okay good morning everyone thank you for being here um Rio thank you mayor um commissioner Joseph here commissioner cyers here commissioner viscaro here vice mayor Lama is not present yet mayoret here have great thank you before we begin uh normally at workshops we have a little bit um it's not as formal but given the the subject matter of this Workshop we're going to make this a little bit more formal so I'm just asking the the commission to please um you know take turns speaking and uh wait until you're recognized so we can get your comments on the record also as with all workshops there is no public comment so you are free to uh reach out to the Commissioners individually or anyone on staff to give your input but there will be uh no public comment as is uh normal with the workshops okay please go ahead uh before we begin Mr manager do you have anything you wanted to say no mayor thank you all right thank you okay uh good morning mayor and Commissioners um back in January we had a workshop that kicked off The Sunny Isles Beach Vision planning for tomorrow project and since January City staff along with the project Consultants have completed the public engagement piece of the project as well as conducted did significant analysis of the study areas um so today the Consultants are here to lead a workshop with you where they will present the feedback that we received from the community as well as the analysis of the area's development regulations um today we are specifically seeking your guidance and direction in order to move forward with the project um for the benefit of anyone who is not familiar with the consultant team uh Jeff cadum and Caitlyn Forbes are with the complete City's Planning Group and they were chosen for this project because they have extensive experience working directly with municipalities in the south Florida region um a combined 40 years of experience their past clients include our neighbors such as Aventura Hollandale Beach North bami Beach North Miami and Beyond in West Palm Beach boo Raton dely beach and more uh they are specialized in comprehensive planning Urban Design and Zoning code of Reform all of which are applicable to this project so with that I'm going to hand it over to Jeff and Caitlyn thanks Amy good morning mayor Commissioners Mr city manager and City attorney and city clerk uh we're here today uh because Sunny Isles Beach has gaps in its regulations and conflicts in its regulations it has uh an area of the Town known as Town Center North that has a clearly established Vision uh but the development controls Implement that Vision are incomplete not clear um so the challenge is to reconcile the conflicting development regulations which is maximum intensity and density and whenever we say intensity we mean floor area ratio in the comprehensive plan and the code our role is to facilitate a public outreach program which we have done and we're going to share the results with you today uh to determine if the original Town Center North vision is still desirable and present those findings to the commission which we're doing this afternoon and this morning following this uh we hope to get your direction as far as uh how what s to what extent if at all you believe that the town C on North vision is still desirable feasible uh and it's important that uh that drive all the discussions because um getting to the towns that are North Vision um requires certain level of uh development allowance and where the commission goes with those regul ations those standards has a bearing on whether Town C or North can be realized following this uh we will articulate the direction in a vision plan uh we plan to do a visual preference uh survey with the with the commission and ultimately Implement that direction in the comprehensive plan and the Land Development regulations so that we have a legally viable uh set of regulations that work together and accomplish the city's objectives as well uh we also uh sought public input on the Northern business districts which is uh those business districts um north of town center along Collins uh generally north of 172nd and we they have conflicts as well uh between the code and the comp plan and there are some overbuilt projects right now um those will also be addressed in the vision document and the amendments to the comprehensive plan and the Land Development regulations okay so this morning we're going to uh touch on the study area the original Vision the current standards in the code and the comprehensive plan and which ones govern today we'll talk talk about uh commercial partial Redevelopment analysis get into the public feedback at a high level and potential actions and implications and we'll also touch on the Northern business districts um tell you more about the vision document and the upcoming schedule uh and uh we would like to guide the commission through uh questions and discussion uh to sort of structure um structure your feedback this is the study area known as Town Center North it is north of 163rd uh south of Town Center Park the inter Coastal is the western boundary and Collins is the eastern boundary the original vision for the Town Center um is very different than what's on the ground today um the Town Center was intended to be is intended to be in the comprehensive plan a true Community Center that serves as the focus of Social and economic life in the city it's an Urban Village and Town Center strategy um that has components um that are necessary to get there such as a mix of uses uh that are vertically integrated High uh retail activity uh employment strong emphasis on pedestrian circulation may I ask how far back are you going as far as uh the original Vision that you mentioned this is what's articulated in today's comprehensive plan right but how far back was was the planning um I believe approximately 2003 is that correct Amy the original comprehensive plan was adopted in the year 2000 and the Town Center particularly was added in 2002 thank you okay okay this Vision that's articulated in the comprehensive plan also uh has an emphasis on structured parking shared parking Park once um to sort of an economy of scale with parking uh that minimizes the overall amount of parking um because you can park once and walk creation of uh Cal public spaces and plazas and uh an area that doesn't shut down uh at 6:00 at night or even 9:00 at night but offers uh after dinner type of entertainment options the words in the comp plan are that this would be an international destination uh so this was an extremely ambitious plan this is uh the 2005 area of town center North and you can see that it's the same development pattern uh and there are various reasons for that uh and uh development intensities are are key part of that so it is uh very important that we reconcile uh the various regulations that uh exist today and in line with the commission's Vision town Center North has an overlay on the Lan use plan map the overlay however aside from identifying this area as part of town center North and tying it to the vision does not uh does not establish a floor area ratio and it does not establish density limitations so in order to decide determine what is allowed we have to default to the underlying zoning districts and uh excuse me underlying land uh land use plan designations which are uh mixed juice business and medium high residential so on this slide uh this is a synopsis of current regulations and um can I just interrupt you for a moment this is really hard to read I imagine whoever's watching it um is is going to find it hard to read as well can you just read some of this for the benefit of people one thank you yes uh I'm going to outline the key differences and importantly which ones control control uh in the in the mix the medium high density residential which is the current uh area behind the uh the shopping centers on Collins um we have a maximum density allowed in the comprehensive plan of 50 units to the acre generally uh there's a little bit of difference for those uh properties that front the in coastal but for the interior areas it's 50 units to the acre in the comprehensive plan and 60 units to the acre in the town Center zoning regulations the stricter controls which means the 50 units to the acre and the comprehensive plan is the limitation on density that is effective there uh on the waterfront uh there's a 60 unit to the acre allowance uh in the comprehensive plan and then there's an affordable housing bonus of up to 65 units to the acre um that is not achievable because the zoning is limited to 60 the floor area r ratio in the medium high density residential is 2.0 there's a 2.5 allowance for Waterfront sites the comprehensive uh the Land Development regulations however establish a base floor area ratio of 2.5 so that is higher than is allowed in most of the residential areas and is not achievable because the comprehensive plan would control here in addition the Town Center zoning regulations allow bone bonuses to get up to a 5.5 F which again is not achievable because the 2.0 in the comprehensive plan controls the Town Center North uh the the comprehensive plan does not get into height that is a zoning that that's that lives in the zoning regulations and uh the Town Center North um uh allows Heights of generally up to 17 to 19 floors for the Mixed juice business which is which are the commercial centers line in Collins and the Newport parking lot and the old Epicure site uh there's a base density allowance of 25 units to the acre with up to 85 through bonuses that's allowed on the comprehensive plan in the zoning regulations again it's limited to 60 so the the base uh of 25 units to the acre without bonuses is what controls if there are no bonuses applied the 60 units the acre and the code does not because it exceeds the comprehensive plan 85 units to the acre is achievable through the bonuses uh in the comp plan but can't be realized because the zoning code limits density to 60 units to the acre as far as the intensity there's a 2.0 floor area maximum and that's in the comprehensive plan compared to a base F of 2.5 in the zoning and again a 5.5 that can be achieved through bonuses uh but is not effective because it's limited to 2.0 in the comprehensive plan and that controls it's come up before uh at the at commission discussions about the floor area ratio and um how that's measured in the city and the city measures floor area ratio um through the definition of gross floor area and gross floor area excludes parking so structured parking does not count towards a floor area ratio meaning that the if the floor area ratio is 2.0 the habitable parts of the building uh are subject to the 2.0 and the parking is on top of that and uh there is no right or wrong way to define gross floor area but it really does depend upon the combination of how you define it and what your maximum FS are to get the city uh the types of development that it wants to see I know this is hard to read but I'm going to summarize this for you it's a summary of existing conditions and this is uh taken from the CGA report that was done years ago and we just added a couple of columns to it uh to show what's allowed today but essentially the the developments uh the condo and apartment developments in the medium high residential category are generally built within um density allowances with some notable exceptions which are the properties along the water along the intra Coastal uh where the fs and the densities far exceed uh the allowance and in some in some cases those were approved by Miami County under different regulations um and not these but in general um we see that 65 units to the acre is allowed with bonuses and that is uh and the 60 units to the ACR allowed in the zoning so the 60 is uh what controls and we see that the densities are 25 69 69 49 54 184 which is the Coastal Yacht Club 43 and 46 so the interior properties uh east of North Bay Road are generally built within the allowable density and the floor area ratios are also within the allowable 2.0 to 2.5 or 2.0 rather for interior but uh along the in coastal they exceed that significantly with a 4.65 uh for Porto bagia West um a 2.17 uh for PTO bagio East 5.14 for Golden Bay and a 7.16 for the in coastal Yacht Club thank you good morning Commissioners Caitlyn Forbes the next portion of our uh presentation we'll talk about the public Outreach process that we conducted which of course was a foundational piece of this project and really drove the first uh several months of this project um the various types of Outreach that uh were conducted included the focus group of course a critical piece that we coordinated with the commission on the selection of those members um everyone uh was very interested in the project and we got a lot of great applicants we ended up with a great group that had really good ideas um and gave us some very valuable insights so uh we're very appreciative of that focus group and all the time that the members put in into that process uh we did have three iterative meetings with that team to keep driving uh different details and uh Drilling in on some of the more important pieces and working with them to understand different implications of various scenarios um so again a big thank you to that focus group we also did conduct two open houses um that were available to the general public we had over 400 respondents uh for our online survey uh the city staff also graciously coordinated some popup events uh through the city's existing events at a couple different um events that the city was hosting and the senior Round Table was another great meeting that we had and got some great Insight from uh those folks as well so we're going to walk through a couple of the key questions um that were taken from the online survey and these will also come back up for the guided discussion