Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board - Regular Meeting

It's gonna be months, maybe it'll be years. So please, if you live in the city of Miami, open your hearts, bring some things the folks of Venezuela could use in these very difficult times.

The Marlins are so moved by the tragedy in Venezuela. We, on behalf of our staff, our ownership, our community, we're hosting this great supplies drive right here at our ballpark. And also at our games this week, we'll be accepting donations at the gates. Fans will also have the opportunity to purchase a $5 ticket and the Marlins are going to match that $5 ticket with a donation to Earthquake Relief. hopefully a big opportunity for us to do even more help for the people in Venezuela.

I'm asking all the communities in Miami to stop by the Marlins, lot number two, to provide the help and support the Venezuelan people need. Make sure Monday to Friday, 9 to 5, we will be here. We'll be here for the Venezuelan people. We need your support. Remember, everything that is cans, tents, blankets, water, they need a lot of water, everything, shovels, whatever you think you can send to the Venezuelan people, we will make sure that it gets to the right hand. Please stop by and help the Venezuelan community.

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

you

Any person who is a lobbyist pursuant to Chapter 2, Article 6 of the City Code must register with the city clerk and apply for the latest 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 munico.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 liaison. Any person may be heard by the board through the chair in pursuance to the published notice for not more than two minutes on any proposition before the board, unless modified by the chair. When addressing the board, the member of the public must first state 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 Adam Montague's agenda. The meeting can be viewed live on Miami TV. In addition to the comments provided here at City Hall, the public may submit comments via the City's online comment forum. The comments submitted through the comment forum, if any, were distributed to the Board members and City administration throughout the day so that the Board can consider them before taking any action. Additional online comments 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 options established and provided for this meeting comply with Section 286.0114 of the Florida statute. Members, are you comfortable with all the notice provisions set forth in these uniform rules of procedure we have established for this meeting? Thank you.

Thank you. Let's rise for a moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance, please.

If you intend to testify in this proceeding, please remain standing and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony that you will give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

Thank you, you may be seated.

Shall I call board attendance?

Calling Chair Adam Gersten.

Present.

Calling Member Vice Chair Andres Lopez.

Present.

Calling Member Mario Bailey. Calling Member Lynette Cardo. Thank you. Calling member Chris Collins.

Yes.

Calling member Maria Paula DeCarolis.

Yes, present.

Thank you. Calling member Eduardo Fernandez.

Present.

Thank you. Calling member Paul Mann.

Present.

Thank you. Calling member Elon Metoyer. Present.

Thank you.

Calling member Joshua Patinkin. Calling member Arthur Parasol. Calling member Manuel Vidillo. Yes. Thank you. We do have quorum. I do have two requests for absence waiver from member Mario Bailey and also member Arthur Parsol.

Move to approve.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay. Are there any minutes?

All right.

Move to approve.

Is there a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Are there any deferrals?

There are no deferrals or withdrawals at this time.

Okay.

All right. Sorry, just... I'll call PZAB item number one, file ID 19675, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and 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 the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan pursuant to small-scale amendment procedures subject to Florida Statute 163.9. 3167 Florida statutes by changing the future land use designation from medium density multifamily residential to medium density restricted commercial of the acreage described herein of real property at 1420, 1426, 1434, 1440, 1446, 1452, Northwest first place, and 1425, 1435, 1445, 1453, Northwest 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida, as more particularly described in the attached and incorporated exhibit aid, making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date. The companion item is also PZAB 2, file ID 19676, 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 ordinance number 13114, the zoning code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended Miami 21 code. by changing the zoning classification from T4R, general urban transect zone, restricted to T4O, general urban transect zone, open for the property generally located at 1425, 1435, 1445, 1453, Northwest Second Avenue, and 1420, 1426, 1434, 1440, 1446, 1452, Northwest First Place, Miami, Florida, as more particularly described in the attached and incorporated exhibit A, making findings, making a severability clause, and providing for an effective date. This also is companion to PZAB 6. Okay. We'll stick with PZAB 1 and 2. Okay.

Go ahead. Good evening, Board. My name is Darren Murphy with the City and Miami Planning Department. And the first, this is for, as was mentioned before, this is for the Lotus Village. Number three, LLC, the applicant is requesting to change the future land use map, excuse me, designation from medium density multifamily residential to medium density commercial for multiple properties, as mentioned at 1420, 1440, 1426, and 1434, 1440, 1446, and 1452, Northwest First Place, and 1425, 1435, and 1444, and 1453, Northwest Second Avenue, collectively known as the subject property. One second here. There we go.

There we go.

So this is the a quarter mile radius of the subject property going in a clockwise fashion. Number one is the Theodore Gibson Park and then number two is. The Overtown Optimist Club at Theodore Gibson Park as you go. Around clockwise, it's number three, Comer Overtown Branch Library. Number four is the Frederick Douglas Elementary School. Number five is the Comer Community Action Center. Number six is the Dorsey Park. And number seven is the Ice Palace Studios, which is a multi-use event and venue and film production facility. We did a site visit for this property, and starting in the upper left-hand corner is the northwest view from the subject property. And in the background is the children's village at Lotus Village, the white building with the pink facade in the background. And going across in the upper right-hand corner is the eastern view of the subject property, the city's Omni Edgewater neighborhoods in the background. And to the south, again, is a view of the property in question, or properties, and also the village, Children's Village at Lowe's Village to the right. Picture to the very bottom right-hand corner is looking at the southwest view corner of Northwest First Place and Northwest 15th Street, looking to the northwest. And as you can see, there's an existence of prevalent future land use designation of medium density multi-family residential, or T3O and T4R, which extends northward for about four city blocks, that is. This slide here describes the neighborhood context with a quarter mile radius. There are 403 properties. This was retrieved from the Miami-Dade County property president's office. 50% of the properties in question are vacant land. The remaining 20% are classified as multi-family residential, and the third category is 11% classified as single-family residential. Regarding the future land use inventory, which is approximately 129 acres, The two top largest areas is restricted commercial and followed by medium density multifamily residential at 21% and for commercial at 31%. This slide describes the existing proposed future land use changes. To the left is the existing, which is all medium density multifamily residential and to the right will be medium density Richard commercial proposed that is. This slide details the interpretation of the flume and the uses. Right now, currently, it's strictly residential. That is the brown area or the brown column. And we're proposing to go to medium density, which is commercial, which allows only residential, but also allows office and civic uses and commercial uses. Furthermore, we're going from FLR, non-residential FLR of 0 to 6, which can theoretically back some, that is, allow up to 100,000, 134 square feet of non-residential floor area for the subject property. Regarding this slide for concurrency analysis, it complies with all five of the criteria, including schools, recreation, open space, sanitary sewer, transmission, solid waste collection, and transportation. Regarding this slide, this is an analysis of the three criteria that was reviewed for the Miami Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan. And the first one was policy LU 1.6.4, which regards the concurrency analysis, and that complies. Number two regards the objective LU 1.2, which is to promote public and private initiatives and revitalize blighted declining in orthodox areas, including historic designation where appropriate. Regarding this one, the finding was that Overtown and Park West still faces persistent economic and housing challenges. The proposed land use change would allow new uses, including office, civic and commercial. And as I mentioned before in my previous slide, With the FLR of six, it now allows up to 100,000 square feet of non-residential development. The proposal could attract investment, create jobs, expand social services, and redevelop underutilized properties. Regarding the last one, Policy TR 2.7.3, the city shall promote transit-oriented development while ensuring compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods in height, density, intensity, use, and scale. Based on stats findings, This one promotes transit-oriented development by improving access to jobs, healthcare, education, and essential services, reduces automobile dependence and household transportation costs. It also maintains the existing and future land use designations of medium density multifamily residential while keeping the scale at that level, while at the same time expanding the permitted uses of non-residential development. It supports neighborhood compatibility by considering height, density, intensity, use, and scale. And finally, it minimizes potential future impacts on nearby residential properties, infrastructure, and public services. The final slide is for a recommendation of approval. Staff finds that the proposed amendment from medium density multifamily residential to medium density commercial is consistent. with the three applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and recommends approval. And there, I'm going to segue to the rezone.

Good evening, board members. My name is Richard Brown. I'm with the Planning Department. As Darren mentioned, the request is a rezone from T4R to T4O for the 10 properties. This is located in Overtown in District 5, and we are recommending approval. Here is the existing and proposed. It includes portions of the block. As you can tell, the transect is not changing, but rather the intensity from restricted to open. Here's some background on the parcel. It was platted in 1901. It's the top left-hand box. It's portions of the block, block 45, lots one through four. And then the most recent zone change was when it was adopted into Miami 21 as T4R. Here's the change in allowable uses. As you can tell, there's no change in density, there's no change in height, but solely just the uses permitted within that transect. You can see more of a commercial mix permitted, which is generally why we are advocating for the rezone. The first goal, the first criteria is compliance with the comprehensive plan in Miami 21. Initially it's not consistent with the existing flume, hence the flume amendment Darren presented. Moving into compliance with the land use policies, In these areas, we do want to see a stronger mix, a wider mix of uses that complement the existing mixed-use neighborhood surrounding it. Currently, the T4R doesn't allow commercial mix, and that's what we're trying to change through this rezone. The proposed is also consistent with improving the relationship between the low density residential neighborhood and commercial corridors adjacent. To the south we have an industrial, to the west there is a commercial corridor, and to the north there's a T3 property. So we want to make sure we have the appropriate transition in uses, height, and so forth. The need and justification, there's a lot of development in this area, including other projects brought to you by Lotus House. We have the women's shelter, which is in close proximity. We have the children's village, which has recently been developed and includes educational and nonprofit uses. These projects have directly attracted people and businesses to Overtown, necessitating more rezones. Miami-Dade has also been working to redevelop some of its underutilized parcels in proximity to this. And then we also want to acknowledge the future plan behind the Reverend Edward T. Graham Greenway, also known as the Underdeck, in close proximity to the project. The last criteria is successional zoning. T4R to T4O is successional, so it is consistent. And then again, we're focusing on trying to help create those transitions between the D1 to the south into the T3 north of the property. We are recommending approval.

Thank you.

That's supposed to work.

It takes, seems like it takes longer on that side.

While we wait for her to get set up, is it okay to close the online public comment? I'm sorry, yes, definitely.

Okay, thank you.

