the chair of the miami county planning advisory board if we can all stand now for the pledge of allegiance thank you i would like to welcome you to the pab's public hearing on the january 2025 cycle application number cdmp 2025 0004 and also on today's agenda are a presentation by the county's office of historic preservation and the staff update on the evaluation and appraisal report process will we please uh start with the roll call good afternoon for the roll call lynette cardosh elisa sapata i think she just stepped away carlos diaz padrone eric fresco horatio juembez frank lago max losner michael montiel jay will morris daniel rogers vice chair thomas president chair mcrae present you do have quorum so the pab was established by the miami-dade county charter and consists of 17 members currently with five vacant positions the pab members are appointed by the board of county commissioners four at-large members one non-voting member representing miami-dade county county public schools and one non-voting member representing homestead air reserve base we are all residents of miami-dade county and serve on this board without pay it is our responsibility to make recommendations to the commission on planning related issues the public hearings will be conducted by the pab acting as the county's local planning agency with assistance from the department of regulatory and economic resources the purpose of this hearing is for the pab to receive public comments on the proposed cdmp amendment and the initial recommendation of the department the recommendation of the effective community council and to make recommendations to the county commission regarding adoption of the small-scale applications persons wishing to speak during the hearing should fill out a speaker card at the desk in the lobby and indicate the application they wish to address so a little bit about the public hearing procedure staff from the planning division will summarize the cdmp application followed by a presentation by the applicant public comments will be heard next at the conclusion of the hearing for that agenda item the planning advisory board will adopt by resolution its recommendation to the board of county commissioners all right that was a lot to take in uh now we'll go ahead and get started with the chair's report just want to give uh very brief comments if i could uh take a moment to thank uh outgoing chair lago for his service and thank all the board members here for uh the opportunity to serve as a chair let's go around so that's going to end the chair's report i would now like to introduce mr garrett roe chief of metropolitan planning to make some brief opening remarks and introduce staff to present the cdmp application you recognize mr roe thank you mr chair and good afternoon uh good afternoon pab members for the record garrett roe chief of the metropolitan planning section within the regulatory and economic resources department and i'm joined here on the dais by my assistant director for planning mr jerry bell and mr eddie curtley from the county attorney's office we have also staff from r er including miss sue trone who's going to present the one cdmp item on the agenda today so i'll ask soon to sue to step to the podium and mr chair as you mentioned we have two presentations that will be made to you today one regarding office of historic preservation and the other a another update on our evaluation and appraisal report process last time we did um i guess you could say more content of what's happening and then now we're going to talk more process right but that's after the application is heard so with that mr chair thank you hello my name is sue trone i am a strategic metro planner in r er with the division of planning it is my honor to be here this afternoon so thank you very much uh chairman mcgray vice chairman thomas members of the pab and members of the public and our applicant today so i am here to present the application that has been introduced into the record and um this is cdmp 2025 0004 it is located at 16525 north miami avenue so i'm showing you now a slide that's giving you an aerial view of the property this is located in district 2 which is commissioner bastian's district it is at the intersection of north miami avenue and northeast 165th street there are a number of things that distinguish this property among them north miami avenue and northeast 167th street are major corridors or major roads and we're going to talk about why this is significant here shortly the property itself is a half gross acre we are going to talk about this in terms of its net acreage though and the net acreage of this site is 0.3 net acres the existing land use designation for this property is low density residential so that density is 2.5 to 6 dwelling units per acre and the request from our applicant is for that to be changed to low medium density residential and that request then would allow this property to have a density of 6 to 13 dwelling units per acre so as i mentioned this property uh has proximity to the two major roadways which i mentioned before and this opens up the property to the mixed use development um development provisions which actually now opens up the property to a density of 36 units per acre and so with the net dent with the net acreage of 0.3 units or 0.3 acres that actually would give this property um an actual density of 14 residential units and so that is where our analysis uh for this property for the request lies and so these are the uh requests the existing and the proposed uh requests um for the property here on the screen for you now um there is not a concurrent zoning request for this property there is a zoning request but it it is flowing just of a little bit uh separate from this application so we are analyzing this sort of in a vacuum just with the land use designation there is also um something for you to take into consideration a covenant that is proffered with this application so as you could see here on our first photograph that i took when i went on the site visit this is a head-on view of the property taken from north miami avenue it's sort of a narrow corridor there are no sidewalks the applicant has proffered to build the site when it comes through for zoning with a commitment to um sound urban design principles typically when that proffer comes through there's density there's a bonus density with that he's not asking for any bonus density he's simply acknowledging sort of the complex area the the the sort of compactness of the neighborhood he wants to put 14 units on this site which is a little bit tight but to make this more palatable he said hey we're going to do sound urban design principles which has made this uh something that we found in planning more more induced conducive to the densities so we have all these policies where when you have these major roads we it's an opportunity to densify the county so we found that very attractive for this application and so as we go through the rest of the site visit he's also committed to residential use only so prior to the submittal of his request he also sent in a letter of interpretation to see if he could do a horizontal mixed use