Planning Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

So I'm Chair William McCrea of the Miami-Dade County Planning Advisory Board. If we can all stand now for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I would like to welcome you all to the public hearing on the 2025 out of cycle application number 2025, 006. And the October 2025 cycle application number 2025, 0022. Will staff please call the roll.

Thank you. The PAB was established by the Miami-Dade County Charter and consists of 17 members. The PAB members are appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, four at-large members, one non-voting member representing miami-dade county public schools and one non-voting member representing homestead air base we are all residents of miami-dade county and serve on this board without pay it is our responsibility to make recommendations to the commission on planning related issues The public hearings will be conducted by the PAB acting as the county's local planning agency with assistance from

And with that, I thank you, and I guess we'll turn it over to the applicants. Well, before that, do we have any questions for staff? Yes, Board Member Ngora.

Thank you so much. I think my questions are more for staff, so I'm going to start now. This application was more interesting for me with my background than the others because it's something I understand more. But I want to make sure I'm following this. So what we would be doing today is we'd be redefining high density residential to go from 60 to 125 dwelling units up to 150. So we'd increase density, and we'd also increase FAR from 2.0 to 3.0 FAR, which means they'll likely request a height increase down the road. But I'm going to follow your definition. You said based on three points. One, t

Okay, thank you. That I follow. The third one I find really interesting, just because I've never seen zoning tied to a park. Is that something common to tie high density increases in zoning to proximity to parks?

All right. So you adopted their language because they're by a park, so you left it in. But then you changed their language because their original language, as I understand it, was that they were limiting it to parcels that were two acres or more. then you took that out that makes me uncomfortable because it increases the amount of applications that can seek this increased density and increased height and there's no minimum definition for what the parcel size should be so i actually like the language that was proposed by the applicant of two acres or more why did you take that out

I would have liked to have known before the meeting because it makes me uncomfortable that there's no minimum size parcel that can benefit from this increased density and increased FAR. The other thing that they had proposed that it seems like you took out and changed is they had limited the amount of commercial use to 10% of the total floor area. But somebody, I presume the county, struck that out and increased it to 50% for commercial, which I don't like because purportedly the name of the text is high-density residential. So we're trying to create more residences. Why did the county increas

but it's a high density residential bump because that's what this is it gives more far and more density for residences so when you increase the amount of non-residential use from 10 to 50 they could just be cramming in offices or other things and it doesn't fit the intents, which is you don't normally give more density and more FAR unless you're trying to incentivize residential uses. And this, in my opinion, de-incentivizes it. It just allows them to build half of it as a non-commercial use. I don't see the planning purpose behind that.

I will eventually. Right now, I'm just trying to get the information because I think that the text that was proposed by the applicant, I like more than how it came out after you guys made the changes. All right. I want to ask something else. They can build up to 550 units, I understand, on this project with 35% workforce, 206 units. That's very positive. I was unclear because I thought when I read it, they were building them at like 120% AMI, but then I thought your presentation said 60 to 100 and 40% AMI. What is the breakdown? Because obviously we're trying to create housing for the lowest i

So they could build the entire 35% at 140? That's what... Because to me, that's not even a public benefit. I just came off of the Affordable Housing Committee. 140% AMI is market.

And I understand it's a little different from what I'm used to in Miami Beach where planning advisory and then the zoning portion, I guess, goes to the county commission. But it's a chain reaction. If you change a definition and you give more density and you give more FAR, then the next step is they go to the county and they say, we have this new definition and we can't build 3.0 FAR in 150 units unless you give us more height. so it starts a chain reaction for bigger and bigger buildings so you need to be really judicious when you change these definitions and really focus on what the intent a

There's no restriction. Okay. So we're creating bigger building, more dense, more units, and it might be housing or it might be a short-term rental. That's why I think something needs to happen on this parcel, and I think that it's been empty. I pass it all the time, and I understand why the applicant wants to build something, but I think... This gives away too much, goes way beyond what they're asking, and would allow much denser and taller buildings to go up that meet these kind of vague criteria. So that's where my mind's at right now. But I'll shut up. I know I've talked a lot. Good questi

We'll remember it sometimes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Board Member Gangora. Appreciate your questions. As a follow-up, I know you kind of did it already, but is there a slide that shows a difference between what the applicant asked for and what the county is requesting?

