Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board - Regular Meeting

No de códigos de verificación que puedan robar sus credenciales o información bancaria. Manténgase en la plataforma al realizar negocios y presente una queja si es necesario. Siguiendo estos consejos de seguridad, puede protegerse y tener una buena transacción.

I don't know what happened. I didn't even drink that much.

My name is Alena Shubina. Welcome to Lulu House and this is New on the Block. This is a place where you can come with your child and you can enjoy some coffee over here and snacks and you can work with your laptop or you can just meet a friend or recharge. Sometimes moms really need it. And your child can engage with other kids from zero to six mostly. We also offer different workshops and classes, cooking classes, arts and crafts, Montessori music, and we also organize events for moms. The idea of this place was to create a nice and comfortable atmosphere in a stylish place where both a parent and a child can enjoy their time. I started with the city of Miami first because I'm a resident of the city of Miami and then I personally was missing places like this and I know that many moms are also missing it. Every mom needs support and I was thinking that one day I would like to find a place like this. I saw this house, immediately it was a sign for me from the universe and I understood that this is how it should look like. It's cozy, it's family style house and it's like a real house. The reaction was unexpectedly great and we didn't do any paid advertising yet. It was just spreaded by the word of mouth and now I really feel and I know that this place was really needed. I would love to expand in the future of course and to grow it into the chain and to open more places like this in the city of Miami and in another cities as well. I'm happy to see happy faces. It means that they love being here and they like to come back.

In this season of extreme heat, it is important to take precautions to protect our health. Extreme heat can cause severe illnesses or even death. The most vulnerable individuals such as older adults, children, and those with medical conditions are at high risk. The heat index takes into account air temperatures and relative humidity. It can make temperatures feel even hotter. If there is an extreme heat warning, it is necessary to find air-conditioned places, avoid strenuous activities and wear lightweight clothing. We should also ensure proper hydration and know the signs of heat sicknesses. Don't leave children and pets unattended in closed vehicles. A heat advisory will be issued when the projected heat index reaches 105 degrees Fahrenheit or above for two or more consecutive hours. It is important to stay alert to heat warnings issued by the National Weather Service. For more information and resources, visit our website.

It is a beautiful day out here on Cayocho, made even more beautiful by the city's implementation of what we call a strike team. We've got all of our departments together to look at the cleanliness, the drainage, the landscaping of Cayocho to make it a beautiful place, all in support of Commissioner Rolando Escalona's efforts to improve his district, especially Little Havana.

When we campaign, we made a promise. And right now we're delivering on our promises. I want to thank our mayor and the administration. They have been helping us so much with Little Havana. And here we're going to show you the changes that are happening right now.

So today we're celebrating the kickoff of Haitian Heritage Month and the significance and impact of the Little Haiti Cultural Complex in the city of Miami. So Haitian culture and also Haitian Americans are very impactful in the city of Miami. They've been here for a while and we like to celebrate their significance and their contributions to the not only city of Miami but South Florida. The Little Haiti Cultural Complex serves as a hub where people meet and gather to celebrate Haitian independence and also where they gather to console themselves and reflect on their home, Haiti.

Especially in Little Haiti, the Haitian culture identity is so strong because in the 1970s, a boatload of Haitians came from Haiti and they all settled here and they looked for a life and they helped build what was called Little River and now called Little Haiti.

So it's just a big deal for us to allow families and community to come out to experience a lot of what we have to offer for free and open for the public. We have bounce houses, we have food from local vendors, we have canes like dominoes that are really a part of the Caribbean culture, connect four, skating rink as well. We want to continue to see more of community come out and feel a sense of belonging and know that we are here to serve them.

I love coming to the events in Little Haiti. Love having activities for the children. City of Miami does a really good job of supporting the culture, bringing events, and so I think it's just going to keep getting better and better.

We are in Coconut Grove in Barrick Park and we are celebrating this morning because we are opening a brand new aquatic facility. Incredible places where kids can learn how to swim, can compete in swim competitions. There's splash pads. for the little ones and an accessible entry point for everyone else.

It's a zero entry pool so you can walk into the pool. So the depth is really diverse. It provides for programming for all kinds of populations. And I think it's one of the most unique pools we have in the entire city of Miami.

My mother worked very hard in this community as an educator and a community activist. So to have her being recognized and being remembered by naming this facility after her is truly an honor for our family.

You're going to love it. Come down to the park, check it out. We are committed to making sure the city's parks are for everyone.

the ribbon-cutting for Southwest 32nd Avenue and 2nd Street. Part of the project also addressed a sidewalk, roadway reconstruction, the driveways, and drainage to resolve flooding in the area, which is actually part of a larger project in the Auburn Hill area.

The neighbors in the area had said the roadway really needs to be repaved, been torn up for a long time, and there's a lot of speeding on 32nd Avenue, so we went ahead and we did a raised intersection. So you've got beautiful new roadways behind us, you've got paved brick walkways, you've got things that slow you down and keep the street looking beautiful, and residents could not be happier.

I'm an extra dealer, and I'll be your sub today. Two milligrams of fentanyl can be lethal. A lethal dose is in here. Who gets it, I won't know.

It's cheap, it's potent, and it's profitable. The sad reality is fentanyl is being mixed into everything now.

More kitchen now.

Es bien importante que conversemos con el doctor de lo que nos está pasando, los síntomas que estamos

you Thank you. . . you you you you Thank you. you Thank you.

you

Thank you. you you Bye.

Everyone, any person who was a lobbyist pursuant to Chapter 2, Article 6 of the City Code must register with the city clerk and comply with related city requirements for lobbyists before appearing before the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board. A person may not lobby a city official, board member, or staff member until registering. A copy of the code section about lobbyists is available in the city clerk's office and online at municode.com. Any person making a presentation, formal request, or petition to the board concerning real property must make the disclosures required by the city code in writing. A copy of the city code section is available at the office of the city clerk and online at municode.com. Please silence all cell phones and other noise-making devices. Any person with a disability requiring assistance, auxiliary aids, or services for this meeting may notify the hearing board's liaison. The agenda and the materials for each item on the agenda for this meeting was published and made available to the board in advance of the meeting. The materials are also available during business hours at the city clerk's office and online 24 hours a day at miamigov.com. Any person may be heard by the board through the chair and pursuant to the published notice for not more than two minutes on any proposition before the board unless modified by the chair. When addressing the board, the member of the public must first state their name, address, and what item will be spoken about. Anyone wishing to appeal any decision made by this board for any matter considered at this meeting may need a verbatim record of the item. A video of this meeting may be requested at the Office of Communications or viewed online at miamigov.com. Item shall proceed according to section 7.1.4 of the Miami 21 zoning ordinance. The members of the board shall disclose any ex parte communications to remove the presumption of prejudice pursuant to Florida statute section 286.0115 and section 7.1.4.5 of the Miami 21 zoning ordinance. Staff will briefly present each item to be heard. For applications requiring board approval or recommendation, the applicant will then present its application or request to the board. If the applicant agrees with the staff recommendation, the board may proceed to its deliberation and decision. The applicant may also waive the right to an evidentiary hearing on the record. The city requires anyone requesting action by the board to disclose before the hearing anything provided to anyone for agreements that support or withhold objection to the requested action pursuant to city code section 2-8. The communications department will broadcast the meeting through all the usual channels and avenues. The meeting can be viewed live on Miami TV at miamigov.com slash TV and on Comcast channel 77 within the city. The broadcast will have closed captioning. A member of the public may submit comments via the city's online comment form. The comments submitted through the comment form, if any, were distributed to the board members and city administration throughout the day so that the board can consider them prior to taking any action. Additionally, the online comment form will remain open during the meeting to accept any comments and distribute to the board members up until the chair closes public comment. All comments received will be included in the public record and will be considered by the board prior to taking any action. The public comment options established and provided for this meeting comply with section 286.0114 of the Florida statutes as the city has provided these public comment options for members to indicate their support, opposition, or neutrality on a proposition. The city published an agenda as well as included in the notice to the public the items and topics that will be discussed at this meeting. Additionally, the public has been given the opportunity to provide public comment during the meeting and within reasonable proximity and time before the meeting. Board members, are you comfortable with all these notice provisions set forth and these uniform rules of procedures we've established?

Yes.

Thank you.

All right, thank you very much. We swear in the public?

The pledge, but do we want to swear in the public prior to?

All right, we'll stand up now for a moment of silence. The pledge of allegiance.

If you intend to testify in this proceeding, please remain standing and you may raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you, you may be seated. I'll go ahead and I'll call board attendance. Calling Chair Adam Gersten. Calling Vice Chair Andres Lopez.

Present.

Thank you. Calling Member Mario Bailey.

Present.

Thank you. Calling Member Lynette Cardoche. Present. Thank you. Calling Member Chris Collins.

Present.

