Nikki, can you hear me? Good evening everyone and welcome to tonight's meeting of the South Miami City Commission. Uh today is Tuesday, May 5th, 2026. The time is about 7:04 p.m. Uh, again, before we start, if you could please silence or turn off your cell phones, we would be grateful. Madam
clerk, can you call the role, please? >> Yes. Mayor Fernandez, >> present. >> Vice Mayor Corey, >> present. >> Commissioner Rodriguez, >> here. >> Commissioner Bonish, >> here. >> Commissioner Cay, >> here. >> We have a quorum. >> Thank you. If you please stand for a brief moment of silence, followed by the pledge of allegiance led by Vice Mayor
Corey. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> Please be seated. Thank you. >> Yeah. Madam clerk, do we have anyone register for public remarks? Thank you. So, if you register for public remarks, uh we will call your name shortly and we will recognize you
for three minutes. Thank you. Actually, before we begin, can we is it um is it in order to reference any deferrals that we may have? I know we had a request. >> Uh I believe we had a request from council for the applicant for the subtext project. Thank you for a
deferral of items three, four, and five. >> That's correct. >> Is it to a date certain? >> Yes, the date certain. Two weeks from today, May 19th. >> Okay. Are there any other items anyone on the commission would like to defer before we open up the floor for public remarks? I'd like to move to defer item six uh to May 19th. Just want to talk to
council about um an issue uh related to a recent legislative change. >> Which which one, Mayor? >> Uh item six, which is the sustainability ordinance. >> Yeah. So, I'd like to move that to May 19th so we can hopefully adopt it then.
Uh any other anyone like to consider deferral any other item? No. Okay. Can I get a motion to defer items three, four, five, and six? >> I'll move it >> to the meeting of May 19th. We have a motion by Commissioner Cay. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Okay. So, we have a motion by Commission, second by Vice Mayor Corey. Madam Clerk, you want to call the role on the deferrals? >> Yes. Um, >> yes. >> Commission Cayenne? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Rodriguez? >> Yeah. Vice Mayor Corey. >> Yes. >> Mayor Fernandez.
>> Yes. >> Items 3, four, five, and six is deferred to May 15th. Great. Thank you. May 19th, I'm sorry. >> May 19th. Okay. >> Okay. With now the agenda and final posture, let's go ahead and open up the floor for public remarks and we will recognize everyone who's registered to speak on any item. Starting with Chris
Hudson. Um, please come forward. Good evening, sir. >> If you still, you're welcome to speak on the item if you'd like to. Just give us your thoughts. I know there's a lot of ongoing conversation happening, so we'd appreciate your perspective. Good evening,
>> sir. You just hold on. Mr. John is asking to hold on one second. I apologize. >> Okay, you're recognized, sir. >> That's okay. I'll talk loud. >> Good. >> I got a big mouth. Uh I am here on items three, four, and five. Uh I am totally against that.
Not the project itself, but I am first of all, I am against the project being uh set aside for university students only. I think uh it should be uh divided evenly one third one third one third
students affordable housing mixeduse uh workforce. I think everybody in this uh community should be given an opportunity to live in such a beautiful city. I am uh totally against the height
of the project because it impedes uh uh to those residents on 57th Court, 58th and 59th and I live on 59th Court and even when they have events over there, I can hear the music in my my residence to
the point to where it disturbs my uh peaceful living. And so with that being said, I I ask you to send them back to the drawing board to consider something that's uh less intrusive on the residents of this community. Uh you say
city of South Miami is a city of pleasant living. I lived here all my life except when I did my stand with the military. So there's no other place I would rather be than than in the city of South Miami and no place I would rather leave because of its commute. And most
of all with that project, I just don't see how they will be able to accommodate the traffic on that on that uh 57 Red Road uh uh byway right now. It's one of the most congested roads here in South
Miami. Uh I don't know if you have the opportunity to travel uh like morning traffic or evening traffic. It's really congested at the time to the point to where uh I see almost accidents daily. So I just to reconsider the uh project, not not abolish it alto together. I
think it's a great idea. I think it's a great plan, but I just think that that height and with the construction of that building, it would be intrusive to the residents there on 57th Court as well as those residents on 58th and 59th. Thank
you very much. >> Thank you for your comment, sir. Uh next, uh Mr. Reynold Martin. Good evening, sir. Good evening. I'm Reynold Martin. I live at 6201 South 61 Street. I don't live in that area, but I came in support of some
of my friends and neighbors that do. And I think this thing ought to be reconsidered. And some of the points that Chris made are some very good points and I think if we talk about that, we can come up with something that's going to be commenurate and fair for everybody. So, I wish you would reconsider this and move forward and do
something in the best interest of everybody. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Uh Dale Andre, please. >> Good evening. >> Sir, just register sign the signing sheet. They'll bring it up to me. Thank you. Again, if anyone's like to sign up to register public remarks, there is
another signing sheet here by by John. Please come forward and and sign up. Good evening. Sorry. >> Good evening. Dale Andre, 6820 Southwest 65th Avenue. Um I'm I'm here also to question the the way this whole project has been brought forward. I think the
things that Mr. Hudson said make so much sense. I've had a chance to meet with the developers both in a community in a one of their community gatherings and also one-on-one. Um, and what I feel is that they brought they brought the
project to us or to this community. They didn't have any it wasn't a question of what was needed by the community or suggestions. It was just a way to tell the community what they were doing. And they took their time. They did a wonderful presentation, but it was really just about offering that information and not seeing what the
community could do. Even though it's private property, I think it has to probably come from the commission to determine what are the what are the the the permits for a project like that. the idea that it could be multi-use, that there could be lowincome housing within
that to move out all the people that are there now for student housing and student housing is great, but how is there a way to incorporate the community? And that might be a little bit uh, you know, too optimistic, but I think we can think in new ways. We can
approach this in new ways. What can be unique to South Miami? Because this is our community. So, we don't want to lose our community for new projects, which we also want. And we need to be able to house more people, whether it's students or whatever. But how can we think in a
more creative way that we can keep our community here and keep it South Miami and not become another town? >> Thank you. >> Thank you, J. Okay. Next on the list, Michelle Michelle Reeden. Good evening. Again, if you just arrived and you want to register for public remarks, there's
a signing sheet up here in the front. Please add your name to the list and we'll recognize you for three minutes. >> Good evening, everyone. >> Michelle, good evening. Good to see you. >> Attorney, the attorney, senor, the attorney. Um here I am again. I live on 57th Court adjacent the project and
again I'm just like um Chris and Dale. The project just does not fit our community. It takes away from the unity that we have in our community. I know that the city commission, the planning board did go ahead and design, but I'm wondering did they even take any
notation when they did that that there was a residential area um residential family home in that particular area. I'm not sure if there's any other project that has gone on in South Miami where it faces a residential area. And I think
it's um really uh slapping our face on 57th and even in our community that we have to indulge in stuff that is not good for us that we have to take to me whatever is left over or whatever is pushed in our throat. And I I'm just
thinking that because we are a city of Pleasant Living that we can do better than that. We've been homeowners there for over 60 plus years. And uh like you said, we're not against the project, but we're against that particular project because it's facing us. We're against that particular project because it's
going to bring in more traffic. Then I'm told that the um the county is on the I think it's on the west of us, the left of us, >> north. >> North of us. They're going to have eight story, ninetory projects, eight or nine.
And then we're just going to be locked in with um concrete all around us. We already have red roman as you know. So we're not against student housing. We're just against the actual place that it's being held. And so we we ask that you please consider that for us as
homeowners that have been there for years. Um we have children, grandchildren that going there are people that's on that street that's ill and we just know that unfortunately that's not where we would want it. Um we tried to change it where there will at least be some spacing. there said they
weren't able to do that. And the apartments that are there, if they have gone and did something with those apartments, like we said, we're not against it. We just know that it's a lot of um people, 700 plus people plus 254 beds, that's more than what is due in that community. So, we hope that we
could reconsider it or do something that would be do it to our area. Thank you so much. >> And and just for for folks who may have just joined, the items have been deferred at the request of the sponsor. So, I know there's been a lot of ongoing conversation happening with the community. My expectation that
conversation will continue and hopefully if it comes back on on March on May 19th uh with more support, we can consider at that point in time and and move it forward or ultimately consider not adopted. We'll see what happens at that point in time. But again, the goal, I think, is on the part as I understand
for the developers to continue the conversation and see if they can get a point where there's greater acceptance for what they're proposing. Okay. >> And another thing before I leave. Yes, ma'am. >> We have red roof comments there. We have the cluster there where there are all on 57th court. It's not as if we haven't
donated anything to the uh to the university for their kids. So it's just that we just feel like that is not the place for this particular >> and again I again I just want for the for the benefit of the audience we don't get to dictate what happens with respect to all the uses again and
>> you know uh I know Mr. Garcia Sarah who represents the applicant since we've been kids and you know there there's a request here that makes their particular project Nettles which is the variance right and you know I think you know we I personally have nothing against student
housing but it is again in your part of the in your part of the city the most like market ready product right in terms of what people want to bring forward that is their specialty of the sponsor I don't I don't know if they have a desire to accommodate the mix of uses, but
hopefully that's something you all can continue to discuss and and we'll see where we end up here on March on sorry, May 19th. >> Again, we say we're not against it. We're just the project the way the project is being put up. We're totally not. Thank you. >> But but Michelle, I do want to be for again because this condition of a
three-story condition against a single family neighborhood given what we've done from a resoning perspective is not atypical because we're trying to create a transition back down to the neighborhood. So again, so that I want I hear that people feel they're being put upon as a community. That language to me
is is is nettlesome. And so what I would say is we just approved a project that had a similar transition on 62nd on the west side. Right. So it's not just happening. These are edges and we're trying to make sure that when the transitions happen, they happen in a way that's as respectful as possible. I understand there's concerns about, you
know, the intensity. We've all expressed them, you know, or the I don't know, the massing of the building, excuse me. uh we all had that conversation the last time. I'm assuming there'll be further refinements, but I don't want anyone in this neighborhood to think it's just an issue affecting them. And I will further
add, if you missed our conversation earlier today, we were talking about another site that's in public hands where we are choosing to step into the zoning to try to make sure that we try to strike the best balance because we're talking about nine stories against a single family neighborhood just 15 feet
from a property line, right? So, I understand you all feel like, you know, we're we don't we, you know, we this is imperfect and admittedly all these conditions are. I will tell you that we are not shying away from these conversations. We want to try and fashion a resolution, whether it's on
this property or another one that at least protects our single family neighborhoods to the greatest extent that we have that we can, right? uh we could defer it to someone to bring a live local project or an RTZ project, but we we're choosing to get in these conversations so that we can fashion a
resolution that makes for the most optimal living conditions for our neighbors, which you are. Okay. I just want to say that for the benefit of everyone who's here. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you for being here. Uh moving on to Del Travis Williams, please. Chaz Win 5942
Southwest 62nd Street. I'm going to begin with this. I'm getting out of the Metro Connect across the street from my house. I'm walking across the street standing in front of my mailbox about to get the mail out.
Here comes this giant brown 4x4 truck. That's a M student. I know it's a M student because I followed it. He parks in front of the football field. So, it's possibly a a football player.
He comes through the neighborhood going 40, 50 miles per hour every day, three, four times a week. Almost got hit just trying to get my mail out of my mailbox.
