Planning Advisory Board Meeting - Jun 01, 2026

So I'm Chair William McCrea of the Miami-Dade County Planning Advisory Board. If we can all stand now for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. I would like to welcome you all to the PAB's public hearing on the 2025 out-of-cycle application number CDMP-2025-006 and the October 2025 cycle application number CDMP-2025-0022. Will staff please call the roll? Good afternoon. For the roll call, Elisa Zapata? Here. Carlos Diaz-Padron. Here. Evo Fernandez. Here. Eric Fresco. Solomon Jene. Michael Gungora. Present. Horacio Juembez. Here. Frank Lago. Max Lozner. Michael Montiel. Here. J. Will Morris. Daniel Rogers. Vice Chair Thomas. Here. Chair McRae. Here. School Board Representative Natalie Simon. Homestead Air Reserve Base Representative Larry Ventura. Mr. Chair, you have questions. Thank you. The PAB was established by the Miami-Dade County Charter and consists of 17 members. The PAB members are appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, four at-large members, one non-voting member representing Miami-Dade County Public Schools, and one non-voting member representing Homestead Air 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 CD&P amendments and the initial recommendations of the Department, the recommendations of the affected community councils, and to formulate recommendations addressing whether or not the Commission should transmit the standard application, and the PAB will also make recommendations to the Commission regarding subsequent final action on the standard application number CD&P 2025-006. Persons wishing to speak during the public hearing should fill out a speaker card at the desk in the lobby and indicate the application they wish to address. All right. Just to run through the public hearing procedure, staff from the planning division is going to summarize the CD&P application, followed by a presentation of the applicant. Public comments will be heard next. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Advisory Board will adopt the resolution of its recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Moving on to the chair's report, there are no items to report. Now let's pass the ball here to Mr. Jerry Bell to get us rolling. Sure, thank you, and Jerry Bell, filling in for Garrett Rowe, who usually plays this role. So it's great to be here. Good afternoon, Chairman McRae, board members, and members of our audience. I'm Jerry Bell. As was said, I'm the director of the planning division for the Miami-Dade County and the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources. And I'm joined here on the dais today by Alex David, who is our planning development manager, Rosa Davis, who is the section supervisor over CD&P administration, and Ms. Veronica Sanchez, who is our assistant county attorney, who will be serving with us today. I don't know if there are any members of other departments in the audience. I didn't see any today, but typically we have some. So with that said, that concludes my remarks. And I'll go ahead and have Alex David present on the first item in the agenda, which is application CD&P 2025-006. Good afternoon, members of the PAB. I'm Alex David, planning development manager, as Jerry said. I'd like to pull up the first PowerPoint presentation, which is the Biscayne Shores application. There we go. Okay. This application actually is a two-parter, as I'd like to say. One is amending the high-density residential land use category of the county. And the second part is actually redesignating or proposing to redesignate a parcel of land along Biscayne Boulevard at 114th Terrace. Currently, the high-density land use designation allows 60 to 125 units per acre or more per gross acre. And so we're proposing a change to upping that to 150 but limiting it at 150. So the old designation was kind of open-ended. So any parcel in the future, any property owner who would like to take advantage of the proposed amendment, if adopted, the new higher-density, would have to redesignate their property and meet certain criteria that are proposed within this application. Basically, the criteria for any of these sites to get up to the 150 units an acre, there are a couple criteria. One is being within half a mile of a rapid transit corridor. Second one is being on a major roadway. And the third criteria is being within 500 feet of a county park. So if you meet the three criteria, then you may take advantage of the higher density. So that's basically the long and short of the high-density change. Now, going on to this property, the Biscayne Shores application, which is 25006, they're requesting a couple of things. The property is now business and office in the front and medium density in the rear, the rear about an acre or so. So they're requesting redesignation to high-density residential and higher than 125 units an acre if the change is adopted. So basically, the property is just south of Biscayne Shores and Gardens Park. And the bottom boundary is about 114th Terrace. It's a four-acre site. And so just some of you may have seen another application or two near here. Just to the south of this site is Biscayne Breeze Mobile Home Park. And that was approved for 430 units and 55,000 square feet of retail. That's just to the south of this. To the south of that is another project being developed as we speak. And that's at about 336 units. To the south of that is the building. I don't know if there's a thing on here. But the building that has the square in the middle, that obviously is existing. It's 11250 Biscayne Boulevard. And that has 402 units. Then just diagonal from the mobile home park, former mobile home park, there's another development which looks like it's under construction here. But it's actually built. And that has 380 units on that parcel. So as you can see, this whole area is trending towards higher density residential uses. Again, this is the map showing the proposed change from business and office and medium density, the map on the left, to high density on the right. Again, these were the requests. So our staff recommendation is to adopt with changes. And also redesignate the parcel to high density and add the proffered covenant declaration of restrictions to the table in the land use element. So just briefly, what is proposed in the declaration of restrictions is four things. The maximum number of units would be capped at 550. The square footage of commercial would be capped at 20,000. The applicant is proposing 35% workforce housing, which is above the minimum required. And there is a prior declaration of restrictions on this property. And some of those restrictions in the existing covenant would be carried over to this project. And basically, I've listed a few of them. There were project design guidelines in the prior covenant. There's a condition about educational facilities and impact fees, some transit improvements along Biscayne Boulevard, a public park contribution for the park north of the site, some workforce housing restriction or condition, and also water saving measures condition. Just to wrap up again, succinctly, the change, again, would be from 125 