Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board - Regular Meeting

Help keep Miami safe and dry. Please keep drains clear of vegetative cuttings. Blocked drains can cause flooding in our neighborhoods. Together we can protect our city.

Tu participación es fundamental para detener el vertido ilegal de basura. Si presencias a alguien arrojando desechos, no dudes en denunciarlo al instante. Llama al 911 para situaciones en curso o al 311 para casos ya ocurridos. También puedes hacerlo en MiamiZeroWaste.com. Bajo la pestaña, eliminemos el vertido ilegal. Otra opción es informar a través de Crime Stoppers en el 305- 471-8477. A legal dumping is a real issue here in the city of Miami.

Reporting incidents of illegal dumping is vital to addressing the issue promptly. Residents can report such incidents by dialing 911 for in-act and 311 for after-the-act dumping by submitting a report on our official website, MiamiZeroWaste.com, under the Let's Get Rid of Illegal Dumping tab. Your cooperation is crucial in maintaining the well-being of our community and environment. A legal dumping can also be reported by Crime Stoppers at 305-471-8477. There is a $500 reward for reports that result in citation or arrest. By working together, we can create a cleaner, healthier, and more sustainable Miami for our residents.

Thank you.

The City of Miami has some great news we want to share with our local businesses. If your business has been a part of Miami for over 10 years, the Office of Zoning wants to give you the recognition you deserve. We're launching a new initiative where qualifying businesses will get an official Certificate of Recognition from the City. It's a celebration of your dedication, your long-standing service, and the positive impact you've had on our neighborhoods and economy. Here's a quick guide to getting yours. Head over to the website link, click on the print button, use the drop down menu to select either your Oracle invoice number or your customer number. Just enter that number, hit continue, and you can download and print your certificate right away. We truly appreciate you being a part of Miami's story and keeping our city strong.

Hi, I'm Ricardo Sargent, FDOT Project Administrator for the Southwest 8th Street Roadway Project. Our crew is installing a new overhead sign support on Southwest 4th Avenue to guide drivers exiting Southwind I-95 towards Southwest 8th Street. This new sign will direct motorists towards downtown, Brickwell Avenue, and the I-95 ramp, making it easier and safer to navigate the busy area. Keep an eye out for this new sign. It's here to help drivers get where they're going. For more information about this project, contact the person below.

I'm going to be showing an example of what an empty lot is. It has a very high grass, they haven't occupied the lot. We are trying to contact the owners to fix the problem. This complaint came to us from the Miami police. The inspector put a violation notice on the property. What happens now is that they are given 10 days to be able to fix the lot, the property, to sweep, Here you can hardly walk. Having these lots full of grass and without maintenance is bad in the sense that the neighbors have to get up and see this. It will obviously reduce the values ​​of the properties. It attracts many people who come to throw garbage. Many animals come here. All these factors are what makes you report. When you see a lot like this, please call us. We are going to try to fix the situation. To report violations like this, remember that you can call 311. If you have a vacant lot or a structure, be it a house that no one is living in, you have to register it with the city of Miami. Go to the website where you search for Code Compliance, there is the way to register.

On average, 800 pedestrians and bicyclists are fatally injured on Florida roadways every year. Speed was a factor in approximately 30% of these fatalities. We all need to share the road responsibly. Drivers, pay attention to traffic signs and speed limits, especially in high traffic areas. Slow down and obey the signs so we don't need to use this one. Don't let one preventable act ruin countless other memories. Alert today. Alive tomorrow.

Um... A todos nos gusta cortar esquinas. Todo listo, gracias.

When it comes to crossing the road, it is a corner that cannot be cut. Always cross at intersections. Use the signal of the pedestrian crossing and when crossing, be alert. Make sure that the drivers who approach see it and have enough time to stop. Drivers cannot cut these corners either. You are forced to stop for pedestrians on pedestrian crossings. Safety is a top priority of the Florida Department of Transportation, whether you're driving, walking, or riding a bicycle. It's important to stay alert while on or near the roadway.

Drivers failing to look right at the sidewalk is a major cause of bicycle crashes. Drivers often only look where they expect to see cars, not people walking and biking. Florida law requires drivers yield to all bicycle and pedestrian traffic on sidewalks next to a roadway. Next time you're behind the wheel and at a stop, remember, look right, save lives.

No, no, no. Turn it down. Turn it off. Get a hand. Lose the bells and whistles. Drive without distractions. nutrient pollution like sewage leaks pet waste and fertilizer runoff messes up water quality and ecosystems but why should you care about pollution it hurts businesses tourism and property values by protecting our waterways we safeguard our health environment and economy remember fertilizing is prohibited from may 15 to october 31. learn more at miami gov slash fertilizer

I'm Larry Mele, owner of Pumarola, and we invite all our friends from Miami Eats to try our Neapolitan pizza. Welcome! The idea of Pumarola came because my grandmother used to have a pizza place in Naples, Italy, and she was known as the Signora Pumarola because of her car, which resemble a tomato. After many years, we're like, you know what? Why not open a pizzeria and call it Pumarola in honor of my grandmother? So me and my brothers, we decided to open it, and now in 2025, we have nine locations with two under construction. We want pizza to be Neapolitan-style pizza, which is very different from any other style, and to be enjoyed by everyone. We try to give high quality with the most affordable price. To have a great pizza, we start from the equipment that you use. So we use a wood fire brick oven imported from Naples, Italy. We have a volcanic stone that reaches very high temperature, 900 degrees. So the mouth of the oven, it's very small, so all the heat stays inside. Mixer are also special from Naples. They spiral. And the ingredient needs to be of very high quality and then employs. On top of pizza, we want to offer what a classic Italian restaurant offers as well, pasta, but we want to do it in a different way. So for pasta, we use a high-quality product, but I can cook fast as well because, you know, people are always rushing and going out. In the kitchen, we're known for the eggplant parmigiana. It's the best thing you can have, you know, flash-fried eggplant, tomato sauce, mozzarella layers, fresh basil on top. Fantastico, buonissima. Pizza classes started in 2014 in our Carl Gibbons location. Loris, my brother, decides, hey, let's try to teach people how to make pizza so they can do it at their home. We just put something together for fun with some friends and, you know, they start to make the dough and so on. So we're like, okay, now the dough needs to wait one day to be ready. So let's teach them how to cook it in their home oven. And we did that.

you Thank you. Thank you. you

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 with a planning, zoning, and appeals board. A person may not lobby a city official, board member, or staff member until registering. A copy of the code section about lobbyists is available in the city clerk's office and online at municode.com. Any person making a presentation, formal request, or petition to the board concerning real property must make the disclosures required by the city code in writing. A copy of this 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 form. The comments submitted through the comment form, 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 286.0.115 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 or request to the board. If the applicant agrees with the staff recommendation, the board may proceed to its deliberation and decision. The applicant may also waive the right to an evidentiary hearing on the record. The order of presentation shall be as set forth in Miami 21 and in 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 this 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 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 members of the public to indicate their support. opposition, or neutrality on the items and topics to be discussed at this meeting. Board members, are you comfortable with all of these notice provisions set forth in these uniform rules and procedures we've established?

Yes.

Thank you.

At this time, I'd like to stand for a moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you very much. Let's call this meeting to order by doing a roll call and absences. Roll call.

For all those who will be testifying, please rise and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly affirm the testimony today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Please be seated. Roll call. Vice Chair Andres Lopez.

Present.

Board Member Mario J. Bailey.

Present.

Chair Adam Gersten. Board Member Lynette Cardoche. Board Member Chris Collins.

Here.

Board Member Maria Paula DeCarolis. Present. Board Member Eduardo J. Fernandez.

Present.

Board Member Paul Main.

Here.

Board Member Elon Metier.

Present.

Board Member Joshua Patikin. Board Member Manuel Vidillo. We have Chrome, and Vice Chair, we would like to acknowledge the alternate member, Eduardo J. Fernandez, if he can have full voting rights.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right, let's see, any absence waivers?

Yes, we have two requests for absent waivers, Chair Adam J. Gerstein and Board Member Lynette Cardoche.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Super. All in favor for both? Any nos? Seeing none, I'll show it passed. All right. Let's set the agenda. Any items for deferral?

There are no items for deferral or withdrawal. Okay.

I think now we approve the minutes, right?

Mr. Mayan? Move to approve minutes for May 6th. Second.

All those in favor? See no nos, show us out. See, now we go into the first items. Any for deferral?

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

Good evening, Vicky Taranza, Planning Department. As my colleagues stated, this is a request to vacate and close a 15-foot wide alley, public platted alley that runs from the property line for approximately 214.10 feet, generally located at west side of North Miami Avenue between Northwest 41st Street and Northwest 40th Street. As background information, this item was originally heard in March, and we wanted to update the presentation to show what the applicant is now proposing, and we've also added conditions. So this is the site information. It's consistently what it was originally before and was also included as part of your application. I want to highlight what has changed. The applicant had originally proposed to close and vacate the east-west alley, and then they were going to provide an easement that went north and south. So this is the before, and this is a picture of the after. I'll allow the applicant to provide clarification as to their updated request. This is what I've highlighted in bolded letters. These are the updated conditions. So the Platinum Estates, it's now updated to reflect the new plat. And also then we have the new updated letter of conditions of approval from Platten Street to go back to Platten Street for their review. This was the number three and four. The applicant worked with staff. The applicant shall work with planning staff and the activation of the alley with sufficient lighting, pedestrian access, and doors. And four, the applicant shall repave and re-stripe the alley to maintain the current improvements. Wanted to bring this to your attention because those are the two that were added. Additionally, we are working to get an updated letter of what we're reviewing to see about expenditures on the proposed closure of the alley if the city has spent money. Also, for the purposes of the record, I would like to indicate that on page two of the background information of the staff analysis that it was referenced that the tentative plot number was 2019. The numbers were inverted and it's actually Plot 2091. So staff is still recommending, the department's still recommending approval with conditions. That concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Good evening, everyone. Iris Escara and Nicole Wolfe with offices at 333 Southeast 2nd Avenue. If you all will indulge me for just one moment. I have four of our summer clerks from the Land Use Department at Greenberg Chorg that are joining us from FIU Law, UM Law, and George Mason Law who are future candidates that'll be standing here before you in the next few years when they graduate from law school. So I just wanted to highlight their attendance and they're very excited to be here this evening. With that said, you may recall, some of you, I came in March with regards to an alley closure. At that time, we were redirecting it south, because we had thought that that was a good idea. However, after meeting with the neighbors, this is a very active alley, it's still used. So we've been coordinating, and we went back to Platten Street Committee, and we're leaving the alley in the exact same location that it is today. Operationally, it will remain the same. The only thing that we have done is put a 25-foot vertical limit so we are able to build above it. So from their perspective, they'll still be able to come in and out of the alley as it's currently used today. It's a 15-foot alley, so it's pretty much just a one-way alley, and it's actually part of a bicycle plan for the city. So as part of the improvements that we're doing, we will be repaving that to update the markings and so forth. And in addition to that, in connection with the neighbors, we will also be placing a covenant on the property to maintain the alley clear of debris. That is something that we recently just discussed with the neighbors, but we are committed to doing that and we can add that. into the record that we'd be willing to do that. With that said, one of the things that we wanted to address was some of the comments and questions that the board had had at the previous meeting. This is a T5 site and this is zoned a T4 site. Along the T4 we have a 20 foot rear setback, because this is T3 on this site, and we also have a 60% lot coverage. This site is T5, it's an 80% lot coverage site. So with regards to the feasibility of the building, one of the things that we have shown here is a massing that kind of shows what that area would look like. I apologize. What that area... I can turn it around?