Why can't we get speed bumps on 62nd Street? I've been coming here since 2014 when Walter Harris was sitting up there and Mayor Starter and I know I didn't get them then because Carlson Menz blocked it. I know
but know about that, but why can't I get them now? I can't even walk across the street. I got a cane. I'm a veteran. I can't even get outside the car. Coming from work to get my mail. I got a fear for my life because a student doesn't have patience to wait till the go
connect takes off. He wants to come around and want wants to run me off the damn road. That's my first issue. Second issue, we're not affordable here. We're building all these apartments for
these students and I would love to stay here. I love the rest of my days here, but I don't know if I can do that because they're asking for $2,000 for onebedroom apartment. That doesn't fly. I'm sorry. Well, if
you got a family with three or four, well, three three kids, they want what? 3,800 $4,000 for a threebedroom. Well, if both of the parents together
don't even might make $70,000, $60,000. We're pushing us out of our neighborhood. Railroad Commons right across the street. Can't think think of thing to name right now.
Um, Somi Park. We were told they're going to be condoms. Not I'm sorry, not condoms. Condominiums for >> for sale. Yeah. >> For rent. Well,
rent or rent and eventually to own. I'm being told that's out the picture. Now, what happened to keeping families here? Four or five generations of of my family lived here at one time. This is not fair. It's not fair.
And I voted for four of you up there. And I didn't think it was going to be like this. Thank you, D Travis. And do Travis on that project. Again, remember it's it's was an RTZ project. So, we unfortunately did not get to approve Somi phase 2. Um
Diana Brown is next on the list. Again, if anyone else like to sign up in public remarks, please come forward. I'll give you back this one so you can Good evening. >> Good evening to everyone. I'm here to reiterate what
Del Travis said about speeding. They speed down our street. It's a residential area. They should be doing 2530 and they're constantly doing about 50 or 60 going through there. So, we do need
to have speed bumps on the street. It's it's it's really bad. In the afternoons, I sit outside and I I said, "I wish I had nails. I would throw them in the street so when the cars run over
them, but uh I can't do that." But we really need to consider having speed bumps on 62nd Street. T, before you go, can I ask what what segment is the worst? >> I'm sorry. >> What?
Sorry. Excuse me. We're gonna keep order here. If you want to come back up and be recognized, I'm happy to do that. I will call you back up. I asked Diana a question if I may. Yes. >> Miss Brown. >> Yes. >> What segment is the worst? If you can just share so we can ask uh we can ask the chief to hopefully put uh some
voters out there to do some traffic enforcement. My address is 6100 Southwest 62nd Street. >> Del Travis lives >> close to 59th Avenue. >> 59th Avenue. >> Okay. From 59th Avenue to 62nd Avenue.
>> Okay. Fair enough. Okay. Thank you for that. >> Stretch. >> Thank you for that clarification. Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> Have a good evening. Thank you. >> Okay. Is there anyone else who like to address this commission in public remarks? >> I have someone on Zoom. >> Okay. Someone on Zoom. Uh, Patricia
Thomas, you're recognized. Please unmute yourself. >> Good evening. My name is Patricia Thomas Conklin and I'm a longtime resident at 6531 Southwest 57th Place. I've seen firsthand everything that everyone is
talking about that goes on with with campus housing, off-campus housing. No, we're not opposed, but I would love for the commission to change their language. This is not a feeling. This is our
community. This is our reality. And so when the kids come in, there's intrusion and so it just disrupt the city of Pleasant Living. So this is not a feeling. This is a reality. And we don't
need a reality check by having students come in and be disruptive and be intrusive. So I agree. I know we can't stop the project, but what we're trying to say is keep into the fold of how we feel because it is a residential and I
understand about the mixeduse of it, but this is a residential community and what's going to happen? It will be destroyed by all of the concrete, by all the confusion, by all of the intrusion. This is a reality. This is not a field.
Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. U Madam Clerk, is there anyone else online? >> Anyone else on Zoom, please raise your virtual hand if you'd like to speak. >> And if there's anyone else in the chamber, please come forward at this time. Okay, seeing no one online and no one in
the chamber, we will close public remarks and continue with the balance of the agenda. Uh, is there a motion to adopt the minutes of April 21st, 2026? >> I'll move it. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Uh, madam clerk, if you can call the role. We have a motion by Commissioner
Bonich and a second by Commissioner Rodriguez. >> Yes. Commissioner Bonish. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Rodriguez. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Cay? >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Corey? >> Yes. >> Mayor Fernandez? >> Yes. >> Minutes pass 5. And again, just if anyone is here on
subtext, just to reiterate, at the beginning of the agenda, there was a request for a deferral. We deferred four items. The three items related to the subtext project. They've asked to have it reconsidered on May 19th. Uh and item six on the agenda, which is the sustainability ordinance on second
reading. I saw some people walk in afterward. I just wanted to make that announcement again for the record. Anyone everyone's benefit here. Okay. Uh, Mr. Manager, your report, please. Good evening. The beach volleyball court improvements at Dante Facel Park are
complete and that court is now open for the public. Uh, parks also has registration open for youth summer camp, lifeguard junior camp, which is for teens as well as Greygo's football and cheer programs. More information can be found on the printed manager report or with our parks department. I also just
wanted to clarify one item from the last manager report as it relates to PD hiring. It indicated that there were zero applications received for sworn officers, but that's only because in the prior reporting period there were 70 applications received for cadetses and
13 for sworn officers. So PD and HR were going through the process of reviewing those and they had paused applications. So updated, as of today, we have 50 sworn officers and 51 is hopefully coming on board next week. So just to clarify that point, it's not because we're not receiving applications or
moving through them. We have several applications and I know that PD and HR are working very hard to get people on board as quickly as possible. >> Okay. And I if you can remind me, Madam Manager, do we have in the report how many folks are in drop and when they're scheduled to roll off? So we have a few.
I think it's three three to five is my recollection. Yeah, I I don't know if it's in that same report we had provided uh previously, but we can refresh that list. There's two there's one that already uh an officer and assistant chief Corbin is coming up in June. I
those are the two that I remember off hand for this year. >> I can circulate it. >> Yeah, >> I think just for the next one we can kind of add a note just to address that so we know >> when those folks how many we have in the program and what the dates that they're rolling off. >> Um >> we and we have Mr. Mayor and
Commissioner, we have uh four four individuals that just graduated from the academy that that are doing a little bit of their onboarding and I met them today. Um so that that's um those are the ones that we were waiting for to graduate from the academy >> and those would be onboarded as 51, two and three, I'm assuming.
>> Um >> no, they're part of the count for 50. >> Okay. So they're part of the count for 50. Okay. They're not yet. >> They'll be at full staffing pretty soon, which is which is the conversation about the grant that we had and whether we trigger that because you can only do it when you're at full staffing and if we
do a plus one. >> Understood. Any questions of the manager regarding the report? Commissioner Rodriguez, you're recognized. >> Um, really quick, regarding to the police officers, um, aside from the ones that, uh, on the drop, have we lost any other or we we've maintained everybody
else? Nobody's left. We very recently lost one officer >> went to Miami Beach or city of Miami. >> City of Miami. Okay. Thank you. >> Further questions. >> Sorry. Further questions? Okay. Seeing none. Thank you, madam manager, for your
report. Uh Mr. City attorney, >> just some very minor updates. Uh we spoke about at the last Sunshine meeting the city hall status and the RFP on affordable housing. Uh one other item uh the CRA uh the redevelopment plan that you all uh approved that's the sitting
as a CRA or not approved uh approved the transmitt up to the county that has been transmitted to the county and it will be going also before our our own planning board next Tuesday. >> Can I can I ask a question about that and I contacted George R. Does it have to go to our LPA or theirs? Is that is it because I thought it that was not
delegated. I thought that was their their province. >> It was their province. We are getting feedback from them saying to take it to our LPA because that's what the statute requires. So there's a little bit of disconnect. We were going to take it to our LPA anyway because it's in an abundance of >> I just don't understand that response because they're technically the
governing body, the county commission, and >> it's only delegated to us through the through the interlocal. >> Yeah, I would add that their resolution says it goes to their PAB like expressly. >> I don't understand. And so I, you know, again, I don't have any I don't have any aversion to our planning board seeing
it, but it just seems to me that >> we need to get our story straight. >> Yeah. Yeah. We're we're we're going to be meeting uh I believe um madam deputy manager setting up a meeting with uh with the commissioner's office to >> I I missed a call from George Hernandez County Commission still, but he called while I was in the meeting. So maybe
>> Got it. >> We get a break, we can call him. Yeah, it's not too late. >> Okay. >> Thank you for that. Any further So any further questions of the city attorney? >> No. Okay, let's move on then. Uh, we've got two discussion items. Madam clerk, if you can read M1 and M2 for the record, please. >> Yes. M1, summer commission and budget
schedule, July meetings. M2, timing of community contribution and sunset buffer amendments. >> Okay, let's let's take up the schedule quickly. >> Everyone have a copy? >> Any questions regarding the dates? Uh again, we're looking at June 9th as
being the only meeting in June, July 7th and 21st, and then August 18th as a sole meeting in August, and then budget hearings on the 8th and 22nd of September, as well as our regular city commission meeting.
>> Commissioner Rodriguez, you're recognized for a comment or question. >> Um for July, do we just keep it to the 21st? >> I think we need a we need a we need a trim meeting, correct? for July 20 21st would be okay. I I I'll be out the
seventh. >> At at the last regular meeting, we discussed this and I think the only month that was left that wasn't was sure if we're what date was was in June. The other days have pretty much been secured. >> You mean July? >> July. July >> or July. I apologize. So yes, on the
21st we will be adopting first that'll be our budget workshop at 4 p.m. scheduled right now and then at night the adoption of the millage that will be advertised on the trim notice. >> Just just with respect to the commissioner's uh question,
what what are the dates we anticipate we're going to get the CRA items to come back because that's the only I think those are the dates that that's the one item that's going to I guess come back this summer. And so I'm trying to understand from a scheduling perspective, I just want to make sure that we're
keeping that program on on task. I I have no problem with cancing the July 7th meeting. >> Maybe we just maybe we just preserve the June 23rd meeting as an option if we need it. >> No, you're you already have conflict. >> You do. Okay.
>> We went through the June already. Yeah, >> we went through June. Okay. Yeah, the meetings the meetings in June were combined into the 9th and that would also serve as a CIP workshop and your commission meeting. So you had combined as a as a CFO said the July 7th was the one that was in question I think and and
that was part of your discussion today since we can't touch July 21st. >> Okay. Do we anticipate to you or the city attorney needing to preserve the July 7th date to make sure we take up any items related to the CRA andor I think
Sunset Place had some items that were possibly coming through as well. >> I I don't know that those are going to be ready. Um we I was just discussing with Madame Clerk about the the planning board meeting because it would have to go to the planning board as well. So we'll have to reschedu that. The normal
date for the planning board was June 9th. So we would have to shift that that date called the special meeting >> or could I could they be virtual just for that one meeting? >> Uh they they can't meet virtual but we could we could change the time >> have a meet before.
>> So we have a workshop uh CIP workshop that day also what is it 5 p.m. >> 4 p.m. 4 p.m. >> on June 9th. Correct. >> Correct. Yeah. >> That's why we combined meetings uh commission meeting and workshop to do it on one. So you're you don't have to come back and forth multiple days. >> Okay.