we found in our analysis that after having done the saturation analysis the area was well below the 70% saturation of residential uses and therefore the property is eligible for a residential only use this would be something such that when he um if this property was allowed to or if the bcc were to approve the request to increase the land use he could develop the property get the bonus for mixed use development provisions and develop the property solely with a residential land use so with the other agencies having done their analyses we found in general there were no violations of level of service so with one interesting finding and that is with traffic impacts we found that in the year 2045 there was going to be failure on two nearby road segments however those road segments will fail with or without this project so there's a finding that this project does not in and of itself create the failure on those red set road segments um so based on that we are uh in favor of recommending an approval for this um application we went to community council there was no quorum and so um no hearing was held and that concludes my presentation thank you for your presentation thank you would have any questions for staff my apologies for the record i do want to highlight that miss cepeda is back and remember uh cepeda is here for quorum purposes you recognize miss cepeda so i have a question um there will be no change to the 14 units that is it he cannot build any more if i heard you correctly there's no bonuses there's no extra four or five units not another floor anything of that nature so do you want me to answer that okay yeah if i may mr chair so the the application um we we analyzed that up to 18 units could be built on the site right the 14 units is a statement of intent in the application but there's no the covenant does not include a limitation on the number of units so it's not going to be limited to 14 units and the covenant does not preclude um any the ability to access any density bonuses so whatever bonuses that may be applicable including workforce housing if they so choose to do workforce housing um they could access based on the language that's in the covenant so what is the total amount of units that can be built at this point um with the mixed use corridor density that's allowed 18 units not including workforce and as far as the commercial use he has covenanted that there will be no commercial uses that is correct is there parking attached with this at this point we do not have a site plan so there's no parking analysis or indication of how many parking spaces or anything like that that would be provided my concern is that even though this is in a unique tough area roads have already failed in my opinion there you know being close to 167th and north miami avenue there is still mostly residential there this is next to cross from single family homes so i want it to be a little um sensitive you know this is going against you know abutting on two sides maybe three sides you know a single family situation so you want to be uh sensitive to the homeowners and make sure that you know we're not uh overburdening them with you know putting in 14 16 18 units so we wanted to see you know uh was that contemplated and is there any kind of uh little bit of uh i guess for lack of a better word protection in place you know to stave off some or mitigate some of the effects that will happen with you know a multi-family building in this area um so the way that the mixed use corridor density is applied uh it requires compatibility of the development proposed with the adjacent residences so that's a a part of the analysis that would be done at the time of zoning and you know at this point um you know the the cdmp application is setting forth the allowance and so the more detailed compatibility analysis is um anticipated to be done through the zoning process right so and you know by the the analysis in our application we do acknowledge that 18 units allowed under the mixed use provisions of the cdmp are subject to that compatibility with the residences existing adjacent to the property okay um i think as long as you know there is this covenant in place that is stating that there won't be mixed use um that there won't be a commercial aspect i think it'll work out okay thank you yes mr thomas uh thank you just a couple questions i is there a height limitation in this neighbor or what is the height limitation in this neighborhood in this particular case um that that is a tough question to answer uh because there are different zoning districts within the area right and just to the north you have business and office and bu zoned properties that have varying height uh requirements or criteria so uh you know here we can speak to compatibility of development in relation to the existing units on uh that's around the site so you know typically single family one story units are existing in some instances nearby you have two-story structures as well so compatibility would be determined based on that height differential between what's proposed and what's existing all right just to be clear we have the applicant presentation coming up next are there any more questions for staff seeing uh seeing no further questions uh let's go ahead and hear from the the applicant happy monday to the board my name is daniel lopez i am the applicant representative uh and chair if i may i will be presenting noel steelings with the declaration of restrictions as so proffered so that you may all review and look for yourselves as mentioned before this property is located on 165 25 north miami avenue now there are two existing structures and i wanted to actually pause here for a second because the current owner actually lives in one of the structures in the current area and so he has been very open to uh recommendations from both the public and the county throughout the entire process because he understands how important the compatibility is for the area um that said this property is within 660 feet of a major roadway which includes both 167th and north miami north miami avenue and it's within a five minute walking distance of the nearest bus stop on the edge of northeast 167th street and it's within the historic olita terrace neighborhood and for the his the historic terrace neighborhood we have proffered the use of sound urban design principles to try and help with that compatibility as it stands as mentioned sutron so eloquently mentioned there is the low density residential up to six dwelling units per acre and we are requesting a designation that starts at six dwelling units per acre up to 13 to develop a single use residential project and we got the letter of interpretation to clarify that we can do the horizontal mixed-use development the mixed-use development district and still have residential use only on the project and so right now there is a projected 14 units on the site because as my client hopes to actually uh manage the project and develop it himself although there will be up to 18 units that can be allowed after the change he really only projects and is intending to do about 14 units and you will see that in the declaration of