A major topic at the meeting was the city’s existing bonus program, which allows developers to gain density bonuses through financial contributions or physical improvements. This program is particularly relevant in the mixed-use resort district on the east side of Sunny Isles Beach, where zoning permits a base density of 50 units per acre, with the potential to increase to 100 units for apartment hotels. The floor area ratio (FAR) could reach up to 5.98 through such bonuses. However, several challenges have been identified, including an outdated fee structure, inadequate tracking of bonus fund expenditures, and inconsistencies between the comprehensive plan and city code.

The commission discussed the necessity of revisiting the participation unit fees, last adjusted in 2018, which doubled from $100,000 to $200,000. There was a consensus on the need for an economic consultant to assess whether these fees require updates, as the current methodology is primarily based on condo sales prices. Concerns were raised about the transparency and rationale of past fee adjustments, with a call for a more defined methodology to ascertain the appropriate fee structure.

Another focal point was the administrative aspects concerning how bonus fees should be clearly delineated in the budget and aligned with specified projects in the code. Suggestions were made to amend the comprehensive plan and code to ensure consistency with prior directives, especially for east side development patterns. Given that “90% of the east side is already developed,” the discussion also revolved around the city’s capacity to manage bonuses effectively, considering their potential impact on quality of life and traffic.

The commission explored options for the bonus program, including modifying existing elements, removing or replacing components, and supplementing with new ideas. Specific proposals included revising the beach access bonus due to implementation issues, modifying the street-level pedestrian promenade bonus, and reconsidering the enclosed parking bonus. There was also a suggestion to consolidate two streetscape trust funds into one.

The site assembly bonus emerged as a contentious topic. This bonus was designed to incentivize the aggregation of parcels for larger developments but is now seen as outdated and not beneficial to the city. The commission deliberated on removing or replacing this component, with some expressing concerns about its relevance given current market trends.

The meeting also highlighted the need for clarity in development criteria, especially for the west side of the city. Concerns were voiced about potential overdevelopment and the importance of maintaining a balance between growth and infrastructure capacity. The comprehensive plan was emphasized as a critical tool for managing growth predictably, with calls for adherence to its guidelines to control development effectively.

Commissioners expressed frustration over past decisions that may have led to current challenges. The concept of concurrency, which ensures that infrastructure keeps pace with development, was discussed as a potential mechanism to address these concerns. The need for a quantitative approach to understanding overdevelopment, alongside qualitative city vision assessments, was also emphasized.

The meeting concluded with a consensus on the need for more clarity and definition in the bonus program structure. The commission was directed to consider moving forward with the proposed actions, including evaluating participation unit pricing, updating budget formatting, and clarifying the use of bonus funds within the Land Development Code. The process of revisiting the east side comprehensive plan amendments was also outlined, with a focus on ensuring maximum densities and intensities are addressed appropriately.