>> But the attorney pointed out about the planning board. >> As a far as far as the CRA, the CRA next week will be going to the our planning board, which I believe is all that's needed. >> We're going to confirm that with the county, but subject to confirmation from
the county. If we have if we have that could mean as a CRA. >> When is it scheduled to go to the county commission or county or the county's um planning board? >> It is not. They have 60 days to act on it. If they don't, then it comes back to us. >> Okay. Four. >> Yeah. But but we are again we're getting
indication from them that they they they did not believe they need to go to their PAB despite the express wording of their resolution. >> So we expect hopefully if everything goes as planned in the planning, it'll be back before you in a resolution on June 9th, the CRA item.
>> Okay. and then it goes to the county. >> Okay. >> Um I'm fine with the schedule. I just I you know we may um just to preview things to come. We may have a request from Sunset
Place I think to possibly take up a zoning modification and I know their schedule was tracking late June to the middle of July. So, um, my only concern is making sure we get the C, you know, the CRA adopted in place
before the summer's over. Yeah. But, >> okay. Anyone want to move the calendar as presented? >> Just for clarification, so July 7th will be cancelled and we're going only with July 21st. >> Whatever the will of the body is, do we want to cancel? Yes. >> I I would say yes because we I think
we've got it together here. >> Any objection? If we need if we need to call a meeting, we will. I mean, but for now, Uh, I have no problem with cancelling. Okay. So, show the will show the schedule modified with the cancellation of the July 7th meeting.
>> Well, it doesn't show up here. So, I think we'll move it. >> It's highlighted in the back. That's why >> Oh, I'm looking at this. >> No, >> yeah, the the circle meeting dates are here. These are these are uh I guess these are key dates that they've identified in the back. >> Okay. >> But the actual meeting dates are on the 2026 calendar. So, we'll just show again
so everyone's on the same page. Us eliminating the July 7th date. Okay, >> I'll move it. >> Do we need formal? We don't need a formal motion. Correct, >> madam clerk. >> I have a resolution at the next meeting with all the dates. >> Okay, fair enough. So, we'll take it up then. Thank you.
>> Okay, if you can read um you've read M2, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh Mr. City Attorney, are you handling this presentation? >> Sure. >> Okay. >> And one of the proponents or the opponent team is here if you have any specific questions. But essentially this
is a proposal uh to for modifications to the TSDD bonus provisions. Uh essentially the way our code currently works is uh for public benefits that are not inind public benefits that are paid for. Uh those public benefits are due
within 90 days of site plan approval. Uh this is this is a proposal to extend that to 120 days. So that's part of this proposal. uh 120 days from site plan approval. The um the other side of this
coin is uh our code has a TDR the TDR provisions uh in connection with rehabilit rehabilitation of structures that are already on Sunset Drive. Um the idea is to keep them uh small and and to
encourage reinvestment and that money uh the money that is spent on that there's a formula to convert that into into TDRs based on what they what they leave on the table that they don't take advantage of and that what and then they can convey those they can sell those TDRs
and those can be applied towards bonuses. The way it currently works in our code you have to get all that done before you get site plan approval. Uh this proposal would allow some time after site plan approval in order to get that that done. Basically uh to allow
applicants to obtain site plan approval um and then to encourage uh people to to spend that invest that money uh and get it uh generate those TDRs so that they can purchase them and apply them. Ultimately, what it means in the big
picture to the city is potentially less money in the city's coffers for public benefits, but also on the flip side, more money. This could encourage reinvestment on Sunset Drive, which I believe was was an important factor for you all. So, that's that's the summary.
Happy to answer any questions you have. >> Yeah, I'll just quickly build on that just by way of background. So, one of the issues we have is I don't I don't when we drafted the TD ordinance, frankly, was not my intent to we set up the district. We set up where they can go. I did not realize when we adopted
that we were actually requiring us to approve the use of them, right? I thought we were going to allow people to decide >> from the menu of public benefits options where they're going to choose option A, B, C, or D. And so I think this language puts us closer to that where it's an open menu and you can choose to satisfy
your public benefit operations from any one of the available categories without having to come to the board and have that prescribed and done in conjunction with the site plan. So you know staff when a project comes in for building permit would would verify that they've actually acquired the requisite public benefits before a permit's issued right
consistent with the code. So that's that's the main change. I think the other uh thing is, you know, working in the world of development, I understand that having to pay those fees at 90 or 120 days is burdensome, right? Uh but I kind of view these as site
acquisition costs, right? Where money is coming to us or money is going to a third party for the benefit of being able to use that additional real estate capacity. Um you know, I've heard from a number of sponsors that they like to def like like more time and like to pay a building permit. For me, that's not acceptable.
It's too far down the too down the road. I believe also, Mr. Attorney, this proposal would allow people to satisfy or evidence that they've satisfied their public benefits contribution acquisition by presenting a contract to staff for all of the public benefits that are required for a portion through the use
of TDRs. So, uh it does also create an incentive for people to actually go and acquire the TDRs because they don't have to come out of pocket for the full amount of the public benefits. Right? So that's that's the rationale behind the proposal. Uh it's
both to encourage these seeds to be acquired and also to um provide some modicum of relief in terms of the timing of the delivery of the payment. Obviously the parties will will contract privately on the TDR side whether that some payment is due immediately at
contract execution or whatever later date they choose. So, um, just want to add that by way of background for the discussion. Let's start with you, Madam Vice Mayor. Sorry. Gosh, >> madam commissioner, >> you can call me. >> I know. Sorry. All the habits I hard.
>> Um, oh, why is that so loud? So, it's funny that that this comes up after I've had a discussion on something similar. As we're all aware, there there is a
property on Sunset that has been and is being, you know, fixed up, made beautiful, whatever. And you just said something that I thought was very interesting, which is they need to fix their properties to be able to sell their TDRs. Where they're
making their money is on the TDR. I don't think that it was envisioned when this conversation happened for the repairs to happen to these buildings and then to raise the rent of the tenants to the point where they're choking on it to
recoup that money. So I think we need to be a little bit of more aware I don't know if that's the right word that that may not be the the idea that was had may not be the reality of what is
happening and our our ten you know the tenants are feeling the squeeze and I don't know if that's on purpose by mistake I wouldn't guess for them I just think that something that looked like it
might have been an amazing benefit and it would have helped not only the facades but the shopkeepers is not helping the shopkeepers. So it in my opinion I we all know I was not a fan of the TDRs but now I feel like that's
insult to injury because the people the same things you're trying to preserve may be the very same thing that you lose first. You know I don't need an abbercomian fish. I don't need an anterior. I don't need any of those things. I want, similar to what we have,
I want to be able to go to my dog groomer or to my jewelry salon, you know, to my jewelry store, to all of those things, if we don't figure out, I think, a smart way to balance this, we're going to see this over and over again where the, you know, because you have to make the
improvements first before you can sell the TDRs. So, you're making this you're making these improvements. You're pushing whatever the cost is to the tenants hoping that your TDRs will sell, but in the meantime, they're suffering. I don't
I don't know if that was >> I don't I don't know that I don't know that. I mean, we we had a long conversation about this when we talked about the policy, right? What can we do to stop uh landlords from being, you know, excessively aggressive with rents, and the truth is there's really not
much, right? So I I think we had that conversation at Nauseium when we discussed this initially. Um you know I think and just like it's hard to dictate you know what someone does in their private property as to particular use whether
they want to have student housing or they want to have market rate housing or uh sell for sale product or you know have affordable housing right um it's hard to tell people what to do with their individual tenencies. You know I would hope that they're getting a
benefit from the ability to use, you know, latent rights and improve the capital facility they're building that they don't have to try to recoup all that investment on rents. But, you know, the the the the goal here was to preserve I mean, what we're trying to
preserve was the aesthetic and the context, operating context on Sunset Drive. I don't know that it's possible for us to preserve the every one of the tendencies. No, not even the tendencies, but >> yeah, >> it's like it it's like it's if to me
it's as toned as Marianette cake. >> I I don't Yeah, I don't What opinion? >> Well, think about it. Think about it. You're getting You know what? You're getting it here and then you're getting it here. It >> Well, I mean, I think that the the reason the reason we require the improvements is so that they don't get a
benefit and never reinvest back into the building. >> Yes. >> And have the buildings obviously suffer waste because Correct. So that's why there's that nexus, but I understand the sensitivity. I don't know. I'm open to an idea how to address it. And again, this is a discussion item, so that's what we're here for. Yes, sir.
>> No. Um, so when when and I I remember because we worked on it to make these these five requirements. >> The the purpose of this was we're giving all these other neighborhood, all these other blocks additional height, right? A ridiculous amount of height. But Sunset
Drive, we wanted to keep the small town feel to it. keep it at two stories. And this was an incentive. So when sun when the eventual design of this Sunset neighborhood is done or Sunset Drive, Sunset Place, urban center, whatever,
whatever it becomes is brand new that all these other building owners or property owners on Sunset Drive didn't really tell us, well, you didn't give us anything. Too bad we're not touching our building. So the incentive was and now yeah it becomes a double-edged sword I guess at this point but but I I don't
think that it was kind of like let them eat cake either. What we were trying to do is incentivize them to rehab their building. And and by the way they were all against the fact that they had to put up the money first. They dealt with it because they got the TDRs at the end. But it wasn't like they wanted that.
They wanted to basically say we get our TDRs and then once we get them we'll do the rehab. No, it was do the rehab first, put up the money, and it was even get a CO. So, close your permit, and then you get you you're you're eligible
for the for the TDRs in order to upgrade all these buildings on Sunset Drive. So, then when we do the placemaking, the new Sunset Place area comes to life, we have a vibrant new um, you know, Sunset Drive
like the mayor said. Yeah, it it sucks that they're they're they're raising the rents, but how do we control that? You know, trust me, I I don't want to lose footworks, you know, for like you said, an ant Taylor or whatever comes
in, for example, or you know, foot lock or whatever, but it's hard to I guess it's hard to eat your cake and have your cake and eat in it, too. >> Yes. There you go. More cake metaphors. >> Yes. Any
you're looking for feedback. >> Mr. C, I guess you're looking for feedback. So, whether we should take this to the planning board for discussion. >> That's the that's the Yeah. Whether we should take it and then if we're going to take it, if there's any comments to >> or anything like we like to modify or add as it was presented. Correct.
>> Correct. >> Colleagues, do we want to make a referral? What's the pleasure of the board? >> What do we feel about the 120 days versus what we had before the 90 days? I I mean I think >> I don't understand what what 30 days are going to do. >> It's a little bit more time to come up
with the cash honestly again which is not the last time we're going to see it. The question is we can send it over come back and choose to make the modification not make it. But >> what's the standard there? What's is there any standards out there other municipalities or counties?