questions with the commission as well um you'll see two slides back to back one is the larger overarching City response followed by the responses that were um pulled out from just those uh folks who identified themselves as living within Town Center North so we uh largely see that the Town Center North residents and Survey respondents uh they tended to follow or mirror the larger City responses so there wasn't too much distinction uh but we did want to uh separate those out for you to review separately so the first question uh that we wanted to bring forward for you um to review the responses for was regarding the expansion of the commercial uses Westward of the current uh shopping centers you'll see on the pie chart in green uh and in blue the responses were um somewhat split but the majority at 44% voted um that they would like to see the commercial uses limited to the current locations generally meaning uh west of what we've been calling the alley there between uh Plaza of America so you think of um the former Epicure site the arcade plazas in the uh Newport parking center there those are the areas that were uh generally identified as being the the preferred location for commercial at 33% of the votes um there was a a good portion of the residents that did indicate that they supported the expansion of retail throughout most or all of town center meaning uh beyond the current restraints now so that would push back into what we know is more of the uh residential area and so those would push Westward so uh again the the general consensus at 44% was to see commercial uses limited but there was also a significant portion at 36% that thought that uh retail might uh be acceptable in other portions beyond the existing limitations and again the next slide is going to show you the Town Center North uh responding so you'll see similar um similar votes there at 45% in the green we'd like to see the commercial use is limited and at 35% so just within a percentage point of each other um voting for the expansion of the retail throughout oliv Town Center so going to the next question here um this question was uh asking the respondents about the potential new residential units in Town Center North and the overwhelming majority uh indicated that they would like to see a limitation of additional residential units throughout all of town center North as much as possible and again you'll see that mirrored uh here at 51% uh however notably on this question the Town Center North residents at 24% uh did indicate that uh again at that same percentage that they would support more residential uh units throughout Town Center North including um the maximum allowance on Commercial Parcels so this one did have a little bit bigger vote for uh additional residential from the Town Center North respondents I have one question if you don't mind yes is this presentation any different than our individual our review that we received from you to some degree for example some of the pie charts and things that we wanted to present to you would be additional information Beyond uh what you saw at your one-on one and there's um of course the guided discussion at the end um commissioner the purpose of this is to bring it to the public so obviously we've seen most of this and then also just get our input on the record right so okay thank you go ahead yes thank you so the next question is talking uh or was requesting feedback regarding the current commercial shopping centers if Town Center North would be uh redeveloped here again the Citywide uh consensus at 42.5% was that they would like to see height and residential units limited as much as possible on those Parcels um and then at 20.6% which is the next uh popular vote the response there was that they did support a limited amount of residential on the commercial Parcels as long as it weren't uh to be developed as tall towers and again f following that is the Town Center uh North resident opinion um similar results at 51% they'd like to see the height in residential units limited as much as possible and then at 27% of the Town Center North residents they did support a limited amount of residential uh on those commercial Clauses this last uh graph that we wanted to share with you was talking about the orientation of oh sorry is it not picking up okay thank you okay so this last uh question here was regarding the uh physical form and the design of the uh commercial centers upon Redevelopment and this was a topic that we worked with the focus group on quite a bit and they would prefer to see um well the focus group and the the larger uh City population would prefer to see more of an interior facing uh commercial center design meaning that there's a creation of new internal streets and less emphasis on orienting towards Collins just to create more of that pedestrian scale development so overall in summation what was the the public opinion or the takeaway from this Outreach process uh it can be dis summarized by using the term that came out of the focus group uh beachy Village and when we say beachy Village they didn't really mean you know South Beach they meant more of the quaint and quieter small scale uh Beach uh type of retail environment so again some of the key takeaways were the concept of don't repeat the east side at beachy Village keeping it more low-scale pedestrian oriented the uh public did really enjoy the fact that the existing retail environment was more neighborhood serving it met their daily or weekly needs as opposed to being um so highend that maybe you only visit once a year a couple times a year um that was something that was very important um for them to maintain and um there were some notable um concerns with the existing commercial plazas and developments in terms of Maintenance Aesthetics parking and circulation of course uh were a a topic of much discussion they the public um and largely the focus group really would prefer to see some notable open space whether that's um Green Space or hardscaped plazas just places to gather in places that are kind of buffered from Collins Avenue uh in terms of physical screening and reducing noise and just the visual appearance of Collins um that was something uh that was very important and then enhancing the colins AV um the the street treatment again whether that's something one of the concepts that came out of the focus group was kind of continuing what used to be at the former Epicure site all the way along Collins meaning that wide sidewalk condition that's really more of a a AA condition with outdoor dining that was something that everyone was very interested in rather than having you know narrow sidewalks and then large parking Fields behind that so the uh ideal condition or the the preferred condition from the public would be uh to reduce the development allowances as and limit uh residential as much as possible of course that's a legal question um to to have feedback um from the city attorney on um generally the public was comfortable with the scale meaning like the amount of commercial but they'd like to see it kind of rearranged again into something that's more pedestrian friendly more interior focused more streets to make it more walkable things like that uh however if the current regulations were maintained because we walked through various iterations and potential scenarios uh with the focus group the focus group did provide a set of guiding principles a few are noted on the slide here and talk about kind of pushing the height away away from Collins uh prioritizing open space again pedestrian experience you'll hear that repeated a lot those internal streets and incorporating structured parking as opposed to surface parking to really maximize um the those centers there and the design potential so what does that look like here's just some character images that were used in the discussions again you can kind of see that um a lot of the um retail type environment is kept at a lower scale and towers are kind of pushed back behind that um so it's really maintaining that lower scale at the retail level at the uh pedestrian experience level uh that is of utmost importance um for the residents so of course as Jeff mentioned the other piece of this project is addressing the inconsistencies in the northern business districts these were generally the study areas on this map here that uh we worked through throughout this process uh again uh the inconsistencies between the land use and the zoning in the northern business districts is something that we will be addressing there is generally similar consensus from the public in terms of how uh they would prefer to see the Redevelopment occur on these Parcels uh the impacts of uh the inconsistencies between the comp plan and the zoning regulations is that uh there are some existing um non-conformities or the potential to to create non-conformities depending on the direction that we go uh with the with the revisions notably here the land use category for neighborhood business um which is in Blue on the land use map on the top um and the B1 zoning District which is the pink areas on the zoning map on the bottom and that's where the inconsistency lies in the land use category the um f is at a 2.0 in a 25 unit per acre uh limitation at the land use level whereas the B1 uh it exceeds that of the land use at a 3.45 f with bonuses and 85 dwelling units per acre um within the the B1 zoning so uh moving forward um there's several different paths that the commission could um could choose to follow the important piece here is that we establish the vision first and the regulations to follow um against uh myself and Jeff won't be making formal recommendations on which path to follow and these are just some potential starting points for you to consider um so the implications or some implications rather of each different scenario are kind of outlined on this slide for discussion and when we went through these um in your one-on ones we talked about the opportunity to follow the comprehensive plan and revise the zoning uh we talked about uh the option of keeping the current zoning regulations in revising the comp plan we talked about a hybrid option as well as number four um which would probably be the preference of the public would be to reduce the density and intensity to the maximum extent uh that's legally possible again a legal question for the city attorney's office to weigh in on or five would be to increase the allowances beyond the current standard which would be the option that would of course most likely spur Redevelopment in the the soonest manner um but probably uh would have the least public support so and we will come back to those options as well um as we move through the guided discussions so this is all teeing us up for the vision document that will follow um the vision document is really the foundational piece that's going to setting um the character and the qualities of the public realm largely can't really get into Master planning private properties right but it's going to talk about um the streets um the circulation networks the open spaces some of the massing um the step backs and setbacks things like that so that would be the next step and we are uh as Jeff noted uh looking to schedule a workshop with the commission to come back in the fall um to have a visual preference uh discussion to talk about some places um that our team identifies is you know meeting some of the uh public uh requests as well as the output of today's discussion and so that'll help us finalize that Vision document and that will uh be the foundation for those text amendments to the comprehensive plan and the Land Development regulations so in terms of upcoming schedule this is um our last slide before we get into the guided discussion questions um of course we're here for the workshop today uh following uh in the fall um either in August or September we will be bringing forward the uh comprehensive plan text amendments for the East Side um kind of cleanup uh that we've been working on uh with City staff as well as uh Rev ing the bonus models and the establishing the concurrency regulations that are a requirement a missing piece um from the existing regulations um in the adopted regulations and then in Fall of you know the upcoming months here as I mentioned we'll be looking to schedule that visual preference workshop and then moving into the comprehensive plan uh text Amendment second reading and then a uh approving the vision document by resolution hopefully we can get that consensus going starting today followed by uh the text amendments beginning in the winter so with that we'll move into the guided discussion questions uh mayor so we have a series of probably eight different questions that we'd like to get through um with the group today that'll be of foundational pieces for what we bring back to you at the next workshop and then um ultimately with the vision document itself um I'm not sure if you're comfortable moving into that or if you wanted to take a break and mention anything I think um oh thank you first of all so uh this is how we're going to do this we're going to take turns um answering the questions and then as we bring up more comments through our discussion we'll also take turns again this is a a really important conversation that is um of of utmost interest to our residents um so I'm certain that there's many watching and if they're not watching now they will be watching the recorded version so I ask the commission to please just wait until you recognize and then um let's just take turns uh answering the questions and then you know ask asking the questions of you uh commissioner Joseph can start so if you want to start with the question and then we'll start with commissioner Joseph and then move down the line great thank you and is it possible to have the slid show up as well and before we go