So I do have similar concerns about tying this to a park. We talked about it, I think, briefly with staff, or I have. And I have a question for staff and the county attorney. And that is, can the Board of County Commissioners later create or designate a new county park that causes neighboring parcels to become eligible for 150 units to the acre without another CDMP amendment? That's the first question. And if so, how would the public receive notice that the park designation is simultaneously creating new high-density development rights

Uh, secondly, I do have some concern about also tying it to the smart plan. And in particular, uh, when I looked down Kendall drive, which is the area that I've spent a lot of time in, uh, having sat on the for a number of years, I know that that smart plan corridor is not close to being considered for a plan. or for development or for funding so i'm concerned about high density out west in particular some parcels that i've identified that would fall into this category and i don't have an answer of how to address that but i am concerned with tying it to a smart plan corridor that quite frankly

So questions, do we have any questions to staff before we get to the applicant? All right, seeing no questions, we'll now hear from the applicant.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The declaration of restrictions you passed out says 6,240%, but you're saying your voluntary proffer is 120% of AMI? Correct. Where does that go legally to become enforceable? I'm confused.

okay so presumably 60 to 120 120 being the max correct okay and it appears to me unless i missed something the two changes or the biggest changes that the county made was with regard to removing the two acre minimum size of the lot and by increasing the amount of non-commercial from 10 to 50 i'm assuming your client and this application has no position on that since you proposed the original language correct

These questions may be more zoning, but it makes me feel more comfortable. Are you putting in at least one parking space per unit?

Okay. And what size are the units? Is there a range of sizes?

Okay. I don't know. I find it very confusing at the county how we can increase definitions for purposes because you're creating a chain reaction. The next step is, well, planning increased FAR and density. So then the next step is the applicant comes back and wants more height or smaller units. So I think there's a disconnection, but I understand that's how the county is set up. Thank you.

Thank you. I would like, as part of anything that passes, to at least go to where they're saying they want to go to maximum 120% AMI.

Appreciate the clarification there. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? Questions? All right, seeing no questions. I have a question for staff. For staff, yeah, let's go ahead and do it. Board Member Montillo.

I'm not sure the best way to phrase this question, so I'm going to try to say it as simply as I possibly can. Is it possible for us to, as a board, to approve perhaps the applicant and the applicant's project without approving the amendment to the CDMP?

capture that additional, I suppose, 11 and change without amending the entire language. I think what I'm most concerned about, and I think it's shared by some of my board members, is what consequences this has to other applications. I think most of our concerns are getting away from this particular project and more in line with what the amendment language does to other applications.

Just as a follow-up to Board Member Montiel's question, is it possible, and this may be to the applicant as well as to staff, is it possible to resolve this vagueness in the text amendment by putting a number at 150 as proposed? But do we need to have this tied to parks and smart plan corridors in order for this application to work?

Thank you, Mr. Garrett. I think we all understand the mechanics. We've been OK. That doesn't answer the question. The question was. Can this application move forward? And can we resolve this issue of not having a cap on the high density designation if we just say it's 150 units? Put it at that. Why are we tying it to a park? Do we need to tie it to a park in order for this application to move forward? And that's a question for the applicant as well as staff. Do we need to tie it to a parcel that's greater than two acres for this application to move forward? Do we need to tie it to a smart plan

Do you have any other questions? Through the chair, can I make a statement? Of course.

I think what they did here is they are seeing all the positive things that this property had that could make it applicable and an approvable application that very few other properties will have throughout the county. I think if we removed those things, we'd open it up even more. throughout the county for this 150 units to be able to be applied. In this case, they're saying wherever there's a property that's next to a park and in a corridor, you know, a transit corridor, that's the only way they'll be able to get to this, right? So they've kind of set the rules up to where this property fits, r

I think I agree with the concept that there are some limitations they're putting on this. However, those limitations also open the door in areas where high density is not appropriate.