Good evening, board members. Lauren Kahn of Bills and Sundberg, offices at 1450 Brickell Avenue. I'm joined by my colleague, Javier Avino, He also sits on the board of Lotus Endowment, Inc., in addition to being my colleague at Bills and Sundberg. Lotus Endowment, Inc. is the nonprofit entity that's a member of both of the applicants for items one, two, and six. I want to thank staff for the thorough presentation. From a legalistic point of view, I think we can rest on staff's presentation. There's plenty of substantial competent evidence, but I just want to give A touch of background that I think will provide context, not just for these items, but for the item number six, which is going to follow right after. So this is sort of an aerial of the area, and the parcel outlined in yellow is the original Lotus House, which has been serving women and children as a shelter since 2006. It's served over 13,500 women and children. If you look in the materials that we provided to you when we originally drafted our letter of intent, that figure was 10,500. It's grown since then. It's continuing to grow. It provides temporary housing for women and children. and its goal is to provide sort of a sanctuary, a holistic experience for women experiencing homelessness. It became super evident quickly that that facility wasn't gonna be able to provide all of the needs and services that these women and children needed. So soon after, in the last few years, Children's Village followed, and that is the, it looks blue, or light blue, It was green on my screen, but it looks light blue outlined here. It's to the south of Lotus House. That's going to be the subject of item number six, but I'm providing it for context on this one. Children's Village is a neighborhood children's resource center that has 14 different nonprofits that provides all sorts of resources and services for children. The red parcel to the west is for future development. There are some ideas about additional children's resources there, career readiness labs, and those sort of resources on that parcel. The subject of the flume and the rezoning amendments is that parcel to the east that's outlined in the darker blue, and that's the latest acquisition. Sorry about that. I did not mean to change that. That's the latest acquisition by the Lotus entities. The idea for this parcel is still in its infancy. We're not ready to present a project, but it became very clear as we were brainstorming that we needed a little bit more flexibility for the intended uses than what the current loom and zoning designations allowed. The intent there is to provide a residential building that will allow some of the women and children to transition into independent living after their stay at the shelter. But it became clear that they needed a little bit more flexibility and a purely residential building wasn't going to meet all of the needs. They also wanted to provide some small commercial spaces, maybe a cafe where residents or former residents of the shelter could work. could be employed. There's a Lotus Thrift Shop that is at a different location. There are plans to perhaps move that to this location as well. So that's why we're seeking the rezoning and the flume amendments. We want to thank you for your support. And if you have any questions, we're available for questions.

Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak?

Speak?

Yes.

Are you finished, ma'am?

Yes. Frederick Bryant, 1431 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Overtown. Good evening. When I was looking at the pictures, you could actually see my house on one of those blocks. My concern, I'm here today because I just wanted to know what was going on. As a matter of fact, I'm the only house now left that's left on the block. So I'm just here really to kind of find out what's going on and And I just wanted to know what I'm being surrounded by and what's happening, what kind of high rises or what, or stores. I just want to know. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else on this item? Okay. Anyone from the board would like to ask any questions or make any comments?

Anyone?

I'll start. Okay. All right. So I'll start with the most prevalent one is we have a member from the community who's here. Perhaps later a member from the community can speak and there could be some outreach.

So that's just because it's before me right now.

I saw no major issues with this. And once again, always thank you staff for an excellent report. My just main concern is understand that sometimes we look at this and we see how it's being drawn and for this particular situation would it not make more sense to then have an item that goes through and blocks the entire block I see that there's two that are not included within that and I understand that it's an applicant who comes before and it's the applicant who is but just Perhaps as we look into a flume, we could do that as a change, and then the applicant come in and then resume with his piece, but just as a major comment.

That is fair. When we looked at this, we would prefer the whole block be unified under one transect zone. The applicant came before us with their parcels. We, the city, can't. join their rezone and rezone the whole block per Article 7, that would be a future cleanup proposal we would agree with. But we reviewed their request, which were just their parcels, and we found it appropriate to move forward. Of course.

I think that's just something that I'd like to see for the future as a cleanup. So, thank you.

Wait.

No, no, of course. That's the...

OK, so moving on to the other board members.

Through the chair, I have a few questions. One is, my understanding is that, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the reason for this rezone and amendment is to allow for more uses, to open up the uses that the applicant needs to serve their needs.

That's correct.

Okay, and when doing that, the R, The T4R is gone, and we are now entering the realm of an O, which opens the door to live local. Is that correct? That is also correct. Okay. So there's a few concerns, and while I understand that we want to support Lotus House always, absolutely 100%, We also want to find out or see how it impacts the neighbors around them. So when I look at this application, I see that potentially this project could go to 1,000 density units per acre through Live Local, and we have no jurisdiction as a city to stop that. Once we approve the rezone and the FLUME amendment, that's it. So the FLR also increases. The allowable lot coverage also can increase. So this site and any other that goes through, we have several applications today, so my comment is not just for this application, but I think we're going to hear it. It's going to be a theme for the ones to come today before us. So I'm concerned because it's not about saying, oh, this project doesn't merit the ask. It's what we're opening the door to where we cannot legislate our land anymore. So I'm concerned. I don't know if there's any fix to that. So I'm going to ask staff. I saw that there's 87 projects listed in the website under Live Local. So clearly this is something that's very enticing to applicants. And many of them have been approved. So I'm going to leave it at that now, and I'm going to allow, or not allow, but I'm going to give it back to my fellow board members.

right um sorry for that um just i guess we'll wait for oh there we go but again i just want to make sure that our one member from the populace is able to connect super for the record javier avignon uh yes absolutely we're happy to connect i know that he has had many conversations with uh various folks at lotus house and i don't believe he has an interest in having his property Add it or or change of course that's there. That's his right which is I Don't want to miss Come to the podium No, I don't want my property added or I don't want it changed perfect I would like it to stay just the way it is and that's what's happening with this application It's not your property is not included and nothing will change as a result

Okay, 1431 Northwest 2nd Avenue. You saw the yellow house up there, the only one on the whole block. So I hope I, you know, just not, they don't include mine in that number. I don't want to be included. I just want to continue to be who I am and free. Understood.

Thank you. And I think the board hears you loud and clear.

Yes. Thank you. Okay.

So are we good for a motion? I will move.

Second. OK. Based on staff information.

OK. Roll call, please. Yes.

Yes.

No.

One question for staff, if I could. It did seem like this is an intrusion into the existing use. I wouldn't go as far as to call it spot, but did somebody say that you actually were looking forward to zoning to doing the same up zone From 4R to 4O in the future with other properties in that area? I'm always uncomfortable if I see a... Sir, just a comment.

Please vote and then we can go back into the next item or take this up later. Okay.

Then I'll vote no. No.

Yes. Thank you. Okay, now the numbers.

We need a motion for item number two. That was just the future land use map. Thank you, yeah. So now we need a separate motion for the region.

Same motion, move. Same second. This is the zoning.

I do believe there was discussion on the item or on the motion.

Yes.

I think Mr. Mann had a motion.

Member Mann, on the zoning, would you like to, was there anything else you wanted to add?

Well, I share Member DeCarrillo's concerns and they haven't been addressed. It looks like this area does desperately need to be improved. There's a lot of lots there that aren't in use at all at the moment. But I do have concerns about live local. And I haven't heard anybody say that we are in no danger of having live local go to work in that area. But I don't know if... Nobody answered your question properly, did they? Remember Coriolis?

I didn't have a question. I made a comment, and I think it's along the lines of what you are bringing up, which is there's no safeguards for the residential properties around. It's not that the project doesn't merit the rezone or the uses that they're after. It's that this opens up the door for so much, and there's no safeguards for the residents that are around this site.

Well, I agree.

I don't think there's, yes.

Well, anyway, let's not belabor the point. I'll stay consistent. I'll say no. Thank you.

All right. So.

Return to motion.

Yeah. We're going to go ahead and do a roll call. Yes.

Yes.

My apologies. Calling member Maria Paula de Corrales. No. Thank you. Calling member Eduardo Fernandez.

Yes.

Calling member Paul Mann.

No.

Okay, thank you. Calling member, I'm sorry, Joshua Patinkin. And then calling member Manuel Vidillo. And calling chair Adam Gersten.

Yes.

Okay, this passes by a vote of eight to two.

Thank you. Okay, now item number six.

PZAB item number six, file ID. File ID, I'm sorry, 19692, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board with attachments, approving with conditions and exception pursuant to Article 10, Section 10.3.7 and Article 7, Section 7.1.2.6, of Ordinance Number 13114, the Zoning Code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended, Miami 21 Code, to allow a special sign package with an aggregate area that exceeds Article 10, Section 10.2.1, Table 15 sign design standards, allowing a maximum aggregate area of 3.340 square feet, where 764 square feet or more is permitted. And the subordinate warrant pursuant to Article 10, Section 10.1.4, Subsection C4, Article 7, Section 7.1.2.4 to permit an illuminated sign within 100 feet from any portion of a T4R general urban transect zone, restricted property for the real property zone, T5L urban center transect zone, limited generally located at 219 Northwest 14th Terrace, Miami, Florida, as Moore particularly described in the attached and incorporated Exhibit A making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date.

Good evening. So the application is an exception for a signage package that exceeds the aggregate area permitted by Article 10, Table 15, and then a subordinate warrant because one of the signs will be located within 100 feet of a T4R property. The property may look familiar from the rezone we just presented, and that sign will be illuminated. This is within Christine King's district, and we are recommending approval. with conditions. So the property is currently the Lotus House Children's Village. It's a five story building constructed recently, primarily a community facility, educational uses and office, non-profit offices. This was approved under a warrant and then later constructed under a building permit. The future land use is medium density restricted commercial at the subject property. The zone is T5L, which is urban center transect zone limited. To familiarize yourselves with the request, we have the project on the left. Let me get the laser pointer out, on the left. There's the exception for the overall signage package, and then a subordinate warrant just for the illuminated sign within that signage package. The illuminated signs over here on the east facade, and I'll zoom into that when we go to the elevations a little bit more. The package includes five signs, two of which are building identification, which include the business's name, and then the other three are changeable copy wall signs. The permitted aggregate area based off of the facade's linear square footage would only be 764. The proposal is for 3,340 square feet. This is the primary facade, the north. It includes the two changeable wall signs and then the building identification sign. Over here is the rear of the property, a secondary frontage. And then we have another one of the building identification signs. This points at the existing Lotus House Women's Shelter across the street to the rear of the Children's Village on the south. And then this is the property within 100 feet of a T4R. familiar from the rezone we just presented. This is the east facade, and this also includes a changeable copy wall sign. The criteria for a signage package are below. Compliance with Miami 21, aligns with the guiding principles, operation compared to less intense uses. We did include some conditions with reasonable restrictions associated with the contents that we can go over. I have the conditions included in this package. And then Article 4, Table 12 review. Appropriate scale and character of the building and the neighbourhood at large complements the building architecture and neighbourhood character and does not create a nuisance. So again, we created some conditions to try to make sure that this project is not a nuisance to the adjacent properties. There's a number of conditions. I've included all of them here, but they're also in the packet and the larger report. Some of the specific ones are content, the amount of illumination, and then how quickly the content can rotate so that it's not a nuisance to traffic. Overall, we're recommending approval with conditions. And I'm not sure, Lauren, do you have something to present? Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you, board members. Again, Lauren Kahn with offices at 1450 Brickell Avenue. I'd like to just incorporate my testimony from items one and two into this item as well for the record. As I mentioned before, the Children's Village is a really, really unique use that serves the needs of the neighborhood children. It serves the needs of the children that are staying in the Lotus House across the street, as well as neighborhood children in the community. There are 14 nonprofits within the building. They include after-school activities, tutoring services, a preschool, therapy services, enriching educational and social services. There's also a multi-purpose space for educational programming, community meetings, and other activities. The use is really difficult to describe because it's unique. I don't think this use exists anywhere else, certainly not in South Florida. I worked for years on the warrant and the permitting, the building exists now, and I was never able to truly conceptualize the importance of this use until I saw it in action. I went for a tour and it's an incredibly special, special experience, the services that are being provided there at this facility. It's that same uniqueness that sort of validates the need for this sign package and is the subject of this item, number six. The proposed signage just plays like a really vital role in the communication with the surrounding community and the ability to carry out the Children's Villages mission, which is to serve these children in the community. The zoning code recognizes that because it provides for a special sign package only under certain conditions. There's four conditions under which a special sign package is permitted and this is one of them. This specific use where it serves the needs of neighborhood children and it's affiliated with an adjacent rescue mission. So the code already contemplates that there's a need for some additional signage, that this specific use just really requires communication with the surrounding neighborhood in a way that many other uses don't. Some of the examples of what we contemplate to be displayed on the signs are things like, you know, free tutoring services from 3 to 5, back to school drive, the different services that are provided there in this building, which include 14 different nonprofits. So there's all sorts of stuff going on. It changes regularly. That's why these signs are so important for this use. Um, I want to point out staff touched on the different conditions. I want to point out one of the conditions is that we are not allowed to use this for offsite advertising. These are not advertising signs. These are not murals. Um, it's not a classy sign. That's one of the conditions of approval. That's never the intent behind these. There will be no advertising. The purpose here is solely to help carry out the children villages mission, which is to provide services to the children of the community. With that, I'm available for questions, and we respectfully request your approval of this request.

