so I just want the record to reflect I'm very happy it's being deferred because what is being presented at the moment is not anything near to what I could ever support with that is there a motion on the table to approve the setting of the agenda I'll move it it's been moved by commissioner Dominguez seconded by commissioner Suarez by acclamation let's show the agenda adopted uh Madame director let's introduce item number one um item number one is discuss the creation of a transfer of development rights program for Washington Avenue all right and this is an item I placed on the agenda because there there is a lot of discussion in our city uh right now about how F can be used as a tool for economic activity in our city especially in areas where we are seeing a high concentration of vacant storefronts areas where perhaps we've seen uh incidents of criminal activity and also to support um the creation of of Housing and so f is a topic of conversation for the good it could create in in our city um the reason why I've asked for the TDR uh program to be placed on the agendas because I I do also believe that uh TDR canot that F can not only help with new development but if used smartly and properly could also be uh used as a tool to help existing development existing devel M whether it be to achieve goals of preservation or even achieve goals of of even uh affordability the these are all things that could be done uh through covenants so m madame director you've prepared uh a memo with some analysis I'd appreciate it if you could walk us through uh staff's uh presentation and then we'll bring the conversation back to the committee members absolutely um so a a quick summary of a transfer of development rights program would be for um an organization or municipality to identify certain sending districts and receiving districts the purpose would be for a sending District to be able to sell unused development rights typically in the form of floor area or density to receiving districts that could accommodate the addition development from those development rights um typically this is done for a public p uh process Mr chair as you correctly stated it can be used for a variety of things for the sending sites um often there's a public benefit of historic preservation that's probably the most common uh TDR uh organization in the country there's also tdrs that that um are implemented to preserve resiliency open space and to provide for Transit networks um in this case um for Washington Avenue uh the Washington Avenue has been identified by the sponsor uh as a receiving site there could be potential um selling sites that would be lower scale residential neighborhoods such as the Flamingo Park historic district the ocean beach historic district and even potentially uh the mxe areas of Ocean Drive and colins Vue this could enable these selling sites to derive income from their unused F and put that back into the building typically there are safeguards put in place not only for the sending areas on what they can spend the money on but for the receiving areas there are often restrictions um restrictions could be in the um in the form of restricted uses um or in often there's a cap on how much F they can buy how much f they could receive in the city of Mii Beach this um has come up this discussion a few times in the past decade or so um primarily we discussed it in the North Beach area and one of the challenges we have with our lower scale uh historic districts is they currently have an F of about a 1.25 The rm1 District in Flamingo Park same with the rm1 in North Beach where we had previously discussed this um have a low F currently so many of these historic properties do not have available F to sell um another challenge that that is potentially created is the negotiation process for TDR is by two private property owners so it's not the city that sets the price it's not the city that would go in and negotiate this type of of sale um it actually requires two private property owners to come together to negotiate um to to transfer that f um one of the benefits of the TDR is that it does not increase f um throughout the city right it just transfers the the available F to another area so the aggregate F would remain the same but again we have this challenge of not having a lot of our historic districts with a a bunch of f to sell uh the city of Miami and we had briefly noted the city of Miami had a very successful program which which was not the traditional TDR they have a program by which they actually the city increased the allowable f for certain historic properties for the sole purpose of those properties selling F so while they were giving F to um historic properties it was for the purpose of selling not for developing their own properties um this was very successful it it helped the myo District on bisc Boulevard um several of the prop properties uh restore their their properties while generating income to help them uh pay for these costs so there are potentials uh the City of Coral Gables has a has a TDR program um and it is certainly an option we are supportive of the concept of this and would recommend that um we bring back a draft ordinance of what a TDR program could look like at the January meeting thank you madam director and so in the memorandum you've identified uh potential sending areas and potential receiving areas there are three potential sending areas you've identified is that correct correct and those are the Flamingo Park historic district the ocean beach historic district and the mxe um the mxe and South meach the South meach mxe correct and so in Flamingo Park we and I guess going going to your point um the the the F there is relatively low is a 1.25 correct and we don't know how much of that F has been used or unused at the moment yes but we are working on a Capacity Analysis study that was approved as part of the budget that could potentially uh guide us with that information um and then Ocean Beach which is the area the historic district south of fifth um that area also has a low f that's that's got I believe a 1.0 F goes that area ranges because it because it encompasses several different zoning districts it ranges from a 1.0 to a 2.5 and then and then in the mxc Ocean Drive and cins what's the fa in that area it is 2.0 2.0 and so to the extent that we uh that we look at uh helping these areas preserve themselves while looking at new construction in areas like on Washington Avenue uh to help support the economic activity we could potentially create a bank of f for a lack of a better word an inventory of f uh in these historic districts for purposes of allowing uh these these historic buildings to sell this F to a receiv receiving District like the Washington Avenue Corridor The Fifth Street Corridor the Alon Road Corridor and allow these uh historic properties now to reinvest that money into the preservation of these properties correct which is often times a challenge that we encounter oftentimes we see properties that are they look like they're not wellmaintained but it's the expense of of uh of maintaining these properties that makes it difficult I'm going to open up the floor to uh to to to comments for my colleagues I'm going to go to commissioner B and then commissioner dingz um a couple of questions can you um talk a little bit more about the the city of Miami myo um cdor transfer so the the motels that um were able to sell F and invest in their properties where did the F go I believe the the F went to the Windwood area for residential development and how would the city manage this it has to be um uh brokered a deal brokered between two private entities and how do we manage this I mean Fifth Street and Alton Road are already on the you know have a Target on their back because of um Transit zoning regulations that may or may not be coming down the pike with um the baay link how much more F would they get over what exists so if they you know if an area already gets 4.0 F and they can get another 1.5 because they buy it from ascending District it go up to 5.5 as a right and then let me interject there because that that would actually be a policy decision um if if you know if we want to allow them to go beyond let's say like a 4.0 or if we want to allow them to use a sending District to reach that 4.0 but what I'm saying is if they already have 4.0 as of right yeah then do they and it may still be a policy question I'm just trying to understand how this would work um not trying to set policy you know we we're we're sitting I'm just skeptical I I understand the goal and I definitely want to help incentivize older properties to um redevelop and renovate and adaptively reuse what they have and and I appreciate the thought that goes into thinking outside of the box I'm just really leer because we already have folks who are able to work the system in such a manner that they get reg just height increases and F and density increases without us making it easier with a program so how how would we as a city sort of manage this so it doesn't get out of hand um so the structure of such a program would be very complex um the there is typically a cap a policy to call in terms of what the cap of the F for the receiver could be um so that's number one it wouldn't be unlimited typically um there would be a cap put on place the structure of the the program does become complicated because we do have to ensure that not only are the receiving properties um following through with the city's goals of them being able to purchase more property which could be use restrictions and things like that but also the sending buildings we would have to keep track of to make sure that the money that they've received from the transaction was being put toward that public purpose goal which in this case could be historic preservation or resiliency upgrades so it is a complex structure um I think it has been successful in certain areas I think there's also been programs where it hasn't been as successful so it would really need to be studied further um and brought back to you with more specific recommendations you may have asked us ready the um the current f for um Washington Avenue the current f for Washington Avenue for residential development is a 2.0 for commercial only development it would or hotel it would be a 1.5 okay and and also with um just just just you know for for the record with the with the Vagabond uh you know that that F that uh that TDR was used for uh for for residential development uh to create residential inventory and certainly uh nothing would prohibit us from putting in place any restrictions we may want um as to what the type of residential inventory that we would want to see if we want to put any any income restrictions uh or setting aside a percent of those units to a specific uh segment of the of the um of the Ami um it and and in addition to that I I believe so these are private transactions um so these private property owners you know they come to their own agreement as to as to you know who wants to sell um and how much they're going to sell unless we set a policy otherwise they negotiate those terms amongst themselves and then we could put in place a requirements where it has to be approved like for example if it's a historic sending district and a historic receiving District it could go to the uh historic preservation board or or if it's not it could still uh they could still be required to get a certificate of transfer uh from the city so it's something where where where where we can still you know have some sort of oversight in the process make sure it's not being abused and issue an approval for any of these transfers is that correct that is correct okay cor GBL do this as well is that correct that is correct and they have a similar approval process where the city does need to approve it the the applications actually go through the the cores historic preservation board and then are then authorized by the city and that helps create a a good oversight um in tracking mechanism for this transfer of of floor area thank you commissioner Dominguez thank you uh Mr chair vice mayor um I really appreciate you bringing something like this and thinking outside of the box I know that um tdrs have been discussed before but uh this one is a little bit different and um I had a few questions so I earlier in the year met with the Flamingo Park neighborhood Association and they had asked me to look for ways to get these buildings to renovate without adding height and so I put something on the agenda it went to the ad hoc review and so it's still going through that process this just gives them a different option a different path forward um than the one that's already out there or will hopefully be out there sure yes yes that's correct and uh in fact the ad hoc historic preservation advisory committee did Issue recommendations amongst those recommendations uh was um was the creation of a TDR um or even the transfer of density because we do have for example historic uh structures that may may have not maximized un its density and could sell density uh from historic side to a uh to to somewhere else I might want to receive uh that density uh in a fair market value uh that can then be reinvested uh to in those properties so it's very similar well thank you for that information all right any other uh comments or questions from uh from the days I you know I I would be will willing to try this in a specific area um potentially not doing a Citywide program um but maybe have a pilot program and have it sunset so that if nobody took advantage of it within three or five years you know it's not on the books in perpetuity I I'm Leary but I'll keep an open mind and so I would um be curious to see what the staff comes back with as a recommendation based on the best practices locally and even further a field if there are other cities that are doing it particularly well with you know all the checkpoints in place I mean I I my greatest fear is that somehow we get it wrong and people figure out a way to gain the system and um you know 40 story buildings become the norm where we don't want them and and and to your point uh commissioner you know one of the things that the administration uh has has suggested is to explore you know death designating uh specific areas uh for this not to do it Citywide to go to look specific areas uh and I think and and and I think that that that is the measured approach uh we don't we don't know what we don't know because we haven't tried it uh perhaps uh you know the city of Miami has had its its experiences with it uh when um cor Gables Bay Harbor have had their experiences with it um but Miami Beach is unique and so and so you know I do believe that we should provide some feedback I do believe that historic areas like Flingo Park um the ocean beach historic area the uh historic parts of the mxc uh in in South Beach are areas that should be considered to be um sending districts because they do uh they do need investment we have historic assets that you know I I hate to put it this way but they're corroding away uh because it is very expensive to do construction our historic preservation process is uh is a very involved process that uh that takes a lot of time and that time means money to the property owner and so if this helps uh achieve that uh I'm I'm All forward um and and the city Administration has recommended Washington Avenue as a potential receiving area um The Fifth Street Corridor the out Corridor yes yeah I I think I would be lary to include Fifth and Alton at this point I would rather just focus it I mean if we're we're looking to really transform Washington with a number of initiatives this being potentially one of them and some others being potentially others um I would rather see how it works there um rather than opening up to multiple areas of the city especially where those two in particular are potentially designation designated or could be designated as um areas that we have even less control over because of Transit oriented development and and and and I'll say even perhaps you know Lincoln Road you know Lincoln Road is an area that we're looking to do Redevelopment so I could see how how it might be um appropriate not to consider right now Fifth Street uh or even Alton Road uh but perhaps Lincoln Road where we're looking to uh to again incentivise economic activity there um that's something I'd be open to let me recognize commissioner suus has been waiting to speak thank you Mr chair um you know I I think this is a good idea as far as um thinking outside the box um you know I walk I actually walk Flamingo Park every night um and you know some of the buildings definitely could use some some help some have uh some some look like they're in great shape um I I have two items on here for Washington Avenue and Lincoln Road that really does address uh a revitalization of Washington Avenue and Lincoln Road and I certainly wouldn't want to um sort of step on the toes of of of either item um I don't know how they would co-mingle um however I don't I think would behoove us to not preclude not pigeon hole us just to Washington Avenue for this program considering we have an item uh two items for Washington Avenue and Lincoln Road that really does you know aggressively go for a a res residential plan of development you know some of the neighborhoods that could really benefit from from this you know shooting from the hip 41st Street uh perhaps pockets in North Beach who that really that really could use uh help um I certainly wouldn't want to just pigeon hole this to just Washington Avenue considering that you know I think the next item is going to be Washington Avenue um and so if if if it's okay with my colleagues you know let's give direction to the city staff to to really not not um restrict them on one area um and then come back to the next meeting and say hey look these are some of the areas that could really benefit from this program um on a receiving basis and and and see how that goes thank you I'm going to open up uh the floor to members of the public wishing to speak and by the way to all the members of the public that are attending thank you uh I do realize it's election day uh and uh it's not always that we have a land use uh committee that has uh so many members of the public present but they're here and we appreciate you for uh being here Ison assumed that Mitch novic had his hand raised Mitch uh please unmute yourself uh you have two minutes to speak thank you good afternoon everybody you know I agree with commissioner bot's initial comments I recall the two or three times over the past three decades when tdrs were discussed and ultimately they were rejected uh it could open a quagmire or can of worms that haven't been discuss today thanks again thank you Mitch uh Wayne Roberts uh please unmute yourself you have two minutes to speak yeah um wow the cat is out of the bag I thought the last commission was uh with the developers and against residents and the conversations that have taken place over the last couple months in developing um Miami Beach taller and wider uh hyped Beyond any recognition of what exists um and this is the latest example pdrs across the country is a developer sponsored um theft of of of Resident rights and uh it's a game