Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board - Regular Meeting

Any person with a lobbyist pursuant to Chapter 2, Article 6 of the City Code must register with the City Clerk and comply with related city requirements for lobbyists. Before appearing before the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board, a person may not lobby a city official, board member, or staff member until registering. A copy of the code section by lobbyists is available in the City Clerk's office and online on municode.com. The agenda for this meeting and materials for the items on the agenda were published and made available to the board in advance of the meeting. The materials are also available online at miamigov.com. Please silence all cell phones and other noise-making devices. Any person with disability requiring assistance, auxiliary aids, or services for this meeting may notify the board's liaison. Any person may be heard by the board through the chair and pursuant to the published notice for not more than two minutes on any proposition before the board, unless modified by the chair. When addressing the board, a member of the parliament first state his or her name, address, and what item will be spoken about. When the board takes action or votes on any proposition, it shall do so by a roll call vote to be recorded and included in the record. Please note that board members may have generally been briefed by city staff on items on today's agenda. The meeting can be viewed live on Miami TV. and on channel 77. In addition to the comments provided here at City Hall, the public may submit comments via the city's online comment form. The comments submitted through the comment form, if any, were distributed to the board members and city administration throughout the day so that the board can consider prior to taking any action. Additional online comment form will remain open during the meeting to accept comments and distribute to the board members up until the chairperson closes public comment. All comments received will be included in the public record of the meeting. These public comment These public comment options established and provided for this meeting comply with Section 286.0114 of the floor statutes. Members, are you comfortable with all the notes provisioned set forth in these uniform rules or procedures we have established for this meeting?

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, we're going to rise for a moment of silence at the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag...

For all those who will be testifying, please rise and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly affirm the testimony you will give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you, please be seated.

Sorry, real quick. Is anybody else that didn't stand up plan on speaking today?

Okay, thanks. Go ahead. Thank you. Roll call, Ms. Lynette Cardoche. Mr. Ilan Metier. Present. Mr. Paul Main.

Here.

Mr. Manuel Vidillo. Mr. Eduardo J. Fernandez.

Here.

Mrs. Paula De Carolis. Mr. Mario J. Bailey.

Present.

Mr. Joshua Petikin. Present. Mr. Andres R. Lopez.

Present.

Mr. Adam Gersten?

Present.

Mr. Chris Collins?

Present.

Mr. Arthur Parasoff? We have Chrome. And Chair, we are requesting, do you approve for full voting rights for our alternate board member, Ardueto J. Fernandez?

Yes.

Thank you.

And were there any requests for absence waivers?

Yes, Chair. We have a request for absent waiver for Board Member Manuel Vidillo and Board Member Paula DeCarolis.

Motion to approve.

Okay. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Please just note, if any Board Members did not request, just want to mark that down. Thank you. Are there any deferrals?

Yes. They're item one, which is a revocation of a certificate of use. I believe the applicant is in the final stages of correcting everything, and so they asked for an indefinite deferral.

Okay. Anybody have anything to say about that? 1401 Southwest 17th Avenue. Hi. Hey.

I don't know where he is. Hi, my name is Tamara Allen-Frost. I'm the zoning administrator. Oh, there he is. He'll speak on why we're requesting an indefinite deferral. He's really close to the finish line trying to work with unsafe structure to finalize his permits. I know how it goes.

Good afternoon. Just for the record, Nicholas Rodriguez on behalf of the property owner. As staff stated, we're really hoping to wrap up the permitting and close out the unsafe structure violation, which would make the revocation appeal moot, and we would just take our CU. The reason it's important, this property is a grandfathered legal non-conforming use, so if we lose the CU, it's gone forever, and the structure then has no use going forward. Understood.

Okay, and how far off, just so the board knows, how long do you think it'll take for you guys to wrap up?

I'm hoping, really hoping that before the end of the year, the permit is issued and everything inspected and closed.

Okay, but like three to six months?

Yeah, three to six months. Okay.

All right, does the board have any questions, or we want to go ahead and make a motion?

Make a motion to approve.

Second. Let's do a roll call.

And that was to approve the indefinite deferral.

Indefinite deferral, yeah.

Board Member Elon Metier.

Yes.

Board Member Mario Bailey.

Yes.

Board Member Lynette Cardoche. Yes. Board Member Paul Main.

Yes.

Board Member Mr. Eduardo J. Fernandez. Yes. Board Member Mr. Joshua Patikin. Yes. Vice Chair, Mr. Andres R. Lopez. Yes. Chair, Mr. Adam Gersten.

Yes.

Board Member, Chris Collins. Yes. Motion passes 9-0 for an indefinite deferral. And the next meeting will be in March 2027. Thanks.

Thank you all very much. Have a good night. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I think there's a minute. I think there are some minutes to approve. Oh, I forgot. Yeah. I'll move to approve the... The July 17 minutes. Oh, wow. July 15 minutes over there.

Okay. So there's a motion. Is there a second to approve the minutes? Sorry, I forgot. Second.

Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay. I'm sorry, Chair, but there's no minutes on the agenda to be approved.

Oh, okay. I don't know where Mr. Manwick is.

Just a question. If they're published... I don't think they were published before It doesn't matter, but I'm just I saw that they were published so and I don't remember approving them before but They're not on this agenda, sir.

Okay. All right. Well moving on Do we want to work on this calendar or do we do we want to put that off or can we get through it quickly?

That is up to the board the calendar, this is the calendar for the upcoming calendar year. If you would like to study it and make suggestions next meeting, you can, or study it during the course of the meeting. That is up to you.

Yeah, I'm going to just say we wait a meeting just so that we can all review and make sure that we're eliminating any conflicts because we had a problem this year, so we want to make sure we avoid that. Okay, so do we need to, we just, if we defer, do you have to?

If you can defer it to next meeting, that would be fantastic. And you just do a voice vote.

Move to defer. Before you defer, two quick things I want to check. President's Day, date, and the spelling of Juneteenth, that's all.

President's Day, and what was the other one?

Actual date, and just Juneteenth spelling, that's all.

Juneteenth should be on there, because it's a.

The spelling, that's all.

Oh, okay, got it.

Move to defer to the next meeting.

Is there a second? Second. Great. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Number three. Oh, you know what? Actually, let's do number four. Or is four part of it? No. No.

Number three?

No.

Did you want to take the rezoning for Little Havana first?

Yeah, I think, how many of you are here for the Little Havana rezoning? Yeah, I definitely would like to actually do that.

I believe that's eight and nine.

Sorry, okay, right.

Chair, you would like for me to read both titles into the record?

I think that'd be great, yeah, thanks.

Just one second, Chair, because the titles are very lengthy, so excuse me in advance. Item number eight, file ID 19682, a resolution of the Miami Planning and Zoning and Appeal Board with attachments recommending approval of an ordinance of the City of Miami Commission amending ordinance number 10544 as amended the future land use map of Miami comprehensive neighborhood plan pursuant to the expedited state review process subject to the section 163.3184 Florida statutes by changing the future land use designation from medium density restricted commercial to restricted commercial of the average described heron of real properties at 909 Northwest 5th Street, 936 Northwest 6th Street, 430, 442, 490, 500, and 899 Northwest South River Drive by changing the future land use of designation from medium density restricted commercial to restricted commercial of their acreage described heron of the real properties at 437 and 445 Southwest 2nd Street and 118 Southwest South River Drive by changing the future land use designation from the medium-density multifamily residential to restricted commercial of the acreage described herring of the real properties at 400, 420, 428, 458, 453, and 459 Southwest 2nd Street, 426, 430, 437, 444, 445, 450, 451, and 479th Southwest 3rd Street, 224, 236, 242, 300, 318, 408, 427, 435, 443, 490, 501, 525, 530, and 541 Southwest 4th Avenue, 380, 401, 406, 408, 411, 421, 428, 431, 441, 444, 445, 450, 451, 458, 459, and 467 Southwest 4th Street, 111, 129, 137, 209, 219, 303, 311, 315, 329, 337, 421, 427, 435, 519, 527, 543, and 621 Southwest 5th Avenue, 369, 400, 401, 405, 415, 425, 435, 445, 450, 459, 469, 469, and 470 Southwest 5th Street, and 401, 404, 421, 427, 428, 433, 434, 444, 445, 451, 452, 458-461-471 and 498 Southwest 6th Street by changing the future land use of designation medium destiny-stricted commercial to restricted commercial of the acreage. Hold on. Describe hearing of the realty property 1057 Southwest 2nd Street, 626 and 644 Southwest 4th Avenue, 625, 658, 711, 718, and 719 Southwest 5th Avenue, 630, 675, 680, and 701 Southwest 7th Avenue, 635 and 642 Southwest 7th Court, 413, 421, 424, 427, 439, 444, 446, 453, 460, 461, 467, 470, 475, 500, 510, 511, 520, 521, 526, 531, 536, 542, 545, 567, 590, 599, 601, 611, 629, 649, 661, 671, 676-755-811, 834, 835, 840, 850, 858, 900, 915, 918, 921, 922, 923, 930, 937, 938, 945, 950, 951, 960, 961, 970, 980, 991, 1002, 1019, 1020, 1027, 1030, 1036, 1037, 1040, 1047, 1050, 1052, 1121, 1131, 1137, 1145, and 1153 Southwest 7th Street, 601, 630, 636, and 640 Southwest 8th Avenue, 601 and 1177 Southwest H Street, 628, 677 and 777 Southwest 9th Avenue, 626, 629, 634, 637, 642, 711, 721, 740, 746 Southwest 10th Avenue, 627, 628, 633, 634, 640, 700, 717 and 718 Southwest 11th Avenue, By changing the future land use designation from the low-density multifamily residence to the medium-density multifamily residence to the acreage described parent of real property at 828, 834, and 844 Southwest 8th Avenue, 829, 830, 833, 840, and 844 Southwest 8th Court, 814, 829, 835, 836, and 840 Southwest 9th Avenue, 831 and 834 Southwest. Ninth Court, 849, 891, 921, 929, 935, 937, 939, 951, 961, 975, 977, 985, 1011, 1017, 1027, 1037, 1041, 1119, 1127, 1131, 1141, and 1153 Southwest 9th Street. 826, 827, 834, 835, and 845 Southwest 10th Avenue, 827, 830, 836, 844, and 847 Southwest 11th Avenue by changing the future land use designation from the low density restricted commercial to the medium density restricted commercial of the acreage described inherent of the real property at 824 Southwest 9th Court by changing the future land use designation from the medium density multifamily residence to restricted commercial of the acreage described herein of real property at 1727, 1737, 1751, 1761, 1771, 1779, 1780, 1784, 1787, 1788, 1800, 1813, 1821, 1825, 1837, 1845, 1850, 1853, 1871, 1873, 1875, 1877, 1901, 1916, 1920, 1913, 1936, 1942, 1945, 1954, 1957, 1962, 1965, 1972, 2000, 2025, 2036, 2041, 2043, 2043, 2045, 2051, 2059, 2105, 2107, 2111, 2131, 2136, 2137, 2140, 2145, 2146, 2147, 2152, and 2157 Southwest 7th Street, 1747, and 1895 Southwest 8th Street. 624, 625, and 636 Southwest 18th Avenue, 635 Southwest 19th Avenue, and 627, 638, 707, and 1711 Southwest 21 Avenue by changing the future land use of designation from the low-density restricted commercial to restrict commercial of the acreage described in the Heron Real property at 767 and 797 Southwest 2nd Street St. 769 Southwest 3rd Street, 767, 770, 7075, and 7076 Southwest 5th Street, 801 and 822 Southwest 6th Street, and 127, 142, 200, 218, 240, 409, 427, 500, 506, 515, 520, 531, 543, 600, and 620 Southwest 8th Avenue, Miami, Florida, as more particularly described in the attached and incorporated exhibit A, making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date.

We have one more. We're only halfway there. So that was the future land use map amendment. We would like to go ahead and read the rezoning in as well so that we can hear both at the same time as they are connected.