They would have to be next to a park, they would have to be in a transit corridor, and they would have to fit the land use designation. Or they would have to come here to increase that property to the land use designation.

We're going to get to debate if you guys want to continue the debate. Just for questions now, so we can move this along a little bit. Do you guys have any other questions for the applicant or for staff? All right, let's go ahead and move on to the public hearing. I'm now going to open public hearing for application number CDMP-2025-006. I've got no speaker cards. Does anyone wish to speak on this item? All right, seeing none, we'll now close the public hearing. All right, here we go. Now board members are ready for a debate. Board member Goncoy.

I was just trying to clarify that if we remove those, we're going to make it more wide open.

I agree with you, and I think I transmitted my thoughts right away on this item. Because when you start increasing FAR and density, you want to be judicious about how that happens because they will move on to a zoning application, seeking more height, seeking to reduce parking, seeking to do many things. For me, I actually like their language. I like tying it to parcels that are two acres or larger because you're ensuring that it's only on big parcels, not on smart parcels. I also like their original language about allowing a maximum of 10%. Non residential, because this is to encourage more r

I'm sorry. I forgot to ask that one question. Because otherwise I would make a motion, but I'd like to add some clarification as to what type of park we're talking about.

Okay then I don't know if this is a motion but this is what I'd feel comfortable that we add some clarification that it needs to at least be a local park or larger that the parcel we go back to their language about the parcel being two acres or larger and no more than 10 percent be non-residential use and of course the 120 percent AMI with those changes I would feel comfortable moving it forward.

Is there a second on, or is there more debate before?

Can we ask the applicant to comment a little bit about these ideas, at least to get your feeling? I'm not saying that you're going to make a decision on this, but what's your feeling as to the suggested amendments, and how does that relate to you, and what, you know?

Thank you. Well, you're recognized, Mr. Wimbus.

Yeah, I mean, I really think the applicant wasn't going to be upset with us staying with what they recommended. I believe staff made those edits so that they could make use of this text amendment in assisting other properties throughout the county to come in for this, right? We need to think countywide, right? We're a planning board. We're not a zoning board that looks at projects one by one. I've sat on this board close to 20 years, and many times we looked at project-based applications. I mean, I really think staff put a lot of thought into this, so we should put a little more thought into j

Mr. Pedro on your microphone, please Once you hear me, really, that's OK. So let me just talk about the parks. Right. I think the amendment of the parks is very good because it describes a local park. I'm sure that if county if if county has to be in favor of that. Right. Because you didn't put this whole thing of a park to have a little teeny dog park that it's a 50 by 100. Because if you're saying, oh, they got a little park and don't put that in because it's kind of embarrassing. Right. So you meant the local park.

So the point is, no, but what I'm saying is, if you just leave the definition of park, yes, and we all know that everywhere is very nice. I don't own dogs, but very nice. They have, for example, small pocket dog park. They're about this big for their dogs and great and people, right? But you're not going to give this whole big area a place to go up because they put a little dog park right there, right? Because the whole idea is that you have places for the people to, you know, be able to go out and get some fresh air, right?

So, yes. But you guys are good with a little definition, whether it's local or what? Because this park that's next to it is considered a local park, right? Right. Pocket park.

And pretty much the other ones are the smart quarter, which, check the box, you kind of want that. And the acreage is probably not bad either, right? I mean, I don't know.

Yeah, then removing the acreage requirement is because there's going to be a property that on an acre. I mean, we have incredible, developed, beautiful buildings throughout the entire county that are that are on an acre, acre and a quarter. You know, so that's why I believe they removed the two acre. live local whatever than for sure that but I mean everywhere like you go to Coral Gables you're going to sit in Miami you go to different areas, I mean on on less than 2 acres there are projects that can meet the 150 in a city, but then they're going to get 80 something units they're not going to

Just as a follow-up to Board Member Wimus, I agree with you. This planning board should be looking at this as a countywide issue. I think where I have an issue is in the process. So to planning staff, is this something that we can address separate of an application? Can the staff bring an application that says we want to address this high-density zoning and how we do it? And the reason I'm saying that is when we tie it to an applicant's project that otherwise looks compatible and good. And we're, we're standing here trying to balance the two issues, one being the project itself and a broader C

Just piggybacking. I agree with your comments and even your comments. Maybe this is a good thing, but we haven't really been provided an analysis today for why taking out a minimum acreage site or why changing the amount of non-commercial is beneficial. I would rather see the planning staff come back with that information at another meeting, and maybe it is a good idea, but for today, I think we should pass what they've proposed and not change something that could impact the entire county when we don't know if it's good or bad.