and it's sad sad day thank you thank you Mr Roberts are there any other members of the public wishing to speak on this item seeing none um I would like uh for us to entertain a motion uh asking the administration uh to come back to us uh at a future meeting um with a draft uh policy that we can consider um you know you've you've made some recommendations of sending areas um I'm open to uh and and I'm open to to those uh I think we should be exploring Washington Avenue Lincoln Road and any other that you recommend as um as receiving areas I think I think you need to consider um some certain basic regulations as to you know whether whether whether you all recommend for this to be whether whether you all whether you all uh feel that this should be a contribution tion from a sending area to help someone reach their maximum or whether this is above the maximum um I feel I personally feel that if we're looking at increasing caps that this does not go beyond the cap but the but Property Owners used this to use the F that we are allowing them to have by buying it from a sending District that then contributes towards the preservation but not to go above the cap that um that that we're sending in place and I would like to make sure that whatever policy we bring back includes uh a um a a review process not just if it's in a historic district including if it's uh outside a historic district uh just make sure that that that there is a review for a uh certificate of transfer um so that there is an oversight to this and and lastly I just you know to to to to to the last member of of the public who who called um you know we need to do something to help our historic assets our we're seeing our historic Assets in great threat and a lot of these historic assets are the are are the properties that house uh our affordable housing our attainable housing and our and our Workforce housing and unless we find a way to fix these buildings we're going to lose these historic assets one by one it might not happen today or tomorrow or over the next two or three or maybe even five years but it's coming and over the past four years 8 years 12 years 16 years 20 years I've seen no one find a way to get our community to invest in the preservation of the histor Assets in in in like in Flamingo Park that's part of the National Registry I haven't found I haven't seen a way that we encourage people to invest there and what we see is the money going the the money and preservation is going into into the ocean front and we see the Articles $2.5 billion dollar being invested in the ocean front but how much money is really being invested I'm sure there are some people doing certain levels of investments in the historic district but but really really a comprehensive investment in uplifting that area in preserving those buildings I just don't see that level of investment happening and that's a threat to our historic district and that's a thread uh to the character of our community so I just wanted to just respond to those comments and I see now uh everyone wants to jump on board so commissioner Suarez then commissioner Bon thank you thank you Mr chair um yeah look I don't think there's going to be a silver bullet right for for saving historic uh buildings and I I I think it's going to take a collaborative effort you know if you look at like south of fifth for example south of fifth used to be a ghetto right and it's it is in it is in a historic registry and and what made south of fifth really special it was it was residential development it really uplifted the whole neighborhood I lived in I mean I still own property in a res in a historic structure and and and why was their development for that area is uh well why was there a a a need to rehabilitate old historic uh buildings or single family homes in south of fth it's because the surrounding area really became a a a hotspot for residents to live and and cut sort of escaped from the Entertainment District and so you know I'm I'm fully supportive of anything that really uplifts a neighborhood um I certainly don't think that it's going to be a uh a silver bullet that's going to solve all of our problems I think that's why there's seven or six Commissioners and one mayor we all have value to add to solving a problem um I think that you always tell me that Mr chair and and I think you know when we put our heads together we we can solve a problem so just wanted to say that thank you thank you uh commissioner bot so could you just clarify um if this is it's going to come back to this committee this committee yes and um you are not excluding fifth or Alton and you're not including a sunset provision well in fact I I'm I'm fine excluding Fifth and alter if um I would like for Lincoln Road to be a part of it uh I want us to be able to do policy that we can get behind so I do not have an issue with excluding Fifth and Alton um but I would want to be open-minded to the professional recommendation I don't want this to be politically driven and and I know I mean I and I don't mean that in a negative way because sometimes when we say politically driven it sounds negative but I mean I don't want it to be guided by us I want it to be guided professionally by the administration my only point is I would rather get this right for a small specific area and test it out with sunset provisions and then if it is a unmitigated disaster we've only done a little bit of damage and if it's a raging success then we know we can expand it to other areas in the city so I I would rather start small and figure it out rather than casting a wider net because there will always be time and there will always be appetite to to do this if it works all right and uh okay commissioner SS and then we're going to uh move on to the next sure I think right now since it's coming back to committee I I think let's have the administration come back to us uh with their professional recommendations on on the areas that should be receiving uh from from this so um and then and and when it comes back then we can decide hey we like this area this area needs it more or or or doesn't need it and then uh we can make that decision there but you know let's let's get the full picture and then decide what we want to restrict to okay I just I I'll just put for for for the record I I do favor um keeping this aligned with the areas that that that we're focusing on legislatively at the moment Washington Avenue Lincoln Road uh I I'm more inclined to support that I'm going to keep an open mind to staff's recommendation uh I want staff to feel free to come back with their recommendations but I'm just being very open here um I'm I'm of the thinking of of commissioner bod we uh as narrow as we can so that we can test it if it works it works if it doesn't it's easier to uh to you know stop but I do think we owe it to our community to test it to test it and um because it's easy to say no it's easy to say no there are some people that have built a career on saying no and uh and that's easy in politics uh but we really don't don't improve our city or think about the future of just of our city just by always uh saying no and and not and not testing things commissioner magazine uh thank you Mr chair I commend you for the Innovative thinking I think it's a difficult concept but but could be uh very fruitful um agree with the recommendation uh while the transit oriented development is on the table would be probably wise to exclude Fifth Street in Alton Road uh another area I will highlight because I know I've heard you mention as well and every time I drive to City Hall I say why is there no housing around City Hall makes no sense um and it's a entryway Corridor perhaps 17th Street would be an area that uh could be worthwhile in examining that would be a receiver of this yeah and and so if staff could uh could uh consider that as well as part of their recommendations uh Madam director how much time do you need to come back to us um we would be comfortable with the January meeting I don't believe the meeting date has been set yet um but I think we're comfortable coming back in January January okay all right I look forward to a draft policy in January uh with that let's call up um let's call up items two and three together uh we you know they're separate items but I do think that they're uh similar enough that they should be called up together okay thank you Mr chair item number two is discuss proposal to revitalize the two to 300 blocks of Lincoln Road uh including pedestrianization of the corridor other streetscape improvements and amendments to the Land Development regulations item number three is an ldr amendment to incentivize residential uses on Lincoln Road all right um here is a TDR and commissioner vond just said be good here is a TDR program let's make that part of the record we need a TD that's why your mic was something there you go um so Madame director uh Would You Walk us uh through um or commissioner suar you want to present on your item I I don't mind having um the planning director or sitting planning director uh discuss Lincoln Road okay great thank you um you know what I thought for um clarity purpose is it would be helpful to put the maps up because there are two different items each of those items have three distinct areas and in slightly different recommendations um PJ if if that's you PJ up there uh can you pull up first um item number two the map okay this is not it's the or page page 24 I think I sent them to you separately as well one second yeah no problem thank you yeah I can jump right in for um uh purposes of timing um so there are two different items the first item which is the two and 300 block we're we're calling uh Lincoln Road East this is the Eastern end of Lincoln Road um oh okay so there it is so we have recommendations and this is um this was a carryover of what was discussed at the committee at the September 5ifth meeting these are areas that we're looking to incentivize residential development um they're both similar um but they do have some differences so in Lincoln Road East we have evaluated in in um careful detail this portion of the city um we have again noticed there are distinct differences between the area um between 17th Street and Lincoln uh Lane North between um the north side of Lincoln Road and then between the south side of Lincoln Road um to the you know up until about the 16th Street so in the north side which would be um properties fronting on 17th Street this is a portion of our all of this is within the historic district this portion between 17th Street and Lincoln Lane North does have a significant uh concentration of of low-scale contributing buildings but it also has some vacant Parcels um that are currently being used as parking as well as some newer buildings so it's it's relatively a mixture currently the maximum height on 17th Street is 80 ft um so we believe in this particular portion for properties that do not contain a contributing building that an incent that would include an increase in F from the current 2.75 to 3.5 the current height of along 17th Street from 80 feet to 125 ft and then the remaining south portion of that area would be the current height from 50 ft would also be eligible for 125 ft but this would be very limited to properties that do not contain contributing buildings uh the Lincoln Road the north side of Lincoln Road we have a current F of 2.75 we do believe a incent itive of 3.5 um would be appropriate here we have a current height of 50 ft and are recommending an incentive of up to 125 ft the south side of Lincoln Road is where the character starts to change more dramatically um south of the South lot lines of Lincoln Road we have What's called the city center that portion which would be the 16th Street portion um the area that's not shed currently allows for a maximum height of 100 ft so in this particular area um we have a much lower concentration of contributing buildings we have a significantly higher height just to the South that is currently allowed so we do believe um the current height of 50 ft could be incentivized up to 150 ft um for new residential development the F recommendation is um the same as the other two areas which would be the 3.5 um would you like me to move on to the second map okay PJ if you could pull up item three page 60 page 60 thank you so I'll just start in with this so this is what we traditionally think of as The Pedestrian portion of Lincoln Road um this is the portion that is closed to vehicular traffic currently um again we have evaluated this area and have developed different recommendations for three distinct areas um area one which is the northern portion again between 17th Street and Lincoln Lane North is currently not located within a historic district so that differentiates it it also allows for an 80 foot height um which is differentiates it as well um so we are recommending on that portion of the proposal for the incentive now the F currently in this Western portion is a 2.5 unlike the Eastern portion which had the 2.75 F so here the 2.5 is current we are recommending an incentive of 3.0 um for lots that are greater than 40, 45 ,000 ft we're recommending the incentive of a 3.5 um The Heights on 17th Street are 80 ft currently um to the south of 17th Street the height is 75 ft currently we are recommending an incentive of 150 ft uh Lincoln Lane the north side of Lincoln Road so this is south of Lincoln Lane this is The Pedestrian Mall um of Lincoln Road a high concentration of contributing buildings primarily one and TW story buildings so our recommendations for this portion are slightly different um we are recommending a f incentive from a 2.5 to a 3.0 and the height from the current 50 ft to uh an incentive of 100 ft um for area three this is also differentiates itself because it is in very close proximity to the low scale rm1 one Flamingo Park historic district so this is a residential low-scale historic district and as this this portion of the proposal would be more of a transition area to step down toward that that low-scale uh residential district so we are recommending the current f is 2.5 an incentive up to 2.75 the current height is 50 ft and we are recommending an incentive up to 75 ft um it's also important to note that in both of these um proposals in all of the areas we are recommending um certain setbacks those setbacks would be to ensure the uh character of the street for another term would be kind of the street wall how you perceive the space um would not be negatively impacted again the what is the setback um the current setback allowable for for up to 50 ft currently is 0t and we are we are comfortable with that beyond the 50 ft we are recommending that the setback be increased for the portion Beyond 50 ft to uh 50 ft setback from Lincoln Road now in The Pedestrian portion which was the Lincoln Road West we also have a provision that could allow the historic preservation board to wave that requirement up to 50% so the board could approve a setback of 25 ft um in lie of the 50 ft and it's you know it's very difficult because these are large areas of the city every property is unique there are certain properties within this area that actually have different lot lot depths so you may have a more shallow lot that does require some type of flexibility with that 50ft setback um but we did believe it important to to as a general rule preserve that that street wall that is created um currently and with the existing regulations on The Pedestrian on both on both of the through the chair if you don't mind is there what was the setback for the um first item or the item two it is the same it is 50 ft from Lincoln Road and 25 ft from the side streets ascept ascept the first item does not make the exception for the 50% of the set back with a historic preservation review correct and so let me ask you this why was it in the Judgment of the of of our City Planning Department that the setback should be the 50 ft yeah and and we looked at this carefully um the character of the existing road is almost entirely one and twostory buildings so that played a big factor so the historic character the historic character so when you walk down a street with you know even two and three story buildings you have a sense of place you have you can see the sky you have you know that cross ventilation which was very important in our historical development um the you know the again the view corridors when you look up you can see portions of sky so I think setbacks are important to preserve that that character also the street wall these are not hugely wide boulevards um typically in in certain other cities around the world you have very large historic boulevards with much greater scale buildings on either side those can accommodate maybe a higher Street wall because historically they had one these are just very low-scale areas um and again we are have no objection to not having the setback for 50 ft for 50 ft in height which is the currently allowable it would be the but beyond Beyond 50 fet in height um we do think it is uh important to have a setback we looked at the properties we actually saw a project um at the Sterling building many years ago um under a different incentive program that that was actually able to achieve a a viable project that was approved um with that setback they actually had additional setbacks than than we're looking at so we looked at that project as a prototype to see if it could work work and so let me ask you what is uh the width of of Lincoln Road uh in this West area I going say it was close to 100 feet wasn't it probably 100 feet okay so then in in in many of these areas in the areas fronting uh Lincoln Road the height would still be contactual to the width of the road yes that's what we believe yes okay all right um commissioner SW Ju Just for a point of clarification when when we did the incentive for hotels on Washington Avenue what is the setback that The Moxy and the Goodtime Hotel had to adhere to I don't recall the I think it was at least 25 20 ft I would have to look that up commission those projects did a pretty good job of making sure that it wasn't it wasn't too overbearing on on on the yes or imposing on Washington Avenue so um is there enough room with 50 ft so let's you know uh so so the 50 Foot setback would only be for area one or area two it's for all of the areas the waiver provision by the historic preservation board is for the Lincoln Road West and and and I think you know it's important to as much as we can as we are working on incentivizing the economic activity of the area and bringing and bringing population that can support the businesses there I think it's also important to remember that we need to preserve the character Lincoln Road it's it's you know except for certain nodes um it's pretty low scale you as you get to the intersections and the intersections there are times where you go up the V dyes building uh you know you have the uh the Sony building that goes up in height uh you have the 420 building the 405 uh building where you go up at the intersections but as you go further further into into mid block you don't have that it's it's it's lower scale and and and and so and so I just want to be sensitive of of of the fact that when you when you give the the the