Okay. And for the record, board member Arthur Peresoff is present. Okay. Item number nine, file ID-19683, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board with attachments recommending approval of an ordinance of the Miami City Commission amending the zoning atlas of the ordinance number 13114, the zoning ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended Miami 21 Code by changing the zoning clarification from T5L, Urban Center Transit Zone, limited to the T683, That's 0 urban core transit zone open for the properties journey located at 626 644 Southwest 4th Avenue and 625 658 6711 718 719 Southwest 5th Avenue and 413 423 424 427 439 444 half. Or for 6 or 53 for 64 61 or 67 for 74 77. 500-510-511-520-521-526-531-536-542-553-567-590-599-601-610-611-629-641-661-671-678-755-811-834-835-852-855-860-900-915-918-921- 922, 923, 930, 937, 938, 945, 950, 951, 957, 960, 970, 980, 991, 996, 1013, 1019, 1020, 1027, 1030, 1036, 1039, 1040, 1047, 1050, 1052, 1057, 1121, 1129, 1137, 1145, 1153, Southwest 7th Street and 630, 675, 680, 701, 1010 Southwest 7th Avenue and 635, 643 Southwest 7th Court and 1167 Southwest 8th Street and 601, 632, 638, 640 Southwest 8th Avenue and 627, 677 Southwest 9th Avenue and 626, 629, 634, 637, 637, 721, 740, 746 Southwest 10th Avenue and 627, 628, 633, 636, 642, 700, 721 Southwest 11th Avenue. And by changing the zoning clarification from the T4L General Urban Transit Zone Limited to 75L Urban Center Transit Zone Limited. For the properties generally located at 6, 7, 6, 7, 7, 7, 9, 7 Southwest 2nd Street and 7, 6, 9 Southwest 3rd Street, 7, 6, 7, 7, 7, 0, 7, 7, 5, 7, 7, 6, 8, 16 Southwest 5th Street, and 817, 822 Southwest 6th Street, and 127, 142, 200, 218, 236, 409, 427, 506, 520, 521, 533, 543, 600, 620 Southwest 8th Avenue, and by changing the zoning clarification from the T4R, journey urban transit zone restricted to T50, Urban Center Transit Zone open for the properties generally located at 402, 420, 428, 552, 452, 453, 459, 498 Southwest 2nd Street and 426, 436, 437, 444, 445, 450, 451, 468, 479 Southwest 3rd Street and 4, 380, 403, 406, 408, 415, 425, 428, 433, 441, 444, 445, 450, 451, 458, 459, 467, half Southwest 4th Street. and 224, 236, 242, 300, 318, 418, 427, 335, 443, 490, 500, 521, 525, 530, 541, Southwest 4th Avenue, and 111, 129, 137, 219, 311, 312, 15, 329, 337, 421, 427, 435, 519, half, 527, 541, 605, 621, Southwest Fifth Avenue, and 371, 401, 405, 415, 421, 435, 445, 450, 455, 459, 469, 470, Southwest Fifth Street and 401, 420, 421, 427, 428, 434, 435, 444, 446, 451, 454, 458, 461, 471 Southwest 6th Street and by changing the zoning clarification from T50 Urban Center Transit Zone open to the T680 Urban Core Transit Zone open for the properties generally located at 438 Southwest 1st Street and 445 Southwest 2nd Street and 124 Southwest South River Drive. And by changing the zoning clarification from T4O, General Urban Transit Zone Open to T5O, Urban Center Transit Zone Open for the properties generally located at 832 Southwest 12th Avenue. And by changing the zoning clarification from T4L, generally urban transit zone, limited to T5O, urban center transit zone, open for the properties generally located at 824 Southwest 9th Court and by changing the zoning clarification from T4R, generally urban transit zone, restricted to... T5R urban sector transit zone restricted for the properties generally located at 828-834-HALF, 844 Southwest 8th Avenue and 829, 830, 833, 840, 844 Southwest 8th Court and 14 Southwest 8th Street and 814, 829, 836, 837, 840 Southwest 9th Street and 829, 831, 834 Southwest 9th Court and 849, 893, 921, 929, 933, 937, 939, 951, 963, 975, 977, 985, half, 1019, 1027, 1039, 1043, 1119, 1125, 1133, 1141, 1153, 1165, 1185, 1501, 15, 15, 15, 21, 15, 25, 15, 35, 16, 21, 16, 27, 16, 31, 16, 27, 16, 31, 16, 37, 16, 45, 16, 53, 16, 16, 16, 67, 16, 75, 16, 83, 16, 97, Southwest 9th Street and 826, 827, 834, 835, 842, 845 Southwest 10th Avenue, and 829, 830, 838, 844, 845 Southwest 11th Avenue, and 837, 844, 910 Southwest 12th Avenue, and 824, 825, 834, 835, 845, 850, 855 Southwest 12th Court, and 822, 825, 834, 835, 843, 844, 853, 854 Southwest 13th Avenue, and 817, 827, 834, 835, 842, 850, 903 Southwest 13th Court and 827, 833, 842, 843, 850, 851 Southwest 14th Avenue and 1901, 909 Southwest 15th Avenue and 820 Southwest 16th Avenue and by changing the zoning clarification from T5L Urban Center Transit Zone Limited to T680 Urban Core Transit Zone open for the properties generally located at 1228, 1238, 1234, 12 Southwest 2nd Street, 1227, and 1235 Southwest 3rd Street, 626 and 644 Southwest 4th Avenue, 1158, 1217, 1228, 1229, and 1238 Southwest 4th Street, 627, No, 625, 658, 711, 718, and 719 Southwest Fifth Avenue, 1160, 1220, 1234, and 1239 Southwest Fifth Street, 1156, 1162. 1225, 1232, 1235, 1658, and 1724 Southwest 6th Street, 630, 675, 680, 701, and 1010 Southwest 7th Avenue, 635 and 643 Southwest 7th Court, 413, 423, 424, 427, 433, 9, 444, 446, 453, 460, 461, 467, 470, 477, 500, 510, 511, 520, 521, 526, 531, 536, 542, 553, 567, 590, 559, 601, 610, 611, 629, 641, 661, 671, 678, 775, 811, 834, 834, 5, 852, 855, 860, 900, 915, 918, 921, 922, 923, 939, 37, 938, 945, 955, 951, 957, 960, 970, 980, 991, 996, 1013, 1019, 1020, 1027, 1030, 1036, 1039, 1040, 1047, 1050, 1052, 1057, 1121, 1129, 1137, 1145, 1153, 1212, 1225, 1227, 12... 35, 1236, 1240, 1241, 1250, 1251, 1258, 1301, 1302, 1318, 1321, 1322, 1325, 1334, 1341, 1344, 1345, 1352, 1355, 1361, 1362, 1366, 1369, 1375, 1418, 1412, 1426, 1429, 1436, 1437, 1446, 1447, 1450, 1453, 1460, 1461, 1469, 1470, 1475, 1501, 1510, 1520, 1521, 1529, 1530, 1535, 1540, 1545, 1550, 1552, 1553, 1556, 1561, 1568, 1621, 1628, 1631, 1632, 1641, 1642, 1645, 1646, 1648, 1699, 1723, 1730 and 1760 Southwest 7th Street, 601, 632, 638 and 640 Southwest 8th Avenue, 1167 Southwest 8th Avenue, 628 and 677 Southwest 9th Avenue, 626, 629, 634, 637, 621, 640 and 746 Southwest 10th Avenue, 627, 628, 633, 636, 642, 700, and 721 Southwest 11th Avenue, 201, 212, 300, 311, 330, 335, 403, 407, 420, 425, 426, 434, 435, 502, 521, 527, 536, 542, 615, 616, 619, 629, 641, and 710 Southwest 12th Avenue. 620, 632, 701, 705, 710, and 718 Southwest 13th Avenue. 624, 629, 636, 644, 717, and 726 Southwest 14th Avenue, 626, 627, 631, 711, 717 Southwest 15th Avenue, 628, 635, 643, 650, and 711 Southwest 15th. 16th Avenue, 602, 614, 618, 630, 700, and 709 Southwest 17th Avenue. And by changing the zoning clarification, T4R, Generally Urban Transit Zone. Restricted to T5O urban center transit zone open for the properties generally located at 1727, 1737, 1751, 1761, 1771, 1779, 1787, 1813, 1821, 1835, 1837, 1847, 1853, 1871, 1873, 1875, 1881, 1933, 1945, 1957, 1963, 2035, 2041, 2043, 2049, 2051, 2055, 2105, 2107, 2111, 2131, 2137, 2145, 2147, and 2157, Southwest 7th Street, And 624, 625, 636 Southwest 18th Avenue and 632, 635 Southwest 19th Avenue and 627, 638 Southwest 21 Avenue. And by changing the zoning clarification from T4L General Urban Transit Zone Limited to T5O Urban Center. transit zone open for the properties generally located at 1780, 1784, 1788, 1810, 1850, 1960, 1920, 1936, 1942, 1954, 1962, 1972, 2000, 2036, 2046, 2088, 2138, 2144, 2146, 2154, Southwest 7th Street, and 1753, 1850, 97 Southwest 8th Street and 715 Southwest 21 Avenue and by changing the zoning clarification T50 Urban center transit zone open to the t680 urban core transit zone open for the properties generally located at 21 24 21 26 21 32 southwest 7th street and 12 2101 southwest 8th street by changing the zoning clarification from t5l urban sector transit zone limited to t6al urban core transit zone limited to the properties generally located at 400-420-442-490 Northwest South River Drive and 899 Southwest 4th Street and by changing the zoning clarification from T5-0 urban sector transit zone open to T6-8-0 urban core transit zone open for the properties generally located at 500 Northwest Southwest Drive and by changing the zoning clarification from T5-L urban center transit zone limited to T6AL, urban core transit zone limited for the properties generally located at 909 Northwest 5th Street and 936 Northwest 6th Street, Miami, Florida, collectively the property as more particularly described in the attached and incorporated Exhibit A, making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date.

Thank you. Good evening. Amber Forte with the City of Miami Planning Department here to present the Future Land Use Map Amendment and a Rezone Application, PZ2620890 and PZ2620891 for the properties located at 644 Southwest 4th Avenue, which are linked to all the properties listed.

So I do want to talk about what Ryan passed out to you, which is a substitution. We did post with the agenda a proposed memo stating that we would update all of the documents at this meeting. And so what you have is updated exhibits and legislation. And that is all based on a community meeting that was held on August 25th. We had an outreach meeting at Jose Marti Park. About 75 people were in attendance for that meeting. Our main takeaways from that meeting during comment and question period was that we were encroaching too close to the single family areas to the south. of Cuyahoga on 9th Street. So we have significantly, and what you'll see in your maps that were given, handed out, as well as in the maps that Amber will present, that we have significantly reduced the rezoning in that area. In fact, we've almost removed all the properties. There are still a few that remain, but that is where we're able, the only portion that remains is where we're able to complete the transect, so you'll see a T6, T5, T4, T3, and you'll see that complete transect now. The other takeaway that we had is that we really needed to explore an overlay or some type of overlay district. We have engaged a consultant to begin preparing a neighborhood revitalization district, which is an overlay tool that does things like incorporate public benefits. And as part of that, we'll also have design guidelines as well for the area. So those things are getting incorporated. And then the commissioner has continued to do some public outreach after this meeting and has expressed support for conservation districts in the single family neighborhoods to the south, such as Shenandoah and the roads. And of course the planning department is happy to support those efforts as well. The other thing that we did here is about the pace of the project and as well as doing continued outreach. As I said, the commissioner has already continued doing outreach. I believe he met with the Rhodes Neighborhood Association. And outreach will continue. So this is a lengthy process that will occur over the next several months, and this is just one piece. As we begin to put together the pieces of the neighborhood revitalization districts, design guidelines, and any other overlay tools that will come out of those efforts, There will be continued outreach. We also hope to do outreach before this goes to city commission in October and then again in November as well. Sorry, it would go to second reading in December. There is a lengthy state review process to this because of the amount of acreage that we're changing to the future land use plan. And so we need approximately... well, we really need at least 60 days to have that reviewed by the state. They only get 30, but by the time we submit to them, they review, they submit back to us. If they ask any questions or anything like that, it can easily be 60 days or even further. And so kind of that's why we would like to continue moving this forward, but there will be continued outreach as we build the neighborhood revitalization district And as all of the items kind of come together at the end and culminate at city commission. So I'm going to let Amber take it away. I'm sorry. And explain the substitutions in the, in the, in the applications. Yes.

Okay. You know, before that really quick. To a point you made, the NCD, the idea of there being NCDs, would those be addressed prior to, I mean, is that going to be at all discussed and brought out prior to commission? Like, in other words, we're rushing to this. This just appeared and we're doing this. But now we're hearing, oh, well, you know, the commissioner is open to NCDs and things like that, which I think are going to be really significantly important to the people that are here today. So, you know, I think speeding this through without having it, you know, and it just being a promise to discuss, I'm sure everyone would want to know how you see it kind of playing out. Because you just kind of set that up and I... before we have everyone start coming up and talking about it, because if anyone else heard you say that, they may want to know.

Sure. So, I mean, Shenandoah and the roads, it's my understanding, have expressed wanting to have some type of neighborhood conservation district for years. And so once the community comes together in support of that, we're happy to help move that process forward. But until we have... a true community support for that that's beyond just expressed interest, I can't move a conservation district forward. So we're really, while we are supportive and we're happy to come out and make presentations and to help guide the process, I really need the community to come together in that conservation district effort. Conservation districts as well as historic districts really, truly only are successful if they are driven by the community and the property owners.

Sure. Thanks for that. And on one other housekeeping, there are a lot of properties on here, and I just want to make sure that nobody on the board has any disclosures to make about any ownership stake in anything being discussed today. Any of these addresses belong to any projects anybody's working on? Mr. Parasov, none.

So first going to the flume is requesting multiple changes to the future land use map designation for those properties generally located at 644 Southwest 4th Avenue, as well as the rezone requesting multiple changes to the Miami 21 codes Atlas for 466 properties generally located at 644 Southwest 4th Avenue.