Thank you. And is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? Okay. Anyone on the board? Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, come on up. Just come up to the mic and state your name and address.

Good afternoon. My name is Mama Joy Jackson. I'm the CEO and founder of Nana's Restart organization. Thank you. Okay. I'm here to, I came late, but I had got a notice to be for the zone. I'm a homeowner. I'm a homeowner also in Overtown. My address is 236 Northwest 16th Street. I am one of the organization is housed at the Children's Village. And what our organization is, we're a resource hub. We put the community with the resources that we have. We do back to school, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and we do year-round. But I don't understand what's the reason why we're here today, because I wasn't here when y'all first started. But I'm here on behalf of the Children's Village because I am one of them in the building. Thank you. I'm one of the 14. So it's a very good building and it's a very good organization and I love the Lotus House. I saw it when it was built. I stay next door to the Lotus House. So I'm one that stood up for the Lotus House to get built. So I'm very concerned about what's going on around that area, because it's a lot of empty lots, but they need to do something that make a impact for the community. So I don't know what is the reason why we're here, because I had a notice to come.

So well, the good news is that we just approved the last two items. We approved the rezone and a change of underlying land use so that the Lotus House can expand to some of those empty lots that you were talking about.

And we need a parking lot.

Is that I don't know about all that, but but but but we can address someone else can address that. But I will tell you that that what you were talking about, we did address in a positive way.

Oh, okay.

And then this item that we're doing right now is about signage outside the building to let people know that the Lotus House is there and some other signs that I guess are revenue generating. No, not revenue generating. They're just, they swap out, but they're not-

about the services.

Okay, sorry.

Okay, about the services is going to be held at the Children Village. Okay, yeah, we do need that. So we also, just let it be productive because it's a very good facility because we're there. We have been around, our organization is now in its restart. We've been around since 2013. And I'm the name Mama Joy in the community. Great. So I am concerned. I just got off work for 12 hours, but I'm here to hear the good news of what's going on because Ms. Constance is a very good young lady and I saw the Lotus House being built and I also saw the children's village because I stood up for the Lotus House. So I'm here to, if y'all going to do the right thing, y'all remember Mama Joy, I come around. Thank y'all.

Thank you very much for your service. Thanks.

And for the record, can I just say that we'll connect afterwards. Thank you.

Great. Anyone else? Okay. Sorry about that. Bringing back to the board.

I appreciate the cause and think it's a great use for this neighborhood. The one comment on traffic, I just wanted to better understand

Article 4, Table 12 asks us to identify potential nuisances that this application may have on the surrounding community, including traffic. So we wanted to ensure that the board did not rotate too fast, that it could cause an accident or distract a driver. In addition, we looked at illumination, making sure that the signs are reasonably illuminated, especially for the surrounding properties, and then As mentioned earlier, the signs are not for commercial purposes. They are solely to advertise the services that Lotus House provides. So it's more of a message board or on-site related. Does that answer your question? Perfect.

Great. Member Mann? Member Collins? Anybody else?

When we're talking about illumination, are these illuminated 24 hours a day?

I don't believe that we have a specific condition as to a maximum level of illumination. There is presumably periods of time where some of the signs will be shut down, but we have to follow the conditions that require a maximum number of changes of copy. There are certain copies that are going to like one of the images that was up, which is a lotus, which is essentially the image that represents Lotus Village, some of those will stay on on a longer period of time.

There is a maximum illumination required by city code in Miami 21, and that's imposed on the project. At time of building permit, they'll need to provide a letter verifying by an engineer that they do not exceed the maximum illumination permit.

But when you're talking illumination, are you talking about the lumens or are you talking duration? Because I'm talking duration right now.

Yes.

Just to understand.

We did not add a time of operation. So far we don't think that's necessary. What we did add was a maximum foot candles. We don't do lumens.

Yeah, I just have to state that I don't love when, even for locations such as the Lotus House, for things to continually be illuminated. I just think that it's just not, I mean, even from a safety perspective, I'm not sure that I would want the Lotus House lit up all night long for random people to be like, oh, that's where they are, you know? I don't know. I don't know anything about that. I leave that to the experts. But I also find that it also draws unwanted attention when you're like it makes it look like it's a shopping center and that's not where people should be at night so that's my position on having things illuminated at night that are really a beautiful community center and provide value it shouldn't be i mean i get that you want to get programming out but i'm not sure programming it gets done at 2 a.m in overtown yeah and i'm not sure that we're necessarily uh shooting for that objective right so i i think um you know we have just built in some flexibility as to

what the total is. We'll obviously adhere to all of the illumination requirements, which will minimize nuisance and impact to the community. But our goal is certainly not to be advertising even our on-site services at 2 o'clock in the morning. That's certainly not our intent.

OK. Do we have a motion?

I'll move.

Second.

Motion and a second. Can we do a roll call, please?

yes yes yes yes

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, board members. Thanks. Okay, so I think we are on to number three.

Recommending approval of an ordinance of the Miami City Commission, amending ordinance number 1044 as amended, the future land use map of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, pursuant to small-scale amendment procedures, subject to Florida Statute 163.31. I'm sorry, 3187 Florida statutes by changing the future land use designation from medium density restricted commercial to restricted commercial of the acreage described herein of the real property located at approximately 701 Southwest 7th 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. Also companion, PZAB item number four, file ID-19673, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board with attachments recommending approval of the ordinance of the Miami City Commission amending the zoning atlas of ordinance number 13114, the zoning code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended Miami 21 code by changing the zoning classification from T5L, urban center transect zone, I'm sorry, open for the property located, I'm sorry, limited to T680 urban core transect zone, open for the property generally located at 701 Southwest Seventh Avenue, the 701 parcel, and from T680 urban core transect zone, open to T612O urban core transect zone, open for the properties generally located at 619 Southwest 8th Street, 665 Southwest 8th Street, 620 Southwest 7th Street, 630 Southwest 7th Street, and 640 Southwest 7th Street, 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.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Board. My name is Darren Murphy, City of Wyoming Planning Department. This first slide shows a quarter-mile radius of the property in question, which is the red rectangle. In a clockwise fashion, number one is Riverside Park to the north. Number two is Ada Merrick Kane 8 Center Educational Facility. And as we go toward Southwest 8th Street, which is where the main construction of these auto related commercial establishments are. You have the Brickwell Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram, number three. Brickle Buick GMC, which is number four, which is essentially where the subject property is. Then you have the Brickle Mazda and the Brickle Honda dealerships. We did a site visit for the social property and looking to the left here. Let me get my pointer here. Southern view from the Southwest 7th Street. You have the rear vehicle inventory for the Brickell, Buick, and GMC dealership. And to this slide here, this is a northern view of the subject property along Southwest 7th Street. And you have your classic multi-family residential three story development projects or buildings. And directly below here is one of the properties that was on part of this land assemblage. And in the background, you have the Brickell Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram building, which is eight stories. And over here to this picture, again, it shows the Buick GMC dealership along Southwest 7th Avenue. And the last one is actually on the property looking directly south is the Brickell Honda dealership across Southwest 8th Street. This slide shows a neighborhood context of a court and is again in a quarter mile radius. This was retrieved from the Miami Dade County and property office. And 90% of the properties are residential in nature. 3.3 is vacant and 3.1 is commercial. However, if you look at the future land use inventory of the study area, which is approximately 137 acres, The two biggest components, or in terms of percentage-wise, is medium-density multifamily residential at 47%, and a restricted commercial at 22%. This slide shows the actual subject property as part of applicant's line assemblage. I call it the job site. This came directly from the applicant's survey. And the visiting map really is meant to show the subject property and its relationship to the surrounding area and major roadways. The area of the subject property is approximately 0.17 acres, which is the red dot here, and is part of the total job site, which includes the subject property, which is approximately 2.49 acres. This slide shows the existing proposed future land use changes, and it's going from medium density restricted commercial to restricted commercial. This slide is shows the interpretation of the future lane uses. The only difference between the medium density Richard commercial and commercial is really the. Is essentially the maximum terms of maximum above grade floor area permitted based on a lot area and transit zone. And this calculation here essentially tells you the maximum. Floor area non residential floor area for this such a property, which is a little over 1Million. This slide, um, deals with the concurrency analysis, and it complies with all the, um, all these school recreation, open space, sanitary sewer. Solid waste collection in transportation. The last slide regards the analysis that staff reviewed, and the first one was policy LU 1.6.4, which the previous slide say that it complied with. The second one is for policy LU 5.1.7, which is to promote walkable mixed-use development that supports transit use and reduces automobile trips and improves mobility. Regarding this one, staff found that the subject property is located within a transit designated quarter-mile transit corridor overlay encompassing Southwest 7th Street and Southwest 8th Street. These two transit corridors support this policy in two ways. transit access. You have multiple bus routes and bus stops that connect the city's Riverside and Little Havana neighborhoods, serving their residents' daily retail and service needs. The other one is the employment access. The mass transit connections expand access to employment centers throughout the city and supports workforce participation the last one is ter policy tr dash 1.1.4 And this one is yes, and staff found that this subject property as part of a larger land assemblage or the job site complies with this policy contingent on the following stipulations for the applicant. To follow appropriate transitions to ensure compatibility with adjacent properties. and also coordinates with the city, county, and state agencies, including FDOT, to identify and mitigate any potential transportation-related impacts in that area. With that stated, the recognition by staff is that the proposed flu amendment for medium density for Richard Commercial to Richard Commercial is consistent with the three applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and recommends approval. I'm now going to segue to the rezone application. Yeah.

Good evening, board members, residents.

My name is Claudia Diaz, I'm a planner at City of Miami with land development. Okay, so I'm here to present to PC25-20149 for a rezone. This item six is file 1-9-6-7-3 is a request to amend the zoning atlas for six properties in district three. The proposal would increase zoning intensity from T5L to T680 for the 701 parcel and for T680 to T612O for the 665 parcel property. After reviewing the request against Miami 21 criteria and planning policies, staff recommends denial. This is the two images that you see, the existing zoning and then the proposed. The surrounding area contains a mix of T4s and T5 transit zones, reflecting a transition from neighborhood-scale residential development to the more intense urban environment associated with the Southwest 8th Street corridor. Properties located north of the site are predominantly developed with one to three story multifamily residential buildings. While properties along the south of the 8th Street consists of a mix of commercial, residential, and mixed use. The 701 parcel rezoning meets criteria one and two, and it generally supports redevelopment trends and evolving corridor conditions. However, Under criteria 3, a staff found the companion resounding to the T612O does not provide an appropriate transition in intensity. Because the application must be considered together, a staff finds the overall resounding request inconsistent and recommends denial. The staff evaluated the proposed rezone from T680 to T612O under the three Miami 21 rezoning criteria. Across the three criteria, staff primary concerns are the lack of demonstration need for the T612O, the absence of change conditions supporting additional intensity and compatibility and transition concerns within the established Miami 21 transit framework. Staff finds the request rezonings are not justified by the surrounding context, the Miami 21 transit framework, or the evidence presented and therefore recommends denial for the application. Based on the findings in the report and summarizing this presentation, staff recommends denial of the request flume, I'm sorry, not the request flume, my bad, of the Miami 21 portion of the rezone.