restrictions we do not have any commitment to workforce housing at this moment it will be proffered in zoning and he will hope to have around five committed units to workforce housing which should help the jackson north community as well as the surrounding neighborhood who is in dire need of high quality brand new workforce housing units so as stated uh we have a use of sound urban design principles covenant that's being proffered and a residential use only uh covenant which is also which will also enjoy the property now this project according to the staff's recommendation will accommodate the current population growth in the area and according to the department of transportation and public works the increase in traffic will be a comic can be accommodated by the nearest bus stop and so the public services and facilities have been met as well as the compatibility and will enhance the county-wide systems and improve transit ridership and pedestrianism as mentioned there are the the initial recommendations to state the proffered covenant commitments would ensure greater compatibility with the proposed development and uh with the designated residences to the west south and east of the site that concludes my presentation thank you do we have any questions for the applicant board members of it are you recognized thank you chair i have one has your client contemplated or has he gotten an idea um of how many stories the project will be uh there's still not a finalized site plan for the project but it should be from my understanding currently it should be about three stories okay thank you i appreciate it board member padrone you recognize yeah so we heard i heard two things but those are we hope we hope we hope but i have a problem making any decisions on we hope so in there's no restriction for it to be 14 units you can go to 18 that's what you're asking for it is possible to go to 18 but according with the restrictions that will be met in zoning so would you put that in a covenant now yeah my my i cannot speak for my client but my client has been very open to uh suggestions from the county how do we do that yeah is the client here he has not right he's not come agreement to put okay i'm just saying from my end i i if you have an agreement to put it in a covenant but there's no covenant i'm going to assume there's no agreement for today because we got i got to make it this we got to make a decision today so we talked about as far as i'm concerned if we approve this and i'll ask mr roe maybe to help us out we approve this you can go to 18 and if your client designs later on and say you know 18 is better for me i can go to 18 right plus more so that's a little bit the reason i'm saying if we had started at 18 then we would i would have analyzed at 18 and that's fine i'm not sure where i would go at 18 but what i don't understand is we're talking about 14 but not really we don't know and that's where i have a problem if it's if in the words for me i'm going to do it this way i'm going to unless there's a covenant i'm going to assume it's 18 or more i'm sorry maybe even more what's that what's the number yeah so um you're right in that the allowance on the property for the property under the mixed use development provisions of the cmp would allow up to 18. on top of that there could be the a density bonus for providing workforce housing 25 density bonus right so there's a potential to go beyond 18 uh if if the intent is that the site development be limited to 14 units that can be articulated in the covenant right and just including a right and um in and also for your recommendation if if it is the will of the board you could recommend as such as well but what does that mean remind me so um if you make the recommendation without the applicant well if the applicant makes that proffer and include it in the covenant then we all are clear what the applicant's intent is as committed to in the covenant right here so you can't commit i don't think unless he has authority you don't have authority i i don't have authority on his behalf and i respect that i i respect that okay so in the absence of that commitment from the applicant the board could make a recommendation right now it will be ultimately for the bcc when the bcc hears the item understood to act on that recommendation from this board unless of course the applicant takes it and make that commitment prior to the application going to the bcc okay and then so there's two things one was that the the 14 and there was i apologize what was the other thing that you guys were saying that you were going to possibly commit to but you have a uh workforce housing right yeah we we haven't proffered as of yet the workforce housing covenant for the fight to commit the five units to workforce housing uh but that is definitely intended that's all the question i have just one second uh thank you chair so the five units would be within the 14 exactly it'd be so nine uh nine units would not be workforce housing and the other thing was no commercial yeah there's a very clear residential use only three things all right uh board member kardosh recognize thank you and you hit on where i was going with uh the other board members you were thinking nine and four so when you are or nine and five when you're looking at the additional for workforce but if you were to go to workforce if i get my math right the maximum unit would be 20 22 like the 25 of the 18 or are we talking 25 of what's initially been proffered at 14 um if i may mr chair so the workforce housing program would allow uh five units additional above the 18 to 23 units total right okay so what yours but the five we that he mentioned now was in the encompassed in the 14 and um sure the way i because if there's no workforce in the current plan i'm not clear on your answer so right right now it is his intent to build up to 14 units with the under with the understanding that he could have done up to 18 and asked for that but since he has intended to actually build and manage this own development he wants to build only up to 14 units and have five of those 14 be workforce housing units so he would have the workforce housing and forego the density bonus yes yes and i'm sure that he would be uh amenable because he has been very throughout the entire process he's been very responsive to all of the recommendations that would allow uh higher compatibility with the area because he does live there currently thank you all right vice chair thomas you recognize thank you uh just as a follow-up uh if your client intends to do 14 units and intends to do five workout force housing units why not commit to that if i had why not not you but prior to this hearing where we have to make a decision why is there no commitment because if you come up here and you tell us what your intentions are that doesn't give us any any ability to make a decision we're making our decision based off of 23 total potential units that's the decision we have to base it off of that's not a good place to be in my opinion so as far as it stands uh if my if i understood mr roll correctly there can be a recommendation as long as there's a proffered covenant of up to 14 units