And. What was that number? Pardon? How many properties are being changed?

466 in the rezone and 301 in the flume.

And those do reflect the updated substituted numbers, not the original proposal? Yes.

So first I'll go into the proposed future land use changes for this new project, the Little Havana Transit Corridor. The applicant is the city, being represented on behalf of the city manager. And that flume consists of five separate corridor areas, or subject areas. Within those subject areas are approximately 67 acres and 301 properties. Here is a future land use map overview of our existing and our proposed future land use map. Within the five Little Havana Transit Quarter areas up for flu redesignation to restricted commercial, 24 of those parcels are existing as low density restricted commercial, 154 as medium density multifamily residential, and another 123 as medium density restricted commercial for a total of 301 properties. So by changing the flue designations to restricted commercial, density increases up to 150 dwelling units per acre. Non-residential FLR goes up to 11, and a variety of uses become allowed. So when we were analyzing this flume amendment, there were some key considerations and conditions that staff made of those subject properties and areas. One of them being the wide range of flue designations. Sorry. Within the subject area is a wide range of parks in medium density, housing to commercial and institutional uses. We wanted to keep that in mind when making changes to the FLU. We also looked at the coastal conditions as some of the properties, primarily along Southwest South River Drive, are located within the coastal high hazard area and may be exposed to storm surges. All right. Additionally, we looked at transit access. That was another very important consideration as the study areas include Southwest 7th and Southwest 8th Street. They are major transit corridors where FDOT conducted a study for planned improvements to improve access, safety, development, and inform land use decisions. Lastly, we looked at community resources, more specifically the 10 schools and 11 parks within the subject area. Overall, the subject properties are within a mixed-use neighborhood, a mixed-use transit-accessible neighborhood near schools and parks that incorporate flood mitigation and resilience to the localized effects of climate change. So here we have the concurrency management for the area. The proposal amendment was tested across five areas of concurrency and we found that there were adequate levels of service were met for all five. The previous levels of service standards were based on a potential population increase of 19,253 residents in the subject areas. that we thought were going to result in a new maximum population of 36,215. So that was the previous one. This one here is representative of the areas being taken out specifically in that area five. The levels of service standards are now based on that 16,028 potential population increase and a new maximum of 27,646. So we also want to the comprehensive plan analysis. We did find that the proposed amendment complies with the following Miami neighborhood comprehensive plans policy by meeting all five levels of service standards, providing for more safe and affordable homes, improving the existing housing and strengthening the neighborhoods for current and future residents, and provides reliable transportation options while easing car dependence. Now going to the rezone, the rezone area is a little bit larger than the flume at 140, 100 acre, 100.46 acres and contains 466 parcels across 10 corridor areas. And because that rezone isn't consistent with the future land use designation, as I presented, we are concurrently submitted the flume amendment. So picture here are the original rezone areas. We originally had a larger proposed rezone area with 11 corridors. However, after community outreach and input, we shrank that area significantly, more particularly the proposed T5 just south of Southwest 8th Street, which we'll see pictured on the next slide. So area five, as you can see circle, as you can see in the red box, went from 699,948 square feet to 262,088 square feet. So a significant decrease in the size of that area. And just for a little bit of more context, we have here listed all of the areas that are being proposed. Collectively, they show the existing zoning and the proposed zoning as well as the existing flume and the proposed flume and how much of that square footage is actually in each area. So in addition to that decrease of area five, there was also an area of 5B that had been removed, which was about 7,000 square feet. Here are some photos from our site visit. Staff conducted a site visit on August 6th, 2006, excuse me, where we went to every corridor area and took photos, walked the area to get a feel for the character, the nature, and the conditions of the neighborhood. So here we have the use table which details the uses unlocked at the proposed transit zones for the rezone. At the T5 and T6, we see an increase in allowable dwelling units per acre and uses like hotels, office space, recreational uses and educational uses unlocked and or allowed via more administrative approval. In addition to the unlocking of the densities, public benefits would allow for higher densities in stores within the T5 and T6. So those public benefits benefit the community via cash contributions, which can be used for capital improvements within the neighborhood, or allowed in exchange for public parks and open space, affordable or workforce housing, and or green buildings certification. So some key considerations for the rezone is that ultimately Little Havana and the city as a whole is evolving. We wanted to provide sensitive alternatives to pressures that we are seeing from Live Local Act projects, which tend to be denser than what is being proposed. On this map here, the blue dots show the existing live local permits within corridor areas and the pink dots show the new live local permits. So we see some of them clustered along Southwest South River Drive to the north and we are seeing them also along 8th Avenue, 8th Street, pardon me. Additionally, we are looking to maintain the neighborhood's character through Miami 21's design review criteria and reinforce the transect as a guiding principle in easing the transitions of density and height between less intense uses and densities. In addition to that, we also want to secure the financial future of the neighborhood via the public benefit program payments rather than state tax breaks and incentives. So next I'll go into the criteria. The first criteria, the proposed change will further the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan, the Miami 21 code, and other city regulations. The rezone is inconsistent with the existing future land use, so we did do that companion flu amendment to ensure that the future land use is compatible with the proposed rezoning classifications. The ReZone does encourage development of a balanced mix of use areas for employment, shopping, entertainment, housing, and recreation near each other. And then proximate access to the transit corridor encourages compact pedestrian oriented and mixed use development within the neighborhood. So we found that that complied. criteria two, the need and justification for the proposed change, including changed or changing conditions that make the passage of the proposed change necessary. So we are seeing a history of changing conditions within this neighborhood and area. In 2027, five properties located along Southwest Seventh Avenue and Southwest Seventh Street were rezoned from T50 to T680. And in 2016, two out of those properties were rezoned from T5L to T50 to allow for an expansion of an existing auto related commercial establishment. There have also been successional increases in zoning within the past decade, upzoning from T5 to T6, primarily north of Southwest 8th Street. And more recently, in 2025, the City Commission adopted Ordinance 14411, rezoning the nearby property located at 601 Southwest 9th Street and 840 Southwest 6th Avenue from T5L to T6O. These changing conditions highlight the evolving conditions of the diverse urban corridor and the significant efforts made to increase the density of new developments and the intensity within the surrounding areas by unlocking allowable uses via that rezone process. And then the final criteria, a successional transit change in manner which maintains the goal to preserve neighborhoods and to provide transitions and intensity in building height. So we are looking to change it successionally. Increasing it successionally maintains the easing of density and intensity of uses adjacent to the T3 urban transit zones and the T4 urban transit zones of the surrounding areas. Also, the Little Havana neighborhood, though largely low density, is seeing more dense infill properties and live local projects being developed within the low and medium multifamily residential areas. So the increased development capacity through the rezone will enable National Registry historically designated properties to take advantage of selling those rights to further promote the preservation of those properties through transferring development rights to other residential projects. So we found that that also complies. To end, we recommend the flume as substituted pursuant to ordinance number 10544, the future land use map of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood plan as amendment and the findings the planning department recommends approval for the requested changes to the future land use map designation from low density restricted commercial, medium density multifamily residential, and medium density restricted commercial to restricted commercial. Thank you. Sorry, I have one more. And then the recommendation for the rezone as substituted pursuant to Miami 21, Article 7, Section 7.1.2.8 of Ordinance 13114 as amended in the findings, the Planning Department recommends approval of the requested change of zoning from T4L, General Urban Transit Zone Limited, to T5L, Urban Center Transit Zone Limited, from T4R, General Urban Transit Zone Restricted, T4L, General Urban Transit Zone Limited, and T4O, General Urban Transit Zone Open, to T5O, Urban Transit Zone Open, and from T5L, Urban Center Transit Zone Limited, and T5O, Urban Transit Zone Limited Open, excuse me, to T680, Urban Core Transit Zone Open. That concludes my presentation. Thank you, and welcome any questions.

Thank you. Okay, so... Is anybody here not spoken at a meeting before? Okay, so we'll line up on either, am I missing something? Is anybody else doing anything? You guys are good, right? Okay, so you can use either side. You have to state your name and your address for the transcript, and then you have two minutes. And please just, you know, somebody makes a great point or something you disagree with, best you just keep it to yourself. And if you want to address it, you could use your two minutes to address something somebody else said. If you love what someone says and you start clapping, it takes forever to get through everybody that wants to speak. So we're going to start now. Thanks.

Hello, good evening. Denise Galvez-Turros. I live at 2130 Southwest 20th Street. I own a business in Little Havana. I run Vienes Culturales, Cultural Fridays, and Little Havana Main Street. We're currently working to designate that A Street corridor from 12th to 17th Avenue. I'm asking you tonight to please defer this item. The applicant is the City of Miami. The latest amendment to the map was provided yesterday afternoon. Not even the commissioner had seen it. There is no reason why we should move forward. Gersten brought up great points. They keep mentioning NCDs and NCRs, all these things that people have not seen and haven't even been discussed further. I think that should come before we move forward on such far-reaching legislation that affects so many properties. I happen to live south of 9th Street, so, oh, great, they removed my home, but guess what? I walked that neighborhood and my office disappeared. is on A Street, that a lot of those businesses live off of tourism. This will affect the tourism. Nobody comes to Little Havana to look at big concrete buildings built out to the sidewalk. How is this gonna affect traffic? How is this gonna affect the quality of life for all the people who do live north of Little Havana? The congestion is already horrible. The streets are in horrible conditions. The sidewalk's in horrible conditions. There's so much that needs to come. This is called putting the cart before the horse. Bottom line, please defer. Ask the city manager who lives in Broward to defer. He's never come to a Little Havana walking tour. We give it free with Dr. Porge, Dr. Paul George. I invite him to come before he proposes this kind of legislation that affects not only 440 homes, but it will affect the roads, it will affect the historic Riverside District, and it's definitely going to affect Shenandoah and the historic neighborhood behind. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker.

Thank you. Mauricio Villasuso. My address, 999 Southwest First Avenue. I'm a property owner, investor, and real estate consultant for a lot of the owners in Middle Havana. In fact, many of whom, one of my first comments was going to be they could not attend the August 25th because they didn't receive proper notice. If I can get a show of hands of all my property owners who came here tonight, and thank you so much. These are actual property owners. who could not attend the August 25th, they either received it that same day, and they did not receive notice, and raise your hand again if this directly impacts your property and you support it. Thank you, of my owners. So anyways, a lot of the owners didn't receive notice, couldn't come, but the other comment I want to make is 11 years ago, we had this opportunity, Francisco Garcia, then zoning director, tried to propose a large, massive plan to similarly do this. Back then, we heard a lot of comments and pushback, and what we ended up getting from that commentary was two blocks designated historic. It was supposed to go in parallel with the upzoning, but that didn't happen. And back then, there was a 2015 economic development report that the City of Miami, the Department of Zoning, University of Miami all did together, and they saw the rental issues, the rents rising, the housing crisis, over 30% of the property stock from the 1920s, and how we were losing them. And to address that, they needed to encourage more development, because from the 90s to the 2000s, there was only 5%. And here we are, and I commend the zoning department and planning department folks for taking a bold step, and they're taking the lead on this to suggest that we redevelop it. Little Havana. It's its turn. We've seen all this luxury high-end rise and everywhere else, but Little Havana, there's multi-generational owners, people who've wanted to see this deregulation of the zoning rules so they could exercise their property rights. So I please encourage you to move forward.

Thank you.

Mr. Cruz?

Thank you. Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. Maximum density potential. Board members, you may recall that I recently handed you a document titled Maximum Density Potential. Here's the document. This was a study by the City of Miami Planning Department in 2016 to determine how many housing units could be built in the city under the existing zoning. That study showed that the city was zoned to allow eight times more housing units than we had in 2010, and therefore, eight times the population. That staggering number is before any additional upzonings like special area plans, RTZ, TSND, and many more, including this one. Miami is already hugely overzoned. It is an inconvenient truth that the city does not want to admit. Miami should not be upzoning, it should be downzoning. If you think traffic is bad now, just wait until we have twice the population, or three times, or four times, or double that to eight times. But that's just traffic. What about potable water supply, sewage treatment capacity, garbage disposal capacity, or hurricane evacuation time? Also, this is a huge violation of Miami 21's successional transition principle. So here's what's on the proposed map today. Here's the before. You have T5O next to T4L, which we were told is supposed to be the way it's done. After, you're going to get T6 next to T4. That's a violation of your principles. On the south side, before, we have T4 next to T3. After, T5 next to T30, and that's a commercial T5. How much is enough? How much is too much? Is the unspoken goal to cram as many housing units into Miami as possible? Shouldn't Miami be more concerned with preserving our long-term quality of life than in enabling developer profits? Please vote no on this horrible proposal. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Thomas Rodriguez, 1652 Southwest 9th Street. I live directly across from the affected areas by this proposal, and at least until I just changed the boundaries in the last seven days. I timed the readings of these last two agenda items just because it just kept on going on and on. It was about 25 minutes just to read these. Just think that speaks really to just how widespread this is as a blanket attempt to up zone the city. And it's just kind of a little too much all way too quickly. That's why so many people are here speaking about this. We're looking at one of the largest zoning changes since Miami 21. It's unprecedented, really. It's more than 136 acres, more than 661 parcels, at least that's the number that was presented to us last Tuesday. I just heard 707 tonight. Again, this is just rapidly shifting. This is way too much for anybody to be able to process all at one go. The fact that you guys had to ask if any of your members had conflicted properties here speaks to just the widespread impact here. We were just informed about this about nine days ago. We received a flyer in the mail on Monday for a meeting last Tuesday, and then we're here eight days later speaking about it at PCAB. So really, again, just inadequate notice. It's a wonder that 75 people showed up on Tuesday night, because that just speaks to how rapidly this all came together. The takeaway is not that density is bad. It's that residents deserve clear information. Meaningful outreach and a real opportunity to understand the impacts. I've asked that you please defer these items. Thank you.