into that if there's any questions that you all have written down I know I have many if you want to start with that as well that that may the conversation going so commissioner Joseph did you have conversations um questions to ask first or we could just start with the first question I guess we could just start with the first question go ahead okay great so the overarching question of course um is does the original vision of this International destination 18 hour City all the things that Jeff noted um that are currently in your comprehensive plan does that Vision still stand and then the next question we'll talk about if it doesn't and we have some followup questions on that okay so as to the original uh Vision I believe uh regarding the development that we currently have that that Vision um no longer uh stands that it can um be fulfilled so we have to basically go with what we have currently the um and uh taking into account a situation such as Gulf Stream if you you know where people are talking about inner streets and all and a commercial um stores and things like that uh just seeing over the years what's happened in Gulfstream with the high rents and all I don't think that would play out well here either commission the last thing we sorry the last thing we want is to uh go into some uh construction of a development that um has a failed history do you want to move on to the next question and then because they go together um if we can just get consensus on the original vision and then yeah okay ABS you don't mind thank commissioner serson okay um I'm a little confused with something and is with the timeline um because you guys are not supposed to be um giving us recommendations right but you guys are going to be bringing a document in August like in three weeks for the first reading so how those two things go together because if anything uh we know that there is an issue that needs to be solved clearly so my question is that it should be kind of simple that we want to be um do the things that are legal without taking anybody's right so that is for me what I would like to see happening to do what is legal and I don't want to take the rights of the property owners I don't want to take out the rights of the residents or anybody else so and that is my confusion is with the product that you guys are going to be developing because if you not given us recommendation but in three weeks we're going to be voting for something um based on this discussion I I would like to get a a little bit more clarification yeah so just to clarify what's coming forward in uh most likely September is the east side of Collins discussion so it's not relating to what we're discussing today which is Town Center North in the northern business districts we are addressing the inconsistencies that specifically lie within the mixed use Resort categories which is the east side of Colin so it's a two separate phases of the project so this is Town Center North and the Town Center North process will be you know throughout the late summer early fall and then what we're bringing to you uh more quickly is the East Side cleanup so two different tracks but one overarching umbrella project and goal of cleaning up inconsistencies throughout the city and on the east side it's it's not a matter of um what what is it supposed to say in terms of how how intense you can develop it's just not just needs to be cleaned up um consistent with the way it's been developed over the last 20 years um and then a retooling of bonuses to try to make them more meaningful that'll be part of the discussion and when we're talking about the E side can you again um especially for the public to clarify which areas are we're talking about that that's what is coming in August right yeah it's it's the mixed use Resort uh Lane use category uh east of Collins along the beach okay I don't have anything else right now commissioner mcar will you you not answer answering the first question okay yeah I have no issue with the original Vision yeah okay how can the how can the original Vision still apply commissioner Joseph let we're going to do this in an organized way so um I just wanted to to ask I guess just for so so we're all on the same page the public Outreach that you did and all this data that you've presented to us to us that's based on people who live throughout the city right not just the people from the from that particular area that's right the focus group and the online uh survey was open to all residents and then separately just for informational purposes we worked to separate out the survey data from just the Town Center North residents to see if there was a difference in the voting pattern since they are more immediately affected but generally they seem to follow the larger City opinion and as the person who lives the commissioner who lives in in in that area I I can tell you that um it absolutely tracks with with the uh feedback that I get so um I'm very comfortable with the data that you're presenting um as something that reflects the the will of the residents um to answer your question uh does the original Vision the 18h hour Town Center still stand I believe that it does um the a lot of the a good portion of the of the um buildings that that are in that area which I assume you're now familiar with right plaz of the americaas beach place the West part of no the East part of um PTO pagio they they they all have access to the shopping like through back Gates so you can leave your your apartment and open the little gate and you're right there at the supermarket you're right there at the salon and well it may not be the prettiest walk through the parking lot or whatever it's extremely convenient so this is not um an area that uh of residents where we're like in other places where you might be like oh well we really it's the views that are important a lot of these buildings have internal views like to the pools or to whatever so that accessibility to the the commercial side is very important I would venture to Guess that the that chunk of people who would welcome the commercial um you know off of Collins and and going Westward are either people who live on the Bayside or people who don't live in the area uh because I would say I don't know if most of us live on you know have that access but we don't um we don't need commercial if we have that uh easy access and we spoke in the um in the original in our individual meeting um possibly creating an access um a pedestrian access that would open that to the people on the bay um and that might address that problem I think by and large we enjoy that residential feel that we have um and inviting uh Commerce would um you know increase uh traffic Etc and even though it's a very large Road a very wide Road it still feels that beachy Village feeling to the extent you can have that with with this these tall buildings um i' I've always enjoyed being part of that and being able to get home without having to touch Collins um if I'm coming from 163rd Street is also nice to be able to avoid that um so I do think uh we we are lacking also there's no not that we want to become South Beach or we want clubs or whatever but there is limited adult nightlife kind of options uh that I know um some people would welcome and the um not being everything facing Collins um also absolutely tracks it's not pleasant it's noisy it's also I know because of the options the way things are are spread out but um it's not I'm not going to say it's common but it's not unheard of of vehicles who whether it's an elderly person who confuses the pedals or you know whatever the reason are you have some medical condition and then the car actually ends up where the tables and the chairs are if you have that that reorientation of the U commercial spaces you don't have to worry about those things I I don't eat outside because I I know that it's not unheard of I don't want to get hit by a car while I'm eating dinner you know so um and I'm not I know I'm not the only one who feels that way I I like the reorientation I think the original Vision in that broad scope does still hold but obviously there's a lot of work between that and where we are now um thank you I agree with uh much of what has been said I I do also agree that the original Vision stands uh I I just want to remind everyone that this is priv property so it's not like we can just redesign it in fact the conversation that was had many years ago was very similar to this about having an interior streets and having it more pedestrian friendly and having restaurants that you don't feel like you're going to be sitting right abing Collins so I think that that is consistent and that probably that stays um so and to commissioner viscar Point as far as the night life you know as our city continues to to the demographic continues to be younger compared to 20 years ago I think that that's important uh as well and uh again to to her Point not necessarily nightclubs but something that is um let's call it familyfriendly entertainment or something that that is beyond what we have right now um okay let's go to the next question thank you very much for that discussion so uh the next question would be if not then what would be the desired vision for the Town Center kind of function character and scale um so I think commissioner Joseph you were the one that indicated um that it did not stand if you could kind of speak to this question please yes so um well I believe that the uh if there's going to be any Redevelopment in the current buildings I believe that the height uh restrictions should be as they are today that we should not allow for any uh higher uh buildings or density our infrastructure as it is today I believe is becoming um overburdened and um you know we have other cities like for Lauderdale that we we've heard have had uh sewer breakages week after week and that's something we don't want to um have happen to us with overdevelopment just to clarify uh one point when you say remain as it is today do you mean like the one and two story conditions or the existing allowances within the code and comp so in the um well again this is private property so we can't um we can't tell RK what to do with his property um would I like to see some Redevelopment there to make uh you know to give his um his plazas a fresh look yes um it would it would probably bring in more um of of the businesses that uh residents would be happier to see but we can't um force uh a private property owner to do anything they don't want to do sorry to ask one more time in terms of the um desired scale in terms of Redevelopment potential down the road they do redevelop was the can you speak more to the vision of the scale and character I'm for keeping the heights um on the E on the west side as they are today okay as they're currently not to have another Aurora uh building on the on the west side so for clarification you you mean as they are built today not what is allowed necessarily correct okay thank you for that clarification anyone else wish to speak on this question I think the remainder of the commission had indicated that the original Vision did still stand so I'll move on to the next question commissioner U viscar just just to add um Jerry even even if the height increases remember it could also be you could have maybe four story buildings but maybe fewer shops right which would accomplish the same thing so you can we can accom accomplish you know upgrades and even if you had three or four stories it's still a lot less than what's allowed um and it would it would be very I think it could still be very pleasant but um there's I'm just okay so let me let me clarify because I am on the West Side um for uh development of no higher than four stories on Collins okay okay thank you so the next question is kind of uh twofold here so it talks about the the tradeoff potential right so the public uh especially through the focus group identified concerns with the existing commercial centers again kind of the Aesthetics um lack of open space the circulation and parking um so there were there were definitely some concerns with the commercial plaas as they were uh with a preference to see at least some Redevelopment or enhancements of the existing centers if not total Redevelopment right so the question here is is it a worthwhile tradeoff to the commission to allow for greater floor area ratios or residential densities for potential Redevelopment of the commercial plazas essentially getting to uh the question of how much uh how how important is Redevelopment of the centers to the commission uh given the known challenges and concerns with those plazas followed by what if the additional development allowances were kind of tied back to or connected to some of the characteristics that the public feedback indicated were highly desirable again um some of those Open Spaces New Street networks keeping the podiums per se so the the first uh couple of stories maybe the first second third St stories at a lower scale with the towers pushed back so that it feels like a smaller scale environment but the intensities are kind of still there that would accommodate Redevelopment from a development perspective um so that's our question which is again just generally the discussion of how much of a Redevelopment scenario is the commission interested in and you know what's the give and take on you know accommodating Redevelopment from a financial perspective when it comes to um the needs from a development uh team and I go ahead and move forward with that development so be before we get in I I I have a question to you I'm assuming that you looked at the original Vision um so what prevented that from moving forward was it because there were not incentives again bringing it back to this isn't anything necessarily uh new per se uh why has that not happened to this point before