units or more per gross acre to the maximum limit of 150 with the three conditions that they must be in the rapid transit activity corridor, must be on a major roadway, and must be within 500 feet of an existing county park. This application also requests a maximum FAR, which would be a change under this condition, under the high density. And we also propose an allowance. If they don't build the 20,000 square feet of non-residential or commercial, they could switch that over to affordable housing with a maximum of 80% AMI. So it would be a square foot per square foot, two square foot of residential. And we're recommending, again, approval of this application for the land use, the high density change, and also the redesignation of the property because we believe that this is consistent with the CDMP. We really do need the high density residential designation to reflect more current countywide conditions. It is located within the rapid transit corridor, and Biscayne Boulevard is trending towards higher density development. And, again, we have language in the proposed covenant that staff and the applicant have agreed to. So with that, we believe we can offer our recommendation of adoption and transmittal. The site is, just a few photos, the site is vacant for years and years. The only thing I remember on the site was a former mayor of North Miami selling Christmas trees, and that was the only thing on the property for years. So, like I said, the condition is it's been vacant for many years. Just so you know, we were scheduled to take this to the May 7th Community Council No. 7 hearing, but they had no quorum, so then we moved the application forward to this agenda. And we are scheduled to go to the accounting commission for transmittal on June 18th with adoption, if it goes forward, the final adoption hearing on September 24th. And with that, I thank you, and I guess we'll turn it over to the applicants. Well, before that, do we have any questions for staff? Yes, Board Member Ngora. 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, that it's within a half mile of a rapid transit activity corridor. That I understand. The second one says it fronts a major roadway. How is a major roadway defined? It's actually defined on the land use plan map of the county, which is, that's why I brought the map behind you, so I don't know exactly the definition, but it has to be found on the CDMP map. And through the chair, if I may, our definition is three lanes or more for major roadways. 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? There are cases where it's not, but in this case, this was the proposed language, and the county staff has accepted it. This was an applicant proposal, and we studied this and accepted that language. 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, and 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 liked the language that was proposed by the applicant of two acres or more. Why did you take that out? I believe when staff was discussing this application, two acres is fairly small, so that's why we believe that we kind of opened it up. I don't remember exactly the conversation, but I could look into it. 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 increase the non-commercial portion up to 50%? So I believe that one of the, again, this was a staff analysis, we wanted to provide more flexibility because in some cases what we've noticed is that when we limit the number or the amount of commercial that is allowed, there's sometimes more commercials required, and vice versa. Sometimes when we have a limit of commercial, then sometimes the properties goes undeveloped, that portion of it. So we wanted to provide more flexibility to future development based on the needs that may arise at the time. 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 intent, 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. Again, we were trying to provide more flexibility, but we'll take your comments into consideration as we move forward. As we go forward, yes. We'll restudy the issue. And if you'd like to make a motion eventually to change that, then we'll... 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 income brackets. When you go to 120% AMI, that's basically market, so there's not really a big public benefit. How does it break down the workforce housing portion? Well, I mean, that's up to 140 is what we utilize. 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. 140% is what the county's workforce housing program. That is the definition as per the account, you know, of workforce housing in the county's program. And will they be... 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 and purpose is. And I am concerned for sure that those two parts that have no minimum acreage size and that allow up to 50% non-residential, I don't think are good. I wouldn't be supporting that today. My other question, are they allowed to do short-term rentals here? Because this is by Biscayne. This is kind of an attractive corridor and we're trying to incentivize housing. Would these units be allowed to operate as short-term rentals? There's a restriction. And there's no restriction on that. There's no restriction. Okay. So we're creating bigger buildings, more dents, 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 questions. Not a good questions. Board Member Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Board Member Congora. Appreciate your questions. As a follow-up, I know you kind of did it already, but is there a slide that shows a difference between what the applicant asked for and what the county is requesting? Application shows what the applicant is. Yeah. The application itself, which is... Did you know how to... No, because it was too... I mean, it was too messy. I'm sorry. I don't know how to say that. But it was just too long and with the double strike-throughs and the strike-throughs and underlines, it was just... That's why I kind of shortened it to say what the actual major changes were or requests. With that, I'm hoping the applicant in their presentation may address those issues. It looks like he's going to be prepared to do that. And just to... I'm sorry. In appendix, page A3 is the original language that was proposed by the applicant. Okay. And then our changes on... I mean, the changes including what they were proposing and what we proposed on page 16 of the actual document. So I do have similar concerns about tying this to a park. We talked about it, I think, briefly with staff, or I have. And I have a question for staff and the county attorney. And that is, can the board of county commissioners later create or designate a new county park that causes neighboring parcels to become eligible for 150 units to the acre without another CD&P amendment is the first question. And if so, how would the public receive notice that the park designation is simultaneously creating new high-density development rights on adjacent land? I may, to the chair, yes. So in order to avail themselves of this change, the parcel would have to be designated high-density residential already. So, for example, if the county came in and put a new park in