>> So, so I would tell you in other jurisdictions when people pay benefits, they probably pay them concurrent with getting their building permit. So, ours is probably a little bit atypical and more aggressive in terms of the timing. >> Yes, sir. You re >> I'm sorry and I have a question. And the reason we're sending it to the planning
board is for them to review >> to consider an ordinance modification. >> Yeah. Planning board look at any land development regulation and and and give a recommendation to this commission. >> Right. Okay. With us saying we would prefer the 120 or the 90 or why don't we >> anything under the sun that comes back
to us from that ordinance. >> Correct. They would they would make the recommendation. >> Correct. >> Yeah. So what what do we we're just >> all we're deciding is whether we want to send it or not or whether we want to kill this baby in the crib. That's basically >> that's basically there. That's the answer I was looking for. No problem. So we either kill it or we send it to the
planning. >> Correct. >> Yes. Uh, Commissioner Bonich, >> there's one thing that I I if we talked about it, I missed it. >> It says, "Specific to TDRs, the revision propose proposes to clarify that eligible properties may consist of
portions outside of the Sunset Drive buffer area." What is that? >> Uh, oh, so it's >> there are certain properties that have a piece inside the Sunset Buffer. And >> you just can you just for our can our recollection can you tell us where the
boundary is for the sunlight buffer area because I think that will help. >> So the sunset buffer area is mid block >> midb block sunset coming down to 73rd. Imagine right down the middle of the block. Okay. So there are some properties >> to the alley >> to to the well where there's an alley
where there's an alley >> just for correct correct but yes roughly where the alley is if you were to extend the alley all the way to 57th Avenue. So there are some properties um at least one property that extends well past that all the way to 73rd.
So those properties it it that that they would not be ineligible simply because they they were able to that they uh yeah that they would not be ineligible simply because they have property outside of that. Now I think this may go one step
further and say that it's money that was spent on that property because It's all part of the same property. The for the voters that an applicant shall be entitled to achieve its bonus floor area through any of the means described the boat. No, I'm sorry. I'm read commission. I think just to build on Yeah.
>> the city attorney's comment. The question is you have one one building, right, that is in the buffer area but runs but the building it's all one integrated unit, one integrated building but a portion is outside. If they're improving the entirety of the building, should they get credit for the
improvements made to the portion outside the buffer area? I think that so the effect the effect of the change would be to allow them to get credit for the improvements to that as well so they could sell more TDRs. >> Okay. Right. But the TDRs again to clarify, are they calculated based on
the totality of the property or just the square footage within the buffer area? They should only be based on the based on the the buffer area to the extent that this goes further. >> Would not change the amount of TDRs they can sell. It would just allow them to assuming claim more of them sooner. >> It might allow them to claim more of
them sooner because of an investment into the property. >> Do you have a further question? I'll just go down the line. Mr. Vice Mayor, >> I guess I just had a question. How does that help us accomplish our goal for the character on on Sunset Drive if we give
them more outside of Sunset Drive? >> I mean, just I'll I'll let someone answer if you want. Nick, you can answer. Yes, you're welcome to. >> Yeah, you're recognized, sir. >> Good. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. Nick Not from the law
firm, Bills and Sunberg. Um, keep in mind this would increase the the buffer area that we can use for TDRs beyond to the midb block where the alley is because there's buildings way across it. In order to utilize this program, you have to place a restrictive covenant
across the property. To your question, Commissioner or Vice Mayor Corey, preserving the the building form at at what it currently is, right? So, this preserves kind of the the low-rise twotory um existing structure
of Sunset and that that covenant would apply to the entire property that would be utilized for the TDR program. >> So, >> so it does it would preserve more than just the area within the buffer if we're using more than what's in the buffer. And I'll defer to city attorney on that,
but that was my understanding of the change. >> Yeah, the I think the result of what we have right now is you're going to have a property burdened by essentially burdened by the requirements without any any correspondent benefit because a portion of it's outside the footprint of the buffer area. >> Am I expressing myself correctly? Yes.
>> Okay. >> Yes, ma'am. You recognize. >> Can you give examples of who this could be? What buildings? >> Well, definitely the building you're the one the one building where Yeah, it's the one building where Lanes is, right? It's the corner building that runs >> Yeah. The corner the cross >> sunset to 73rd. >> That's right. >> I don't know if there's any others, you know.
>> No, that's that's the big one because the other ones end at either an alley or they have uh I I believe >> the only others I would tell you are are they're design the bank the bank does not run Well, the bank does run the 73rd. Yeah. That's like the bank. The bank. That's right. >> Those would be the two that would be
benefit. >> But would that restrict the bank from building up on 73rd >> if they chose to again. >> Okay. They they >> gives the option. >> They have the option. >> So yeah, just to clarify, they are restricted in terms of how high they can go on sunset.
>> The prop the restricted outside the buffer area. >> Correct. They are not restricted. >> They're choosing to keep it. Correct. >> Right. They are imposing the limitation. >> They're giving up something. they're giving it up and therefore we're trying to give them the benefit of the of foregoing that additional envelope. So that would be true for Thank you for
clarifying. I forgot about the bank. The bank building does run the 73rd. Just remember the back parking lot, your boogies. Um but they do have that portion. So essentially they could go I think to six stories there. >> Yes. >> Right. >> So they would be forgoing going to six stories in exchange using the envelope
>> four stories for sellable TDRs instead. >> That's right. So just so I understand though this is just for like a continuous building that goes back. So all but then all the other properties on 73rd wouldn't have the benefit of this option.
>> No just this just these two properties >> just just the ones that are one are in in integrated integral I don't the right word is buildings right single buildings >> contiguous maybe not really I don't know if that's right anyways.
>> Yes sir. So I would say for for the crossroads, you know, if you want to keep and maintain a twotory on, you know, turning on 57th and turning on 73rd to not just have like a big building there, this would be a good option. Um, but then to
me, my opinion, contrary on the on the bank building, I don't think it works well there because I think in the back they can put something, you know, I I don't know. We're restricting the bank building or bank owners. >> Again, just to clarify, we're not they have they just it would give them the
option. >> Oh, it would give them >> They're not required to. So, they're again, you can just bring those buildings or portions of that are outside the buffer area into the footprint of the TDR program. >> Yeah. So, so they have it's just an option that they can >> tank or not. >> They can Yeah. If they want to preserve
the front half and sever it, close it off and then build a new building from the midline back, they can do that to the maximum. I I I think if Crossroads wants to do it and they want to maintain with the twotory height on 57th right there. I mean that's that's their >> Yeah. My my discussions with the bank
ownership is they want to keep the bank structure going to modify it and restore it. That's what they've been communicating to me in my private conversations. So it could be that we have you know that building treated the same way. But yeah, we'll see what happens. >> Again, we don't have to decide all these
issues today. We'll get another bite of the apple. The question is, do we want to refer it to the planning board? >> I'll move it to the plan. Okay, we have to move it. >> We can we we can we can any objection to sending it to the planning board? >> Okay, seeing no let's just consider it
referred. I don't need to think we can take a vote on it. Okay. Uh madam clerk, if you can read N1, please. >> Yes. Richard Rick Urban has been appointed by Mayor Fernandez to the design review board as per city charter article 2 section AA for a two-year term ending May 5th, 2028.
Colleagues, we'll move on to items one and two, which are consent agenda items. Anyone have any questions regarding items one or two? >> Okay, madam clerk, if you can read items one and two into the record, please. >> Yes. Item one, a resolution of the mayor and city commission of the city of Southland, Florida, selecting Squire
Patent Bogs as specialized bond and disclosure legal council for the city hall redevelopment project authorizing the city manager to execute the retainer agreement with Squire patent box for the legal services. Item two, a resolution of the mayor and city commission of the city of South Miami, Florida, selecting
Pissa Nelly as specialized legal council in connection with a request for proposals for a mixeduse affordable housing project on city- owned property located at 5890 Southwest 69th Street authorizing the city manager to execute the retainer agreement with policy for
the legal services. >> Thank you. Uh colleagues, is there a motion to adopt item one and two? I'll move the motion. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Motion by Commissioner Rodriguez, a second by Commissioner Bonich. Madam Clerk, please call the RO. >> Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Kag. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bonich. >> Yes.
>> Vice Mayor Cory. >> Yes. >> Mayor Fernandez. >> Yes. >> Agenda P 5 Z. >> If you can read item seven, please. >> Yes. Item seven, an ordinance of the mayor city commission of the city of South Florida amending article 8 transit
supportive development district to amend regulations to provide new definitions, clarify existing provisions and modify procedures and criteria within the transit supported development district. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Alers, I think this is
your item. >> Good evening, sir. >> Good evening, mayor. Good evening, commission. Mark Elvis with the Corina Group of Miami planning staff. Um, yes, there we go. So, this is an item of an omni bus, some cleanup, some
clarifications that have come through as we've enacted as we've approved developments with the TSD. We found a number of things that need to be clarified or adjusted. Um, starting with with the first section, there are some definitions. Most of them
refer back changes we're making except one which would be um alley. It's more of a clarification. We note that some properties do have the alley on the side. Um that's actually up by 68. We have that situation. Um the the l the
alley northwest of commerce. One of the things we wanted to clarify was the off-campus student department. We had a long discussion about how to measure bedroom sizes. Um and with the with the commission we had decided to measure bedroom sizes individually but a
lot of conversation about in suite bathrooms and closets. Um through two of the uh proposals that have come through one has done that one has not and we also find that it's a very difficult thing as we go through the permitting process to note to be sure that those
bedrooms will stay the same sizes. So we are proposing a different method and the method is actually following what we do in the multif family residential. In multif family we take the whole apartment we divide by the number of bedrooms and that is our our standard.
So here we're following the same methodology. Um the added column on the table for section 20-8.4b is for student housing and we're taking basically the same methodology. It's about 100 to 100 square 50 square feet
smaller for student housing and we take the entire area of the apartment. We divide it by the number of bedrooms and that's what we would use. And we feel more certain then as this goes through permitting that we would uh we're going to have the same apartment sizes so we don't have to worry about walls moving
internally to this to the apartments. Um so that's one of the changes and that's something that we would like to uh we're really voting that as staff because it would be much easier and more reliable to move forward with that. And the the diagram kind of shows you what
we're doing. We're taking the entire area dividing it by bedrooms same as multif family and then um right now what's in the code would require us to take each bedroom combine it with the bathrooms and kind of add all those areas together.
The second change uh is we are removing adult entertainment from the uses section from the non residential uses section. It occurs right now um under um entertainment uses in category C. It will be removed. There is another
ordinance tonight about adult entertainment that will regulate that in the future. Since adult entertainment is also closely allied with nightclub uses. Um there's been language added to the code to ex to exclude it explicitly from
nightclub uses again because we're going to have a follow an ordinance right after this that will address the um adult entertainment. And so these are these are both tracking together first and second ordinance. We can't write it in right now because we don't know what will be decided for adult entertainment.
We would presumably put it into the code so it will be codified. Don't know what would happen. I can go on without the slides. Okay, there we go. Um so for parking uh we have gone through a number of approvals and uh thank you commissioner Bonich for
reminding us that uh scooters count electric scooters electric bikes >> and it turns out actually some we were collecting some data on student housing and the box one and box two we got their their not the requirement but the demand
for bicycle and electric scooters and electric scooter is double what pedal bicycles are in each So, we know we're doing the right thing um on this one. And we are Oh, we went back. Sorry. Is it I'm just going to keep going with
it if we can't get it to So, we we're changing the language in that from um we're basically striking bicycles and writing in personal mobility device or PMD everywhere in that table and in that section. So, the
bicycle counts would apply to personal mobility devices, electric scooters, electric bikes, anything that one person rides around. >> Your questions, we have a question from Commissioner Bonich. >> Yes. >> How are we going to deal with that when
it comes to electricity >> because they have to plug in? >> We have added into that um that such a bicycle room would have electrical service at a rate of 1 to four. In other words, for every four PM
There would be some kind of outlet that probably needs a little refinement because as it goes through building code, but we want to put something in the code as a as a placeholder for that realizing that you have to charge them. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Thank you.
