Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board - Regular Meeting

Thank you. you you Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board. Please silence all cell phones and other noise-making devices. This meeting can be viewed live on Miami TV at miamigov.com slash TV and on Comcast Channel 77 within the city of Miami. The broadcast will have closed captioning. Any person who is 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 cannot lobby a city official, board member, or staff member until registering. A copy of the code section about lobbyists is available at 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. The city requires that anyone requesting action by the board to disclose before the hearing any consideration provided or committed to anyone for agreement to support or withhold objection to the requested action pursuant to city code section 2-8. Any person may be heard by the board through the chair for not more than two minutes on any proposition before the board unless modified by the chair. Any person with a disability requiring assistance, auxiliary aids, or services for this meeting may notify the hearing board's liaison. When addressing the board, the member of the public must first state their name, address, and what item will be spoken about. If the item is being continued or rescheduled, the opportunity to be heard may be at such later date before the board takes action on such item. A member of the public may also submit comments via the city's online comment forum. The comments submitted through the comment forum, if any, have been and will be distributed to the board members and city administration so that the board can consider the comments prior to taking any action. Additionally, the online comment form will remain open during the meeting to accept 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. Item shall proceed according to section 7.1.1.4 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 286.1. 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, the applicant will present its application at 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 order of presentation shall be set forth in miami 21 and the city code 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 the city published an agenda as well as included in the notice of the public the items and topics that will be discussed at this meeting the public has been given the opportunity to provide the public comment during the meeting and within reasonable proximity, and time before the meeting. The public comment options established and provided for this meeting comply with section 286.0114 of the Florida statutes as the city has provided different public comment options for the members of the public to indicate their support, opposition, or neutrality on the items and topics to be discussed. Board members, are you comfortable with all of these notice provisions set forth in these uniforms, rules, or procedures we've had for this meeting?

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, let's rise for a moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance, please.

Thanks.

Before we do the roll call or attendance, is there any, did anyone submit an absence waiver request?

Yes. We have Mr. Eduardo, I'm gonna do the attendance first, and then we'll do the absent waivers. Whatever, you can do whatever. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Eduardo J. Fernandez.

Here.

Mr. Elon Metier? Yes, here. Mr. Paul Main?

Here.

Mr. Christopher Chris Collins?

Present.

Mrs. Paula DeCarlos? Present. Mr. Mario J. Bailey?

Present.

Mr. Joshua Patikin? Mr. Manuel Vidilla? Mr. Andres R. Lopez? Mr. Adam Gersten?

Present.

Ms. Lynette Cardoche.

Present.

We do have Chrome, and we have two absent waivers for Joshua Patikin and Manuel Valdillo.

Okay, is there a motion? Make a motion. That was Collins and Metoyer. Collins, second. Or Mann, or whatever.

Paul, and then Mr. Chris Collins, second. Thank you. And Mr. Andre Arnopes is present. Thank you.

Okay. Do we have any minutes? No.

Okay.

No minutes to approve, Chair.

Great. And are there any deferrals?

There are no requests for deferrals or withdrawals.

Great. Are there any online public comments so far?

No current online public comments, Chair.

We'll leave those open just for a few more minutes. We'll close them after the first item. Madam Mayor, I see you're here. Did you have something you wanted to? I do. Come on down. Hey, everybody.

I'll go over.

Well, I can talk here with the presentation. Yeah, it's great to be here again. I was here last time, and you were very helpful in allowing us to basically fill in some infill lots in a way in our T4, T5 zoning, but to allow smaller lots to have housing built on them that was more in line with what housing should look like, and rather than just being like commercial properties. And so that has really been helpful. It means we're not going to have tons of parking and pavement. We'll have more trees. And so tonight, you are going to be so impressed by our team here when you look at the cottage housing item. And it is another one of our innovations in how we look at changing what we can build so that single-family neighborhoods look more like single-family home neighborhoods. I don't know a single human being that lives in the city of Miami that hasn't driven through whether it's Coconut Grove or Silver Bluff or Shenandoah, just name a neighborhood that looks at these white box duplexes and goes, why does everybody build a white box? You've got the two units side by side, they have to share a wall. When you own each of those units, it's complicated permitting. You want to make any changes, you've got to consult everything with your neighbors. So it's complicated ownership. It's also ugly, right? You're seeing these white boxes and beautiful historic neighborhoods, the Grove, Shenandoah, so many more. And so this team has been working very, very diligently on what can be done with these small lots to implement what we call cottage development. And you will see an amazing presentation about why that will benefit our city, why it will give better home ownership choices. And the thing that matters incredibly to me is that we will be able to build things that look appropriate for the neighborhood that they're built in, right? If you own one of these small lots in these neighborhoods, you get to build a duplex. But Miami 21 forces them to build these boxes. And we will now be able to build in a different way. That gives us more housing options at more choices. It gives us neighborhood character options. It gets rid of this out of scale massing of these boxes. It also allows you to do things that are more environmental. You might have a porch, you might have a portico, so you could sit outside in the shade, which currently is prohibited. You also get rid of this front frontage, which is nothing but impervious surfaces, and it gives our team the ability to require more trees. So I think you're going to be excited to see what this looks like. The team has worked with the commissioners, so we have lots of input onto this, and look forward to hearing your questions and your comments. So if we need to make it better before it goes to the commission, we can. Thank you very much.

Thanks so much. Okay, well, with that, should we do start with number one?

Chair, may I go ahead and sway everyone in before we go with the first item? For all those who will be testifying, please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly affirm the testimony that you will give today as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you, please be seated.

Thanks.

File ID number 19278, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board recommending to the city commission approval of an ordinance amending Ordinance number 13114, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended by amending Article 1, titled Definitions to Introduce a Definition for Cottage Housing and to Update the Definition of Lot Coverage, and by amending Article 5, Section 5.3, titled Suburban Transect Zone T3 to Allow a New Housing Typology within 23-0 transect zones and 23 non-conforming lots and to update the protocols and porches regulations making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date.

Great. Ready to go?