ability for people to wave setbacks people will see those waivers and those waivers if they're granted will affect the historic character of the road uh and and in and in my sense the lack in my perspective the lack of the setbacks does create a canyon effect that you don't experience right now in uh on Lincoln Road but you do experience it like for example in Midtown you know Midtown is not you know the the more original um buildings in Midtown you know you kind of have a little bit of that Canyon effect even though the buildings are not that high but you do have a canyon effect and uh and I wouldn't want to see that here and setbacks do serve that purpose if we're talking about perhaps closer to the intersections those noes at the intersections you know and I would defer to our planning staff to tell us if it would be appropriate there maybe give give ways to reduce uh those those setbacks at intersections where where you tend to have uh some of that height but further further in midblock I just I just have concerns it's going to affect The Pedestrian experience and it's going to affect the historic character the low-scale historic character of it um yeah thank you Mr chair yeah like um I think it's also important to note like I said that you the good time hotel and The Moxy they they took I think I believe it's 25 ft it is 25 ft and when you walk along Washington Avenue if you're like walking even on the edge of the sidewalk on the east side you don't see the buildings you don't see The Moxy you don't you you the good time I don't it was shaped weird like a z but for The Moxy I think it's a perfect example you don't see it there is no canning effect um I guess the proposal here is 50 feet and with a waiver it would go to 50% um there's no Canyon effect because it's one building and it's also wider if it and it's wider and if it if if it were the entire Street you would feel it but there it's it's one building and you do see it it's you do see it um I you know again I I I I defer to to to staff's recommendation on this uh because they're the experts on on preservation this is a very important historic Corridor here and we want to help it be more successful but I would just you know caution us to erode from The Pedestrian experience this is a a pedestrian prominade which is very different than Washington Avenue Washington Avenue is not a pedestrian prominade and uh and and for Morris Lapidus that was a big deal Morris Lapidus was envisioning a pedestrian uh prominade when he when he closed the street which is not how uh Washington Avenue uh was was envisioned commissioner suarz thank you Mr chair uh so the staff recommendation is is 50 ft with a possible waiver of up to 50% % um with is that a five 57 vote is that a 47s vote so um thank you for the question we are we do appreciate some flexibility in certain instances this is challenging because in the past like with The Moxy and with other uh the the other Washington Avenue the good time we actually had draft proposals at the time time those regulations were in place every property is so unique that it is difficult to set an absolute um setback and I think the waiver provision for up to 50% which would be the 25 foot setback um could be warranted in in certain instances um there's a there's also a you know if if it's not a waiver there would also be a variance provision if if there was no waiver and it was a variance it would be a 57 vote a w wer alone would not require 57s it would be 47s but often a waiver is tied to a larger application that includes demolition or partial demolition that would require the 57s vote so ultimately it's likely to be packaged as part of other requests from the historic preservation board that require the 57s through the chair with a 57s vote correct and so and and so so correct me if I'm wrong I thought when the item came initially before us the administration wasn't recommending a waiver we did not have a waiver provision in our initial recommendations um we developed this initially by looking at the road but also looking at an actual project that had it was up to 75 ft at the Sterling Hotel um and it was I think 20 feet from the side street and that massing wise cuz that was the only real project we had to kind of go by even though it was slightly shorter than what this is proposing um was able to achieve that 50-ft setback so from an Urban Design and historic preservation perspective since that and again that's one specific project was able to achieve that very successfully I mean it was it was a very compatible project our recommendation was to to have that as the minimum setback I agree in most instances that is likely going to be a a viable setback for most projects however there could be instances where an applicant may an application May warrant a bit of deviation from that I don't know because I haven't fully reviewed one and there is a provision even if it there was no waiver the applicant could still request a variance so so so let me ask you this is there a maximum is is there a minimum amount of of setback that is going to be required in the policy even if they go seek a a waiver or can they seek a waiver for 100% of the setback currently in the Lincoln Road West proposal the maximum the board could wave would be the 25 ft 25 ft so okay so so it be you and you mentioned that earlier would be just half yes I I have concerns with it but but if you're comfortable with it I'm going to follow your your recommendation uh I you know I just I just uh get concerned by it um so so between the two U proposals before us um tell us what is the summary of impacts what are the summary of impacts uh how many units are we do we anticipate would be created uh what does that mean in terms of popul ation traffic uh water consumption uh sewer issues uh if you could walk us through that for the two applications um sure and I have uh rahelio Madan here from planning as well um who actually prepared some of this and um may be able to answer any questions you have um for the Lincoln Road East on page 31 of your book we have outlined the um this would be if if the all the properties were to take advantage of this that would be eligible um so it's a potential increase of 350 residential units potential population increase of 875 people potential increase of 205 peak hour vehicle trips potential increase of 1365 gallons of portable water consumption per day potential increase of 122,500 gall of sanitary sewer transmission per day and a potential increase of 1,116 tons of solid waste collection per year um so additionally um we have provided a a a Transit transport transit map so that shows the the transportation Network in terms of the bus routes um these numbers are based off of the city's comprehensive plan in the County's uh water capacity they are not and the the traffic counts are generated from the um it which is the standard best practice that Traffic Engineers use uh depending on the use um but this is not a formal infrastructure analysis of what's currently underground I think we have um public works department here uh Mr director is here um if you have any specific questions about that and again Rael Madan from my office did a great job on this and can answer any questions you may have thank you and I'd like to uh recognize uh the Public Works director if he'd approached the podium so Mr director welcome so in in the memo I see that uh the public works department is currently studying uh the source system throughout the city um and based on the numbers that you've heard um what conditions are our sanitary sore uh systems in uh to accommodate this and what do we need to be doing to make sure we don't create a problem for our city well good afternoon uh chairman Fernandez fellow board members Brad Kan Public Works director so we we've got an initial proposal from Hazen and Sawyer to do um an analysis of that whole entire area uh at this point so I couldn't tell you specifics until that process is completed but I will tell you in general um any new development in these areas um that are residential would require uh any applicant to do a hydraulic analysis model and based upon whatever the applicants um Model results are that would determine uh you know whether or any infrastructure upgrades would need to be made uh at that time based upon what exactly development and how it would affect our system okay so so the hydraulic analysis models will indicate whether upgrades need to be done to the system at the time of development correct how how how it would affect if it's increased pipe size if it's needing a to have to put in a lift station it would all depend on you know how big it is and it would just really depend on each individual applicant uh at the time so but let me ask you this so so because you know some of these applications one application is going to create 2,000 people uh that's going to generate uh nearly about 280,000 uh gallons of sanitary sore transmission uh which is why you would need a potential lift station and that type of stuff but that address that lift station that are Developer comes in and places as part of their application is that for the entirety of the system for the entirety of the line or is that just improvements made right in front or within the general proximity of their developments it really would just depend on you know how big it is and and how much and how far things have to go down we you know one of the things that we're looking at in with the Hazen and Sawyer potential uh report that we would do is it would address what conditions need to be made to bring the system up to where it needs to be and then what it would look like if there was new development that's part of what Hazen and Sawyer uh was asked to uh prepare in their price proposal I don't I don't want to speculate like things without you know obviously without those kind of things done because I'm just basically you know not giving you full information without being able to you know have that information you know once it's completed yes yes commissioner B yes just a point of clarification through the chair so it it sounds like you're asking this consultant to do a study because our systems may not be up to where they need to be for current usage levels we we would have to to take a look at that whole area so this would be on top of that so we we couldn't in theory we shouldn't be greenlighting any new development in this area until we know whether or not our systems are sufficient for what's there now and then we would also be able to then with that information extrapolate what incremental improvements would need to happen to um effectuate development is that am I understanding that correctly well I I want the director to be able to answer the study would would would provide a lot of that information to us right so the study saying we don't know if we we might be fine correct but we don't know until we get the study back correct okay but your your analysis has it it's likely that upgrades will be needed in proximity to Future development sites Mr chair sir correct okay yes so um just to just to clarify if there was a development um you're telling me that they would have to go through the study and pay for it themselves correct they would they would have to pay for those costs and then anything that um Al so I just I I I want to make clear my colleagues that if there is going to be a development the developer is going to have to pay for their own study in order to get a building permit and if there's upgrades that need to be done to infrastructure they're going to have to pay for it in order to get the building permit they they would have to board the the cost of that correct okay so regardless if we pay for a third party study or not it is going to have to be uh it's going to have to be studied by whatever development as part of a permit process for for the city to uh to develop and any applicant would have to go through that process okay devel so the chair brought up a good point would it just be to the um in front of the building or would it potentially have to upgrade the system on the whole line so potentially and you can you feel free to to answer this if if there is a development and there is significant upgrades to uh to the infrastructure that has to be needed not just that property might benefit other properties might benefit adjacent to it potentially okay potentially but your memorandum says that improvements would be in the proximity to the development side so but so so if if a development sign using an increased F it's going to generate a a you know a certain amount of of gallons of of you know sewer Transmissions per day that is going to be transmitted not just through the infrastructure right outside or near proximity to that development side but once it goes beyond that we inherit the problem of uh of uh of an Antiquated sewer system and so how do you deal because it's going to happen with the first project the first project they're going to come in uh they're going to be able as of FR to do developments as per this legislation and they're going to come in and do improvements to the infrastructure more than likely in their in their proximity but what happens further Downstream in decis system um is the developer responsible for for for the improvements further further Downstream or is that something that the city needs to plan for I I think it's all going to be tied to how big these projects are if they're big in in um statue you know again that study that you know we looked at we're looking at with Hazen and Sawyer will give us a good determination of you know where things need to be at and then what the future could look like it's I it's very hard to just speculate about things because we have no idea what's going to go there we have no idea what the impacts are without knowing exactly you know what the projects are but the Hazen and Sawyer study uh you know would help just give us a general idea of you know where we need to be bring things up to condition and what things could look like in the future commissioner bondon then uh G to uh recognize the assistant city manager so I mean we do have a proposed sense of well sense of what could be proposed right whether or not I agree with it or whether or not it becomes policy there is an envelope of what's proposed I I do have some concerns and I'm with all my years of experience and vast training as a city planner um take it for what it's worth but we'll come back to that in a second but so we do have a sense of what what the pro I mean it's not going to be the Empire State Building it's going to be buildings that are twice the size of what's there now with increased density I'm very concerned um and I do I I hear what you're saying commissioner Suarez about you know at the end of the day the developer will have to do their own um mitigation studies to determine what impact there's going to be for sewage and water use and all that kind of stuff but we all know water doesn't stop at at plat lines and we have a history of um um water infrastructure getting a a you know a shorter life than we would like all over the city and um I'm just concern that how quickly is this a Hasen Sawyer proposal going to come online do we think it sounds like there's still propos has to be funding approved for it and it could probably take three to four months okay so it's not years it's it's within the next six months from start to finish from where we are today roughly I mean to me it seems like it would be not that this should derail anything but it would it I think we would make better decisions about what we can afford to build there once we know how solid our infrastructure is because or even if we move forward with this we know what the city needs to plan for in terms of infrastructure improvements even if we approved this well so yes and whether it's the city is doing it or the developers are doing it you know for especially if we're talking on Lincoln Road you know presumably they'd have to go through they're not going to tear up Lincoln Road to get to the pipes they'd have to do it on the you know through the alleys or on the the the backsides you know the the non-pedestrian roads like I I I think this is just a lot more there's a lot more going on here because Lincoln Road wasn't contemplated to be residential um or hasn't been at least in decades so it's a very different use you know having people in restaurants and stores using the sanitary system versus families um who live there so I'm I am concerned about that because you know North Beach were 4 years into trying to figure out um a water cleanliness issue that nobody ever contemplated so I am I'm very sensitive to that I do and that's what I want to avoid over here I want to make sure that you know we can plan and we can pass legislation but passing legislation I want to make sure that it's together with the proper infrastructure well and the other thing is and it this is tangentially related but you know I drive down pine tree almost every day coming into City Hall and there's that that I don't know Pump Station whatever it is on that little circle near 28th does not smell good and I count my blessings that I'm not one the people who lives in one of those beautiful homes across the street from that because it's it's nasty and I know it's being worked on and I'm sure it'll get resolved eventually but you know there is not for nothing but Lincoln Road is one of our Premier tourist destinations the last thing we need on top of everything else it's dealing with is for it to have sewage issues or pump smells or you know like this is not just any street that we're talking about it's it's something different so I just want to be really cautious and mindful about how we proceed which is not to say stop but it's it's to say let's make sure we're really thinking all the angles through um David you're working nice yes good afternoon thank you Mr chair I don't want to U extend the conversation too long but to add to what was talking about make sure we all understand um to provide sanitary sewer service there's only three ways to move that sanitary sewer one is through gravity one is pumped or third is a combination of the two so when a developer a development is going to come online and they're required to perform hydraulic analysis but what that involves is figuring out one can they just do it by gravity if they can just go outside their building and connect to the closest pipe by gravity that would not impact the system and allows them to come on if that's a problem then they would probably have to go to a pressurized system which time they would have to potentially construct their own Pump Station or lift station and connect a pressurized pipe somewhere Downstream if I'm the developer you want to do it as close to your project as possible obviously because you don't want to build longer pipes than you need to that's what why the memorandum said says in near proximity or in the vicinity of the development to a point where now can they can make their discharge without impacting anybody else uh the city has adequate capacity through their network of Master pump stations which right correct me or wrong the one on 28th street that commissioner bot was referring is one of our Master pump