it's hard to answer this question without understanding you know what exactly would that mean if we did say we would support it so in the recent years it's likely been the conflicts between the code and the comp plan and there's not really that Assurance um or Clarity from the city side and the developers perspective of what they can do or what they're allowed to do so I think in the more recent years people have maybe been putting projects on pause until this process is played out in the past it may have been more of um land values and um kind of those other economic factors that push people to develop along the beach rather than interior to the city so they're probably a couple different factors over the years but it seems like uh you know a large majority of the city has experienced that Redevelopment kind of around town center and this may be you know the next phase of Redevelopment now that a lot of the uh city is built out leaving a couple Parcels along the beach uh you know this is kind of the the next Frontier of Redevelopment and opportunities given the fact that a lot of these Parcels are underutilized uh in relation to the existing regulations that are in the complain and code great thank you commission we' also had moratoriums right very good point commissioner uh suen you want to answer this question first okay so um the way I see it is that we want to brive the the owners giving them um more potential for more residential if they do redevelop so I'm not okay with that okay commission Joseph I don't see how um you know unless we have higher buildings that or there's a potential for um some type of uh you know it all goes to profitability for the developer um I don't I don't see how uh other than shopping centers RK would be anything other than that unless uh it was going to be highrises I you know I don't I don't see his desire to um redevelop his uh existing properties uh or redesign uh his existing properties um if there wasn't a a large profit it basically most of the Town Center properties is the arcade yeah property so in terms of um your preference on the Redevelopment of let's talk about the potential for The RK pauses specifically since you noted those noting the existing challenges within those centers and some of the public feedback would your preference be to kind of maintain or maybe just slightly beautify what's there and what's existing versus see total Redevelopment that perhaps are accompanied by those greater intensities and densities I'm I'm not for the greater um in uh densities or intensities I'm for um to have uh a newer style Plaza if that was at all possible uh that would also lead to a lot of downtime I I don't know how that would even play out to to clo you'd have to uh close down a plaza that just doesn't seem feasible in the city to do that I don't know if that would even ever happen thank you m mcar yeah um I mean this is a highly hypothetical question because it has a lot of variables and I um I I don't so I guess all of this is couched in in in the concept of if if the developer were to come forward and if the developer there a lot of ifs that we have to get through before our opinion right but if all these ifs happen which I don't know how likely it is um I think I'm I'm a process person I'm not usually like the just going right for the outcome but I think in this case because there's so many ifs I can't go through the process so I I'll just go through the outcome if it's getting us the desired outcome which is whatever the you know what what the public has expressed the the lower the lower height um we'll use Gulf string but it's it's really not a Gulf Stream because Gulf Stream is too big but I used an example in our meeting I think it was a dural the Dural version you know with the fountain or the open space if it's giving us what we want and it's going to get get us there I would certainly entertain the um you know the the what what are we calling them trade-offs yeah I I mean why not if otherwise we get stuck with with you know flooded parking lots as the rest of the city uh grows uh so I'm not happy with the plazas as they are but again we don't control them so um you know it's it becomes a lake when it rains for five minutes it's it's a problem we have problems there so um I I would appropriate tradeoffs I would certainly consider them the um if I may go ahead the the consideration is more density for them to promote in the Redevelopment that's what we're trading of more density for redevelopment to to to Joseph a point uh to make it more feasible and to for them to have the a AI Etc so and another thing is that we continue always talking about the public opinion but remember the public opinion of the people who did answer the survey I know of several people that answer several times this the survey and also I know people that didn't do the survey and remember that we are talking about a medium to long-term issues so those children and teenagers who didn't answer the survey are the ones are going to be living in the city a few continue living in the city by using those plazas or those developments so we are making decisions to the Future based on whatever who answers today so that we need to consider the only way we could do it right the teenagers can't make those decisions now so we have to do the best that we can right now there's no residential anything there right there's no res residential anything where the plazas are and if there is so any if you if you add one apartment it's an increase in that residential density because there's right now nothing now I right so I understand that they may exist on paper but in in reality there's nothing it's a mixed use but they have the right to right but it's not mixed use right now it's strictly commercial they had their right to do it I know so what I'm saying is um again for the because it's this is very hypothetical so so I don't know like you know what I I don't want a 20 story something there right my vision is like like a little village of like the lower lower floors and and you know that that's how I Envision it if that means to make it happen that you add some residential component and if that would in the end we don't know what's going to be presented but if ultimately what's presented is um accomplishes the goal that of of what the people have expressed is something they would favor and there would we then would have the opportunity to to to speak up at that time also given hypothetically right given if it's the right for the right um project I would support it but if it's uh something ridiculous I wouldn't so then I have another question um as of right now if they want to redevelop one of the plazas can they have residential as of right now the way it is written right now that's correct yes so it is existing already so right now if they want to redevelop they can do Residential and continue having commercial here the question the way I see it unless I'm read and wrong is to give them more allowances to give them the option to allow greater floor area ratios and or residential density is to increase what it is in the books today to make it more feasible for them to redevelop in the future but as of today if they come and present not talking not thinking about the moratorium but if they present a project today they can't have that letter apartment on top of the residents yes they can so it is in the books yes yeah okay um I'm just going to add something because it uh I think commissioner ston makes a makes a good point um well both of you I agree with to a certain extent it's it's hard to visualize this without an actual design and so we don't even know what would be there given what is already allowed but it goes back to my question earlier what what has prevented them from doing it and if it means that it hasn't been financially uh attractive you know that's a conversation we have to have one of the things that I've heard over and over again from residents on the um east side is they feel that the the the current commercial that we have does not live up to the standards that the city has grown into and and the kind of worldclass city that it is and definitely an international um destination that has been accomplished I believe more than probably anywhere else in South Florida um we talked about during our our other Workshop um I I give the example of the Aventura development um if you can speak a little bit to that because I think that that helps frame this a little bit more since the area is is much um the the size is is is is very similar to the size that we're talking about here yes mayor I think you're referring to a development in aventur called Park Square and uh it's very popular among aventur residents um it's a different format for development because it's uh not a parking lot with shops um you know in uh shops behind a parking lot and it's not a pedestrian Mall either like Lan's Plaza uh is set up instead I haven't heard Len's Plaza in a very long time it's not called that anymore but that's how I still think of it uh from back back in the day uh and those pedestrian only centers haven't been terribly successful um but what is successful and What the residents really love about it and what I think you like about it is that um it's set up um in an urban street format it's got shops lining the streets you can park on the streets you can park in the garage um that's uh that's behind it um and it's it's a mix of uses you've got retail you've got restaurants got Services um there's some residential there uh there's some office there's some Hotel um I believe there's uh some senior living and medical related things there um and so it's just a nice environment to be in it's it's the same thing that we've heard from multiple uh Commissioners in terms of a place you want to walk around in um the the buildings are not especially tall I think maybe they're eight stories or 10 maybe um so um you're you're not baking in the sun you know it's comfortable uh to walk around and it's compact so you park you walk you dine Etc it's small uh compared to uh we've heard um we've heard good things from people about uh Dural City Center or City Place rather and downtown Dural two different development with different formats um downtown Durell is um like one-story shops set up in a bunch of uh uh crisscrossing shopping streets and it's got Towers but they're pushed back so it's not you know inyour face uh to quote somebody uh and then uh City Place is a a retail street with restaurants and you know the kind of stuff that you want to walk around and visit uh as as opposed to necessarily daily SHO shpping needs but it's got residential above it it's got I think five to seven stories of residential above it and they're just nice places to walk around and to be okay and some of those images of um the downtown Dural are shown on the screen here we wanted to include those um for discussion purposes after mayor you have a chance to respond we can just speak to um kind of follow up on the concept of this type of development which would likely um meet some of those uh public requests in terms of potential format again uh as Jeff noted the uh retail environment is kept lower scale the garages are wrapped and then the towers which would be likely necessary for a developer to achieve um their their Roi on the project kind of pushed back and not necessarily felt at the same scale at The Pedestrian level so know there's a balancing act there so I'll go back to uh that slide uh for you mayor and then if we can kind of follow up with the discussion on some of those character images there um for me it's it's very hard to answer this question because it it all you know how much are we talking about what what exactly does that mean what is the actual trade-off because if it hasn't been enough now how much more are we willing to to allow and I think there has to be a different sort of trade-off not necessarily with more um F because I think that that is uh a dangerous road to go on especially given what we know now and how we we do have projects that regrettably um are out of line with what they were supposed to be Aurora being that one that we all know about um so for me it would be different sort of incentives um and I don't know what that looks like but certainly you know the the flooding and the The Leaky roofs and whatever other issues that um RK plazas have is is not the kind of you know it's not representative of our city and and we have to find a way to to incentivize that property owner to uh at the very very least beautify it but ultimately to to bring it to a standard that we can all be proud of thank you and then I'll uh kind of switch back to the images slide here um just going back to some of those maybe known places that you've been again this is the just one example of down to hunal but the key Point here is that at The Pedestrian level the scale is kept um much more mild at this particular center it's one story it could be two to three stories um something of that scale and then the towers are pushed back the garages are wrapped um so this would be something that maybe would be more supported in terms of kind of looking at The Balancing Act process of allowing the entitlements that are necessary to redevelop but keeping The Pedestrian environment more of that lower scale which is kind of the key takeaway from the public process if we can walk through a discussion on this concept and then we'll move into the next question can I just ask one more question uh I'm assuming that representatives from the arcade plazas were part of this conversation we did speak uh with the property owners independently and um um we had a about an hour long discussion with them can you provide some of that feedback so that we have an understanding what their position is and what's prevented them from redeveloping sure generally