Good evening, everybody. My name is Andrea Sandoval. I am the project lead of the Cottage Housing Initiative, and me and team sitting here have been working on this project for a little bit over a year now. We're very excited to show you this program that we have put together with a lot of feedback and input from commissioner's offices, the mayor's team, design development, local architects, and more. Before we dive into the presentation, I just wanted to make a statement that the purpose behind cottage housing is to create more housing options and provide housing variety for multi-generations. Setting that up, I'm going to start just talking about the project and how, you know, the purpose and how we're going to describe it through the presentation. But the essence of cottage housing is to introduce a new housing typology for City of Miami for small lots. And it's feasible through design flexibilities within certain areas of the city. For example, we are taking into consideration T3O transit zones within TODs and transit corridors, and also T3 non-conforming lots that are existing and could benefit from this development. We will go into more details throughout the presentation, but I just wanted you to have an overall idea of the purpose behind it. Also, by allowing the programming non-conforming sites, it establishes a right path for these developments to happen without the need of an entitlement. Overall, the amendment aims to reinforce the character of the neighborhood, to establish neighborhoods by encouraging context-sensitive design, and also to support a broader range of housing types at different price points. The planning department recommends approval of this text amendment, which is going to be presented to you in two parts. Part one is cottage housing. And when we talk about cottage housing, we wanted to start by giving you a detailed look into how we started this program and how it has taken us to where we are today. So number one, we're going to be talking about missed opportunities. analyzing our own current zoning code and what is the zoning code currently allowing, like how are we seeing as a product of that. We're gonna show you some pictures and you're gonna see some examples. Then we're gonna talk about historical precedence because this is not a new housing typology, it's actually something that exists not only here in Miami but in many states across the United States, so we're gonna show you some examples in other places. Then we're gonna dive into cottage housing, the zoning ordinance that we're creating for this particular program and where does it apply. Okay, so we're gonna start with the missed opportunities, and as I mentioned, we're trying to analyze what is going on today. What does existing single-family home regulations look like? What is the result of our current zoning code? So here you can see some pictures of T3O in different neighborhoods, Coconut Grove, Silver Bluff, Shenandoah, and you can see this is actually what the mayor was speaking about a few minutes ago, that this is what the zoning code is pushing for these developments to occur. So the first thing that we notice is that there is a complication in the permitting process because, as you may be aware, once you have a duplex, you are tied to each other because you belong to the same folio number, correct? So if I say, if I want to have a pool on my duplex, then I need my immediate neighbor to be... to come with me to the permitting process, and if this person is not up to date with their exterior renovations, then it's gonna be an issue for me. So it works, even though you have two separate units, they're always attached together. It also, another missed opportunity is the lack of housing options at different price points because as you can, as you might be aware, these houses sell for a lot of money and it's not affordable for everybody. There is also a repetitive building form that lacks contextual consensitivity which results in those sugar boxes and you know, like white plain boxes that we see everywhere throughout the city. There is out of scale massing and lack of building articulation. a repetitive building form, and it results in a front yard dominated by impervious surfaces, poor climate responsiveness. Every non-conforming, and one of the last missed opportunities they wanted to highlight is the existing non-conforming vacant lots. So every non-conforming lot that wants to develop has to come to the city to ask for either a waiver, a variance, or some sort of entitlement to allow that development to happen. Not too long ago, you saw a West Grove development come to PSAP for a variance so that the applicant was able to develop his single-family house in that lot. So this will allow a by-right process. Local historical precedence. So traditionally, the city of Miami has had these types of housing types. We wanted for this piece of history to be highlighted, to be taken as an inspiration. And we're not creating a new type of architecture or a new type of typology. We're taking inspiration from prior communities and their architectural features. For example, there was shotgun housing in Coconut Grove and Overtown where we can see the historical pictures that we have on the screen and also the plot of the narrow lot in Overtown on the bottom right corner. And looking into nationwide precedents, we looked for different examples outside in the United States, like in Fayetteville, Arkansas, not so far away, South Miami, and also in Rosemary Beach in Florida. We see how this development exists and how they function, so we're just taking inspiration from these establishments. So now we're getting a little bit more into what are we proposing under this text amendment. What are the characteristics of cottage housing? So what is cottage housing? So by definition, it's a compact detached single family residence on a small lot designed to be compatible with lower density neighborhoods. That's the essence of the program. It's also supposed to be a functional detached single-family home designed for narrow lots. It's calibrated with a variety of massing, architectural styles, and neighborhood patterns. So in the pictures on the right, you can see that there is a range of architectural styles from something more historical to something more modern. But those architectural features at the front facade really give you a different look from the typical duplexes that you see in our current situation. Cottage housing will also allow for the development of non-conforming lots. It will simplify the ownership while keeping the same density, and this is something important that we wanted to highlight because The permitting processes, as I explained earlier today, take a while for our applicants, and also the property taxes that are attached to them as one folio. So this will allow them to separate the two properties under one law, simplifying their lives, basically. Another benefit is the accommodation of cars in a narrow lot through tandem parking by respecting pedestrians in reducing the impact of curb cuts and facilitating front loaded parking arrangement and avoiding the loss of overall green space. So we've made, I'm just going over the basics, but we're gonna then jump into the zoning code and then you're gonna see how we've made some calibrations to allow for all of these benefits to occur. And finally, promote active frontages by excluding front porches and porticos within the first and second layer from log coverage calculations as an incentive to activate that front facade. Okay, so in here, we're gonna go a little bit more technical with the details, but we also wanted to make it as easy as possible to understand. So we're gonna dive into the zoning configuration of the program, and we created this table to showcase existing Miami 21 zoning code for T3O and cottage housing zoning. So we're gonna go line by line to explain the differences or if it remains the same. So for example, for a minimum lot width under T3 ozoning, we have a 50 foot frontage. Under cottage lot, it will be 25 feet. The maximum lot width for T3O is non-existent and for cottage lots will be 35 feet. The minimum lot area is 5,000 square feet for T3O and it will be 2,500 square feet for cottage. A maximum lot area goes from non-applicable to 5,000 square feet. So these are like the pre-requirements to be part of the program. So if you wanna develop your house under the Cottage Housing Initiative, you have to be able to demonstrate that your lot complies with the minimum lot width, maximum lot area. That's like part of how the program will work. The maximum lot coverage will remain the same at 50%. The minimum front setback will remain at 20 feet from the frontage. And the minimum size setbacks will be reduced from five feet to three feet to allow for the cottages to function. So if you see on the, and I think the graphic will help me explain that better. So on the, I'm trying to highlight, under the T3O zoning you see this graphic that shows a plan view and a perspective. This is a typical 5,000 square feet lot that shows one duplex. And on your right, you have the cottage lot zoning, where we're dropping a subdivision through the middle of the lot, and now you have two cottages with that minimum size setback of three feet. The density remains unchanged because under a duplex, you're allowed to have two units, and under cottage lots, you're gonna have one unit per lot. So if you subdivide it from 5,000 to 2,500 each, you still remain, the same density remains. The parking will also be the same two parking spaces required per single family home. The definition will modify to allow for porches and porticos to exist in the first and second layer without taking into consideration for low coverage calculations. And the planning. So the planning was going to be required if the existing lot exceeds the 35 maximum lot width and or more than 5,000 square feet in lot area. So let's say you have a bigger lot that would like to participate on this initiative, it will need to be replatted to be able to conform to the standards of cottage housing. And lastly, the applicability. We are looking for this program to be available in a T3O zone within a TOD network or transit corridor or located on an existing T3RO infill that meets cottage lot standards. Meaning the second doesn't need to get a replat because those are already existing grandfather lots that automatically qualify to the program. Other considerations to take into account, the density, as I mentioned before, it's one residential unit per lot that remains unchanged. The wastewater is gonna be handled via sewer connection, because due to the physical limitations, we cannot accommodate a drainage field, so it has to be by sewer connection. And the parking and driveway, we are proposing some modifications to the covered parking garages, for the principal frontage to have a maximum width of 12 feet and the secondary frontage to have a maximum width of 24 feet. And then also for the driveways and frontages to have a minimum driveway of 12 feet in the principal frontage and of 20 feet on the secondary frontage. The paving shall be limited to 60% of the front setback and might be a combination of pervious and impervious paving. However, the impervious portion shall not exceed 40% of the front setback. So we have to make these modifications to make sure that the parking works with our in tandem configuration. And then the trees. which is something like one of my favorite parts of the program is that we're actually proposing an increase in tree canopy because under a regular T3 lot, you're required to have three lots per 5,000 square feet. Under cottage housing, you're required to have two per lot, meaning that in a typical 5,000 square feet, you're getting four trees instead of two. And we have a graphic here to show you how will that work. So as you can see on the left side, existing two trees on site and one on the street tree, every 30 feet of frontage that remains on the proposed, you have two streets, two side trees on site, and then one street tree for every 30 feet of frontage. So there is a 33% increase in trees per 5,000 square feet. Here's a concept rendering of cottage housing highlighting a variety of architectural styles, porches, porticos, and front facade activation. Like all the elements that we added to the zoning code, it's to incentivize a design that's gonna look like this, what we're showing on our renderings. And to help facilitate where will this apply, we have a couple maps of where, of applicability. So we started this legislation thinking of T3O zones because of the duplexes and how, you know, like where was the best location for this throughout the city. So we thought about TOD networks and transit corridors, which I highlighted on this map, and then also the location of existing T3 infill lots that meet cottage lot standards. So in here, we try to do a breakdown of the different categories. So in red, you can see the T3 parcels that are citywide that are non-conforming, meaning that they go from 20,500 square feet to 5,000 square feet. That's in red. Then in yellow, we have T3 parcels within TOD and transit corridors that are 2,500 square feet to 5,000 square feet. And lastly, the bigger group, the T3O parcels, over 5,000 square feet that if they decided to participate on this program will need to replant are more than 7,000 potential eligible sites. And then we have the same map with more overlay information in here so that you can see what are those transit corridors, where are the TODs, where is NCD1, NCD2, and NCD3 in reference to the overall SCOPE OF THE PROJECT. SO THIS WAS THE END OF PART ONE AND WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO THE SECOND PART OF THE AMENDMENT WHICH IS FROM FACADES WHICH IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE to the calculations of the law coverage to allow for porches and porticos to exist within the first and second layer. And this is the type of architecture that we're envisioning will occur out of that amendment on our code. Finally, this is a concept rendering of cottage housing highlighting an activated and inviting neighborhood for the city of Miami, thank you.