stations um and those have capacity the idea is to get the sanitary sewer to at some form or another to the nearest Master Pump Station that eventually gets it to Virginia key I hope that's not too technical but I was trying to explain that and that occurs every time any development comes online above a certain capacity David how do we the zoning is important and we need to work on this zoning because it's needed for the economic activity in the in the area but how do we make sure I because I still haven't received a clear answer to this how do we make sure that the underground infrastructure is planned to be upgraded to keep up with the capacity that is that with not not with the capacity but with the usage that is going to be generated by this zoning and the reason why I'm asking that is because what I am hearing right now sounds like very peace meal patches you know one developer comes in does a patch then another developer comes in and does another project and does a patch and to me that doesn't sound like the type of Patchwork infrastructure we should be having we shouldn't be having Patchwork infrastructure we should be having infrastructure that can accommodate uh the population and the demand of the population um so how do we plan for that and I don't know if I'm explaining myself right I don't know if it's a valid concern if you feel the concern is something that you know we don't need to be concerned about that tell me uh I just want to make sure that we're responsible in our zoning legislation to support the economic activity but I also want to make sure that we're responsible in our legislation not to hurt uh the critical infrastructure of the city that could create a greater uh Financial challenge for the city in the future so if you could respond to that David certainly um I I think that every utility including ours has a plan in terms of uh when uh infrastructure needs to be replaced Andor upgraded uh there there to in my mind there's three pieces to that uh one is is is the utility too old is it outdated does it need to be replaced just simply because you don't want it to collapse or have any issues two assuming it's not in that condition is it surcharged or do you have other uh what we call inflow and infiltration in in the industry of other water other sources that get into it that it's occupying capacity that you can otherwise use for the purpose that is intended for and three does it really does it need to be upsize for some Reon for for some reason or another um I'll leave to up to Brad if he wants to get into any details but I know that the public works department has these programs in place and has a plan for Renewal and replacement of of these facilities over over time it can't be done all at once it's very expensive obviously to do it all at once so you have to plan for it and just like a capital program and and and treat it that way all right commissioner suus then commissioner bot thank you uh you know I I think you hit it on the head there there we have outdated infrastructure and to think that the city is going to come up and rip up the Lincoln Road to to upgrade it that's I could be almost like a billion dollars you know this is a perfect reason why we should allow these developers to come but it's not a billion dollars I just I just need to know is it a billion dollars if they were to completely up well think look at look at South of fifth right look at look at the look at what we're spending there for uh for a sea level rise right and you have to you know not not to mention the economic damage that would Happ to Lincoln Road because of a result of closing stores wait but because I don't I don't want our public to be in fear so we we have to be very responsible with the words we're using here and the information we're saying if there is a need because our votes are tied with the legislation that we pass and we're also tied with the consequences of our votes and the legislation that we pass if we need to go in and and upgrade the infrastructure on Lincoln Road let's say to create sewer capacity what what what could be an anticipated cost to that is it is it anything like what was mentioned I I don't know that I'm prepared to answer that commissioner I I I don't think it necessarily is that much typically most of our infrastructure is replaced as part of the neighborhood Improvement program and some other select projects example just recently we had the discussion on the Lincoln Road Phase 2 project that involves Meridian as part of that project since we're opening up the road we're replacing aged infrastructure and upsizing some of it as we do these stretches we've done that on every neighborhood project that we've done we've replaced aging and and and repaired problematic we're going to be we're actually yes we're actually replacing a 30 30inch Force man on Meridian I think it's a 30inch force man okay and and and are we going to be replacing it on the road as well or or the road and Brad correct me if I'm wrong I don't believe there are any major utilities on the corridor of Linka Road itself I I don't believe so I don't believe so everything the got from a building that's mid block to the force Main and and so that infrastructure yeah there's some of it that the developers responsible for that connects to the public infrastructure uh but but but how does a public infrastructure that connects to the Force main uh you know are you upgrading that as part of the of the CIP project no we are not you're not we not okay and shouldn't we we're not we we wouldn't the Lincoln Road Project was intended to be a a an aesthetic Improvement to the corridor the correction of these utilities has been sort of an incidental to the work that was being done on for example Meridian or draxl so we take advantage of these other projects in order to uh correct so but if a developer comes in and they do a project that increases the flow and that and you need to go in now and you need to upgrade the infrastructure that goes that goes to that force me that means they would have to come in and rip up Lincoln Road again no no they won't um because is that infrastructure in the alley it might be a point source and it would be either in the Lincoln Lanes south or north depending on which side the project is on and that's that's if if the requirement is a pressurized system they would connect at a point source might be one location that gets impacted they would not be replacing uh an existing transmission M which what we would call okay commissioner swarez thank you uh so as I was saying it certainly seems we have very aging infrastructure right and if we have the opportunity for development to come in and pay with with outside money and the city doesn't have to spend money on up up grading infrastructure I mean we're we're killing two birds with one stone here and I I think that's I think that's important to realize that again if there's going to be a development project they're they're they're going to have to go through their own study and make sure that it doesn't impact uh negatively the surrounding areas in fact from what I'm hearing it's going to improve the the surrounding areas of of the development and look I just again just to put things into perspective this is a potential increase of only 350 residential units you know I I believe five park has about 350 or close to it residential units well between the two one is 797 and the other one is 350 so you know again I I don't think we're making a Manhattan here I I at the end of the day I think we're trying to revitalize a a a stretch of land that has been you know struggling for the last 10 years with vacancies and and economic drought and what other better way to really give an an area of our city one of the most coveted a a a refresh uh on on residential I mean you know Lincoln Road is the perfect place to live you got the beach on one side you have Trader Joe's on the other and you have a slew of of of retail and shops uh down below you you will NE you don't ever have to get into a car you can walk everywhere and you know th this is this this mixed retail use I mean that's the that's it's a tried andrue method across the world and if we really want to be con be serious about giving Lincoln Road an injection of life you know this is this is certainly the way to go and so you know and no one and no one's arguing that commissioner I think let me can if I if I can finish please yeah but I just I don't I don't want the inference to to be out there that discussing infrastructure is is getting in in the way of that because I think it goes hand in hand you know we we want to be serious about redeveloping Lincoln Road and seeing that energy in there um and part of the seriousness of that conversation are the the impacts it generates and making sure that we don't end up like for lale that for lale has been uh dealing with significant infrastructure issues bursting pipes uh bursting pipes yeah that that we don't want to have here yeah correct and so and what I'm simply saying is I think if we have a study it's going to be redundant it's only going to um cost taxpayer money to to pay for it especially when the developers orever any other project is going to have to pay for it themselves anyways so um you know I I I think um I I think I if if we want to be serious about you know Lincoln Road sure uh we we can put more studies but at the end of the day I I certainly feel that this is going to be very redundant thank you commissioner and and just it it's a part of it's a a normal part of a planning process to consider uh this information yes always yes absolutely I mean usually yeah and and and and the reason why I why I ask this because usually F we're we're doing these F uh projects peac meal uh not part of a master planning uh usually in the past when we've considered F has been part of a larger master plan and then as part of the master plan you usually consider these elements but here we're bringing in independent applications and as as we can call them applications outside of a traditional master plan where in the master plan you would have considered all of this and done these studies here you know we're not doing that so um you know this is not something that is out of place to be doing the study is this not out of the place commissioner I'm sorry vice mayor but I will tell you I mean Miami Beach is a very built out City uh as opposed to if you're out west somewhere and all of a sudden you're going to develop 200 acres and and add you know hundreds and hundreds of homes I think our changes as we can see from the data here is very incremental um especially when you consider it with a reduction of population that we've had over the last several years so I think something is very manageable something that can be definitely planned and um and I do agree that U developers need to pay their fair share uh into adapting their developments into our systems and our utilities okay uh commissioner Dominguez thank you um so we've talked a lot about um number two which was the 2300 blocks and we've gone back and forth and now we have um more areas it's very sweeping it's very Broad and it's very scary I can't imagine moving forward with any of this without doing our due diligence and finding out what needs to be done with the infrastructure underneath our streets like that's a no-brainer not an option to not do it and um because I think it's so broad I would want to see something a little more narrow and then see if it works as opposed to rubber stamping something for all of Lincoln Road that we don't even know if we need uh so th those are my thoughts thank you um I do agree that we need to look at the infrastructure beneath our streets um I don't know that we should you know all of Lincoln Road needs help uh needs needs our support um so in that part I I disagree with you I think we need to be looking at this policy holistically on Lincoln Road uh but I do agree that we really do need to understand uh well you know the underground infrastructure commissioner bot yeah I I was going to say that same thing that there's you know it's never a waste of money to understand what our strengths and weaknesses are and um you know for a part of the city that was not contemplated to be primarily residential um I think it's especially important I also have some questions about um you know going back to the proposals the incentives we're talking about doubling height um you know from 50 stories to or 50 feet God from 50 feet to 100 feet um where does the parking go um do we is there an opportunity to limit um to require this to be attainable housing you know if we're saying 1,200 foot square foot Apartments um you know as commissioner Suarez said it's a very appealing place to live because you can walk to everything you can walk you know down Washington to a grade school and you know walk over to the beach and and um you know whatever there there's a lot of good attractive reasons to live in this neighborhood um to mitigate some of the potential impact for um some use on on vehicles and things like that do we make it Workforce housing for First Responders and city employees of various Stripes I mean can we create those incentives as well as part of part of this um but I would I wouldn't hesitate for a millisecond to get that study going yeah all right uh any other comments commissioner magazine and then going to open up the floor to members of the public wishing to speak on these two items items two and three so where I stand on this and I think I've been clear I think this and along with Washington Avenue is are going to be some of the most consequential projects that we are going to take up for our entire commission th this isn't about development or oh my gosh uh you're building building this is about creating a community a community that we have lost 10,000 residents and I guess I'm just wondering if we can all commit to some sort of timeline because we we talk a great game about we need to provide housing we need to help people we need to bring back residents for our city if I'm somebody out there right now being pressured by the increasing costs when could I expect help from our city right when could I expect that we are going to bring online more housing options because I've been talking about this since I was on the planning board before I got on the planning board right and we haven't put any policy in place yet none we haven't done a single thing collectively to facilitate relief and housing right and I think we need to sit there and commit to some sort of timeline people have been out there suffering and struggling for years and years and I don't know if we've added a single project in our city that could actually tackle housing affordability car I'm sorry Byron car 10 years away five four or five years away that that's that's 70 you're saying not a single one I'm sayit let's go through the chair commissioner magazine has the floor uh and he's making his point but we're we're these are peacee things together right I'm talking about creating a community and like I said we've been talking about this and I'm not saying us I'm saying collectively as a city when I say we I'm referring to us collectively as a city we've been talking about this for years right and and it's time to we truly put our money where our mouth is and and adhere to those Progressive values that we all Expose and actually do something to help people with housing affordability 2third of our city are renters rental costs have gone up 30 40 50 60% and it's simply supply and demand and I think we just have to be serious we've highlighted these areas and if we want to find a way we'll always find a way to Kick the Can down the road and I'm not saying not to be measured and um consider all the possibilities like infrastructure and things like that but we just always continue to delay and we have all these great restaurants that are going to be opening on Lincoln Road we're not going to have anybody to go to them right we're bringing we're celebrating maybe 800 restaurant seats coming online on Lincoln Road where's the concern for that right we're not going to be able to keep those busy by just the people that are here we need to really create a community and I love that we're all thoughtful and all balanced but I also think think at some point you just need to have some conviction and say I'm going to be bold I'm going to be a Visionary I'm going to lead the city forward and I hope you know that that that's the path that we're on so thank you for Mr chair for the floor thank you and um you know it's I just I think that we are focusing a lot on on housing and I don't think anyone is saying delaying any any of this I think what you're seeing uh is is a decide to be holistic and integrated in our planning um and adopting a comprehensive approach that is in fact Progressive I mean when we talk about progressiveness is not just being Progressive in housing affordability but you know being Progressive also means taking into account our sewer infrastructure and developing in a sustainable way uh that is Equitable that is resilient uh that ultimately enhances the overall quality of life of our residents so when we say espousing progressive values well well Progressive values not only talk to housing affordability but also talk to sustainability and resilience and making sure that our infrastruct our infrastructure is solid and solid in an equitable way uh in areas of where wealthy individuals live and in areas where we are creating housing for individuals that might not be of the highest uh affluence uh but still deserve to have proper and functioning uh infrastructure and that is that is part of what it is that and the issues we should be uh looking at uh commissioner Suarez and then I'm going to open up the floor to the public and commissioner Dominguez before opening up to the public thank you Mr chair so just just to clarify with City staff if if we pass this today and let's assume it passes is the commission and there's a there's 350 potential residential units that come online does Staff feel comfortable with moving forward on that given the parameters that you have as far as the building permit process and uh the impacts to infrastructure I'll let BR Brad Phill in the details but I I think we have a process in place uh that has functioned uh the way it should and I I believe we can okay and uh another comment that I would make um because Joe brought uh commissioner magazine brought up a good point on how are we going to fill all the high-end beautiful uh restaurants that are coming to Lincoln Road and certainly attainable residential may help patronize some of the restaurants but Lincoln Road is an extension of our Convention Center campus and uh the importance of getting the Convention Center Hotel built um will bring more traffic and we know that when the gmcvb fills our convention center and we get good conventions they're packing Lincoln Road and Espanola Way and Ocean Drive and um so it's a layered approach um in order to get the business there to Lincoln Road thank you commissioner um all right is um we have two items before us we've got this has been a great discussion uh great feedback and I think it's been uh very comprehensive uh in what in what