of course the centers are very well leased um they have a a good mix of tenants that um they're they're happy with the lease structures with the uh you know the percentage of the spaces that are leased so at this point since the centers are doing so well just like any other developer uh probably would in the same situation I think they're struggling to and I wrap their heads around the concept of shutting down a lot of those uh spaces for however many months years it would take to redevelop the plazas um so maybe not speaking for them but maybe down the line if the economy were to take a turn and they weren't having as much success with those spaces being leased up maybe that would be a time for them to consider Redevelopment more from their perspective um but at this point they're they're happy with the the current leasing okay yeah and just looking at their shopping center Holdings throughout South Florida um they're buyers and holders they've had uh The RK plazas developed here since I think 1995 um and they have some properties throughout South Florida that are fairly valuable real estate where um Redevelopment is happening around them um but it's that's not their business model at this time got it thank you okay next question sorry if we can just revisit the the images there in whatever order you'd like to discuss them um who would like to go first kind of taking turns commissioner viscara so I what's the top and what's the bottom so they're both from downtown Dural and this is just one character example right the concepts being the lower scale at The Pedestrian level with the towers pushed back being again kind of The Balancing Act of the entitlements that are necessary to Spur Redevelopment but you know maintaining or achieving some of those uh Focus Group in uh larger resident um objectives I like the bottom one better um I mean the obviously for us it would be very different we don't have that that level of opportunities but anything that um separates The Pedestrian from the vehicles as much as possible that's both a pedestrian safety concern but also just a a noise issue it's just a more pleasant experience to to not deal with with traffic because we have to deal it deal with it basically the moment we step out of our homes so to not have to deal with it I think would be a a nice thing um sorry just to interrupt and clarify so they're both actually the same um Center the bottom right image they're kind of having a special event so they shut that street down as a pedestrian only event but it is generally you'll see um I see the I like it with the event so um I I I wouldn't want to I just want to separate the people from the from the traffic so but maybe this maybe then this isn't the most for my priorities this these may not be the the the best images I know you're showing us well this is what residential on top of of of commercial might look like um so I I really wouldn't even know what to say to that I I the the um what you were saying before you know about the Aventura that it was like maybe seven to eight floors I don't know if that's what this is but I I would support the lowest possible um with the best pedestrian experience um possible commissioner ston I have no comments about the pictures um I only have a comment about um maybe if we want to hear directly from the people from Ark Plaza we could invite them to one Workshop um and hear directly from them I don't feel comfortable uh paraphrasing their conversations or also I don't feel comfortable about uh talking on behalf of their what may or not be uh their business model I feel better having them directly address our questions if they want to come but this Workshop is open to the public I'm certain they knew about it this is but they can uh right now participate because it's a workshop so if we want them to also be able to have a conversation with us maybe they need a formal invitation I I don't think they I mean they're welcome to meet with us individually as well but um because if we were going to start having a and and perhaps we can we can have a workshop to include all of the business owners um CU it's not just r on cast we also have Beach place which is a significant owner uh as well as the the um inter Coastal uh but I I see your point uh commissioner Joseph do you have a may I just say it it's an awkward conversation because it's it's what would you like to see with something over which we have zero control know yeah we we don't own it this is uh it's private property uh at the same time it's where we have to you need direction as to how to amend our documents so that we have working documents and I think that needs to be the focus this is not really about re you know how are we going to redevelop this this is how are we going to draft the documents so that if and when Redevelopment comes to the table and we're going to be long gone in my opinion I think we're all none of us are going to be here anymore um there is a a a path to go forward so it'd be nice if they were here to answer questions or whatever but who knows what what their situation is going to be maybe 10 years from now which is when I think it's it's this is going to happen maybe it'll happen next year I know they'll prove me wrong but I agree I mean they they've been very clear um that they have no intention to um to redevelop anytime soon I mean I AR the last time I think Mr Catz um was here publicly um he he said as much maybe that changes but but um for now I think we let's focus on the real job here is the documents right so we have to have working documents so that if and when they come forward um we have something to work with and we're not you know saying well it's up to interpretation what we do with with this or with that we want to be clear on what can be done so and and it might not even be them at that point anyways who knows it's like I said because it that's what makes this so difficult because it's it's largely hypothetical but the goal is the documents that future commissions can work with commissioner Joseph do you have a comment on the pictures sure so uh as far as the pictures that's uh just uh these are dream scenarios that I don't think will occur for many many years if ever and um for me as I said for many years I would like to do away with the um birthday cake scenario that we have have the U higher as you go back off Collins to do away with that scenario and also to have um eventual development on on Collins itself on the West Side to be no higher than four stories and uh regarding the pictures um it's also hard for me to imagine because with it's not it looks nothing like we do so uh you know you'd have to put the east side behind it for us to be able to make that sort of determination and um I I also uh you know agreed that it it couldn't be anything that that intense and it's hard to tell because you're looking at it from the bird's eye view rather than from where you would see it as a pedestrian but in I either way it's I don't I wouldn't want anything like that here anyways thank you so we'll move into the next question um again this was one that was asked of the online survey respondents which is should residential uses continue to be allowed on the commercial properties again kind of keeping in the back of your mind that some residential allowances or a minimum threshold of that uh would likely be required to see Redevelopment of these Parcels because that's where the return on investment is made especially uh in the current market right so um without that type of allowance the likelihood of Redevelopment on those commercial Parcels is is greatly reduced um so I'll open that up uh for discussion and comment okay commissioner Joseph you want to start yes sure so I would think that um well I would like to see more restaurants in our city so um taking into account Epicure I would like to not have that uh be any ever any substantial highrise um and again U if there were to be a structure of uh no more than four Stories being that it's directly on Collins um even uh a one-story restaurant I I believe would be ideal for our city did you get an answer to your question so in terms of the four story limitation you know typically of course there's two story commercial in the rcade centers right now but it's kind of atypical for current development so with four stories would you assume that the first story is retail and the upper three would be residential as far as the four stories um that would be um see I'm not even considering the RK properties because if if RK were to be redeveloped I would like it to to be and I believe the developer himself and in one discussion I had a couple of years ago uh would also like to maintain the two-story I don't believe that at that time uh they were not looking to go any higher than that which would be um uh in keeping with my idea for the city as far as uh new uh commercial um proper proper there um there are um examples of newer if you go down 167 Street as you get close to uh 95 over there and um there uh there's a new development that you see um I believe it's Marshall there's a Marshalls there and um a Wawa gas station that type of development that would be nice to see in our city um but as I said these um and with the ratio of rental and all I can't see that AR would ever shut down one of those plazas to redevelop it would be um a crazy loss of income and uh it would not serve him well to do that any time in the future um as far as the four stories that would have to be way back off of Collins I'm not looking for any High development anywhere on the West Side close to Collins Avenue commissioner scar I think um I mean it says should residential uses continue to be allowed on the commercial properties that's the um so right now that's the mixed use I think if we're looking to to it depends on what you on what you are pushing for right if if Redevelopment is the goal because we don't like what's there I think keeping the flexibility of the mixed juuse is helpful it doesn't mean it has to be mixed juice it just it could be redeveloped in 100% commercial right they don't have to use it but I think flexibility is um is helpful if that's the goal right do we do we want to encourage Redevelopment or not um I think given you know the current housing crisis I it's a reasonable expectation that we would be adding uh residential units but again if this doesn't happen for another 30 years we may not have that crisis we may have different needs and since we don't know I think um um keeping the flexibility is is a good thing commissioner ston um to continue to be allowed right now is allowed right yeah absolutely I don't want to take anybody R like I said at the beginning plus that will be probably a legally challenge um if we were not allow it and it is right now so yeah I'm okay with continuing as it is I agree let the market decide if it's allowed it hasn't happened so clearly is a reason and and for clarification um Beach place for instance if that was redeveloped um that would allow for commercial with how how high of a residential so for Beach Place specifically um the current zoning regulations actually require that a certain percentage of the ground floor would be developed as um as a mixed use building so that there would be some sort of commercial on the ground floor I believe um a 70% minimum so any new development any property that were to redevelop um within Town Center would have to meet that minimum requirement so it's essentially the zoning regulations require a mixed use building at this point um in terms of height um on beach Place Amy do you know the and same question for for plaz of Americas as well yeah um let me pull up the zoning regulations there's about 11 different the commercial regulation is only for the first floor only yeah only for the ground floor 70% not 70% of the whole build so it's not like a Ventura m is coming here or something okay the the height regulations are key to street street types that don't exist on the ground today um in a lot of town centers so it's hard to say in all cases how much height is allowed in a given location mhm um but the maximum you have to go about 230 ft off of Collins before you can get up to 15 stories and something between 10 and 15 stories let's say is allowed in the interior portion of town center and maybe higher on uh on 163rd Amy can can verify that but I think that's the overall just okay there's a map of a proposed Street Network that's currently in the zoning regulations that's what all the height is based off of okay it's like 12 different types of streets it's very complicated and that's why part of this whole conversation is what's in the Town Center zoning code today would be difficult to develop as is it's so complic that's the other question so this this process should clean that up that's right so then it's more consistent and so it's not every street has a different rule mhm okay and so I'm sorry I don't have the map with me moment that's right no we can we can generally it's a range from 15 to 19 okay we can move on to the next question thank you okay so kind it to the same point that we were just talking about um know flipping the question again a question that the public was asked through the public survey process should retail be allowed to expand into the existing residential areas noting that currently it is required upon Redevelopment within the Town Center zoning District um and if so should it be allowed as a principal commercial use meaning that uh it's a commercial only building or should it be uh required to be integrated with a residential component likely resulting in ground floor commercial upper story residential up that and what is the current rule the current zoning regulations would require that a ground floor at least 70% is developed as commercial and then you could put your residential uses above it