and uh he has not proffered a covenant for only 14 units because it's also been our understanding that is this is up to uh even up to the 18 up to the 22 or 23 units and so we're actually we've actually been thinking that he might have to accept less after going through zoning and have a smaller project because once you take into account the parking and other restrictions uh it might actually be less than the 14 so generally speaking that's why we we didn't proffer a covenant that had that specific language i appreciate you letting us know what our recommendation can be but we can also make a recommendation to deny and should they choose to do something with it we could say limit it to 14. um i i assume that's a correct way that we could do it as well certainly your recommendation can be denied or your recommendation as i mentioned before can include you know some i guess limits and on the units as well as the you know recommendation about the workforce housing so i think what i'm doing is expressing a little frustration when you know we're asked to make a decision on something where the the owner's not present and we're being told 14 units but the reality is the math is 23. and also i we would have no problem also requesting the board to defer its decision until we can get a covenant we unfortunately can't do deferrals here it's my understanding any further questions no thank you all right uh board member cepeda for a follow-up if i may um what i i have two things written down what was the third thing mr diaz pedrone that um i have the up to 14 units no commercial and what was the third thing well i think i think and i apologize because my brain like one but i think it was the um i couldn't write housing i couldn't write i think it was a workforce housing but i'll be honest my biggest thing is i don't get this property no that's tight as is um if i may um can i take a stab at you know would everyone be comfortable with making a motion to add in these three things and send it on with that since we can't really make a deferral and that way we at least you know share our opinion and it doesn't go without our you know because if we deny it it doesn't go with anything because it moves on my understanding is it moves on regardless correct me if i'm wrong it moves on regardless and at least this way we'll have the three things in there and um if you know they're willing you know i would proffer a motion with including the uh five units of the workforce housing no commercial and only up to 14 total units not to exceed this number okay we can we can we can certainly do that but if if we could just get the questions out of the way and then do the public hearing and then we'll go back to the motions can i just ask for one so when you're saying 14 14 14 inclusive of workforce housing right everything not to exceed that number thank you if they go less if they make 12 they make 12. that way i think everybody is no no no no not to exceed if it's less like uh council was saying if it's you know 12 or 13 or 10 fine but up to not to exceed that number okay any further questions for the applicant i'm going to channel my my previous conversations that we've had on here we don't we don't know how much height restriction i feel like we're we don't have a site plan i know that 14 units sounds like a max on doing the math 13 000 square feet because i can't figure it out in acres but i mean what yeah i know what my lot is it's a lot smaller so i get it so i get it but it all depends on how high you go and how you design the site so i normally i'm on the other side of this but i'm the question i'm really saying is i feel like we're getting a little granular for what seems to be a good project of urban infilling so that piece like people need places to live we've all been talking about that so if it's if there's a workforce or i'm just putting my finger on the scale that i hope we don't deny that we come to a place where we're comfortable having a project like this have our recommendation or and i and if i could mr mr chair just to i guess the debate here for a minute which is part of we should do i understand that but 13 000 square feet's got to have a limit of how many units are on it because there is still is a an area that exists around that area right that's my point is you're talking 13 000 square feet that's two two normal lots in most cities a bit small lots in most cities and you want to put 14 units that's a i don't know maybe well 23 14 with the covenant i mean all right so uh no for no further questions we'll get back to the debate i promise i just want to just get through public testimony we'll get back to now sorry uh no further questions for the applicant all right seeing none i am now opening public hearing for application number cdmp 2025 004 i do not have any speaker cards all right does anyone here wish to speak on this item all right seeing none i am now closing public hearing all right now is there any board discussion on this on this item all right board member sopeta would you wish to proceed with uh your motion so thank you and um i agree with board member kardosh i have a lot of pause with this application as mr diaz padron was mentioning for example in the city of miami you know you've got 5 000 square foot lots and this is kind of you know just shy of three lots in the city of miami so i also know that there's a lot of people struggling and they need homes so trying to kind of you know make this where it's at least palatable and you know we have some influence so if you'll indulge me the three things that i mentioned before i'd like to make a motion to send this on you know a motion for approval with um not to exceed up to not to exceed 14 units um no commercial at all not on the ground floor anywhere in the building since it's a budding single family in a lot of uh on a lot of sides and that it include the uh proffered uh workforce um housing and if i heard correctly it was uh five units in the mix all right we have a motion is there a second all right we have a motion there's a second will we please go ahead and call the roll mr chair if i may just clarify so the motion is not to exceed 14 units um to include the five workforce housing units and no commercial to be allowed on the site um is that with the profit covenant as well now i'll i'll point out that the profit covenant includes the commitment to designing to the urban design standards and it also has which speaks to the no commercial limitation that is being recommended the second condition in the covenant prohibit well actually limits the property to residential uses only which has the same effect of no commercial so that's already a commitment in the covenant so thank you um chair if i may respond um i i'm kind of going with here more uh instead of less so i'm kind of trying to double cover it as our recommendation and in the covenant because i feel that the no commercial is a really uh is a really uh big deal in this location it's a tight the traffic the situation with the roads with north miami avenue i'm very familiar with this area and having commercial there would be very detrimental to the already very burdened uh neighbors