we've covered um so so um this item is before us today is it coming back to us are we making a vote on this to send it back where are these two items in the legislative process um through the chair so they're in different spots uh Lincoln Road East um was a referral to the land use committee so uh staff is recommending that the land use committee transmit a recommendation to the city commission for a referral to the planning board um this if deferred could come back to you as well Lincoln Road West was a dual referral so this particular item was referred to this committee as well as the planning board so our recommendation is that you transmit a recommendation to the planning board um but this could also be deferred in and discussed further at this committee so no I think I think motions are are are proper at this time I I just so is this already going before the planning board or the planning board is pending uh something being sent from this body to them the planning board is pending a recommendation by this committee okay so um I'm happy to entertain a motion uh keeping in mind um that myself I'm going to keep in mind the feedback of this body because I know that uh once this goes back to the city commission is going to need six votes uh we already have one colleague that has already said that she is uh voting no on on all of these items and uh and so we need to take seriously the feedback we're getting here uh again I'm supportive of this because these are investments we're making in our historic districts uh to improve historic assets help us preserve these historic assets uh support the declining economy of Lincoln Road that does I don't want to say declining economy of Lincoln Road because there is good also happening on Lincoln Road um but we also have the opportunity to bring in uh housing for our residents um so members of the public wishing to speak on the on this item please approach the podium if you're on Zoom you can raise your hand I see Michael comras has his hand raised uh Michael welcome you have two minutes to speak thank you I want to thank the board and the staff for taking the time to and and addressing bringing full-time residents back into Miami Beach uh eyes on the street is key people who care about their streets is key and of course I'm very um very uh happy that you're speaking about Lincoln Road Lincoln Road is uh you know is to me is like a failed Mall just like many malls around the country today that lack diversity and interest creating a mixed juice environment where you create people who can live work and play right on Lincoln Road creates that community that was referred to before having people live upstairs and in units and bringing their dog down grabbing a cup of coffee getting their lifestyle needs lifestyle needs met is key to the future of what we're all trying to achieve um people care about those streets creating attainable housing uh obviously is super important and I think there's obviously a a place for affordable and other sorts of housing but I I do think that sizes of units can be smaller to attract younger people who want to live here on a long term term basis and I was a little concerned about capping the or limiting the size of those units and perhaps maybe making them smaller to allow allow them to be more attainable um I think setbacks also are something that really need to be considered set back in height when you're looking at Lincoln Road um you have 100 foot depth Lots primarily up to uid and then the Lots go to about 140 ft deep you know when you when you have a 50ft setback uh right off the bat and then a and a a 25t setback off the corner you're immediately setting back and creating a formwork which is intended to provide the light and there but isn't necessarily what could be best for thank you particular site thank you thank you uh Mitch novic uh unmute yourself you have two minutes to speak welcome thanks again good late afternoon Mitch no like uh throughout this discussion I've heard references actually all day that this place we're losing res residence it's unaffordable you know I will say my real estate taxes are thousands uh I'm afraid to actually figure out the number more than last year my water bills this month are uh nearly a thousand more than last month we just had a utility billing rate increase uh at the city automatic as it's been for for the last Dozen Years our budget has doubled in the past Dozen Years we have four to 500 more city employees you guys you know the problems really begin with you and I would hope you look within thank you thank you Mr novic uh sir welcome if you could please say to your name oh hold up your mic is mut okay if you could stay your first and last name for the record you have two minutes welcome thank you my name is Andrew I am with the ownership of 200 Lincoln Road on the corner of Collins Avenue um I just have a question listening to all this is very interesting um what sort of business impact analysis has been done to understand what the changes Mean Mr comres was talking about the impact of the setbacks and the buildability I I presume is where he was going uh of the of the Lots with those setbacks because it does impact the economic viability of of a site if you have too small an upper floor when you look at what is involved in constructing a building in the available space so I'm just curious has there been any sort of business impact study that's done that goes along in terms of what it means to the owners of the property um I don't know if the all if those are your comments that's that's my question and the um you know the other comment is is that just as in general uh seeing other programs elsewhere around the country that uh I think providing affordable housing is a huge impact uh and it's something that's essential and it does need uh government intervention to help with that but that doesn't mean subsidy I think it means creating a a a profile for uh private sector to have a profitable investment where they can also create that uh affordable housing and I've seen that in different places and I won't I can mention them in particular it's not really important in this conversation but by giving as you suggesting certain zoning incentives to make larger properties it helps to offset that but when you start to limit the size of units you really have to look at it holistically to and understand what that means in the marketplace so I think it's a positive that this is being undertaken but we're concerned as property owners that the net Impact May or we don't know yet whether it's going to have a positive negative impact thank you thank you um andreon you have your hand raised uh please unmute yourself you have two minutes to speak um thank you um and I just wanted to mention that on the supply and demand side and the cost of the rentals it's also going up because as landlords our taxes our special assessments are going up through the roof so the 20 30% as a matter of fact right now with uh the special assessments for the reserve studies that are being put into place for many of the buildings just on the maintenance alone our maintenances and most buildings are going to be going up 20 and 30% next year just on maintenance fees and the cost of construction for new development even if you're doing smaller apartments for U lower income housing is still extremely expensive um I think I we've mentioned we spoke about it before uh commissioner Fernandez I I I think that really the plan is if the city could look into buying more um properties that are currently built and try to restrict that rental income um as a collaboration will be a lot better and more affordable um as a an additional play to additional Apartments being built that are for affordable housing that should definitely be thought of thank you Andre sir welcome if you could stay to your first and last name you have two minutes to speak yeah my name is here and actually we have some slides so if we could have a little more than two minutes no I'm sorry this is this is a public opportunity to be heard you have two minutes to speak you can feel free to email the committee I we had some slides that we sorry sir this is a public opportunity to be heard all members of the public have two minutes to speak if I give you more time I got to give the rest of the public to more time as well okay well we're the owner of the CVS on the east side of Lincoln Road and um we're actually one of the largest land owners in terms of Mass on that side of the street and have about 32,000 uh Square ft of lot area um under the sort of proposed increase in density and with the setback um we found that our site can really kind of only support about 84 units um when you look at removing that setback it grows by about 12 units and what's interesting about our block is that a lot of sites are only 100 feet deep when you impose a 50ft setback their lots are basically undevelopable so I think what we need to do and I think it was you know talked about earlier is incentivize elegant solutions to increase density we talked about TDR transfers that could also be an elegant solution to that problem but um really incentivize vertical development of that street otherwise we're not going to see a lot of change thank you thank you for for being present here today Peter you can State your first and last name for the rec you have two minutes to speak welcome Peter cannabis Ritz Carlton one Lincoln Road thank you for tackling this issue uh I think commissioner Fernandez hit the nail in the head at the end of the day the bottom of the funnel here has to be economic otherwise everything else you've discussed here today as far as infrastructure is academic so um I as I understand we we're not showing Graphics Alex is that correct this is a public opportunity to be heard okay then let me improvise here's the building here's the setback if you if you take a whole block of this and you look down the way what you've essentially done is bring the rooftops down more to street level you're creating void areas which not only IMPACT program but it's going to look very strange from the postcard point of view that we always talk about here and that I think is really going to form your tunnel effect I've never seen this in any City uh in anywhere I've been on four continents before um commissioner uh magazine showed some great slides uh the last time the last hearing of beautiful places beautiful walking cities around the world not a single one of them had anything but zero setbacks because that's the standard in Boston Barcelona Rome whatever um and we have a perfect 1.5 to1 ratio of 100 ft and 150 ft which is considered the golden ratio in urban planning which creates Great Outdoor areas so uh I think that uh we also have to take a look at the fact that your premium apartments are going to be looking down on a rooftop they're not going to really notice Lincoln Road so much they're going to be noticing more rooftop than anything else uh the other thing is I did a little analysis you can fit every single lot on uh the 200 300 block onto our site at Ritz Carlton and then we have room to spare what I'm trying to illustrate by that is that um smaller setbacks and uh smaller F may work on larger sites like that but if you're talking about producing an economic program with housing I think you really have to reconsider uh or take a much closer look at these parameters because most of these lots are not going to have sufficient economic program to redevelop an in some cases are going to be undevelopable and at the end of the day you want this legislation to be transformative and motivate people to do the intent that you want thank you Peter thank you good afternoon please state to your first and last name for the record you have two minutes to speak sure good afternoon Mr chairman Michael Larin T Southeast C bouevard here presid Ritz Carlton ownership group I'm here in support of this legislation for all of Lincoln Road particularly the 200 300 blocks you know when Commission Suarez was talking about uh correcting the deficiencies and infrastructure time of permit that's correct you know under chapter 163 local governments have the ability to adopt level of service standards if any proposed development would violate those standards the local government can't say no they have to say yes and when they say yes they say you have to give the applicant opportunity to mitigate so here the mitigation could be it would be peac meal but at least it would be the developer be the cost rather than the city trying to issue another go Bond if the city has even that bonding capacity you know FPL does this all the time when they supersize a Transformer Vault that's within your property they do that to add extra power to the grid under the term sheet between the Ritz Carlton and the city there's an obligation to spend additional dollars on the sewage line there which is made out of clay so but with regard to this legislation you know it's important important to understand that you know the r Carlton is under obligations to help reshape the 200 300 blocks of Lincoln Road especially the streetcape but that doesn't mean anything without some meaningful changes to regulations that would ask the developers to move in right now I think the f is a good start the height is a good start but it's the setbacks that are really very punitive I think that the 50 Foot setback over 50 ft in height is particularly harsh I think that the 25 foot setback on the side streets is also harsh if you think about an ideal building for redevelopment is bani tower that sits at the northeast corner of Washington and Lincoln there if you had a 50- foot setback and a 25ft setback it renders that property undevelopable so I ask you all to give some serious consideration to a front setback that would be something more of a compromise thank you Mr Lin thank you any other members of the public wishing to speak on this item see none I'm going to close the reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard uh is there a motion on the tapable on items two and three I'd like to make a motion to transmit to the planning board is there a second on the motion have to go to the commission first uh I well so so item two has to go back to the city commission item three needs to go to the planning board so if you amend your motion for then yeah okay so the item has been moved is there a second on on the motion where are we going to talk further about this things uh it well uh the item the item has to co go back to City Commission in a first reading has a first reading been sent to the city commission yet no and I think it would be proper to get feedback from the planning board uh because they are our local planning agency ultimately we're going to have to get their input on this um uh item number two uh is the item that that that I sponsored uh that that uh that has to be a referral back to the city commission so that it can be referred to planning board uh and item number three is to send what's been presented here to the planning board and then and then after that both items go back to the city commission for first uh reading well the item number two would go to the planning board right and then yes it go to commission for first reading now there would be a public Workshop requirement for so I can just kind of give you the history for Washington Avenue East we haven't gone through the public the public you mean Lincoln Road East Lincoln Road East excuse me thank you um that would need to start from the beginning with the planning board the public Workshop back to the planning board and then to City commission for first reading and then between first and second reading it would have the public Workshop requirement Lincoln Road West um would follow the same process but it would go directly to the planning board and not stop at the city commission okay but yeah they both have to end up at the city commission correct for first reading yeah yeah okay and between now and that time with the public works department Mr Martinez uh will be conducting the uh study on the infrastructure your microphone is off we would need direct to do that and we would also have to identify the funding okay I I think you've you you've heard from at least two members of this committee that you know they're going to be interested in getting that information uh as part of their decision-making process on this legislation and so I I would suggest that you know something that we should be looking at um it's you know because ultimately um yeah we're we're g to we're going to need that feedback chair would you entertain a referral to finance to seek the money and what is uh what I mean I don't know how much does this cost I think we're talking of 250,000 how much how much 250,000 2 do all that's to do all the South Beach I I think I I think that's something that we need to discuss a commission because I would love to hear from my other colleagues if they feel this is something that is important enough uh to be asking for that funding I do think if we need to plan we need to plan respon responsibly uh and I think we need to know what what we're stepping into infrastructure wise uh and and even even if it is so that we can plan uh policy uh that makes uh the property owners more broadly responsible for the upgrades thatting to be done um but but I think we you know I don't know I'm I'm feeling that it it's important information to have commissioner Suarez and then commissioner Bon I'm just going to put on the record I'm not going to be in supportive of spending a quarter million dollars of taxpayer money especially when it's going to be redundant when a developer whoever whatever project is going to be forward is going to have to spend that money anyway so I I'm just putting on the record I'm not going to be in favor of that I think that's a bad use of taxpayer money uh like I said before for the last I think we've been on this item for like an hour and a half the any development that goes forward is going to have to spend the money on this on this study and uh it's going to be thoroughly vetted by our Public Works team uh in order to get a building permit and and if there's any issues with any of the developments that's going to arise from that study uh which is also going to be checked by our our public works but under no circumstance going to be okay with spending a quar million dollars on redundant studies and and and the flip side too that uh commissioner Suarez is that I think some of your colleagues might could could potentially argue that that these policies that we're putting forward would be irresponsible policies without understanding correctly uh the the the conditions of the infrastructure I told I have the floor yeah uh the conditions of the of the infrastructure so you know it it's it's something that we just have to be aware of uh because it is part of responsible planning because we have chosen to put forward uh these items outside of a master plan and if I understand correctly this is the type of information that would have been considered as part of a master plan not withstanding the fact that independent development applications uh would would do this we are policy makers and we need to look out for the best interest of