so the real question would be uh you know do you continue to require that or do you leave it open as an option for people or do you eliminate the retail opportunity alog together um in the current residential portion of the Town Center North Area great um commissioner Stenson do you want to go first yeah I want to keep it as an option as a requirement actually as it is right now um when we talk commercial we can also be talking about for example a child care place so which will be very well uh received for many residents including me so uh to have the the requirement of um commercial in the ground floor as it is right now uh I'm I'm okay we keep in it just I'm sorry just to add one more Point uh as you kind of think through this there are situations in other cities where there is a requirement for ground floor commercial um and a lot of times that might sit empty depending on how the Market's doing at that time so you kind of check the box of providing the ground floor retail but it doesn't end up contributing to the neighborhood or The Pedestrian environment because it's empty storefronts but the developer was able to do the residential project which they were actually interested in doing and again the retail is kind of a box Checker so that's one thing to keep in mind if it's a requirement you know there's a likelihood that it sits empty and the implications of that in the neighborhood and the character you just keep that in mind as well got it commissioner Joseph well in that regard I would uh keep the uh code the way it is uh that uh the requirement for the retail and and hope that uh we can have enough effort to U have that uh storefront uh may it be uh to be uh developed okay and just as a reminder through the public process the concerns from uh the public were additional traffic in the neighborhood uh which perhaps commissioner vascara could speak to and the residents going to enjoy that separation so that the traffic is a little uh Less in the rear of town center North in the western portions it's residential traffic primarily if we were to add the retail or require the retail throughout and there's traffic impacts and that may uh disrupt the character of some of those existing residential uh portions of town center North so just wanted to add that as well there there's also another fundamental consideration um this retail requirement is based on a completely different Urban form it's not based on condos sitting deep into a property behind you know hundreds of feet of lush landscaping and parking lots it's based upon buildings fronting wide sidewalks so um that's a related question is that something is that kind of urban form something that the commission would want to see if condos are redeveloped or is the current style in favor okay yeah I'm I'm a hard no on this one um because I I mean I expressed my my My Views at the the beginning of the meeting it's and and I find it a little confusing because it's I it's for redevelopment purposes because right now none of that exists I think maybe in intra Coastal I think there's a little store I don't know if it's still there um but by and large we don't have uh commercial nor are we missing it again because we have access to from from the back and if we can um you know add access maybe to the to the big uh facing buildings that that would also I mean I don't know if they're missing it but it would certainly be a an option for them so I I would not support um keeping keeping this I think we're going to make the changes to the plan this is one of those changes I think we should absolutely make so I'm going to go in the middle uh I'd like to keep it open um I think that allowing the commercial um especially as it would incentivize other business owners because it would it would provide um for more opportunities uh for potential commercial developers to come in into an area that has been dominated by one owner H if there's a need for it and a desire and again going back to if the market you know um requires it but uh again to to your point about having an empty uh storefront um that that never looks good good and to force someone to do it just because they want to develop their condo I think uh it's disingenuous it just if it was never meant to be it's never meant to be so for me it's uh allowing there to be more flexibility if I may um yesterday I was in the Sant Trope building and they have that kind of model in the bottom is the commercial and residential on the top and they don't have parking I mean you have to pay uh for parking in there uh and they don't allow Beach parking um and he very successful so uh if it's a requirement right now and I like I said I would like to see um as the minimum changes possible so we don't get big legal challenges uh because they're going to probably come anyway so I think the more we change the more we are open ourselves to the challenge if it's a requirement right now and the the idea that the real estate is going to be empty uh that will depend on the market clearly but I think even for the right prices people will have their offices in there imagine having your office in the bottom of your building so I I like to to clean up what is going on with the comprehension plan Etc but to with the less changes possible so I'm okay to keeping the requirement now it would change the character of that area introduce proding the the the commercial there I'm just I mean I understand the the the um business focus but the residential Focus I think here should dominate because that is right now uh 100% residential I mean this is where a lot of our families live so I I think if they've expressed in the you know the data reflects that they don't want it and I'm the commissioner who lives there I'm telling you like it would it would affect us um I you know I I'd like that uh to not I mean me I would eliminate the requirement but at the very least you know make it not a requirement if you can want to keep it um flexible but right I really think that that would harm the area I really do it's it's like everybody you know would we know that people like the Walmart right we heard that in the transportation um debate but you wouldn't necessarily wanted in the middle of poana right so it would affect your your your community and I'm telling you requiring the the commercial here would absolutely affect that community so even if people would like shops then we can increase the access to the shops but I wouldn't introduce them but and on the other hand I almost think that perhaps that's the reason it hasn't been redeveloped is that requirement there's nothing really I mean and that's the other thing I mean it's it's it's already it's already developed there's really only two the smaller um the the Salem House and and Avila that maybe might be up for redevelopment so again this is something that maybe it's in 20 years you know or who knows um but I I can tell you that looking at the picture right now th those of us who live there we like the neighborhood feel of it and introducing uh commercial space would would change that yeah you have the two go ahead and maybe the reason why it has not been redevelop because it doesn't need the Redevelopment maybe because like it is it function as it is and it's not needed you know like uh maybe successful now everything is Redevelopment it can get better clearly anything but uh we are we we we can also said that I mean we can guess why is not is being redeveloped yes or not so my point is that maybe just because it's successful enough because most of those buildings are full capacity so maybe that's the reason why it has not been redeveloped right similar to why the the arcade plazas haven't been redeveloped um all right I think you got two yes for requirement and two leaving it open is that what you heard or you heard I'm I'm I'm more of a no you're more of a no all right a real hard note but if we have to compromise I you know it is what it is but if we're just taking Tes I'm a no yes and I just did want to reconfirm because I know we added a couple talking points after the first two Commissioners had their chance to speak just want to confirm that you're still both on the side of maintaining of the requirement as opposed to making it an option or removing it alog together no I I'll say that I'm for the uh commercial opt uh option uh sorry requirement let's leave it as a requirement I'm also for um having uh in our code to have only replacement height of the existing building if there is a Redevelopment and I think on the the question that I threw out there or the consideration rather as to the form of Redevelopment uh in the in the residential area uh commissioner viscara I think is clear that she likes the way and she feels a lot of the residents like the way it is today um would bringing buildings to the street uh versus setting them back and and having sort of a more active ground floor potential is that something you would want to leave as an option something to require um looking for some feedback on that can you clarify what you mean the street where exactly are we talking yeah so um for example on North Bay Road um you have the option of I think the code right now calls for buildings to be built right to the edge of a sidewalk to have like additional sidewalk area dedicated and then the building like right there to function more like a Park Square for example um or some of these other downtown lifestyle centers and whatnot that you that you've seen and liked um I think the vision the public Vision I think the commission's vision for for the commercial centers is it's fairly clear um you know you want something off Collins uh with a open space you know usable event space and Gathering space and an improved shopping environment but for the residential area um should you see Redevelopment there should it stay the way it is as a as buildings set back deep back into properties uh that are sort of self-contained or should these building contribute to more of an urban form where they're pushed to the back of the street whether it's North Bay Road or a new Street that's created internal to some of these Parcels uh and have more of an urban form should that be a requirement should it be an option is it not desirable at all commissioner Joseph you want to go okay so um are you uh so are you talking about a uh development such as Port of bachio where it's right up to the street the building I'm not happy with that scenario I would like to see uh a nice setback commissioner ston I would need to see a rendering and consider Case by case commission mcar um I do not support um the U I don't know what's the urbanization would that be the word um I I really think that um I really feel like the character of that area is under attack with these edits um the the residents have spoken you've gotten your data they've they've said that this is what they want and we are ignoring them so let's um you know I I'm very comfortable with the feedback that we've gotten it it reflects what I know and I would I would favor keeping the character the way that it is I would agree so just to be clear you're okay with having a building right up to the sidewalk that's what we have right now uh what happens is what but you don't have that in PL of the Americas where you we have a little bit of grass which is everybody's dogs grass now but yeah you do I mean you have the the plaza of the Americas is Walled off and you have some grass and then you have the sidewalk I mean you have the along 163rd Street you have the wall you have some grass and then you have the sidewalk it's and the the buildings inside are are separated but my understanding of the question is the how how how set back they are from the from the sidewalk itself right I mean so we do have space but it's not but it's still residential right it's Garden area it's pool area it's you know uh you have the garage in the back that separates us from from the marshals and everything else so so it's a question of setback but it's also a question of orientation and function so you know um right now the buildings whether regardless of how far they are from the street they aren self-contained properties you know you have to enter internally to access everything there's no interaction between the building and the street right that's really the question so it's a setback question but it's also a building orientation and function does the building have those commercial ground floor uses does it engage the street you know is there interaction with with the with the street or is it it just walled off fenced off and a development unto itself right the way the current the currently there is it's very well walled off even if there isn't a physical wall uh some of them most of them are raised there's a ramp you know you it's or you'll have a gate like the port of elio is you know you you go in anybody can pull up to a certain point but then you have the gate Beach play the same and it's not like uh you know Fort Knox security but it's it's nice to have that separation because what happens what are we not considering right if Plaza of the Americas didn't have that gate that that again anybody can tell get you in or whatever people like kids that don't live there they like to use the basketball court we understand that but if you didn't have something so simple as a gate that closes that would become the the beach parking for everybody and then we would have the burden of ticketing of Towing of whatever uh and it becomes an expense for everybody else and then when you show up or your your guest shows up there's no parking for them right so we pay our maintenance we we we know what to expect and it works it's working so I I I don't see why we would just open it up to make it more urban and and and flow in that way uh because it would really disrupt the way that that that part of the um