place, unless it was adjacent to an area that was already designated high-density residential, which is a fairly rare designation. I think we've got a map that shows where it's at. It would still have to go through that CD&P process to change it to the high-density in order to then develop themselves of these provisions, which are located in the text for the high-density category. So in other words, just putting a park there when it automatically allow you to be developed at high-density, you would have to have the park there and then redesignate the site. Okay. I appreciate the answer. Secondly, I do have some concern about also tying it to the SMART plan. And in particular, when I look down Kendall Drive, which is the area that I've spent a lot of time in, having sat on the CITT for a number of years, I know that that SMART plan corridor is not close to being considered for a plan or for development or for funding. So I'm concerned about high-density out west, in particular, some parcels that I've identified that would fall into this category. And I don't have an answer of how to address that, but I am concerned with tying it to a SMART plan corridor that, quite frankly, most likely is not going to be developed. So if staff could come up with something to address that, that would help me. Otherwise, I like the project. This isn't about this project. This is about kind of the ramifications of the changes that I see. Would you like me to address? Absolutely. Yeah, so I think I hear and understand the concern. The CDMP already includes language about the SMART plan corridors and identifies the six corridors, including the Kindle corridor. And then there are land use provisions that are in the CDMP under the mixed use development text that does allow areas that are within that SMART plan corridor within a quarter mile to go up to six units per acre and then between a quarter mile and a half mile up to, I think it's 36 units per acre. So that already exists in our plan. So I think in order to, you know, if there were to be any changes to that, it would require an amendment to the CDMP interpretive text. Which I think may be something that this is highlighting we need. Right. Okay. So questions. Do we have any questions to staff before we get to the applicant? All right. See no questions. We'll now hear from the applicant. Good afternoon. We have a presentation that I'll walk you through. Matt Amster with the law firm of Burke, Howard, Del, Fernandez, Larkin, and Tappanez. Offices at 200 South Biscayne Boulevard in Miami. Here today representing Biscayne Shore's development group. The principal of that group is Ronan Ben-Joseph. This is basically an umbrella of the Ben-Joseph companies. They have almost 20 years of development experience, mostly doing multifamily, but with other products. Mainly in New York City, but they have notably done projects in Miami Beach, the Sagamore, and they're working on projects at the Sagamore's neighbor, the Ritz-Carlton, as well as the Ritz-Carlton up in Bell Harbor. Unfortunately, Ronan couldn't be here today, but I believe he's watching us from afar. But he's definitely assembled a great team from Biscayne Shores. We have Elan Newman. Kobe Karp is our architect. Our team does include landscape architects, natural artificial, traffic engineers, Langan Engineering. I have my colleague, Rob Alvarez, from the firm. And we have obtained great assistance and guidance from Jeff Burkow, who also unfortunately couldn't be here today. Let's see if we can get to the next... Oh, sorry. Okay. So, similar aerial that Alex was showing, but I do want to spend a little bit of time. To our right is the Biscayne Boulevard Major Transportation Corridor, and then to the left, that diagonal line that's up at the upper left, that's the FEC Railroad. That is the Smart Corridor, Northeast Corridor plan. So we are squarely within these major transportation areas. That corridor line is just over a quarter mile from us, so we're in the half-mile buffer area. To our north is the large Biscayne Shores and Gardens Park, and then we have the former trailer park still shown here. To our south, another vacant property south of that, and then the white building, which I know Alex had walked you through, but I want to sort of bring you back 20 years ago our property, the former trailer home, and the other vacant property were part of an attempted assemblage for a very dense mixed-use project. They went forward to a comprehensive plan amendment similar to this and did get a covenant to guide and put restrictions on that future development. Well, for almost 20 years, nothing happened, and so in 2022, our firm helped all of the three owners to basically break up that original covenant in order to just be able to develop separately, and lo and behold, now that's actually what's come to pass. The vacant property, two to the south, was approved in 2024. That, as mentioned, was 430, sorry, 336 units and is already under construction. The trailer park property got approval just at the very end of last year, so they will be going forward very soon, and so we're the third of this, you know, once intended comprehensive development, as it were, that now is finally going to be realized. This is urban infill at its best, right, next to major transportation corridors, very underutilized vacant property, and we have examples to the east of us, to the right-hand side, lots of large, more long-standing multifamily residential, but our property, again, outlined in yellow, very long and narrow, as well as it's been vacant, except for that Christmas tree sales, for many decades, so we're here to sort of finally complete what got started over 20 years ago, so here we can give you an idea today as a comprehensive plan, both changing the map designation for high density and seeking to be re-designated to that high density. This is an example, only a concept plan, of what we are intending. There was mentioned that we do have a companion zoning application. That is the application that will address the actual development, the building layout, but here we can give you an idea of what it could look like, so this is just conceptual in this comprehensive plan that's before you, but all the site-specific details are not part of this application because they are going forward to that other zoning application, but also you can get an idea of the other taller buildings that exist in the nearby area, so our request is to modify the high-density text, and our original proposal was to keep it as limited since high-density should not be prevalent throughout the county, so we looked at this and one of the major benefits, right, the county park is a huge benefit for anybody who is residential and certainly in areas where you have a much higher population, you should make sure that that population can be readily served by a county park, so that's where, while we hadn't seen it before, we decided to tie in that instead of just adjacency to major transportation, you should have the walkability to that outdoor recreation, so that was our impetus for doing that, and to make the comparison to the county in the expansion that they've