the city and the one thing we cannot allow is for the city to encounter a bigger problem after the fact of failing infrastructure and while developers might address things peac meal for infrastructure right outside their property they're not responsible for the totality of the system and uh and the and the impacts the damage that could happen further Downstream that's our responsibility as a government that are the ultimate owners of that infrastructure and the ones that are ultimately responsible for providing the infrastructure commissioner magazine and then commissioner Bond yeah thank you Mr chair and as uh chairman of Finance uh as long as we're all making good faith efforts that uh we're going to be open-minded about the um proposals that are in front of us uh however we want to plan effectively I I'll be in support of uh of an infrastructure study if uh as long as my colleagues are making good faith efforts that you know we we'll you're not committing to going forward with the proposals we have in front of us but um you know you're certainly not a definitive no and we really want to make a good faith effort in getting these infrastructure projects back but I also think it would be wise to uh put these on Parallel paths instead of just uh waiting six months to get this study back I think we can uh continue moving this uh through uh the proper committees as we wait for that so uh chair of Finance I'd certainly be supportive hearing at our committee thank you uh commissioner and uh and and that's why uh because we are that's what we're doing today we are trying to uh move these forward and if I'm not Aken and I'm just checking here I believe um some of these may have been uh legislation that may have been initially requested by uh by a lobbyist um and so and so there's a lobbyist of record Associated uh with any of this policy uh would it be appropriate for the city to try to share cost uh with a developer that has come forward uh to uh to to request this policy we can certainly ask we can certainly approach the the applicant okay all right well that's a good outcome of the uh developer notice uh sponsored by commissioner bot commissioner bot do you have recognized only good things come out of that um to reassure my colleague commissioner magazine um we've had multiple conversations over the years about this and I can assure you I'm not trying to derail anything I just don't want to make sure that in our Zeal to get good things done for our residents that we screw it up that's all how many times do we cut cut twice a measure twice cut once yes so it's good to have a road map so you know where to measure that's that's where I'm going with this um my question to the staff is um 250 for all of South Beach but we already have the First Street project underway and we already have the West AV project underway presumably we already know what's going on in those pretty significant areas of South Beach so would those be included again or is this addressing different infrastructure um this is a comprehensive hydraulic analysis so it takes into account the whole system as a whole and then it looks at every node considering the new projects as well as any future projects so it's kind of like a a plan for to be able to predict their plan to the Future um again the the hydraulic analysis do occur as the developments come on board but if we want to look in advance we can certainly do that but the whole south of first or the whole first stre project is a huge hydraulic project right the south of fth project is mainly a storm water project that doesn't address oh that doesn't so is there a way to kind of um if if you're going to if we are going to need to do a comprehensive hydraulic study anyhow is there a way to kind of do it um in phases or something where you know they look at this part first and we can carve out 50 Grand to get them started and then the rest flows sequentially no pun intended I I don't think we can I'm I'm looking at Brad shake his head and didn't look at the actual proposal but I in terms of a hydraulic analysis the idea was to look at the comprehensive South Beach area because everything affects everything so are we doing this Citywide and I forgive me colleagues but I I know it's not specific to this but are we doing this Citywide because the other area that is having um a huge amount of new development is North Beach between us and North Bay Village and then if we if we um you know get ourselves together and we show that tdrs are good in incentivizing you know certain um Heights and for adaptive reuse along 41st Street you know it's not just south South Beach it's going to be needing this whole study so how are we thinking about that holistically as a city well again this the the request for the hydraulic analysis is coming from the day is for this particular area because of the changes that are being proposed here including when we do have the conversation about Washington Avenue so that was the idea behind this one I don't believe that at this time the we don't feel it it's warranted on the North Beach area at this point really all right well we'll have that conversation offline um I I would very curious to hear your reasoning as to why given the number of developments and whatever is going on in North Bay Village but we can do that offline and you know and and and I think you know some have raised in the past you know the level of resp you know how responsible was that policy done at the time which policy North Beach you know how responsible was that was everything really taking taken into consideration the way it should have and that's what I want to avoid I you know we have uh failing infrastructure up there in North Beach we have recurring elevated elevated levels of of um bacteria of bacteria yeah yeah of of of of bacteria up there and so and so I don't want to see that happen in uh in South Beach and we're trying very hard to remedy it in North Beach and so we have to be very responsible those the legislation is responsible in creating housing availability and creating economic activities and investments in in preservation but it also needs to be responsible in uh in preserving and upgrading uh the quality of our of our underground infrastructure uh what one one last question on this uh assuming let's say we were to do a TDR program does this legislation establish that this is the cap but if there is a TDR that the TDR wouldn't go above disc cap that the TDR how how would this work in in the event that there is a TDR so as currently drafted this would be independent from any TDR um there is no provision for the the heights that are out outlined in these draft ordinances that they would have to or the F that they would have to purchase okay the extra he okay so so just guide me here Mr attorney because this is why I wanted to have these these items to together if we were to have a TDR program how do we make this work uh you know holistically so that okay you have a a cap that's Set uh by by these legislations um but we're not just automatically granting it maybe they we Grant a certain percentage of it but then they buy the rest of it through a TD are up to the cap that's established legislatively how do we do that at what point do we do that um I think if if the first item identifies Washington Avenue for a potential TDR program um if if Washington is going to be a a ascending District by way of example you could you could no Washington would be a receiving District a receiving District sorry then you could you could you could provide that the F increases um that you're considering under these this other legislation that those additional development rights maybe up to a certain percentage could be transferred to to other properties so I think you could incorporate the two ordinances are going to have to um uh reflect each other Debbie did I did I sayate that accurately or yeah that's correct I think if the just to clarify if the um the 3 5 F were or the 3.0 F were to be capped inclusive of the tdrs inclusive of the tdrs that would need to be reflected in the current ordinances in the current ordinances okay correct I think if the ordinances were adopted as currently drafted we couldn't then unless we amended the ordinance require a developer to purchase development rights in order to Avail themselves of the additional F and see and that's that's a concern I have I want to make sure that we create the opportunity because we need to preserve the historic assets that we have so I I want to make sure that this is this is positioned in such a way that the cap is inclusive of of tdrs where you know we're not just granting them everything that they actually have to invest in preservation in our community if I could have silence in the chambers please because we're trying to have a meeting up here so how how do we achieve this I think the committee may want to discuss that in the context of item uh four because I think item items one if items one and four are going to proceed then I think item four may need to be amended to reflect the TDR component okay and that would mean that in Lincoln Road we wouldn't be we wouldn't be open to staff recommendations to include tdrs on Lincoln Road I think we're bringing back the TDR um discussion so right now it's certainly a possibility okay here's the thing when this goes back to the city commission for first meing is everything coming back together so that we can consider everything together is is are the tdrs going back with Lincoln Road East Lincoln Road West and Washington Avenue as currently going through the process these are on different tracks that wouldn't is is that advisable it depends on the policy of of this body in terms of what you want to achieve if you want to tie the additional F to a TDR program or a partial TDR program then they would need to go together at the same time yeah I think I think this should be going all back together at the same time because that way we we achieve the collective policy goals that we're discussing here if we if we approve f and then we approve a TDR program after after the fact it defeats the whole purpose of creating the TDR program Mr chair may I add a comment please yes you may um just to clarify that uh items the Washington Avenue and the Lincoln Road has an expiration date the TDR program would not have an expiration date I think the intent is for the TDR program to have an expiration date uh a sunet provision I I don't I didn't read it in here that there was an expert no but we discussed it as part of the discussion the possibility of having a sunset so that we can uh revisit the program see see if it's working well meeting its goals and objectives whether it has any unintended consequences well I I think the the I think when we last touched base on this item an hour ago was that we're were going to possibly Silo it to a very small specific location to see if it didn't get out of hand and it become a developers you know uh tool to circumvent what what we wanted it to do um look I but again at the end of the day you know we're trying to create a neighborhood of residents and and not have the status quo if if I have the feeling up here for my colleagues that there's more of a of a no here look okay at the end of the day I don't have any property in Washington I don't have any self-interest I'm not going to be making a dime off this I'm doing what I think is best for Miami Beach we have shootings we have stabbings we have rapes on Washington Avenue Lincoln Road has people who are holding up uh patrons in Victoria Secret getting shot okay you have a 70 you got you got maybe what 30 40% of Lincoln Road is vacant something needs to be done and we're we're you know we got elected not to be status quo I can certainly understand and appreciate to being cautious for this but look uh I I'm doing this because I think this is the best vision for our city we're bleeding residents we're the only city in the whole state of Florida that has lost residence in the last couple years which I find crazy so look it's either we want to move forward with this Vision or we want to just put a bunch of nose in the process and and look guys it's up to you we need at the end of the day we need six out of seven votes so if that's not there it's not there so so look uh you know this is this is the this is the one of the only items I'm ever going to ask for an increase in development most of my items are quality of life and that's sort of my bread and butter for the city but it comes to a point when you realize that fighting you know a wack-a-mole game with quality of life it really comes down to the the proper planning of the city do you want to plan for the city you want or do you want to be stuck with the one you have so look um I'm GNA defer to my colleagues on this if if if there is a if I'm certainly getting the impression that there's there is uh more to this sort of uh hesitancy than meets the eye and look I mean at the I want to have I I want to have a Miami Beach that my children can live in and and and be thankful for you know I have three three small children I want them to live on Lincoln Road I want them to live on Washington Avenue how mean how cool would that be if they could get to live on Lincoln Road and Washington and you know for us to be up here and throw all these roadblocks and the previous commissions and have all these road block and listen again this is this is for residents okay I'm even willing to cap the units size so that it's not going to just be a bunch of luxury units I'm even going as far as saying like we need a limit parking so that we don't have you know we we we tailor the market to people who who just want to walk everywhere you know we have we have to decide what Vision do we want Miami Beach to be in the next 20 30 years because let's be honest whatever we decide up here today isn't going to be built in 5 years it's going to be probably built in like 10 years and we're going to be long gone and I want to make sure that I'm bestowing a future to my children and my neighbor children so that they have a quality of life and they they could live in this city and it's not just a bunch of 3,000 plus square foot luxury condos for just snowbirds so look you guys whatever you guys want to do if you want to if you want to throw shade on this I I'm getting the message that's fine okay we're all going to have projects that are coming up that we're going to want and we're going to all need to be United on okay so uh by all means I I'm hoping that I'm not going to allow my colleagues to be threatened on this days I'm not threatening anyone that that is a threat to I'm speaking I have I have not ra your voices I look I have the floor okay and I'm not threatening anyone I'm simply saying that moving forward we all need to be United on this okay we need to be United on all uh F projects so look at the end of the day if we're not United we're not United I'm not that's not a threat that's just that's just the reality of the situation so look I I'll defer to you guys and see what how you want to take this okay we have to be very clear what's important to you is important to you and all Commissioners have priorities commissioner bun has been consistently clear about her concerns about infrastructure and that merits as much attention and difference as concerns about affordability and making sure that we address the shootings the rapings and the stabbings that all of us are concerned about and we can't say that commissioner bot's concerns about the infrastructure are out of place because there are rapes shootings and stabbings going on her concern is very legitimate because she lives in a part of our city that is is plagued by individuals who can't touch the water because our city has been developed so irresponsibly that infrastructures is is disintegrating right now and we have elevated levels of of of matter of of of of bacteria yeah I'm trying to find a nice way to say the c word yeah um that people can't touch the water and that is as important as all the arguments you are making missioner Suarez preserving our historic buildings is also as important as everything that you're saying and they all deserve to be listened to it's not your highway or the it's not your way or the highway everyone's points needs need to be considered in order to get every anything done here we need to consider the infrastructure and we need to consider the general context of the character of our community because it's my own legislation too my own legis ation won't get the six votes necessary unless we address these issues and so I think we need to just be mindful no one is telling you no to your legislation I have not heard a no coming out of here what I've heard is let's move forward and let's move forward responsibly commissioner bot um I'm not sure that you meant to cast dispersions about um why people were were moving slower than you would like I will will presume it was a misstatement I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that I don't think anybody is saying no to anything I think what everybody is saying um yes but let's make sure we get it done correctly because for too long um things get done in haste and not correctly and then we come back and um people who seek to benefit from the new policy do a switch and bait and all of a sudden you go from 75 feet to 150 to 200 feet before you know it so I think we have very United goals for our city you know in the ideal world we would have a master plan that takes the entirety of the city and and looks at how things would be developed and what things can go first and what infrastructure needs to be built how and when we don't have that this is kind of getting to a mini master plan for a contiguous section Washington and Lincoln and I think that you know from the commission meeting when it was first discussed or one of the committee meetings it was something that we we talked about that it's linked that you can't have it in the abstract and I think taking an extra month or two months to get to the correct answer to get to the correct way to incentivize this so that we get the what what the outcome that we desire I mean we heard from a bunch of folks saying that the setbacks which never occurred to me might be uh too too Draconian and may not effectuate the change that we want maybe that's a conversation we should have with staff I don't know I'm not an expert in this but to just push forward and say it's it's correct the way it is now let's move forward with the way it is now when we have some valid questions and need some additional information I would rather take a little bit of time to get it right rather than force it through and not have it yield the results that we want because we all want better affordable housing better attainable housing we want a walkable City we want toilets that flush on the regular we want our kids to be able to walk their dogs in the evening after dinner we I don't think anybody has a different view but we also want to protect the character of our city and we want to make sure that we don't create any unintended loopholes so you know to quote myself let's measure twice and and cut once and let's get it right that's all and so and so let's bring this back in if the motion that we have on