Yeah, let's turn it around. Yeah, you can turn it around.

I think this is the same image we emailed, just so you can see it. The alley, it only fits one vehicle. It's only 15. It's really two bicycle paths. And we'd be repaving it, improving it, as well as keeping it clear of debris and maintaining it. The alley is very narrow when it gets behind the single-family homes, and there's a lot of fences, but there's also driveways and so forth. So one of the things they wanted us to do to make sure we keep it clear with regards to the restrictions it'll be a plotted restriction so bless you it'll be a plotted restriction so you can't remove the restriction without coming back before this board with regards to the height limitations and so forth with that said we're here to answer any questions the board may have and i know that there's some neighbors here that would like to speak thank you

If anybody has public comments, please step up into the podiums. There's two. Just line up. We'll have about two minutes to speak, but we're open, so go ahead.

My name is Ulysses Kemp, president of Buena Vista Heights Neighborhood Association, and on last meeting we were here, we went ahead and had a conversation with Iris pertaining to redirecting and keeping the alleyway open. He came up with the idea that they were going to build what they call an arch. I consider it a tunnel because it's over 100 feet in length, and we're talking about basically over 1,500 square feet of airspace that the public will be giving away with this project. We did mention, I just mentioned briefly about maintaining the alley. We're talking about keeping it clear of shrubbery as well as debris, not just debris because really there's not much on it. And this is a two-way alley. It's not, I mean, we do get cars going in both directions, not just bicycles. So based on what we discussed, we pretty much said okay to the project. But we did have some residents that are a bit hesitant about losing the airspace. So that's where it is. Thank you.

Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. Board members, what you're looking at here tonight is a very bad precedent. This is more than just this one alley in this one neighborhood. This has the potential to be repeated all over town in situations where a builder will want to buy land on either side of a, not just an alley, but a street and bridge over it and block the natural flow of air and light. I urge you, do not open this Pandora's box. I urge you, do not allow this. Please protect our neighborhoods. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Hi, good evening. Thank you so much for letting us come back again. We had deferred it originally because they were going to redirect the alley to come and go into our neighborhood. And you all were kind enough to let us have a moment with the attorneys. And they were acceptable as far as keeping the alley as it is, since it is a very active alley. We do use it and we do upkeep it. We do maintain it ourselves as it is. What Elvis said right now is something that I did think about as well. Since we do have so many alleys and we do enjoy our alleys, whether, I don't know if that's something that's allowable all the time, because I guess it would depend on every item that comes in front of you. But yeah, that actually was something that was concerning to us as well, whether everybody's gonna start building in the same way, even though they have a restriction, right? As far as the limit of the height. So, regardless, from Buena Vista stakeholders, Lorena Ramos, 20 Northwest 45th Street, we are agreeable and amenable to the applicants maintaining our alley as it is.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else from the public? Seeing none, is there any more comments from the applicants?

just wanted to clarify one point that that it's being closed as an alley but it's being given back as an easement with the vertical limit so from a from that perspective it's legally still bounding as a public access thank you for the clarification all right seeing no more public comment I will close public comment and bring it to the board mr. man

How deep is the overhang going to run? How many feet deep is the overhang?

So on the T5 piece, this lot is proposed at 114 feet in depth. This is T5. It has a 10-foot setback from North Miami Avenue. On the rear, this is a T4 lot. This is a rear to T3. It has a 20-foot setback, which is approximately 4,000 square feet. These two lots together are T4, which means it has a 60% lot coverage. Together, there are about 21,000 square feet, so we can only cover 13,000 square feet of here. So there will be a significant buffer between this site and this site. In addition to that, because of that limitation that's in the zoning with the 60% lock coverage and the 20-foot rear setback, and the buildings are going to be closer to North Miami Avenue, the max that we could have in building length is approximately about 150 feet. building length if we were to cover max out here max out here one of the hardships that the t4 has when we agreed to the 25 feet t4 is only 40 feet it's three stories or 40 feet in height maximum so we basically are only going to be able to build potentially a third level one level above because between 25 and 40 you can only fit one story Or a terrace or something so if we even cover that piece this piece here With the 25 feet height, which we thought an average road on I-95 is 16 and a half feet Vertical clearance 25 was given so it would be open bigger and more breadth. As a result of that, the architects are looking at this, and it's likely that these two may be two structures, maybe it has some connectivity between the two, but we don't know yet, because of the 40 feet and the 25 is really limiting the connectivity there.

Thank you. And for staff, to address Mr. Cruz's point, do you have any other applications in the pipeline for this kind of architecture?

I am not in the process of reviewing any of their applications right now for vacation closures. So I cannot speak to that. Thank you.

We don't get very many vacation closures per year. I would say at most it's a handful. It varies from like probably three to seven. So on average we get about a handful of them. We typically, our staff goes to the Platten Street Committee, listens to the comments that are made there by other departments, and then Platten Street votes and and makes a recommendation. That recommendation is then incorporated into our findings. One of the things that we also look at is how it meets the intent of Miami 21, so Article 4, Table 12, preserving neighborhood character. And then one of the things that's also important about Miami 21 is creating a walkable community. So we look at things like block length, block face, block perimeter, and then whether or not the repot will force a PSEO by the project. So sometimes we end up with weird configurations of lots, and we actually will get a better walkable, something that's more walkable by forcing the PSEO. So we look at it kind of on a case-by-case individual basis, and those things are typically found in your staff report. This one is a little unique in terms that we are vacating it. They are building over. However, we have conditioned it to allow, to ensure that it is both a comfortable environment for all those using the alley.

Thank you.

Good evening. I know we're not here to review the project, but I was just curious, from an access perspective, I'm assuming there's a garage or... And is the access to the garage coming from this one way?

No, no, it's coming from the street.

So separate access points.

Separate access points.

So this one-way roadway, it just goes to the neighborhood? Just go through. It's not serving...

Yeah, and as part of the conditions, we have to put doors, lights, windows to activate it in between so that it's not just necessarily all enclosed, that there will actually be eyes, security purposes, and so forth. It's part of our conditions.

And inside that 140, 150 feet, potentially, is there cameras that someone's monitoring or lighting?

Well, there'll definitely be. I imagine so. I don't necessarily have the...

Some sort of security.

Yeah, yeah, there'll definitely be security. That's one of the reasons why we thought that it was good to repave it, make it all, you know, bring it up to date and so forth so that it's activated.

Okay, thank you.

I have a few questions. I'm looking at the massing of the alley, and what I understand is that it's going to be 200 feet in length by 15 feet wide, right? With a

It's 214 feet.

Yes, but you're going to have a setback from the front.

We lose about 30 feet in setback, but we lose more lock coverage on the T4 because of the 60% lock coverage maximum. So the T4, the sum of these two is 21,000, but I can only cover 13,000, which is 60%. So there's an 8,000 square foot open space on this site.

Are you contemplating using that open space to be aligned adjacent to this easement? Or what I'm concerned about is that the easement is 15 feet wide and it's lined by these walls, 200 feet long and 25 feet high, so it's more like a tunnel than... So I'm concerned about looking at safety, light, air circulation, and providing that more of a paseo feel rather than a... an easement for vehicular traffic.

Understood. And I think that's why planning staff put the conditions of the lighting, doors, pedestrian access to this area so that it doesn't feel like closed. We don't yet have the final design of this area, but the intent was, and the architect, what he was looking at, is the building structures are going to be closer to the T5 just because it'll provide for a better circulation for the garage and for everything of the sort. So the buildings, and here's the massing. If you could see here, these are the three stories, right? If you think about this as the alley, there's only one story that could potentially cross because of the 40 foot, I'm only allowed three stories, max 40 feet. Because this is 25 feet, there's only one piece here. And that's what I was trying to describe. This piece... I showed it because this is the maximum of what we could do, so it could be realistic. But this is one that the architect said he may not warrant doing it. However, the three-story volumes are intended to be connected to the T5 to create a bigger floor plate. That is definitive. So it's all going to be tucked towards the T5 lots that face North Miami Avenue. So if you almost think about it, it's almost like, are you pretty much as the footprint?

Because the moment that you turn the alley into an easement, you can build to the property line, because the property line really disappears. You could have potentially lined the building all the way to the alley, to the easement line. So what I'm trying to understand is if if the architect has contemplated pushing the building away from that easement.

They did have a discussion about doing something in this area, about pushing it out, but we don't have a final design yet, so I couldn't commit to necessarily any other measurement. with regards to that. But I think holistically, because we have to put doors and windows and access there, we're going to have to step back to be able to have landings and to have different things. So I think as part of the design conditions, that's going to be inherent. I just don't know the measurement, like to set a number.

Yeah, for me it's not a development capacity issue. It doesn't matter if you have one story or three or four or five, it's just that there's no light or air. So how do we kind of increase that breadth so that it's not perceived as a tunnel, but rather than a space that can be habitable.

Yeah, and not because of anything, but when I spoke to the owner about this, he actually, he doesn't want it to be a tunnel either. He doesn't, because that could also create problems for them on their side, because it's a public access, so it's got to be open all the time. So they too want to design it so that it's engaging and so forth. So that's why he was, we were supportive of addressing the neighbor's comments and keeping it that way.

Okay. I think, I don't know if I have, okay, I'll go back if I have. Oh, the bicycle. You're having, it's a 10-foot vehicular vehicle, dedicated space and a five-foot bicycle lane? How is it?