Thank you Good evening. My name is Martha Mashab and I live at 1026 Southwest 19th Avenue and I am the co-founder of the historic Shenandoah group a group which was formed 11 years ago and is made up of residents in the part of Shenandoah with the densest concentration of historic properties and and whose borders are 9th Street to the north, 13th Street to the south, 14th Avenue to the east and 22nd Avenue to the west. I'm here on behalf of many of the residents in our group to respectfully request that your consideration of this proposal be deferred for two main reasons. Number one, the amount of acreage is extremely large and our community has not had the opportunity, we've not been given ample time to consider the potential impact of a rezoning of this magnitude. We believe it's premature to move this forward as proposed, given the significant impact to not just the current residents, but to future generations. We gained access to the updated maps only 48 hours ago. That's the maps that were updated from the maps that were provided last week. And the second reason is that when we were comparing the the PDFs, the maps that were provided to us against the ones that delineate the current zoning. And when we compared these to the maps online on the City of Miami website, which is map.gridics.com, Some of the ways that the maps were delineated, they did not match as drafted by the Planning and Zoning Department. So there was at least one discrepancy there, and it will take us more time to understand some of, not only the changes being proposed, but to understand what is the current zoning actually, because there are discrepancies between the online maps and the maps that were provided. And lastly, I'll say that the residents, pardon me, oh sorry, the residents of historic Shenandoah have engaged both Dade Heritage Trust and the villagers to pursue not a neighborhood conservation district, but rather a historic designation. Back in 2015, we had this effort with the greater Shenandoah neighborhood, which is a much larger area from 12th Avenue all the way to 27th Avenue and then from 8th Street to 24th Avenue. Our group, which is a much smaller area, is now ready to move forward with pursuing this designation. So we ask that we please that you give us more time to consider this and that you take time yourself to consider it. Thank you so much. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Albert Comas, 1119 Southwest 6th Street, 2042 Southwest 4th Street, 1128 Southwest 6th Street, 530 Southwest 11th Avenue. Owner, investor, just like some clarity, what's going on with the parking situation? And then two, if your property abuts one of the properties on 7th Street, is there going to be any adjustments in the future for those properties that abut T5 properties? Just some clarity on that, please.

Thank you. We'll address that. We'll have a discussion later.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Frank Halpern. I was born and raised in Miami, Florida, and I went to the University of Florida. Now I'm an attorney here in Miami, Florida. I'm a property owner in East Little Havana, specifically at 236 Southwest 4th Avenue. That's directly across the street from Jose Marti Park. Right now I can only build a fourplex with no commercial units. It's two blocks away from 60 and 70 story buildings that are going up. Stark contrast. If there's anywhere in Little Havana that needs increased density and height that makes sense, it's here. It's next to Jose Marti Park. We are immediately adjacent to downtown and Brickell, directly on the Miami River. The planning board has suggested 200 units per acre in Little Havana and 400 next to the Miami River. Right now, on my lot, I can only build four units and no commercial property. I, an attorney, am getting priced out of Miami. I, an attorney, am getting priced out of office space. I am running out of options. I believe the city is also running out of options as well. The demand to live near Brickell and downtown in the Miami River does not disappear. I've heard this being a giveaway to developers because property owners may benefit from additional development rights. But I think we need to ask the opposite question. Who benefits when we don't allow more to be built? Right now, all of that increased demand gets funneled into one place, and that's east of I-95. I have to go work in that courthouse east of I-95, and I want more options for my own property because we are running out of options. My property is also directly next to the river. The river is bound to crest over that that park. And if I have a one-story building on 4th Avenue, I'm going to need options. And there's only one option. I'm going to need to build up. Because when the storm surge comes, and I'm not saying it's always coming, but one day it will, I'm going to need something. And that's going to be more height and more density. I urge this committee to approve what is a narrow and well-tailored upzoning that the planning board has sought to remove portions of to make even more well-tailored. I applaud their efforts. This is 12 years too late. I'm now a 40-year-old man, and I am running out of options. Thank you.

Carlos Fausto Miranda, 1761 West Flagler Street. Very simple concept for you guys today. I have been... A resident, a property owner, a builder, a developer, a business owner, a job giver in Little Havana for over 20 years. For the last 15 years, Little Havana has stagnated under the Carollo corruption. And I come here today with an incredible amount of enthusiasm for the future because finally, finally, finally, finally, we have someone bold enough in the city, in the administration, to stand up for this neighborhood that we so truly, deeply care for and say, we will push, we will create momentum, we will push in a direction to generate true change in this community. Ladies and gentlemen, you guys have a choice today. You can either stop that budding momentum, stop those first steps toward progress, or you can encourage it. This clearly is a multi-phase process. This today is not the end of the process. There's zoning changes, there's a zoning overlay, there's parking changes, there's all these sorts of, there's architectural facade requirements, multiple phases to it. But it all begins with whether you guys decide today to encourage building momentum towards a better community in Miami, in Little Havana, or whether you decide to squash that progress and squash a city and a commissioner finally trying to do something to undo the last 15 years of stagnation. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead. Hi, my name is Roberto Basantes. My family first owns 401 Southwest 4th Street. I'd like to donate my time to Billy Corbin.

Good evening, Billy Corbin, 403004, Miami Beach, 33139. I think we all know at this point, might not accept it, but we realize that most of us, if not all of us in this room, are going to live to see a time when no Haitians live in Little Haiti, when no Dominicans live in Little Santo Domingo of Alapata, when no Bahamians live in the Little Bahamas of the West Grove, and when no Cubans live in Little Havana. I think that it's important to establish that not all landowners and not all developers are bad or evil or want to destroy neighborhoods. Some of them are just small business owners who are looking to maximize the value from their private property, and they should have that opportunity, and that should be done in a reasonable and planned way. I'm not certain that this... is reasonable or fully planned. And, but I realized that the train has, the bright line has left the station and we either get on board or we're going to get run over by it. And it's the bright line. So we're probably going to get run over by it, but they had a very set number of dates. You'll recall at that meeting, for those of you that were there last week, they know everything they need to hit every date they need to hit. And this is going to happen. So I would just ask this board, to seriously consider some of the things that you saw in their presentation. Level of service standards. The city cannot keep up with the level of service in any... I don't know, by a show of hands, if you live in the city or you're a business owner in the city, are you satisfied with the level of service you're receiving from a city with a $3 billion a year budget? I mean, honestly. So can they really maintain the level of services when they're talking about adding 20,000 new residents in this neighborhood over a series of decades after this plan? Also... How many times are we going to hear the public benefit song before we realize that they're lying to us, that there is no public benefit, that there is no way that we can develop our way out of an affordability crisis, that they're going to add to workforce and affordable housing, that they're going to add parks, that they're going to add or improve our infrastructure, which is failing. Also, I've been to enough of these meetings to know we should start a segment called Savan Says the Gardenist Things. Two minutes. And Savan said tonight that in order to have a neighborhood conservation district, we need grassroots support. We need community consensus. What about the upzoning? So an NCD requires everybody to get together in the neighborhoods and come hat in hand begging to the city. But the upzoning can happen from where? By whom? And that's the last thing I want to ask you about. Zivane and the people representing the administration were very generous with their time after the community meeting last week. Very professional, very polite, but also very cagey when everybody in the room wanted to know one thing for the purpose of accountability and transparency. Whose idea was this? Where did this come from? I understand 12, 15 years ago, these ideas are always milling about, they're coming up, there's different neighborhoods. You started telling me about the history of upzoning in West Grove and here and there, but you also told me that seven to eight months ago, there was a resurgence in interest in City Hall for this. Where did it come from? We just want to know whose idea it was. It might be better to know that it was the district commissioner, because at least we know it was an idea that came from within the community, rather one that came from outside of it and was forced onto it. Was it the mayor? Was it the city manager, the coward from Broward who is sponsoring this item but doesn't bother to show up to defend it himself? I just think we need some more clarity and answers to those questions. I don't know if that necessitates a deferral or not, but I think those are some important issues that I would hope the board would address tonight and get answers to. Thank you.

Thank you. Guys, please don't clap. Thanks.

Hi, good evening. My name is Riza Fernandez. My address is 992 Northwest 5th Street, Miami, Florida. I live maybe a block away from one of the proposed properties, and I have a T4. And so when people mention about upzoning and making the most profit of their properties, I live in a single family home, but my property is designated T4. But yet I have not received any notice about these property changes happening a block away on the river because I'm 350 feet away. and not 300. And so I think that this is very unprofessional to not send enough notice to homeowners, not just investors or developers that live in the neighborhood or have homeowners, Homestead property owners should have been notified within at least 500 feet of the properties, especially with this type of change in zoning. The property that is in place at the end, the folio number in your last package, it goes from Miami zoning is T5, and it goes up to T6 through 8. But at the moment, that property is not a building. It's just a very—there's one vacant land and one small marine commercial space that's there. And so I think that is— peril to the people that live here in this neighborhood to be notified, to be spoken to. The planning department never reached out. Little Havana has a master plan that was done 10 years ago and none of that has been incorporated where the community really took part in shaping this. I don't see anything about park space, green space, infrastructure for transit. None of this has been shown in this planning application. It's been, it feels like it's been a doodle of properties that have been circled in because there's been requests by developers and property owners that will make a lot of money, but not been requested by homeowners and neighborhood associations. So there's Little Havana, Shenandoah, there's a lot of property master plans and reports on historic preservation, and I think that this should be deferred or asked some serious questions.

Thank you.

Good evening, Board. I'm Richard Quesada, property owner of 1877 Southwest 7th Street. And I just wanted to say that the demand to live in this area is huge. The working class that lives in that area, more times than one would like, they're forced into small, poorly conditioned apartments because that's all they can afford. rent that's available near their work, which is in this little Havana area and neighborhood. And so our city that is growing so much, I believe this proposal, very well thought out, is the next step in helping our city grow, especially this area, which is a very big working class area. And so I would urge the board to approve this well thought out proposal, which I think will help the development that our city really needs. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Susie Battle, and I own a business in this area. It's called Azucar Ice Cream at 1503 Southwest 8th Street. I need to just at least put in that what's wrong with Little Havana now? What's wrong with our area? Who wants big buildings there? The whole point is that it's quaint. The whole point is that it's charming. The whole point is that people want to go backwards, and that's the nostalgic part of our neighborhood. By the way, I went to preschool where the Marlin Stadium is at Candyland. I've been in this neighborhood for 57 years. So please, defer, defer, defer. I don't understand the rush. I don't understand why this is so quick. I don't understand why nobody gets notices. I don't understand any of this. So in my eyes, what are we doing here? Why are you doing that? How do you sleep at night like that? It's sort of sad to me to see that this is happening here. So please, let's take a look at it and actually educate ourselves as to how this is going to work. Not so quick, not so let's get it in right now. Defer, defer, defer.

Thank you. Guys, let's hold off on the clapping. Thanks.

My name is Michelle Stanchina. I live at 1325 Southwest 22nd Terrace. I think a lot of really important valid points on both sides have been brought up. I think that the city is obviously growing and has room for growth. Business owners want to grow. People want to live in apartments. They need to live in apartments. But the people that are here and currently live here have valid concerns. As was just mentioned, There is no reason to rush this through. This affects, as you heard, they called out for 30 minutes the addresses that are affected. This will not only affect the people living in those addresses, but multiple houses, as was mentioned, that are 50 feet away that were not on that 30-minute list. This requires time. This requires energy. This requires due diligence, okay? It's not just about housing. It's not just about buildings going up. There's a lack of services. There's a lack of the fire stations. There's a lack of public transportation. There's already congestion, as was mentioned last week. There's a hurricane evacuation route. What happens to that route when you add 20,000 people to that community? People complain about congestion every day in group chats. The schools are affected. This is not something that you can do in one month and evaluate properly. This requires proper work. Studying and planning their city planners and it's almost insulting to the city planners how fast this is going through So I urge you to defer until more information is actually available So that you can plan the city and grow the city but grow it in a proper and effective way Thank you Is there anyone else would like to speak

Okay, we will now engage in discussion on this item. Go ahead, Member Mann.

Can we hear the city responses first?

Can we hear the city responses first? If you want to do that, we can do that. Okay. Did you have any specifics you wanted to respond to from public comment?