the table the motion that that's on the table is to move this forward the motion on the table commissioner Suarez is not killing your item the motion on the table is sending this to the planning board so then it can go to the City Commissioner for a first reading and I think it's very disingenuous to say that that is putting a roadblock on on your legislation when your colleagues here are supporting your item moving forward in fact the only item that is before us that is actually moving forward to the planning board with the cave out of a $250,000 study that's going to take six months this process is this going to the planning board how long of a process is it um the the planning board would probably it would be noticed for their planning board for their next available meeting which would be the January meeting then there would be need to be an intervening public Workshop um so that would probably be another month so the earliest the planning board could have their second hearing would be February February and then it doesn't go to the city Commission at least till first reading correct so first reading could be potentially at the end of February more likely March and then between first and second reading there would be another public meeting okay so that would probably be April and then it has to come back to the city commission and so it's like a six-month process anyways so we might very well have the study by the end of the process this study can be can take place while this process is going through is that correct Mr director M Mr and that's what I want to be clear as to what the direction is because obviously we can't commence the study until we have the money and then we can do the process that we have to do so the six month starts when Public Works is able to actually cut the deal with the consultant that's going to do the study so I just want to make sure I'm clear so that know for expectations and that could be how long well again that it this would have to be a budget amendment or or some other way where we find the the money so if it's a budget amendment I mean we have to I mean we have to decide do we are we concerned about our infrastructure or not are we are we non concerned about our infrastructure and again I'm assuming you're recognizing me I don't know how many times I have to say this or how many times I can make myself more clear or the public direct Public Works director Mak himself more clear in order for any developments to go forward the developers have to make their own study see if it impacts the neighborhood and if and have you ever seen a developer's traffic study they always tell you this is different though they always no it's not different commissioner it's not different because I've read these studies and I've had to make decisions based on these studies and commissioner magazine sat on the planning board commissioner bot sat on the planning board these developers pay people to do studies that frankly I've never trusted I don't trust the independence of those studies they'll tell you oh the road there's there's not going to be an impact to to to the roadway well get out of my try to get out of my house at 3:00 in the in the afternoon and tell me whether there's an impact to the roadways if I can respond and so it's and so I think we have to be very responsible with the legislation that we are advancing and we can't just say for the sake of expediency to say you know we have to move quickly we're not going to consider this I think we need to consider it so that we can incorporate it into our planning without holding up the legislation if I can respond to that I I I don't you know traffic studies isn't isn't concrete when you think about water and infrastructure and sewage that is that that's a mathematical uh reality they they they they test for the maximums it's it's it's the difference is apples and oranges as far as because you can have plenty of traffic from a development that has for example a hotel where you can't really calculate how how many people are going to come and go I mean you can you can guess but when you do a study on sewage or water it it's pretty cut clear and dry so again look guys uh I I see where this is going I totally fine with me okay I I'm I like I said I don't think that it's a good use of taxpayer money for to spend a quarter million dollars on a study that's going to be studied anyways um and and and look uh if this is how you guys want to go and because it certainly seems that between a budget amendment and a finance meeting you're looking at maybe three three months maybe if you have the votes and then you have to have another six months uh of the study so we're pushing this what a year I mean look I I I I don't see that uh a reality so look you guys I made a motion however whoever wants to Second it uh totally okay with that um and and we'll just see where the chips fall okay there's a okay so going back to uh staff the motion that was made Moves these two items one goes back to commission the other one goes to to the planning board as it relates uh to the tdrs um was was the item the the item was not moved to include the TDR component in in it or not item number one are you referring to yeah the TDR component that was we were directed to bring that back in January with more specific information to the this committee all right so we're going to Grant F without taking into consideration uh the TDR components and if that's uh that's that's what we're doing here that's what we're doing here so there's a motion I'll second the motion because it's going to be coming back to commission anyways and so yes so I'm sorry just to clarify that so we would um increase F and then potentially have an additional an incremental increase of f available through a TDR program I I would imagine that a first reading we could consider incorporating the the the TDR as part of the cap okay I mean and correct me Mr attorney if I'm wrong if you're establishing a cap the TDR can be incorporated as part of the cap in the first reading of the ordinance is that correct that is correct the only thing I'll add though is that because this is an ldr amendment it requires review by the planning board and so if if that's going to be the intent um you know if we know that now then we can incorporate that in what goes to the planning board but if if not maybe at a later stage it could be incorporated as long as both commissioner would you like to incorporate the TDR uh component into into your Lincoln Road uh portion of the legislation uh look I I I think it's a little premature because they the staff is going to come back and say which sites should be receiving if if it happens to be Lincoln Road um but if we move forward now we won't be able to incorporate it later without going back to the planning board and then you'll be upset because we're delaying it because we're sending the a back to the planning board so the question is so do we want to give staff and then if we say let staff do the study then you're going to get upset because we're delaying it to January this is why we okay well well hold on I I you know I hope I can't predict my emotions here uh okay um if if the question is is there going to be a cap uh on on F uh yeah and and I'm I'm I'm more than reasonable to work with with um with in my items as far as a TDR program for example uh you know I think the I think the max is four on on on um Washington Avenue I know we're not I we haven't even talked about Washington Avenue but we we talk about it now maybe we bring it to three and a half and then the TDR program gives you that extra incentive to go to four yeah so uh I I don't know how we're going to bring back that item to discuss it now um but I'm I'm certainly agreeable to to work on it okay so what does that mean in terms of your motion okay so um Madam director why don't you give me some options okay so what I'm hearing is that the committee may be open to referring um the Lincoln Road West to the planning board with a favorable recommendation and with the additional recommendation that the fa be capped below the proposed maximum and that a certain percentage above that be allowable as a bonus for a TDR within the given time frame of the expiration date so I believe Washington Avenue Lincoln Road have a seven-year expiration date that should run concurrent with any sort of TDR program okay and as far as the incentive I don't know the incentive or the the Delta between what is allowed by a right and what could be allowed um you know you mentioned that there really isn't that much um f in Flamingo Park for example left um I don't know how my colleagues feel about this but I'm certainly okay with a uh a 05 F increase so we would give Flamingo Park uh a 0.5 F increase in order to sell it to Lincoln Road in Washington Avenue uh as far to to make to meet that four cap I don't know how my colleagues feel about that um that's up to you guys say that again sorry allowing up to a five since since the since the availability um in the Flamingo Park neighborhood to the Avail the unused f is minimal it's not that much it's a limited quantity I guess it's a good way to test it to see if there is a demand for it uh and it's doing it pretty much at a lower scale where you cap the F where you cap the F at 3.5 and then the remaining point .5 doing it through a TDR incentive program dud I the chair can I just ask a question is that correct though is that a correct yeah I heard a bit of a different um summary there I think commissioner Suarez are you proposing to for the city to increase F in Flamingo Park by 0.5 in order to allow them to sell that 0.5 or are you saying if you have 05 available unused then that 0.5 could be transferred to make up the difference to the cap of the F for Lincoln Road I think in the beginning of this meeting you mentioned that Flamingo Park doesn't have available F to give and so in order for the program to work we would have to allow Flamingo Park to have an increase in F and what I'm saying what I'm suggesting or proposing is increase it by 0 five and bring the cap well the as of a rights on Lincoln Road in Washington you down 05 from what it is currently um and then have them you know have the opportunity for the TDR program to go and effect to uh regain that 05 so in a sense you're basically incentivizing you're you're giving you're giving the historic building in Flamingo Park an opportunity to buy F from a developer to and by the way it's it's it's it's specific that it has to be used for rehabilitating the building uh in in Flamingo Park in the historic buildings um so that a developer can come in and buy F from multiple projects let's say on Lincoln Road there is a large lot you know he's I'm assuming he's going to have to buy f for multiple buildings from one of these small Art Deco buildings which will greatly enhance the building and be able to get to the cap of four of whatever we're proposing here today so that's how it can work hand inand uh and I'm certainly okay with that Mr chair listen I'm I'm fine with that for for as long as if this uh xra F can only be used for purposes of selling it uh to to uh to a receiving property uh and the uh and and the money that they get from that goes back into the preservation of the property or or into some sort of rental program on on the property you know something like not all properties need to be restored um but perhaps in some cases it could help us uh work on affordability commissioner Dominguez thank you what I worry about with this one is I met with the Flamingo Park neighborhood association and they don't want any more F in their area has um any of this been discussed with them that's why the item that I brought forward and uh commissioner bot had uh co-sponsored and she's doing stuff for North Beach had to do with incentivizing without F having the incentives deal with uh fee waivers or uh holding their hands through the permit process and and things of that nature so that's what I worry exactly what Flamingo Park said that they did not want is what's on the table and so when Flamingo Park made those statements was it that they were concerned about the development in their neighborhood that would come about what do you so so so they were concerned about the F leading to development in their neighborhood is that correct right they wanted um this does the opposite this this F would only be like a bank of money for them where it could not be used for development correct me Madam director if I'm wrong okay that's correct it could not be used for development in Flamingo Park It could only be sold to a receiving property is that correct and I thought the receiving property was in Flamingo Park that's where my confusion came the receiving property in this case under the current motion would be on Lincoln Road or Washington and and potentially on Washington as well is that correct correct okay or potentially any other staff recommendations I think you you got Fifth and Alton excluded I mean technically we didn't exclude it but but you know you kind of got where we're feeling on this and and and also you know I wouldn't this could be a bank that can help a lot of properties properties uh achieve preservation or even affordability depending on how we decide to use this and I'm not sure that we should limit it to 0.5 you know I don't mind giving them 01 uh because not everyone might be uh willing point1 uh you mean 1.0 yeah yeah 1.0 um because not everyone might be willing to sell and there could potentially be a demand uh for this for this fa f um and that and that ultimately means that that's money that's going into preservation or that's money that could be going into committing a property uh to affordability and so and so I would if we're going to go through that process I would just say you you know let's let's help them more rather than make it more restrictive we can cap what the receiving properties can get but I wouldn't I I would you know I would consider I would I would let the planning board consider that whether it's 0.5 that we grant them whether it's 1.0 let them consider that based on the numbers and the economics of it and how much good could that do to help properties achieve uh preservation commissioner magazine uh Mr chair I I really like what you're trying to achieve here where if we're going to have development we're going to essentially uh then also facilitate the preservation of our cherished historic properties another way um and it's something that I'm happy to work with the land use board uh there's something called in Finance Tax increment financing they're all yeah Tiff uh often issued as bonds and it's almost a similar concept it'd be more holistic where if we essentially designated Lincoln Road and Washington Avenue because they are in close proximity to Flamingo Park and you would essentially say okay right now you have X however with these incentives you will have X+ one well you would actually take that plus one the excess revenues that are generated through that development and you could put that into a fund uh that would go towards preservation of our art deco historic areas so it's uh it's a similar type premise um but you wouldn't essentially get into like the private sale it would be a a holistic Vision uh where you could uh incorporate something along those lines and Mr Mr attorney what are the state regulations have we looked into the state regulations as it relates to tax increment financing the only context I'm aware that we can do that is is is with a Redevelopment agency but I we would need to research that a little further for for this area for and for this RDA and and and it's been done in in the past as as it relates to Transportation hubs uh where you're able to through the TOs to get the tax increment and and reinvest it and so there might be certain areas where that potentially could work commissioner magazine especially Transportation corridors uh I think I think there might be statute that might uh allow that uh so maybe the City attorney could research that uh further for us okay uh who's going to bring us back in to uh be in proper posture here so Mr through the chair um just some clarification sausage making here the I think the the direction is clear um what I think there's still a question on is do we want to come back to this committee for additional information on the TDR program prior to incorporating this in in a planning board recommendation I think I I think um we have to look at this two ways because we don't want to hold up legislation that's before us and so and so I think we can uh you know say we want to see this incorporated as part of legislation that's before us um I would be I I don't want to be too restrictive on the planning board I don't want to tell the planning board that the cap should be 3.5 or 3.0 I want to give the planning board leeway because they are the planning experts and so I want to give them leeway for them to say well this amount of it should be TDR and this amount should be as of fright um so we have the legislation before us and that's going to move forward okay on Lincoln on Lincoln Road West that that's going to the planning board and Lincoln Road East is going back to the city commission so we can do the referral to to the planning board and then item number one a more General broad policy uh is going to come back uh to the committee in January is that fair yes is that good thank you okay and then and then the infrastructure analysis um commissioner I get your concerns um you know this is all finding the pathway to six votes uh ultimately that is that is the goal and and um and so and so I think that that's this this is a part of that and U maybe we can see you know what can be done to expedite that study you know this is this is a very narrow area of the city where we're not looking at you know specific development we're looking at policy where we already know what the policy looks like and so perhaps you know is it really going to take six months can we can we communicate with a consultant and see and see get a better time frame from him or her uh commissioner or VI mayor we can certainly do do that uh again that's that's what their proposal uh advises is going to take can it be a little shorter it's possible but it doesn't start until I'm able to commit commit and issue a purchase order and they can actually start working so I I is this is this study for all of South Beach yes it's South the 23rd yes okay all right okay so should we do a motion to to send that a referral for finance send it to commission so that we can do a referral to finance um that would be appropriate I I believe already you did that already okay all right so that's already before the finance committee and Mr dual Tre is is that where I'm hearing no no no no there's already going to finance the commission I've asked for it to be placed on the October commission as a referral to finance for the November Finance meeting so that it doesn't get slowed down if I may I believe the F the November Finance meetings this week if I'm correct so I don't know that it was going to make it so because this has it's got to go to November commission so it's going to be December so it's got to be December F so it'll be in the December F okay so it's