So, and I was talking a little bit to Ulysses and Lorena about it. It's a 15-foot wide path that's used by vehicles, but you got to kind of play chicken because if you think of vehicle path is usually 11 feet wide. It is Commissioner Keon Hardiman a few years ago updated this block as well as like two or three or four, there's like a pattern of blocks to create bicycle routes. So these alleys were designated a bicycle path, which is one of the reasons why the city wanted and conditioned that we improve and repave it with the bicycle path. The neighbors use it as a vehicular path, right? Because they use it in and out, but it's just them going really to there. So that's why I think... It's deemed vehicular and they use it in both directions, but it's only 15 feet wide. So it's really intended for one vehicle.

I see. So, and is it trash collected through this alley or no? No, it's collected from the street.

Because remember, the city has the one-armed bandits. They only drive along the front of the site when you roll out the...

Years ago, it used to be used for solid waste when they had the men on the back of the truck. That was all of our waste went in the back, the cans were in the back, all the trash was picked up. Once they changed to the automated system, then we had to remove our cans from the rear and put them in the front so they can be picked up automatically. And of course, that saved the city money because they didn't need as much manpower to pick up the trash. I had some concerns about the length of the tunnel. Because I was under the impression that it was only going to be on the first building. I had no idea it was going beyond the first building, which that's what I calculated the airspace on, which would have been over 1,500 square feet of airspace we were losing. That was based on the 114 feet length of the first building. I was never under the impression that it was going any further than that. So I have a problem with a long tunnel at the end of the road.

That's why I think it's so important that the setbacks are used to protect and enhance that space rather than... I understand that you're going to be using the lot coverage to step away from the T3 because you have to. But you also want to put some of that available setbacks to create that... to line that easement so that it's more habitable, so that it feels habitable rather than vehicular.

The setback is not what I'm discussing. What I'm actually bringing to your attention is the length of the tunnel itself. And I was under the impression that it was only going to be on the T5 property, not the T4, which was going to be residential. I didn't know that that was going to have anything built over the alleyway there. And when I described it to the residents, I described only the first part of the building, which they were kind of leery about it, but they said, okay, but now this is, if it's going to be longer than that, that's a totally different situation, which we did not get a clarification from them to understand that it was going to be different than that. I got a renderance, but I didn't get the detailed information that you guys just got. So that kind of changes things. Sure.

Your mic. How many meetings have you had with the community members?

Well, we've emailed each other the plans. We discussed the project. I emailed them the new tentative plan. I emailed them the renderings they provided. They asked me some questions. I went back and forth with them. I think we have an open dialogue with them, too. At the first meeting, there were some more neighbors that were here as well. But I mainly communicated via email with Ulysses and Lorena.

Any other comments?

Yes, one more thing. Is this project going to be a by-right project? Do you know that already or you do not, Iris?

I don't know yet about the design of the project. They haven't finalized the design of the project because they don't know exactly what's going to happen with the alley. We had a different concept originally that they were looking at. I do know that it's intended to be retail and office. It's going to be a boutique building to kind of complement design district which across the street. And then we have on the rear the T4 pieces which were probably going to be some sort of townhomes or something of that is what they're looking at. The renderings and the massings that I sent was the maximum that could be built so that you could see the max and not what they're considering. With regards to the T4 piece, because of the various different restrictions, we need, not because of anything, but we're going to need to be able to build on these two portions of the site in order to really make it viable for parking. That's one of the things that's kind of driving this. the need to have the length here because we're anticipating coming in, circulating here, and then circulating around. So this area here in the T4 is something definitely we can work with and find a solution for. I'll coordinate with them. I still have to go to city commission with regards to working on the T4 piece and the space here. For sure, the T5, we need to maximize to be able to develop from the 10 feet the entire length. The T4 became very complex when I was trying to talk to the architects about it because the 25, we felt 25 was the best height for openness. It really limited, it's gonna likely break these two into two. But we still showed it with what could be built so that everybody can see what could be built.

Okay, thank you.

So just to be clear, it's a possibility. You're not saying that you're going to build on that T4 over it?

Correct. I'm not saying, and what I was saying is, even though I designed it, because I always like to show the neighbors the max of what we can build, because that is the max. The architect told me, he goes, to build one story across the alley at 25 feet is likely not viable for the design of the building. It's like, he's like, it's not necessarily something that's cost effective or anything of the sort.

So is there a reason we're bringing that up now?

Well, I brought it up to show the massing of the project. Because one of the things that the neighbors wanted to see is what could we build there. They wanted to visualize this. So we had the renderings created and so forth. We redirected the alley so that they could see what could be built there so that they could understand the application.

Mr. Bailey?

So first, I want to thank both the applicant and also the neighbors. So when you guys last came, we had a meeting. We wanted you guys to get back together, have a conversation. Looks like you've had conversation, and there's not a clear meeting. And so I just want to make sure I completely understand the differences. And also, do you feel that this is an improvement from the previous, or is it actually a worse product? And so if you can start, I guess, The neighbors, I want to hear your understanding.

Actually, the rentals that I got, I got these yesterday, and I got one at the earlier part of the week. As far as the discussion and what we're talking about now, what she's discussing with you guys, we haven't had that conversation. Otherwise, I would have known that we weren't talking about a 114-feet tunnel, but possibly a 214-feet tunnel. That's totally, that's like building a Yeah, if I can explain that just- That's something that I was never privileged to. And I, President of Buena Vista High's Neighborhood Association, the residents that I've discussed this with, I told them something differently than what we're listening to today.

If the applicant can respond, and I have a follow up to that.

Yeah, so if I may, I'm gonna turn this around. The whole alley is 214 feet. There's 114 feet of T5 and 100 feet of T4. On this site, I have a 10-foot setback, so I can only ever cover a maximum of 104 feet because there's a setback. On this site, it's 100 feet. I have a 20-foot rear setback, so the max I could ever cover would be 80 feet. However, I also have a 60% lock coverage. So out of this site together, I can only ever cover 13,000 square feet. So there's 8,000 square feet that we are not allowed to cover just by code, basic. 4,000 of it is taken up in that 20 foot. So if you take 20 feet times 218 feet, that is about 4,000 or so square feet. There's another 4,000 square feet that we cannot cover by code.

I don't mean to cut you off.

We have to give the applicant a chance as I close public comments, so unless it's a question directed to you.

Go right ahead, please.

So it's a little bit, the max that we could ever put a structure here on this 100 feet is probably 60 feet or so, 50 some feet or so, just because of the lock coverage and the other zoning restrictions that are there. So with regards to here, the 104 and about the 50 or 60 on that street, it's 164 would be the maximum length that we could fit by zoning. That's today required by zoning. So it's basically this area here, which if you look at the renderings, that's why it's cut in. That's why this area is cut in, because of that. It's the zoning is restricting us. We can't fill it. We can't build 200 feet of linear frontage because it's just not allowed.

Okay. Sorry. Here you go.

So the question really is, when you are talking about the arch, right, going over the alleyway, what Ulises is talking about, and I would like to know myself, is that tunnel aspect that will be created by the building, how far in is it gonna come into our alleyway as far as feet is concerned?

The max that it could ever be Over the alley is about 164. Just by zoning today, 164. Because I have to set back on this side, and I have to set back on this side, and then I have a lot coverage that limits me here. I also have a lot coverage here, 80%, but more likely than not, it'll be along the edge, not in the center, because this is the higher zoning. But this one here would likely be set back. 164, max length.

Okay, now I'm back. This is my final question to the neighbors. Do you feel that this is a better product than what they previously proffered, or did you prefer the previous one?

Actually, as far as preference, we would have preferred not having it at all. But if you're going to compare the two, we would have said this would be better. However, we don't want a big old 164-feet tunnel. We were under the impression it was only going to be under the T5, which was 114, with the 10-feet setback, which would probably give us a tunnel of about 104 feet. But that's the perception that I presented to the neighborhoods. but that's not what we're getting here. So I really need to talk to the neighbors and find out what they're willing to accept.

Understood. Question for the applicant. We next meet on June 17th. What's your timeline for the residency? Because... It seems as if, like, they got the information yesterday, the new renderings, and he needs to present it to everyone that he's speaking on behalf of. If we come back June 17th with a final ready to move forward, or if you guys have a time to have one final conversation, would you be fine with that?

I'm fine with that.

Okay. If... I'm going to allow the board to continue, but if that's okay, I'll...

I think staff would have to rule on whether it would be possible to bring it back on that day.

Ready to defer it once in March.

So the board can only defer once without the applicant's permission. So if the applicant wishes to either have an approval or denial today, but they had previously agreed to the previous deferment or deferral, so you still have one deferral without...

I can proffer the deferral.

But if they proffer the deferral, then there's not an issue.

Yeah, yeah, I'm fine. I'm fine proffering the deferral.

The reason why I ask is that that's very helpful if he's representing the entire board. No, no, and I understand it.

It's a reasonable request, and I'm fine with that. We already deferred before. We went back to the Platt Committee. We've really tried to make sure we accommodate as much as possible.

And I really appreciate, because we asked for the direction that you go, and that's what I love to see, business and neighbors working together to come up with a good compromise solution. Everyone won't be completely happy, so thank you for that.

No problem. Is the 17th available for this item?

Yes.

Thank you.

I mean, you're proffering the deferrals.

I proffer the deferral until June 17th, if the board would consider that.

I really appreciate that. Motion to defer? Yes.

Second.

All right.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, show deferred. Thank you.

Thank you, guys.

Second item, please.

Next item.

File item number two and number three is a companion item. Item number two, file ID 18679. a resolution of the Miami Planning and 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 Miami 21 code, specifically by amending Article 1 title definitions to introduce new definitions and clarify definitions related to greenways by amending Article III, Title General, to zones, specifically by amending Section 3.14 to introduce a greenway public benefits program to allow development benefits for eligible sites within a half mile of a greenway, and by adding Section 3.20, titled Greenway Standards, to establish criteria and regulations for developments fronting a Greenway and by amending Article IV titled Standards and Tables to clarify the Greenway civic space type, making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date. Item number three, file ID 18680, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board recommending to the City of Miami Commission's approval of an ordinance amending chapter 62 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida as amended, city code titled Planning and Zoning, more particularly, by amending article five, seven, titled Parks and Open Space Trust Fund to clarify the public's benefits, contribution, and expeditious process for properties near a greenway making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date.

Thank you, Florence. Hi, good evening, everyone. I'm Samantha Maldonado, planner two from the City of Miami Planning Department. Right now, you are receiving a resolution from the Miami River Commission, so we can have that as part of the record. We presented to them Monday, June 1st, so that's just the recommendation of approval with those conditions.

Hmm.