provided our two-acre minimum size of a property only then applied to six properties county-wide, so we were not trying to open it up in our original proposal. The second request that we have is to redesignate to that high-density, and then we do have a proffered covenant. We're going to, there was a clarification in language made through work with the county attorney's office. I'm going to have Rob pass it out to you. It doesn't change substantially what the covenant is actually accomplishing. I'll explain it in a minute, but I just wanted to get that into the record that there is an extra clarification which staff, both the attorney's office as well as planning staff, all vetted, and we're all in agreement with, so I think we can skip by this. You know that it's basically business in office today, and then we're seeking to change that to the high-density category. Just, again, not to go through it in any major detail, but our original proposed covenant talks about properties that are on an adjacent, you know, major corridor within the half-mile smart plan buffer corridor areas, right exactly where the county has been pushing RTZ and transit-oriented type of projects, as well as within 500 feet of a county park. Another aspect of the covenant language talks about height and makes sure to build in an appropriate transition to the other nearby surrounding and when there's often lower density, which we do have, to our west. So we have built in provision for appropriate height buffering, and also, when you have higher density, there needs to be additional floor area for that, so we appropriately sought to increase that to 3.0. So when the county looked at that, I think, you know, the best way I can explain all the red lines, while may seem to be invasive, I think that it's meant to work in concert with our original plan. Many of the major tenets of what we originally proposed, major transportation corridor, smart plan corridor, all the transportation, 500 feet from a county park, 3.0 FAR, all of that has been retained, and therefore, of course, that means that our original proposal is still intact, and we can move forward with the project as we propose. I think the county has taken another look to just see that, you know, we are looking at this from our point of view with our specific property, the county, and I think that this is a provision in the text of the land use element that hasn't been touched probably forever. It had this 60 to 125 units per acre or more without any real specification of what that means, so here's an opportunity not just for us but for the county to take a really good critical look at what would be an appropriate or more, so this is where I think we've allowed them to take a look, and this is our collective effort, right, ours as a starting point, and theirs as a, for, you know, the stewards of planning for the whole county. That's where I think that we've come with some slight expansion. So here again, and I want to show you more for actual context. Again, in the foreground, this is kind of looking to the southeast, same as the other view. You have the park, and then you have our project as proposed that takes advantage of being right next to and abutting the park, but you can see at the upper left the taller buildings. These are like jockey club, cricket club, other longstanding and 21, 22-story tall, as well as some 14- and 15-story buildings all there east of us, and then as you go to the right next to us, the ones that are in white, the mast buildings, these are the two other pieces of this 20-year-old attempted development that have already been approved. The one immediately south of us has the grocery store and eight stories of commercial, I mean, sorry, residential development, and then the one south of that has 12 stories fronting Biscayne Boulevard and eight stories in the center and towards the rear for another multifamily development, and then just south of that is the already existing 402-unit development, eight stories tall. So that is our context. There's definitely compatibility within our immediate area. Those other developments, including the one that's already been built, the eight story one, show you that this is that higher density and taller height that exists on the east side is now the trend for how this gets developed here, and as we get through our covenant, that old covenant from 20 years ago that a few years back we modified to apply to each individual property has many a design and other water saving measures a whole bunch of benefits that we still have to provide in our project, which we will have no issue doing, but notably, there's a provision there to basically earmark the impact fees for parks to this particular park that it specifically goes to improvements and we have worked with and are waiting for parks to give us their wish list of items that we will be able to provide funds and get done at the same time that this project is built, which not only benefits our project, but all the other residential uses that are very close and including the two that are new and being developed right south of us. So we're also, and this goes back to the covenant that got passed out, we are providing workforce housing. A lot of developers are utilizing incentives in the code to get density bonus by providing workforce housing. We're actually not seeking that and in fact, our 550 unit limit is a reduction of the total that we could get through this text amendment. We could go up to 613. We feel that we don't need to. We've run all the numbers and the 550 works for this project along with restricting us to the 20,000 square feet of commercial. So the clarification language was just to put in writing in the covenant that the applicant is not availing ourselves of the density bonus. There's a code section reference that we say in the covenant, the version that you had gotten in your package. That's basically what that means. So now we're just adding language to make it clear. That's the only change that I believe has been made there. And then we're doing 35% of our units workforce housing. Workforce housing does go up to 140%, but all of these 35%, which is 192 units, are going to be restricted at 120. And that's our voluntary proffer. Through our zoning application, again, separate, but important to note, we are, because we're in a rapid transit corridor, the SMART corridor, we are needing to rezone to MCD. MCD. MCD is a mixed corridor district, suitable, it's actually a fairly new zoning district, suitable for these rapid transit type of projects. And there is a requirement for 12.5% workforce housing. Our 35% is almost three times that amount, which we're doing voluntarily. And we feel that also befits the other projects south of us, likewise, have committed, although not nearly as much, similar workforce housing. So we are, you know, from a height, from a density, from the amount of workforce housing, you know, doing similarly as our neighboring projects, as well as, again, making sure to really do well for this area, bringing in some neighborhood serving commercial and improving the park, which are our major benefits. And with that, we