Thanks so much. Would anyone from the public like to speak on this item?

Thank you.

Good evening board members, Andy Parrish, 3940 Main Highway. The national examples, the yellow and the green one there, there's two that I built 30 years ago on a T3R lot that happened to be plotted as two 25 foot lots. But Max Strang designed, you've probably seen them. They're on Charles Avenue opposite, right by the graveyard. One's blue and one's green. It's kind of like that. I think ours are more attractive. But Max Strang, who now you know is a star architect, he was just starting out, so he designed them. And they fit into the neighborhood beautifully. So I think this is a wonderful thing that the staff has come up with and the mayor has come up with. Definitely needed. I'm not sure that it should be restricted to just T3O because I think the T3R is gonna have a lot more opportunities for this, but I know the staff is looking at that. First, let me disclose my neighbor is Marcelo Fernandez. He has three lots in the West Grove that are currently T3R, they're each 5,000 square foot lots. And instead of building three, megastructures on there, what he'd like to do, and he's already replanting his lots to divide them into six 25-foot light lots to do exactly what's shown up there in the corner with variations, obviously. The problem is, of course, he's owned, from what I understand from staff, they're not ready quite yet to recommend T3R because, as you know, that's a red flag to a lot of neighborhoods. We all understand that. But there may be a way to skin the cat. He's currently replatting them. He wants to do exactly that, 25 foot wide lots, cottage lots. So maybe, and I'm sure Savannah will have some ideas on this. When you pass this, which I hope you will, because it's a magnificent idea.

Two minutes.

That you will make a recommendation to allow Marcelo's lot, provided he finishes up his replat, Maybe you can recommend it. If we had planned unit developments, which we don't have anymore, but if you could recommend maybe as a demonstration project, he will build those and they'll be done probably within a year. And they'll then have something to show that what can be done rather than- Thank you. Hopefully they have. So that's what I wanted to say. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Julian Yukin, and I'm here today to respectfully ask for your support in improving cottage-style housing on T3 zone lots in the city of Miami. Miami is facing a serious housing affordability challenge. Working families, young professionals, seniors, and lifelong residents are being priced out of the neighborhoods that they helped build. The city's own affordable housing master plan recognizes the need for data-driven strategies to address this housing shortage. cottage-style housing and a responsible solution. It is small-scale, neighborhood compatible, and designed to fit between traditional single-family homes and larger apartment buildings. This is often called missing middle housing, which Miami-Dade County has already recognized as an important policy priority. The proposal is not about overdevelopment. It is not about putting towers in residential neighborhoods. It is about allowing smaller, well-designed homes that respect the scale of T3 neighborhoods while creating more attainable housing options. Cottage-style housing can help activate vacant or underutilized lots, create housing for local residents, support small builders, and preserve neighborhood character. With the right standards, including setbacks, landscaping, parking requirements, architectural compatibility, and restrictions on short-term rental abuse, this can be done responsibly. Miami 21 already regulates development by transit zones and T3 areas are intended for low density residential neighborhoods. Cottage style housing can fit that framework if it is carefully designed and properly regulated. We need housing solutions that are realistic, community-sensitive, and forward-thinking. Cottage-style housing gives us a way to create more homes without destroying the character of our neighborhoods. I respectfully ask for your support in approving cottage-style housing on T3 lots with strong design and community safeguards. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, how are you? My name is Amanda Deseta, business address of 19 West Flagler Street, Suite 1001, Miami, Florida, 33130, and I am the head of development for Dragonfly Investments. I'm here to speak in support of the Cottage Housing Amendment. I think too often when we speak about affordable housing, we look at it as if it is a beacon across the sea that we're sailing to sometime in the distant future. Really, what we need to do is look over the bow of our own ship and help the bodies that are floating right beside us. With this amendment, it would allow for faster production of needed infill units to help alleviate the affordability crisis that we are having today. This amendment would also allow for thoughtful preservation of neighborhood context with small-scale housing that would be walkable, pleasant, and welcoming neighborhood landscapes. With the rising cost of land, this amendment presents an alternative to overbuilding, overcrowding, and reduced green space. As an active developer, building both large-scale affordable and also small-scale infill, I would look forward to building underneath this amendment in the city of Miami. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I'm Carolyn Bankston, 2678 Tigertail Avenue, 33133. I think this is really beautiful, and the plague of white boxes in the Grove and all over Miami is pretty dispiriting to see. My concern is, I'm a new resident here, I moved in December. I moved from Winter Park, Florida. For any of you familiar with Winter Park, Florida, it has the most beautiful tree canopy you'll ever see. Beautiful vegetation. And I'm quite concerned with what's going on in Miami that they are not protecting, the city is not protecting the tree canopy. A good example would be the pickleball court. That's unconscionable that that happened. It's unconscionable. that these specimen trees would be taken down for a temporary pickleball court. So while I think this is wonderful, if you look at this photo here, all I see is blue sky. I see blue sky. I don't wanna see blue sky in Coconut Grove. I moved here specifically for the tree canopy. I could have gone to Miami Beach and see sand and blue sky everywhere. So I just want to say that if you're going to do this, please, please make sure you're protecting our canopy. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Just to follow up, can you clarify, the presentation started out talking about T3O. but on one of the slides it mentioned T3 in general, and all T3s were mentioned. So can you clarify, this does or does not apply to additional T3?

It only applies to non-conforming lots.

Right, but it could be a non-conforming T3R. That's correct. Right, so it's not limited to T3O.

Right, so those are, I mean, essentially what we're saying is that if you have a non-conforming lot, instead of having to come get the variants, which we have granted 100% of the time, you can just now go ahead and do that, do this by right. Do this, right.