The one point I want to make, and staff has said it a couple times, is every single application that wants to use this designation will have to come through a hearing. It's not going to be countywide, across the board, whatever we pass today. So every single time, we're going to be able to look at these. You mentioned Kendall Drive. Are you aware of the project that's going next to the Kendall Boys Town and doesn't come through us, doesn't come through anybody? It's strictly live local. And they're getting a ton of units. So, I mean, at least these projects will always have to come through us.

What's your so what's your biggest of all those the staff direction compared to is it the two acre thing.

I just think they're wisely trying to make it a language that will be more usable in the future. But still, people will have to, because that designation, we don't have that designation other than the six properties they mentioned that have it, plus or minus. So any property that has, and again, you're not going to be able to jump from low density all the way to high density. It's usually one uptick, right? So all those projects are going to have to come before us. So I still think that staff did their diligence, did their job, and yeah, maybe we should have had it earlier, but I'm more suppor

uh bourbon montiel yeah i i want to say that i appreciate the work that staff puts into this right i know they do their homework but they've put it in front of us in connection with one specific application and they haven't given us enough of an opportunity in my opinion to to vet this and think about this and and you know, just do it countywide. I'm not necessarily opposed to it. I just it's really difficult to make a decision that has a long standing after effect when it's presented to you in connection with a particular project or a particular application. So I recognize that this may have

Yeah, I'm going to agree with my board members as well. I think just the need to separate this was much more important. I think that there were two different debates, and it would have been a lot easier to disentangle this thing, allow these things to live on their own. I will agree, and coming from a design professional who has to interpret all these codes all the time, you have to eliminate the vagueness of the code, right? So there had to be a limitation. You wanted to stop it at 125. and not have a or more, which nobody knows what that means, and it typically requires me making a phone cal

I think we've had ample discussion. Do we have any motions?

I'll move to adopt with change and with the proffered declaration of restrictions.

Is there a second? What was your motion? I didn't hear it.

Adopt with change and with the profit declaration of restrictions. Staff recommendation.

I apologize. You're going back to the staff and not to the... I have to withdraw it for a minute.

I'll second it, but add the fact that it would be limited to 120% if you're okay with that. Because remember, their covenant doesn't limit it to 120%. They kept it at 140%.

I mean no I I thought I had made a motion at the very beginning it was a motion like my motion never got voted I'd yeah we need a discussion before my apologies a board member withdraw that we'll consider yours if need be let's go back to mr. Goncoros motion so what was the motion again could you clarify for the record

My motion was to go back to the applicant's version that ties it to a 2 acre or larger policy to add the local park designation to go back to the applicant's maximum 10% non residential use. And, of course, 120% that they proffered.

2nd, and board member times with the 2nd, would you please call the role on the motion?

Is there a light? Is there a study? Because I was unclear with that first step. Is there already a light study that goes into this with regard to the light?

i'm new here so without making it a mandate can we make it a recommendation that when it goes to the county commission for their zoning hearing that they address the two points raised by this board member can we add that as a recommendation rather than a requirement yeah certainly it's at the board's pleasure okay then i would like to add that

I'm I'm 100% Okay with that So I think we're back on the motion correct it was seconded could you guys repeat it no final form I Madam Clerk, could you please repeat it one more time in final form before calling roll here?

Correct. Let me restate the motion. The motion is really to approve the applicant's original version and that it would go back to requiring a minimum of a two acre parcel. it would go back to what they originally proposed of a maximum 10 non-residential usage we would add local before park so that we don't get this next to a pocket park and accept the proffer on their declaration that the workforce housing would go up to no more than 120 percent ami hopefully have some of the lower levels as well

I would accept the language as they have it with the recommendation when the zoning application is heard that they perhaps create some of the workforce housing at the lower percentages.