respectfully request that the Planning Advisory Board recommend in favor of transmitting this application to the Board of County Commissioners, along with acceptance of the proffered covenant. The request ensures appropriate redevelopment for a long, vacant property in the urban infill area within the heart of multiple transportation corridors with immediate access to a county park. The application establishes a clear and controlled framework for development, especially in close proximity to that park. We have appropriate limitations within our proposed covenant for the right and appropriate amount of development. This will result in significant improvements directly to this park. The request is consistent with the county's planning goals, objectives, and policies. It got vetted for all different departments for concurrency, traffic review, and all have been found to be satisfactory and with no objection. And then in conjunction with the other two projects that all resulted, you know, from that first failed attempt almost 20 years ago, this will bring much-needed revitalization to this area. And with that, we respectfully request reserve time for rebuttal should that be necessary. Thank you, Mr. Hamster. Do we have any questions here for the applicant? Board Member Gungor. 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? Like, I'm confused. So there'll be further covenants, assuming we get this project going, the county establishes another set of covenants in order to officially earmark each of these units, and that would also include the 120% maximum. And the way that workforce housing works, a renter, in this case, this will be rentals, they need to get certified by the county housing department as a person based on their income that meet the requirements to be by, you know, to get a lease from this landlord. And so that, all of that paperwork has to, you know, get confirmed that they're no higher than the 120%. 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 in this application has no position on that since you proposed the original language, correct? Right. The county's language just opens it up, but it doesn't detract from our proposal. And as you can tell, right, we're focused more on the residential side, so our 20,000 is only on the ground level, so it's not, anywhere approaching that 50%. I don't know what it would be on the first floor, but that's the right place to put the retail type of uses. And these questions may be more zoning, but it makes me feel more comfortable. Like, are you putting in at least one parking space per unit? So we are taking advantage through a zoning application, which is a separate item. There are reductions because of this proximity to major transportation corridors and multiple bus stops. In fact, there's two bus stations, bus stops right near this property. Within the assemblage of the three, there's two bus stops. So there is a reduction that's allowed, and then our traffic study further vets that there's shared, and because of that transportation, that we have what we feel is an appropriate amount of parking spaces for the project. How many are there? I'd rather not say there's over 500 parking spaces for the project. Okay. And what size are the units? Is there a range of sizes? I don't have that information with me. I just know that we have a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom units. 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. And through the chair, if I may, I think even though this is a concurrent application with zoning, at this point, what we're really considering is just the CD&P application, so that's something important to keep in mind. Also, the 120% limitation that the applicant is talking about, even though that is something that they contemplate to proffer at zoning, right now, what we have before us is the 140, and that's what we can consider unless the board wishes to ask the applicant to do something else. We can't really consider what is being proposed at zoning because we don't have it in front of us. So just wanted to keep that in mind. 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. Through the chair. I just want to clarify, our covenant does limit for this application before you today that we are restricting ourselves to 120. While the county definition of workforce housing allows up to 140, we already agree to go down to 120 for the 35%. That's 192 units and total there's 206 because there's 14 units that we were allotted from that 20-year-old covenant that we are still keeping. So there's 206 workforce housing units. Mr. David. Thank you. Through the chair, the covenant that you just passed out states 140, so it's 60 to 140. Well, my apologies, but we are definitely doing 120. That's always been the max. Are you sure that's not just a... I don't have it in front of me. You all have copies. Fair enough. So I apologize for that. Was that chat GPT? We always wanted to... From the beginning, we've been doing 120%, so we can strike that yes and make that say only 120. That's never been anything that we weren't trying to open it back up. That was our original... You can see in our application appendix something or other that has the original version, so that should say 120. That's what we're committed to doing. Appreciate the clarification there. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? Questions? All right. Seeing no question for staff. Yeah. Let's go ahead and do it. Board Member Montiel. I'm not sure the best way to phrase this question, so I'm going to try to say it as simply as I possibly can. Is it possible for us to, as a board, to approve perhaps the applicant and the applicant's project without approving the amendment to the CDMP? Sorry. Through the chair, the applicant is proposing, I believe it's 136 point something units per acre. Close to 135. It's over the 125. I think it's about 135. 135. Look, if I'm not mistaken, reading it, it's 125 or more as it's currently written. Isn't that correct? So is there a way that they can capture that additional, I suppose, 11 and change without amending the entire language? I think what I'm most concerned about, and I think it's shared by some of my board members, is what consequences this has to other applications, right? We're, I think most of our concerns are getting away from this particular project and more in line with what the amendment language does to other applications. Staff, do you have to get? So I think in answer to your question, I mean, the and more is very vague and undefined, and that's text that I think was mentioned earlier. This has long been part of the plan, so I think that this application is an opportunity to kind of clean that up. Whether or not it could happen without, whether or not this development could happen without these amendments, I think it would be challenging. I mean, we could, you know, I don't. You have to bifurcate. You would have to bifurcate. I think the amendment is an opportunity to kind of, the update, this amendment was an opportunity to kind of provide more definition to that language and to remove the vagueness of that and more. You know, it's hard to interpret what