Okay, that's important. Okay, let's bring it to the board, please.

This will be for staff. If you replatted a 5,000 square foot T3R, wouldn't that be a diminishing? Wouldn't that be doubling the density in essence?

This will not apply to a T3R that needs to replat, only is for existing grandfather.

She's correct. So this would only allow you to replat T3O properties where you have essentially a lot that is over 35 feet in width or over 5,000 square feet.

That's what I thought, but it was confusing because I thought you just said all T3s. No, no, no.

If you have an existing, so we have throughout the city, especially in the West Grove, we have a large amount of non-conforming lots. So we have lots that are 2,500, 3,400, 3,000 square feet and have historically been platted that way. They've been platted that way for 100 years at this point. And so when those, and they're zoned T3R So when those come in, they cannot build on those lots without having to come before you and get a variance.

So you're talking about lots that are already undersized.

Right, so they're already undersized. That's good, okay. Right.

Because the only thing I would worry about here is it would be, we just went through last year a thing about diminishing, particularly in the growth. So I just wanted to make that clear that whether it's T3O or not, if it's a T3O could be replanted and it's not going to be an increase in density because you either have two combined units or two separate units. Right, so you can, that's correct. But in a T3R...

if you had a 5 000 square foot t3r you cannot do this it's only in the non-conforming narrow ones that's correct that's all i had thank you thank you thanks remember collins i had two questions um the plotting process in the city is very time consuming and tedious is there any other legal mechanism that can be used to subdivide the lots that does not require plotting not that i'm aware of um i mean so that's

That's one of the reasons that this works so well is that, of course, right now you can build a duplex on a 5,000 square foot lot, but that gets condoed out, right? So this will actually allow people to own fee simple, and the only way you can do that is through the repotting mechanism. Sometimes with easements, or access easements, utility easements, those types of things, we can do them through a separate legal instrument, but when you're actually doing a subdivision, the only way to do it is to repot. But I do understand your concern about that being a lengthy process.

Okay. And what is the parking requirement for one cottage home?

It remains the same, two parking spaces per unit.

So you said that this would allow tandem parking in the front. If the front setback is only 20 feet, that only leaves space for one car.

Correct. That's why we also modify the parking width of the garages so that we can have one car inside of the house and one car outside.

I don't feel like I saw a lot of examples of a garage at the front. Okay. Okay. So essentially, I don't I kind of struggle that this requires two parking spots for the size of a home. And then you have to give that square that large square footage to a garage.

Right? Typical garage, you're It's what, like 20 feet, 18 feet or something, depth-wise?

Can I ask former member Parrish if a lot of these products typically have a garage? Mr. Parrish, can you answer that question?

That's a very good question. What we did was we got two cars parking in front, because we had the walkway Between the two, we paved like five feet wide so that you could have one car parked in a ribbon on each side of the lot, and then another one beside it sharing the walkway. It was just to get through the code. Most of the people who bought these houses, they had one car. But that's how we got, do you understand what I'm saying? That we had a walkway between the two 25-foot lots and paved that, and then... The city said, yeah, they could park on the walkway and also have a separate car beside it as well. It was a finesse.

Okay. So you basically just made the driveway wider to fit two cars.

And then of course, we fit the trees around in the back and wherever we could. So it was a compromise. But Max did it, so. Right.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Yeah, the density is, and we realize going from T3R, if what Marcelo wanted to do, it's going to increase the density, but that's what apparently, at least then you get single-family homes out of it on detached lots that can be sold without having to condo them. Sure.

That would be my only thought, is that two parking spaces for each of these is a bit excessive if we're trying to create... a better opportunity for affordable housing. But that's all I have.

Good evening everyone, Paul Genovese, Chief of Urban Design with the city. We did a study recently for one of the commission offices that was concerned regarding the parking in the front setback. So this diagram that you're seeing on the screen right now kind of speaks to some of the code issues that this brings up. The driveway covers around 88 to 90% of the first layer front yard. There's an inability to plant trees in that front setback because of it. It creates large and very frequent curb cuts. You're talking about 40 feet of curb cuts for every 50 feet of frontage if there's two cottages built like this with the double parking in front. There's an unclear pedestrian route to the front door. There's also, because of all this coverage in the front setback, larger amounts of stormwater runoff and greater flooding potential.

But this goes back to my point that I think we should only require one car and then you wouldn't have.

A parking reduction, yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, we do it for so many other things.

If you would like to make that part of your motion and your recommendation.

It could be a recommendation.

Okay.

Opens to whatever everyone else thinks, but that's my thought. Okay. Did you have any other?

Good evening.

Just a quick general comment. And based on, I guess, usage is not seeing these too often.

But nonetheless, my question is a setback requirements between the two buildings. And then when it comes to from five feet to three feet, that's pretty narrow. Additionally, just thinking usage when you have two neighbors and good fences make good neighbors, just making sure that when the neighbors do want to create a fencing between them, just separate the two lots or two subdivisions, just to take a look at it, because three feet is a little narrow. I don't know, I don't have an answer to this. It's just thinking ahead through that.

Thank you. We did review the three feet setback with the building department to make sure that that's something that's allowable, you know, like for it to function for the Florida building code, so we can, we know But we know that as we studied this part, we knew that this is the minimum that's required for that separation to function by the building code. And almost all new construction, like exterior walls, will provide a fire rating by default, so it should be okay. And then in the case that you are abiding a non-cottage house, like a typical single-family home that's doing a five-foot setback, then The setbacks are supposed to be 20% of the frontage, so that's five feet for a typical 5,000 square feet lot. Under cottage housing, that's like three feet is actually more than 20%.

Yeah, and I get that through the code, and I understand that. I'm just looking at it through a more, I guess, practical sense where, again, I mentioned good fences make good neighbors, just keeping in mind that what will happen when these neighbors want to build their own fences? Do they have to... perhaps build one fence, is it two fences, is it just slam in the middle?

I see your question, thank you. Thanks.

That's a good question, yeah.

Yeah, good evening. I have to basically duplicate what Member Collins said related to the parking. I have a question related to it for staff. Is there a way that we can... not make it a requirement but an option for cottage housing for certain people that want to build that garage and others that don't. The minimum would be one parking spot and then for whoever wants to purchase a cottage home and they say, no, I want a garage, it's already facilitated.

Is there a way? So we could say that tandem parking is required and then also only require one parking, which would allow them the option of building the garage plus than having one tandem as well. So, I mean, essentially, you could build your garage if you wanted to. That would count as your one spot. And then you could also park another one behind it or in front of the garage. Or we could say, because you're only required to have one spot, you would just have one with no garage. So it could be either. I mean, if you just require one, you could do either or. We would also say that the tandem parking is also allowed. Okay.

Yeah, that was my question.

Thank you. Thank you for your presentation.

It was very good. The one comment that I have is why don't we receive these presentations earlier? Because I'm taking pictures with my phone trying to grab information. I didn't see it in the agenda.

Member de Corrales, we can't hear you.

Sorry. That's okay. The presentation was not in the agenda, right?

No, usually the legislation is part of the agenda. We can share the PowerPoint if that's...

Yes, in the future it really helps us prepare, because you've been seeing this for a year, but we saw it for four days, and it's a lot of information to digest, and I really want to be able to provide the best... outcome possible from this moment. So if we can get that earlier that would really help me. I have questions regarding the stairs, the encroachment. Let me see if I am understanding this correctly. In a typical lot you will have an aggregate setback of 10 feet. five and five, and the buildings share a party wall, right? That's a correct assumption. In this prototype, they will need to yield 12 feet, because it's three, four times. Is that a correct assumption?