So today, I'm excited to share some proposed amendments for greenways in the City of Miami. And this is gonna be two amendments, as Florence stated. The first one is an update to the Miami 21 zoning code for incentives and requirements for properties near a greenway. And the second is an update to the City of Miami code of ordinances for updates to chapter 62. So first, just to introduce the topic a little bit, we all kind of know the benefits of Greenways. They help connect the city, they provide recreational and alternative transportation routes, They improve public health, promote active living, introduce active uses, and they also help to boost the local economy. So we have a few objectives of these amendments. The first is to promote development along greenways. The second is to support the reinvestment, development, and construction of greenways. And the third is to improve existing greenways. So here's an outline of the proposed amendments that I'm gonna get into today. Like I said, we have some updates to the zoning code and also to the city code. So in the zoning code for Miami 21, we are clarifying the definitions related to greenways. We're also introducing for greenways a new public benefit for the existing bonus site program. And for sites along a greenway, we're gonna require that they construct the adjacent greenway. And then lastly, for the update to the city code, we're amending chapter 62 for the Parks and Open Space Trust Fund to provide a process for expenditures and for allocations of cash collected from sites that are using these greenway programs. To provide a little bit of the background into the process, over the past seven months, we've met with stakeholders of the Miami Greenways, including folks from the Underline, the Ludlam Trail, Commodore Trail. Within the city, we've met with the Parks Department, the Finance Department. We've met with the County Parks and Recreation and Open Space Department and the Transit Alliance. in a series of workshops. And like I mentioned earlier this week, we've received recommendations of support from both the Miami River Commission and the Climate Resilience Committee. So the First Amendment is an update to Greenway definitions. So we're updating the definition of Greenway to be as follows. So it's going to be a city-designated open space corridor which consists of natural and or planned landscape and which may include paths for bicycles and pedestrians, including but not limited to existing and future portions of the underlying Commodore Trail, Flagler Trail, Ludlam Trail, the Miami River Greenway, and the underdeck. And then we're also adding greenway as a new frontage type to ensure that the sites along greenways have to treat it as an actual frontage. So the next amendment is an update to public benefits. It's basically an update to our existing public benefits program. So we're not changing the benefits, not changing the proposed height or FLR or anything like that. We're basically just adding another options for developers to provide greenways as a public benefit. So the benefits, like I mentioned, are still the same in terms of the bonus height and the FLR, but now you can provide a greenway for up to half of the bonus floor area, and then the remaining half would still have to come from the normal citywide public benefits trust fund, just to make sure we're not competing with those other public benefits program. And then for T5, it's the same thing. It's an additional three stories, which is the existing T5 bonus height program, but now the developer would have the option to provide the Greenway public benefits. So what exactly are the qualifications to participate in this program? So we've carved out kind of two different things. So the first would be if you're a site fronting a greenway, in order to achieve the 50% public benefits, you would have to actually construct the greenway in front of your property. Now if you're not fronting a greenway, but you're still within that half mile of the designated greenways, you have those different options to construct it. or to pay cash into the Parks and Open Space Trust Fund, but the money from these projects can only be used towards greenways. So I've put together this map just to help clarify the sites where this is applicable in the city. So like I mentioned earlier, the sites shown here are areas where you can already achieve the bonus height with or without this legislation, basically. This proposal is just offering another mechanism through which the bonus height is unlocked. Next, I wanted to address some of the concerns we've heard from constituents, particularly in the neighborhood conservation districts. So just to emphasize, this proposal does not change the sites that can seek bonus height in any of the NCDs. We have not proposed any changes to the development capacity in NCD3 Coconut Grove. So all the sites that can use the Greenway Public Benefits Program, as you can see in the map, some of those pink sites, are T6, which are allowed bonus height under the current code. So the only change we're proposing here is now the developer has another option to satisfy the bonus height by providing a greenway. So the third piece of this legislation, we have some new requirements for sites fronting a greenway. So for sites fronting a greenway, the developer would have to construct a piece of the greenway in front of their property. And this is something that is going to apply to all transects except for T3 and T4. Now we have outlined some alternatives to the Greenway construction. So the first, if the construction is not feasible, you can do a cash contribution to the Parks and Open Space Trust Fund, again, only going towards Greenways. The second, you can participate in the Greenway Public Benefits Program, which I mentioned earlier. and lastly we're providing a very easy option to opt out of the program or of this requirement the reason being we appreciate this restriction this might impose on a developer so if an applicant were to inform us that either the construction of the greenway or the cash contribution is not feasible for a project it won't be required Lastly, getting into cost of Greenway standards, we have a couple different options for the public benefits program versus when the Greenway construction is actually required. So this was something based on our research and stakeholder input. If you're participating in the Greenway public benefits program, we've arrived at around $200 per square foot for the cash contribution in order to achieve the 50% cash or the 50% floor area bonus. But when the greenway is going to be required to be built, if the developer wants to opt out of the construction and pay cash instead, we're still working out these cost schedules just because, as you're aware, the different greenways are going to cost different amounts to construct. Lastly, we're proposing new design standards for sites along the Greenway. So these include the following. We have some architectural standards if your frontage is over 100 feet. We're also proposing the requirements to provide an enhanced pedestrian realm. And then for anyone providing the Greenway, you have to provide the following requirements. So it has to be a paved, multi-use path, average width of 14 feet. have to have canopy trees, irrigation system, pedestrian lighting design, site furnishing, curb ramps, and also traffic calming and safe crossing enhancements for areas where the greenway crosses the road. So a little bit similar to the original map of the location of the greenways, the map here shows the sites fronting the greenways where the developer would be required to construct the greenway. And again, this excludes T3 and T4R sites. So this is the second amendment related to chapter 62, an update to the Parks and Open Space Trust Fund, which is the companion item. So this provides the process for allocation and expenditures for the sites along Greenways that are using this program. Basically, the money from the Greenway contributions has to be allocated towards, it can only be allocated towards Greenways, And that would be prioritizing the greenway from which the contribution was generated. And then we've also outlined allowable expenditures. Again, this is only expenditures related to greenways. This doesn't impact the expenditures for parks or other open spaces as part of the Parks and Open Space Trust Fund. So the money from the greenway program can be spent on greenway construction, improvements, operation and maintenance, and also for design costs. That concludes my presentation. Thank you, guys. I'm happy to answer any questions at this time.

Thank you very much. Members of the public.

Oh, yes. Yes, go ahead.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and board members. My name is Ralph Rosado. I'm the commissioner for District 4 here in the city of Miami. you won't be seeing me very often at these meetings but this is one that i thought i should come and provide supplemental information given how important this is and and given the amount of work that we've put into it so chris is my deputy chief of staff he's uploading a quick powerpoint presentation and we'll try not to repeat anything that sam covered she did a wonderful job but this is a passion project going back several decades for me i was about a decade ago i was one of the founding board members of friends of the underline and More than 25 years ago, as an employee of the city of South Miami, I actually got to work on the initial concept of the Ludlum Trail under the leadership of then-Mayor Julio Robaina and then-County Commissioner Rebecca Sosa. So this is something that is near and dear to my heart for a long time, and I'm also just a very passionate Parks and Rec planner type. Ready? Okay. So the first slide you have in front of you, and Christy, if you could expand it to full... to the full slide, you can see that the Miami Loop, which is something to give tremendous kudos to Victor Dover, who's here in the audience, is a concept that was put on my radar by Victor and his wife, Madi, many years ago. And the idea is that you connect a variety of trail segments located within the city of Miami and outside in other portions of Miami-Dade County, you can actually have a continuous network on which you can bike and walk run and enjoy time with your family that extends over 223 miles across Miami-Dade County. Our focus today is obviously just the portions that would be affected because they're located within the city itself, but it would ultimately include even the Snapper Creek Trail which goes down all the way to South Dade and other trails that head into the northern portions of Miami-Dade County. What I think is particularly exciting about this is that the Miami Loop would go through all five city commission districts. So it is something that would very much unite us as a city and as a county. Chris, next slide. So those are trails that are located in some portion of the city of Miami. So we've got the Miami River Greenway, which follows the Miami River. Portions of it are complete and other portions have yet to be developed. The underline, I think you're all familiar with, will actually be completed by the end of this year. That's all 10 miles from downtown down to Dateland Station, outside our boundaries and going through Coral Gables. The Ludlam Trail has some segments that have been built. Ludlam Trail goes from On the south portion, Dayland Station, Dayland Mall, that area, up into Robert King High, which is located near Miami International Airport. The Baywalk is downtown along the bay. And again, as with the Miami River Greenway, some portions of it are built and others haven't moved forward. The Graham Greenway is what's proposed for under 95 within Overtown and the Omni area. And finally, the Rickenbacker Trail, which I'm sure we'll be hearing about more in the next few months, goes through a portion of the city of Miami, then unincorporated Miami-Dade into Key Biscayne. I'm very, very fortunate that in my District 4 role, I get to represent a very large segment of the Underline, and again, all of that will be built within the next few months, and Ludlum Trail, which unfortunately, no segment of it has been built in the entire city of Miami, despite the project being really phenomenal and being discussed for over a quarter of a century. As Sam mentioned, we've had a working group that's had four meetings and represented on there are folks that represent each of the different segments that you saw on the previous slide. A tremendous amount of thought has gone into the legislation that you have before you today that we hope you will support and that will ultimately come to the city commission. And for the final slide, I'm actually going to hand it to Chris, who will do just a quick synopsis because Sam did cover a lot of this. But the idea is... This is something that is very much transformational. It is a generational shift. It is something that in an ideal world, the legislation that you all are considering today would have been adopted decades ago. And then all of these trail segments would have already been brought to completion. What this is hoping to do for us is help to finish the gaps, the missing teeth in the beautiful smile that is the Miami Loop so that we can actually enjoy each of these.