exactly, you know, that and more, you know, conceivably, it could be unlimited. Through the chair. You recognize. I had the same question that you did, Mr. Montiel, before the meeting and I am also greatly concerned in the precedent that we're setting and I think we have an opportunity here today that, you know, we can do things with recommendations and put constraints on it and I think that I feel pretty much the same way as Mr. Gungor and you do that this is very defined. This project has been thoroughly reviewed but we're opening up the floodgates to, you know, a lot of, you know, what would benefits be in the future? What is the size of the park? This happens to be a very large, you know, very nice park but there's no, I mean, it could be a pocket park in the future, you know, just as some of my, you know, little red flags go off. So I think that there is quite a discrepancy as well and I understand it may be challenging but I'm not hearing that it can't be done. Board Member Thomas with a question. Just as a follow-up to Board Member Montiel's question, is it possible, and this may be to the applicant as well as to staff, is it possible to resolve this vagueness in the text amendment by putting a number at 150 as proposed but do we need to have this tied to parks and smart plan corridors in order for this application to work? Good afternoon Board Members. Yes, yes, thank you. So, Board Members, so the application is doing two things. One, is it speaking to the site? For the site development, they need greater floor area to allow the development that they propose, right? Now, the text that's associated with the land use category, it has this range of 60 to 125 units or more. What is the or more? It could be substantially greater than 150. Now, right now, as of today, we don't have many parcels designated having this land use designation. The primary areas that have this designation are within municipalities. So, for the concern of where this designation would apply, keep in mind that any property seeking to utilize this designation would have to seek a comprehensive plan amendment to designate from whatever they are today to this land use category of high density. So, any property owner seeking to take advantage of what's proposed today, like what the applicant is doing, changing their land use category to the high density, other property owners would have to go through the process as well. So, but the application is taking care of the land use change component as well as modifying the text to provide criteria for when this density greater than the 125 would be applicable. That's where the RTZ criterion comes in, right? That's where the proximity to a park comes in. So, essentially, the way that the text is being proposed, it's saying that any property owner that seeks to redesignate their property to high density to this land use category, if they are not within the RTZ area, if they're not within the proximity of a park as outlined in the proposed text, then they would be capped at 125 units to the acre. But, if they meet the criteria, then they would be eligible to go up to 150 per acre. Thank you, Mr. Garrett. I think we all understand the mechanics. We've been over... Okay. That doesn't answer the question. The question was, can this application move forward? And can we resolve this issue of not having a cap on the high density designation? If we just say it's 150 units, put it at that. Why are we tying it to a park? Do we need to tie it to a park in order for this application to move forward? And that's a question for the applicant as well as staff. Do we need to tie it to a parcel that's greater than two acres for this application to move forward? Do we need to tie it to a smart plan corridor for this application to move forward? If you could answer those succinctly, those three pieces, that would be helpful. And the simple answer is no. It does not need to be tied to any of those things. Okay. Do you have any other questions? Through the chair, can I make a statement? Of course. I think what they did here is they are seeing all the positive things that this property had that could make it applicable and an approvable application that very few other properties will have throughout the county. I think if we removed those things, we'd open it up even more throughout the county for this 150 units to be able to be applied. In this case, they're saying wherever there's a property that's next to a park and in a transit corridor, that's the only way they'll be able to get to this. So they've kind of set the rules up to where this property fits. But if we remove those, we kind of open it up, those concerns that other people have, we open it up pretty much anywhere. I think I agree with the concept that there are some limitations they're putting on this. However, those limitations also open the door in areas where high density is not appropriate. They would have to be next to a park, they would have to be in a transit corridor and they would have to fit the land use designation or they would have to come here to increase that property to the land use designation. We're going to get to debate if you guys want to continue the debate just for questions now so we can move this along a little bit. Do you guys have any other questions for the applicant or for staff? All right, let's go ahead and move on to the public hearing. I'm now going to open public hearing P-2025-006. I've got no speaker cards. Does anyone wish to speak on this item? All right, seeing none, we'll now close the public hearing. All right, here we go. Now board members are ready for a debate. I was just trying to clarify that if we remove those we're going to make it more wide open. 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 residential not more commercial. So I'd like to go back to their original language on those two points as well as their profit and now reduce the definition of AMI to a maximum of 120% so you're helping people with a little less money find housing. The park thing, I agree with you, the park thing caught my curiosity just because I've never seen a planning or zoning application tied to one, but I like leaving it in because at least there's a green space next to this now denser, taller project and having a park is a good thing. My only question is, I think this board member raised it about, could it be a pocket park? Could we add that it needs to be next to a major park or is there a definition for what a major park is in the county? So if I may, Mr. Chair. 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. Mr. Rowe. So certainly the CDMP application speaks to and we have analysis that identifies the local recreational open space, local parks within proximity of the site. Now we can, we have local parks, we have regional parks, right? I think the tying the applicability of this proposed text. What is this park considered next to his project? This is a local park. Yeah, it's more appropriate that it's tied to local parks. 