neighborhood is is set set up to function okay and uh just one final point on this for the two Commissioners uh who did agree with maintaining the requirement um thoughts on allowing commercial uses as the principal use meaning that it would be a retail only building or would you want to see that retail integrated with residential or another use above it Mr Joseph and which uh question are we working on about the requirement for commercial um use new development it's kind a follow up to the first question that was talking about the requirement for uh non-residential uses on the ground floor to reflect the current zoning regulations for Town Center North uh the follow-up to that is since you're interested in the commercial uses you know in the western portions of town center North would you be comfortable with commercial as the only use in that building around on that property or would you want to see residential or another use integrated with it no residential integrated right now he a mi mixed youth right that's correct okay I will keep it like that than you getting down to our um last two questions or three questions here um the streetscape and you know what happens along Collins Avenue was a big discussion um through the public Outreach process uh here you can see an example of The Epicure Plaza or outdoor dining rather um from years back and that was something that a lot of the residents seemed to enjoy they really liked that feel that character essentially is you know 20 plus feet of hardscaped sidewalk with um nicer Landscaping that served as a buffer it was something that was discussed as being the preferred uh treatment throughout the length of town center North as you go from north to south along Collins um so there's there were different options that were talked about obviously currently a majority of Collins um isn't you reflective of the former Epicure site it's largely large surface parking lots um that front colins with kind of narrow or more standard sidewalk conditions it's not protected with landscape things like that um so the again the preferred condition was something like the images on the left um particularly the bottom left a lot of the uh focus group members liked something like that where again it's a a hardscaped plaza type condition that extends the full length there's options for seating but there's also shade and landscape and things that kind of buffer you from Collins um but the other types of considerations would be something like the bottom right which would be more of a a standard um condition where you might have a a narrower sidewalk and a small portion of street lawn with trees um it gives you a little bit of a buffer but it's not as um it's not as design intensive as the bottom left image or something like this top right which would allow for a limited amount of you know convenience parking so for the 15 20 minute in andout retail uh parking that would service those uh retail buildings along Collins a benefit from that perspective but uh perhaps not as favorable from the public Outreach process um so there's some different considerations I'll go back to the question slide though of essentially what would you like to see happen between the building line and the street line upon Redevelopment of the commercial properties along Collins commissioner mcari want to go first I would like to see as much space or barriers as possible between the people and colins so that means um wider the the widest sidewalks we can manage or the biggest setbacks we can manage um the the um um trees or you know like but I I think you know that we we acknowledge on the east side the ship sailed um we gave bonuses and Extras and whatever uh and we have these massive buildings and it's true in other parts of the city too like inra Coastal is a good example I always used a porsch building for for um for Collins as the example where it's this massive building all the way up to the sidewalk and you have this little row of like little flowers and then a tiny sidewalk and that's it um and it doesn't it really doesn't think um it didn't seem I don't think that when commissions were looking at those projects that they were really thinking about The Pedestrian it was all about from the buildings in like similar to what I was just saying like protecting like what what your um you know wherever you live and that space from the gate in but when it comes to um to The Pedestrian experience it didn't really take that into account um and so when you're walking on Collins which I try to do as little as possible for that reason if you there's somebody you know there's like one jogger or one um you know stroller or One Scooter uh you move to one side and you're going to get the Dust In Your Face from the bus that's driving by or the because I'm telling you because it's happened to me it's why I don't do it uh and it's why I'm I'm it's important to me to preserve that that neighborly part you know behind behind the plazas and and to limit traffic as much as possible in that area because you can't get away from it on Collins so to the extent that we can mitigate that even if it's in this little piece um of of uh Sunny aisles that where we can widen sidewalks we can add like in harand I remember um walking there you know not that long ago and how nice it was that even on the sidewalk I had palm trees between me and the traffic just where you plant the trees even it's it's a it's a nice thing it's literally safer we know that we have distracted drivers I you know we have teenagers I I dread the day that they become drivers but they will um so anything that improves the the uh pedestrian um experience uh and their safety um and that protects us from distracted drivers and um you know all of that I would I would favor that level of um allowances or whatever Mr Samson yeah um we there is too many people sharing that space it's true bicycles scooters you name it so I'm okay widening the sidewalks anywhere in the city that is possible you got that anywhere okay so for new development 100% to put some requirement to make it wider safer and Etc I'm I'm very good with that yeah Joseph as far as um I advocate for um Epicure being the way it is I like that scenario where you have a protected area and then you have a seating and a restaurant that would be very nice if we could see that more within the Town Center area I would be happy with that so regarding your U bottom left picture uh whatever it is that we can do as a commission to incentivize that sort of design um I think that we are all supportive of getting uh as much um protection for pedestrians but also um for it to be beautiful and um as far away from Collins as possible if you as far as seating for restaurants and having you know the the option and I know this is a tough one so but I'm just throwing it out there because in case it's possible you know the the top left with the bike lane um you know seems like that ship has sailed but perhaps there is still an opportunity a protected bike lane as well again that's F okay we'll move into the second to last question here which uh we've kind of discussed and there's probably a consensus on uh but in terms of Redevelopment of of retail the inward facing streets um kind of eliminate in the emphasis on Collins Avenue creating those new pedestrian oriented internal streets um looking for some feedback and just reassurance that that is the consensus of the commission that we would prefer you know that inward oriented um additional pedestrian streets type of a Redevelopment scenario I think we're in agreement but just in case commissioner St I I I don't want agree for an internal design of a new development I think that should be Case by case I I don't want to put requirements like we're putting a lot of requirements as it is so designing for for them or forcing them to design a way or the other one I I don't feel comfortable doing that I won't M Joseph again this is a dream scenario that I don't think could ever occur uh because most of our area is the arcade plazas so this isn't even anything that could be written into our code so with the comprehensive plan we have to think 20 30 years out while it might not be favorable currently with the economic conditions other RK cells or down the line they're interested in the economic incentive of redeveloping for whatever reason so we're trying to get to that 203 year Vision here noting that it it might not happen in the next 5 to 10 years but perhaps the next 20 to 30 years so the the concept would be if and when it does redevelop eventually the buildings will just be Obsolete and they will need to redevelop them would we prefer this inward scenario or maintain something that's more externally focused um kind of maintaining more of a status quo where Collins is the the Highlight street so this Vision you're looking to have written into our comprehensive plan the goal of this project is to amend both the comprehensive plan and the Land Development regulations correct if I me if we are widening the sidewalks as it is it is going to have to be pushed inward anyway so why do we need to put an extra layer of more requirement that's my question so it's one consideration you certainly don't need to require it but out of the public process there was a strong desire to create these new internal pedestrian streets where right now you have a very standard strip center development where it's the street the sidewalk and a very large parking field with surface parking that is not remotely pedestrian oriented and so the output of the the public process was to take those large parking Fields those large centers and uh Orient the Redevelopment to create new internal streets that are more walkable that create that more pedestrian friendly environment so that's what the the public feedback garnered and looking to see if that is reflected at the commission level as well and those restrictions can be written in the code it would be a yeah it would be integrated through the code requirements I'm not in favor of that we are developing and designning for the future uh I'm totally annoyed it's not our property exactly how can we even it's not even realistic okay so that's why if we want to have new development or Redevelopment there by putting all these requirements it's going to be even less possible to happen in the future like I said things that make sense like widening the side walks of course we want it I mean we live in the city I I actually do walk a lot my son went for three years in a row to the school from the south to the north um in a bicycle so and we had tragedies as well and fatalities so anything that is going to increase Safety and Security I want to speak on behalf of everybody I think we will agree to that but when we are taking the rights of the people when we are putting extra requirements on top of a requirement that we already have then I feel that we are designing for for the future and I understand that this has to be a vision planning um which is for the future clearly but my point is that we we are putting so much requirements that it might have the opposite effect of incentiv vating more a new Redevelopment so of course not I'm not okay with this commission mgar I like um The Pedestrian emphasis um I mean looking at this photo um I you know I I don't like the presence of vehicles like when I think about like the inward um oriented plazas I don't imagine cars in the middle of it so I I guess my I keep going back to that Dural thing where it it has a big Fountain there and and you cars are allowed to sort of like just to drop people off but and then there's a garage but there's not Vehicles like driving through um I I imagine little roads but full of people not Cars um so I just wanted to clarify that um when I say the oriented inward in my mind it does not include Vehicles so um and you know that's the question should new retail developments be oriented inward I think so you know if we if we get to make the rules I would I I like that idea because Collins is not a pretty thing to look at so why not extend that that neighborly feeling that we enjoy in that area um and the people have expressed that this is what they want and again um it reflects the input that I get um in my area so I I do give a lot of weight to the the public engagement piece uh so if this is what was expressed I would I would support it um back to the point about this being a a vision workshop and we are talking about 20 30 years from now uh I strongly support anything that is pedestrian friendly and back to the design that that we've seen in Aventura I wish you all had some pictures of it um perhaps for the next time the the idea of uh drop off lanes and then a separate area for cars um solves I think for actually a lot of problems that we have with uh Towing because people don't realize they park there thinking it's you know public property and for the beach and it's just uh especially in the summer it's just not nice walking in that on that parking lot um besides it being very hot it is very dangerous so any so the fact that we can write the rules right now um I my vision is to make it as pedestrian friendly as possible thank you and okay got it back all right so our last question is regarding building Heights within uh Town Center North and I kind of break this out into two questions um height within the commercial properties and then height within Town Center North overall um I will note that within again the public Outreach and the um focus group process generally there was a preference to keep height off of Collins to avoid and what they called the canyon effect um which makes sense based on what's on the east side right um and then generally within Town Center North overall outside of just the commercial properties that height would be pushed furthest towards the West along the bay and then