Yes, that is correct.

Okay. And the sugar boxes are not going to be prohibited. They can continue to be developed.

They can continue to exist. We're not limiting development options.

We're increasing the opportunity, which is great. So we want to promote this. And we want to help you promote it, right? We want more of these prototypes. That's why we're here. So I'm trying to figure out and put myself in the place of the developer, which is ultimately people that are going to be going through replots and this amount of work, I assume. so they want to get the most available development capacity from their lot as i understand but the front setback and the on the rear setback they remain the same and they and now you have more setbacks to detach the houses so now you have a little bit less The incentive would be, as I understand it, the covered porches, that those are not counting towards lot coverage. So we are promoting those as a free type of, doesn't count towards their development capacity. So what would be As I also understand it, we allowed for legislation in T3Rs for parking to occur on the front of the houses. We allow properties to use all their frontage for parking. Is that correct? We passed that legislation. So when we put these constraints here, and I agree we should have the trees, we need all of that, what would incentivize a developer from selecting these prototypes versus the other ones when the development capacity seems to... to not be as sexy, I don't know how to say it. So, yes.

It answered the developer question as someone who worked for a developer for several years. I think there's a lot of advantages to this from their point of view. The biggest one being selling a product that doesn't exist in the city right now, especially compared to those sugar boxes or those duplexes we're seeing. You now have a single family home that's on your own lot. where you're in control of all of your destiny, anything that happens on your property, there's none of these issues like Andrea brought up earlier where, you know, one side of the duplex decides to go to a pool and pull a permit and there's violations on the other property and it holds them up. Or even in a duplex scenario where, you know, one side isn't paying their insurance premiums or their property taxes and that causes a lot of hardships for the other owner who just shares a wall with them but doesn't really share a life or anything else. In addition, I think the ability to provide more open-air, well-ventilated units by having that other wall that's also open and can have glazing and get daylighting into the home, I think it could be a much more attractive option to a lot of buyers and also for a developer to chase that market that we don't really have right now. You know, we have a lot of large scale single family homes in T3 on the 5,000 square foot lots. Now we're providing something, you know, that's smaller, maybe a better price point for the buyer, but also the developer can still, you know, make a pencil out well.

Okay, so.

Paula, you had one other, I believe, one other question about the frontage being paved. As I mentioned, we mentioned several times in the presentation, to answer the lady's point, this legislation doesn't in any way reduce the required tree canopy under the existing code. It actually ends up increasing the number of trees for the frontage. It's further that by requiring the tree in the front as we do, that will limit how much of the frontage can be paved. It is encouraging or going in the direction of having tandem parking because if you provide the tree in the front, there isn't really capacity or space to do two parking spaces adjacent to each other. So we're trying to keep the streetscape look and feel the same with green space at the front and a tree as required under the existing code. So I thought that just helped provide a little context around that.

OK, let me see if I have another.

Sorry, there was also one other question. We write them down, so we try. answer them all the question about the front porch and portico we're not changing again the encroachments and the setbacks you can do a porch in the front currently but currently it requires but it counts towards your lot coverage so what we're doing here is not changing where it can be positioned the height you know the setbacks all we're doing is saying it doesn't now count towards lot coverage Because what's happening under the current code, people are maximizing, obviously, and then the porch is now counting against them. So it's a disincentive to providing something that creates articulation on the front of the property. And that's why the buildings are getting flatter and flatter, squarer and squarer, because they're persuaded to do that.

And I think that's clever, and I think it's needed. How do the stairs work in the encroachment? I think the encroachment, is it the side also when you want to do stairs on the side, or I am interpreting this incorrectly? Or it's only for encroachments on the front?

So you're talking about stairs up to the front porch?

Stairs up.

Yeah, to the front porch, to the entry of the unit.

No, I'm thinking if they want to have stairs to a second story, I'm sorry.

Yeah. So you want to pull up one of those slides that we had done real quick? So this is something we actually looked into as well a little bit further. Part of this was in response to concerns about the decreased side setbacks and having the garage on the ground floor. So we did some detailed floor plan drawings like the ones above. that show when you factor in wall thicknesses, standard 12 foot garage width for a single garage. The drawing on the right shows the five-foot setback condition where you really can't have the front door or any kind of entry. It's just not feasibly possible construction-wise. Whereas the image on the left is showing kind of what the condition might be in the typical cottage if it has a garage, where now you have about five feet there, clear interior space where that hallway can happen to access. We've also done some floor plan sketches and had a workshop with local architects where the stair would be probably some type of a U or switchback stair just past that hallway.

Okay, and you're not contemplating outdoor stairs leading to a second story. You're not doing that?

No, only if your porch is 18 inches, 24 inches off the ground, you can obviously have the stairs that get you up to the front porch and the entrance, but not to the second floor.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks.

First, thank you for your presentation and thinking outside of the box. You answered most of my questions. I have a couple for staff. The first question is, the item that we passed regarding the ADUs in December, will they be allowed to now stack with this? Yes. Okay.

Not in T3R. They can do it with the T3R as currently. You know, the ADU provisions apply. We haven't amended them. So the exact same parameters apply for these lots.

And then my next question was regarding encroachment, which we spoke about earlier. Is there concern because, like, some areas have, like, deeper setbacks to their portion, and that's, like, the flavor of the community. Do we feel there might be possible issues in some communities?

So we know, I don't anticipate having issues with this. I think that what we're finding is that people are not building stoops and porches and that for a lot of our communities, that is part of their social infrastructure. And so how do we encourage that to come back? Or how do we encourage that to continue to be built that helps maintain the character of the neighborhood but also the social infrastructure of that neighborhood as well.

Okay. And then my final question is, so for non-conforming T3D lots, usually it's by waiver or warrant. And so I'm worried about now the community engagement, because you take that notice away. So have staff considered doing warrant levels so it's solely administrative, or is that too burdensome?

So the only way that you can currently build on a non-conforming lot is to come and ask for a variance. And that variance is granted because the hardship is not, I mean, you did not create the hardship. So we almost always approve those variances. In fact, I believe probably about two years ago, we saw two in the West Grove that came through, and the feedback from PSAB at the time was, how do we make this by right? You shouldn't have to come get the variants. You should just be allowed to build on this lot because it's existed in this neighborhood for 100 years. Why should you have to do anything, right? So we could for the non-conforming, of course, always, you know, we're proposing it to go by right, so nobody has to come for the variance. You could recommend that they go by warrant. I would say our variance process is easier than our warrant process currently. But that's kind of under how we're currently operating in our current process. A waiver would not be appropriate because for a waiver, it's a deviation based on the specific project. So it would either be a variance or I guess technically you could say it would be a warrant because it's a use. Definitely.

My only concern is that we talk a lot about how it would impact the neighbors and they no longer have that trigger notice and so how do we now remedy that?

I think for most of the places where we have non-conforming lots, there's an expectation or there is already a development pattern that exists currently. So I don't think that when these begin to pop up, it's outside the realm of expectations, because again, for most of these areas where we have non-conforming lots, it's existed like that for 100 years.

Okay, thank you. And I asked this question not because I was against the item, but just wanted to have a conversation so people understand how we're really looking at, like really engaging with the neighborhood community engagement, so thank you.