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% be non-residential use, and of course the 120% AMI. With those changes, I would feel comfortable moving it forward. Is there a second on, or is there more debate before? Of course. Go ahead. Can we ask the application to get your, I'm not saying that you're a decision on this, but what's your feeling as to the suggested amendments, and how does that relate to the problems? No problems. That's quite in line with our original proposal. I think we meet the modified version of what is this park, so I don't think that that negatively affects this at all. Right. Well, and again, we weren't trying to get this to be very ubiquitous for high density everywhere else in the county. I mean, it is true, though, that anybody else that this could apply to does have to go through the same process we're going through right now. Everybody would have to come, because high density barely exists anywhere, already on the map, so everybody has to come in and do not just a request to change, but to provide the justification as we have for our little area to make sure that we meet all the concurrency and meet the objectives and goals, et cetera. So that's where this gets controlled, should it still be applicable to other properties. But our original, which I don't know how much changed by the definition of adding local park, was only for six properties, so that may still be true. I don't, I'd have to look at the details, but we're fine with that proposal. Thank you. Oh, you recognize Mr. Wimbus. Yeah, I mean, I really think the applicant wasn't going to be upset with us staying with what they recommended. I believe staff made those edits so that they could make use of this text amendment in assisting other properties throughout the county to come in for this, right? If they, we need to think countywide, right? We're a planning board, we're not a zoning board that looks at projects one by one. I've sat on this board close to 20 years, and, you know, many, you know, times we looked at project based applications. I mean, I really think staff put a lot of thought into this, so we should put a little more thought into just saying, oh, let's go back to where the applicant said. I really think staff looked at this and said, well, we want to be able to make use of this to be able to provide affordable housing, workforce housing throughout the county and places where it makes sense. So, you know, the applicant very astutely, you know, crafted an application that matched their criteria. They happen to sit right next to a beautiful large park. They, you know, happen to be on, you know, sandwiched in between two major streets. So, but there are going to be applications that we may need to come through that will need, the language will be a little more flexible or we're going to be facing this text amendment again. So, I think we should put a little more thought into what staff requested. So, my question to you guys is, is that the case, what I'm saying? Certainly, Mr. Wembers. Any application that we process, especially for changing the text of the comprehensive plan, we take a more comprehensive view, not just for the property in question. For example, in the proposed text changes that staff recommends, the applicant included two acres as the minimum size for this provision to be applicable, we recommend deleting that two-acre limit, right? The allowance for greater script footage of commercial within a project is something that we thought provides greater flexibility to developments within certain areas that would be eligible here, right? that would allow for more ease of implementing a development. So, we've tried to, based on our understanding of some of the issues that have been brought to our attention over the years, sought to build in certain flexibilities into the language, right? And, for example, where we provide for affordable housing units to be able to be used to satisfy the mixed-use component, the non-residential component, that's, we've had projects that propose residential, and they are not inclined to build commercial. And so, you know, having an allowance where you can build affordable housing instead, right, you don't need to include the commercial to satisfy the mixed-use allowance. So, you know, we've tried to build in these flexibilities that would make it easier for it to be implemented. Thank you, Mr. Board Member Padron. Yeah, let me just come back to, if we could take them kind of separately, because there are three items, right? The park... Mr. Padron, your microphone, please. He wants to hear me, really, but it's okay. So, let me just talk about the parks, right? I think the amendment of the parks is very good, because it describes a local park. I'm sure that if county... If county has to be in favor of that, right, because you didn't put this whole thing about park to have a little teeny dog park that is a 50 by 100, because if you're saying, oh, they got a little park, don't put that in, because it's kind of embarrassing, right? So, you meant a local park. You don't have a problem with that. We don't have a problem with local park, but we don't have a problem with a regional park either. So, the point is... No, but what I'm saying is, if you just leave the definition of park... Yes. And we all know that everywhere is very nice. I don't own dogs, but very nice. They have, for example, small pocket dog park. They're about this big for their dogs and great, and people... Right? But you're not going to give this whole big area a place that can go up, because they put a little dog park right there, right? Because the whole idea is that you have places for the people to, you know, be able to go out and get some fresh air, right? And to that question, Mr. Prajuan, we look at all applications in... Well, to begin with, there's more than just the park criteria. Oh, I said we're going to... I was going to take them apart. Yes. Yes. So, and then, we also appreciate that this allowance, right? Any application that then will be seeking this allowance will be evaluated for compatibility within where they're looking to locate and so forth. You know, because applicants will have to come in and apply to, for the designation, for it to become applicable to their properties. So, we envision that there will be that compatibility analysis that's built into them seeking the allowance. Right. So, yes. But you guys are good with the, a little definite, whether it's local or... Because this park that's next to it is considered a local park, right? Right. Not a pocket park. Right. So, we have county parks in the language, which would include regional parks as well, right? So, which is more flexible than just simply having local parks only. And pretty much the other ones are the smart quarter, which check the box, you're going to want that, and the acreage is probably not bad either, right? I mean, I don't... Yeah, then removing the acreage requirement is because there's going to be a property that, on an acre, I mean, we have incredible, developed, beautiful buildings throughout the entire county that are on an acre, acre and a quarter, you know? So, that's why I believe they removed the two-acre. If you live local, whatever, then for sure. Yeah, but I mean, everywhere. Like, you go to Coral Gables, you go to City of Miami, you