Thank you. Calling Member Maria Paula De Corollas. Present. Thank you. Calling Member Eduardo Fernandez.

Present.

Thank you. Calling Member Paul Mann. Calling Member Ilama Toyer. Calling Member Joshua Patinkin. Calling Member Manuel Vidillo. Thank you. And calling member Arthur Porosov. Thank you. We do have quorum. I did receive a request for absence waivers from member Elon Mottoyer as well as Chair Adam Gersten.

Motion to approve.

Any second?

Second.

All in favor, aye. Nay. So it's passed. Thank you very much. All right. Let's move into setting the agenda, correct?

Yes, we have a number of deferrals. So items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. These are all CU revocations, and so the applicants are still working through the process of doing their 40, 50-year recertifications, getting their building permits, and clearing their unsafe structures violations. So we are asking for an indefinite deferral on these.

Thank you. Motion. Anybody? Motion to indefinitely defer the number.

Thank you. Second?

Second. Super.

All in favor?

Any against?

Showing none. Show it passed. Thank you. Yes. Let's go into then, we don't have minutes, so then we'll go in order five, and then all in deference to our sitting commissioner, we'll take 15, and then we'll go from there.

calling PZAB item number five, file ID 11741, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board with attachments granting or denying an appeal filed by Club Tipico Dominicano of the zoning administrator's revocation of certificate of use number 11369 on September 30th, 2022, pursuant to section 2-211 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended, titled denial or revocation of certificate of use for the property located at approximately 1334 Northwest 36th Street, Miami, Florida, making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date.

This was the revocation of a certificate of use for unsafe structure violations. The applicant has completed all of the necessary requirements and is actually in the process of getting a new certificate of use. The way that we like to clean these up is for you to just go ahead and grant the appeal.

All right. Thank you. For the record, Edward Martos here on behalf of the applicant. Office is at 2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard. I need to make one clarification or correction, rather. We received the certificate of use this afternoon. So we are in full compliance, and we agree with staff's recommendation that you grant the appeal. Thank you.

Thank you. Members of the public?

Showing none. Show public comment now closed.

And I shall bring it to the board.

Motion.

No? Okay. All right. Showing none. Any motions? Motion to approve. Second. Super. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Showing none, show to the past. Thank you very much.

Thank you, good night.

Please, number 15.

I'll do roll call. Calling member, I'm sorry, Eduardo Fernandez?

Yes.

Calling member Mario Bailey? Yes. Thank you. Calling chair Andres Lopez?

Yes.

Calling member Lynette Cardoche? Yes. Calling Chris Collins?

Yes.

Calling Maria Paula de Carolas. Yes. Thank you. And calling Member Manuel Vidillo. Okay, this passes by a vote of seven to zero. This item is final unless appealed to the hearing board's office in 15 days. Item 15. Yes, please. Calling PZAB item number 15, file ID 19419, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board with attachments recommending approval of the redevelopment plan prepared by Business Flair LLC, attached and incorporated as exhibit A plan for the Allapattah Redevelopment District Community Redevelopment Agency, Allapattah CRA, pursuant to section 163, Point 360, Florida Statutes, approving, accepting, and adopting the plan for the Allapattah CRA, acknowledging that the plan is in conformity with the City of Miami's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, MCNP, for the city accepting the boundaries as set forth in the attached Exhibit B and incorporating the boundaries in the plan, and filing said boundaries with a map with the Clerk of the City of Miami, further directing the Planning Director to transmit a copy of the plan in the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board recommendation for approval to the necessary agents pursuant to the act for further legislative action.

Mr. Chair, before you begin, can we close online comments?

Well, I'll keep it open until after we do a few more minutes because of the pat-up, plus there's 11 other items. So I'll keep it open for now.

And then chair for just some context for this resolution, just because this board, this item might seem familiar to this board. It did come before this board in April of 2025. This is the redevelopment plan for the Alapata CRA. And since April 2025, the city has since approved the finding of necessity for the CRA, and state law does require that prior to consideration of a community redevelopment plan, the CRA shall submit the plan to the local planning agency, which is this board. That local, that CRA was just, approved, and so that's why it's coming back, because the CRA has to send it back to this board. So I don't believe there have been any changes to the plan, and so it's this board's role as a local planning agency to review, make any recommendations or approval for compliance with the comprehensive plan.

Thank you very much.

And I believe we do have people here to... For public comment. for a public comment and any questions about the plan, et cetera.

All right, thank you. I'll open the floor. Any public comments? All right, showing none. I'll bring it to the board.

Is there going to be a presentation?

I believe there are members from the CRA that are here and can make a presentation or answer questions about the redevelopment plan. I am not able to make a presentation on the redevelopment plan.

You could ask for it.

Again, it is the redevelopment plan. It's the same redevelopment plan that the board saw. I know that there are new members, but it is the same redevelopment plan that was presented to the board in April of 2025 and has already been adopted and approved by city commission.

Yeah, and it is attached. It was attached to the resolution as backup to this item.

May I make a motion to approve?

I'll take a motion. Any seconds? Roll call, please.

And just to clarify, the motion was an approval and compliance with the comprehensive plan.

Okay. Calling Member Eduardo Fernandez? Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Manuel Vidillo? Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Mario Bailey? Yes. Okay, calling member Lynette Cardoche. Yes. Thank you. Calling member Chris Collins.

Yes.

Thank you. Calling member Mario, I'm sorry, Maria Paula de Corrales. Yes. My apologies. And also calling chair Adam, I'm sorry, Andres Lopez.

Yes.

Okay, this passes by a vote of seven to zero.

Thank you, thank you. Oh, yes, for consumers comments.

Yeah, hi. I'm Commissioner Miguel Angeluela, representing City of Miami District 1. And I want to say good evening to ladies and gentlemen, to the board members, you chairmen, and give you thanks for what you just did. You're making history right now. with the Allapattah CRA. We've been at this at work for about two years. We're trying to establish something like what happened in the Omni CRA in 1986, 1987. These tips that we're going to receive, this is going to go to infrastructure, affordable housing, security measures, helping the homeless. As you know, in my district, in the Seventh Avenue corridor, we have the Kamala's house, and we have the homeless situation going on. So I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the vote that you just did. We might not realize it today, but this is a historic vote because later on during the years when this thing gets really rolling, you'll see something like the Omni CRA actually happen in Alapata where the people there have been long overdue these benefits. So I thank you again for your vote and your confidence in the new agency, the Alapata CRA. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you. Calling PCAB item number 11, file ID 18919, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board with attachments recommending approval with conditions to the City Commission pursuant to Chapter 55, Section 55-15 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida as amended to vacate and close a 15-foot wide, platted public alley that runs from the property line for approximately 214.10 feet, generally located at the west side of North Miami Avenue, Northwest 41st Street, and Northwest 40th Street, Miami, Florida, as more particularly described In the attached, it incorporated Exhibit A making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date.

Good evening, Vicky Taranza with the Planning Department. This is an item that was heard last month, at the beginning of this month, and was heard previously, I believe, in March. I can walk through the presentation for those of you who have not been here. This is a vacation closure that the applicant has been working with the community. to discuss. It is a 15-foot wide public platted alley that runs from the property line for approximately 214 feet, 10-point feet, generally located at the west side of North Miami Avenue between Northwest 41st Street and Northwest 40th Street. Staff has recommended approval with conditions. Here is an image of what was originally being proposed by the applicant on the right, which they were going to do an alternate easement going north to south. And after working with the community members, they are going to maintain the easement where it is currently now. They have also been working with the community and have some updated conditions and new conditions that they want to present here on the record. Thank you.

Good evening, Board. Brian McGrawski. I'm also joined by Nicole Wolfe on behalf of the applicants today for this vacation and closure of the Seasmen. This was presented to you guys last month, and we were asked to go back, get a little bit more feedback from the neighbors, see if we can reach some sort of conclusion with them. We were able to meet with them. We met on-site last night, and Nicole has put into the record a letter which memorializes our agreement with them. I can go through the full presentation. I don't know how much you guys want to hear, or we can just talk about what we've reached as a conclusion with the neighbors. Ulysses Kemp and Lorena Ramos are here this evening with us. They are both tireless advocates for their neighborhood. They've been great to work with through this process. We've worked with them Over the last few years on various projects and just to recap what we agreed to with them. So we are going to modify condition to from staff to read the applicant shall work with planning staff. To activate the alley was efficient lighting sidewalks pedestrian access and doors on both the north and south sides of the alley. Condition four should be revised. It previously required us to repave and restripe the portion of the alley within our property. We have committed to repaving and restriping the full alley as it runs from North Miami Avenue to First Avenue. We have a new commitment that the applicant shall perform monthly cleaning and maintenance of the full alleyway within the block, including the alley, the portion on our property, during construction and thereafter. And lastly, which was the main item that we reached an agreement with them on, is that the maximum portion of the alley that will be covered by building will be 138 feet. I don't know if they want to make any comments this evening, but if you guys want me to go through the full presentation, I can, or we can turn it over to you guys.