I have a question, though. I'm sorry. I don't know what that means. Recommend a lower percentage to what?

To the 120? I think the recommendation is that some of the housing, that they not do it all at the 120%, that they consider requiring some of it at the lower percentage.

so the typical way if i can how do you do that yeah the typical way we we would do this is we would uh request that from the applicant the applicant would either agree or not and then we would make a motion based off of that and we can vote it up or down but i've not seen and the county attorney can correct me i've not seen where we do uh a kind of a split of this is what we require to uh to move this forward with a recommendation and then we have some additional recommendations we want you to consider i'm not sure that we do that but please guide us if you could please thank you for that all

Our motions usually have to do with the applicant, what they're asking for, and staff's recommendations. So we either approve with staff recommendation or we recommend approval without, in this case, without staff recommendation and a reiteration of conditions. And that's usually it. We don't typically do... in my experience having been here a couple years we don't typically do and by the way we'd like you to think about x y or z we usually address that with the applicant now if the applicant says no then that's a basis for our individual votes but we typically i've not seen conditions or reco

Thank you for clarifying that. You've heard the discussion. Is there a proffer from the applicant? Can you do anything with regard to the AMI voluntarily before we call the vote? Through the chair?

All right, so I believe we're back on the motion If the motion and let's see if it passes So free for clarity Yeah, so are we back on the motion with or without the recommendations? Mr. Gungor here.

What's the motion if I for allowed to make recommendations? I'll leave them in there. I'm not sure if we're allowed to I know it's not what we normally do and from what you're telling me. I'm okay leaving them in there. Is the board comfortable? Do you want them removed? I want to gain some consensus.

Staff, is there any issue with us moving forward, I guess, adding the recommendations or removing the recommendations? Is that something we could do?

That recommendation is about the 16-year-old.

And through the chair, how do you enforce it?

Like, you know, that's our staff to answer.

How do you enforce that? I mean, practically, because practically when this thing gets built, they say you have to do this. How do you do it? Because this, look, those things by definition are not easy to enforce. We all know that because I don't know who's checking on these. But how do you enforce that from a county point of view? Because the county's got to come in and be the watchdog here, right? How do you enforce that?

I know, but we all know, these people I'm not talking about, but generally speaking, I'm assuming if the county's not a watchdog for this, give me a break. You know, people will be violating this left and right.

Well, they're going to have a covenant, number one, and number two, it gets reviewed by the public housing authority. So housing authorities controls all projects, all AMIs. There are over 8,000, you know, affordable workforce housing done by all the major players in the county, and they all have to go through an auditing program every year.

i don't i don't yeah it will be because it will be part of that covenant right they're going to enforce they have to they have to accommodate the the 120 ami and they will have to accommodate the the 14. now i will i will tell you this from being in that in that space 14 units although i think it's a great gesture it doesn't do a lot right 60 to 80 ami is the kind of product that's done by an affordable housing developer You do not get, and it makes things very, very murky for the developer because when they go get at financing, there's very hard for those things to pencil, right? The only way

All right. So back to the motion. So to clarify, is the motion including the recommendation?

Let's remove that from the motion. And then if she wants, she can make a subsequent motion. I'm going to leave my motion as is to leave it clean. Let's go ahead and call the roll on that.

And now for the 2nd, the application on the agenda. Uh, Mr Jerry. Cherry bells gone Mr. rule, if you could introduce this item or.

all right board member Thomas just briefly is there a project tied to this text amendment because I noticed there's an example on a 14 a 15 a 16 of a retail strip that looks like it's on Red Road is there a particular project that's I'm trying to watch which so like in the last application we had a particular project that was that we could analyze and this is a text amendment and I'm not seeing there is I assume he's got a client with a project there is no a concurrent there is no concurrent application there is a submittal to zoning but it's not it's not a concurrent application so it's not t

I'm not sure if that was clarifying for me. I'm sorry. So there is no project. It is a countywide text amendment and they're representing a client who's got a separate application that's not being before us today. Is that clear? Is that what I understand? And the reason I'm asking, I'll take away the mystery. So I looked up the applicant Midwest REO number five. They have a project that's written about in the South Florida Business Journal, five-story warehouse that would have retail and office space. It's on Northwest 36th Street. I'm very familiar with that. I drive by it all the time. I'm j

Any other questions before we get to the app? That's all I'm asking for. Any other questions of staff before we get to the app?