I believe there was a comment about parking. So Miami 21 does require one and a half spaces per unit and then has parking requirements for everything that still applies. We did, the city commission did adopt a Little Havana parking trust fund earlier this year. And so the actual only way to get a parking reduction anywhere in that area is if you pay into that fund. So you're no longer allowed to get the reductions by right that are allowed within Miami 21. The only way to get reductions are to pay into that fund. We additionally are working on another parking trust fund that will come forward next PSAB meeting, September 16th. And so we are addressing the parking concerns through those parking trust funds. I believe there was... I'm not sure what the other comment was about, the other question.

Did you have one in mind? Oh, okay. Well, if anybody thinks of anything else they heard, they want clarification, bring it up.

Go ahead. Yeah, I've been on this board a long time, and every now and then you see something rushed to us like this in a big, big hurry, and typically you don't know where it's coming from. Mr. Corbin had a very good point. Who on earth is pushing this? All of the principals are brand new to their positions. They have not been here long enough to have any idea about the genesis of this project and its development. Not the mayor, not the city manager, not the commissioner, nobody involved with this project from the administration's point, has been here long enough to have a hand in it at all. So Mr. Corbin's point is well taken. Where is this coming from? And who's pushing it? And why is it being pushed down our throats so quickly? It's a little odd. It's a massive project. It's upzoning on steroids. And if we think that Yes, the city needs truly affordable housing, but for a project this size, I want to be assured, before I can vote anything, I want to be assured that it is in fact necessary. Is it just a bunch of developers who have every right to make money? but they do not have the right to rush something this massive into our faces and say, quick, quick, sign here, let us get going, because a lot of people are going to make money. Mr. Cruz was absolutely right. Most of our services are F. Certainly all the major roads in Miami are F. Ms. Steiner is absolutely right. One and a half per dwelling unit, but you can pay into a fund and you can get virtually anything. Nothing, no parking whatsoever if you pay enough money to the fund. And I suspect that tied to that program, you can also get additional bonus height. So with something this massive, it's insulting to me and I would hope to some other members on this board to be asked to vote on it with no information whatsoever, except that staff has drawn some nice pictures. So I'm pretty sure that the staff, if they were pushing this, they would have made sure that this board knew all they could about it. So I don't believe staff is pushing it. There's somebody behind a curtain here, and there's no way that I could do anything but defer this until I understand who and why. A lot of the upzonings in this city must have necessity. If this is necessary, To break transitional form and put T5s up against T3s and T4s up against T6s, I want to know why before I vote on it. I'm not against growth in the city. I think the city survives on growth. It dies without it. But there is intelligent growth and there is irresponsible growth. And to rush this into our faces is irresponsible growth. I can't tell you one thing about this project. It's new to us. We don't know anything about it. And now they want us to vote and say, oh, it's okay. It'll all be okay. We're not going to have the parking. So we're not going to have any more cars. Okay. So where's the buses? Where's the trains? Where's the streets? It's just, it's almost ludicrous. And to have to listen to 30 minutes of properties, When we don't have a clue who's behind this and why they're behind it and what the true impacts are going to be is a little ridiculous. And unfortunately, it's not the first time that this board has been asked to act this way with nowhere near enough information in a rush because somebody's in a rush here. And I would love to know who it is. As I said, nobody on the administration here has been here long enough to have a hand in this. They may have looked at it and said, oh, this is nice, yes. It's going to bring a lot of revenue to the city. Well, that's terrific. So explain it to us. Explain to this board why it is truly necessary. Now, some of the people that spoke just now, reasonably eloquently, about why they would like to have this, well, geez, I own properties up in those neighborhoods. I would like this, too, because it's a moneymaker. The value of your properties are going to go up, and there's nothing wrong with that. Don't ask me to vote blind, because I will not do it. My vote would be to defer this, and let's hear some more about it. The last thing I want to say is, NCDs are not ironclad. This very board denied NCD3 their rights. I don't think they realized what they were doing. I don't think that some of the members on this board really understood what the NCD was supposed to afford the people that applied for it. It's supposed to give them more protections. So the biggest thing that I would like to see is, yes, all the T3 properties surrounding any kind of a development of this size should have their NCD applications rushed forward even faster than this project is being rushed forward. So I would vote for deferral.

Thank you. Actually, Member Porsoff, go ahead.

So as far as this project, I'm sure there's a lot of people out here that sound like they're confused. I'm going to get a little personal on this, but I live in Shenandoah, in the roads, have businesses on Cayocho, I'm affected by a lot of crime and vagrancies and a lot of inefficiencies in the current code, especially on 8th Street, B&T 68, abutting up to 7th Street and having an inferior zoning. The biggest challenge, and I think what I'd like everybody to kind of understand here is it's not, it's really just an inefficiency in the current zone. I wouldn't see this as an up zone. This is more of making the current zoning efficient so that you can have proper development and that you can have proper buildings that actually make sense. If you kind of get into the weeds a little bit and you understand the lot dimensions on H Street, it's about 100, 110 feet. Anybody that builds on those corridors ends up having to build very inefficient buildings that don't even allow for proper development. parking. You can't even build a parking structure on the 8th Street properties that abut the T4 on 9th Street. I mean, I think 9th Street should be all up zoned so that you can build proper developments on 8th Street. 8th Street's a major corridor, and one of the things that a lot of people don't understand about this corridor is that it is a one-way corridor. It is a highway. This is a federal, this is a state highway. This is It's not a two-way road. It's, you know, in order to build proper development on these corridors with adequate parking, you need to have these abutting zonings be implemented. This is not Ken Griffin coming to Miami to buy all these properties on Cayocho. Sorry to not, you know, for the buzzkill. I mean, this is just efficiencies. This is design. This is architecture. This is just implementing the proper zoning so that you can build efficient buildings and we can improve the neighborhood and you can get a different quality of independence. This is not about the business owner and taking away the character of Little Havana. This is about making it efficient. I'm not getting into the time. This is not my position. My position is only to illustrate to you the inefficiencies in the market and the overall benefits to the community. Because I think a lot of people just, you just don't know what's, you don't understand the benefits. I think if you understood the benefits, you would be very happy. So I'm just, I'm not getting into, I'm not into the process. I'm not into the process. I am only here to illustrate the benefits. The board will decide The timing, that's up to the board. I'm only here to explain the positive things that will be impacted by the up-zone.

So, thank you.

Member Portsov, can you speak into the mic? Can you speak into the mic? Member Portsov, can you speak into the mic?

I'm not going to get into a long dissertation of every single benefit. I'm just basically illustrating the positive impact that it will make, and that is what I'm here for, is to make decisions on behalf of the community that are in the best interest. I'm not, you know, the board, this is a big issue with the board. I think these meetings end up wasting, I think it's a big waste of time, to be honest with you. I think everybody should have been educated. I think There's times for people to call in. And, you know, I think our issues here on the border to make decisions that are on the, you know, to understand the zoning and to make decisions that are in the best interest of the community. So I am here just to say, hey, I think it's in the best interest of the community. I don't have to get into the semantics of all the reasons why, because it's just. It's too long. I'm not going to get into that. I'm here to make a decision and to move on. Otherwise, these meetings could end up until 2 in the morning. I think these meetings are very inefficient, and I think people need to take positions as board members and move on. Whether we dedicate more time to either doing other things, whether it's a deferral, that's not my position. My position is to make a position on what I believe... the positive impacts are gonna be the community. I'm not into process. I'm not adhering to anything other than, hey, I think it's a good decision, and I think that's what every board member here should do, is study and figure out, do I like this or do I not like this, and move on. That's it.

Thank you. Please.

I just have a few comments. I was looking at the analysis for the comp plan change. Specifically the level of service. So a couple pieces of information regarding schools. Six of the nine schools do not have capacity for the projected number of students with the application. The water service states that it meets the level of standards but does not contemplate any non-residential uses, which is surprising. Sewer was not evaluated. It states that it'll be reviewed by the county. And in addition, traffic estimates an additional 24,000 cars in the morning. I'm sorry, 24,000 cars in the evening and 21,000 cars in the morning. Can you walk us through that review and how you feel that that is acceptable?

Sure. So I'm going to ask Ryan, who's our chief of comprehensive planning, to help me out here. So we submit, based on the land use and the increased density, we submit for concurrency review with Miami Dade School Board. They look at it. So they changed their policy, how many years ago? To allowing, so it's not just the schools within, it's also the neighboring schools. So not only do they look at immediate schools, they also look at there's capacity for those students to be absorbed in essentially the next level or the next ring of schools. And so they have said that there are enough seats. So those may not be directly within that area, but the neighboring areas could absorb any additional seats. So therefore, based on their review, they're saying that there are enough seats. We submit for sewer as well as hurricane evacuation goes to the county. We submitted hurricane evacuation levels to the county probably two months ago, three months ago. So those were issued to the county. They did not respond. So there is another, and then of course when we do transportation, we only look at, at this level, at this point, we only look at how many peak AM and PM our trips are generated, and that is what is generated by what is considered in traffic engineering to be the highest use. It's not what actually, So imagine if Dayland Mall got built here. That's what it's essentially contemplating in some cases. So it's not necessarily, the peaks are not necessarily the best. They're contemplating that every square inch gets built out to the maximum land use that would create the most amount of trips. What happens at a later date as projects come in, as projects come in, they're required to do a study, a traffic study, and based on those actual uses that are being proposed and built at that time, they have to mitigate any traffic impacts. So that's how our traffic concurrency works. We do have, in this case, another level of review for our level of service. So we take all the information that is included in your staff report and we submit that to the state. and the state reviews that. If they have any questions, require additional information, disagree with our analysis, they have essentially 30 days to respond. In this case, we are next to two state roads and I-95. So there is a good chance that they will have or require additional information from us at that time. So we don't know that until we actually submit. So that's kind of how the level of service works and how we contemplate level of service. I will say that one of the differences that you should note is that there are significantly less properties in the future land use map amendment than there are in the rezoning because our future land use map that has not been holistically looked at in the city since we believe maybe the 80s, I would say at least at the earliest, the late 90s, already contemplates additional growth and additional density and upzoning in a large portion of these areas. So that's why you see a discrepancy in the number of properties in the future land use map amendment and the rezoning. It's because a lot of that growth has already been planned for.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Okay, good.

Okay, there we go. I mean, first and foremost, double cheers again for all the reading. That was very impressive. And then, of course, thank you, staff, for the analysis and everything else in between. I have a couple of questions, and I think the easiest one is to ensure that the amendment, the item that's before us with the amendments, removes most of the single-family homes.

There were never any single-family homes that were included. There was an area to the south, and we can show the maps again. There was an area to the south where originally proposed was T5, a budding and it is currently T4 abutting T3. What we heard at the neighborhood meeting is that that really encroached too close and too far into the single family neighborhood or into our neighborhoods to the south. So we significantly reduced that so that the T4 remains and where there is depth, where there is some depth there, we did complete the transect to T6, T5, T4. And so that is why we changed that. So there were no single family homes that were included originally.

And I think that leads me to my main point here. I think it's imperative that we make sure that the transect zoning itself is laid out. I understand that in the actual transect zones is where we're upzoning to allow for greater density where it's needed and where it's allowed based on the stats of recommendation based on what was before us. So within that, those are my two points. The fact that making sure that the amendment and the focus is imperative on making sure that the upzoning is proper. And I think it's also imperative that we look at this as stages and steps. I think there's a lot of issues with this. There's a lot of great things with this. And at this point in time, I'm supportive of it, mostly because it is a very long process. And while, yes, this has brought upon and placed on our laps within the last couple of months, I mean, it has been a couple of months that we've been back and forth we still have to go before the full board, we still have to go before the state, and we still have first reading and second reading that we come back and reread these items and take them on. So at this point, I just think it's imperative that we make sure that we protect those transit zones and transit corridors to make sure that the major areas And the majority of that density is there and not within. I know it's not within the single-family homes, but we'd like to, I guess, hot-button that topic of single-family homes. And so, therefore, I'm supportive of it, just imperative of that fact and make sure that transit corridors are the ones that are being fully impacted. So, thank you.

Thanks. I would like to mirror my fellow board member that he just has commented that I am supportive of it because of the process is very lengthy. I understand and there will be multiple phases in this that requires a lot of input. But I do want to speak up for the people that are in this room that they feel like they need to be more engaged with city staff. What I heard here from multiple people was that A meeting was done the day before or announced the day before and most of them didn't have any notice. This is why we have a lot of these residents here today. An amendment was provided, I heard, five hours before or the day before?

The proposed amendment was published with the PSAP agenda on Friday.

On Friday. I just think we need to do a little more with the community, engage with them, and a little bit, it would be nice for this board to also hear how many meetings we've actually conducted. Has it been one? Has it been, it's only been one?

It's only been one meeting.

Okay. Well, that would be my comment as far as involving this community more, and that's where I stand on that.

Got a question for you. So reached out to the staff and I got information that there was three community meetings. One 825 rezoned community meeting, 826 Rhodes HOA, and then historic Shenandoah 828.