Thank you very much, board members, for having us. So I'm just going to round this out and just really the legislative part of this. And I think Sam did a great job of getting to all of this, but really these are just the top line, most important pieces for us that we really want to get out to you guys. So the first things first is we've made sure that as part of this legislation, we've excluded NCDs. So, that includes the Coconut Grove area. We don't want to, you know, kind of mess with the character of that area, and that's fine for us. We've heard loud and clear, and we take that. The second part of this is that the radius of the trust fund that is the Greenway Trust Fund is a half mile, right? So, the idea is that any, you don't necessarily have to be directly adjacent. to the greenway um you can be in the vicinity your property value is going to go up if you if you kind of contribute to this build um so you're incentivized to contribute to this um so so the the radius we started out one fourth we expanded it out to one half um and and we feel good about that uh the third part about of our legislation is um kind of what we would call, I guess, a segregated part of this legislation that we wanted to initially move forward with, and we found a way to incorporate, which was the fact that adjacent parcels will be, as part of this legislation, required to build out their segment of the Greenway. There will be an opt-out for them. if they so choose, and it's a very simple opt-out, simply just written request. But as part of the standard, it will be required. And then last but not least is just the cash contribution that is the public benefits trust, or I'm sorry, the Greenway Trust Fund is important to us because it's important now for those parts of the loop that are not built out. That includes Ludlum, that includes the Miami River Greenway, but it's also important for the future in a world where all of these funds you know, greenways are built out, this money will still be coming in and be able to be used for maintenance and reconstruction and any sort of, you know, fixing that needs to be done over time. So this is not just for the present, but this is for the future of public access and walkability through our city. So that's really where I'm going to leave it. And I think we are all open to questions, but I know that there's more public comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, members of the board. My name is Katia Santos. I have the pleasure of serving as executive director at Transit Alliance Miami to mostly lend my personal voice in my experience advocating for this type of policy and really public-private investment into our greenways, into mobility lanes in Miami-Dade County. I did want to share a story that I feel like the folks who have been sitting in the Miami Loop meetings have heard from me a few times. I know I still have the youthful look about me, but I have had my 10-year high school reunion, and I have this very vivid memory of being on the Lunt-Lunt Trail, or what will become hopefully the Lutlum trail and picking up trash and painting walls and being told, Oh, this patch of land is actually going to become part of this network. Uh, that will be the Miami loop. That was while I was in high school and you know, the projects, the ideas have been around for 25 years. And it is important to say that funding these things and building them is extremely expensive and that we're playing catch up. And that's why I'm so excited to be here today in support of this resolution, this item, and hoping to see it move forward to commission with the best feedback possible, because we are playing catch up and we have to take every opportunity to complete critical infrastructure that is about the future of Miami, that is about connecting our communities, that is about getting us out of traffic, that is about building greenways that also help our streets hopefully be a little less flooded, that give our families opportunities to exercise, to be outdoors, to experience the beautiful weather that we have most of the year. So I'm here in support as a transit alliance but also as a resident of Miami-Dade, as somebody who works in the city of Miami, who commutes by bike. And I'm excited to see the process that was followed in crafting this piece of legislation that was so collective that really brought folks to the table. And I think this could be a really good day for Miami. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Peter Rubino, and I represent Friends of Ludlam Trail, and thank you for hearing from the community. Passing this legislation and supporting Ludlam Trail, a linear park planned for the abandoned railway property is 100 plus feet wide, running 5.6 miles from Datran to the south of Miami International Airport, and will bring us one step closer to having an iconic linear greenway in the heart of Miami. We need Ludlam Trail. because walking and biking to schools adjacent to the trail that's Coral Terrace Elementary, South Miami K-8, South Miami Middle School, and Ludlam Elementary School is dangerous. Even the South Miami High School, their cross-country team runs laps around the property because running on the streets around the high school is too dangerous. Ludlam Trail will connect communities just south of the airport to downtown Kendall, linking the adjacent neighborhoods of Coral Terrace, Glenbar Heights, City of South Miami, City of West Miami, with a safe walking and biking route. Ludlum Trail will enable clean, healthy, easier access to public transportation. There's many metro bus stops along the trail, and the Dade Land North Metro Rail Station is near the south end of the trail. Ludlum Trail will also connect greenways, meeting the underline in the south and the Miami Greenway Miami River Greenway in the north as an essential part of the Miami Loop. Walking in Miami is too dangerous and Florida has the highest bicycle fatality rate per capita. We need Ludlam Trail and the Miami Loop to provide safe and healthy transportation and recreation resources. I invite each of you to stand where the abandoned railway crosses Miller Drive, Bird Road, or Coral Way or Flagler. Take a moment to look north or south as far as your eye can see and appreciate the unbounded view of a more tranquil, natural space in the heart of our community. Ludlam Trail is a rare pine rockland, an essential habitat... Two minutes. An essential... Okay. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The proposed legislation will help turn nearby development into a tool for completing the Miami Loop and strengthening Miami's public greenway network for residents, visitors, and local businesses... Voting to support this legislation will bring Ludlam Trail and the other Miami greenways one step closer to being a world-class iconic linear park. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Zoheb. I've lived in Miami, I think, for 23 years. I'm speaking in support of this motion. I love the city. And when I think about what I love, I want to tell you I am not thinking of the traffic. I'm not thinking of the concrete. I'm thinking of the trees. I'm thinking of the beautiful weather we have. I'm thinking of the time that I've gone with my friends walking throughout the city, biking throughout the city, sometimes having to dodge cars throughout the city. This is something we need desperately. Miami is one of the most beautiful cities in the world. We have some of the best weather and sunlight for plants. And most of the people who live here do not get to cherish that. They do not get to relish that. Part of the reason that is, is because historically we have kept stakeholders who would have helped build paradise in Miami away from being able to do that. This to me seems like a very important step towards fixing that big issue. I really want to see, as what the previous speaker just described, a love them trail that allows somebody to go from dayland, where a lot of people who are moving to Miami, coming to appreciate it, can go straight to the airport without having to confront traffic. Which I think, I don't want that to be somebody's experience of Miami. I want them to think of the trees, I want them to think of the weather. I strongly encourage you guys to support this measure. I think if you do, we will see a transformed Miami because developers will be able to put some of their cash towards building places for people to actually experience the city without being in a metal box and interfacing with it that way. So, strongly support it, and I hope you guys do too. Thank you.

Thank you.

Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. Board members, I handed you the 2016 Maximum Density Potential Study, which shows the city of Miami is zoned to allow the construction of eight times more housing units than were counted in the 2010 census, which means the city is already zoned to enable eight times that population. That factor of eight was before adding other legislation that adds even more development potential, such as special area plans. transferring bonus density for affordable housing, adding bonus floors and density to transit-oriented developments, transfer of development rights, transfer of development density, T5 bonus floors, Live Local Act buildings, auxiliary drilling units or ADUs, rapid transit zoning, transit station and neighborhood developments, Commissioner Pardo's 48-story high-rise condos on Watson Island. Adding all the upzonings that have happened since 2016. Adding Commissioner Pardo's doubling of density in Edgewater. Adding any other height and density bonuses that have been invented since 2016. There have been several. It's hard to keep track. And now this proposal also supports adding three stories to T5 within a half mile of a greenway. Bonus floors for T5 should have never been enacted. It should be repealed. The city of Miami seems to think that many of society's problems can be solved by giving bonus incentives to developers, regardless of how it harms our quality of life or our neighborhood's character and scale. We don't have the infrastructure to handle all that density and development. It's not just about traffic. There's also potable water supply, sewage treatment capacity, garbage disposal capacity, per capita park space, and hurricane evacuation time. Miami 21 and the comp plan speak of protecting neighborhood character and scale. I'm glad you excluded NCDs from this legislation. Please also exclude all historic districts. Please stop the insanity. Please vote no on anything that increases density or height because we already have far, far too much as the city's own study has shown. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Mel Meinhardt. I'm coming to you tonight as the chairman of Friends of the Commodore Trail. The Commodore Trail is the county's oldest trail, and it's also the most heavily used, running here through Coconut Grove. And most of this, we want to say how impressed we are with the commissioner's work and to coordinate and bring everybody together on this and the staff has been terrific in explaining this. I want to point out a particular piece that they were generous enough to ask or to add, which was a statement at the bottom that there's no additional height made available through this that wouldn't already be available through another program. I absolutely understand that and we support this effort, but we would ask please for the following small change and we provided the document here. So while we're protecting the NCDs, which we think is absolutely paramount, we notice that there are two mechanisms that this legislation uses. One is associated with the T5s, and the other, which I think is, and by the way, that seems to be perfectly written, and the other then is associated with the The T6s, and T6s that exist within NCD, all right? Of which there are not many, but we've done our work here, and so we're bringing that to our attention. And so here's a map, and I'm no expert here, that looks at this in some of the places. Where we have South Bay Shore Drive, which is the Commodore Trail, and then nearby some T6 and T3 properties. Now I understand that there are other ways for the potential future development of these T6 properties to gain extra height. But I would argue that we don't want it to be the Greenway program.

Two minutes.

So I'm suggesting here this recommendation to add the following sentence to the legislation that would remove the ability of height associated with the Greenway program to go. Thank you very much, sir.

Good evening. I just wanted, on behalf of the Commissioner, to enter one last thing into record, and that is to be clear, this proposed legislation would not be increasing density. There is no density increase as part of this legislation. And if you have any questions for planning, I'm sure they would love to elaborate.

So thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other comments? Thank you. I know.

Hi, Jeff Taylor, Centre Grove neighbor. I just wanted to express my support for the revised language that Mel just articulated. I think that's a great addition, and I am also speaking in support of that. And also, big thanks to everyone who was involved in making sure that NCDs were protected in the way currently written as well. So, thank you.

Good evening. Robert Crapsy, Center Grove resident. I think everybody is pretty supportive of trails in Miami and green spaces. I don't think anybody's going to argue there. I'm supportive of what the gentleman just said here in the language. My concern is with bonus sites in general, giving anybody the extra opportunities to add bonus site. I can attest firsthand the difference between five stories and eight when you're a single family home directly abutting one is a huge difference. It's not an immaterial amount. It's a major change. I live on Mary Street. My backyard is the well construction site. If anybody's interested in learning what it's like to be in a single family home directly abutting a soon to be 130 foot tall building, come find me afterwards. I've got some amazing videos and pictures for you of what reaching out and seeing a concrete plant is or People digging up my yard. There's been a five-foot hole in my yard for two and a half months. It's a big difference. So I just want you guys to be considerate of that as you guys go through this. A mile and a half or a half mile, sorry, is a pretty big area to be generating an extra three, four stories. So thanks.

Thank you. Any other questions?

Good evening, I'm Victor Dover. I'm a town planner and urban designer in private practice. My office is in Coral Gables, and I had the opportunity first as a volunteer with the Friends of the Ludham Trail and later as a consultant to work on plans for both the Ludham Trail and the Commodore Trail. I also get to work all over the country, and one of the things I've learned from my travels and my work in other places is that all great cities are defined by their parks and public spaces. The public realm between the buildings matters a whole lot more than the land uses inside the building or the planning by the numbers through the quantities on density, for example. It's the quality of those spaces in between. And this is designed to put to the forefront the focus on implementing in a meaningful way the green ways that I think would be an important part of that thing. I'll give you just one last thing to think about. I recently came upon some research that was done by health care professionals and public health researchers. And they said that if you are lucky enough to live within half a mile of a class one bikeway, that's the sort of space that we would have with Ludlam Trail and the underline, for example. If you're within half a mile, you are 15% more likely to get your recommended daily exercise. When I first heard that number, I thought, only 15%? That doesn't sound so big. And then I thought, wait a minute. If you're a public health advocate or official or an epidemiologist, a 15% improvement in the number of people who get their regular daily exercise is worth trillions upon trillions. both in dollars saved from health care, but also in quality of life. So anything we do with legislation like this to push forward the public realm and the quality of these spaces is well worth doing.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments? Seeing none, I will close public comment. I also close online public comment. I realize we never did that, and usually I'm the one who tells Adam to do that, and I forgot this time, so please close online public comment.