It feels pretty fresh, and I'll give some time to the board and also to public comment, and then if anything else, we'll bring you back up. Absolutely. Thank you.

My name is Ulysses Kemp, President of Buena Vista Heights Neighborhood Association, and we did meet with the applicant yesterday evening. There were some things that they decided to go ahead and change, which kind of made it a little bit more presentable. However, the other concern is this is setting a precedent for other builders and developers to come in and try to do the same thing throughout our neighborhood in a reality that we have. What kind of guarantee do we have against that? We're not going against the applicant, but we're saying, what kind of guarantee do we have against that? Is there anything at all can be put in? This is to you guys.

Oh, I mean, yeah.

We address that.

I mean, we could, the public comment, you're able to talk. I got you. We have questions we could ask you. No problem. But it makes good notes for the record, right? For the record. That's what I'd like to know. Very good. Thank you, sir. Anybody else?

Good evening. My name is Lorena Ramos, 20 Northwest 45th Street, one of the stakeholders, chairperson. So yesterday we did meet. There was approximately 15 people. I was surrounding neighbors immediately on the Northwest 40th Street and Northwest 39th Street. Everybody had lots of questions, a lot of answers. And it was really good because we were on site and we were able to visualize it a lot better than from boards. So we did reach a consensus and We're happy that we were able to lower or lessen or reduce the tunnel effect from 166 to 138. So that is a revision that's very important to us. The other is the lighting and everything, the conditions that the... planning department had already instituted for us. Other than that, I don't think, we don't have any concerns. I did ask the neighbors that were there present yesterday about their consensus. Are they amenable to the changes that are being talked about tonight? And they said they were.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other members of the public? Seeing none. Applicant, any further questions? We're available for questions. Thank you. I'll bring it into the board. Questions? No, Mr. Bailey. Oh, you have a question.

Mine's just a simple question. So these particular items that they have on the letter will be included in future agreements. Did I understand it correctly?

So the items in the letter are the conditions that are part of the resolution. Right.

that are fresh from last night, not in our packet?

So I think two of them are being updated. So condition number four and number two that are in your packet are being supplemented. And then there are two new conditions, which I believe in the letter is the first one and the third one. Is that right, Brian? I'm 99% sure that the first bullet point and the third bullet point are new conditions. Yes. And the second bullet point and the last one are just modified conditions that they've beefed up a little bit.

Okay, thank you. Yes, that's correct.

All right. All right, I'll give it to Mr. Bailey. Go for it.

Okay. Through the chair. So I wanted to ask, the concerns that we raised on the last meeting, or at least that I had questions about, was that one site is a T4, is that correct?

The easternmost half is T5, the western half is T4.

T4. So the setbacks are different for T4s and T5s, and also the moment that you have an alley, you really don't have setbacks required in the alley, especially if it's going to be turned into an easement, right? The setback disappears.

I'm sorry not to interrupt you, but because we do have the three-dimensional easement, the ingress-egress easement, it will be a 25-foot... vertical clearance, as well as the full width of the alley that's currently there.

Which is 15?

It's a 15-foot wide alley, and we are working with staff. They did give us that condition to add access doors onto the side, so that's gonna further require us to recess our building from the alley, which will widen that space.

Right, and that's exactly where I'm trying to get at. When you say the applicant shall work with planning staff in the activation of the alley with sufficient lighting, pedestrian access, what is sufficient? Do we know that it's gonna be a 20-foot, 25-feet wide? Is there anything that, any guarantee

We are working, because there needs to be access from that side, there's going to be a minimum ADA requirement for that space, so it's going to be at least a minimum of five feet on each side.

Okay. So we're looking at 25? Yes. Okay. And the height is going to be 15? 25.

No, height.

It'll be 25 by 25. So it's a square section, 25 by 25.

The actual easement area will be 25 by 15, but then because of the access requirements, we'll have an additional five on either side.

Yeah, so it'll turn into a 25 by 25, I'm assuming.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. I just want to say thank you to the applicant. This project started off a very different project. You met, you listened with the community, and I'm very thankful. The last deferment, you didn't have to accept, and you guys did that. And we really appreciate you taking the time to really work with the constituent. And the gentleman who asked the question about how do you kind of prevent things happening, I think this is the way. Most of the items have to come before us, and then we have the opportunity to ensure that applicant works with the community that it impacts. So thank you both. And motion to approve.

Excellent. Yep. I'll take the motion. Any seconds? Second. Super. Roll call, please.

And just to confirm, that's with the modified conditions as put on that? Correct.

That's listed in the document.

Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you. Calling Member Mario Bailey. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Eduardo Fernandez. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Lynette Cardoche. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Chris Collins.

Yes.

Thank you. Calling Member Maria Paula De Corrales. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Manuel Vidillo. Thank you. And calling Chair Andres Lopez. Yes. This passes by a vote of seven to zero.

Thank you all. Thank you.

Calling PZAB item number 12, file ID 19284, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board with attachments recommending to the Miami City Commission approval with conditions and exception pursuant to Article 4, Table 4, Article 7, Section 7.1.2.6, of the ordinance number 13114, the zoning ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida as amended to allow a 100% parking reduction in the total number of required parking spaces for a structure with a floor area of 10,000 square feet or less located within the transit corridor area and not within 500 feet of an ungated T3 transect zone for new construction generally located at 545 Southwest 11th Avenue, Miami, Florida, as more particularly described in the attached and incorporated Exhibit A making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date.

Good evening, Vicky Chironza with the Planning Department. As my colleague stated, this is an exception to allow a 100% parking reduction. in the total number of required parking spaces for a structure with a floor area of 10,000 square feet or less. The property is located within the T4R transit zone and the property is approximately 7,500 square feet. The project additionally is 10,000 square feet or less. The applicant is here and they can speak more to the project. The property is currently zoned T4R and is located within the medium density multifamily residential. I'd like to point out that this property is, again, it's located within a transit corridor area and is not within 500 feet unallocated T3 transit zone. As pointed out in the staff analysis, this property is located a few blocks off of Southwest A Street, so it is a corridor area. And it's a commercial corridor and there's multiple bus routes that go throughout that area. So staff recommends approval with the following conditions. Thank you.

Applicant?

Welcome. Hi. George Garcia with 554 LLC. Just if you have any questions over the project, and I know we're asking for 100% reduction, we are providing six spaces for the six units that are being proposed.

Anybody from the public?

You're good. I won't steal it. Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. I was puzzled by this item that would ask for 100% parking reduction. I'm glad to see you're still going to have six parking spaces. because people are human, and they have friends and family that will want to come to visit, so they will be able to park somewhere. Where I'm a little at a loss is why would you need 100% parking reduction and then come back with six spaces? So maybe you guys can explain that, but thank you for having at least six spaces.

Yes, it sounded a bit odd that we're asking for 100%, but we're actually providing six spaces on site, and we have a corner lot So we have 100 feet and 75 feet, so there's another three or four spaces on Southwest 6th, and there's a couple of spaces on Southwest 11th Avenue. So there's plenty of parking. I don't know why the zoning decided to go in this direction, but we follow their suggestions.

How many units?

There's six units.

So one per unit. One per unit, right. It's supposed to be 1.5. That's the reduction.

Yeah, it should be nine. We're going down to six, plus the street parking that's available.

Thank you. Nice, thank you. All right, any further public comment? Showing none, I'll close, and then I'll bring it to the board.

Chris, I'll come back to you.

I'll come back to you, Chris. Yep, oh, yes, go.

Through the chair. Okay, so I want to thank for seeing more projects in T4. I'm really happy to see that section of the neighborhood being revamped. I noticed that, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the units are two-bedroom apartments and three-bedroom apartments. Correct. So you have two three-bedrooms and four... Two-choos. Yeah. So yeah, I agree that it's really great to see that six parking spaces are on site. Is that correct? Yes. The six spaces are on site. So one per unit, I think that makes tremendous sense. And I can support this application as long as we can sort of reword the language so that it's stated that the approval is for a reduction from nine required parking spaces to six parking spaces that are being provided on site so that it's super clear that it's not a 100% parking reduction, but instead that we are granting that three parkings are waived.

You may want to ask the department why they went in this direction.

So you still would need to grant the 100% waiver, but then you can make a condition that there'd be six spots provided.

Yeah, I think we can clarify that it's, because I think what Savannah is saying is that the code indicates that this property is eligible for up to 100%. So that's the specific application that was applied for. But there can be a condition that six spots are required. And I think we can also update the percentage and say that the application applied for was up to 100% and that it's being granted for whatever that percentage is that he's... 66%. 66%, yeah. I think we can clarify that and make that crystal clear.

