Remarks by Michael Gongora
31 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 1 of 2
- Play at 32:01
“Thank you so much. I think my questions are more for staff, so I'm going to start now. This application was more interesting for me with my background than the others because it's something I understand more. But I want to make sure I'm following this. So what we would be doing today is we'd be redefining high density residential to go from 60 to 125 dwelling units up to 150. So we'd increase density, and we'd also increase FAR from 2.0 to 3.0 FAR, which means they'll likely request a height increase down the road. But I'm going to follow your definition. You said based on three points. One,…”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 33:16
“Okay, thank you. That I follow. The third one I find really interesting, just because I've never seen zoning tied to a park. Is that something common to tie high density increases in zoning to proximity to parks?”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 33:45
“All right. So you adopted their language because they're by a park, so you left it in. But then you changed their language because their original language, as I understand it, was that they were limiting it to parcels that were two acres or more. then you took that out that makes me uncomfortable because it increases the amount of applications that can seek this increased density and increased height and there's no minimum definition for what the parcel size should be so i actually like the language that was proposed by the applicant of two acres or more why did you take that out”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 34:44
“I would have liked to have known before the meeting because it makes me uncomfortable that there's no minimum size parcel that can benefit from this increased density and increased FAR. The other thing that they had proposed that it seems like you took out and changed is they had limited the amount of commercial use to 10% of the total floor area. But somebody, I presume the county, struck that out and increased it to 50% for commercial, which I don't like because purportedly the name of the text is high-density residential. So we're trying to create more residences. Why did the county…”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 36:12
“but it's a high density residential bump because that's what this is it gives more far and more density for residences so when you increase the amount of non-residential use from 10 to 50 they could just be cramming in offices or other things and it doesn't fit the intents, which is you don't normally give more density and more FAR unless you're trying to incentivize residential uses. And this, in my opinion, de-incentivizes it. It just allows them to build half of it as a non-commercial use. I don't see the planning purpose behind that.”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 37:05
“I will eventually. Right now, I'm just trying to get the information because I think that the text that was proposed by the applicant, I like more than how it came out after you guys made the changes. All right. I want to ask something else. They can build up to 550 units, I understand, on this project with 35% workforce, 206 units. That's very positive. I was unclear because I thought when I read it, they were building them at like 120% AMI, but then I thought your presentation said 60 to 100 and 40% AMI. What is the breakdown? Because obviously we're trying to create housing for the lowest…”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 38:09
“So they could build the entire 35% at 140? That's what... Because to me, that's not even a public benefit. I just came off of the Affordable Housing Committee. 140% AMI is market.”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 38:37
“And I understand it's a little different from what I'm used to in Miami Beach where planning advisory and then the zoning portion, I guess, goes to the county commission. But it's a chain reaction. If you change a definition and you give more density and you give more FAR, then the next step is they go to the county and they say, we have this new definition and we can't build 3.0 FAR in 150 units unless you give us more height. so it starts a chain reaction for bigger and bigger buildings so you need to be really judicious when you change these definitions and really focus on what the intent…”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 39:48
“There's no restriction. Okay. So we're creating bigger building, more dense, more units, and it might be housing or it might be a short-term rental. That's why I think something needs to happen on this parcel, and I think that it's been empty. I pass it all the time, and I understand why the applicant wants to build something, but I think... This gives away too much, goes way beyond what they're asking, and would allow much denser and taller buildings to go up that meet these kind of vague criteria. So that's where my mind's at right now. But I'll shut up. I know I've talked a lot. Good…”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 1:01:59
“Thank you, Mr. Chair. The declaration of restrictions you passed out says 6,240%, but you're saying your voluntary proffer is 120% of AMI? Correct. Where does that go legally to become enforceable? I'm confused.”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 1:03:05
“okay so presumably 60 to 120 120 being the max correct okay and it appears to me unless i missed something the two changes or the biggest changes that the county made was with regard to removing the two acre minimum size of the lot and by increasing the amount of non-commercial from 10 to 50 i'm assuming your client and this application has no position on that since you proposed the original language correct”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 1:03:57
“These questions may be more zoning, but it makes me feel more comfortable. Are you putting in at least one parking space per unit?”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 1:04:48
“Okay. And what size are the units? Is there a range of sizes?”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 1:05:01
“Okay. I don't know. I find it very confusing at the county how we can increase definitions for purposes because you're creating a chain reaction. The next step is, well, planning increased FAR and density. So then the next step is the applicant comes back and wants more height or smaller units. So I think there's a disconnection, but I understand that's how the county is set up. Thank you.”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 1:06:14
“Thank you. I would like, as part of anything that passes, to at least go to where they're saying they want to go to maximum 120% AMI.”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 1:17:43
“I agree with you, and I think I transmitted my thoughts right away on this item. Because when you start increasing FAR and density, you want to be judicious about how that happens because they will move on to a zoning application, seeking more height, seeking to reduce parking, seeking to do many things. For me, I actually like their language. I like tying it to parcels that are two acres or larger because you're ensuring that it's only on big parcels, not on smart parcels. I also like their original language about allowing a maximum of 10%. Non residential, because this is to encourage more…”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 1:19:16
“I'm sorry. I forgot to ask that one question. Because otherwise I would make a motion, but I'd like to add some clarification as to what type of park we're talking about.”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 1:20:01
“Okay then I don't know if this is a motion but this is what I'd feel comfortable that we add some clarification that it needs to at least be a local park or larger that the parcel we go back to their language about the parcel being two acres or larger and no more than 10 percent be non-residential use and of course the 120 percent AMI with those changes I would feel comfortable moving it forward.”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 1:30:28
“Just piggybacking. I agree with your comments and even your comments. Maybe this is a good thing, but we haven't really been provided an analysis today for why taking out a minimum acreage site or why changing the amount of non-commercial is beneficial. I would rather see the planning staff come back with that information at another meeting, and maybe it is a good idea, but for today, I think we should pass what they've proposed and not change something that could impact the entire county when we don't know if it's good or bad.”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 1:44:35
“Is there a second? What was your motion? I didn't hear it.”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 1:45:25
“My motion was to go back to the applicant's version that ties it to a 2 acre or larger policy to add the local park designation to go back to the applicant's maximum 10% non residential use. And, of course, 120% that they proffered.”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 1:47:06
“Is there a light? Is there a study? Because I was unclear with that first step. Is there already a light study that goes into this with regard to the light?”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 1:49:23
“i'm new here so without making it a mandate can we make it a recommendation that when it goes to the county commission for their zoning hearing that they address the two points raised by this board member can we add that as a recommendation rather than a requirement yeah certainly it's at the board's pleasure okay then i would like to add that”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 1:52:04
“Correct. Let me restate the motion. The motion is really to approve the applicant's original version and that it would go back to requiring a minimum of a two acre parcel. it would go back to what they originally proposed of a maximum 10 non-residential usage we would add local before park so that we don't get this next to a pocket park and accept the proffer on their declaration that the workforce housing would go up to no more than 120 percent ami hopefully have some of the lower levels as well”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026
- Play at 1:53:57
“I would accept the language as they have it with the recommendation when the zoning application is heard that they perhaps create some of the workforce housing at the lower percentages.”
Planning Advisory Board · Jun 1, 2026