So the planning department only conducted one public outreach meeting and that was on 825. I do believe that is my understanding that the commissioner did additional meetings after that, and those are the ones that you're speaking to.

Thank you. Next question for you is related to the loss of services. You pretty much answered it, but I just want to make sure that I'm clear on the answer. And so you submit it, and it's related solely to transportation. So you submit it to the county. You wait 30 days, I guess, to hear back from them. And so how do you know if you met the criteria if you haven't heard back from them?

So we... So, I mean, we submit to the state. So we submit and then the Florida Department of Transportation actually looks at the information that we gave us. And then do we also at that time, we also submit to the county at the same time. So the county gets another copy of what we haven't already submitted to them because we've already submitted some information to them. They'll get another full packet of the entire analysis along with the resolution and everything. But it goes to every single department at the state of Florida, and so there are multiple departments within the state that review. Transportation is only one of them. Sometimes they say nothing, and we never hear anything from them. Sometimes they submit a formal letter back to us, that says we have these questions, we would like you to respond. Sometimes we get a letter from Florida Department of Commerce that says there are no objections, your review is complete. Sometimes we get one that says this is a violation of state law, everything is not valid anymore. So it just depends. All of that communication then gets attached into the public record for the second reading at city commission. Of course, if the state does require additional analysis, that typically defers our second reading until we are able to provide or to answer those questions to the state. And so then again, once, Once we get through that review with the state, and then second reading happens, we still have to submit to the state again, and they have to accept it and then approve it again. So there's even another 30 days after that before it becomes effective.

Would staff be amenable to adding a condition of a traffic study to this item?

So we cannot condition rezonings or future land use maps.

And then the next question for you is related to the coastal high zone hazard. You said that was also submitted to the county and so you feel comfortable that all conditions were met because you did not hear back.

Oh, for the hurricane evacuation?

Yes.

We try very hard to maintain a good relationship with the county and to get answers from them. We submit every future land use map for this review for them because they ultimately are the keepers of our hurricane evacuation routes and of our shelters, so we also do shelter review with them, we rarely hear a comment back.

Is it safe to say, so can't you conclude that that criteria was met, like all the things that's required?

That's typically if we do, I mean, typically in level of service review, if there's no comment back, then we are okay to proceed.

Got it. So I just want to clarify, so it's not an assumption that is standard process that like, if you don't hear back with, another question, when was it submitted to the county? I want to verify.

Brian, we'll have to double check. We typically try to submit all of our, we try to do a minimum of 60 days for all of our level of services. Sometimes when we submit to the school board, we need a full 60 days. So typically we're working on a 60-day cycle for our concurrency. Sometimes that gets pushed to 30 days, but typically it's about a 60-day notice.

Next question for you. This item does not require affordable housing, correct?

No.

Okay. And so in the presentation, there was a thing that says, like, affordable housing, like, it was a checkmark, that it was, like, it was a factor of proof. So if it doesn't require any affordable housing, how can you say, like, that was met?

So I think that as we add more housing units in general, that begins to stabilize our market, whether it's a for-rent product or a for-sale product. Any units, as we add them, begin to stabilize that. Throughout our country's history, when we've had housing affordability crisis in the 1920s and the 1940s, We did it often by building more homes and we did it by increasing density where we already had existing houses. So in a lot of streetcar neighborhoods throughout the country, you'll see single family homes cut up into duplexes at that time. And you can go through the maps in almost any city in America and see that. So that is often how we have solved affordability crises. And we know that that works is that if we don't have enough units, it drives up the price. So some of this is, will be, some of the affordability will naturally occur because we're able to stabilize the market. Anytime, I think there's also, these are smaller lots and there's already a lot of density there. And so a lot of these places cannot rebuild at the density they're already functioning at because of the zoning that they're at. So that's also part of why we're moving this forward in trying to maintain that as well, and those naturally occurring, what we call missing middle housing, right? So it's those housing units that don't include amenities like gyms and pools, and so as a result, they're just more affordable. We often see too that the size will drive the price of a unit or whether it's for rent or for sale. So if it's a thousand square foot unit and it's $100 a square foot, it's $100,000. If it's 1,000 square feet and it's $300, sorry, if it's 900 square feet and it's $100 a unit, it's only $90,000. So sometimes what happens is when we have additional density, it allows people to build smaller houses or smaller units, and that becomes affordable as well. I think through the other things that we are exploring, such as the Neighborhood Revitalization District, There can be public housing or not, sorry, not public housing, but affordable housing component put into that. And that's where it can be incentivized.

Okay. And my final question is, in the packet, like it identified like a portion of affordable housing. I don't know if that was excluded, like with the new, the changes. It was a natural portion or some units about, I forgot how many units. But also, you said there would be no displacement. I just wanted to understand how you came to that there would be no displacement once this is completed.

Is this maybe for a different project that we're talking about tonight?

Same project. We're still on 8 and 9, correct?

Yes.

the photos there was no like the photos that you identified there was no affordable housing units like in that entire map oh maybe it was the initial map it was before this one the initial packet that was submitted oh And the only reason I asked that, because it said there would be no displacement, and just based off of those photographs, I just want to make sure that, like, how do we come to the conclusion, okay.

So I think, there is another item on the agenda, and that comment applies directly to that item, but that's why I'm a little confused, because I am.

Maybe, maybe.

And that one does directly have, that does directly impact a county housing project that is on, that is in the city limits, and so there will be no displacement with that one, but that is not in this area.

Okay, thank you.

So, I mean.

Maybe I can, thank you.

I'm not aware of any housing projects that are in this area that would be displaced by any upzoning, so I can't say that. Go ahead.

So there was mention of a master plan. What background can you give us on that and where is that in the process of being either implemented or not?

So that was done in Ryan. Ryan, I'll speak to it.

Good evening, Ryan Shedd with the City of Miami, Chief of Comprehensive Planning. We actually have some of the great minds that worked with the community here to put together Little Havana-Mamporta. A lot of people were at Miami Senior High in 2019. Was it before that? I can't remember the date. It was before COVID. It was 2017, 2018. And through many hours put together, lots of work to come up with a lot of recommendations for everything across the neighborhood, including transportation, green space, zoning, housing, historic preservation. So all of that is in the little Havana May Imports a plan that was put together with a number of organizations across Little Havana, including Dade Heritage Trust and others.

What's the process to either implement or not implement that plan? What is the status of that?

I apologize. Can you repeat your question?

For the master plan, what is the intent of that master plan for implementation or not? I mean, has it just been shelved?

I think it was shelved for many years, and I think the hope is that we are able to build upon that master planning effort through the efforts that we're endeavoring now.

Thank you.

I just want to say one final thing. I understand a lot of people, they didn't get the notices, the most recent notices. I believe that a commissioner has been trying to work and do a lot of community meetings, and this is one step in the long process. There is some issues that give me slight heartburn, but I believe in the process, and so I will be supporting the item.

The first thought for me is, the amount of sort of not replaceable buildings of character that kind of make the neighborhood. I firsthand saw the development of legislation and watched it evolve around Wynwood. And I always tell people that, you know, it was built to encourage a lot of adaptive reuse and that never happened, right? Like what, you know, whatever's left in Wynwood won't be. Certainly not really as charming of a neighborhood to begin with as Little Havana is now. So by doing the rezone, I understand that there's a transfer of development rights sort of component. What that looks like and the details, I'm not sure. I'm comfortable saying that I know what that would be, how that would function, but the idea is that if you can do that, you're putting money into old, cool buildings that keep the neighborhood looking a certain way, and there's incentive to repair them, and then someone can do something somewhere else, maybe even close by. But I don't... I think it's a... That kind of thing, taking one of the few remaining... places that you could walk down the street in our city and understand what You're looking at as being unique to that area I would definitely be at least way more in favor of Not taking a vote on this for that reason alone Because it's it's just why would you kill the golden goose? Really? It's it's you know, one of the top tourist tourist destinations in the city and I do understand how frustrating it is. I don't own any commercial property and I did one thing and I had to sell it. But I do understand how frustrating it is to have highly inefficient zoning. If I could, you know, flush T4 down the toilet, I would because I think T5, and especially in today's market, it's like the only way you could get anything done on smaller sites because it would allow you to do the things you need to do. And that's, you know, I know Mr. Cruz, I've heard him speak a lot and I understand his skepticism. Well, you know, or anyone who makes the argument that someone buys a property and, you know, It's not really our problem what you can do with it. If you bought it, you knew what you were doing and assumed the risk. But I think, you know, times have changed so much that I do understand that we need to do some rezoning. And then the length of time that it takes to get the city to come on board to pick a site and do it can take forever. Or, you know, you could talk to a few people and they're like, oh, that's a great idea. And someone else said, oh, that's a great idea. And somewhere it stops. So then I also asked the question, yes, why this so large of a change so quickly? I could totally support a pilot program or a phase one where we said, look, we are going to take the place, even if there's a few great buildings that get brought into it, but let's say we pick the spot where We have the biggest need to put the most intense rezone and underlying land use change. And so we're taking this chunk and we're going to try it and we're going to see what happens. Do people start doing things in the next two to five years? Okay, great. Let's roll it out somewhere else. Did the adaptive reuse incentives work? Did we preserve buildings because there was a transfer of development rights and people utilized them? But to do it and really change the character of the entire neighborhood potentially so fast. And then you could argue, well, it's going to take forever. It doesn't. I mean, that's the thing. That's the other crazy thing. EVERYTHING TAKES FOREVER UNTIL SUDDENLY YOU KNOW YOU UNLOCK AND I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE BUILDING CYCLES AND CLEARLY A LOT OF PEOPLE AREN'T SURE WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW BUT IN GENERAL IF YOU UNLOCK ALL OF THIS HEIGHT AND DENSITY QUICKLY PEOPLE WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE THEY WILL DEMOLISH AS SOON AS THEY CAN TO AT LEAST MAKE SURE NOTHING CHANGES AND THEN THEY CAN SAY WELL NOW WE HAVE NOTHING AND WE CAN NOW BUILD THIS YOU KNOW WHATEVER WE WANT TO BUILD COUNTERPOINT TO A COUNTERPOINT TO A COUNTERPOINT live local could affect some of these anyway. And so I understand that the city is in a rush to try to give people some sense of uniformity, right? Because then the other problem is here, if the city has chosen to do this, and I also am concerned that, you know, I don't get the sense that the commissioner for this district is 100% behind this. I DON'T KNOW THAT. WE DON'T KNOW, RIGHT? SPONSORED BY CITY MANAGER USUALLY MEANS, WELL, IT CAN MEAN A FEW DIFFERENT THINGS, BUT WE'LL GET INTO THAT LATER. But certainly if something is sponsored by the commissioner of that district, it does send a strong signal that it has been well considered. And we're not seeing that here. I think another thing is that if it came out of the gate and everyone was ready to go, and then suddenly everyone freaked out and they made a lot of changes and came back to us and said, okay, now it's ready to go. What's to say they can't come back a third time and say, okay, no, no, no, no, but now... IT'S REALLY READY TO GO AND IT'S PAIRED DOWN EVEN MORE. SO, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY THE NECESSITY THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DELIVERED AT THAT FIRST BRIEFING OR CONVERSATION WASN'T 100% REALLY CORRECT BECAUSE IT'S SMALLER NOW THAN IT WAS BEFORE WE SAW IT. YEAH. So, yeah.

That's all.

I'd like to make a motion. Go ahead.

Make a motion to approve. Is there a second?

I'll second based on staff recommendation.

I didn't hear the motion. The motion was to approve? Yep.

And just to be clear, it's as amended with the updated map?

Yes. Yeah, okay.

And then also just a reminder that this does require a supermajority vote, and since there are 10, that requires seven.

Okay. There's a motion and a second?

Well, this is for the first item for the future land use map.

Underlying, yeah.

And then we'll do the Miami tour.

Yes. Okay, let's roll call.

Board Member Arthur Parasoff?

Yes.

Board Member, I mean Vice Chair Andres Lopez?

Yes.

Board Member Lynette Kadoch? Yes. Board Member Ilan Metier? No. Board Member Paul Main? No. Board Member Eduardo J. Fernandez?

Yes.

Board Member Mario J. Bailey?

Yes.

Board Member Joshua Patikin? Yes. Board Member Chris Collins? Yes. Chair Adam Gerstein?

No.

Motion passes seven to three, and this decision is final. unless the Division of Hearing Boards receives an appeal within 15 days.

It's not final, it's going to City Commission. It's going to City Commission?

Yes. Okay. Next one, so zoning, please. Is there just any further discussion on the zoning changes? Okay, is there a motion on the zoning changes?

Motion to approve the zoning changes. Second.

And just to clarify, that also is with the updated map. Yes. Thank you.

Staff recommendation and thank you.

Board Member Arthur Parasoff.

Yes.

Vice Chair Andres Lopez.

Yes.

Board Member Lynette Kodoch. Board Member Ilan Metier? Yes. Board Member Paul Main?

No.