around there okay understood so um i understand then the motion to be adopt with acceptance of the profit covenant in addition to the three conditions outlined the 14 units maximum the workforce five workforce housing units and and the no commercial alone on the site yes i'll accept that yes thank you all right so we have a motion has been seconded uh would you please call the roll the motion is made by board member sapata and seconded by board member uh diaz padron on the motion as stated lynette cardosh elisa sapata yes carlos diaz padron vice chair uh thomas michael montiel yes chair mcray yes motion passes five to one right and now i believe we have a presentation by the office of the historic preservation i would like to call upon mr garrett rowe to uh help introduce this man recognize yeah certainly mr chair um we have miss sarah cody chief of our office of historic preservation who will make the presentation for you at this point all right hi good afternoon thank you so much mr chair and members of the planning advisory board for having me this afternoon so i'm sarah cody i'm the historic preservation chief for miami dade county and to this afternoon i'm going to talk to you a little bit about historic preservation in the county how do we approach it how does it relate to what you all do here at the planning advisory board okay so first who are we um the office of historic preservation is one of four divisions or five divisions now it's one of several divisions that's part of the um planning division in miami-dade county so we are one of the divisions that work directly with uh jerry bell who i know you're familiar with um we have four staff members that work with our historic preservation office it's myself i'm the historic preservation chief we also have jeff ransom who's the county archaeologist um tamra mcdonald is our historic preservation specialist and i'm sure many of you also know george daguia who's our principal planner um and george has a key role because as he works with our uh long-range planning staff and he works with historic preservation so he really helps us to uh integrate in a lot of the planning initiatives so what do we do at the office of historic preservation um you know looking at it from a broad perspective we utilize historic preservation tools and policies to foster equity and resilience with community informed preservation more specifically we implement the requirements of the county historic preservation ordinance which is chapter 16a of the county code we maintain archaeological jurisdictions through all unincorporated areas of the county um and we actually maintain historic preservation jurisdiction in all unincorporated areas as well as every municipality who has not adopted its own preservation ordinance and board so um currently there are 10 municipalities that have their own program so there are 24 municipalities under county preservation jurisdiction and in terms of archaeological jurisdiction we actually have all unincorporated areas and 33 of the 34 municipalities under county archaeological jurisdiction we also conduct historic survey work um and a lot of outreach to further identify potential historic cultural archaeological resources we perform regulatory functions permitting for historic sites that are designated we administer financial incentives and of course we're staff to the county historic preservation board so like i said we have our own chapter in the county code um it's chapter 16a was adopted in april 1981 so this year we're coming up on 45 years of historic preservation in miami-dade county um when that ordinance was adopted it's defined historic preservation as a matter of public policy and in the interest of the health prosperity and welfare of the people of the county so the county code recognizes historic preservation as something that's very very beneficial to the public as i said that established countywide jurisdiction in all unincorporated areas and in any municipality that opts not to enact its own preservation and or archaeological jurisdiction so um i'm going to talk to you a little bit about some of our recent work and how it ties in with what you all do with the planning advisory board um you know in terms of historic preservation miami-dade county's mission is really to foster a proactive progressive program that considers key issues in preservation today and as we continue towards a half century of preservation in miami-dade county we've taken the last few years as a real opportunity to think critically about the field of preservation about evolving trends and best practices and the ways in which we can continue to contribute to the quality of life for our residents in a meaningful way an essential part of that was a real critical look at the preservation work the county has undertaken and accomplished in its first 40 45 years and it's led to the completion of several projects which i'll get into in a few minutes so now i've told you a lot of information about the county has its own preservation code we have our own staff and we have our own quasi-judicial board with purview over historic preservation so why is any of this relevant to the planning advisory board so at its most basic the county office of historic preservation operates with the understanding that historic preservation in and of itself is not a profession okay historic preservation alone means nothing historic preservation is an integral essential part of every field that deals with the built environment so when we look at the ways that we deal with planning land use zoning development historic preservation is a critical part of that history of our communities really has to be considered and woven into our planning work and fortunately historic preservation policies have been incorporated into many many elements of the county's comprehensive development master plan so i'm not going to read you all the policies but i'm going to give you some examples here the one that you may be most familiar with of course is the land use element and objective lu6 deals entirely with historic preservation it says that miami-dade county shall protect preserve ensure the proper management and promote public awareness of historic architectural cultural and archaeological significant sites and districts in miami-dade county and shall continue to seek the addition of new listings to the national register and increase the number of locally designated sites districts and zones and then there's a lot of specific policies under that that deal with historic preservation they really all deal with um addressing identifying and designation of historic resources increased awareness and also providing technical and financial assistance and adaptive reuse and we have objective lu11 which talks very specifically about adaptive reuse of dilapidated or abandoned buildings and the photo you see there is a example of one recent project we worked on with lenar this is a 1920s home that was right in the middle of one of their new subdivisions we worked with them to designate the home relocate the home actually coincidentally back to its original location and now it's fully rehabbed and