No, thank you.

Okay.

enthusiastic support for this particular item I think the great presentation and especially with the precedent images and the only the only item which is gets down to be kind of nitpicky at this point is that real concern about that the spacing between the buildings and and just because the the folks had brought it up the issue of what does one end up doing with the fencing and things like that so we're talking that that's my level of concern otherwise I think it's an enthusiastic support for the item thank you

Great. Same amazing presentation. I really believe that great examples and shame combined will force people to reconsider their poor design choices. When you start putting one or two of these out, people will say, I want to build that, not that. I think the porch question, I think I'm always the one who's like, okay, this is great. What's next? And how can we do this everywhere? Obviously, there are some elements of this that applied to standard T3 lots would affect design choices in a positive way. I think some of these ideas encourage neighborliness in all neighborhoods, right? The disappearance of porches absolutely affects everyone's sense of each other. and so you know i'm just hoping that some of the things that are applied here we can get to standard lots to you know in a sense same thing kind of give some people some great options get more product out there that that shows there are better ways of undulating the facades of the houses and including a social aspect that encourages neighborliness which improves neighborhoods safety all those kinds of things so the sooner we can see something like that come up as well which is not before us right now the better.

Thank you. And just to follow up on that, sorry, this is as far as we can go with our complaint amendment that will increase the density. That is something that we've been, you know, like discussing internally. Is that the next phase of cottage housing? Like how do we go beyond from what we are, you know, pursuing today?

Just to further clarify, thank you, Andrea. There are two parts to this legislation. The first part is in relation to the college housing program. So all the different side setbacks and things apply only to the college housing program when you're doing that. The second part of the legislation in relation to porticos and porches They're not applying it to log coverage, applies to all. Oh, okay.

I thought that was alluded to at the first, second slide or whatever, but I just wanted to.

So we pulled them together because we really need that amendment in order to make cottage housing palatable within neighborhoods and incentivize the articulation on the front. Absolutely, we're learning a lot of lessons through this, the research we've done, and this particular element was supported by Zonian and all our two or three workshops with architects that there's an opportunity to do it now. So it's this particular lesson we did incorporate and apply to all T3 because it just makes sense.

Great, okay. So does anyone, oh, sorry, you had one more. I apologize.

Yeah, I wanted to echo which is what you mentioned about incentivizing the purchase and I am looking forward to seeing that in the T3R as well because I see that an opportunity, I don't think that the product that we're going to get from a residential T3R that builds their own porch with the details, it's going to be of the same level of detail as that that comes from a developer, for example. So that's why I think it's important if we can incentivize this so we can see it through the urban fabric more often than not.

Absolutely. We're looking forward to seeing it in T3R as well. And this amendment allows that amendment to be applied to T3R.

Now, the next question that I have is I know that when you apply for a permit at the city to add a porch or whatever, it's not only about lot coverage, but it's about property value and how that affects your taxes. And that typically, it's not so much on the planning side, but it's on an administrative financial side of the household that affects the family. And that's, I think, sometimes why we see people building without a permit and things of the sort, because it really impacts what you're going to be doing. valued at. So I think there should be opportunities because we do want to see more permits and we do want to see improvements. So finding ways where these can be mitigated somehow. I have no idea what the solution looks like. And one last question. When you showed the illegal, not illegal, the substandard lots, there's a cluster of red dots, like red in your map. Is that the mobile parking, no? There's a cluster of red, and I was wondering where that is happening within the city, where we have those many substandard lots, or non-conforming, so close together. Is it near 8th Street?

So, no, you're seeing it out and off of, no, that's, I don't, that's not the, the one in District 4 on the north side. Do you know where that is? The one out west. Yeah, that one.

Do you know what, that's not the mobile home area?

No, because mobile homes typically are on one lot with individual slots. So then you rent your land from the mobile home park, but you own your mobile home. That's a different financial breakup.

Yeah, and real quick, one additional point on this. We're going to get more accurate numbers when it comes to the nonconforming lots. GIS, unfortunately, it's very, very difficult, if not impossible, to filter by the lot width. So these conform to that 2,500 square foot to 5,000 square foot lot area. However, that 5,000 number is going to be significantly less once you factor in the requirement for the lot width to be 25 to 35 feet wide.

Member Bailey. Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. Sure, the board had a question about parking. It looks like we were kind of on board. There was two options. I really wanted to have more of that discussion, kind of see what most people were thinking.

Yeah, I mean, I think that is going to go one way or the other. Do we want to just kind of see where that falls in terms of a motion?

Sure, I thought there was two options. I think... Oh. So I wanted to, so there was a tandem and I think another. Kind of. If possible, we can hit the pros and cons from staff before we vote. Oh, you're saying, I see what you're saying. Right, right, right.

Okay, right. The two, the sort of the two ways of approaching the same question.

So I think you could just, if you only wanted to require one parking spot and allow for also for tandem parking, And I would just say that under this program, parking could be reduced to one spot per unit as opposed to the one and a half, which ends up being two per unit. And then we wouldn't change the tandem parking. We would still allow that.

So a motion to approve with that parking?

With that. Okay. I'll second that. Okay, there's a motion and a second. So with that amendment. I'm sorry, is there any other?

No, I... What was the motion then with the parking, is it? Mandatory reduced to one.

Given the opportunity to reduce to one, so if somebody would like to continue with the parking.

So only one spot will be required as opposed to two spots being required.

But they would be allowed to have the two spots.

You can still do two if you would like.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second.

I'm sorry, who moved and who second?

And the second was Collins.

Board Member Mario Bailey.

Yes.

Board Member Chris Collins.

Yes.

Board Member Eduardo J. Fernandez. Yes. Board Member Ilan Metier. Yes. Board Member Paul Main.

Yes.

Board Member Paula De Carolis. Yes. Board Member Vice Chair Andres R. Lopez.

Yes.

Board Member Lynette Cardoche. Yes. Chair Adam Gersten.

Yes.

Motion passes nine to zero.

Thank you. Thanks, good work everybody, that was really great. Thank you. Thank you.

File ID number 19151, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board with attachments recommending approval and an ordinance of the Miami City Commission amending ordinance number 10544 as amended the future land use map of the Miami Comprehension Neighborhood Plan pursuant to small-scale amendment procedures subject to 163.3187 Florida Statutes by changing the future land use designation from single-family residential to major institutional public facilities, transportation, and utilities of the acreage described heron of real properties at 770 Northwest 41st 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, board. My name is Derrick Murphy, City Planning Department. In front of you is...

I'm sorry, Ram. I'm going to read file ID number, the next one, because they're both together. Thank you. Companion item, file ID 19150. A resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board with attachments recommending approval of an ordinance of the Miami City Commission amending the Zoning Atlas of Ordinance Number 13114 and Zoning Code of the City of Miami, Florida, amending Miami 21 Code by changing the zoning clarification from T3R Suburban transit zone restricted to CI civic institution transit zone for the property generally located at 770 Northwest 41st Avenue, Miami, Florida, as a particularly described in the attached and incorporated exhibit A, Making finding containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date. Again, the items that were called was file ID 19151 and file ID 19150. Thank you. All right.