Board Member Eduardo J. Fernandez?

Yes.

Board Member Mario Bailey?

Yes.

Board Member Joshua Pantekin? Yes. Board Member Chris Collins?

Yes.

Chair Adam Gersten?

No. No, sorry.

Motion passes 7-3, approve as amended.

Mr. Chair, can we take a small break?

Break.

Thank you.

Back at it. We're going to go back to the top of the agenda. Take it from the top. Okay, we're starting. Trying to run a meeting, Mr. Porosov, so. He's trying to be efficient. I'm trying to be efficient. Members Mann and Porosov. Just trying to run a meeting, if you don't mind. Thanks.

Thank you.

All right. So calendar, can we, we're not doing calendar, so number three, please.

File ID 19600, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board with attachments approving with Conditions and exception pursuant to Article 3, Section 3.19.3 of Ordinance No. 13114, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended Miami 21 Code to approve the master plan for the Little River Enhanced Transit Station Neighborhood District for the real property generally located at 90 Northwest 71st Street, 7050-7150 Northeast 2nd Avenue. 7101 Northeast Miami Court. 390-540 Northwest 75th Street. 7275 Northwest 7th Avenue. 7301 Northwest 7th Avenue. 7305 Northwest 7th Avenue. 7311 Northwest 7th Avenue. 77 Northwest 7th Avenue. 735 Northwest 7th Avenue. 7345 Northwest 7th Avenue. 70... 100 Northwest North Miami Avenue, 7220 North Miami Avenue, 7329 Northwest Miami Court, 7357 Northwest Miami Court, 7401 Northwest Miami Court, 7409 Northwest Miami Court, 14 Northwest 75th Street, 7421 Northwest Miami Place, 7401 Northwest Miami Place, 7406 Northwest Miami Court, 7400 Northwest Miami Court, 7395 Northwest Miami Place, 7338 Northwest Miami Court, 7328 Northwest Miami Court, 7301 Northwest Miami Place, 7324 Northwest Miami Court, 7320 Northwest Miami Court, 7140 Northwest Miami Court, 51 Northwest 71st Street, 70 Northwest 76th Street, 7200 Northwest 1st Avenue, 72-25 Northwest First Court. 71-61 Northwest First Court. 71-53 Northwest First Court. 71-45 Northwest Fourth Court. First Court, 71st, 37 Northwest, First Court, 141 Northwest, 71st Street, 173 Northwest, 71st Street, 7127 Northwest, 2nd Avenue, 7137 Northwest, 2nd Avenue, 7134 Northwest, First Court, 7140 Northwest, First Court, 180 Northwest, 72nd Street, 195 Northwest, 72nd Street, 165 Northwest 72nd Street, 7204 Northwest First Court, 7212 Northwest First Court, 7221 Northwest 2nd Avenue, 7211 Northwest 2nd Avenue, 7100 Northwest 2nd Avenue, 220 Northwest 72nd Terrace, 7125 Northwest 2nd Court, 7160 Northwest 2nd Avenue, 7150 Northwest 2nd Avenue, 7133 Northwest 2nd Court, 7122 Northwest 2nd Avenue, 7100 Northwest 2nd Avenue, 255 Northwest 71st Street, 7155 Northwest Court, 7122 Northwest 2nd Court, 285 Northwest 71st Street, 7145 Northwest 3rd Avenue, 7147 Northwest 3rd Avenue, 7160 Northwest 3rd Avenue, 7128 Northwest 3rd Avenue, 301 Northwest 71st Street, 321 Northwest 71st Street, 214 Northwest 73rd Street, 300 Northwest 73rd Street, 238 Northwest 75th Street, 7400 Northwest 2nd Avenue, 225 Northwest 74th Street, 231 Northwest 74th Street, 7410 Northwest 2nd Court, 7333 Northwest 2nd Court, 214 Northwest 74th Street, 7350 Northwest 7th Avenue, 7332 Northwest 2nd Avenue, 7325 Northwest 3rd Avenue, 267 Northwest 73rd Street, 257 Northwest 73rd Street, 253 Northwest 73rd Street, 7320 Northwest 2nd Avenue, 241 Northwest 73rd Street, 7289 Northwest 2nd Avenue, 156 Northwest 73rd Street, 7288 Northwest 1st Court, 7275 Northwest 1st Court, 150 Northwest 73rd Street. 70 Northwest 73rd Street. 60 Northwest 73rd Street. 7330 Northwest Miami Place. 91 Northwest 73rd Street. 125 Northwest 73rd Street. 110 Northwest 74th Street. 7410 Northwest Miami Place. 101 Northwest 74th Street. 127 Northwest 74th Street. 126 Northwest 75th Street. 100 Northwest 75th Street. 115 Northwest 75th Street. 7510 Northwest First Avenue, 7522 Northwest First Avenue, 7521 Northwest First Avenue, 89 Northwest 75th Street, 65 Northwest 75th Street, 53 Northwest 75th Street, 35 Northwest 75th Street, 7506 North Miami Avenue, 88 Northwest 71st Street, and 7450 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, more particularly described in the attached and incorporated Exhibit A property to allow the property to be developed up to T624BO pursuant to Article 3, Section 3.19.3 of Miami 21 Code, and the Little River Transit Station neighborhood district master plan attached and incorporated as exhibit A, further reciting resolution number PZAB-R-26-045, adopted by PZAB, on July 15th, 2026 related to the recommending approval of an exception with conditions regarding to the master plan for the Little River Enhance TSND and replacing such the lieu though of with the resolution of the PSAB Miami findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date. Thank you.

So you might be asking yourself, why are we hearing this again? So in the original, if you remember during our original discussion, there was some confusion over whether you were making a recommendation to city commission or whether or not you were the final acting body. And that confusion was because staff in the title said that the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board was recommending an exception. We did not say recommending to city commission. We just said recommending an exception. And so that is where the confusion kind of came in. Out of an abundance of caution, we felt that the correct thing was to do is to rescind the previous resolution and have you issue a new resolution with the correct title. And so that's why it's back here before you. What is in the file is that we have a transcript of those proceedings that have been entered into the record, along with all of the staff material from before, as well as the applicant's presentation and the staff's presentation as part of the public record. And so what we are asking you to do tonight is to rescind the previous resolution, accept into the record the previous meeting and the findings from the previous meeting, which of course are based upon the staff report, which is part of this record as well, and then just reaffirm the exception in a new resolution. We did also modify one of the conditions, and that is because... Adam's got big eyes. And that is because there was a little bit of confusion in the condition. The condition says that properties can be added by warrant, and so there's a little bit... There is a way for, as per the code, there is a way for properties to take a different path with a warrant, but any new properties would have to actually apply through the exception process. And so we just want to clarify that. And so we're amending that as well as the associate at page 88, just to say that properties that can be added can be added as per Miami 21.

So it's all encompassing. Right. Okay, got it.

So that's the only change, just we want to make sure that that's very clear and there's no confusion there.

All right, so real quick, two things. One, you want us to do two motions, then one to rescind or?

You can do it all in one motion.

As one motion, rescind and adopt and?

Yes, so it would be a motion to rescind the previous exception or the previous resolution and then to approve the exception for the transit neighborhood

station district Okay Anybody from the public like to speak on this hearing seeing none Somebody make a motion may make a motion to approve sure and rescind rescind and approve I

Right, and then just to be clear, so we did modify that condition. With the modification. Yes. What we do need to modify is the sheet 88 of their master plan just to make it consistent with the condition that we changed.

Again, is referring it back to Miami 21. That's all that we're doing.

Okay.

So you want him to, yeah, just with that, add that in there.

Motion to rescind and approve with the amendment on page 88.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

So is there a second? Second. Okay, roll call, please.

Board Member Eduardo J. Fernandez.

Yes.

Board Member Ilan Metier. Yes. Board Member Lynette Kodoch. Board Member Paul Main.

Yes.

Board Member Mario Bailey?

Yes.

Board Member Joshua Patikin? Yes. Vice Chair Andres R. Lopez?

Yes.

Board Member Chris Collins?

Yes.

Chair Adam Gerstin?

Yes.

Motion passes 9-0. And this decision is final. Thank you. And it is appealable to the Division of Hearing Boards within 15 days.

You forgot Arthur.

I'm sorry, Board Member Arthur. How can I forget you? Board Member Arthur Parasov. Thank you, I'm sorry. Motion passes nine to zero and this decision is final unless the Division of Hearing Boards receives 10 days, appealable unless the Division of Hearing Boards receives an appeal. Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you all very much.

The decision there is 10-0, staff? How many other ones?

10-0. 10-0, this is final.

Alright.

I've got the next item.

Item number four, file ID 19690, a resolution of the Miami Planning and Zoning and Appeals Board with attachments approving with conditions and exception pursuant to Article 5, Section 5.6.1.J of Ordinance Number 13114, the zoning ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended Miami 21 Code to allow an increase in a maximum lot of 40% square feet for uses that serve the neighborhood and two waivers pursuant to article four, table four of Miami 21 code, a 30% parking reduction for residential uses for a property located within the urban central business district and an opportunity zone and two, a 30% parking reduction for residential visitors uses for a property located within the urban central business district and an opportunity to zone a zoning designation of T6-8-L urban core transit zone limited generally located at 413, 421, 431, and 453 Northwest 3rd Avenue, 3rd Street, Miami, Florida, more particularly described with an attached and incorporated Exhibit A property makings Bindings containing a severability cost and providing for an effective date.

Thank you. My name is Muzi Watson. I'm the Chief of Land Development. Tonight I'm presenting an exception that's going to exceed the maximum lot size of 40,000. The location of this, the subject properties are at 413, 421, 431, and 453 Northwest 3rd Street. And as Florence did a great job of explaining, the first part of the approval is to approve an exception for the increase of the lot size, and there's two associated waivers. One is for a 30% reduction of residential uses, and the second waiver is for a 30% reduction of residential visitor uses. This site is... It consists of four lots. The proposed development will be 45,513 square feet. And it's close to the river downtown. The current flume for the project is restricted commercial and the zoning is T68L. Now, for this neighborhood serving use, you have to, I mean, excuse me, for the exception, you have to have a neighborhood serving use. And this is a unique project. This neighborhood serving use is preserving the old Frank Galat house. Some of you may have remembered, but there was, I apologize, but there was another building right next to this that burned down maybe about two years ago. And so this will be an adaptive reuse project. But for the neighborhood serving use for this project, the applicant has committed to preserving this house. In addition to that, as I expressed before, there's two waivers. One is for a 30% reduction of the parking for the residential use. So they were required to have 213. They're proposing 143 spaces. The second is for a 30% reduction of residential visitor uses. They're proposing 14, they're required 14.2 spaces, and they're providing 10. And next, I'm just going to provide some renderings of what the development is going to look like if it's realized. As you can see, to the far left is the Galant House. In the front, there's townhouses, and in the back is the multifamily building. This is from a more looking east view, so you can see how it fits more into the context of the neighborhood. When staff did their analysis, when I did my analysis, I found that This exception complied with all of the requirements for Miami 21, and as well as Article 4, Table 12, which is our design standards. And the waivers also comply with our standards. I mean, we have mostly standard conditions, but one of them that I would like to call out to you is that We've really made sure that we codified that they protect the historic home since that is the neighborhood serving use. We don't want them to get the approval here and then go on and do something else. So we codified that condition within the analysis. I also would like to say that you may be questioning why are they allowed to do a 30% parking reduction by waiver instead of exception. That's because it's in the urban central business district, as well as the opportunity zone, which allows them to go by waiver. So with that, that's going to conclude my report, and we are asking that you approve this project with conditions. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening, board members. Carly Koeschel with Berkow, offices at 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. Ms. Watson did an excellent job of explaining the project and why we're here before you tonight. We are requesting, oh, and my screen. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'll speak while she's disconnecting and is reconnecting. We are requesting an exception to exceed the maximum lot size. As Ms. Watson mentioned, we are proposing a lot size of 45,513 square feet, which is about 5,000 over. And I still don't have... And what is particularly interesting about that and the fact that we are preserving the Frank Galat house is that that house is, and the area immediately around it, is around 5,000 square feet. So yes, we are requesting an exception to exceed the maximum lot size, but it is also because we are preserving and providing space around the historic structure.

If I could add to that, And that's one of the reasons why we were approving it is because the amount that the lot was exceeding is about the same amount as the historic house. So it was like really like a swap.

Yeah.

Yeah, let's try that.

Can you go ahead and just get started talking, or do we?