Thank you.

Just get a little organized here.

Nope.

We have three cables and none of them are working. So if you just give us a second, we will old school email this.

No problem.

Sorry about that. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. I apologize.

You'd think I would have this right by now.

So Melissa, for the record, Melissa Tapinez with offices at 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami. I'm representing Mario Murgado and Miami Automotive Retail, the Murgado Automotive Group. So the property in question is almost two and a half acres of land just west of I-95 between Southwest 7th Street and Southwest 8th Street, and it's an assemblage of six parcels of land. For over 25 years, Mario Morgado has invested in East Little Havana, transforming a neighborhood seller of new and used cars into a national powerhouse, representing the finest automobile brands in the world from its flagship campus right here at their Brickell campus in East Little Havana. Calle Ocho is the city's gateway to the employment center of downtown Miami and Brickell and is the heart of the Brickell campus. Today, the Brickell campus employs 389 local residents with an average salary of over $104,000 per year and a total annual payroll of over $40.5 million. So this is the Brickell Campus. As you'll see in the past, I think many of you have been here over the years as Mr. Morgado brings rezoning applications one by one. We do not, while we own over nine acres of land, they're not contiguous. So we have to go through these individual land use and zoning amendment applications. And today you're seeing one large piece that we have been assembling over years. The intent is to transform legacy buildings and surface parking areas that you see throughout Calle Ocho and under the I-95 expressway into a pedestrian-friendly urban campus. So the existing and proposed use, it's a Brickell Motors auto dealership, and that's the large parcel of land, which is 665 parcel. And you'll see the 701 parcel, that small parcel of land, which is subject to the land use plan amendment, as well as the rezoning. And I'll get into more detail on that. So this is the overall context of the subject property, both the 701 parcel and the 665 parcel. It's surrounded by auto dealerships to the west and the south. The dealerships to the south have this legacy suburban style layout as Mr. Morgado has established. lands and their surface parking for both patrons and their massive inventory of cars. The dealership to the west has been recently redeveloped thanks to a rezoning and land use plan amendment into a vertically integrated structured parking along with the retail components and service components of Chrysler, Dodge, Ram, Jeep. So this is the property. You can see it's a legacy building on Calle Ocho, and it was used as a job site, as was mentioned by staff, as part of the redevelopment of the abutting site next door. The context of this area, as was mentioned, is really automotive dealership, and you can see what legacy buildings look like and what the surface parking lots look like for our inventory. As I mentioned, the intent is to go vertical, and this is what was constructed as the Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram dealership just west of the property. This is a Miami 21 compliant building consistent with urban design standards. It's pedestrian friendly, and it has upgraded the streetscape of both the property itself as well as across the right of ways. And the goal again is to vertically integrate parking and inventory within the structured building. The future context of the Calle Ocho Corridor we anticipate will also be these versus legacy buildings, these urban auto dealerships that you see. Also very exciting, Mr. Murgado and our team have been working with the city of Miami and specifically our district commissioner on an overall revitalization of the Little Havana area. Just this month, the city commission approved a business improvement district for the Calle Ocho Corridor that really brings Mr. Murgado's vision into 2026. This vision is one that has been created over 25 years. and it also includes a up zoning for the overall area so our request on the 701 parcel it has a current zoning of t5 limited that limited is important and our requested zoning is to go to t680 we also have a companion land use plan amendment from medium density restricted commercial to restricted commercial Staff is recommending in favor of the land use plan amendment and denial of the rezoning, specifically dealing with the upzoning of the 6665 parcel from T680 to T612. And there's no change to the restricted commercial. These are the maps as they look like. This is the future land use plan map. You can see restricted commercial, no issues there. And then this is the zoning of how we hope that it will look like with the T68 as well as the T612. Our goal here is to develop a T612 vertical structured parking garage along with retail, and we need the height in order to utilize all that surface inventory parking throughout this entire area of Little Havana consolidated into one property. On the 701 parcel in our proposed rezoning to T680, the existing T5 Limited prohibits auto-related uses altogether. So the 701 parcel is surrounded by the T680 zoning to the west, south, and just further east across that one holdout parcel. And that is why we're asking for the upzoning to T680. Regarding the 665 rezoning, we are proposing a T612 That is to implement the existing restricted commercial comprehensive plan amendment, and most importantly, to allow the Height to develop an urban dealership with vertical auto retail service parts uses, as well as all the inventory storage onsite. This is needed in order to offer city residents and workers auto-related services within proximity to not only their homes where they reside, but also to and from the employment centers of Brickell and downtown Miami. So regarding auto-related use needs, automobiles, we all know, play a critical role in mobility and even with strides as to transit and other types of mobility, cars remain a necessity for most. And Calle Ocho's corridor is a historical thoroughfare from West Miami-Dade all the way to the employment centers. We are providing an essential service for urban car owners, lessening the need for travel to suburban locations for service and retail purchases. We are also suggesting the increased stories to allow for these urban car dealerships to stay competitive with suburban car dealerships that keep massive inventories on site. And simply, we cannot do that using surface parking. For purposes of marketability, we want to be able to show our prospective clients their cars on site. The main thrust of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, and specifically Land Use 1.3, is to encourage urban infill and maximize utilization of areas within the most infrastructure in place. I'll submit to you that Calle Ocho has a historic transportation corridor from West Aid to the urban employment centers of Brickell and downtown. Murgado Retail service and automobile uses have been in existence for over 25 years at these locations. The investment continues, and our goal is to modernize consistent with the Miami 21 zoning code. So we're here if you have any questions, and we respectfully request your approval of both the land use and the rezoning application. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there... Anyone from the public on either the underlying land use or zoning that would like to speak? On these? Okay. Bring it back to the board.

So there are two items. And one is a flume adoption, which seems to be consistent with everything around it. The second is more height. So you can do a garage and a bigger car dealership. But I guess I just don't see too many like plans or proposal around what that will look like. So I'm reticent to give zoning without any particulars or details around what we're gonna get. So do you have any of that?

So I understand that concern, as many of your colleagues will tell you. It's do we provide plans, do we not provide plans? And at the state of the rezoning process, the plans are conceptual. What I can show you is what our existing building looks like today on 8th Street just across the site. So it's going to be vertical, urban, and the goal will be to not only contain the storage of vehicles and inventory on site, but also accommodate the issues of, for example, The loading and unloading of deliveries which today happened on the public right of way on seventh and eight street, so the goal is to internalize those design plans have not been created, yet you can see in the flume application and this the maps before you, we have one holdout parcel that we are working on, and so we want to plan for the entire block but we're not there yet. This assemblage along 8th Street has been a process, a labor of love for over 25 years to acquire this type of land. But the goal is vertical and specifically to remove all the car storage that occurs in this urban area, which is just no longer compatible with the city of Miami to just use surface parking lots in the urban center of the city, and especially in an area that the city is trying to revitalize. This part of 8th Street, as someone who was born and raised in Little Havana, has gone through a lot of changes. And in the late 80s, 90s, when many of our families fled out west, out north like mine, Mario Morgado was one who continued to invest and build this assemblage for the type of economic development that I mentioned. Almost 400 employees earning, at average, over $100,000 salaries in this area. So I understand the recommendation from staff. I respect it. They're not able to account for the user as an example. But of course, I think that's because of the history of this corridor and Mr. Murgado's investment. It's very clear what his goals are in this area. We have other applications that have already been filed with the same concept in mind. So we'll be coming back and I can show you what those past rezoning applications have been and what the future ones are. So you can see to the south, we've had approved rezonings immediately to our west, and we have applications in process to the north as well as to the south.

And if T612 is adopted, I guess a question for council from the city. Can they transfer that use to something else? What's the range of zoning?

So, Claudia, if you can bring back up the comparison. And then the question was in terms of uses and then in height.

Both use and height.

So the uses, there's not a big difference between T680 and T612 uses. So T680 allows you to go to eight stories and then bonus to 12 stories, whereas T612 allows you to go to 12 stories and then bonus to 20 stories. And then if you can bring up the use chart, you'll see there's not gonna be a big difference in uses between T680 and T612. And so there's not a use issue necessarily with that. And then it's not transferable, so... They couldn't, you know, they can't take density from this site and then transfer it to another site or, you know, unless they were taking part in one of our programs like affordable housing or historic preservation, which it doesn't sound like they're going to be taking part in any of those. So, I mean, so at this point, they can't transfer any of that.

Thank you.

Do you want to say that these sites are part of the... as the applicant mentioned, they are part of the Little Havana flume amendment and rezone that you saw at your last meeting. And so the lot that staff is supportive of changing the flume for, as well as rezoning from T5L to T68, that lot is included and you guys have already recommended approval on that specific lot. You would have to re-approve this application or make a different motion on this application. because it is a separate application. So just know that we are looking, we have already moved forward that whole area.

So item number three is already approved, essentially.

So yes, as part of a separate application, it's not approved because it has not gone to city commission yet, but the board has already recommended an approval on the 701 site on 7th Avenue. Nothing on 8th has been looked at. And that is what staff is recommending denial on, is the rezone from T680 to T612.

I appreciate what Mr. Murgado has done for the city, and it's a nice business. We'd just like to see more plans before we award up to 20 stories in height.

Understood, and as your colleagues will know, I suffer with preparing plans, submitting them for rezonings, not. And in a case like this, we're just not ready yet to prepare those plans. But they will be Miami 21 compliant because we don't qualify for a special area plan.

So through the chair, if I could remind the board that rezones are not specific to any site or any specific project. So once, I mean, or any specific application. So once that you make the approval from T680 to T612, it could change to any of the uses that are allowed within T680. Within that zoning category.

Thank you for the but for the record.

There's no difference in uses It's a question of height from 8 to 12 There is a change of use issue from the limited to the open that is correct And I should also for the record we do have a companion application Requesting a waiver of the reason 18 month rezoning timeline between hearings because that will apply to the public applications as well as future private applications that we may need and But that's for the City Commission, not for your board. I just want to put it in the record.

So, yeah. We don't usually, we got to kind of decide on our rezones without pictures. Member Minton. Mr. Tapaez, this is a tough one.

I don't do the easy ones. You really don't. Mr. Mann. You really don't. But I have to side with our zoning department on this one. I'm not sure, but I think this would set a precedent that that area is not ready for. It is too high today for that area. And it's just interesting that you want to store more cars in a city that can't handle any more cars. You can't put them on the ground. You can't drive them, and now you want to put them stacked. There's a disconnect in this city, and I've said it a dozen times. The state and county are trying to bring more traffic in, and the city is trying to reduce parking, and so it's just a train wreck waiting to happen in the next 5, 10, 20 years. I have to go with zoning on this one. I'm fine with the use. I'm fine with the use. And if you can get it done with eight stories, you have that other property that you're working on. There's other properties around there that you can do T8 with. Happy to help you there.

Respectfully, I would accept a motion for approval of the flume and a rezoning to T680. That's also within your realm of recommendation. That would be a fine motion as well, if that's the will of the board.