Thank you.

Yeah, and then at this time, I'll bring it to the board. And I believe, thank you for providing this to the clerk.

I'm just reading through this last bit of literature that was handed to us. I'm all for greenways and the more the better, but bonus site abutting NCDs and T3s and historical districts doesn't work for me. Now, I think that this text says that that is not possible. Is that correct, Steph? That you cannot neither a T5 nor a T6 will be granted additional height if it abuts T3, if it abuts an NCD, or I'm not sure that historical district is in that list, but certainly to start with the first two, would that be correct?

Yeah, so just to clarify, The NCDs, you currently can't do T5 bonus height, and that's not changing under this proposal. You currently can use public benefits for T6. Again, as you've seen in the graphics, there's a handful of T6 in the NCD3. So under the current code, you can use public benefits to achieve the bonus height and bonus FLR. So that's even without this legislation completely. Today, I have a T6 out there across the street. I'm allowed to increase my height. The only change this proposal provides is another way to achieve the bonus height by providing a greenway. Does that clear that up for you?

How is it that T6s are allowed bonus height abutting a T3?

Oh no, it's not abutting T3s. It's not allowed abutting T3s like anywhere in the city. including NCDs.

Yeah. It says here, however, there may be an unintended loophole. Are you familiar with that?

Let me take a look at the text again.

It seems to say, That T6.

Yeah, so this is the current code that you see highlighted, handed in front of you. The bonus is not available to properties in T6 zone if you abut a T3 zone. So you can't do it anyways if you're abutting T3. If you're in the Grove, if you're in anywhere in the city, you can't do it. And this legislation makes no change to that.

Thank you. I would, for staff again, or perhaps this should be, well, the applicant is staff. The Miami River Commission's recommendations here, there's three recommendations there. Do you have any issues with either of those three recommendations being added as being forwarded along to commission?

No, we didn't have any issues really I think the only one that's more of a like policy discussion for maybe the board and maybe for Commission was number two That was the one that required more input from the greenways on the expenditures of the cash Typically we don't want to add too much bureaucracy to these sorts of expenditures. They can really slow down the spending of these things. So it's not necessarily our recommendation to include them in the process. We're happy to discuss.

Would it be possible, theoretically, for one of the trails, like the Ludlum Trail, for example, to miss out and not get any cash because there's no requirement that it be spent there, and therefore that the available funds get spent everywhere else on a greenway, but one area doesn't get any at all because nothing states specifically that all of the Greenways should participate, should be able to benefit from those funds. Right now, it seems to be so vague, so open, that it's possible that a section of the Greenway where the developer had paid in might not get any of that cash because it was allocated in other areas. Is that possible?

Yeah, I think that's a good concern. But I also think that just having the word priority goes, honestly, a long way. So the money that's coming from, let's say, a new development along Ludlam has to be prioritized towards Ludlam. Does that make sense?

It certainly makes sense, but does it have teeth? How can you be sure that no segment will be unbenefited?

I mean, there's always a small chance, but prioritizing means we have to prioritize these areas. So I think it's probably the best we could do at this point to actually make sure the money even gets spent.

Does each part of the trail have its own committee? I'm sorry, what was that? It seems from the various groups that have been involved in this, that each section of the trail seems to have a committee, seems to have a group of people. So if they scream bloody murder that they were not getting the cash that they ought to, that would be hurt.

I have a feeling we will know. I don't know if necessarily we want to codify that platform in this process, but I get the feeling we will know.

And real quick, Paul Genovese, chief of urban design with the city. You know, with the two parts of this, you know, there's the mandatory piece when you're abutting. So that obviously those funds are directly contributing to that greenway that they're abutting. You know, this recommendation, you know, is more regarding for the ones within the half mile buffer.

Thank you.

Anyone else? No? Mila?

Please.

Thank you. Through the chair. So I appreciate that this legislation has been changed and tweaked to also give an opportunity to affordable housing as part of the public benefits, which wasn't here before. And I think that's paramount because we do want greenways. We won't deny that. Everybody wants them. It's an easy yes, right? But at the same time, we want to not forget that there is other priorities like affordable housing that we must also incentivize or do not distract incentives. So I'm really thankful to see that as part of the new proposal. I have one question regarding the T5O site within a half mile of a greenway abutting a T3 transit zone shall be considered through a process of exception. Is that correct?

I believe that's what's already the process currently, T5 abutting T3. To get any kind of bonus height for that, you have to go through the exception process. So we wanted to keep that just for consistency.

Okay, but that we have it doesn't mean that it's a great tool sometimes. So I'm questioning or asking if this carries over because a study has been made that there are some sites that you have identified that would benefit from continuing this or how that would affect. My experience is that T3 properties are the least ones to know about the processes of what happens here at the city because applicants or residents are not well versed with the processes that the city has. So they can miss it. And then this application goes through city commission. And the other issue that we have at the city is that we have a lack of transitional zoning in our map. And that is what it's bringing the applicants to comment upon, like, I have a property in Coconut Grove, and I'm a T3 or a T4, and I'm abutting a T6, because we have that lack. We identify that percolated, and now we're dealing with the effects of it. So since we're providing new legislation, is there any way that we can protect those single-family residences if they were to go through a similar process by not knowing that this is happening and not being able or even to have the economical resources to be able to contest because these exceptions are expensive if you want to challenge them. So my question is that just because it carries over, do we need it is my question.

Right. That's a good question. I think that might be part of a greater look into the T5 bonus height program when abutting T3. In the short term right now, maybe it's something we could look into more criteria or requirements to buffer from those T3 properties. But we're definitely open to looking into the impacts that this could have along those T5 sites abutting T3.

Thank you. My first question is for staff. And so in the resolution, this is a half mile. The business impact statement is a fourth of a mile. Just want to make sure it's a half of a mile.

The legislation precedes the business impact report. I think the business impact report got written during the first draft of the legislation. And so it did not get updated with the legislation. We'll make sure that it gets updated The business impact statement is a requirement for state that we have to do to meet state regulations. And so it's not actually required until second reading. So we can correct it.

Thank you. My next question is about the Commodore Trail. Why was it designated as one of the greenways? The reason why I ask, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be, but the other definition is it has to be 14 feet wide, and there are some areas that are not. And so I guess a follow-up question would be, what would be the process for designating other areas?

Well, we have the 14 feet as an average, and that's also part of the existing definition of greenways, not in Article 1, but in Article 4, Table 7, with the civic space types. But as for the process of trying to designate them, that's kind of why we included them in the definitions to make sure that these specified greenways are, one, going to be treated as frontages, and two, going to be able to use all the benefits that we're proposing.

Follow-up question, something that my neighbor said. Do you fear, so we talked about this would definitely increase housing price value. Do you fear that it might make certain areas less affordable?

No, and I appreciate the previous comment regarding affordable housing and the fact that we've limited this to a 50% contribution opens up that additional 50% to obtain the bonuses to be into the Affordable Housing Public Trust Fund. In addition, I want to comment that, and I'm sure, you know, a lot of the experts that are in the crowd tonight can vouch that providing these different mobility opportunities via the greenways is a big way to lower not just housing costs, but lifestyle costs. The ability to safely bike or walk along one of these greenways to get to your daily needs or to get to work and not needing to own an expensive car, insurance, all of those costs. So we kind of see it as something that you know, while maybe some property values will go up, it's providing an opportunity for your lifestyle costs to be reduced significantly.

Thank you. My next question is about stacking. Could you talk about your, what do you see, like, the maximum amount of, like, stacking? Are there any languages that say, like, we will not be allowed to combine these programs for additional, like...

So the way that public benefits works is outlined in Article 3. And so some of the programs you can stock, for example, you can stock 50% of your density from the historic preservation program, but you can't get any more than 50%. So then you have to find your other 50% either by buying it through the resiliency program, you can do the affordable housing TDR program or any other public benefit that's allowed and so it's kind of the same thing is that you can only get a certain amount of your height from either using this benefit and so then you would have to use one of your other programs to do that or to finish out to get any additional height that you would need so you can't like there's still a maximum so you still can't If you're in T6-8, you still can't go above 12 stories. You can only achieve so much height through each of the programs.

Thank you. And then my final question is regarding the actual fee, the rate. How did you guys come up with that? And are you open to actually making a recommendation to increase the amount?

So this was based on input we got from our industry and stakeholder group. This was a number that actually came from the underline. So based on the cash they had allotted for the entire underline, this is the number we got per square foot. Granted, it might be on the lower end, given the economies of scale, because they've obviously allotted a certain amount of money for the whole 10 miles, versus it might be a lot more expensive for an individual project to construct it. So that's why we're kind of starting at the 200. We're obviously open to updating it as necessary, based on other feedback, and as we continue to monitor the program.

Thank you, that concludes my question, and thank you for your thoughtful presentation. I think it's very important to have funding to support our green spaces. Since, I guess, early days in Tallahassee, I remember, like, lobbying for Lutland Trail, and so thank you for the legislation.

And just one final comment on that, you know, it's part of that, you know, cost per square foot that was developed through the group was, you know, also keeping in mind to make the program attractive so that some of these projects that have stalled for 25 plus years, we can actually get the ball rolling on them potentially.

So just a quick question. One more coming up, go ahead.

OK, so through the chair, I wanted to point out that for the group, right, that through affordable housing, you can also get parking benefits. So I think it's important that these two are coupled together, because as you increase the development capacity and the height, you also need to accommodate parking. So I think that mix is very important and can benefit. It's a symbiotic relationship. They're going to need both in order to really maximize what these opportunities through the Greenway provide. So I think that's very positive. I wanted to ask if there's any reason why T4s, Os, and Els were not included. I think they are part of the attainable mixed

mixed income they are allowed for some benefits but i don't know if if a study was made where this is not applicable yeah at this time we hadn't anticipated giving any kind of additional benefits to t4 um yeah we we're just going to focus on t5 and t6

Part of that also stems from looking at the map and the greenways. There were not a significant amount of T4 zones that abut the greenways. And we want to, you know, we can keep this in mind as we move forward. But you know, part of it's about trying to protect those lower transect zones.

Yeah, maybe within the half mile you'll bump into some, I don't know, but T4s do need help to be developed. So I think there's an opportunity there to tap into it.

In the coming months, we'll be presenting T4 amendments.