Yeah, I think it's important that when we read it, that it translates to what is really happening. So one for transparency, one for ease, and also so that other applicants don't think that, oh, I can get 100% parking reduction. I don't think that's what we're doing here. What we're doing is we're doing a reduction from nine, which is required, to six. So we're waiving three, really.

Right, so they're providing 66% of the parking, and therefore you're waiving 34% of the parking. So the 30% parking waiver is not available for them because they need to ask for more than that. So they do have the option of asking for the 50% or the 100%, and so they asked for the 100%.

Yeah, and it's also for the unintended consequences in the future. Something happens and then, you know, a paper shows up and, oh, we had a 100% parking reduction granted in our application. Well, that's not what we are granting. So that's why, for me, the language is important that it states what we're doing.

We look at all the conditions. Amber and I were reading an exception from five years ago today trying to figure out the conditions. and how to enforce them. We still continue to look at those and enforce them, as long as that exception is still applicable to the land.

Okay, thank you.

Eduardo?

Yeah, no, I just want to echo what Member Corrales said. I agree with that.

Mario?

Same, but also, like, Usually when I see the language, like, because they're close to a metro rail or something, but we know ridership is definitely down, and so, like, I always take pause when I see, like, doing reduction in parking now until we increase the ridership. So I definitely concur with my colleagues.

Showing no other comments, just, we love our code, all right? If the applicant's okay with the conditions and move forward and you wanna make that amendment, I'll take the amendment.

Okay, so the amendment is to, so that the language includes that it's gonna be a 66 parking reduction?

No, no, we have to do a condition.

Sorry, an approval with conditions. Yes.

Yeah, and it's a 34% reduction because they're providing the 66.

66 is what's provided. Okay, got it. Sorry.

Motion and second? Second. All right. Roll call, please.

Calling Member Maria Paula De Corrales. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Mario Bailey. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Lynette Cardoche. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Chris Collins.

Yes.

Thank you. Calling Member Eduardo Fernandez. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Manuel Vidillo. Thank you. And calling Chair Andres Lopez. Yes. This passes by a vote of seven to zero.

Thank you very much. All right. Next, please.

Calling PZAB item number 13, file ID 19406, a resolution... of the Miami City Commission with attachments recommending approval to the Miami City Commission amending the Zoning Atlas of Ordinance Number 13114, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended Miami 21 Code by changing the zoning classification from T6-8L, Urban Core Transect Zone, limited to T50, Urban Center Transect Zone, open for the properties generally located at 625, 6, 4, 5, 6, 7, 5, 6, 8, 5, 6, 5, 0, 6, 4, 0, 6, 3, 0, and 6, 2, 6, Northeast 64th Terrace and 6, 3, 5, 6, 4, 5, 6, 5, 5, 6, 6, 9, and 6, 8, 5, Northeast 64th Street. The east portion of 6, 1, 0, Northeast 64th Terrace. and the east portion of 629 Northeast 64th Street, Miami, Florida. More particularly described in exhibit A, attached and incorporated, making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date.

Thank you, Melanie. My name is Muzi Watson. I'm the Chief of Land Development. Tonight I'm presenting the proposed down zoning for 6545 Northeast 64th Street, and the associated properties. You may be familiar with this project. I brought the exception earlier this year, as well as the street vacation, and now I'm bringing the down zone. This request amends the zoning atlas. The size of the property is about 2.7 acres. It's currently zone T68L. And the down zone would take it down to T50. The project contains 15 properties along Northeast 64 Terrace as well as Northeast 64th Street. Like I said, I brought the exception in the vacation closure that was approved earlier this year. And so this property had already been rezoned. In November of 2024, the commission approved the up zone from T5R to T68L. So you might be asking, well, why are we here? Well, there was a covenant that was proffered with that rezone that required a down zone. This is a specific section of that covenant. And what needed to be done is that the applicant had to submit their proposed plans. both the zoning administrator and the planning administrator had to approve, and then we move forward with preparing the down zone. So as you can see, it's a down zone from T68L to T50. This project meets all the criteria, and the planning staff is recommending approval. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Watson. Okay, members from the public. Mr. Cruz.

Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. Board members, city staff, It's wonderful to know that the city is capable of doing a down zoning. You should do a lot more of that. Thank you, thank you so much. In the case of this particular project, it's been very long in the works and it's been very controversial and a covenant was mentioned. Now, covenants are a bit of a scam in the city of Miami. I'll explain why. The covenant is between the property owner and the city. The people that are most affected by the project, the residents, were not included in the covenant. And even when we are included in the covenant, the way to enforce a covenant is to take it to court. And the very first thing that the city law department will want to do is to challenge us based on standing and damages. Does that sound familiar, Assistant City Attorney?

That's not a, let's just keep to our comments.

So what I'd like to ask is that this covenant be amended, adding language that says all property owners or residents within 500 feet of the property or Legion Park have legal standing to enforce the covenant without having to show any damages. and that that language cannot be amended out of the covenant later. This would make the covenant meaningful. It would give it gravitas. It would mean something other than just a token gesture that the public cannot enforce. Thank you.

Thank you for your time. Anybody else?

Good evening, board members. Nicholas Rodriguez, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, here on behalf of the property owner. As required by the covenant, we submitted the project plans and they confirmed that the project that you all approved a few months ago could still be developed under this down zoning. And so as required by the covenant, since it's not a meaningless scam, we are here in support of this T5O down zoning. We know it was important to the neighborhood and we wanted to follow through and we're here just for the record and to ensure we're in support. Our project is still moving forward, so this doesn't bother us at all. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anybody else, members of the public? Seeing none, I'll take it to the board.

I had one question. If the owner was required to down zone it, why does it say on the agenda that the applicant is the city?

I think I misspoke, but ultimately it was that the applicant would fulfill the requirements of the covenant and then the city would be the one responsible for the down zone.

So the property owner submitted an application to change the zoning or the city is an issue?

It's a city application.

Because that's different than what was read was a requirement from the owner in one of your presentation slides.

They were required to submit the development plans and they were to be approved by both the zoning administrator and the planning director. That happened administratively. And then from there, the city initiated the down zone per the the requirement of the covenant.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right, thank you.

Yes, through the chair. The project continues to, it still has commitments related to affordable housing, is that correct?

Correct, nothing changes about the project.

Okay, so... I have one more question, which is the height. The height is not going to be affected?

No, because there's a provision of the Miami 21 code because we're providing that affordable housing commitment. We get a little bit of a boost in the height to six stories, which is what we needed. We were never seeking the full eight stories of T6-8. We just needed the one extra story. So that's

different way to get to the same result is essentially what we're doing okay so you're getting the benefits through the affordable housing but the shape and form okay I understand okay I think I'm good thank you all right straightforward thank you very much motion to approve thank you seconds thank you Roll call, please.

Thank you. Calling member Eduardo Fernandez. Yes. Thank you. Calling member Mario Bailey.

Yes.

Thank you. Calling member Lynette Cardoche. Yes. Thank you. Calling member Chris Collins. Yes. Thank you. Calling member Maria Paula De Corrales. Yes. Thank you. And calling member Manuel Vidillo. Thank you. And calling Chair Andres Lopez. Yes. This passes by a vote of seven to zero. Calling PZAB item number 14, file ID 19410, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board recommending to the Miami City Commission approval of an ordinance amending ordinance number 13114, the zoning ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida as amended Miami 21 code by amending article seven titled procedures and non-conformities to modify the process and requirements to amend the Miami 21 code zoning atlas and the Miami 21 code making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date.

Can we add to the record, new member?

Announcing the arrival of Paul Mann, Member Paul Mann.