serves as an adu to one of the new homes in the subdivision we also have the housing element which talks very specifically about including historic structures as we look at housing opportunities in the county the photo you see here is one example of a property that date heritage trust purchased with revolving funds that they've received from the county specifically to purchase historic multi-unit properties restore them and use them as affordable housing we also have the recreation and open space element that talks about preserving and protecting not just natural resources but historical and cultural resources our coastal management element talks about providing conservation for many things including historic resources one of the objectives there is to actually increase the number of locally designated historic sites and districts we have in our coastal areas the photo you see there is one of our newest historic sites some of you may be familiar with it it's right near the new miami freedom park in the airport if you go over the bridge at douglas road you may have seen this big a-frame structure before um so i've told you some very very specific projects that apply to the cdmp policies but i'm going to tell you on kind of a broader scale how does the office of historic preservation really approach how to accomplish all those various goals objectives and policies defined in the cdmp so the first project i'm going to start with is our historic site vulnerability assessment so in miami-dade county we of course have a huge intersection between our heritage resources and communities that will be or already are heavily impacted by climate related factors flooding related to sea level rise king tide events increased storm events in 2019 we completed this historic site vulnerability assessment which established an objective tool that allows us to assess the vulnerability to sea level rise and flooding of all of our designated historic sites and allows us to start to prioritize mitigation strategies that project led directly to an update to the county's adopted design guidelines these had not been revised since the 1980s so in 2021 we went from resourceful rehab to resilient rehab and our resilient rehab design guidelines were officially adopted by the bcc in february 2022 and the really important factor there is that those actually build resiliency considerations into our historic preservation review standards it allows for flexibility from traditional preservation standards if it allows a property to meet its resiliency goals uh in the early 90s the county published a book that some of you may be familiar with it was called from wilderness to metropolis the history and architecture of dade county from 1825 to 1940. in 2022 we completed its follow-up it's called from metropolis to global city architecture and planning in dade county from 1941 to 1989. now particular note here are those dates dade county's initial development boom happened in that pre-1940 period but really the tremendous amount of development that took us from a metropolis to a global city happened after world war ii so that document created a really dense foundation for us of really the woven together history of development planning and architectural styles that really came to define the built character of miami-dade we also have something that's often referred to as the 1980 dade county survey that was a historic resource survey where the county surveyed or identified every structure in the county built in 1940 or earlier now if you recall i just told you we had a tremendous amount of development that happened after world war ii so we did this survey in 1980 and then there was no comprehensive county-wide survey after that so we had this survey that looked at everything built before 1940 but if you look at the 40 plus years since then where we haven't undertaken a comprehensive survey work you know there's approximately 200 000 structures built in county preservation jurisdiction between 1941 and 1981 that have not been comprehensively surveyed so our heritage at risk survey is our first and really most important phase of our renewed survey efforts and what we're really doing through all of these new survey efforts is of course incorporating new best practices and current trends in the fields but we're also using it as a way to start to address all of the issues challenging our communities and residents essentially what we're doing is we're leveraging traditional historic preservation tools in a way to foster resilience and equity in our communities so heritage at risk was a project that we were fortunately able to undertake because we got a very rare funding opportunity from the board of county commissioners and like i said we had nearly 200 000 structures to survey so while we did we were very fortunate to get funding from the bcc it was not enough funding to survey all 200 000 structures so we still had to prioritize and define a methodology that would set a framework for the first phase and for future phases of survey and policy work so at present i'm sure many of you are aware there are many areas under the jurisdiction of miami-dade county historic preservation that are facing what we terms during this project significant planning challenges and what we mean by that is things like really intense re-development pressure gentrification housing affordability and climate resiliency issues and like i said many of these areas have never been comprehensively surveyed by by miami-dade county so we have a limited understanding of the historic and cultural resources that help define our diverse tangible and intangible heritage throughout the county so to address these issues and to identify sites potentially at the most risk our project team developed a multi-pronged survey methodology um included that including focus on areas facing those identified planning challenges and also including um resources that represent the diversity of our community so central to that methodology was actually mapping out the areas where the county itself has already incentivized development so that's what you see here is a series of layered maps that put together uh like the smart plan corridors the urban centers cras and fema flood zones and where kind of all of those things intersected that's how we defined our project area through the county so in really broad strokes like i said we're using traditional kind of traditional architectural survey and research tools these are things we see all the time like newspaper clippings historic photos historic maps but we're really applying a different lens to them as we start to analyze all the data so ultimately the heritage at risk projects preliminarily identified 7870 sites and then we prioritize down for full documentation 12 uh 1206 sites so ultimately through that project we've documented 1200 historic sites 186 of which were associated with historically excluded communities and 406 are potentially eligible for listing on the national register now approaching survey efforts by prioritizing diverse heritage and planning challenges really allows us at the county to start to update that 1980 survey while