Yeah, well, yeah, let's try that. Thank you guys for your patience. We are up and running. So with me this evening are the applicant team, which is with us tonight. It's Italo Balbi, Ashley Bosch, and Justly Otley. On behalf of BRCA CB Development, the applicant in this case and the owner of the properties, as mentioned by staff, Our architect, which is Jennifer Makani, and Ivan Vinat with MCG Architecture, and our landscape architect team. As staff mentioned, the property is just west of downtown. It is north of the Loomis Park, not the Miami Beach Loomis Park. This is the Loomis Park that is just south of Northwest 3rd Street, and it is included within the Loomis Park Historic District. Its zoning, as staff mentioned, is T68, which specifically contemplates residential buildings that are between eight and 12 stories in height. And this property is squarely within those parameters, as well as within the Loomis Park Historic District. As you're driving down the street, the thing that is most iconic about this area is the Scottish Rite Temple, which is a historically designated structure. And this would be immediately to its east. We've worked with staff as to the design to really make sure that we pay tribute to the historic context, specifically the Scottish Rite, and provide a lot of design considerations for the roadway that abuts the property. Staff mentioned the structures that used to exist on the property, and they have all been demolished by various forms of neglect and or arson. the requests that are to exceed the maximum lot size and the 30% parking reductions. And as staff mentioned, the reason that we get to request to exceed the maximum lot size is where we demonstrate that we are providing a neighborhood serving use. And here, as staff mentioned, the neighborhood serving use is really the preservation of and restoration of the historic structure on the property, which when you look at the property and the space that's around it is around 5,000 square feet. And then the creation of the historically compatible design that is going to be implemented on the site. as well as an activated streetscape that is really thoughtfully implemented. And especially what you'll notice and what Jennifer will walk you through is just how much thought Jennifer's design team and the ownership team put into the relationship of this structure with the street, how the tower is significantly set back from the street and also set back from the properties to the north. That's really important to consider, as well as the interaction of that lower podium area, which is specifically lower than what Miami 21 typically permits. These townhouses that staff mentioned are approximately three-ish stories in height, and that's really important to consider when Miami 21 standard legislation permits a podium of 125 feet in height. And with that, we're happy to walk you through the design. Jennifer is happy to do that, or we're happy to jump into any questions that you may have.

Chair, I'm sorry. Do we have permission to go ahead and close public comments?

Yes, please close public comments.

Good evening, Jennifer Makani with Studio MCG Architecture in Miami, Florida. Our approach while designing Rio Vista was to respect the historic character of the site while creating a project that's compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and contributes positively to the Loomis Park Historic District. We're preserving and restoring the historic Frank DeLotte House and integrating into the overall design of the project. We will see the preservation of this historic structure as an important opportunity to maintain a piece of the site's history while giving it a meaningful role within the development. The project also provides 142 residential units within a transit-oriented development area, adding housing in a location that's well served by public transportation. At the same time, we've designed the project to respect the existing scale and massing of the surrounding neighborhood. So while we're requesting the exception for an increase in permitted lot size, we believe the project provides meaningful neighborhood benefits in return through historic preservation, additional housing, landscaping, tree preservation, and a strong pedestrian experience along Loomis Park. Facing Third Street, along the park frontage, we have a variety of uses and building elements, including the residential lobby, the six townhomes, and the historic Frankelot House. At the top of the page, you can see the proposed ground floor, street facade, and plan, While you compare it to the historic street facade below, you can see how the proposed design is intentionally broken down into a similar rhythm and scale. So while the project is contemporary, the design of the pedestal is very much informed by the historic character that has traditionally defined this portion of Loomis Park. and it doesn't want to change pages. Here we go, okay. There's also vehicular entrances along Third Street, because this is our only frontage, but they're purposely set back about 40 feet from the property line, so to minimize their presence along the street and to maintain a stronger pedestrian character. Here you can see how the townhomes are positioned directly along the street frontage. Rather than having a larger building mass directly define the park frontage, the townhomes and lobby create a more intimate residential scale along the sidewalk. One element that we've created in the design is this courtyard, which is similarly located to the courtyard that was at the Temple Court Apartments. The step back and the building frontage creates an opportunity for additional landscaping and allows us to retain these mature trees. More importantly, it creates a variation along the sidewalk and more interesting pedestrian experience. Instead of one continuous building wall, you have a series of spaces, landscaping, and building forms that create a stronger connection between the project and the street. Because this site historically did not have parking on it, it was very important to us that the parking we're providing not become a dominant element of the project. We intentionally placed the parking behind active uses so that it's largely hidden from the street. As you can see from this image, the parking is screened from Third Street by the townhomes and the historic house. This allows the park frontage to maintain a residential and pedestrian-oriented character rather than being defined by a parking structure or garage. We also paid close attention to the scale of the building at the rear of the site. On that side, the parking structure is only approximately two and a half storeys in height. We intentionally kept this portion of the structure smaller so that it relates more closely to the existing three and four storey buildings at the rear of the property. The parking waivers that we're requesting are allowing us to keep the scale of the pedestal in harmony with the scale of the neighboring buildings. In this image, you can see how the project relates to the surrounding neighborhood. We've stepped the facade similar to the Scottish Rite Temple next door, and our tower relates in height to other towers located close by. Although the code allows us to build up to 12 stories, we've intentionally limited the project to 10. We've also chosen not to develop to the maximum number of residential units that the code would allow. Ultimately, we believe the project will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood, one that provides new housing while respecting the history, scale, landscape, and pedestrian character of Loomis Park.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. You guys good? More?

Nope.

Great. Okay. The board. Oh, I'm sorry. Anybody from the public want to speak on this? Okay.

Board.

Bravo. Excellent. This is exactly perfect.

Just curious, the necessity for reducing the 30% parking?

So this image is really the best one to look at for that. As I mentioned, a podium under Miami 21 is permitted to be 125 feet or about eight stories in height. By requesting the parking reduction, we're able to reduce the number of parking spaces that need to be provided on site and use that reduction in parking to create a smaller podium. So the parking reduction helps us create this very manageably sized podium, which is a benefit to the overall structure and the surrounding neighborhood.

Thank you. Member Collins?

Anyone? Anyone? Anyone? Okay. Anybody want to make a motion to approve? Great. Second.

Anybody?

Second.

I'm sorry, who first and second?

Bailey and Mann.

Board Member Mario Bailey?

Yes.

Board Member Paul Main?

Yes.

Board Member Lynette Kodoch? Board Member Ilan Metier? Yes. Board Member Mr. Eduardo J. Fernandez? Yes. Board Member Joshua Pantekin? Yes. Board Member Chris Collins? Yes. Board Member Arthur Parasol? Vice Chair Andres R. Lopez? Yes. Chair Adam Gerstin? Yes. Motion passes 10 to 0, and this decision is final unless the Division of Hearing Boards receives an appeal within 10 days.

Thank you all very much.

Thank you.

15 days.

Next up.

Item number 5, file ID 19687, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board with attachments recommending approval with conditions to the City Commission pursuant to Chapter 55, Section 55-15 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida as amended to vacate the close, a 25-foot wide public alley that runs north between two exiting private properties at 400 one Southwest 6th Street and 3965 Southwest 6th Street, and terminating at 4000 Southwest 5th Terrace, Miami, Florida, as more particularly described in the attached and incorporated Exhibit A alley, making findings containing a severability cause and providing for an effective date.

Good evening. Good evening again, Mouzzi Watson. I'm here to present a vacation closure of a 25-foot alley pursuant to Chapter 55, Section 55-15C. Currently, the area that we're requesting to be vacated is 26,646,000 square feet. It is bounded by 3965 Southwest 6th Street to the east. 44,000 Southwest Fifth Terrace to the north, 4,001 Southwest Sixth Street to the west, and to the south is Southwest Sixth Street. You'll be able to see it better in the next image. The future land use for this... Oh, goodness.

I'm sorry. Is restricted commercial.

Oh, hold on a second. I'm sorry, it's single-family residential, and the zoning is T3R. So the reason why the applicant is requesting this vacation closure is really for safety issues. It's a dead-end alley, and currently they're experiencing unwanted parking and things of that nature in there. neighborhood, and so they're requesting that the street be vacated. The street will be remitted back to both of the adjacent property owners on the side. The plat was approved in September 5th of 2024, and the letters to confirm that was given on September 4th, 2025. Here's some pictures to give you some context of what it looks like, what the alley looks like, unimproved. So in this analysis, we found that the vacation closure complies with all of the requirements needed to recommend this to this board. And these are also standard conditions. So again, we're recommending that this be approved with conditions. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone from the public like to speak on this? You just have to speak into the mic. Give your name and address.

Hi, I am the applicant. I'm part of, I'm the wife of David Conrad, who's the applicant. I don't really have anything to add. Ma'am, your name? Anna Perez.

Thank you.

Yeah, I don't have anything to add. I'm sorry, I'm not very familiar with this process. But yeah, I don't have anything to add. But if you have any questions, I'm...

Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? No? Okay. Board? Motion to approve.

One quick thing.

We have a question, yes.

I had a question. This is a statement. I like the way it came together by increasing safety, and that was really cool that you guys worked together, and you won't need as many police officers and things of that nature, and so I love that.

And we do as planners try to incorporate, you know, we had CPTED, which is safety through design, so...

Thank you, okay, is there a motion?

Well, yeah, I made a motion. But just before I do that, I'm just curious, it took a year for this to come before us? Yes.

Second then? Second.

Yeah, let's pass this as quickly as possible. Okay, roll call.

Board Member Paul Main.

Yes.

Board member, Eduardo Fernandez.

Yes.

Board member, Lynette Kadoch. Board member, Ilan Metier.

Yes.

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

Yes.

Board member, Joshua Patikin. Board member, Arthur Peresolf. Vice chair, Andresar Lopez. Yes. Chair, Adam Gersten. Yes. Motion passes. 10 to zero and this decision is final. Motion passes 10 to zero.

You guys are gonna love these applications.

Yes.

Who doesn't love a park?

Item number six, file ID 19685, a resolution of Miami planning and zoning. An appeals board with attachments recommending approval of an ordinance of the Miami City Commission amending ordinance number 10544 as amended the future land use map of Miami comprehension neighborhood plan pursuant to small scale amendment procedures subject to 163.3187 Florida statute by changing the future land use designated from single family residential to public parks and recreation of the acreage described inherent of real properties at 2293 Southwest 17th Terrace, Miami, Florida, as particularly described in Exhibit A, with making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date. Item number seven, companion item file ID-19684, A resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board with attachments recommending approval and of ordinance of the Miami City Commission amending the zoning at last of ordinance number 13114, the zoning ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended Miami 21 code by changing the zoning clarification from T3R, Suburban Transit Zone, restricted to CS Civic Space Transit Zone for the property generally located at 2293 Southwest 17 Terrace, Miami, Florida, as more particularly described in the attached and incorporated Exhibit A, making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date.

Thank you. My name is Luis Lam. I'm the Park Planner for the City of Miami. Good evening, everyone. I will be presenting a rezone and a flume amendment to provide a new park for the city. These are items number six and number seven. So the purpose is to rezone the property from T3R to CS civic space and to change the future land use map from single family residential to public parks and recreation. Staff recommends approval. This is a city project. located in District 4. The address is 2293 Southwest 17th Terrace. The site is approximately 0.23 acres or 10,000 square feet. It's in the Shenandoah neighborhood, as mentioned in Commission District 4. The surrounding area consists mostly of single-family and duplex residential use. And as mentioned before, the aim is to provide a new park. Here's the existing zoning on the left, T3R, and the proposed zoning on the right of civic space. And the existing future land use of single family and the proposed public park. The rezone is in compliance with the criteria, with the three criteria from Miami 21. And the future land use amendment criteria is also in compliance with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. As mentioned before, staff recommends approval of the rezone and the future land use amendment. I can go into detail if you'd like, but this is basically just showing the allowed uses in the civic space as opposed to D3R. Notably, recreational facility and community facility will be allowed by right as civic space. Parks do not have any dwelling units, so it will go down to zero as opposed to nine dwelling units per acre in the existing zoning. And similarly, in the single family residential under the flume, it goes from nine dwelling units to zero and it will allow park uses with a maximum lot coverage of 25%. Thank you. Thank you.

There's no one in the public. So, oh, do we have anybody?

I'm just curious, the 25% lot coverage, is that for any building that you might want to put on it?

That's the civic space maximum lot coverage.

It's going to be 100% park except for up to 25% building use, some kind of facility.

Yeah, if you were to put a building, the maximum would be 25.

Move to approve. Okay, is there a second? Okay, there's a second. Who did that? Oh, that was you. Okay, Bailey.

Board Member Paul Main?

Yes.

Board Member Mario Bailey?

Yes.

Board member Lynette Kadoch. Board member Elon Metier. Yes. Board member Eduardo Fernandez.

Yes.

Board member Joshua Patikin. Yes. Board member Chris Collins.

Yes.

Board member Arthur Parasol. Vice Chair Andres R. Lopez. Yes. Chair Adam Gersten.

Yes.

Motion passes 10 to 0.

Thank you. If I can just make one comment, more items like these, please.

I think Luis has a whole bunch coming.

Yeah, we do.

Right? And I think there's even more coming in District 3 and District 4.

Awesome. All right. Thank you. Have a good night.

Thank you.

Did we skip or did I miss the calendar?

We deferred it.

Oh, we deferred it. Okay.

All right.

Motion to adjourn? Second.

Thank you.

If everybody can please check their calendars over the next two weeks and make sure there's no issues and we'll update the spellings.