Where'd he go? Is he coming back? Savan Steiner, Assistant Director, Planning Department. The amendment before you tonight is an amendment to Article 7 of Miami 21. The intent of this item is to, it does several things, but it eliminates our rezone cycles. It provides a new exception to the size requirements for rezonings. It eliminates application requirements for applicants. and kind of clarify some of those as well. And then it cleans up chapter, some language to match chapter 62 noticing. And then it creates a new time limitation for city commission to act on applications by the first reading. And so what is the basis of these changes? In September 2021, the Miami 21 Task Force recommendations were put forth in a report. Two of those items, three of those items would be met by the amendments that you see today. So item C10 was to amend Article 7 of Miami 21 to allow property owners with bifurcated zoning to request zoning based on ownership, use, historic designation, or building sites as of 2010. So we have a number of sites or properties that have bifurcated zoning. In fact, next month you'll have one on your agenda where it's actually T3O in the front and the last portion is, the back portion of the property is T3R. We have other instances where we have T5 properties literally down the middle of the building or not even down the middle of the building. Three-fourths of the way through the building, the zoning changes to T3O. And so those properties are not able to have a commercial use in that T3O portion of the property. And so this would allow them a way to come forward or another opportunity to come forward. We do have an exception process for some of the items, they have to have a historic designation. So this would allow some of those other sites to be able to come forth and ask for rezoning. The second thing that Miami 21 Task Force recommendations I'm having trouble with some alliteration in saying all of that. It asks that we amend Article 7 to allow greater rezone flexibility from T3 to T4 when abutting a T6. And that would result in a more favorable successional outcome in cases where the applicant does not have 40,000 square feet or 200 linear feet of frontage. And then it also asks that we adjust Diagram 14, Article 7, which we're not doing in this amendment, to include a comprehensive process with estimated dates to facilitate the process for developers and applicants, a rezoning schedule, a pre-application hearing to a maximum of one year. So what we are doing is we're eliminating the biannual rezoning cycle and reducing that to six months, and I'll further explain that. We are also, this is also coming in response to some Florida state law changes. So there is chapter 66, which came out of the Florida Senate I believe last summer. excuse me, which requires all of our applications that require public hearing to be acted on within 180 days. So this means that all of our rezone applications must be to city commission and be acted on within 180 days. And so if I have a rezone cycle that only occurs twice a year, as applications come in, it makes it a little difficult. So this creates kind of a rolling, our answer is to create a rolling schedule. So again, our proposal is to eliminate the rezone cycles based on that state law and then the Miami 21 recommendation. We're proposing an rolling basis per calendar year that's established with a schedule that's established and then posted by the planning department. So it is 180 days from your pre-submittal pre-application date and then, or when it's deemed has to be passed pre-screen, and then the date that it goes to first reading for city commission is 180 days. So it gives us enough time to do a flume as well. A future land use map amendment requires us about 60 days just to get our concurrency done. Sometimes we can do it a little faster, sometimes not depending on whether the city is the applicant or not. We have a private application. So it still allows us to do all of our concurrency when the rezones are attached to a future land use map amendment, and we can have and be able to provide all of that information, but it still allows us to meet the 180 days that is now state law, as well as work toward the goals that the Miami 21 Task Force report set out. The next one is a new exception to the size requirements for rezoning. Again, this kind of hits on two recommendations that came out of the Miami 21 Task Force report. The proposed language is what you see underlined. It creates an exception to the 40,000 square foot rule. Right now you have to have 40,000 square feet or 200 linear feet in order to apply for rezoning. If you do not have that and it's not an extension of the neighboring transect zone, then we reject the application. It does not come before you. So what this would allow is for an applicant who has a smaller piece of property but wants to create successional zoning and would allow them to rezone it because there's an exception to that size requirement. So they have to be completing the transect, which means that when we have T3 properties bordering a T5, they could, either the T3 or the T5 could successively rezone a portion of their property or a property under the 40,000 square feet to T4. It would also work the same for T5 and T6. The map that you see here are the properties that exist in the city that are T3 properties abutting T5, it's about 1,300. T3 properties abutting T6, it's about 1,100. And T4 properties abutting T6, it's a little over 500. So it's not a large portion of our city that would even be allowed to take advantage of this. But again, it does meet the goals that were set forth in Miami 21 Task Force Report and allow us, property owners as they want to come forward with those applications. Those applications, again, would be reviewed by the planning department. We would create an analysis based on that application, make a recommendation. It would come before you to hear the application, make a recommendation to city commission, and it would still have to go to two hearings to city commission. So this just allows a process for these property owners to move forward. We also are eliminating or changing some of the requirements for applications, for rezone applications for applicants. We are eliminating having the list of certified property owners within 500 feet. For those of you who are new to the board, we changed our zoning requirements, sorry, we changed our notification requirements several years ago. We now notify for rezones 300 feet. and that is codified in Chapter 62 and is a requirement of providing all your hearing board's documents. present the present zoning property and future land use designation in terms of a map. We do those now ourselves and so we, like our own graphics, we don't need the applicant to do graphics for us anymore. And then also we are changing, before the code asked for the applicant to do an analysis, of properties within a half mile radius of the subject property. And then also to do an analysis that identified why they thought that the existing zoning was inappropriate and the new zoning was appropriate. we find that applicants are always gonna make an argument for themselves. So they're always gonna say they're appropriate and their new zoning is appropriate and their existing zoning is inappropriate. So I'm not sure what, benefit this was getting us in terms of the application. Instead, what we're asking for is a statement on the relevant background information. So, you know, why are they asking for this zoning change? What is their relevant information? And then, can they explain how the zoning changes meets the criteria and the intent of Miami 21? So, a little bit more concrete because the intent in the Miami 21 of Miami 21 is laid out in Article I believe article one, it's the preamble of Miami 21. And then there's just some cleanup to match chapter 62 on our noticing requirements. Again, this was something that we changed a couple of years ago. We used to send certified mail out and we got a lot of that back. We still get postcards back now that we send, but we do send postcards in three languages, or I'm sorry, there's information in three languages on the postcards. They have a map. The information is a little bit more digestible, and we've gotten really good feedback from our communities that they do prefer getting these postcards over the certified mail. We still require these postcards go to all of our HOAs. that are registered with the city manager's office. We still do postings, we still do the advertisement, and that is all codified in Chapter 62. So this is just a cleanup of Miami 21, referring it back to Chapter 62 and what we already do. But the postcards have been really great. We're still implementing them on the warrants, but our first ones of those went out this month, so we're excited about that. There is a new time limitation that this amendment also creates, so we have, it actually rarely happens. There's only a handful of applications I can think of that this has happened with. But we have applications that go to city commission and they get indefinitely deferred. They get indefinitely deferred for multiple years. And so they just sit on the agenda, get indefinitely deferred, everybody gets re-noticed, it gets indefinitely deferred, and the process continues. So this creates a time limitation on how long those applications can sit before first reading. And so if the application is a rezone only, it could only be deferred for a year. If it also contains a future land use map amendment, it could only be deferred up to two years. If at that point there was no action taken on the item, the item would be withdrawn. This would be considered an involuntary withdrawal. These limitations can, of course, be waived by the City Commission, and that is already in subsection G of Article 7 and requires them to do it by three-fourths of a vote. So they would have to say, you know, we are providing a time waiver for this application to indefinitely defer it again based on subsection G, and then there would be three-fifths of a vote. three-fourths of a vote, three-fifths of a vote. So there is a way that they can waive that. However, the hope is that this doesn't allow, continuously allow applications to clog up the agendas. Our proposed schedule is, it's a PSAP tonight. This item should be on future legislation for July 9th. And then first reading is anticipated to be July 23rd, and then second reading September 24th. Of course, with all of our schedules, they are subject to change. And I'm happy to take any questions you might have.

Thank you very much. Members of the public.

Reina Ramos, 20 Northwest 45th Street. One of us is a stakeholder, a chairperson. I did not know about this item. I wasn't planning on speaking, but I'm kind of stuck here. My ride is Ulysses. So now that I'm just reading it, I was just wondering about the posting. I didn't really understand that you're no longer going to be posting the property?

No, we still post on properties. That's not changing.

Okay, because I saw 9-1, it says you have it deleted.

Oh, because it's in Chapter 62. So the city code actually requires the posting. So that part is not changing. So this already refers you back to Chapter 62 to meet all noticing requirements of a hearing, and that is already within Chapter 62. So we still post and will continue to post. None of that is changing. This is just to clean up the references between the two documents.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Good evening, Steve Warnick, 2501 Swanson Avenue here in Miami. I think these are much needed and very positive zoning reforms. I would say in the I think about the applications that I've been involved with over the last couple of years, there are times where it could take 12 months or more to get through in the biannual cycle. And with the changes at the state level, I think the city is doing a great job aligning the code with the state and really just kind of cutting out some of the unnecessary process that isn't really serving It's not serving the applicants. It's not serving the neighbors. It's not serving the board. So this is the kind of legislation that we need to see, and it betters the code and brings applications to you sooner when it's kind of in the natural course of the process without harming any of the notification requirements, without changing the real review criteria that applicants need to demonstrate to seek approval. I would urge your support of the legislation. Thank you.

Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. Board members, I was part of the Miami 21 legislative process back in the mid-2000s to about May 20th, 2010, when Miami 21 became effective. There were very few aspects of Miami 21 to protect T3 neighborhoods, single family and duplex, from upzonings. However, of those few protections, two of them are under assault and will be eviscerated by what is before you today. The first one is the idea that a property along a commercial corridor can buy the T3 property behind it, and in order to create a transition, they can now apply for an upzoning. The current language in Miami 21, which would have required it to be either an extension of an existing zoning transect or a minimum of 40,000 square feet or 200 feet of frontage along a street, that's been there since at least 1980 when I first started coming to Miami City Hall to protect neighborhoods from upzonings like what would be facilitated by this. So I would urge you to not allow that to happen. The other very small but mildly significant protection that was included in Miami 21 was the language that required a zoning application to show why the existing zoning was inappropriate and why the proposed zoning change was appropriate. Now that was already weak enough as it is, because how do you define appropriate and inappropriate? And as Ms. Steiner herself mentioned, it was the applicant that was doing that, was making that presumption or that evaluation. That language should not be eliminated. It should be strengthened. Ms. Steiner wants to add language about how a statement on relevant background information and an explanation of how the zoning change meets the intent of the Miami 21 code. Wonderful. Add that. Don't take away. Add protection. That's what your T3 neighborhoods should have. And by the way, the intent of Miami 21, the very first line talks about the intent of Miami 21 is to preserve neighborhoods. I ask you, please help preserve T3 neighborhoods and do not allow this legislation. Thank you. Thank you.