incorporating best practices and preservation and starting to address those 200 000 unsurveyed properties this initial survey work like i said it's the start of long-term initiative envisioned by the planning division and the office of historic preservation to survey those properties and produce a more comprehensive account of resources built since 1940 it relies really heavily on community engagement in order to provide outcomes that are meaningful to each community in which we work we need to really take the time to understand the cultural heritage perspective and priorities of the residents so working with this kind of community informed approach also helps for us as a local government office to rebuild trust between the communities and the local government okay so heritage at risk in addition to documenting those 1206 historic resources also provides a framework for additional work including policy recommendations engagement recommendations and then recommendations for additional more focused surveys and context studies so from those recommendations our office has actually already completed a historic resource survey focused on goulds which is a historically black neighborhood in south dade we're underway on a historic context study focused on the significance of migrant farm workers in miami-dade and we're about to kick off a historic context study that looks at burial grounds across miami-dade county now our staff also does review like all the cdmp amendment applications that come before you a lot of the zoning applications that come through development services so i want to just give you a little kind of example of our standard kind of comments and review process we have tried to apply best practices to come up with kind of uh template responses depending on the particular application of coming in front of us so uh our kind of three options if you will of comments that we give people is you may either see a memo from us saying hey we have no comments on this you may see a memo uh coming through that say hey we saw that you have uh structures on your application site that are over 50 years old none of them are historically designated but we want you to fill out what's called a florida master site file form before you demolish the structure that and that's the screenshot that you see here is the form so you'll probably see that a lot um if you look at the hp comments um is us telling people to fill out this state form it's a matter of best practice and just documenting resources if we know things are going to be demolished not that we're anti-development or anti-demolition it's hey let's document what's there if anyone wants to research that neighborhood or that site in the future there'll be some kind of record of what was there um and then sometimes we do review applications where either um there's a structure on it that's already been designated as historic um or if we review and there's and there's a historically significant resource but it's not designated then often we will then start a dialogue with the applicant to say hey we want to understand your project better we want to make sure you understand that the building you have here is historically significant and sometimes that ends up resulting in just documenting it on the form sometimes that ends up in the building being designated and rehabilitated like the one um house i showed you earlier so those are kind of our standard responses i'm sure that you'll uh get used to seeing and these are just a couple examples to show you more recent projects that we've worked with through the cdmp and zoning application process the one you see on the left is an application coming through called vox on red road but it's right by um it's on red road and uh 62nd ave and the the single story homes that you see in front are historically designated homes it's called the howell residence um and then you can see beyond it still moving through the approval process but you can see the site itself which is like a i think a three acre site um the site itself is being redeveloped with i think 96 apartment units or something and then the historic home is going to function as uh like the clubhouse for the new site and you can see they're building a pool and all sorts of things in front of the historic home um and then the other one you see there the site plan and the coral rock home is also a designated structure that we're working on with um i think that one's with lennar as well where they are developing their subdivision around it and that historic structure uh is going to become part of the cabana and pool amenity area for the new development that's all i have for you um please feel free my email address is there but you can also email me at historic preservation at miamidade.gov you can check out our website miamidade.gov historic preservation we have a lot of all the project work that i mentioned today and then a lot of other projects available on our website as well for you to check out and i'd be thrilled to answer any questions cool stuff thanks uh for the presentation uh miss cody do the board members have any questions all right uh vice chair thomas you recognize thank you for the presentation a couple questions is uh is there anything that the owner of the property needs to do in order to uh for example if it wants to be put on the national registry or you recommend it does or you think it's qualified for is the owner involved in this in some way do they have to give consent or is it something you do unilaterally that's a great question we always encourage owners to get involved we love working with owners the um i'll address the national register question first because there's kind of two listings you can be locally designated by the county historic preservation board and that's a separate thing there's also something called the national register of historic places and that's a national listing that's maintained by the state preservation office and the federal government that you typically the state won't process national register nominations unless the owner has consented unless it's something publicly owned so like let's say we were designating we wanted to nominate like a county-owned park or something to national register they wouldn't require owner consent because it's considered publicly owned now when it comes to local historic designations chapter 16a the county code says that we are always encouraged to try to obtain owner consent but that owner consent is never required in order to apply a local historic designation and that's actually the case for the 10 municipal programs as well the county sets the minimum standards for all preservation programs in the county and it's a violation of the minimum standards if you require owner consent to designate and kind of the most succinct um explanation i've heard of that to kind of explain that is you know akin to like a zoning application or something if you are relying on the owner to consent you're essentially delegating that authority that decision-making authority to a private citizen where they don't have that authority to say yes or no same with the zoning application um and i'm sure my