There's also no floor area for T4. There's no program to really give extra height to T4, except in certain areas like the city, like in Wynwood or Wynwood Norte. But yeah, we definitely plan to revisit those T4 transects in the near future.

Yes. Thank you.

Any other comments? All right, I'll just do two or three small, minor comments. The first is just a personal one. It's fun to see a commission come in when we have the Madam Mayor, when we have the commissioners come in and support their communities, which leads me to my second point. I believe that this is working legislation, right? We'll take a look at each item. I believe that the commission has been able to speak with the different interest groups, different stakeholders in this. And then my third point is this is good. This is actually a pretty good legislation. It's impressive and I was thrown back even though I did not do as much studying as I usually do, which helped me out because when I saw the commissioner, I was like, oh, I have to read it a little faster. So thank you for that. And then I'll move it into the board for any motions and or edits to the legislation as they see fit.

Motion to approve.

Second. Okay. Let's roll call.

Is that a motion to approve each item or would you like to take them separately to approve both items?

Board member Mario Bailey board member Eduardo Fernandez. Yes Vice chair Andres Aaron Lopez. Yes Board member Chris Collins. Yes, I Board Member Maria Paula de Crayolas? Yes. Board Member Paul Main?

I wonder if the movers of this would accept a friendly amendment. Item three on the Miami River Commission's list there, reinforcing that at no time would it be detrimental.

It doesn't have any impact on the marine industrial at all.

I imagine that if they put that on their list, they felt that it might.

At the meeting, maybe it wasn't communicated as well, but whoever included this condition just wanted us to double check, essentially, and so we did. So I can assure you it doesn't have any impact on marine industrial uses. The public benefits only impacts the D1 zones, not the D2 or three.

Thank you for that clarification on the basically on the basis that it is not as you stated not increasing density At all.

Oh, yes Correct board member Ilan met here board member Joshua Patek in motion passes Eight to zero.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

And that's your file ID and that's for both items file ID and

Thank you for your feedback and your support.

18680 and file ID 18679.

Thank you, have a great evening.

Thank you. All right, last item, right? Thank you.

The last item is mine.

Item number four, file ID 19333. a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board with attachments recommending approval to the Miami City Commission of an ordinance amending Chapter 35, Article 5 of Code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended city code title, Motor Vehicles and Traffic Coconut Grove Business District Design, District Wynwood, Wynwood Norte, and Downtown Flagler District Parking Improvement Trust Funds more particularly by establishing Section 35-241, titled Little Havana Parking Improvements Trust Fund, established Section 35-242, titled Funds Made Available, Financial Reports, Section 35-243, titled Scheduled of Fees and Charges of the Little Havana Parking Improvement Trust Fund, Section 35-244, titled Parking Waiver Certificates, Revocations, Refunds, to establish a little Havana downtown parking improvement trust fund containing severability clause and improving for an effective date.

Good evening, board members. Savannah Steiner, assistant director. Tonight I am presenting on the Little Havana Parking Trust Fund. You may be familiar, we already have several trust funds throughout the city. I think that our most popular one is in Wynwood. We have one in Wynwood Norte. We have one in the Design District. The coconut Grove one is actually very popular as well. So we have several of these throughout the city and the little the district three commissioner asked us to work on creating a parking trust fund and Kind of mirroring the ones that we already have I I have a presentation that I can go through. It did hand out earlier, before the meeting, a map. That is to replace exhibit A that was included in your packet. There was one small change. There were a few properties that got left out, and so it does change the boundaries, and so this would replace that one. And We'll try one more time to plug it back in and see if that works. Sometimes it just needs a minute. Here we go. So again, all this is doing is creating a parking trust fund for in Chapter 35 in Article 5. So there are already several parking trust funds that are created throughout the city. And so all this does is just simply create another one. It establishes that trust fund. It creates a payment in lieu for parking options. It funds district-wide parking and mobility improvements with those funds. And then it supports economic development while preserving the neighborhood character. So why exactly is this program needed? In the current challenges, many properties in Little Havana were developed before modern parking requirements. So it's very dense as well. They have limited opportunities to provide on-site parking as a result. They face redevelopment barriers due to parking requirements and the fact that it is dense and have small lots. And there's a needed flexibility to support adaptive reuse and reinvestment. There's a community opportunity to create a district-wide approach to create parking, mobility, streetscape improvements, and economic vitality as well through the program. So how it works, essentially the applicant can apply for a parking waiver, they pay the fee into the trust fund, they receive the parking waiver certificate, and then they can proceed without constructing some of their required or all of their required parking. On the map that is here, and then the map in the front of you is the same, and you can see that there's a parking trust fund one and parking trust fund two. For all intents and purposes of this piece of legislation, it does not matter. We are working on several things in the Little Havana, and so we're trying to make sure that as we build out all of those items, we are already taking into consideration some things. For example, we're looking at a neighborhood revitalization district and parking trust fund too may become pertinent at that point. But for the legislation that's in front of you today, they're all being treated the same. So parking improvements, it can facilitate parking facilities, parking lot acquisition, parking garage construction, and parking facility operations. It can also fund mobility improvements such as shuttle, trolley, or tram services, or metro mover services. Any type of transit supportive infrastructure, bus shelters, wayfinding and signage, pedestrian enhancements, and then any type of complete street improvements within the district, so within the Parking Trust Fund 1 and then Parking Trust Fund 2. The fee structure that we have set is half a space at $13,500. As you know, in Miami Code, you're required to have one and a half spots per unit. And so sometimes that's how we end up with our half spot. And so you can buy a half spot for $13,500 or a full parking spot for $27,000. And this is based off the most current, well, it's based off of the 2025 numbers that we have for building, the cost per building a spot in a parking garage or structured parking. Elon's looking at me because he doesn't believe that that's the figure. He thinks it's much higher. And I believe everybody that it is much higher, but this is the report that was given to me. And so these are the numbers I use. I have to remember, I think it was the parking authority. No, I think it was a statewide report maybe. I'm sorry, it was a statewide report, and it was by a consultant that does the report for all of the cities across the state. So there's also additional provisions, so it comes with a permanent waiver certificate, and then the certificate runs with the property, and then of course the fee is adjusted every five years for the CPI. So how exactly are the revenues used? So 90% of the revenue must be used on parking and mobility projects, infrastructure improvement, and transportation enhancement. there is a 10% that is reserved for reserves and then administrative costs. And so this really does allow for local reinvestment of these funds into Little Havana, specifically to increase mobility. Oversight and governance, like our other parking trust funds, it does have a committee. The committee and the whole fund is actually administered by the parking authority. However, there is a committee. District three would have appointees. The planning director, of course, is also a member. There are property owner representatives and business representatives. Their responsibility is reviewing funding priorities, recommending expenditures, Evaluating the transportation program and program and then promoting just general accountability and transparency. Accountability measures. There is an annual financial report that is required within the legislation. And so there is also review by an improvement committee. So that improvement committee has to review all allocations of the funds. And then there's also reporting to city commission as well. Administrative controls, the waivers, waivers are only issued after payment. So you can't get your waiver, you can't get your waiver and then pay, and then pay, and then, or you can get your waiver, construct, and then pay. You have to pay, get your waiver, then construct your project. There is compliance that's also, there's a revocation provisions for noncompliance. And then there's also some public oversight of the expenditures. Again, these are all exactly what's found in all of our other public trust funds for parking. There's not really any changes. And then, oops. So then, This does support our city goals of neighborhood planning, economic development, transportation improvement, and quality of life enhancement. And then the program vision is just a coordinated district strategy that supports redevelopment, improves mobility, strengthens local businesses, and then preserves the character of Little Havana. And so that is the Parking Trust Fund in a nutshell. I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Sure, you can make that recommendation.

Can you use your mic? We didn't hear you.

I was asking, can we change that number from 27,000 to 35,000?

Absolutely. And so would that make the half spot 17 and a half?

Leave it to our experts. Oh, showing no members in the public. I should probably say that for the record. So, all right.

Yes, Ms. Steiner. I'm always very curious, and maybe Ilan can illuminate the issue here. The purpose of this is to discourage cars from coming to Little Havana? No. Or, I mean, that could be one purpose. Another purpose could be to make construction more affordable in that area. where rents probably, you couldn't get the rents that you could in other areas, so maybe it's an affordability issue, and so it's helping any would-be developers in that area. And then you've got, lastly, You've got the seven voting members that are going to decide what to do with that money. Can they decide, let's not build any parking lots, any parking structures at all, and let's go full bore to discourage cars? I mean, is that, have any of these things sound familiar?

So they... I think that Little Havana is unique in that it is one of our densest parts of the city with smaller buildings, right? You hear planners say all the time there's a lot of density in small buildings. Little Havana is the example of that. And because they are smaller buildings with... with little to no parking to begin with, how do we begin to create a way that the whole district as a whole has shared parking? And so as new developments come in, we know, and I know you guys don't like to hear me say this, but I'm gonna say it again, Our parking ratio is a suburban parking ratio. It is 1.5, anything above 1.5 is considered a suburban parking ratio. So when you get into a mixed-use product, as per Miami 21, you are getting in, it ends up being 1.61 parking spots per, or 1.6 parking spots per unit. which is a suburban parking ratio. There's nothing suburban about Little Havana. So the idea is A, how do we get that number down to something that is below a suburban parking ratio? And also we know that when we create additional parking, we create something called induced demand. And so if there are lots of parking, more people will park and will create a more demand for parking, even though it doesn't necessarily exist. And we do that with our streets as well. So that's part of it. We also know that when we have higher turnover in our parking, we know that that's actually better for businesses. So that's why you see a lot of cities will actually go up in their metered parking or charge more for parking because it actually, people will go into a store, they'll buy what they'll need, or they'll go into a restaurant, they'll eat, and then maybe they'll leave or they'll move on to their next spot. They may move their car in between, but sometimes it will create a higher turnover in actual customers and clientele for businesses. So there's that. There's also the fact that free parking is expensive. It is expensive not only for our developers, and they pass that on to residents who live in their building, but it's also expensive for us as well. And so we have to figure out how we reduce that overall cost of free parking in general. Somebody has to pay for it. So it's kind of a way to do all of that. So in these scenarios, we can reduce the parking, we can provide a fund in an area that needs probably and will actually benefit more so than probably some of our other areas from shared parking, a way to create a fund to actually have that shared parking. One of the things that the fund does as well is also says, okay, let's say a developer is coming in and they are going to do a mixed-use product, they're going to build, but they can get funds from this to maybe overbuild their parking as well. So then you get maybe one project that overbuilds their parking, but it's then public parking, paid parking that becomes shared parking for the overall district. So it allows for those types of developments as well. I think that to your point of whether we're actually building parking garages or are we building alternative modes of transportation, I mean, ultimately we have to give people choices and that is how we ultimately reduce DEPENDENCY ON CARS IN GENERAL. SO WE KNOW THAT IF YOU BUILD BIKE LANE INFRASTRUCTURE, WE KNOW THAT THE BIKERS WILL COME. SAN DIEGO BUILT ONE. THEY BUILT A BIKE LANE. They increased their bike ridership by 50% once the lane was actually built and installed. So we know that as we provide more choices, people will begin to use those choices. I think also one of the things that we are starting to have to think about in the planning world is how we deal with Waymo in terms of... waymo so this the driverless cars so how now we have a whole fleet of cars and it won't just be waymo it's going to be other brands as well this is the next revolution and is it transit or not i'll the purists say that it's not transit but at the end of the day a lot of people use it so where are it will decrease the amount of dependency on cars, but then also it will create more of a need for parking storage, so to speak. And so there will be places like Little Havana where they can reduce the amount of parking they need, but then we're going to have warehouses in other parts of the city that are nothing but storing cars and charging cars overnight, right? So that's another part of the thing, one of the things that we're starting to look at and take into consideration.