Ulysses Kemp, 76 Northwest 39th Street, Miami. And I'm basically reiterating the same thing that Elvis just spoke about, the protection for T3. I mean, the residents as it is, we come in, I mean, myself, all the time, just trying to protect the residential neighborhood. And we've got so many developers that are piggybacking off the city, and it's like, okay, you know, we're going to apply for this, and we want to get it. And the city has been doing that, a lot of that, and now you're changing it to make it easier for them to come and get the zoning change. Just because they are buying a property that's a T5 and they have a 3 next to it, they bought that like that. They knew what they were buying. Why should we make it easier for them to go from a 6, 5, 4, 3, from a 5 to a 3, and then in between change a 3 to a 4 just because they own another property next to it that's a 5? That's an upzoning, that's a bonus to them for whatever reason. That's because the city deemed that they should be able to do it. Let's protect the residents. That's what we're here for, to protect the residents. That's what you all are here for, and that's why you are here, and that's why she has a position, to protect the residents, not to benefit the developers.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Darlene Fajardo, 3720 Kumquat Avenue. Thank you board members for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight and I wanted to be brief. This is in support of the PSAP agenda item 14, but I would like to respectfully request one minor modification to the proposed ordinance. Specifically, I ask that Civic Space CS be included among the allowable successor zoning designations for properties undergoing successional zoning changes. As currently drafted, the amendment proposes successor zoning options to virtually every transit category, including CI institutional, but does not provide a corresponding path for civic space. Adding CS would benefit the specific area in West Coconut Grove. There is a strip of T3O zoned properties that are not conforming lots, too small to currently apply for a zoning change to T4. That would allow commercial use on the ground floor of mixed-use developments along Grand Avenue, which you already know is a commercial corridor. Unfortunately, these properties are strangled because they're right on the edge of the municipality. On the north side, in the city of Coral Gables, it's already zoned commercial, but that doesn't warrant... or give any credence to our municipality's zoning ordinances. So we believe that the east side of Coconut Grove of Grand Avenue is currently zone T5 and is currently undergoing major changes, as you all know. And the addition to ZS with the proposed zoning amendment would allow for a portion of the street adjacent to GW Carver and abutting Amberster Park to provide much needed mixed use development to its commercial corridor complying with the necessary provisions of Appendix A. Maintaining the look and feel of the Bahamian and Caribbean style and providing the required affordable housing. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Clara Garcia. Maybe one of you know me because we have been many times talking about the Grand Avenue cultural corridor. We have the limitation that we are T3O and we are in the main corridor of Grand Avenue. The T5 ends right on Douglas Road and the north side of Grand Avenue, which means that T5 continues to Grand Avenue to the north side, but we are located in the south side. We think that every legislation, every law has a particular case that we have to notice. I have a screenshot of the zoning conflict that we have in this particular area. We have sunny commercial coral gables on the north, plus T5, Miami 21. On the south, we have CS. And the civic, I will recommend to the City of Miami Planning Department to include CS for those to apply for those. the rezoning to bring the benefit for the coconut grove to continue the commercial corridor which T4 which allows to do what we have in this moment. We have a business that was built in 2018 3870 Grand Avenue It's very modest. It's an example that many developers in Coconut Grove must have because we keep the architectural Caribbean style totally different than what many developers have been doing in Coconut Grove. We love the growth. We like to keep the architectural, the cultural, the history. And we need to be included in this item for us to apply individually, because we have around 20 lots, and it's very hard to put everybody together to complete the 40,000 square footage, because we are less than 3,500 square footage lot, but we are non-conforming. And this is our last option to apply for the exchange, with your recommendation and approval. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Seeing none, I'll bring it to the board. Mr. Mann.

Ms. Snyder, is this, I'm sorry I was late, but maybe you could tell me this, is this only for one area or is it citywide? This would be citywide. Would the cases along or way where you've got T3 abutting T5, would that be affected by this?

So yes, those properties could then apply to become T4 under, so a 5,000 square foot lot could then reapply to become T4. That application would then come before you.

Because if this is, what we've had developers in the past try to, knowing that they would have a very hard time trying to upzone the T5s there, that they had accumulated more than one property on Coral Way, and they had purchased all the abutting T3s behind, which were also, they had a line of T3s behind a line of T5s, and they knew they would not be able to get very far trying to upzone to T6 there. So they tried to upzone the back to T4 with this, and they failed. the neighborhood, I think the city at that time wanted, was amenable to a T4 liner on the north part of 22nd Terrace, saying that would make sense, and then a T3 on the other side, and we argued that, well, now you've got, you've extended T4 into Silver Bluff, and now T3 is a budding T4 on the other side, and so that can snowball to a T4 on the other side of the street as well, so I don't think it went, I think the developers finally just gave up but this would bring all those developers back into play, wouldn't it?

So it sounds like those developers already had and met the 40,000 square foot requirement. And so this really is meant for it to be a parcel by parcel or for those bifurcated parcels, if they should choose to rezone for them to bring those forward. So you're talking about this portion of Coral Way that's in the yellow right here. Those are the...

Yes.

Yeah. So it sounds like in that situation, because the application came forward, they already had the 40,000 square feet and then the application was denied. Again, every application gets would would get evaluated based on the three criteria that we use to evaluate a rezone application that would not change. And that application would move forward just like any other application. So this only really allows those smaller parcels to be able to apply. That's all it does is allow them to apply. It doesn't allow them to get the rezone or anything like that. It just allows them to apply.

On what basis would this board be able to deny it?

So again, I think that Mr. Cruz pointed it out, the number one principle and the intent of Miami 21 is to preserve the neighborhood. And so that if you felt that the rezoning wasn't meeting that intent, that would be the reason to deny the application. So our criteria that we use to evaluate rezone applications are, does it meet our comprehensive plan? In most cases, It's we in most cases, a future land use map amendment accompanies the rezone application. And so we kind of just defer that back to that future land use map application. And then the second criteria is, you know, is there a need, is there a justification for it? And then does it preserve or meet the intent of Miami 21? So there's still ample opportunity to do an analysis and to deny those, or to recommend to city commission to deny those applications.

I'm sorry, I missed the first part of the presentation.

The first part of the, and I'm happy to.

But just if you could very briefly tell me Why I should vote for it.

So these were recommendations that came out of the Miami 21 task force. And additionally, there were some amendments that were made to state law. And so the amendments overall address those recommendations from the Miami 21 task force as well as the state law. I think that's the part that you missed, and if I can zoom out.

Okay, but state law has a say as to whether the people on the south side of 22nd Terrace have any standing in not wanting a T4 of zoning across the street for them?

The state law requirement is specific to the 180 days. So the state law is specific to the amendment to eliminating the rezone cycles. The Miami 21 task force recommendations were more specific to this item of creating a new exception for people to apply to rezone that application, property, sorry.

Thank you. Thank you. As we're done with public comment, let's also close on public comment at this time. Thank you.

I'm sorry, these were the Miami 21 Task Force recommendations that applied. It was C10, C12, and E3. E3 is more specific to the rezone cycles, and then the state law is in Chapter 166 and is specific to the rezone cycles as well. So in terms of creating the new exception for people to apply for the rezone that is in response to C-10 and C-12 from the Miami 21 Task Force.

Thank you. Mr. O'Dea? Mr. Collins? Yes.

OK. So I have several questions. I'm going to start from the beginning. As far as I understand the code as we have it now, and I would love to have a zoning. We don't have any zoning staff. They don't come to these meetings anymore. to answer some zoning questions. I mean, I don't mean to say you cannot do it. I think you can. I think the rezone goes through zoning stuff first.

A rezone only goes to the planning department.

Zoning doesn't see rezone applications anymore?

I don't know that they've ever seen them since I've been here.