If you had brought T680, it would have sailed through.

Right, but I don't bring things that sail, obviously. But you can recommend T6-8, deny of the T6-12, and recommend in favor of the T6-8.

That's a wonderful idea. I think you should recommend it. It's a wonderful idea. You should recommend it.

You're the recommending board.

I recommend staying at 8.

Thank you, sir.

Like always, thank you, staff. I'm on the same boat as Mr. Mann right now. This is moving forward. Funny enough, the criteria has already been applied as we did in September 2nd or 3rd or 4th. whenever it was last week or month that we did this. So therefore, it makes sense that we would move forward the flume. But at this point, until those other items in the area starts developing altogether, I cannot approve something that is inconsistent with staff finding. So therefore, I'm a no for this.

I'm a yes for the first, for the flume, because we've already, one, done it, and two, it is consistent.

But the secondary item is not consistent.

Yes, I have to echo what my fellow board members said. I don't really feel comfortable approving something that we haven't seen plans for bringing for the second motion. I am in the approval for the flume as well. But I'd be open to the idea of the approval with conditions on the T68.

Thank you. I'd be very happy with that recommendation from this board.

Okay, through the chair. When I look at the application, when I look at the plan, at the zoning map, is all of the surrounding on that side of the street is T680. And you have this sort of carving that it's a T5, correct? Now, is that piece of land purchased recently that we are now seeing? So the project is enlarging? He's gaining more land that he wants to make to create? He's the owner of the adjacent land as well?

Mr. Murgado has been assembling land. The job site, the T5L site, is a new acquisition where auto dealerships are not allowed. So that's the rezoning that was mentioned.

So if we were to approve this to a T680, we would be filling in and creating a consistent line with the same zoning on that piece.

Correct, and that's why I completely understand that recommendation from this board.

So the next question is, or the next thing that I notice is that if we zoom out and we look at the map, at the zoning map, and what happens around it on 7th, and we go from 9th to 24th Avenue, most of it along 7th is T4 and T5. except for this portion of land, this frontage, from 6th Avenue to 9th Avenue, which is a T68.

Remember that that's also part of the Little Havana revitalization rezoning that is underway. Yes. So I have a map that we can put up so you can see what is the future context.

Can we?

If staff would like.

Please.

It's kind of small. So this is the map, and you can see that T68 is going to be, let me zoom in. You see where 8th Street is, and you can see that T68 is moving to south of 8th Street as well. So it's all of 7th Street now and both sides of 8th Street. And then there's T5.

So we used to have the T4s that were buffering the T3 behind it. Historically. Now it's what? It's a T680 part of the revitalization plan adjacent to a... T5. To a T5?

Correct.

And then the T5... So on the south side where it's T6... It was T680 and then it was... I'm sorry. it abuts the T3 neighborhood. That was the part that was reduced on the record at the meeting, and so now we have completed that transect, so it's T6, 8, T5, and then T4. We left that remaining T4, and then it's the T3. So on the north side, it is the T6 that abuts the T4, though.

Yes, but we are discussing a property on 7th, not 8th.

Right, exactly. So there was no T3 on this portion that we're discussing. Never about a T3.

T3 is west of 8th Avenue in this area. This is really east Little Havana?

Yes. It's all T4.

So you can see the darker orange. So you can see where we put the 701 Southwest Seventh Avenue. That's our site. And there is the buffering between T68, T5, and then T4 because the T3 is west of Eighth Avenue. This is still the urban core of Miami, East Little Havana. Riverside.

Okay, so what I'm trying to point out is that when we continue looking at 7th and what happens as we move to 24th along 7th, it falls out and both sides of the street are either T4 or T5. And this area is the one that's at T6, 8, which is two blocks from what I see on the map, on my map, on the zoning map that I have online.

It's 4th to 8th.

Yeah, so I don't have an issue with... supporting a motion to infill and create and make this a T6-8. I think that it makes sense rather than have a T5 surrounded by T6-8. What I cannot support is a T6-12 for the reasons that have been mentioned. And part of, I think we just approved a zoning application that had no plans. So I don't know why we'd ask plans from this one. I mean it.

That was, but we've gone through, it's, we don't.

I know we don't.

Yeah.

So it's a double-edged.

Yeah, consistently. I think some, we just needed to go through the reminder.

Through the chair, sometimes we have plans, we want to show them, and they're conceptual in nature, because until they're approved, they're not approved, so it's not something unless there's cases where I've proffered covenants, and I say no matter what, we're going to build this, otherwise we have to come back. In this case, we just don't have those plans. I can tell you it's going to be an urban Buick GMC consistent with both Miami 21 as well as the Buick GMC requirements, which they all have their own flagship franchise requirements. And it seems like everyone... And it requires a warrant, I should say, as well, because the auto really...

And it seems like there's really no appetite for T612 and the applicant T68 is not an issue. So I think that recommendation seems imminent. Did you have any other?

No, I'm just out of curiosity, what was your intention of height? What was your intended height need to request an application for a T612? What is it that you're searching for?

So it's a large site. After eight stories under Miami 21, you have to set back 30 feet typically on each side. So Mr. Morgado was looking forward to create iconic buildings. So he wanted more of the architectural flexibility to go higher than the eight stories. Of course, that's balanced with the cost because above 75 feet, it's significant life safety costs, but it's something that if you knew, if you had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Morgado, you would understand that he wants the opportunity to build something iconic here. And that'll be something similar in another application where we do have some conceptual plans. So he's just looking to really elevate Calle Ocho to the kind of significance, both architectural, historically, and culturally, that it deserves and transition from the suburban Little Havana concept to more of the downtown Brickell. So he's always considered this area as being in the shadow of downtown, both as it's utilized in reality, as well as the streetscapes, the landscaping, the kind of way that it looks, and his mission has been to change that and really elevate Miami. So part of it is, of course, what he sells, sexy, incredibly gorgeous cars. And if you drive past this area of 8th Street, you'll note that it just looks different. And of course, surface parking areas is just something of the past. And today, you've seen some of the incredible plans of other vertical auto retail stores that we're bringing to the city of Miami. The goal is to be iconic, not just... Buick GMC, but really, have you seen Buick GMC lately? It's definitely, it's changing, it's evolving, and someone like Mr. Murgado is very passionate about that, as well as the design of auto, as well as architecture. So it was just an opportunity for height. We respect your recommendation, but it's something that Mr. Murgado asked for and felt that he wanted to ask you all for.

Thank you.

Okay. So let's start with the underlying land use. Is there a motion?

Move to approve.

Second. Okay. Roll call, please.

Thank you. Calling Member Paul Mann.

Yes.

Calling Member Chris Collins.

Yes.

Calling Member Lynette Cardoche. Yes. CALLING MEMBER MARIA PAULA DE CAROLAS. YES. CALLING MEMBER EDUARDO FERNANDEZ. YES. CALLING MEMBER ELON MOTOYA. YES. CALLING MEMBER JOSHUA PETENKIN. YES. CALLING MEMBER MANUEL VIDILLO. YES. CALLING VICE CHAIR ANDRES LOPEZ. YES. CALLING CHAIR ADAM GERSTEN.

YES.

THIS PASSES BY A VOTE OF 10-0.

GREAT.

ZONING. MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR ITEM 4 TO REZONE The subject property is this T680. I'll second that. A motion and a second. Can we have a roll call?

So if I, who was the second?

The chair.

So I just want to clarify what that is, is that it's a recommendation of approval of 701 Southwest 7th Avenue from T5L to T680. And then it is ultimately a denial of 619 Southwest 8th Street, 6675 Southwest 8th Street, 620 Southwest 7th Street, 630 Southwest 7th Street, and 640 Southwest 7th Street from T680 to T612. It's a denial. It essentially is a denial, a recommendation of denial for those properties.

So it's only upzoning of that one parcel.

Yes. So just the 701 Southwest 7th Avenue. Correct. And I assume that that is based on the findings in the staff report. Yes. That recommends approval of one and denial of the other.

Through the chair for clarification, please. Staff. What I'd like to do, what I'd like to see is denial of the 12 story. That's correct. But approval of the eight. That's what the motion is.

It's already eight.

Yes, that is the motion.

Great. So roll call, please.

See, that's a layoff. Calling member Chris Collins.

Yes.

Calling member Eduardo Fernandez. Yes. Thank you. Calling member Lynette Cardoche. Yes. Calling member Maria Paula de Carolas. Yes. Calling member Paul Mann.

Yes.

Calling member Elon Mottoyer. Yes. Calling member Joshua Patinkin. Yes. Calling Member Manuel Vidillo. Calling Vice Chair Andres Lopez. Yes. And calling Chair Adam Gersten. Yes. This passes by a vote of 10 to 0.

Thank you.

Thank you.

item number five, file ID-19674, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board with attachments, approving with conditions and exception, pursuant to ordinance number 13114, the Zoning Code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended Miami 21 Code, pursuant to Article 10, Section 10.3.7, and Article 7, Section 7.1.2.6, to allow a special sign package that exceeds the aggregate area of table 15 sign design standards and sign area per article 10 section 10.3.6.c allowing a maximum sign area of 889 square feet on each the north and west facades where 280 square feet is permitted per sign and a very i'm sorry and a warrant pursuant to article 10 section 10.3 to allow a sign above a height of 50 feet at the real property designated T680, oh, urban core transect zone open, generally located at 1 Southeast 3rd 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.