I just want to make a point. It's common when you already have the land use that you just seek for a text amendment. And once that text amendment matches your current land use, then you're going for a zoning application. So it's a common, the reason being that they already have that designation. If they'd be changing the designation, then they'd both have to come in. Kind of like the prior project. The prior project was upticking their designation. No, I know. But I think that's, they're going to. All right. With that said, oh, we got one more.

Forgive my ignorance, but what specifically is an industrial support center? Can you give me an example? Can you?

Right, no further questions. Now the applicant clarifies some things here for us. You're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Williams. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Poor American gore.

I have a quick one. I know that the planning staff is recommending it, and it seems interesting. My only question, and maybe it's okay, is how it might impact nearby residential. I saw that they're proposing a 660-foot distance from residential properties. I don't know if that's a normal number or how far that is, if that distance is good or enough. And then you have some other language about not detrimentally impacting nearby properties, the exact language I'm reading from the text amendment is to ensure compatibility with any adjoining or adjacent uses. So I guess my two questions are really

Okay, thank you. Do you feel comfortable? I feel comfortable. When I see 660 feet, I think of my law school apartment, which was very tiny. I'll take your word that it is adequate.

Yeah, so we're comfortable. Board Member Thomas with a question.

Conceptually, I'm okay with it. I just want to make sure a couple things, and it's probably going to be addressed in your zoning. Well, it will be addressed in your zoning. one the types of uses so it'd be really really nice when we see an application that's going to change the cdmp that that it comes with a list of for example what light industrial is so that we can make that assessment without having to go and find it uh so if you could provide that that would be awesome and secondly i know this area really well northwest 36th street i wish you luck with trying to get trucks in and out of 36

I'm comfortable, but I think it would be good when we review in the future to have those things.

Point taken. Any other questions for the applicant? I have a question. Board Member Jannet.

Just as a follow-up, I think the vertical industrial does exist. I think when you just put it with a component of the retail on the bottom, that's what's unique. Because I believe at the airport currently they have a UPS facility that's vertical. Right. But it doesn't have any of the retail pieces associated with it.

Any other questions for the applicant? Board Member Wendland is going to make a point.

For decades, it was cheaper to just use vast lands, right? Like, go get 20 acres out there. We're out of land, basically. So we need to be creative. I mean, I think it's a brilliant idea. I think they've worked really hard at identifying where it could work and limiting it to that light industrial mix with BU3, which is really, they go back and forth. And some cities really even allow it without having to do changes or designations. I think it's a brilliant idea. I'd like to make the motion if

we're still in questions we're still in questions all right yeah i think i think it's a great counter punch to live local right i think unfortunately and and i my office sits in the bird world art district was predominantly industrial they just tore down a half a city block of warehouses to build 440 units i'm okay with that because those were very old you know warehouses outdated on on a city former city dump so it's going to improve our neighborhood but at the same time the reason that live local was created it was to provide affordability because of the incredible business, you know, busine

Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Moving on, we're going to go ahead and, well, thank you, Mr. Williams. We're going to go ahead and open public hearing. I do not have any speaker cards on here. Is there anyone in the public that wishes to provide testimony on this item? All right, seeing none, public hearing is now closed. On to debate. Do we have members in debate? All right, Mr. Wimbus for a motion.

Unless there's more discussion needed. Ready to second your motion. My motion is to adopt and transmit with staff recommendation.

Second. We have a second. Please call the roll.

All right, now we move on to staff announcements. Mr. Rowe, you're recognized.

All right. Board Member Lawson moves to adjourn. We've got a second. Meeting's adjourned.