>> Okay. So, along with this and it's not in your package, so I want to advise you that this is something that we meant to put in, but we did not make it for the for the uh package on the first reading. Um, one of the things that's been difficult for us has been that the
bicycle regulations, the bicycle requirement is based on the parking requirement. So, as you know with TSDD, we wanted to reduce parking and over time probably reduce car parking and increase bicycle parking. And tying those two together didn't make sense. And most any other jurisdiction will
have bicycles per development unit. So, we're switching that. What you see there again this is not in your package right now but we would add it if you're approved approve us to do that we have taken the bicycle count which is
generally 1 to 10 or 1 to 15 car spaces worked that through the numbers on the b on the car parking and kind of come to a number and then rounded it one way or the other some excuse me in some cases we found those numbers to be kind of far out of sync to what other jurisdictions
do, excuse me. And one of the places that that happens is in residential. Um, right now we require with the parking and everything, we're requiring one bicycle space per 15 residential units. That's kind of far to the low side. Um,
very urban, New York does one to two. Um, less urban in Broward County, we found Pemrook Pines of all places has a 1 to5. So, we're proposing one to three as a sort of compromise. We're fairly urban but and again keeping in mind that most of the bicycle requirement isn't
very burdensome. Most of that's occurring in the sort of off spaces of the garages that are not usable for cars. So we haven't had even when we required a lot we have not had a lot of push back on bicycle parking because it's fairly easy to provide. Um the
other one that needed some adjustment was the um the student housing bicycle parking in the other direction is was very uh we asked for a lot of bicycle parking and we've made an adjustment to that based on uh looking at dormitories
and because there's not a lot of off-campus student housing uses that we can find regulations for but based on dormitories and across the street from our our one and two they come up to about 1 to 10. So for every one unit,
I'm saying that wrong. For every 10 units, one bicycle space or PMD space as it is. So this is an add-on and if if you wish to include it for going to the second reading, um we would work with that. Second, the other issue is um open
space. So we had an we've had some issues and discussions about what we call vertical encroachment. In other words, if we have open space, do we want to allow the building to go over it? The first part of that has uh a situation where the open space has nothing to do
at all with the bonus. We balanced it back and forth and decided that the best option on this would be to look at each situation and include it as a waiver. So, in other words, if there is an open space that has no connection to a bonus and that the applicant has an attractive
project that works well for the commission and that situation and everything that's going on, it would be available for a waiver, which is a fairly simple grant for encroached open space. And there you see the uh student commons at at the university has that
going on. And that one is actually in Ohio State. It's the Nolton Center for Architecture. It's where I graduated. So, um, so anyway, and there are many examples. I think you can walk around the lake at University of Miami and see a lot of buildings that come over their open space and they're fairly
attractive, especially if the height is very high up. So, that's been included. There's been a a greater emphasis to divide public open space and private open space. They were not well stated as being very distinct. And now the the
changes, there's a lot of small word changes in there to make sure that those are really terms of art in our open space plan. The second situation is when the open space relates to a bonus and then all of the issue about waiver goes away. We are
proposing that it's strictly not allowed where there's a bonus that's applied forth with that open space. And this is probably better with the picture. So on the left we would have a building without an encroachment. The green part would be the required open space. The
blue part would be an application for open space for a bonus. And the light blue the top as the bonus. Once that gets encroached on the right side where the building is coming over it at the third floor and it's now sort of red
squares. Um what we do what we look at is well now the green part the required open space has to displace some of what used to be the bonus open space has to move over into that bonus and so there's less bonus available. So the way we want the way we worded it and the way we're
hoping we worded it is that under no circumstances can any encroached open space >> apply to a bonus whether it's applying to the base amount or to bonus amount. um street hierarchy plan. Um we have uh
and we've again I I will go over this a little later, but that was inadvertently two three paragraphs were left out of what's in your package that addressed this. But we have um continuously realized that we have a requirement to dedicate the additional rightway that we
need to accomplish the landscape and the sidewalk and the streets that we want. Um, in the case of a county road or a state road, we don't want to dedicate it because it doesn't belong to us and we don't control it. So, we have in each of the developments that have come through accepted easements instead. We've
brought that before the count the commission for the um for the approvals. We would we want to codify that basically. So, that's also been included that whenever it's a state or county road, we use an easements instead of a dedication.
Um, and and this is sort of an example. This is from a prior approval that's now passed us. And you can see that, you know, there's we're always asking for what comes down to about five feet in most cases. And if that one was on a county road, so it was an easement, but
if it had been on a city road, it would be a dedication in that little space, that five foot space. Um uh also we have similar to this this situation on the um on the the uh street
hierarchy. I know this says building location massing and form but this relates together. On our street hierarchy we had a number of streets that did not have any designation at all. Neither primary nor secondary. They usually occurred at the edges, the backs of TSNA
blocks, 57th Court, which we've been talking about, 62nd Court, which we've talked about in the past. All those had no designation. Again, we've had no problem with each approval, working with the applicants to get what we want on those streets and the kinds of facades
that we want on those streets. But again, to be certain that we want to make sure that we have this codified. And right now it actually affects the ones that we've seen so far. Um I checked through and the uh to the south
on 74th and 70 on 74th Street and 76 were they're actually included in the plan. So we don't need it there, but again we want to be safe and make sure that we address those streets. Um the issue of floor plate. So, we have
a regulation that's to control a very generic regulation that was intended to control massing on towers. We discussed this at great length during the zoning. Um, and we decided that a 20,000 square foot floor plate would do the job for us. And we would allow waiverss on oddly
shaped blocks or on certain blocks that were six stories with certain uses. Um, there's a problem with the word floor plate. Floor plate in the building code means it can be connected. It's all one building as it appears, but it's separated by firewalls and fire doors.
So, we're changing that contig two contiguous building floor area long term, but we don't want to use floor plate. And a contiguous building floor area would have to be entirely separate buildings with again just as a placeholder 10 air gap of 10 ft.
>> Um, a small thing in the code that we >> excuse we have a question from >> Sorry, just wanted to confirm. So, it is a gap of 10 ft that goes all the way down. >> Correct. All the way to the ground. >> All the way to the ground. >> Yeah. Well, no, not the way this is being written. Excuse me if we're thinking of two
different things, but for that code, as we're amending it, it would be all the way down to the fourth floor. So, I and I know there's going to be a separate item that we're going to have to discuss when we get to the sixstory buildings, but for for this case, we wanted to
change that word floor plate to something else. Can we can we just if I could just put the question more bluntly which is how would this impact the application that was deferred earlier today >> if this if this if this uh provision was adopted
>> they're now seeking a variance to allow for the continuous floor plate how would the how would the adoption of these rules on second reading impact that applicant either positively or negatively >> it would um
it would harder. First of all, they would not work under the word floor plate anymore. Um, they would have to separate in that case a garage and tell me if I'm saying something I shouldn't. >> Um, if they they would have to separate a garage from the habitable areas by at
least 10 ft still only on the fifth or sixth floor based on this piece. We also I'm jumping ahead three slides but we would also we propose that there will be a waiver instead of the variance and that more addresses the idea that we have to go through a variance which is a
very difficult process to approve. The last piece that would be necessary, I think in a lot of people's minds, and stop me if I say something, >> um, would be that we would want to have the waiver go with the process that we
would decide, we'd have to have more discussion. We'd have to decide what that floor plate will be or not to floor plate, um, contiguous building floor area would be. It would go down to the ground and we would have a space, some kind of a space between the buildings. In other words, we would cut the long
blocks pieces. And this will occur not only on the Red Road project, but also south of 74th Street. We would have a number of blocks that could assemble into six 600 foot long blocks. So, it's something that we should have a discussion on, but we don't have that in
this right now. >> We have two of the pieces >> yet. If if I could expound upon it, >> please. Yeah. The the concept is so right now what he is describing is a clarification of what our existing code is so far the provision that he's gotten which is you have a floor plate
limitation above the fourth floor. >> Mhm. Okay. It's it it's a different term that he that that that Mr. Alvarez is proposing just to clarify to distinguish it further from the building code. We don't apply the building code definition. We apply what he is describing anyway. Okay. So that would
be a restriction on on on that plate on any uh portion of the structure that is above the fourth floor. The second thing that he described which was con uh allowing for a waiver of that to allow that to get bigger. One of the the concepts that we have been uh
considering is for the criteria for getting that waiver. It would allow you to get more than 20,000 square ft, you know, up to some number. But then the tradeoff is you got to bring that separation all the way down to the ground. So, you want to do a bigger
building, a bigger floor plate than you're allowed to do, great. We'll we'll let you do it, but you got to bring a separation all the way down to the ground. That would be the the the give and take, >> please. >> You're recognized. >> Sorry. No problem. >> Um, it's not what I I is not what I
asked earlier. >> Yes. Is it is I just wanted to explain >> but you said it was only up to the fourth floor you >> what's in front of you right now what what the two separate things that takes three different changes in the code and we've got two of them in here right now.
>> Yeah. So this is what's existing. We're just rewriting it and then we're going to bring a new aspect to it which is go all the way to the ground. >> Uh right when you go over a certain size >> and what do we we haven't picked that size yet. >> No that's we can discuss that this evening. >> All right. Thank you.
Yes, madam uh commissioner, you're recognized. >> Okay, so as it stands right now, I I just I'm trying to visualize it ground to fourth floor. Just changing the verbiage, we can have something long and the floor plate smaller when you get to the top, you know, five, six, seven,
whatever it is. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> The second thing that we're saying is, hey, forget this now. We already know what that means. If you want a bigger floor plate, then we're going to make you 10 ft all the way down to the ground. >> That will be a proposal. Yes.
>> Okay. >> Thank you for the clarification. Thank you. >> Very small item for sustainable buildings. Almost every application comes in with a lead um equivalent. And we have our code is silent about who gets to decide that. It the code is not
silent in the bonus section. It's the city manager. And we're correcting this to be the city manager. um building elevations. We we have um two things. One was to quantify. We we don't allow mirror glass on our buildings. It was a small movement
towards bird safe. We want to not have bird safe in the code because it's very complicated. Um and that we're adding a definition which would be 15% reflectance value or less. So in other words, no mirror glass. And it's actually not a good idea for um
pedestrian kind of streets because you can't see in. So there's no no points of interest inside. Um going also we have had a number of applications where the question was asked you know the way the code is written where you have to have glazing requirements on it's just no
mission on the code glazing requirements on the driveways and on the back of the house. We've clarified that. So of course you don't need glazing requirements on back of house or the driveways or um delivery entrances. and and then uh on building
encroachments again just easier with this diagram there's been some confusion in the way the code was written as to the encroachments can exceed the build two line other words where the building goes to or the property line it is the property line and we're correcting the language in there to make sure it's
clear that it's the property line so again this was a prior approved project does have some balconies they go up to the property line and finally would I just discussed before, we have a um provision in the waiver section that would include the
contiguous floor area. I can't even say it all the time. Uh like a floor plate to allow that to go through a waiver instead of a variance. And again, that piece is more because a variance is is a very difficult thing to go through that process. Those are all the changes. I
know the big question is the sixtory blocks and we would need one more piece to that which would be a policy decision. I would have to be referred back to the planning board to go through a I mean no. Yes. >> So I think I think the the planning board already saw the concept of adding
this as a waiver. >> Okay. >> So my thinking is that if you're modifying the criteria for that waiver that's well within the context of the title and what they reviewed. >> Okay. >> That's it. >> That's it. presentation over.