Thank you, Melanie. Good evening, chair and board members. I'm Awusi Khadijah-Watson with the Plain Department. I will be presenting file PZ2620838. It's an application that's requesting approval for a special sign package and a subordinate warrant. The approval would allow two tenant identification signs that exceed a maximum sign area for signs above 50 feet as permitted by Miami 21. The associated warrant would also allow for them to have the signs above 50 feet. Staff has reviewed the request against Miami 21 and their criteria, and we're recommending approval with conditions. The property is located in downtown Miami along Biscayne Boulevard and adjacent to Bayside Park. The proposed signage will also be installed on an existing office building. The tenant occupies more than 5% of the building's gross leaseable area, making them eligible to request the sign above 50 feet. And this map outlines the location of the subject property. This slide shows the future land use designation as well as the zoning designation. The flume designation is central business district and it's in the T6880 urban core transit zone. These designations support high density mixed use development in downtown Miami. And staff considered these designations when evaluating whether this sign was appropriate or not. So as you can see, this is the location of the SunTrust building, or what was referred to as the SunTrust building. It will now be the Sempro building, and that's where the identification will go, where you see SunTrust. The applicant provided some other examples of tenant identification signs adjacent to the subject property, and as you can see, this is something that is prevalent within the downtown area. This is the proposal. So as you can see, there will be two tenant identification signs, one on the north facade, one on the west facade. It will be going approximately, the request is for it to go about 365 feet or four feet high. And then again, so you have the exception to exceed the maximum area. from 280 to 889, and then we're also asking for a warrant for the sign to be above 50 feet. Both signs. When we did the analysis, we found that it, one, met all of the exception criteria. Again, this is just replacing how we saw it as the old SunTrust sign with this new sign. And with the warrant, we also found that the sign met all criteria. The conditions are standard but you know we were trying to ensure that we can you know put this on the agenda and appropriate time so that the applicant can move forward with their application and their building permits so we have conditions certain things like ensuring that the lighting is going to be appropriate and that if there's like some things that need to be changed like some typo, types of things that need to be fixed, but those are the only kinds of conditions that we've asked for them to abide by. So in conclusion, we are recommending approval of both the exception and the subordinate award for the sign. And that concludes my remarks.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, my name is Jose Felix Diaz, and my office is at 2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 102, Coral Gables, Florida. I'm here tonight on behalf of Simpro, the company that's moving into this historic building at 1 Southeast 3rd Avenue, seeking your approval for the two signs that were just referenced. I want to thank staff for the amazing job they did with the report. I actually have a personal connection to this building. I began my professional career working in this building when it was known as the SunTrust International Center. So I've watched the building remain an important part of Miami's downtown for many years. The building is approximately 50 years old and signage at the top of the building is nothing new. It has consistently featured prominent tenant signage over the years, most recently with the SunTrust name. What we're proposing tonight is keeping with that history. As you can see in the material, city staff has recommended approval of this application. The report specifically finds the proposed signage is compatible with the surrounding urban environment and the existing development pattern. Staff also indicated two important reasons supporting approval. First, the proposed sign will occupy substantially the same locations where signage has previously existed on the building, Mind you, it's less letters. SunTrust is actually more letters than Simpro. And second, the proposal is consistent with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. I want to spend a moment talking about the companies whose name will be on the building. The signage is for Simpro Software Limited, led by Fred Vicola, the co-founder of Kaseya, and someone who has played a significant role in recent years in the growth of Miami's private sector technology community. Fred and his team made the decision to relocate Simpro's headquarters from Australia to Miami, and 1 Southeast 3rd Avenue will become the epicenter of the company's growth in our community. That matters at a time when Miami continues to compete for companies, investment, and good-paying jobs. Simpro is making a tangible commitment to this city. They're not simply talking about investing in Miami. They are putting down roots here. Tonight's request is relatively straightforward to allow a company that's chosen to make a major investment in downtown Miami to place its name on a building that has historically carried precisely the same type of signage and substantially the same location with the support and recommendation of your professional staff. We have representatives from the sign company here tonight who will address any technical questions you might have. And for all these reasons, we respectfully request your approval of this application. Thank you, and we're here to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this? Seeing no one. Anyone on the board who has any comments? Starting on my right. My left. Okay, is there a motion? Motion to approve. Second. Roll call, please.

Calling member Ilan Montoya. Yes. Calling chair, vice chair. Yes. Thank you. Calling member Lynette Cardoche. Yes. Calling member Chris Collins.

Yes.

Calling member Maria Paula De Corrales. Yes. Calling member Eduardo Fernandez. Yes. Calling member Paul Mann.

Yes.

Calling member Joshua Patinkin. Yes. Calling member Manuel Vidillo. Yes. And calling chair Adam Gersten.

Yes.

This passes by a vote of 10 to 0.

Thank you. Thank you.

calling PZAB item number seven, file ID-19686, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board recommending to the Miami City Commission approval of an ordinance, amending ordinance number 13114, the zoning ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended Miami 21 code, specifically by amending article four, table four, titled, density intensity and parking to clarify parking regulations for with for uses within the podium by amending article 5 titles specific to zones to update development incentives for podium liners podium design and parking standards and allowable cantilevered buildings encroachment and by amending article 6 section 6.1 Titled intent and exclusions to update micro dwelling unit liner regulations making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date Good evening everyone Paul Genovese chief of urban design with the city and

Here to speak on this item, podium regulations, liners, cantilevered encroachments, and further design clarifications. So a quick outline of the amendments. First, we'll look at podium scale and efficiency. There will be some slight clarifications and updates to parking for uses within a building. We'll also speak about liners and update to the incentives that promote active liners that help conceal parking areas and projects. And finally, we'll look at balconies and clarifying cantilever balcony encroachments within established setback areas. So a little background. Last year, we came forward with some podium amendments. This is kind of a cleanup and a furthering of those amendments. You know, a podium, just a reminder, it's a portion of a building that we're now Defining is up to 125 feet in height. You could also call that the pedestal. And it mostly applies to T6 sites. A little overview of design history, some of the challenges we have in the city, the limestone rock underneath our foundations and buildings go into the high water table and flooding that results from that porosity underground and our proximity to sea level. With our parking requirements that then results in large above ground podiums typically as underground parking is either infeasible or extremely expensive and cost prohibitive. This does, though, present not a problem necessarily, but a design opportunity for innovative design, improved urban realm. It mitigates ambient effects and can help with building efficiency. And as you can see, we've had some typical liner units, like the image on the left, or our screening of podiums, which you can see the image on the right, the kinetic screen of the office tower in Brickell that recently finished. So like I said earlier, there were the 2025 amendments about podiums and parking garages that looked at podium height, design requirements, considered naturally ventilated garages, liner incentives, and was about having consistency and streamlining within the code language. So now to tonight's amendment, parking for uses inside a podium or liner. It's a quick reminder of the definition of what a liner is in Miami 21. It's a building or a part of a building with habitable space specifically designed to in front of public space. It masks a function without capacity to monitor public space such as a parking lot, parking garage, or storage facility. And a liner shall have a minimum depth of 15 feet. Some benefits of liners, natural surveillance, or as people will call it, eyes on the street for security and safety. It keeps parking areas and the messiness of garages fully concealed, headlights, et cetera. And it improves the streetscape and quality of our urban design landscape in the city. So getting to some of the changes, these are some of the clarifications and modifications for parking uses within a podium and a liner. So for T4 and T5, as you can see, there's a little bit of a cleanup where previously or currently where it's a minimum of one parking space per dwelling unit under 650 square feet within the second layer of a podium liner above the first story. We're just simplifying that to minimum of one parking space per dwelling unit under 650 square feet. That's still basically the same. In T4 and T5, your entire building would be considered the podium because it's under that 125 foot threshold. You can't go above that in building height in those transect zones anyway. So there isn't any kind of reduction in parking. It's just a clarification and a language cleanup. However, we will be adding that you can do a minimum of a half space per dwelling unit if it's an actual liner on a parking garage. And just the same thing when it comes to lodging, just a little bit of cleanup and simplification of the language. For T6, very similar, the same cleanup with the one space per unit under 650 square feet. Also the addition of the half space per dwelling unit if it's a podium liner unit. Same thing, the cleanup for the lodging. And then for office, the same minimum of three for every thousand square foot of office. We've seen some projects come in recently that are doing office uses as a podium liner, which we think is great. Sometimes those units, if they're residential, aren't the most desirable due to their proximity to street level and ambient noise. So having an office use there we feel is a great use of a liner program. So if you do an office as a podium liner, your parking would be a minimum of two spaces for every thousand square feet of that office. Design outcomes that would come from this, smaller podiums due to potentially having less parking if those liners are included. Prioritizes housing over parking, which would help drive down housing costs. Improves building efficiency and prevents over parking, especially with the proliferation of ride shares and especially autonomous ride shares that we're seeing become very popular around the city now. And it introduces active uses along the streetscape, which results in improved quality of the urban realm. So getting into some of those additional liner incentives in more detail. This looks at density and FLR and T4, T5, and T6, these updates. So once again, it's kind of just a language cleanup to get rid of some of this confusion regarding second layers and some of this terminology that applicants, architects find confusing at times. So now it's just going to read that for each dwelling unit within a liner above the first story, a development shall be allowed an additional one quarter dwelling unit. for each dwelling unit within, same thing for T5, and then we get to T6, for each square foot of floor area provided within a podium liner, a development shall be allowed an additional 1 1⁄2 square foot of floor area. So just kind of, like I said earlier, removing that second layer language, some of this overcomplication that was in the code. And very similar here when it comes to micro-dwelling units within the liner and those incentives, just a simplification of that language for T5 and T6. And lastly, the cantilevered encroachments portion. Like the others, this is more of a cleanup. You can see we're striking out a lot of the additional language that was on letter B at the bottom there. The main goal of this is there were modifications to the encroachments in the 2025 legislation that looked at only the podium and it didn't actually look at the tower and kind of see how those two things would jive together. the relationship of the encroachments from the podium with the ones above. What this is doing is making everything equal. So that we'll get kind of a more streamlined vertical building where the setbacks and encroachments are equal heading up. Take any questions, thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Board. Brian Dombrowski, 333 Southeast 2nd Avenue. Here to speak in support of the item and thank staff for working. As we went through the podium legislation, there were a lot of these items that they're cleaning up tonight that we realized were issues as it came up, caused a lot of confusion for the architects, clients that we work with. So just wanna thank staff for working with us to try and clean this up, make it a little bit more clear for everybody. So thank you. And here in support.

Thanks. Anyone else? I missed in the table where there's less parking that's not required. Can you show that slide?

This one?

Thank you. Okay, anyone else? I'll make a motion to approve.

I have a question. I mean, I think this is a great proposal. I think it's long overdue. I think that the intent of Miami 21 was to put all of the parking in the third layer, and then the waiver came as a an option to not do that and then everybody started doing the waiver and not fulfilling the main intent of the Miami 21 quote, which was to provide those eyes on the street and that liner building and all of that. So going back and providing those incentives to try to reel those applicants back into what the original intent was, I think it's great. The question that I have is, through the encroachments that are being proposed, can potentially the mass of the building enlarge in some way or no? No, it's only to create shape or those are going to be spaces.

It's only the cantilevered and it's the elements that are mentioned there, balconies, bay windows, roofs, screening elements and facade components that promote energy efficiency, shading, screening devices. So yeah, it's not the actual building itself going out.

Okay, I'm good. Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay, now a motion. Make a motion to approve. Motion. Do we have a second? Second. Roll call, please.

Calling member Chris Collins. Yes. Thank you. Calling member Eduardo Fernandez. Yes. Thank you. Calling member Lynette Cardozo. Yes. Calling member Maria Paula De Corozo. Yes. Calling member Paul Mann.

Yes.

Calling member Ilan Matoir. Yes. Calling member Joshua Patinkin. Yes. Calling Member Manuel Vidillo. Calling Vice Chair Andres Lopez. Yes. And calling Chair Adam Gersten. Yes. Thank you. This passes by a vote of 10-0.

Thank you all.

Calling PZAB item number eight, file ID 19728, a resolution of Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board with attachments recommending approval with conditions to the Miami City Commission pursuant to chapter 55, Section 55-15 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended to close, vacate, abandon, and discontinue from public use a 50-foot portion of the Northwest 17th Street located west of North Miami Avenue and east of the Florida East Coast Railroad, Miami, Florida. As Moore particularly describes, in the attached and in corporate exhibit A, making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date. Thank you.

Good evening members of the board, good evening residents. I'm here to present a vocation closure. This is to propose a vocation closure of a right of way pursuant to Chapter 55, Section 5515C of the Miami City Code of Ordinances. As you see there, the orange line, that's the proposed area to be closed, vacated. This request involves the closure of a portion of Northwest 17th Street located west of North Miami Avenue and east of the Florida East Coast Railroad. The subject right away comprises approximately of 8,640 square feet or 0.198 acres. and represents the western terminals of the Northwest 17th Street.

That's where it ends, at that point.