Good evening, members of the board. I'm Darren Murphy, Planning Department. In front of you in this slide is the surrounding area, a quarter mile radius. Going in a clockwise fashion, with the property being in the middle, the red outline, As you can see, number one is a mixed-use development, multifamily housing, commercial and offices. As you go north along 42nd Avenue, it's mixed-use development, multifamily housing and commercial, along with lodging. And if you go toward the north, there's additional lodging. And the number five signifies single family and duplex residential residences. And number six points to Northwest 37th Avenue, which is a future city-sponsored land assemblage where essentially all the properties along Northwest 37th Avenue are going to be slated for a restricted commercial in T680. That will give you some context of this property. We did a site visit, staff, on October 6, 2025. And starting from number one, these were the residences T3R to the north of the property. And looking at the existing current fire station to the rear, This essentially is what was built back in 1963, and it is a two-bay fire station. As you can see, number three is garage bay number one, and looking at number four is garage bay number two, which is for the EMS, or the fire truck in this case. Number five is in front of the existing fire station number ten. And the property for number six is in the rear of the fire station. To give you some context of this property in question, it currently is 82% residential in nature. But when you look at the future land use area, Approximately 52% of the area is residential, whereas 47% is commercial. And it kind of matches what we saw in a previous slide for the aerial imagery. Regarding the future land use change, we're going from single family residential to propose major public facility. And regarding the future land use designation tables, it's currently, as I mentioned before, single-family residential, which only allows single-family. We're proposing to go major public facility, which will allow residential uses, office, civic uses, including fire station, commercial, and a non-residential FLR of six. Regarding concurrency analysis, this meets all the six criteria, and this is for a population increase of 75 persons. Regarding the comprehensive plan analysis for the three criteria, the first one, yes, it does meet all level of service standards. For number two, Goal CI-1, which essentially ensures sound fiscal management to maintain infrastructure, support future development, and invest in public facilities that enhance quality of life. Regarding the analysis, the proposed FLU amendment is consistent with the goal of CEI by supporting the modernization and expansion of major public facilities, such as a fire station, that will ensure infrastructure can safely manage future population growth. The second bullet, regarding future land exchange to a major public facility, enables timely investment in essential public safety infrastructure needed to serve existing and future development within its immediate service area. For number three, this talks about new development is allowed only when necessary public services such as water, roads, parks, utilities, fire stations are in place or secure to maintain adopted level of service standards. In this case, the city's fire rescue follows the National Fire Protection Association 1710 level of service standards. This particular fire station number 10, which is directly south of the subject property, is not currently meeting its level of service standards. I'm gonna show you, first of all, I wanna mention to the left here is these are the level of service benchmarks. The key one here is the first responder has to arrive in four minutes to an emergency. Staff identified gaps for fire station number 10, for this example, where there were some areas that were either at six, or in this case, some even exceeded eight minutes in response. This map will kind of showcase what I'm talking about regarding the level of service standards for civic uses relative to the subject property. So in this case, this map shows the response times for emergencies. Ideally, everyone should be in yellow, which is four minute response time. But a lot of these areas are either in orange, red, or purple. If I just get out of this here for a second, I can kind of show you what I'm talking about here.

Oops. Second era.

Okay. I was going to try to zoom into the actual location on the subject property. There we go. Bear with me one second here. Yeah. Currently, this fire station number 10 that's linked to the property, the subject property to the north is not meeting the level of service standards. So by approving this comprehensive plan amendment application to go to major public facility, this will address that concern by essentially allowing that current fire station number 10 to meet the level of service standards regarding emergency response times. Now I'm going to now go to the companion item, which is going to be the rezone application. And for the recent application, it's going to go from, the subject property is going to go from T3R, suburban, transit zone, restricted, or T3R. I think there might be an issue.

There's an issue with it. Are you playing the slideshow?

Are you trying to project something?

No. Oh, okay. Should have, actually, yes. Do you see now? No.

Give it a second.

Nope. It's a little finicky. There we go. There we go. Thank you. You're welcome. So for the residing application, we're proposing to go from T3R for the property here, directly north of the CI properties to CI. Article 4, Table 3, Building Functional Uses. Currently, the T3R does not allow, only allows limited residential uses. With its civic uses, it does allow, by exception, things like civic uses such as fire stations, police stations, libraries, etc. Regarding the evaluation of the Miami 21 rezoning criteria, criteria number one, with the companion item PZ25277, it aligns with the goal LU1 of the NCPMP by improving the level of service for public safety and quality of life. It therefore is consistent. For number two, the recent rezonings within the quarter mile study area reflects a shift towards increased density, intensity, and scale, necessitating the expansion of public services to support anticipated growth. That's consistent. And the last one is regards to transit zones should be transitional to adjacent areas regarding intensity and building height. In this case, any civic institutional use will require approval through a special permit, which is an exception, which will be viewed under various criteria, including Article 4, Table 12, to ensure compatibility with density, intensity, and scale. So as a recap of the argument for in favor of this flu and rezone application for the capacity and level of service argument, the claim is that major public facility slash civic institutional use that is a fire station number or fire station lacks adequate capacity to meet the adoptive national level of service standards for current and future demand for the immediate area. The premises is based on the fact that the city fire rescue response map shows multiple areas exceeding the four minute response time for first responders. And the recent rezones within a quarter mile study area have increased the density, intensity, and scale, placing greater pressure on public safety demand and response times. The inference is that this will meet or exceed the adopted level of service standards, improve overall public safety, emergency response effectiveness. The warrant being improving the level of service standards for public services in growing or underserved areas is critical to ensure infrastructure can safely manage future population growth. With that presentation, I conclude.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this? Seeing and hearing none. Oh, public comments. Do we close them? We'll close them. Consider them closed.

Yes, they're closed. Okay.

Does anyone on the board have any questions or comments starting on my right?

Yeah. Nowhere was it really spelled out what you're going to do with that property. I guess this is a fire station upgrade. It is. And right now, all the fire trucks are exiting to the south of those.

They're actually exiting to the rear. Yeah, to the rear.

To the rear.

Yeah, because... The fire station is extremely old. I built it back in 1963, and it can't accommodate current fire trucks. So what they're doing now is they're exiting on the rear of the property and then making a right-hand turn on the local street, Northwest 41st Avenue. From the point of view of the-

T3 residents around there, what would be the best outcome would be if they would not exit to the east or to the north, but if they could exit to the south? Ultimately, are you rebuilding that entire fire station?

I want to make sure that we're staying within the purview of the question that's in front of us, is that we've identified that there's not enough civic space in the area to comply with concurrency for fire response. We anticipate that Because of that, we anticipate that we need more land to do that, and that's why we're asking for the future land use map amendment and the zoning change. Whether or not the fire station is redeveloped, rehabbed, has an addition, how it exits and enters is not part of the application that's in front of you. And so, but please do remember that everything within CI requires an exception. And so that can be addressed at a later time.

So we're not talking about any concrete plan. You just want to give them more room.

Yes, because we've identified that because of, I mean, at this time we know that more room will be required to anticipate meeting response times.