No, well, not since you've been here, but they have in the past. No? Not anymore? OK. So it says, except where the proposal for rezoning of property involves an extension of an existing transit boundary, No rezoning of land shall be considered which involves less than 40,000 square feet of land area or 200 feet of street frontage on one street. So the way that these used to work was that you could extend a transect boundary if you didn't have 40,000 square feet or you didn't meet the frontage requirement. and you could still extend the transect boundary as long as it would be successional zoning. Meaning, if you have a T3 and you want to extend a T4 zone next to you, and you didn't have the square footage or the linear frontage, you could create that T4 through the successional zoning. But if you wanted to create a different T4, zoning transect zone that was non-existent there, there was no success, there was nothing around you, you would need that 40,000 square feet of land and the 20 feet of frontage. So my question is, why do we need, I mean, I see what, I understand what this legislation wants to create, which is to provide that T4 transect that is absent in the city. I recognize that. And we needed to fill in that successional zoning we do not have. What concerns me deeply is that I think that this is more like a surgical type of work where we go into the city and we see where are the areas where this T4 could benefit and provide that successional zoning rather than making it a blanket statement where anybody now can rezone or upzone. We could even have legislation written to fix the dual zoning, like the double zoning on one side, which is not so common. I mean, it happens. But I have reservations as how this is going to really pan out when we look at it citywide.

So, I mean, we have not updated our future land use map as a whole city since... I don't know when, maybe the late 90s. Maybe Elvis knows. But I mean, it has definitely been since before the 2005 update to our future land use map. So that means that nobody has realistically studied that in 20 years. So if I'm not doing that work, then that means I'm not doing the rezone work that comes after doing that future land use map. amendment work. And my only resource in order to do that work when we're not doing it as a staff becomes to do amendments like this so that private developers can do it on a piece by piece, parcel by parcel basis. I think your point about not having enough T4 in the city is 100% correct. 45% of our city is zoned T3, some form of T3. When I ask people to guess how much of our city is zoned T4, they typically guess 20%. It's 6%. 6% of our city is zoned T4. And T4 is specifically meant for where we have what we call missing middle housing. And missing middle housing is naturally affordable, occurring affordable housing because it doesn't have things like amenities. These are where our triplexes and our quadplexes and our courthouse buildings go. And yes, we need to fix our issues with T4, but at the end of the day, I don't have enough property that is T4 within the city. So I don't disagree. I have a project set up right now with my comprehensive plan team to begin looking at that future land use map study. We're six months into the year. We still haven't kicked it off. I keep asking for it. And we get asked to look at other things. So, you know, I think that you will see some of that come. But every day that we get further down the road also means that our property values continue to increase. And as those property values increase, I need more and more density to be able to make any of those developments work out, right? Or I have to, We have to create ways that T4 and triplexes and quadplexes and low, small-density buildings actually begin to paper out in terms of performa because our land value is so high. And so if I'm not able to do that, then all I've done is create... or reinforce a K-shape economy where we have people who are extremely poor and people who are extremely rich, and there is nothing in the middle. And so I have to be able to create different type of housing typologies in order to do that. I would love to be able to study and to redo my entire future land use map amendment, but when I got here, I was given $250,000 and nine months to do an year update. The city of Charlotte did and finished theirs at the same time. It cost them a million dollars and they did two years. They spent two years doing it. So the time that it takes to do all of that and the money and the resources that it takes to do that work are significant. In the meantime, I need a way to not make the problem worse. And so I think this is a small way of beginning to do that.

Yeah, what I'm concerned is the unintended consequences. We leave it on the hands of other people to resolve issues that either because we don't have the capacity or we don't have the manpower or whatever. But it's a huge response. I'm concerned. When we go back and say, well, okay, the Miami 21 task force. The Miami 21 task force, from what I remember, was mostly developers. they were making the recommendations. I need, sitting here, I need to be mindful. We want a city that develops and grows, but we also need, as I think that my role is to think about the community as well and represent them. So I'm concerned about what, if there's another, maybe it's not a comprehensive plan amendment or something like, maybe it's something else. I don't know what, or zone by zone, areas by areas. I don't know what it is, but these, I don't know. I see a million things that could go wrong with this. I don't feel comfortable.

I will say that this only impacts less than 3,000 properties in the city. There are not a significant amount of properties within the city that are even eligible to apply. It only opens it up for 3,000 properties currently, actually under 3,000 properties.

I'm good.

That's it.

Can I get some clarification as to, Miss, you were asking about the civic space, and was that something you guys looked into?

So the properties that she's referring to who are bordered by civic institutional zone properties. And so currently the code says when a CI property ceases to be used for civic functions, the successional rezoning is determined by identifying low intensity abutting transect, so in her case the T3O, and then rezoning that zone to the next higher intensity. So I do believe your CI is still functioning correctly. Correct, right? So her CI is functioning, but if it wasn't functioning, we would consider that T4. So I think there's probably a different part of the code or another exception that we would allow when bordering CI.

Oh, it's CS.

So there's already... Sorry, the only CS properties, when you rezone CS properties, they don't have to It's CS. It's CS. So CS properties are considered, I don't know, for, when we go to rezone a CS property, we look at it, I mean, as if it was unzoned. Does that make sense? Right, but if you had a civic property and you were rezoning it, we would look at what was around it and we would, in that case, we would say it should be T3, right?

So we can't, you already closed public comment, so we could have a member who could call you up or something. Yeah, can I call her up? I'd like to get a little more clarification on that.

Thank you. Let me speak again. In our particular case, we are in the middle of the island. We are a T3. North Coral Gable Commercial. Northeast T5 Miami 21, East Amber Park, and Carver School, Middle Elementary School. On the south, we have C-S, C-E, and C-S. And the property that we had on the south are Coconut Grove Community Center that we provided. We help the kids because we have our class. We provide snacks. and we have a really good connection. Also, there are eight tennis courts that they are full since 7 a.m. in the morning to 11 p.m. in the night, which is very useful. We are here to develop it and to create for the community. We really think Everybody has been passed for Grand Avenue, right? We have a very, very occupied street in Grand Avenue until 37. After you pass 37 and go to the west, you can see commercial on the right. Why? We have the limitation to provide to the community, to the city, We are in the main entrance to the coconut grove. We are in the main corridor, cultural corridor. Why? To keep the limitation for those 20 properties. Do not do T4. Do not comply with the Appendix A that was approved 1992. to allow to those property to have mom and pop business, art gallery, coffee shop, a small business with apartment living. It was the main purpose of the T4, the commercial space, live and work. The people live there and have a small coffee shop down, a small beauty hair. Why we keep the limitation? Why we keep doing? No, you can't, you can't. This, we are in an island, surrounded by commercial and community. Why this limitation? Because if you see the concept, if you see the goal, civic is civic. Civic is CS, CI, but it's civic. Why be particularly discriminating? It has to be CVI, but it can be CS. Because at the end of the day, this CS is more occupied than the CI. You can go anytime the seventh day of the week. You can go 7 AM in the morning. It's the pathway to the carpet. It's a very occupied street. There is no way for this little road to be residential. There is no way. I exhort you to think in the community. Everybody say, we don't understand why the city do not allow, do not change this, those little road for houses, old house. Even we propose, we the developers, the owner, we propose to do rehabilitation to the existing property. We propose to create a museum. We propose to redo roofing, fence, painting, arcade, landscape. The city doesn't care. We.

Do you know what I did? So that's, Mr. Fernandez has any specific questions he could address it. I mean, now it's, you were given time for opportunity for public comment. If he has specific questions he could ask you.

Yeah, so to address what she's asking for, she's asking to add CS to this amendment?

So I think that that would be, that would almost, for this, because when we look at CS, her CS borders a T3. So if I was saying, what does that CS function as? I would say in a purely zoning look at it, I would say it'd be functioning as T3O. And so therefore, she wouldn't meet the criteria for this amendment. If it was CI, I think that then you could say, okay, that functions based on what's written in the code, that CI is abutting T3, it can function at the T4 level, but it still wouldn't be eligible for this specific amendment because this amendment is meant to complete the transect, right? And so that way I would already be considering T3 bordering a T4. What I think she could, if it was CI, she could argue that because the CI is given the next intensive zoning as the T4, she could argue that it's the extent of the existing transect. However, she's bordering CS, and CS is basically, it's a neutral zone. It's a neutral zoning. Because, I mean, we have CS in the middle of T6s, right? So if that CS were to disappear, we wouldn't rezone at T3. we would rezone at T6. Or else we'd essentially be creating something that's not right.

Our transit allows us to move.

If you lay me for the next reading, I'm going to bring a video. I'm going to take my time to do video for you to see how busy is this.

I just have a clarification. You said she's in a T3 abutting a CS? Yes. I thought they were saying they are currently a CS.

They're currently a T3. Their properties are currently T3O.

They wouldn't be able to.

Okay, and my final question, just for re-clarification. These, or this amendment, any of these properties that are considered T3 abutting a T5, they would still have to come before this board individually, every parcel requiring our approval. Okay, well, I think you've done a good job at presenting that.

You can sit down. You can sit down, please.

May I speak?

No, you have to be called.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Bailey. Thank you. Thank you for your recommendations you put forward. I was slightly concerned to my colleague, he asked a question, it took away my heartburn. But I have one additional question. You're looking at updating, you're taking recommendations from the task force. Did you consider the recommendation regarding community engagement? And if so, would this be a good place to put it? And I can speak to the two or three recommendations.