Thank you very much.

That was probably a really long explanation. You guys got me on my hot topic, right?

Yeah, no, it was informative. Thank you.

And I would like to say that I think there was probably about a month ago, and a lot of you guys have my cell phone number, but two of you in the same night texted me articles about parking. And one was about increasing parking and the other was about reducing parking. And you'll hear me say this a lot too, but parking at the end of the day should be driven by the market. And that is what the two articles had, the point that the two articles were making is that at the end of the day, the market is gonna drive whether a certain developer wants more parking or less parking, or an area wants less parking or more parking as well. And the market will determine that. And so I think it's incumbent upon us to give the market ways to either reduce or increase that so that developers can respond to that demand appropriately.

I have a few questions. Does this apply to all of the zoning transects?

It does. Yes.

And I get concerned with the ability to have all of your required parking being able to be in the trust fund I just there's some of the inner pockets of little Havana just seem impossible to park already. Was there any consideration to just having it like up to a certain percentage like half or. half of the required parking can be in the trust or?

We mirrored this after the trusts that are already in place. And so this language is consistent with all of those other parking trust funds. I will say that because you are in this district, you are not eligible for any of the other parking reductions that are allowed under Miami 21. So you either pay, if you want to reduce your parking, you pay into this trust fund, and that is your only option. You cannot come and get an exception for 100%. You can't come and get the exception for 50%. You can't come and get the free exception for 30%. None of those are available to you. Your only option is to pay into this fund. So we do see, and I think getting back to the price tag of it, we do see that where in Coconut Grove, that price tag has been very low. And so a lot of people take advantage of that. Whereas in the design district, it's set at like 45,000. And so we don't have very many people to participate. So it is incumbent upon us to get that number correct.

And how many parking garages has in the other areas been built by the city?

I don't know that.

Is there any?

I don't know. I did not ask that question. I can't think of one. I don't have that. I know that sometimes this money also gets used for trolleys and other mobility enhancements. So I don't know. And I do know that I believe there was one that was discussed in the design district. And then ultimately the project never got built. Because it would have...

I just struggle to grasp in this area and how difficult it would be to assemble that many properties, to build a garage, that this money will actually end up going to parking anywhere in Little Havana. I see it being the other different sorts of transportation modalities that you noted.

I think that you're probably less likely to see like a four-story public parking garage, right, which I think sometimes you see in other cities where it takes up a half a block or a full block, right, or 200 by 200 block space. I think you're probably less likely to see that. I think that you are probably more likely to see the money used for enhanced mobility, so trolleys, better sidewalk connections, I believe the state's actually already putting in a bike lane, or they've been working on it for a while, so that's still coming for the district. I think probably what you're going to see is a partnership between developers and the parking trust fund to have developers, when possible, overbuild their parking and then provide public parking in that overbuilt space. I see. So I think you remember MIMO Bay here, which is in a completely different district, but they were over parking by a certain amount and then opening that up and giving three hours free for the public. And so I think those are the types of things that you'll end up seeing this money used for.

Okay, thank you.

I will look forward to getting your perspective on Waymo and Tesla, Robotaxi, and all that stuff that's coming. But thank you for the presentation.

You're welcome. We're looking at it. I don't know that we have any solutions yet.

okay thank you savannah for the presentation um i appreciate this legislation it's um around where i live so it's um familiar to the needs um i think that one of the issues or like one of the things that i would create awareness of is the i don't think like when we're looking at coconut grove which is similar in some situations because it's an older district with small parcels built out, that it's not a lack of parking, but it's the affordability of parking that we see. So I always talk about I like to create that awareness. We're a family and we cannot bike. I mean, look at the weather for this past week. I cannot bike my kids to school in Coral Gables and South Miami. It's not logistically possible. So I think that we have to decide as a city who You know, which customers do we want to retain? Because we see that there's a number of families that are opting out and moving to a different state or a different city because they can't afford their housing, their rent, or the schools are a matter of choice as well. So they choose to relocate. So do we want to create a city for tourists that come and eat an ice cream and leave, or we want to create a city that caters to residents and families that need the car to move a family distances where the public transportation is not there yet? So we had a trail and a presentation today, which is great, more recreational so than not, or maybe the trails can be used to move children to certain schools in the future. I don't see that yet. And it scares me to think that the vision, and I understand Waymo, and we are a family, we have one car, and my husband, he uses public transportation, and he uses... ride share and whatnot. So we have it at home as well. It's not that we are aliens, but it depends on what the prototype that you're catering to is what they need. So I'm concerned if the city has the vision that we wanna raise the price of a parking spot or the parking fee And when I want to go to a yoga class in the Grove, I have to pay, if I don't find parking quickly, I have to pay $20 an hour to park and go to a yoga class. I think that's ridiculous. And I cannot go on public transportation because if I start to do that, I can only do two things in a day or three things in a day. I need to do 12, 15, I need to wear many hats. So in order for it to be effective and to be able to do everything that I need to do, then there are certain costs attached. And they hurt families. So I want to provide that perspective. Yes.

Sure. I mean, I think everything you said kind of works with everything that I've said, right? Like we, I mean, I think you hear me, like we can't put stigma on housing. We can't put stigma on transportation. We have to de-stigmatize all of it. We all need different housing. We all need different transportation for different points in our life. And what works for you now may not work for you in 10 years, even with a family, right? As your children age or maybe you end up with smaller children again, we don't know. And so the whole point is to make sure that we're providing choice, that we're allowing the market to cater to what is being desired by the market. and that we're destigmatizing all of those choices as well, because we all need different things at different points in our life. I think additionally, To your point of the cost, we know that typically you're supposed to spend 30% of your budget on housing and then 10% on transportation. We know that in Miami that typically ends up being, in a lot of places, 50% on housing and 20% on transportation. And frankly, that is not, that's not, nobody can sustain that. That's unsustainable, right? So we have to look at different ways to be able to either get housing costs down or different transportation or allow people to have a combination of that that makes it work. So, yeah, you can spend 50% of your salary on housing if you're only spending 50%. 2% or 3% on transportation. So maybe the parking trust fund goes toward providing a trolley system, and that trolley system now lowers your transportation cost from that 20% down to that 2% or 3%. And so you are able to spend 50% on your housing. Or maybe it's a different combination. But we have to have the tools and the resources to be able to figure out what that combination is and to allow people to make their own combination work.

I have a follow-up. Is there a reason I didn't see 8th Street as part of any of the trust funds?

So this was the map that the commission district asked us to look at, and it corresponds with the forthcoming neighborhood revitalization district, as well as, I believe, some of the work that they're doing through the bid. They're also hopeful to set up a business improvement district, and so I think there is more to come. This is kind of just the first iteration of what you're seeing at the other pieces. There'll be more in July.

So you're saying that 8th Street is going to be covered under a different program?

Right, again, we're looking at a neighborhood revitalization district and business improvement district as well for the district. So my guess is that also what will happen as those come online or we bring that legislation to create those types of districts in front of you, you will see amendments to this.

Yeah, and one last thing. I think that in these type of neighborhoods, peppering in lots like they do in Miami Beach where you have 10, 12 parking spaces, That could work. Maybe we don't need a parking garage that is four stories in this type of neighborhood or area. But instead, if these areas are identified, and I think the city of Miami has a lot of land that they could also even use and look into how... They can service.

And so this fund would allow, so for example, if it was already owned by the city, then maybe they could improvement for parking only, or it would allow for the land acquisition of parking and parking lots. So it does allow for all of that.

First, thank you for the thoughtful presentation. Learned a lot. Listen to my colleague. I came up with a couple, I guess, concerns. The first is, because I know how busy that area is, is the staff open to doing, I guess, two things. One, like, guarantee, like, just a minimum percent of actual parking space has to be created for each development. And the second thing, like, mandating that it could be a small percent that Actually have to go to like crane parking space like whether it's a lot or something like 25% of a trust fund have to go Okay, I think you can definitely make those recommendations.

I would recommend maybe like You can wave up to 70% of the parking or a development and then maybe 75% whatever that number tends to work and then maybe 25% must be used for to create additional parking and

And you said 35,000, correct? Perfect, okay.

Thank you, those are mine.

Thank you.

Excellent, all right. Clearly no one in the public. I'll take motions. I know there's amendments to be added to those motions, so.

Motion to approve that 75% must be, 75%, wait, sorry. For the trust fund, 25% has to be used to create parking spaces. 75% of the development, wait, sorry. Oh, 70, okay, so only, wait, they can only, sorry.

A maximum of 30% can be waived.

Yeah, only 30%, minimum, sorry. And 35,000 for the parking space. Okay, I got it. That was very convoluted.

Sorry. So 25% of the funds must be spent on additional parking spots within the district. Correct.

It must have 30%.

A maximum of 70% can be waived. A minimum of 30% of the parking spots must be provided. And then a recommendation to increase the amount to $35,000 for a full space and $17,500 for a half space. So moved.

Any seconds? I'll second. Super. Roll call, please.

Board Member Mario Bailey?

Yes.

Board Member Paul Main?

Yes.

Vice Chair Andres Lopez?

Yes.

Board Member Chris Collins?

Yes.

Board member, Maria Paula DeCarolis. Yes. Board member, Eduardo J. Fernandez. Yes. Board member, Elon Metier. Yes. Board member, Joshua Patikin. Yes. Motion passes eight to zero.

All right. Thank you. And then point of personal privilege. Thank you, guys. It's been fun being chair. Good job, everyone. Thank you.

I'll take a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second. Super.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.