>> We'll take your referrals on the the question items. >> Colleagues, any questions? >> Mr. Asked all of your >> I'm sorry, mayor. There was one more clarification um that Mr. Alver brought to my attention. Uh in section 20-8.9A, there were two provisions in the street
hierarchy plan that were inadvertently deleted from the the the version in your uh agendas. They basically dealt with whenever you're on a state road instead of requiring a dedication we would take an easement so that we have control over that area. And the other one uh these
are more minor uh things. Um wherever there's a crosssection let's say on on on a on a county >> on a county or state road wherever there's a required cross-section if that conflicts with ours that the manager can can modify what the requirements are just to meet both.
>> And I'm sorry I wasn't actually concluded. John John reminded me of the last slide. Um, we have a we have an error that kind of a picture scriveners error that occurred when we first did the map on the tsd. We included two of the Baptist
hospital properties. Those were approved by plan unit developments puds. Uh, and we can't reszone those. So, uh, we're going to remove those from the map and it's the ones that are outlined in blue. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, colleagues. Um, I do as well. So, do we want to try and dispense with this item? Then we'll take a a quick break. Okay. Um, is there a motion on item seven?
Yes, sir. You're recognized. Wouldn't we have to decide on what that maximum floor plate is going to be before we make a motion? And there's no max. They can if they go over 20 they just have to cut down all the way to the
floor the whatever structure it is. So what is the maximum that we're going to allow for them to go? 50,000 30,000 >> or is it is it is there a linear dimension that we have as a maximum?
>> We do not we do not currently have a linear dimension. We that that's that's one way to look at it. Right. Instead of a floor plate, it's whenever there's a linear dimension longer than uh you know 200 feet, >> 200 feet, 250 ft, whatever that happens to be.
>> So that that you get a break >> for that that long span. >> Shers, how big is the typical block in South Miami in the TSC? How long is it? >> They vary, but we were when we were doing the code, we were basing it on a
300T block concept. So we're we're dealing with a 600 foot block 550 foot block as some potential 600 >> I think 300 feet would be I mean the outer limit I would suggest that right >> so you're saying at the 300 ft right there
less than I would I wouldn't go beyond my my point is I wouldn't go beyond 300 feet >> oh I agree with that I think >> so the question is do we want something shorter or or not and again I I I want to ask this procedural question I do not want members of the public who are not here now
to accuse us of changing the rules in the middle of the game to do an applicant a favor. I am concerned about the confluence of this conversation with the other application that is pending. So how if if we were to adopt this on
second reading right that you know the next meeting or one in June is that applicant able to modify their application to conform with these standards? And I just want this commission to act with full knowledge as to what the impacts may be on that pending application. So if we if if they
have if there has not been a final disposition of their application and we modify and we get through second reading they can they could modify their application. They could take advantage of of the new >> So I just want to make sure that whatever we do as a board you're comfortable with the fact that they
could come in and and activate the site consistent with these changes, right? >> Yeah. They would have to redesign the whole thing. >> They they would and that might that might happen anyways, right? It sounds like they're heading in that direction based on In fact, they're not making they're not making quite the progress I think they had hoped. But I just want
again and I think we should if we do this, I think we should telegraph to the neighbors that this is happening and they will have they will have that option, right? So, I just don't want anyone to feel like we're kind of catching people >> unaware with this regulatory change. So, just want to get that out there. I'm sorry, madam madam commissioner, you had
a comment. >> I I just keep thinking about the conversation we just had of the 300 ft. We're looking at a, you know, at a regular block at being 300 feet and and I get that. But in a regular block, you
have so many changes happening. Think of how many storefronts fit on 300 feet, >> you know. So, so I think that to say if you've got a contiguous block that's more than 300 feet, you have 300 feet to make the break. I don't think that
that's really getting you guys where I think you want to be. I think if you you're saying, "Hey, you've got 550, you've got 600, then you've got to see a break, I think, before the 300 because if not, then you've got these big squares." No, >> no. I I again I I just asked the
question so we know what typical condition is of what a full block parcel looks like. It's 300 feet on what side? If you wanted to say two, I mean, we said 200, right, as one number, >> right? If we wanted to so you know 66% of the block can only be you know on one
face occupied by a single monolithic structure that's fine I mean it kind of gets to the concern people have about Avalon Bay being >> a big box >> a big box right so um very active now big box but yes a big
box nonetheless so again where where do we want to land that conversation >> I'm not necessarily I think the right person to make that decision because I think you guys have a a different vision than >> or what would you recommend 2 250 200 what's the right
>> I think instead of saying the block can be up to 300 I think if we say that the block a block over 300 would divide itself in and that allows the architects some freedom to move that division around on the block >> but a block so but over 300 would still
allow someone with a 300 foot linear block to have a 300 foot linear mass on one Correct. >> Uninterrupted. >> Or we could say it would be over 300. We have to two or what I'm trying to get at is maybe not getting a a definite
length, but try to do a little more math on there >> that triggers some breaks. >> Maybe make it 250. Then >> well, I think >> I think 200. >> I'm I'm going to say this. Maybe this needs to be needs to wait marinate another meeting. I don't know. and we
can bring it back and with your recommendation >> like a good number >> and with some examples of what the standard is elsewhere >> with what creates a good urban condition. >> Okay. I I don't know that I don't know that we need to do this immediately. Right. >> Yeah. >> So I I prefer to kind of get that uh
recommendation with some standards adopted elsewhere. >> Okay. >> So we know with typical block conditions maybe in some other urban cores >> and see how we how we break it up break it up. But that's just my thought. Did you want to ask something else? >> No. >> May. >> Yes. I I I think we should also put it in in
in the record that what we're doing here is we're cleaning up current zoning things that we've found as we've gone. We're not trying to do it because of one specific person who just so happens to coincidentally be doing a project in which we're talking about this very
thing. So, we're just doing cleanup. We're not really trying to, you know, modify for a certain developer. >> There's multiple issues here, but that's one. And I want to make sure that we we're not again perceived as doing something to to change the change the rules after the fact. Correct. >> And this this would be applicable to
other properties in the TSTD to other blocks. >> Yeah. I I would I would recommend that we move to defer this item to May 19th. >> I'm fine. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. So, we have a motion by myself, a second by Commissioner Rodriguez. Let's show this item deferred without objection to May 19th. Okay.
>> Uh let's read item eight, please. >> Wait, no. Sorry. Yes, ma'am. Sorry. >> You need We Yes. My apologies. I forgot. So, if we could take if we could take a five minute recess. Thank you. >> I thought you had something to say. >> No. No, no, no, not yet.
>> Recording in progress. >> Hey, good evening. We're now back in session. Uh, Madam Clerk, guys, you ready? Okay, >> madam clerk, if you can please read item eight in the record. >> Item eight, an ordinance of the mayor and city commission of the city of South
Florida amending section 20-8.2 definitions and section 20-8.5 permitted and special non-residential uses of article 8 transit supported development district of the land development code to revise regulations related to adult entertainment.
>> Thank you, madam clerk. Mr. Attorney, you're recognized to present the item. >> Thank you, mayor. Uh so the adult entertainment uses uh so right now we have a a a it is treated in our code as a
conditional use. Um that's what was in our code and requires a thousand foot spacing between it and uh uses such as parks, schools, religious facilities. Following our adoption of the TSDD code with that with that provision in it, uh
we received uh several letters actually regarding um some constitutional infirmities that were alleged in our code uh and in the language specifically that if you apply the the requirements of our code um that thousand foot
spacing and requiring it that that it only be in the TODA sub uh district there is no real physical place where you can actually locate it. Uh that is a that has there are constitutional issues with that. That was the allegation
essentially. Uh the uh dancing and and specifically nude dancing uh these are constitutionally protected speech. Uh Supreme Court has recognized that. So to the extent that we were essentially uh prohibiting it, um we were concerned
enough about it to to address it. And the result after several months of uh of our own internal review and of bringing it to the planning board several times is the ordinance which you see before you. What it does is um it moves adult
entertainment from a conditional use to a permitted use and but subject to several requirements. The first requirement is that it be uh it it occur only in conjunction with a full service restaurant. Uh that that uh
establishment front either on Progress Road or on Commerce Lane. The reason we chose that is because that is that is uh particularly the the most currently the most industrial our uh area of our city. It it I I would say it's the industrial
area of our city except that those are existing uses. That's not really the future of this area according to our our TSDD plan. Um but it is the most like that and it's the most uh apt to stay to to stay that way for some time. Um
additional conditions um it is it can only be accessible to pedestrians and vehicles from Progress Road or Commerce Lane. So it cannot have any kind of uh opening to the to any other street. Uh the structures entrance and exit uh is
at least 400 lineal feet from the pedestrian entrance to any public uh charter or private school or a day nursery, a public library or public park. And that's measured as a linear path of travel what someone would actually walk. Uh that was when it was presented to the planning board that was
300 feet that was increased to 400 feet based on their input. Uh they had requested it be it be more. Uh we have our we have concerns about making it more than that. uh as it would further restrict the area of the of uh where these can go. And there there's just
there's a level where it has to be uh potentially feasible to locate the use whether commercially they uh you know a potential user can can can locate it within that area is a different question. That's not the constitution does not guarantee them a place to do
it. But we can't cut off all places to do it and we can't make it so restrictive that hey that you can only do it in this one tiny spot. Right? So we've we've provided two streets. We believe that that it would pass constitutional muster. Um alcoholic beverages uh would have to be uh to the
extent that they're served um would have to comply with our code. Obviously uh any signage uh would have to be oriented towards Progress or Progress Road or Commerce Lane. Um the signage is not to be visible from any other public rightway. The exterior uh paint colors
would be uh muted. Um these would uh we they would have to avoid any kind of colors like neon, fluorescent, daylow, any anything that that is uh that attracts too much attention or is garish or is or is out of out of compatibility
with with the businesses around it. Uh in terms of outdoor lighting, um this the lighting would have to be oriented downward uh shielded uh so as not to create a problem for for other properties. Um all of these things are
meant to combat what the Supreme Court has recognized as secondary effects of this type of use. That's where we can restrict and we can place restrictions. So, so they are all intended to implement th those uh uh limitations to
address potential secondary effects. So, among those the uh continue with the conditions. The next condition is that the the establishment has to employ uh a private security or uh or an offduty police officer up to 8:00 p.m. And
thereafter until closing, they would have to provide three of those. um they would have to uh basically address loitering, disturbing the peace or uh basically serve as a deterrent uh in the area. Also to stop people from parking
uh on properties that are not the that are not the the establishment properties. Um, it would require site plan approval by the development service director after taking it to the DRB, but specifically to address uh configuration of the parking, the site access, the
paint, the colors, the signs, lighting, not not the use itself, but but all of these uh other effects of the of the construction. Um and then in terms of the hours of operation, the uh requirement as presently drafted in front of you is uh from Sunday
through Thursday, we are proposing uh hours of 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. the following day and Friday and Saturday uh from 3:30 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the following day. Um and then uh during any of the adult entertainment hours of
operation, all patrons would have to be 21 years or older. Um and uh last but not least, well that there would be uh the the windows uh have to be uh treated to fully obscure view into the structure
to the extent that there are there are windows. And then lastly, the uh this was an addition from the planning board comments that an establishment providing adult entertainment shall be located no closer than 500 ft to another establishment providing adult entertainment. Um that was based on
their their input. They had actually proposed 750 ft which uh I am not averse to. If you'd like to increase that, we can certainly uh go down that that we can talk about that and and and implement that. Um in terms of how other uh cities or neighboring cities treat
these uses, um the city of Miami allows them in industrial areas uh subject to a thousand foot spacing. The um Coral Gables actually has a district where they allow them, the design district which is uh basically around Merrick Park uh subject to a thousand foot
spacing. It is a conditional use in Coral Gables. It is a permitted use in the city of Miami. Um so e both of those cities allow this use. Uh believe Pinerest has a an adult entertainment establishment on US1. So these are not
unheard of in in other cities. um and there are rules in place to to allow for them uh in in other cities. We are so what we have before you is an attempt to to address uh the concerns that were raised. >> Attorney, just a quick question. Are we
are we constantly obligated to make space for more than one? >> I don't believe that we are constantly obligated. We we we presently have one for a city of our size. I think we would be fine to have one. Okay. So
>> to allow for one I not not to have one to allow for >> no to allow for one again right it's >> you just have to provide the opportunity not necessarily correct it okay >> and so I mean for that reason I I I with respect to the spacing the one standard I'd like to see changed is the u spacing
of 500 to at least 750 if not the full thousand since it's been it's been at least adopted elsewhere >> okay yeah that the thousand is is would be commensurate with other other jurisdictions >> colleagues any other thoughts on the standards. >> Yes, Mr. Rodriguez,
>> I agree on the thought. >> You recognize, sir, >> the linear feet from schools and uh parks, something I have a concern with with at 400 linear feet um because it's really close to a school and to a park.