I mean, that's a pretty small, even adding that fourth line on top there is still really awkward for any real fire, for fire trucks or anything sizable to get in or out of there. It just seems like it's a really bad spot for a fire station to start with. And now you're taking away, you're basically invading T3. to add to a bad situation. And so if you had a plan, it'd be easier to say, oh, okay, absolutely. Add more space. But that's a horrible place for a fire station. And now you're just gonna make it bigger and maybe one day put a bigger fire station in a horrible place. It just doesn't quite make sense to me. I'm not gonna vote no on it, but I just... It's just a little awkward to give a bad spot more room without even a plan of how you're going to make it work better. Because, I mean, all these are laudable goals to get response time down from over eight minutes to four minutes. But if that's a horrible location, adding one more lot to it without a plan is like, well, why don't we do this when we have a plan? I think you're putting the cart before the horse here, or maybe tell us we are going to improve this fire station. We're going to make it world-class, and we're going to make it work in that neighborhood, because we're going to pump those trucks in and out away from the single-family neighborhood. But here you're going up deeper into the single-family neighborhood. Those poor people living out there, fire trucks coming in the middle of the night, at any hour of the day or night, waking up the entire neighborhood. I'm uncomfortable doing it, but I'm not going to get in your way. I just think that it's a bad spot for a fire station, and if you don't have a plan, it's kind of awkward to just keep on intruding into the T3 with a bad play. Yeah. But if you don't have an answer, let's just take a vote.

Member Collins?

I think we saw an application, I think it was last time, that was a CI with an exception, and it was a headache. So I echo what Mr. Mann is saying, that I would much rather know that there is a plan so that we can support it wholeheartedly. We can go all in and say, OK, this is the plan.

So we cannot require a plan with a rezoning and a land use.

I know the process.

I mean, and exceptions are contemplated by the code. So if you are asking for an exception, it does not mean you are deficient. It means that the code is saying, we have contemplated this, we allow this, it needs additional scrutiny. So at that time, it'll come back when they're ready to move forward. But the question right now that's being asked before you, is this an appropriate location for a civic use, any type of civic use, whether it is a police station, a fire station, a park, a playhouse, whatever it is. And at a later date, that exception will have to come back before you. This specific one already has a fire station. We know that they're asking for additional land because that fire station doesn't sufficiently meet concurrency and so therefore will have to be expanded. And we know that that's why it's coming forward. So if you don't think that it's appropriate to expand the fire station within the neighborhood, then it's not appropriate to rezone it or to amend the comp plan. And then that would force, I mean essentially that would either force the fire station out of the neighborhood completely or it would force them to rebuild on the existing site or to do whatever is on the existing site if you think that there's no additional civic use that should be allowed there. But at this time, I mean, it's like any development that we see, we can't take the rezone and the comp plan into consideration and then ask for a plan because they're not tied together.

No, I don't think that's what we're asking. We're not asking the plan itself, like where's the driveway and where are the trucks gonna come and enter and exit, but I think that if there is a vision that the city is willing to expand and improve this fire station, I don't think that raises any concerns with us, or with me personally. I have seen a number of fire stations nested in communities, like Coconut Grove has one, and it's residential and commercial, and it works. So I don't have a problem with that. I just like to know that what we are proving has a vision towards something, and then we're working towards that together. And that's why I think the nature of the questions

Thank you.

Quick question.

I just want to hear about the public engagement that you've done with the neighbors or anything.

There hasn't been any public engagement per se, although we To answer your question, no. There hasn't been any public engagement. We did do the public noticing. We notified all the property owners of the expansion or turning this property into a civic use. But we haven't gotten any feedback or haven't engaged any public engagement. or any public participation per se to talk about the nature of the project or the civic use?

So typically the planning department, and you'll see variations of this in different planning departments across the country. So typically when it comes to our rezone applications and our future land use map amendments, And we do not do that outreach. We do the outreach, we ask that our applicants do the outreach. And so in this case, that outreach would have been done by the Office of Capital Improvements or the fire department themselves, because they are, I mean, while it is the city, they are our applicants. So typically that's who you would see do that outreach, or it would go directly through the commissioner, the commissioner or the commission's office. then we cannot do outreach without going through a commission office either.

Follow-up. I'm not recommending that we add this at this moment, but is it possible to add conditions like, the presentation we have now is about fire safety, the four minutes, so is it possible that we add a condition like, if we adopt civic use, it must be used for fire station?

No.

All right, thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Is there a motion?

Through the chair? Sure. In the full agenda, there is a, I guess it's a satellite view of this property, and it really blows up beautifully. I don't see where the fire trucks are coming out of this building. I don't. There's a tree on the second lot up. There's another tree on the street by the third lot up. I don't see any fire trucks, I see some cars parked there, and I understand that the lot in question now doesn't even have a house on it anymore, so this is a pretty old picture, but does anybody know where the fire trucks are actually exiting this building now? Are there any fire trucks there at all?

On that...

I took a picture, yeah, coming in from the rear of the property, but that might be changing for a future project.

Sorry, I was just going to say, I mean, if this is one that's slated for a big redo, then obviously wouldn't they be looking at making it better and more efficient and maximizing all the things that are kind of changing all the things that are wrong with it? Like what's the point of doing all this if there's not a plan to, you know, if they're going to go through all that trouble? It seems like some of the questions are answered by the fact that it's getting redone, you know? So to me, I think, sorry, I mean, that's what I see, is that if they're asking for it, they have a good idea of how to fix all the problems or make it a better fire station.

And that will be done through the exception process.

Okay. During the exception process, we could, in a way, force them to use Northwest 7th, because Northwest 7th is the only street that makes sense. Mm-hmm.

I mean, and also we don't know that they wouldn't come in anyway with that as the obvious change. You know what I'm saying? Whatever's there now, we don't know what's, you know, they're going to come in with whatever makes the most sense, whatever makes it a better fire station.

This is going to be a leap of faith here that the fire department in this location there has a plan, whether they've divulged it or not, And the plan isn't to be using 41st Street for ingress and egress, which doesn't make sense at all. But anyway, I hope they have a plan.

Mr. Chair, one quick comment. This is an issue giving me heartburn. The reason why, so like we just got a presentation about a fire station, but we're about to vote and change to the civic use additional properties, but we don't know if it will actually be, we can assume, I don't like to assume, especially when it impacts so many people around us, and so I don't feel comfortable voting yes at this time for the item, but I'm sure it will probably pass, but I don't like to assume when it impacts the residents of Miami-Dade. Sure, understood.

So did we have a motion at all? No. Okay. So is there anyone who wants to make a motion on this item?

Motion to approve.

Okay. Is there a second to approve this item? Second. Okay. There's a motion and a second. Could we please have a roll call?

Board member Nanette Cardoche. Board member Eduardo Fernandez.

Yes.

Board member Elon Metier. Yes. Board member Paul Main. Yes. I need a plan. No. Board member Paula DeCarolis.

Yes.

Board member Chris Collins. Yes. Board member Mario Bailey.

No.

I'm sorry. Board member, Vice Chair Andres A. Lopez.

Yes.

Chair Adam Gersten.

Yes.

Motion passes seven to two.

Great, thank you very much. We have one more?

Yeah.

So that was the future land use map amendment. So now you need to do the rezone.

So is there a motion on the rezone? Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Second. Roll call, please.

Board Member Eduardo Fernandez? Yes. Board Member Ilan Metier? Yes.

Board Member Paul Main? Not without a plan, no.

Board Member Chris Collins?

Yes.

Board Member Paula DeCarolis?

Yes.

Board Member Mario Bailey? No. Board Member, I mean Vice Chair Andres R. Lopez? Yes. Board Member Lynette Kadosh? Chair Adam Gerstein. Yes. Motion passes seven to two.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Motion to adjourn. Do we have a second?

All right.

Thanks. Thank you, everybody. Thanks for a quick meeting.

We did a 5K this morning and a Fit Sit.