For the record, staff would like to correct an error in the report and the legislation. The flume designation is identified as general commercial, but the correct flume designation is industrial. This does not change the recommendation. And you can see it in the graphics that you guys got, they were correct. The request is part of the proposed replatting of the property. The plat and street committee approved the CMEX downtown ready mix tentative plat number 2026B on September 5th, 2024. And the approval was confirmed on November 21st, 2024. The tentative plan includes the closure and vacation of the subject right-of-way, as you see it on the yellow. These are some pictures from the actual site. And then you could see the closure, the right-of-way to be proposed to be closed. And the next pictures are more for, oops, are more for the context of the area. You could see the railroad. A staff evaluated their request against the Chapter 55 criteria and found that all the standards have been met. The right-of-way is a dead-end street that terminates at the Florida East Coast. Railroad and no longer serves the public circulation function. This closure will unify the property, maintain adequate emergency access to alternative routes, improve public safety by discouraging unauthorized railroad closing, and reduce opportunities for illegal dumping. The staff determined that the proposal serves the public interest and will not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular circulation. These are the conditions, they are the typical conditions for all the vacation closures. The number one is more specific for this specific application. And in conclusion, based on the analysis and the findings, the staff determined that the proposed right-of-way vacation is consistent with the review criteria of Chapter 55, Section 5515. The closure will consolidate the property into one unified site, improve public safety by eliminating an access to an unsafe dead end adjacent to the railroad, maintain adequate emergency access, and have no adverse impacts on pedestrian or vehicular circulation. Therefore, staff recommends approval with conditions of the proposed right-of-way. If you have any questions, thank you.

Hi, good evening. Nicole Wolf, offices at 333 Southeast 2nd Avenue. Thank you so much. Staff did an excellent job briefing you on the application, so I'll try to be as brief as possible. As staff mentioned, this is an approval to close and vacate a portion of Northwest 17th Street located west of North Miami Avenue and east of the Florida East Coast Railroad. I'm here on behalf of CMEX Construction Materials Florida and People's Gas Systems. So the site is actually, I'm sorry, the right-of-way sought to be closed is actually bifurcating CMEX's active ready-mix construction facility. So CMEX currently operates on both sides of this right-of-way, and so the closure is primarily due to safety, security, and to facilitate the existing industrial operations to function in a more controlled and safe manner for the adjacent neighborhood. CMEX's operations necessarily involve heavy trucks, concrete related equipment, and other industrial activity. So having a public right of way that runs straight through their current operations in the middle of the facility creates ongoing point of interaction between the public and the industrial activity occurring on a daily basis on site. Closing this right-of-way will allow CMEX to consolidate its operations into one contiguous secured site with better control over access, more effective perimeter around the facility, and reducing the potential for those conflicts, both from a vehicular and a pedestrian perspective. Finally, this portion of the right-of-way does not provide any meaningful roadway connectivity to serve a public transportation purpose. It's a dead end. There's no vehicular crossing or pedestrian crossing, so it from a practical standpoint, is predominantly served by the owners of the adjacent property, but still open for public. And for those reasons, we respectfully request that the board follow your professional staff's recommendation of approval and allow us to proceed with the road closure. Thank you. Here for any questions. Thank you.

Is there anyone in the public who would like to speak? Anyone on the board who would like to ask any questions or have any discussion?

Motion to approve.

Just make sure. Second. All right.

Great.

Roll call, please.

CALLING MEMBER PAUL MANN.

YES.

CALLING MEMBER CHRIS COLLINS. YES. CALLING MEMBER LYNETTE CARDOSCH. YES. CALLING MEMBER MARIA PAULA DE CAROLAS. YES. CALLING MEMBER EDUARDO FERNANDEZ. YES. CALLING MEMBER ELON MOTOYA. YES. CALLING MEMBER JOSHUA PATINKIN. YES. CALLING MEMBER MANUEL VIDEO. YES. ALSO CALLING VICE CHAIR ANDRES LOPEZ. YES. AND CALLING CHAIR ADAM GERSTEN. YES. THIS PASSES BY A VOTE OF TEN TO ZERO.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Calling PZAB item number 10, file ID 19769, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board authorizing an application for amendment to ordinance number 10544 as amended the future land use map of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan pursuant to small-scale amendment procedures subject to Florida Statute 163.3187 Florida statutes. Okay. My apologies. Okay. Thank you.

We're going to do 10 and then nine.

My apologies. A FLORIDA STATUTES BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL AND THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 13114 THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY THE CITY OF MIAMI FLORIDA AS AMENDED MIAMI 21 CODE BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION from T3R, Suburban Transsect Zone, open to T3O, Suburban Transsect Zone, open for the southern portion of the property, generally located at 3606 and 3642 Southwest 17th Street and 3600 and 3522 Southwest 17th Terrace, Miami, Florida, making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date.

Okay, so if you, there's two of these on your agenda, nine and 10, we're gonna do 10 first and then we'll go back and do nine. So if you can remember at the meeting on September, sorry, September, July 15th, right before we left for the recess, there was an application for the, a rezone and a flume application for the lot that you see highlighted here on Southwest 17th Terrace. And that lot is bifurcated as T3O in the north and T3R on the south. And this ended up being part of a mistake that was made during the adoption of Miami 21 and the adoption of the Coral Gate Conservation District. So the map of the Coral Gate Conservation District actually falls to the properties to the south. The dark line that you're seeing is actually the zoning boundary between T3O and T3R. It was not actually ever supposed to be like that, but when we adopted Miami 21, it codified a map, it ended up codifying a map mistake. And so the only way to correct the map mistake is to actually do a future land use map amendment and a rezone. The lot that is highlighted came in as a private application and everybody said, what about everybody else that this happened to as well? And you expressed interest in moving forward a future land use map application and a rezone application. to correct this. It impacts actually only four properties. So it is, oops, sorry. This, it's the large, it's actually the four properties to the west. So it's this large one that is, has lots of houses on it, but it's actually only a single lot. Again, another one that has three structures on it that is a single lot. And then these two, what appear to be single family homes. So the north side of those properties are T3O with the southern portion being T3R. And so what this resolution does is authorizes, PSAB is then authorizing the actual application for the future land use map and the rezone. So you are the signature, you are the applicant to correct this mapping mistake that was made. It's a little hard to see so you can see better on this slide where there's property boundaries actually are versus the Weird rezoning or the weird zoning boundary line Thank you Anybody motion to approve Roll call please

Calling member Eduardo Fernandez. Yes. Thank you. Calling member, I'm sorry, and calling member, I'm sorry, calling member Andres Lopez. Yes. Thank you. Calling member Lynette Cardoche. Yes. Calling member Chris Collins.

Yes.

Calling member Maria Paula De Corrales. Yes. Calling member Paul Mann.

Yes.

Calling member Elon Mottoyer. Yes. Calling member Joshua Patinkin. Yes. Calling member Manuel Vidillo. Yes. And calling chair Adam Gersten.

Yes.

Thank you. This passes by a vote of 10 to zero. Now calling PZAB item number nine, file ID-19768, a resolution of the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board authorizing the application for amendment to ordinance number 10544 as amended the future land use map of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan pursuant to small, I'm sorry, small scale amendment procedures subject to Florida Statute 163 by changing the future land use designation from duplex residential to a low density restricted commercial, and the zoning atlas of ordinance number 13114, the zoning code of the city of Miami, Florida, as amended Miami 21 code by changing the zoning classification from T30 suburban transect zone open to T4L general urban transect zone limited for the property generally located at 3735, 3753, 3763, 3767, 3787, 3797, 3817, 3823, 3825, 3833, 3843, 3859, 3875, 3893, 3925, 3927, 3929, 3933, I'm sorry, 3963, 3971, 3983, 3989, 3997 Washington Avenue, and 3870, 3894, 3902 Grand Avenue, Miami, Florida, making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date.

So if you've been on this board long enough, you've probably seen an application for these rezones three or four times, because I think in the four years I've been here, I've seen at least three. And they're typically been put forth by the commission office, and then at some point end up getting withdrawn. And so during the last kind of round of this There was a property owner, and she is here tonight, who expressed frustration because of the size of these lots. You can see that these lots are very small. and so they're incredibly difficult to develop. So there was, PSAB expressed interest in being the applicant for the application to move those properties forward for a future land use map amendment and a rezone. And I do want to mention that, just like the other application and this application, this just authorizes the application, so the actual report and everything has to come back before you. So this just authorizes the application and for staff to actually start putting together the report. Although I will say this one's already written because we've done it three times. It also is part of the West Grove vision plan and the Grand Avenue vision plan as well. So this is authorizing, again, an application to rezone these properties from T3O that you see highlighted. to T4L. The property owner that is here tonight, her properties are in the western block. I included both blocks in the authorization application, but if you would like to narrow that, you can. However, we still do need to meet the minimum requirement for sizing and that's 40,000 square feet or 200 linear feet. So when I looked at it, I really felt like it made sense to do both blocks versus leaving, having the western block as T4 and then having kind of the gap of T3O in the middle. However, if you would like to do that, you would just need to amend the resolution.

Are there any questions?

And again, this was expressed during, I believe it was the second meeting in May where we were looking at actual legislation. And so at that time, PSAB said that they were interested in authorizing or being the applicant for this.

Thank you.

I'm having trouble visualizing context here. Oh, so everything there is going to go T4. So the north, just off picture, above picture, that's all T4 looks like?

Yes, it's actually T5.

T5 there. So on the right-hand side, the T4L proposed would actually be your transition then, from the T5 down to the T4. That's correct. I want nobody else a motion to approve.

Second.

Roll call.

Calling member Paul Mann.

Yes.

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

Yes.

Calling Member Maria Paula de Carolas? Yes. Calling Member Ilan Metoyer? Yes. Calling Member Joshua Patinkin? Yes. Calling Member Manuel Vidillo? Thank you. And calling Vice, I'm sorry, calling Chair Adam Gersten?

Yes.

Okay. This passes by a vote of 10 to 0. Okay, calling PZAB item number 11, file ID, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board with attachments recommending approval of an ordinance of the Miami City Commission amending Chapter 35, Article 5 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida as amended titled Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Coconut Grove Business District, Design District, Wynwood, Wynwood-Norte, and Downtown Flagler District Parking Improvement Trust Funds, more particularly by amending Section 35-220 titled Required Off-Street Parking and Pavement in lieu OF REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING AND ESTABLISHING SECTION 35-245 TITLED CALE OCHO PARKING IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND. ESTABLISH SECTION 35-246 TITLED FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE FINANCIAL REPORT SECTION 35-247 TITLED SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES FOR CALE OCHO PARKING IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND. and Section 35-248 titled Parking Waiver, Certificates, Revocation, Refunds to Establish the Calle Ocho Parking Improvement Trust Fund, Making Findings Containing a Severability Clause, and Providing for an Effective Date.