At 500, we're already getting close to we're at a park and we're at a school. So, um The signage visuals being on Commerce Lane or Prospect Lane are essential here. I don't want it on 50
where the Moby building is. What street is it? >> The mobile on 68th Street. >> 68th Street. So, anything facing 68th Street on that corner? Something that I I don't want it, you know, to be as visible. I mean, we have kids going through the schools. And the timing here
is at 5:00 a.m. and sometimes at 3:30 start time. Kids are going to be going through that area all the way until 6 p.m. That's when our after school care uh still goes through there. So, something that I want to see how we can limit that. Um, just thinking outside the box a little bit. Uh, I know we have
it here in the industrial area that we have. Applying it to somewhere specifically where we can open it up to, let's say, just hear me out for a second, Sunset Drive. Um, is that something that would be feasible that might help in this situation here where
we can increase the distance from schools and parks and maybe it apply to a more retail oriented place like Sunset Rock for example. Is that something that we can do? that that's a policy determination that is that that's possible if you wanted to
locate as long as it's um >> yeah I guess my my follow-up question to that um Mr. attorney is what is deemed acceptable for the federal guidelines or whatever
the this whatever the judgment was like what is it to say what's deemed feasible enough >> you just have to provide for the opportunity >> right >> I mean you could you could choose to provide it in any number of use in any number of districts districts >> no so my point is if that's the case
then why don't we just designate one building in the No, that's what I'm saying. So that's my my point is >> No, it's not. It can't be one property. I say one propert So how many properties can it be? >> Whatever the >> Yeah, you got So >> you you guide yourself by by the case
law, right? Uh one case said that 4% of a of a city's commercial land was too small, too small of an area, not a meaningful enough opportunity. So got to be we would take more than 4%. Right. So that's why that's why that was
my concern with limiting it only to one street. >> So is that the number four percent? >> Yeah, four 4.1 more than four, right? But that but that doesn't mean that 5% is necessarily constitutional or there they just said four they said 4% was too
was too low. That's the guidance that we got. >> Mr. K, do you have a follow question? You want to come back to you? >> Come back to me. Thank you, >> Mr. Vice Mayor recognized. >> Thank you. So, I think this was a a wise decision if we're going to have it anywhere to have it in progress in
commerce, but I feel like it defeats the purpose if we're allowing it to be anywhere where there's an intersecting road because essentially the establishment instead of being inside our industrial area is exposed to it as
corner lots are facing. Can I maybe suggest something? It doesn't seem that if we make this a conditional use, there's any sort of constitutional affirmity with that. And so, right now, I'm going by the fact that Coral Gables
has is there an issue with it being subject to review. >> There there is some case law. >> Yeah, there is. The reason let me ask me let me kind of give you the reason for the question because what I'm sensing is >> even within this you know footprint that we are looking to authorize
>> there are concerns about aesthetics orientation and signage and so and we are essentially delegating this decision as you know I'm sure that none of us it's not a decision I'm sure any of us really want to make but if someone's going to make it I feel most
comfortable this board makes as opposed to delegating to the design review board right to address these concerns concerns. So is there a process by which we can uh maybe it's a site plan approval uh for this use specifically maybe not a conditional use it just requires site
plan approval by the city by the city commission so that we can address the same cons concern that the design review board would be uh would be addressing. So we would basically retain jurisdiction in the case of this one use type. >> Uh certainly you you could do that. Um
you could you could establish a site plan approval process. I would I would the the one thing we have to be I guess we could write >> we've done that with with what we proposed here. So we would keep kind of the same structure which is >> we would evaluate all the same conditions.
>> Yeah. It would have to be limited to that because it can't be used. The concern is and the concern the course expresses that it be it's being it would be used as a proxy uh to prohibit the use. >> Understood. Understood. And again, but I'm what I'm sensing with the board is that there's some anxiety about just
adopting it and never seeing it, right? Because there may be, you know, there may be some signage that uh that's oriented, you know, that's partially visible from 68th Street, right, at an intersection that would >> defeat some of the orientation standards
that are are here >> or, you know, again, us having the comfort being finally the ultimate arbittors of the approval. Is that is that something? Am I Am I >> That resolves that resolves my specific issue with a specific lot.
>> Um, but going back to >> I'm just thinking here about the 5% here. That's got me like >> really thinking about this. So, we have the opportunity to do on just hear me out guys. I just want to see what you guys think about this. On Sunset Drive,
if we open it up to there, it it gets past 5% easily. What would be the issues with that? >> Can I can I ask can I ask another can I ask a question related to that which is can you give I mean facts matter in these cases. So
>> we said it was a 4% threshold. Yes. In this case it was recognized as being constitutionally affirmed. Do we have anything about the size of the jurisdiction >> in which it was being >> I think it was a large jurisdiction. >> It was a large jurisdiction. >> Yeah. Yes. If I if I remember correctly, I I don't remember which city was, but yeah. Yeah. I don't I don't think it was
it was the size of our jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is much smaller. So I is that so I mean again I just want to make sure that a standard really we should be I I we tend to get fixated with numbers and I don't know that numbers always translate perfectly well right across
cases because these become you know there's there's there's standards and there's some fact-based you know analogies get drawn from one jurisdiction to another. So I I I guess I don't want to get fixated on 5%. But um >> you know and you know to try to draw a
very tight net around this >> I certainly I certainly think we should create an opportunity for one and one that's all that's required. Uh which is why I want to increase the distance requirement from 500 to a thousand. Um if I'm hearing from this board that we
want to retain jurisdiction over approving you know the site plan for these uses I'm fine with supporting that. Um, you know, again, just to make sure that we kind of keep as much uh oversight on the execution of
whatever may come forward so that it's done in the least impactful way to wherever excited. We could certainly I mean that again if we if we as long as we narrow the scope of of the decision making >> correct I think we use the same criteria
and we'd be limited to >> it's not if or what it's not if the use can happen it's is it complying with the criteria and it's almost as if we've >> given it a final once over to make sure that we are comfortable as opposed to delegating >> that decision to the DRB which is doing the same thing we would basically just
be substituting ourselves >> for the DRB >> for the DRB. Yes, sir. You're recognized. >> In the proposed location, what is the >> What is Progress and Commerce? It's It's a corner lot.
>> Well, it could be anywhere on anywhere. >> Anywhere. >> It could be anywhere on Progress, anywhere on Commerce, like >> anywhere. Yeah. Yeah. >> Down those two blocks. So, my question is, how does this affect the the fellowship >> or does the fellowship affect its
location? Do you know the uh where is the fellowship? >> It's the corner right next to the Popeyes. >> Popeyes >> across the street. Yeah. >> Oh. Oh, the the one on on the east side of 57th Avenue. >> No, it's >> Yeah, it's on the east side. Sorry. On
the west side. >> On the west side. Right here. >> It's not It's not a religious facility though. >> This one? This building? That's >> Yeah, >> this one. >> Okay. Yeah. Is Is that a religious facility? I
don't I don't believe in the church. >> It is. It is. >> No, it's it's it's it's called the Fellowship House, but it really is a it is a a behavioral services. >> Good point. >> Addiction services uh center. Thank you for that. >> They they pay full freight on taxes.
They do not have a religious example. >> Okay. >> Just that question. Um my second thing is I would be very apprehensive to I mean, I'm I'm I'm happy that it's getting off Sunset at the entrance of our city. I I don't know if I can I
would want to put it on Sunset Drive, which is our main road. I don't know if I can do that, >> you know. And hear me out. Me neither, though. I'm not I'm not I'm not saying that. Watch my words. Um, I don't know how to say this the way I
want to say it. So, I'm I'm at a loss, but we'll talk about that later. I'm going to take it off. >> Can I Can I ask There was a question made about or comment made about hours of operation. >> Uhhuh. Do you have any sense of what the
market is or the hours about? I'm concerned personally about the 7 a.m. close on >> uh the morning after the Friday or the morning after the Saturday night. I have seen in the limited reaches I've done that most places close at 5:00 am.
So now my preference again not to open it earlier on weekdays, but on Saturdays and Sundays whether someone's there watching a football game and someone dance at 12:00, I personally don't care. >> I think it's the overlap in the early morning hours where I observe that we
have the most secondary effects. you know, uh we had that one issue a few years ago that required us to act and reduce alcoholic beverage service hours for a period of time, as you'll recall, legal shooting, >> uh in, you know, that involved a patron
of one establishment in South Miami. So, again, I'm I'm more concerned about the, you know, very early morning or later morning activity because it kind of has an aggregating effect. people coming from elsewhere and those folks may have this may be their final stop after a
series of stops and they may come impaired already. It's not necessarily the fault of the operator, but it just has that kind of potential nuisance attraction value. So my my preference is just if we're going to have a closing time would be 5 a.m. across the board. To my knowledge, I don't know if you
guys have all looked at the Mr. Attorney, if you've looked at the marketplace, whether that's a time that is consistent with the hours for these uses being regulated elsewhere. So I believe u I believe both um the two
nearest ones which I believe are on US1 and 120 some in Pinerest that closes at 5:00 a.m. Uh the one on the just east of uh of Coral Gables in the city of Miami industrial area that one closes at 5:00 a.m. as well. And certainly our our
alcohol code allows for a maximum of 5:00 a.m. with city manager approval. U otherwise it's 4 a.m. So those would all line up at 5 a.m. >> And every other every other component of the business if they wanted to operate earlier just
not as uh an adult entertainment use wanted to open up as a as a bar at 11:00 they could or noon or >> they would be able to. Yeah, they could they could open up as early in terms of the the restaurant component of the business.
>> Correct. without the the uh adult uh they could open up as early as as they can serve alcohol as early as 9 under our alcohol code. >> Okay. >> 9:00 a.m. >> 9:00 a.m. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Further questions or observations, colleagues?