So yes, the Miami 21 Task Force did specifically make a recommendation to include that there should be an inclusion of more community outreach prior to a rezoning, and that specifically there should be some type of community workshop. We have, and it did not get included in this, but I have in some iteration of this, this is probably the third or fourth iteration of this between the, of Article 7 between the notification portion, I update it, we did a reasonable accommodation section of it, there's another section that has to come completely separating, separate, so there's some more iterations of this to come. We did not put it in this one, but what we did look at is requiring the applicant to conduct a community workshop And then prior to the hearing, as part of their hearing board documents, they would have to provide proof of that workshop, and that would be through either notification that went out to the neighborhood or to the community, plus a sign-in sheet of when it was held. And so that is something that, if you would like to make that recommendation, I think that it would be appropriate to, for this piece of legislation, since we are amending specifically the applicant's requirements. Thanks for making my job easier on that one. I just knocked off two more Miami 21 recommendations.

I wanted to acknowledge what you presented, that I am familiar with the area. My kids go to Carver. So we drive by. And Grand Avenue is a great street. It has a median. It has a bicycle lane. It has pedestrian crossing. It has a very wide sidewalk. It is lined with trees. It has a bike lane. It's an amazing example of what a great street should look like. And you're correct. It's that area that you... Between, I think, it's Grand Avenue and Washington, it's T3, and in front you have a different municipality, and in the back you have... neighborhood tennis and all of them like the CS portion. You have the fire station or the fire training people and the school. So I understand that you are in a dilemma, that it's very difficult and it shouldn't be a T3. I wholeheartedly agree. My concern is a blanket statement legislation to fix that neck of the hood. or the coral way with the T5s and the T3s behind it. I'm concerned about that. I think there has to be a different approach where it's less, I would say, risky, in my opinion, and there's more oversight. I have seen... A lot of applications that are, I mean, how many applications do we not recommend?

Everything that I've seen, we typically... We don't get that many rezone applications anymore at all. It's gone from about... I wanna say at the height, and I wanna say in the past five years, I wanna say we had a year where it was 30, and I may be wrong, I may be doubling my flume and my rezones on that, but I think last year it was seven, and half of those were probably city-initiated applications. So with the preemption between Live Local and RTZ, we don't see that many rezone applications. I mean, I think there's also some market issues that are going on as well. We built a lot. We got to see how the market absorbs it. And then... There are a lot of investors in 2025 that were not looking to invest in new builds. They were looking only to acquire foreclosures. So there's a little bit of that investment going, typology going on as well. So we just really don't see that many rezone applications as it is right now. And most of them are city-initiated. And when they're city-initiated, you're typically seeing us recommend approval in those. I mean, I think the one that you saw earlier that we downzoned, we originally recommended a different zone for that. And that's only been 18 months. So I think you do see them.

Okay. Thank you, Savannah. I appreciate it.

Mr. Chair, I would like to approve this with the condition of adding the workshop requirement that you mentioned.

Sounds good. I'll just make a quick comment, just thank you. right, good legislation. And ultimately, it makes me happy that these items will come back before us. I mean, ultimately, we are the body that ensures that the populace is protected. So we're here for that. So thank you for the legislation that allows us to have some of these things. Anyways, I'll take the motion. I will second that.

There's one thing through the chair, if I just may. I'd just like to make a comment to the board. Last year, 50 Grove members came into this chamber withstanding. They had the strongest case to deny a diminishing, which would have increased density in their area, reduced the canopy, and increased the traffic on a very small street that even the police that lived in that area said it's a bad idea. Even staff said it was a bad idea. The District Court of Appeals had said a couple of years earlier for an identical case, it's a bad idea, and overturned it. These folks had four aces, and this board did not. And not only that, they had an NCD. There's NCD 3, where the language gives them more standing within a half, I think it's a quarter of a mile of the site, of the applicant's site, gives them more standing as to density and canopy. They had four aces. In the two different periods that I've served on this board, totaling maybe eight years, nine years, I had never seen a group of public activists, people who really, really cared. I never saw them with a stronger case. They had four aces. And the man who owned the property, who wanted to diminish that property, had only, the only thing he had in his court, was an ex-planning department head, who now works for a developer, for an architectural company and for developers, who said, well, it's not a bad idea. And this board denied them their rights. That's why I am very uncomfortable having one by one items come before this board, because this board has routinely, completely overlooked and ignored four aces on the public side and given it to the developer. If that had not happened, I would trust that this board is not overly developer friendly. Because that was mentioned earlier, the very first paragraph, the lead off paragraph in the comp plan, LU1, leads off, the lead off batter says, protect single family neighborhoods. And then it goes in subsequent chapters talk about responsible development. Now, Ms. Steiner has said that we've only got 3,000 properties in this legislation that are going to be affected. and that we only have 6% of T4 properties in the city. But how many times has this board heard from developers that they cannot build on T4? They just can't do it.

That's our job, ultimately, as the board.

What they're doing is taking the T4 with the T5s and the T6s so that they can get what they want, which is to intrude into T3s. If we do need T4s, It should be on a case-by-case basis. And it should not be a blanket like this. This is a blanket knitted by developers that make it much easier for them to get what they want when it should not be much easier. So that's why I cannot vote for this. Because this board has proven in the past that it will not stand with a neighborhood that comes up and says, case by case basis, we really don't like this. Please don't let it happen. And this board overrides them and gives it to the developer. Over and over and over. I cannot vote for this because it is too broad. I think it should be the other way around. I think it should be allowed, but not with any special permissions being granted to the developers up front. I think those protections should be granted to T3 stakeholders first and let them come case by case to try and get a T4 upgrade. I think we're going about this wrong here. The lead off element to our camp plan says protect neighborhoods and this is making it easier for developers to eat those neighborhoods. So I can't vote for it.

Mr. Chair, I kind of take point with that characterization. We had an item that we brought, we sent back three times, we deferred it to make sure that the developer met with the actual community. This item, it adds additional public workshop. It does, yes. I think we want to be careful when you characterize the board and our motives in what we're doing.

Additionally, 50 people showed up here and they were denied. But you're going from one case to one case. That's the whole purpose of this board. From one aspect in what's directed to us by...

The folks that showed up here had the strongest hand I've ever seen. And I doubt we'll ever see a group with a stronger hand than that. And they were denied. And this is going to make it even more difficult for them to get their issues addressed. They did win their case. They did ultimately win their case.

We're going down the legal tangent. That's right.

It cost them money. It cost them money. It doesn't matter.

That's not the point, though, Mr. Mann. Mr. Mann, the whole purpose of this board. is to be able to give the populace the ability to come here. The fact of the matter is, during that time, when we had those co-vites come in, and by the way, you can look, I live two blocks from there. From that perspective, that's the whole purpose. They came in, they expressed their thoughts, we tried to assist them, and other times that we've had the same situation, i.e. the bridge, or sorry, the alleyway that was just vacated, Well, not to go into, but those same exact factors, we were able to send it back with the developer. If the developer was a darling, if the developer was active, we went back and forth. We gave them the deferral. Same thing that happens in other cases. We digress too much, but I'll... I'll move it. Yeah, there was a motion on the floor.

Well, I mean, I'd just like to add that, you know, I've been sitting on this board for less than two months, and the very first meeting that I sat in here was the Coconut Grove Playhouse, and I remember that this board stood on the side of the neighborhood. It didn't pass, and... We saw a situation today as well as Mario member call Bailey he pointed out you know we've told the developer work with the community and they went back three times and they finally came to an agreement I mean. I think that's the purpose of this board, at least that's what I understand, is to strike a balance between the developers and the community. We have to find a middle ground here, and I think that this proposal is making it easier for people to come before us and analyze each one of those parcels on a case-by-case basis. It's forcing them to come before.

I believe we have a motion on the floor, so I second.

All right. Before we take a vote, can you clarify the condition?

Sure, it was for the public workshop that must be held.

For the applicant, for the part where it's the applicant's requirements, they must add a public workshop prior to public notice going out. Got it, thank you.

And also this does require a super majority vote, which in this case would be six members.

Thank you. Roll call, please.

Calling member Mario Bailey. Yes. Thank you. Calling member Eduardo Fernandez.

Yes.

Thank you. Calling member Lynette Cardozo. Yes. Calling member Chris Collins.

Yes.

Calling member Maria Paula de Corrales. No. Thank you. Calling Member Manuel Vidillo. Thank you. And calling Chair, I'm sorry, and calling Member Paul Mann. No. Okay, thank you. And calling Chair Andres Lopez. Yes. Thank you. This passes by a vote of six to two.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thanks to the public. Thank you everyone here. Second time chair. Not bad.

Thank you guys for your patience, obviously. Motion to defer.

I mean, motion to finish. Second. Thank you. Adjourned. Thank you.