coming up so it'll be on the ne the November commission meeting go to the next possible Fork which would be December and this would be in both we're going to be taking both tracks correct uh correct me if I'm wrong Mr chair it' be to track dual track um dual track I'm sorry uh can you go back on that I got lost for dual track where we're going to be F we're referring it to finance and at the same time we're moving forward on the legislation yeah yeah yeah we're moving forward with the legislation no one's holding back legislation yes okay all right did we did we vote I don't think we voted on the motion oh so can we show that adopted by acclamation yeah okay all right very good so we two okay uh commissioner Suarez I think we could just move the item the Washington Avenue item right I mean we just we we pretty much discussed that along along the same lines are are there any significant changes to this item that need to be uh discussed we are you asking me well anyone just sta you your item yeah we we came the last time this was heard at lamb use it was a um an F of three um and with 100 ft maximum with certain incentives uh after studying this with uh with one of the developers David Martin we did a careful analysis and it wasn't enough uh for for for a strike price of some of these uh lots and so I simply requested to go from three to four from three to four okay correct and and there's an increase in density from 150 to 175 20 units per acre correct on the comprehensive plan um and like we just discussed in the last couple items I have no problem you know bringing this down from a four to three three and a half with with the the TDR program um being going up to four as as a uh an as a further incentive as a cap correct for the cap but I believe correct me if I'm wrong Mr City attorney that we have to agree to a four cap here uh and in the mean the planning board has the flexibility of giving us their input that's right okay because I what I what I don't want is to tell the planning board if it's 3.5 or three like I want their feedback on on what that should be um this is very very very aggressive policy but I think Washington Avenue is in dire needs uh of this you know dire dire need of of energy of of investment and there will be people that will be mad there will be people who will call in into these meetings and say and say falsehood about us uh and that's what happened in the in the earlier items but people if we do this and this ends up being what it is envisioned to be people won't be able to call us and accuse us of not being Visionaries and not try to transform the area away from rapes shootings and stabbings they won't be a they might try to accuse us of other things but they won't be able to accuse us of status quo on affordability of housing they won't be able to accuse us of of not looking to reignite the economic engine of the region they won't be able to accuse us of not taking actions on stabbings on shootings and and rapes uh and so and so things are you know it's it's it's it's not easy it's it's it's it's a it's a lot um you know are we making any accommodations for parking a minimum amount of parking for deliveries and ancillary uses of some of these properties yeah um I can let the director speak to that um yes thank you so the loading the required loading will still be provided for for for these projects there's no waiver of the loading spaces um there's also a provision that um the deliveries or guest parking can be accommodated to match the loading zone requirement um and there is it allowable um if the developer sh choose there's no parking requirement but the developer may choose to introduce a minimal amount of parking if desired um but the there would be no parking for the residential units there is the robust micro Mobility component the idea is and this is a New Concept but listen I'm I'm around the city all the time and I see micromobility more and more so that would be the concept of this type of residential uh development but for workers and for for delivery there would be required areas okay uh commissioner bot so a couple things one I want to make sure that also it's not just for deliveries but for people who are servicing the apartments plumbers and electricians and whatever there's a place for them to park in the building correct that would be required and um I want to make sure that um we are talking about no more than 100 ft and no more F than 4.0 Max that is the currently so including any TDR including anyr that is the the maximum and so um you know for those who are worried about this turning into Brickle that is clearly not what is being proposed nor mischaracterization a wild mischaracterization of of what we're imagining and also the likelihood that every single building along Washington Avenue is going to change is unrealistic and so you know the goal is to get this sort of crenelated variable guyline so that you have some that are 100 and some stay where they are and you know through some of the things that we're proposing um to reinen or to incentivize um Rehabilitation of older buildings that you know people will invest in some of the stock that's there without um knocking down and building new but I you know it it pains me to give more height and more density but I don't see any way forward other than to trying this and this is not a city-wide proposal it is on one of our most challenging Cor doors which can be um the poster child for urban transformation so I would move it and so let me just ask our we staff some some questions because a similar item a few years back was done in terms of hotels uh is that correct Madam director that is correct okay and so what we learned from that was that even though we put a similar incentive out there for hotels a number of years back we ended up maybe with two that actually took advantage of this we had uh three applications two were actually constructed two were actually constructed and that was for all of Washington yes all right so for allive Washington we had a similar application and and it only led to the construction of a similar legislative proposal that got adopted uh and it led only to the construction of two hotels and so I just want us to be aware of the the fear mongering that goes out there of the mischaracterizations that get put out there because it is a style of politics that sells it is a a style of politics that fuels fear in the community that captures attention that is expedient and populist and that works against the progress of our city and responsibly addressing the perils and the challenges that we were elected as a body to come together and make the difficult decisions for the good of Miami Beach to protect Miami Beach from continuing to have a declining economy and a de declining uh population count and that's what we got elected to do and so to the extent that we will pass policy like this we're doing it in a measured way that protects the character of our community perhaps others wouldn't be as measured in putting forward this type of policy others perhaps might try to be more aggressive but we are taking a much more measured approach um that uh that that hopefully um improves an area of our city that right now has been one of the biggest blights that we have in South Beach unfortunate and that whenever we are on the news for something negative a stabbing or a shooting or a rape um it it's usually happening in this Corridor and so and and so this you know moves Us in the direction that we need to be hopefully moving in to address these challenges commissioner Dominguez uh you recognized I just have a few questions that I hadn't asked during my briefing I know that you mentioned that on Thursday there's resident Outreach on Zoom um so that's November 7th so that they can give input I am a little bit worried that this is sweep change for development that no one's asking for but I do also understand that the realities of having every single uh building built are very rare is there a sunset provision um yes there is um I believe it was 20 30 let me let me double check the orance it's uh it's 2032 2032 y thank you full building permit by 32 seven years yes and so and so the likelihood that every single property on Washington Avenue takes advantage of of this we go base of history is very unlikely last time only two took advantage of it and so and and so that's something that that we need to keep in mind and if through these incentives we can transition out help transition out some of the nightclubs that have been causing problems s in our city uh it it it will be good I would I would encourage and you know I'm going to support this because we need to do something um just having heard some of the rhetoric out there you know I think perhaps this this being a little bit more narrow um will get us to the finish line but uh but but with me I I I think it is uh it it does take us where we need to go one last question yes commissioner um will the infrastructure also include this you said all of South Beach So yeah thank you yes it does through the chair if I could just clarify one thing this particular item is on is currently in a different track this item as commissioner Dominguez um had noted um there is a public Workshop this Thursday evening that's on Zoom this has already been heard by the planning board at at one hearing the planning board that was on October 29th the planning board did endorse the current proposal and the idea is that on Thursday we will have the required public workshop and this will go back to the planning board for formal review at their November 27th meeting at that meeting we can give this committee's recommendation regarding that 05 um but so this is moving in a faster track five I'm sorry the the the TDR point5 so it would be but again I want us to be open-minded I don't want to tell the planning board that it's 0.5 or what it should be I I and and I'm concerned that we're now reverting to that and I don't know where that number came from um is that something that's being suggested by staff that we haven't developed the TDR program that's what I heard from from what it sounded like from the committee that it was I I want to be open-minded I don't want to lead the planning board with a number I want to know I want to know if the planning board feels tdrs are appropriate and if they do feel that they are appropriate in the different areas where we're looking at F increases how much they feel should be TDR how much they feel should be Asif fright but with the cap of the 4 right of course yeah with with with with the cap um I have a question what I saw that there are that there's a minimum square footage and unit size es in this legislation well uh well there already is a minimum square footage it's not in this legislation it's it's but it was incorporated I thought I saw language that incorporated a minimum unit size into it we we updated the ordinance to include the minimum 500 square feet 500 sare feet and there's a maximum also of 1,200 square F feet correct and the intent of the maximum um commissioner is the the intent of the maximum was to limit Ultra Luxury residential however you know there has been discussions I think on the de our commission meeting where we want to give a little bit more flexibility to larger families um and I'm okay with increasing that to perhaps 2,000 uh square feet what I would like is because I do I I do think we do need housing for families in our city that is a big big lack of of of inventory that we have if we do that um and even under the current policy I think I think it would be prudent to uh to have a certain percentage of units for you know what I call the Forgotten middle and we've discussed this uh publicly in in the past you know the Forgotten middle yeah the missing me middle you know you may have uh households of two people that you know each one might be making 70,000 and people don't think of them as people that are having difficulty IES finding housing in this city but they are they are individuals who have difficulties finding housing in this city and they could be contributing to our economy but they're moving off the beach uh to find especially new inventory that they can afford off the beach and uh and and I think that there's you know that that range of people that are between 120 and 160 uh that no one thinks about because they're they're not the luxury market and they're not the workforce Market but they're the market of young professionals who are being pushed out of our city uh and I think I think it would be prudent to see how we could have a set aside of units uh for that population as part of this policy and as part of the idea also of live better in the future is you know having a broad policy of when we talk about F increases that future f increases be tied to a set aside for um for the really low population that is making very little income but also for that forgotten middle uh range I think it would be great to see it as part of this because we are developing here potentially if all of this gets used if all of this zoning gets gets used which you know again it's very doubtful that all of this zoning gets used but we're talking about you know potentially 2400 new residential units uh we should be looking how do we create opportunities for the Forgotten middle of this 2400 and these 2400 residential units um and I would love for you to consider that as part of this yeah and and just just as caveat you know if you increase the maximum unit size you'll probably have less residential units right because you only have a certain amount of area that you can build uh if so so by increasing it you're technically reducing it amount of residential units so it it goes hand I I my legislation I didn't want to get too in detailed with with AMI you know live local does a lot of that I wanted to be as straightforward as possible in my opinion the best way to really limit luxury development and you have something more attainable is you the the lack you you don't offer a parking spot a dedicated deed parking spot and you can only build to a certain size um and because in reality you can't sell a luxury unit without a parking spot and and and less than 1,200 square feet so um and even even with water view so um just remember with live local LIF local only looks at up to 120 Ami and and with LIF local the challenge with that is that that population you know it it they there are people outside of that population that are challenging in that that are being challenged in our city um and no one is um no one is thinking about them no one is is is addressing their their their housing needs I'm not convinced that limiting the unit sizes is going to get us get us that because you never know what the market is going to dictate the market the market if this is successful and we see see the transformation uh that we hope to see on Washington Avenue and on Lincoln Road you never know even on a 1,000 foot unit a 700 squ foot unit they're small units but the square footage could be luxury uh a luxury price per square foot and and and that's where if we could incorporate a set aside of units for individuals who make up to a certain percentage of the am I that includes you know the workforce uh market and that includes the Forgotten middle because when you set that cap you're being inclusive of everyone below but you're also being you know you're going beyond what government has usually look looked at we've looked at affordable markets we've looked at Workforce we've never looked beyond the workforce and those are real people in our community who today are one one paycheck away from being priced out of Miami Beach into down Town into Little Havana into other areas and it would be really groundbreaking legislation that for the first time we're looking at actually the average resident of Miami Beach if you look at the people who who who live in in our city that are leaving our our city is this Market I'm I'm totally okay with perhaps removing the maximum requirement and having a set aside for a certain percentage on Ami thank you thank you and perhaps uh per perhaps um the planning board can give us some feedback as to what amount um could be uh Incorporated what what should be the set aside how many units I think we should be going up to 160 of Ami because with 160 of Ami you may have two people that are making about 70,000 uh in in salary and they're within that you can have two teachers you know in a in a household making you know and teachers unfortunately don't even make 70,000 but people with a 70,000 salary are still struggling in our city we can let the planning board suggest whatever they suggest yeah all right commissioner Dominguez um it this may have already come up um and it may already be included but um a covenant to ensure this doesn't if somebody does this project it doesn't turn into a hotel I think it's in the Covenant section of the legislation and they've Incorporated language said if a future commissioner ever wishes to revert that it would require a 67th vote of the Miami Beach City commission is that correct and yes and that's language that uh that that the chairman has is going to be sponsoring on an upcoming commission agenda so I think the planning director has started to include it um since these are moving forward before that new item is coming okay yeah but it's good that we're starting with commissioner Suarez's legislation that way it's included uh there um okay uh is there are there members of the public press and wishing to speak on this item on Zoom I don't see anyone with their hands raised on Zoom um and the public no one's approaching the podium is there a motion on the item I'll move it okay it's been uh moved uh by move it as amended with the uh I mean we discussed a lot but you with with the cap on maximum unici size setting aside for an an Ami with a suggestion from the planning board what other suggestions do we have the TDR the the the introduction of a a TDR for a portion yeah of the F okay so the item has been moved as amended it's been seconded by the chair um commissioner with the inclusion of those Provisions I would love to join you uh and commissioner magazine as uh as a sponsor of the of the item welcome aboard yes what are we calling this uh what's warp warp warp Washington Avenue residential plan warp speed there you go all right you got any ideas by by acclamation Let's uh let's show this adopted um the last item I'm going to leave the last item for our next uh meeting because again it's I Comm think needs to leave and I we all need have places we need to get to because it is election day everyone vote and we have she still making up her mind and commissioner bot is still making up her mind on who to vote for so so all right uh colleagues thank you for your teamwork I'm glad I'm so proud by the robust discussion this committee has had and that we're moving forward with very transformative policy in such a responsible manner uh not not withstanding the criticism we'll get forward but it is moving Miami Beach in a much better Direction so thank you all for your collaboration listen if it were easy it would have been done a long time ago that's correct and to staff uh Mr director uh Madam Madam director and Nick thank you for for your support e e for