>> Don't be shy. You never have >> I know. No, I just I don't have anything that would be constructive other than the that you all already know that I have on this >> stance, pun intended.
>> Yeah, exactly. There you go. This There you go. Um, so you know, they have a right they have a right to exist >> and we need to make it so that that is possible. They've been a patri they've been a business here for many years.
They pay their taxes. Their employees pay their taxes. >> And while some people might find it unsavory, let's And in fairness to the operator's aid, I mean, >> we have other properties that generate a lot more secondary effects, right? So,
>> um, hope again, we don't know what we're going to get by, but we have a future operator, but certainly, uh, the current one is, um, >> I think in my limited time here, had a fairly good operating record. So, >> um, >> I think you know what, make it so that they can actually find a spot because if
not, we'll be having this conversation next year. >> Correct. So colleagues, yes, Mr. Vice Mayor, >> I guess I I just still have a little bit of concerns that that if we don't at least restrict the outer edges of the uh
progress in commerce that we will end up with something that is a little too facing toward parks, schools, things like that. Like I think the location's great for it. It just has to be tucked in a little bit more into
um into the streets. >> Yes, Commissioner. >> If and this is supposing I have no idea what property they would be interested in. I I don't even remember. But let's say that it's you're worried about the corner. So if it was a corner and the
signage said, you know, parking blah blah blah, would that be offensive or is it visual offense? Like I I think that what you're saying makes a lot of sense. I just think that we need to be a little clearer on, you know, we can't say you can't operate on the corners.
>> So, can can I So, so, Mr. C attorney, I mean, we have pretty wide latitude in regulating commercial speech >> constitutionally. >> Commercial speech. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Yes. >> We can't regulate the dancing. We can't limit that use. Okay. >> With respect to the establishment's commercial signage advertising the use,
>> we can set pretty we can set pretty strict standards with respect to where can be placed. and limit what can be said. Correct. Or not. >> The answer is yes. >> But not necessarily singling out this
use. That's the So, it's got to be for all commercial people. >> Okay. So, >> yeah. >> Again, I don't know if we've looked at our signage code. >> Yeah. >> But I mean, it's been a long time since I had a signage case, but >> you know, it has been that one was a mural. It's a lot of fun. Um
but uh so I again I'm wondering whether some of these concerns we have about the use being readily identifiable. We just need to look at you know take look at our code with a bit more exacting set of eyes and see if we can address that
aspect of this use this way. Obviously I think >> we're trying to in these conditions by requiring that the uh forward facing parts of the use be oriented towards the two streets on which they want to locate. >> That's right. And I would say that, you know, again, most people that are going to places know where they are. They're
not really, you know, they're not getting there by accident, right? So I don't, you know, I'm not sure the signage is that, yeah, I'm going to drive through Progress and Commerce to, oh, stumbled across uh this fantastic establishment. I mean, I'm sure that that happens, but it's probably, you
know, uh the rare exception. So, I think we've got a good mix of standards. I don't know. I think if we want to retain jurisdiction so that we can, you know, politely encourage an applicant to consider, you know, modification here or there and ne and
negotiate that without prejudicing their opportunity to locate in a particular area, it's probably the best outcome we're going to be able to achieve at the moment. Um, I don't know if that addresses your concern, Mr. Vice Mayor, or not. Yeah, just my concern is with the
signage and generally speaking the activity. There will be people in and outside all around the establishment late at night, maybe earlier in the night, early in the morning, you know, >> that's why I prefer an earlier close. >> Yeah.
>> From the comments, >> I would say the only modification I I I would I'm agreeing with you. I think five is more than enough. >> Yeah, >> I don't think I don't think it should be more than especially you already have the cases of the other two that are the
two closest scenarios close at five. You can't serve liquor past four unless you have an exemption. So, I think five is is more than >> Okay, this is a public hearing item, Mr. Attorney, correct? >> Yes, it is. Okay. >> So, why don't we open up the public hearing? If there's any member of the public uh online or the chambers would
like to address this commission on item number eight, please come forward at this time. Anyone on Zoom? Please raise your virtual hand. >> See no one online and no one in the chamber. Uh we will close public comment here on first reading. Uh colleagues,
anything before we want to what direction we want to give the city attorney with respect to modifications. A thousand foot spacing. Is that consensus? Yes. >> Yes. >> Uh uh hours of operation. Yes. >> Five. >> So five. Okay. And then from a process
perspective, do we want to retain jurisdiction to apply the conditions that are identified in the ordinance as opposed to delegating it to the the DRB? >> Okay. >> Can I ask a question on the linear footage from the schools?
>> Yes, you currently have it at 400. >> I've seen some code as well to 500. Is that something we're entertaining? Can we entertain that? Uh we can my um let me ask let me run some scenarios and >> is this is this a two this is first
reading second reading? >> Yes it is. >> Yeah this has this has to come back if I if you allow me to run some scenarios in the couple of weeks to make >> so I think let's let's let's let's move it with two modifications. The first would be distance between establishments from 500 to a,000.
>> The second being the hours of operations. Those are the easiest to analyze. And then, Mr. C attorney, if you can bring back a recommendation regarding the process change >> and the uh maximum vast distance that we can have it from those other adjoining uses. >> Okay. >> Right. Those are the two issues I'm
hearing. Correct. >> I'm I'm going to I have a different idea that I want to the attorney, but we'll we'll bring it up for the next. >> Okay. Okay. Fair enough. Is does anybody else agree with the idea of not having it on an intersection? >> I do. I >> But there's no intersection though.
>> Well, on on both sides of the >> Oh, you're saying that >> having it more central. Yeah. Just just eliminating that so that it can't kind of wrap around to >> Well, I think that's where the linear footage plays into place there a little bit. That's why I wanted >> Yeah. I mean, if you're at one corner, the linear footage is going to connect
you to this right to the Moy building. So, I think that that one's off. The other one is right by the fire station. So I >> I look I think the challenge with not including corners is that you're going to push it closer to uses that are uses
that are incompatible from a distance perspective. So again, I'm I'm literally pulling up the map here to to take a look at this right now. Um but that's my initial concern with the proposal. It's not that I don't disagree because I can see that you're going to you could be in one case
driving behind the back of the use, right? Yeah. um >> walking >> the actual footsteps from one entrance of one place to another. So that that does make a difference. >> So you're saying it's not >> it's not as it's not as a crow. Correct.
Understood. Not a radius. Yeah. >> And that makes a big difference. >> That's what I was. >> Yes. You're recognized. it if I'm going to use BTS as an example because they're literally across the
street. If you didn't know what BTS was, you're not going, "Oh, yeah, that's it." You know, so I think when it comes to inocuous signage, I think we're we're essentially there. I I I wouldn't venture to say that they're going to put, you know,
Hooters on the middle of the Sun. Um, and >> well, I mean, I again, I let's be honest with the fact that I think that was kind of a negotiated resolution. I'm not sure if there was actual litigation. >> There was. >> There was. So, that was the byproduct. The signage became one of the items that was negotiated, right? So,
>> so maybe we did >> because it's the only location that that that that chain, for lack of a better way describing it, owns that, you know, got signed. It's denominated that way. And so, >> so maybe we take whatever that verbiage was and add it to adult entertainment
>> instead of making it signage for the entire city. >> Can't we do it use specific? >> No, I think that's what the city attorney said. Yeah. And not we can't. We have to be viewpoint neutral in our rules. >> Okay. And then second, if we were to keep the corners, I'm not saying we
should or shouldn't, but if we were to keep corners that wouldn't be obviously forward facing, could we make them cover it so you don't necessarily see it? I'm trying to find a way to address what the
vice mayor is saying while at the same time not reducing the the possible footprint. we end up in more trouble. >> You recognize that? >> I think that we have we have more than enough time to kind of go through that and kind of like actually do the research on lineage and all that stuff.
So, I mean, if we keep it as we just proposed with those those comments, Mayor, maybe we just move forward and >> that's fine. I think we if you want if you want to again I think we can we can incorporate two modifications today and have them bring back some some proposals
with respect to process and um what was the other what was the sorry what was the second issue location >> um >> just the distance yeah >> Mr. attorney. >> Yes. >> Is there is there like a deadline that we need to have this corrected in our code or anything like that?
>> Uh no. No. As long as I mean just bear in mind that that the allegation is that at present our code does not permit the effectively does not permit the use code >> but the usage is still in use as we speak today. So until usage is not allowed
>> because it's being used right now. Right. >> The use the current >> yes the current operations. What what I'm saying is that the allocation uh against our current codes the current code prohibits. >> All I'm saying is we got we got some we got some time. >> I would I would just I would just add
that with respect to time there's one other use on that on that same assemblage that's already been abandoned right so >> correct so you know I just we have time >> there's another adjoining use that's already been abandoned right so
>> we have time but we need to I don't think we can sell it forever. Yes, sir. >> Um, from what I know, they their current location will close in July. >> Okay. >> So, I would imagine that whoever they they would have to start making
arrangements prior to that. So, I don't really think >> Well, that's my question. >> A whole lot of >> That's what I was asking for. >> Yeah. July. >> I don't know the time. >> Yeah. July is when they're closing the current location. So the only the only impact to us is we leave ourselves in
some sort of limbo. But that's it. But I mean >> it's not our issue to solve the relocation timeline. It just does create that issue. >> Okay. Uh okay. So we have can we get a motion to adopt with two modifications. One is to the hours. The second as to
the distance between similar uses and with direction the city attorney to bring back uh an ordinance to second reading with recommendations with respect to the process and uh maximum distance um right uh in excess of
possibly 400 feet >> between other uses or >> to school from schools or parks >> other uses not not similar uses we have that clarified Other uses mean religious facilities, schools, parks. Okay. >> But it's minimal, not maximum.
>> The maximum minimum distance is what I was trying to say. My apologies. >> Okay. Are we clear? Can I get someone to move the ordinance on first reading is modified? I'll I'll move I'll move it as first reading with um
>> changing with the modifications of a th00and feet >> and closing at 5 a.m. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Okay. I I'll second it then. >> I say I'll second it. >> Have a motion by Commissioner Rodriguez and a second by myself. Uh madam clerk,
can you call the role please? >> Yes. Commissioner Bonish? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Cay? Yep. >> Commissioner Rodriguez. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Corey. >> Yes. >> Mayor Fernandez. >> Yes. >> Item pass is first read. Okay. Madam clerk, did I miss anything on tonight's
agenda or we >> number nine? >> Number nine. >> Number nine. See, I'm glad I asked. Okay. >> Yes. >> If you can read item nine in the record, please. >> Item nine. An ordinance of the city commission of the city of South Florida retroactively extending the previous moratorium of the enforcement of section
20-3.6W 6W of the city standard development code relating to residential requirements for solar photovite systems. >> Thank you, madam clerk. Um, Mr. Caper, anything we need for the record or just this just an extension of
the existing moratorum. So, >> any questions, colleagues? >> Seeing none, uh, is there a motion on item nine? >> I'll move it. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> A motion by Commissioner Caya, second by Commissioner Bonich. Madam Clerk, if you can call the role, please. >> Yes, Commissioner Cayenne. Commissioner Rodriguez, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bonish,
>> yes. >> Vice Mayor Cory, >> yes. >> Mayor Fernandez, >> yes. Item passes five. >> Thank you. Seeing nothing else on the agenda, we stand adjourned. Thank you everyone.