attorney's probably cringing at my explanation right now um but so national register owner consent is sometimes required depending on ownership but local designation we work really really hard with owners to get their consent but it is never required as a follow-up to that yes if they don't provide consent and they want to do something with their property uh what limitations are now placed upon them yes okay great question so national register if your national register listed only and not locally designated there's no limitations and it sounds opposite but national register there's really no regulation that comes along with it it's really about recognition and just like being honored so um the caveat to that is if you're using state or federal funds to do something then there's a review process um but typically for like a private property owner if you're using private funds you can demolish a house that's or a building that's on the national register without any kind of review now the local designation is where that regulatory layer comes in so if you have a property that's been designated as historic by the county um it gets flagged in the permit system and we essentially become like a permit authority so let's say if you and this happens all the time let's say like you the house gets sold and the new owner doesn't know and they like oh i need a roof i'm going to apply for the roof permitting would tell them oh actually your house is historic if you didn't know already um reach out to historic preservation and then we have an application that people fill out um that most get reviewed by staff some go to the board but there's a process always and what i always tell property owners is like look it's your property it's your right to request whatever you want if you want to request demolition if you want to request this that or the other thing you can request whatever you want it doesn't mean that the preservation board is going to approve it but we have a process and we have criteria for them to evaluate such uh requests and then of course the the preservation board is quasi-judicial any decision they make can be appealed to the bcc as well if we have an applicant who is dissatisfied with the outcome thank you any further questions all right thanks again miss cody just no just really basic would it be possible for you to share the pdf of the presentation oh yes absolutely thank you really enjoyed it great thank you so much thanks again thank you mr chair oh yeah of course i think there's a problem all right just got one more stuff uh mr mr roe i think uh if you could take us to staff announcements here and give us an update on ear yes mr chair um certainly we have mr alex dambach planning development manager to walk us through the ear update thank you i will be very brief i just wanted to give you all an update particularly on some of the projects that some of the activities that are underway currently um while staff is working on our research data analysis data collection and uh we are also working quite heavily on a public outreach process and that's really what i wanted to talk to you all about partly because you all have an opportunity to be involved in that and uh that all of this will culminate together in what we will be presenting to you uh in september uh towards the uh presentation of the final year document and then next year towards the updated cdmp so quickly um what to alert you all of a series of community workshops that we have been having and will continue to be having throughout the county uh they are geographically spread around throughout uh north to south and east to west these are um in the evenings and they are intended they're all they all have the same more or less programming to them so you don't have to go to all six they don't have unique topics they are all pretty much the same but we do aim for people to come to the one that is the most convenient for them and the one that's most closely uh located the next event is going to be at the naranja branch library uh far in the south county and that will be on uh february 17th on a on a tuesday and actually as you can see on the screen um the two we've already had um which were quite successful one was at the north dade regional library the other was at the coral reef reef branch and then we have several more to go but we do encourage everyone to come to these and just so you get an idea a preview of what uh it's like at these events um we call them an art gallery or some people have called it a science fair type of an arrangement rather than listening to speeches the public is uh encouraged to visit various booths or exhibitions at the uh at the workshops and at each exhibition you can see that there are staff uh one of those pictures you can see me um explaining and talking with the public about the uh various aspects of the plan so that's the layout so hopefully it's a little more engaging and a little more interesting for the public but also engaging and interesting for us our method to get input from this is we ask everyone to fill out comment cards uh from their from each of the exhibits that they go to and then um submit those to us and we're collating those and collecting those um the next uh area of this is uh public outreach as well as uh strategic is we do have a uh task force that was created by the mayor's office of 24 members representing various different industries and specialties all related to the county and its growth in the future and uh they have been they have held uh four meetings so far their fifth meeting is going to be held on friday the february 13th i didn't want to say friday the 13th fire today february 13th and uh that will be at 10 a.m at the library across the street from us we encourage you all to visit that or uh observe that meeting uh there is a public comment period of course during that meeting as well um there will be a couple more of those task force meetings you can just check on our website to keep up to date on that and finally um we have uh unleashed a survey online and uh qr code is in your handout if you want to fill the survey out on your phone or you can type in the url or you can access it from our website so far we've had 94 participants and i'm pretty happy to see that number of people already who have filled out the survey but we encourage all of you to please fill out the survey and even encourage anyone in your family friends social network etc to fill out the survey and of course uh attend the workshops and uh and participate there's a screen grab uh from an iphone of what the survey looks like if you were filling it out on a phone it's probably a bigger text on your computer screen if you use your desktop but please do uh i encourage people to uh participate in the survey and we look forward to seeing the uh compilation of results and with that i thank you and uh i'll be glad to take any questions all right do you have any questions for mr dombach all right thank you for the presentation thank you all right on to the next item any new or old business at this point mr chair that's it from us all right let's go uh is there a motion to adjourn so moved meetings adjourned