generally it would taper um in height as you get closer to Collins so overall the concept of pushing height Westward both within the commercial properties and then within the overarching Town Center North Area looking to see if that um has consensus with the commission or if there's different direction regarding building Heights so be before we answer that question this is something that I wrote at the beginning of your presentation um that I wanted to ask our City attorney you know the question of Def legally viable uh what exactly are our limitations or Co we just rewrite the rules well there's certainly no bright line um determination there's a lot of factors that go into it but obviously the more the more you deviate from what you currently have the the greater the risk so you have some vested rights and property owners that they may already have and you have those that may not have developed yet but have uh um investment backed expectations that they were able to R upon so um you know you take it to an extreme where you say okay one only one Story Only commercial no residential you're going to get challenges obviously right um so the more you deviate you know it's not that you can't change obviously you have to in in looking at 20 30 years you have to look at a variety of factors obviously the growth of the city you know populations and things of that sort so you can accommodate for that but again um if if it's too I don't want to say draconian but if it's too much of a deviation um you you will get you know challenges and and you can reasonably expect you know we've talked a lot about the arcade centers and then we seem to know what their plans are for the near future and possibly longer um so that I'm less concerned about that but certainly when you look at an Epicure where there is an interest in development um those types of properties would be ones that I'd be focusing on to see that we don't don't go too far astray from what is currently in the code okay commissioner Joseph you want to go first if I may ask yeah please go ahead and part of this process I'm assume for you guys I mean you're asking for for our input but if you know if we were all to tell you that what we want is for everything to be torn down and become like one big park that's not so even if we were to tell you that which is not what we're saying you you couldn't write that into the into the code right I mean I'm assuming that we would this is this is you're getting our input but then you have to read it take it and weave into it Le legal exposure um you know and not just exposure but whether it's even allowed right we can't ask you for things that are not allowed so this is um you're just it's it's your it's the the commission engagement piece I guess is is that a fair think you captured that well um we're looking for the overall vision and then working uh with Allan to understand obviously the legal implications of Meeting those expectations in that vision and it might change um you know the direction slightly or um depending on that type of legal feedback but we are looking to get the overarching vision established and then obviously work with Allen moving forward so we're not dictating you're you're going to have to take our our feedback and work it in as best you can okay and you know as we look at this this helps us in being able to obviously the comprehensive plan is more sort of a broad limitation your your your your your caps versus your code being more specific so it's a different type of uh so the feedback we get from you were able to sort of dictate or or at least come back to you with something that's viable as to what's going to accommodate your vision in the comprehensive code with the Maxes and then in the code then it gets more into the minutia of some of the things that you may or may not want so we're still going to work through that process as we go forward uh before we continue I um neglected to ask this question um there's no mention of uh public private Partnerships in any of this is that something you see in other cities where there's a potential to allow for public use of um private developments future developments are you following what I'm saying can you just expand on the like for instance we were talking about the commercial uh requirement the 70% commercial requirement what if that looked like something like part of that commercial requirement could potentially be for City use um for whether it be you know some sort of daycare or camp or whatever it is uh the opportunity for the public to use it uh and have the the city lease it out rent it out or something of that sort yeah that would be probably a good opportunity for a development bonus you have bonus structures currently within your Land Development code um for pretty much every uh zoning district with the exception of maybe your lowest intensity and density zoning districts and the bonuses are something uh that we're working through restructuring that so um partnering with a private developer to provide some sort of city facility uh within again the legal confines of making sure that that was appropriately worded and offered uh that could certainly be something contemplated in the bonus structures and your p3s typically also driven they're statutorily driven Florida statute whether they're solicited p3s or unsolicited p3s so a lot of that framework is already instilled in Florida Statutes um you can have some accommodations for that in your code but typically it's it's all driven statuto okay all right commissioner Joseph do you want to yes start so um my my entire idea is to uh in in protecting residents and we have a lot of condos now where developers are buying out Apartments uh with the idea of having enough to take over the building and then redevelop that building so in that regard uh my concern is to keep building Heights in the future similar to what they are now and that in effect might protect current residents from developers thinking they could buy a a structure and then uh build it 20 or 30 stories higher than it is currently so I'm for uh maintaining Uh current building Heights in terms of if I may just with a follow-up question in terms of concentrating building Heights east to west throughout the town center and then within the commercial properties themselves and east to west if you were to see even I know you mentioned your four stories before if four stories were your upper limit would you want to see that I think you mentioned as far west as possible on the commercial properties and perhaps even lower along Collins in the grander scheme of you the overarching Town Center North would you still prefer to see the taller buildings further west and then shorter buildings As you move East or does that not characterize four story scenario was regarding the um if the shopping centers were to be redeveloped but that not being the case for current buildings that we have in the Town Center um if they were to be redeveloped I would not want them to be any higher than they currently are do we have in the code right now the wedding cake type of format is is that in the code it is along Collins it does apply yes okay so I've been consistent that I like to keep it as it is thank you m yeah I wouldn't want to the um the um concrete Canyon scenario either but it I mean it just depends on how it's being done right you see um I think you call it the birthday cake or the wedding or wedding or you know but the one where it's higher on one end you know I I think I somebody I heard somebody I heard somebody describe it as cash cash registers which to me it it it's visually it fits because cakes can come in different shapes it's like the mar that we have right now next to the right so they're all like so they're short here but in the end the setback I mean they're already on cins like I I don't really think it makes that big a difference because you have you know four floors here and eight floors there does it really affect the canyon effect I I don't know that it does like um because you have that it's such a small parcel and you end up with the cash register like and if that were 10 stories taller would it really make a difference I I I don't know I I think it depends on on the particular project um I think with those buildings it it it didn't I don't I don't think it would make a difference if if they were reversed you know and and it was that the height was going lower because of they're not really the biggest buildings I don't think it I don't think it would really make a difference um generally I I I mean again I don't know how feasible it is but I do like the I like Jerry's idea of like keeping things the height they are but I don't know how how I don't think that that'll carry um just because what's allowed is what's currently allow it's a major deviation right what's currently allowed is so much more than what is currently there um but I I I don't I don't know that it makes a difference at least with the with the code the way that it is that's how we ended up with the cash registers I guess we can leave it like that I I don't in in terms of the larger Town Center area outside of just an individual building having stepb backs and setbacks As you move would what are your thoughts on height As you move across the Town Center in its entirety kind of east to west would you prefer to see the taller buildings back along the bay um or in the Middle with lower scale buildings around the edges height push to Collins it's it's a tricky question because it's already it's already largely it's already fully developed and we're really looking at potential Redevelopment and those things it's really just two Parcels right uh which would be Epicure and and the apartments behind Epicure and then Salem House which is across the street from those and maybe Beach place because it's one owner um and that would all be behind that would all be behind um the commercial area anyway so I mean I guess it would I would if I have to say I would have to I would say West but I honestly based on if what our current code gives us is those cash registers I don't think it makes a difference I'm not a fan of the cake um and while I would love to keep things the way that they are they are not you know that's not our code um within the legal confines I would like to at the very least see lower floors around the perimeter so that you're not you know otherwise if you're going lower from Collins and then making your way up to North Bay Road then North Bay Road then becomes a mini Canyon you know there so again largely based on the design that's why I keep going back to the design in Adventura you know I've I don't know if you all have been there but I didn't even realize that there was uh residential uh on top of the restaurants I never even noticed them obviously it's very different uh landscape there but if if you want a straight an answer then it would be I guess sort of in the middle so that concludes Our Kind guided discussion portion of the presentation and our presentation overall certainly appreciate all the input and the feedback the next steps for us would be to work internally going to synthesize the conversations in the direction and come back to you uh with the visual preference survey to kind of move us toward Wards the final drafting of that visual document so we'll uh bring some different images from aventur and other places that you all have noted that you uh have been and enjoy and uh perhaps some places that you haven't been that will give you advanced notice if you want to take a field trip somewhere and kind of feel that type of uh development scenario um so look for that uh coming in the fall I'll let Amy let me know if there's anything else that you wanted to share with the commission otherwise Happy to answer any final questions um otherwise we'll let you get to lunch um I just for our next uh Workshop if we could just make sure that whatever we're showing on the screen is really readable um that would be very helpful and then is this presentation um Mr manager is it on our website could we put it on there or somehow share it or you're not ready to do that currently but we can certainly add it to our project website that yeah there's a lot of information here that I think that for those that perhaps didn't participate would be um interested in in reading and of course there's still an opportunity for the public to reach out to us individually as well as the property owners for for that area are there any additional questions from the commission I have a question please go ahead we didn't um or maybe I missed it but I don't think we we spoke about bonuses are we addressing that language is it one of those things where we where it's not legally uh advisable because it's too much of a as stray can they be limited can they be eliminated or do we keep them yes so we certainly will be addressing the bonuses for Town Center North uh we'll be addressing the bonuses for Town Center North separately from the bonuses from the remainder of the city which will come before you um in September as we noted um that would be a process that once we get the vision firmly established we'll start to talk about uh the bonus opportunities and how they each weigh out in the the weight that they carry um so that will definitely be an upcoming conversation okay um because I do think that's an important um component given that it's the use of bonuses that gave us um I think much taller structures than um others would would have anticipated and you know yes it gives us an interesting Skyline and whatnot but it it it's a it's an important component to the the canyon piece right that people clearly don't want so I'm just just want to make sure that we weren't overlooking that okay all right thank you very much appreciate your uh thoral presentation meeting adjourned thank you