So if you remember several months ago, I did a presentation establishing the Little Havana Parking Trust Fund. This is exactly the same presentation. I've just retitled it. And I've already worked in your recommendations that were approved by City Commission on the last one. I'll run through it very quickly. This does establish the Cuyahoga Parking Improvement Trust Fund. And so it creates the payment in lieu of parking option. Then the funds are provided district-wide. And I'll have a map of the district. to support parking and mobility improvements within the district. And then it also supports economic development while preserving the neighborhood character. We know that a lot of the lots in Little Havana and along Cuyahoga are smaller lots. And so it's much more difficult to maintain the existing character with parking. So again, some of the challenges, they were developed, a lot of this area was developed before modern parking requirements. They have limited opportunities to provide on-site parking. It creates a redevelopment barrier, and so this would allow flexibility to support more adaptive reuse and more investments. It also creates community opportunities, so it's a district-wide approach. to parking, mobility, streetscape improvements, and economic fatality. So again, how it works, you apply for a parking waiver, and then you pay into the trust fund, as opposed to actually coming before you guys and getting an exception. So you receive the parking waiver certificate, you proceed You can proceed without constructing the parking. Some of the parking are all the required parking spaces. The next bullet point is for lots over 40,000 square feet, she'll only be allowed to pay a fee in lieu of providing the parking for a maximum of 75% of the required parking. That was a condition that was adopted, made by this board, that was adopted into the legislation for the Little Havana one. I've gone ahead and already put that in for the Cuyahoga one. This is the boundary for the Cuyahoga one, so it does abut the Little Havana one. So what can the trust fund pay for? It can pay for parking facilities, parking lot acquisition, parking garage construction, parking facility operations. It can also support mobility improvements, shuttle, trolley, tram services, transit supportive infrastructure, bus shelters, wayfinding and signage, pedestrian enhancements, and a complete streets improvement. So the fee structure, a half space would be $13,500 and a full parking space would be $27,000. I do know that you recommended an increase in these. That was not accepted by the commission. So they did leave it at, what, what was originally in the legislation. Additional provisions, so it does allow for a permanent waiver certificate to be issued, and then the certificate runs with the property, then the price that you're seeing here gets adjusted every five years for the consumer price index. How the trust fund revenues are used, 90% of the funds have to go toward parking and mobility projects, infrastructure projects, and transportation enhancements. The next part is something that you guys added to the little Havana legislation. So 25% of that 90% may only be used to acquire interest in land for parking purposes or to actually construct, maintain, operate, lease, manage, or fund off-street parking facilities. So of that 90%, 25% of the funds have to be used for parking and cannot be used for other mobility improvements. And then it does maintain a maximum of 10% that's used for reserves and then administrative cost. Oversight and governance, it again, like the Little Havana one, creates a committee who are responsible for kind of administering the trust fund and then also evaluating programs that they want to use the money for. There is financial reporting that is reported to the city commission. And then the Miami Parking Authority actually oversees the trust fund.

Let's see.

So again, it just supports the city's goals as well as supports the revitalization of the district. And allows for hopefully some investment and opportunities within Cuyahoga. That's all I have.

Thank you. Anyone from the public? Nope. I know. Anybody have anything to say over here?

Just a curiosity. What kind of revenues are you looking? Are you expecting? Are there any projections at all for what kind of revenues they might? I have no revenue projections.

Excellent.

I mean, at $27,000 per parking spot, I mean, it could be millions if the development came.

So again, I mean, so it's the property owner has to opt into it. So, you know, sometimes they will pay for a half spot. Sometimes they'll pay for five spots. Sometimes they won't pay for any, right? They'll just build all their parking. So it really kind of depends on an individual. And it's on a case-by-case basis for that property owner and what makes sense to them within their pro forma.

It seems that you won't really be able to do much until the program's in place and you actually start to accumulate some cash. That's correct. All right, thank you.

Savannah, do you have any real-world examples, though, of other parking funds that have been set up and you've seen developers maybe use it?

Sure. So we have multiple parking trust funds set up throughout the city. So we have the Coconut Grove one is probably the most popular one. So there's one in Coconut Grove. It's also the cheapest one, which is probably why that's the most popular one. We have one in the Design District. That one is our most expensive one and is not used because it is so expensive. I don't think we've ever had anybody pay into the Design District one, and it's $45,000 a space. So again, that's why we're... Trying to set it. The Coconut Grove one I think at one point was like $500 a space or something ridiculous. It got changed and upped, but it was at one point ridiculously low. So again, the Coconut Grove one is the most popular one. There are also ones in Wynwood and Wynwood Norte. And so those also tie into their revitalization districts as well. And those have been successful as well. So they do get used, and then we have one that is generic for the city, and that is the Transportation Trust Fund. So if you're in a transit corridor or a TOD, you can, if you get the exception for the 50% waiver, you pay 20% into, you pay for 20% of your spaces into that trust fund. And then that trust fund is used to support our trolley program.

Would you recommend then to keep it at a lower rate or go back with a recommendation of a higher rate even though it wasn't approved already?

So I think we used the average 2025 for Florida for the construction costs for spaces. if I remember correctly. I think that it actually does cost more, but it's kind of, you know, you wanna make sure that you're setting the price as something that is feasible, because if not, then nobody's gonna utilize the program. I think that the board recommended 37,000, I believe, previously, or 35,000, and so the commission district did feel that that was a little too high.

I'm open for something high.

I think that if that's the will of the board, then by all means, I think you can, again, recommend it and be consistent with your other recommendation. I'd like to do that.

Yeah, I'd like to back you up on that because I do feel that while we don't want to make it super expensive, we also don't want to make it extremely easy for them to use this program. Yeah, additionally, we're seeing... At the end of the day, we want to increase, like, the transit here and people using our public transit and all that, but it's not there yet. And then if we make it this much easier for them, for the developers to take the easy way out, then...

I just see that, I mean, this whole area is about to get majorly redeveloped, and so there has to be push through that. Obviously, I've been very supportive of that redevelopment, so I think a way that could give back is to provide that and ultimately look at i mean not to punt the potato but it is the the commission who will be saying no this is this does not work for my community for this community but as a recommending body i think it is okay for us to say hey we approved a major movement to upgrade this area let's also do something for the parking now that we have the ability

So to clarify the conversation a little bit, they could still decide to build half the parking, paying at 27, just 27 to full parking space, and their other 50%, they could effectively sell it at... 40,000 if they wanted to, if the developer wanted to. They don't have to just buy in the whole, they don't have to buy down the whole thing, right?

That's correct. So in this program, you cannot apply, so in this program, once we set this up, you cannot apply for the TOD waivers. So the existing TOD waivers are no longer, you can no longer apply for them at all. The only option, if you want to decrease your parking in this area, will to pay in lieu. So currently, if your 8th Street is a transit corridor, they can come and get an exception for a 30% reduction in parking, and that has no fee associated with it. They can get the 50%, and they pay for only 20% of that 50%, because they get the first 30% for free. So you pay for 20%. And then if you're a building under $20,000, you can get 100%. by exception, and it's free. So those, that exception will no longer be available to anybody in this area. It's the only way that they will be able to do any type of parking reduction is through this program. And so they will have to, they can pay for 100% of their parking, or they can pay for a half, a spot. And that is ultimately up to them and what they need to make their performo and their program work.

Okay, I have a question through the chair. So let's think, because we're thinking new construction when we look at this, but let's think that we are rehabilitating or reusing an existing space, and that space is, especially in this area, is already built or more or less is, and you need to provide the parking requirements. So those people would not have many opportunities but to select this program. If we make it very hard, we're going to render these smaller businesses impossible. We went through something like this many moons ago in Coconut Grove when they had to come back and, like, we had to look back and make everybody be able to code because they weren't. And we realized that there... owners or tenants that they do not have the opportunity or the or the feasibility so they had no option but to pay into the fund so i want to bring that into light because we really want to incentivize this especially in this area those um those projects as well not just think that there are going to be new construction all the time

Right, and so we're, and Miami 21 does already allow, so if you have an adaptive reuse program and you're, you know, you're building now, your new use requires 10 parking spots, but there are only five available in your lot, you're already waived down to those five because it's an adaptive reuse program. And so you wouldn't have to pay into the fund for those. But, for example, let's say you wanted to turn one of those parking spots into outdoor dining. Then you would need to pay $27,000 into this fund, and then you could use that spot as maybe your outdoor dining space, but you would still end up having the other four. So it does kind of take into account those situations as well. I just use that as an example.

And if you change the use, also, it might kick in a different number of parking spaces. Right, exactly, exactly. If you go from educational to something else or vice versa, then you're going to have a different requirement than one that was there.

Which is exactly, so like if, for example, you have, you know, a school that only requires three parking spots and you go to a restaurant and it requires 15, but it's an adaptive reuse and you only ever had five, then... Yeah. you can still keep those five without paying into the fund.

All right, I'll make the motion to pass, to approve, but with the recommendation of increasing, what should we increase it to?

That's the... Board member Motoya made the recommendation the last time, sorry, to put you on the spot. I thought it was 35,000. I think so.

Let's go with 35.

You can just say to match the Little Havana, the recommendation for Little Havana, and I'll figure it out.

Thank you, Savannah. So move to approve and match recommendation that we made prior.

I second that. Rogel.

Calling Vice Chair Andres Lopez. Yes. Calling Member Eduardo Fernandez. Yes. Calling Member Lynette Cardoche. Yes. Calling Member Chris Collins. Yes. Calling Maria Paula de Carolas.

No.

Okay, thank you. Calling Member Paul Mann.

Yes.

Calling Member Ilan Montoyer. Yes. Calling Member Joshua Patinkin. Yes. Calling Member Manuel Vidillo. Yes. And calling Chair Adam Gersten. Yes. Thank you. This passes by a vote of nine to one. Thank you. Thank you. And calling the final item, PZAB item number 12.

The calendar.

File ID 19695, a resolution of the Miami Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board approving the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board 2027 meeting calendar dates.

You have to read them?

So, yeah, did anybody find anything?

Real quick, did anybody find anything or take a second to just confirm that there were no holidays or anything sort of, you know, that would cause a lot of absences on the same day that we have a meeting scheduled?

I do want to know, I think Member Bailey made a note about one of the items.

I don't remember. That was the spellings, right? We corrected those.

Oh, super. So yeah, that's it.

I believe that's what the issue was.

Okay, great. Move to approve.

Second.

Calling member, I'm sorry, calling Vice Chair Andres Lopez. Calling Vice Chair Andres Lopez. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Eduardo Fernandez. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Lynette Cardoche. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Chris Collins. Yes. Calling Member Maria Paula DeCarolis. Yes. Calling Member Paul Mann.

Yes.

Calling Member Ilana Toyer. Yes. Calling Member Joshua Patinkin. Yes. Calling Member Manuel Vidillo. Yes. And calling Chair Adam Gersten.

Yes.

Thank you, this passes by a vote of 10 to zero.

Motion to adjourn. Second.

Six percent. What do you attribute that to?

Well, when you think about investing in roads and bridges and digital connectivity, we invest in a social infrastructure. And so what happens when we make a match, we talked about the tactical side, sign up, interview, and we do the child safety vetting, fingerprinting, and all of that. Once a match is made, that's one more. That constant, the kids don't want to let them down. We hear it all the time. They're so excited to share that A with their big. The big, and oftentimes, well, there's some kind of reward. And we're just saying, what would a friend do if you did reach some kind of milestone or accomplishment in your life? And so what we attribute it to is the support, the constancy. And one of the things that's so important, US Treasury, Harvard University, the research shows that our Lodos are more likely to go to college because of that constant friend. $1 invested in mentoring, $3 back to the economy. So it's a wise investment. But academic success is just one of the many things because the kids, the littles, feel more confident.

They just need that one person.

That's all it is, one person. Everybody needs a friend.

Agreed. So if you're out there, you're looking for volunteer opportunities, tell us that information again. Give us your website, your phone number. Give us everything so that people can reach out to you.

Absolutely. When we think about getting started, we all have a little in common. There's so many things that divide us. The unifying force of mentorship, the mosaic of mentors in the beautiful city of Miami. They can get involved, alittleincommon.com or 305-644-0066.

Easy to remember, alittleincommon.com, and then you could change your own life, change a little's life, and join the big brothers, big sisters of Miami. Thank you so much for joining us today.

My pleasure.

Thank you for watching this episode of Empower 305. And don't forget to like, share, and subscribe. We'll see you soon.