go to different areas. I mean, on less than two acres, there are projects that can meet the 150 units to the acre, but then they're going to get 80-something units. They're not going to get 150-something because it's tied to the acreage, right? So, that's what staff did properly. They said, well, we don't want to limit this to only applications that come in with two acres or less. So, I mean, or more. So, I'm for the language that staff put together, adding the limitation of the 120%. Board Member Thomas. Just as a follow-up to Board Member Wemmes, I agree with you. This planning board should be looking at this as a countywide issue. I think where I take, where I have an issue is in the process, right? So, can the, to planning staff, is this something that we can address separate of an application? Can the staff bring an application that says we want to address this high-density zoning and how we do it? And the reason I'm saying that is when we tie it to an applicant's project that otherwise looks compatible and good, and we're standing here trying to balance the two issues, one being the project itself and a broader countywide planning issue. And when you, when you bring them together, it creates what we have today. And for example, if we look at the smart plan corridors as inclusive of this, yes, it is restricting, but there's a smart plan corridor that's never going to be developed. And that's Kendall Drive. So, I take issue with that. I would prefer it not be part of this and I would not like to, and the reason I'm okay with separating the applicant's request from the staff's request is because otherwise I would be a no. That's because they're, they're together. They really need to be separate and we need to address them separately. Yeah. So, anyway, that's my two cents. Board Member Gungora. Thank you. 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. May I, Chair? So, in this thread that we're discussing before you came in, there was a question asked and I'm looking for clarity. So, I may be repeating, but I'm looking for a little bit of clarity. I'm understanding that if a new county park is created of size, a substantial park, the properties around there, because it was a new created park, cannot qualify for this high-density designation. The only properties that qualify are what exists now. There can't be anything else in the future. There is only six additional properties in the whole county, or whatever is on this map back here, that would qualify. This is not open in the future for additional high-density designations. So, the other properties can actually apply, file an application to change your land-use designation to become eligible for the density alone. They can ask for the high-density. And the... Hold on, hold on. I think maybe, let me take another shot at this. Okay. If a new park is created, so we have a new park, a new three-acre park that's created, the properties now surrounding that meet this criteria, because there's a new county park next to them. So, can all of those properties now apply for this designation? They could apply to redesignate their property to high-density residential. That would have to go through the same process this application is going through. That kind of review would have to go to the state. So, they can't... Just placing a park there would not automatically open the door for them being able to take advantage of these provisions. They would have to be located next to a park. Follow the process. And then they would have to go through the process. But it is not done at this point. It is not only these properties that exist. It is open in the future if there is new parkland created. It would open them for... The opportunity to go through this process. To go through this process. Understood. Thank you. And if I may, if I can ask two questions to the applicant. I am supportive of the project. I live in the area. This is my home district. But I'm also concerned. As I mentioned, I live in the area and I travel Biscayne Corridor for most of my, you know, things that I obtain, uses, you know, grocery store, all of those types of things. I am concerned. I can read a traffic study and I understand. But I live there and operate every day. Would your client be amendable to providing a traffic light synchronization study? That is one of the largest problems that we have in the Biscayne Corridor. Could they obtain that and provide that and get the ball rolling with the county in order to move traffic through this corridor? To get up to 125th Street is painful. So if that could be something that could be added. And I would also like to discuss a little bit further the units that are being proffered. You mentioned that you inherited 14 units from the previous covenant. Would it be okay to cap those units, the 14 of them, from 60 to 80% AMI? Just those 14 up to 80% and then the rest can be up to 120%. And that would create a little bit of a lesser bar to get some people that maybe really need housing into, you know, this new beautiful project. So the first point about traffic, remember those other two projects have already gone forward with their additional density to the area. And I'm not fully vetted on what those reviews have gone through, but I believe that that may already be in the mix. Traffic studies are needed for our project through the zoning application. If you give me one second, I'm waiting for a member of our team to give us a... I'm not asking for a traffic study, though. I'm asking for a light signalization study. So a signal is being provided in front of... I don't know exactly where, but I know that that issue, I believe, is already being addressed through the combination of these other three, the other two in our development combined. So I don't have the information directly, but the former trailer park property, which is due south of us, is going to get a traffic signal. So in order to get a new traffic signal, you have to do an analysis of your signalization. So that is part of that project's approval. So that they would already have... So really, they're on the hook to do that, and I'm sure that that will get done for that to be developed. So I think that your question is being addressed through that other application because a new signal will be added in, basically, this is the grocery store that's just going to be on the property south of us. Okay. If in our moving this forward, as long as the light signalization issue is addressed, I'm okay with that. But this needs, in this area, getting from, say, 96th Street up to 125th, it's really challenging. And so if the lights can be from whichever project, I would like it to be part of whatever motion, though, that we make today that this is addressed one way or another and that either the county looks at it, your client looks at it, that somehow that we have traffic move. Having a brand-new apartment and getting someone into an apartment, but yet it takes them two hours to get home or get to work back and forth every day is very challenging. This is a very congested area. And, yes, it may be on an RTZ zone. The train may be nearby. You know, we may have buses. But from 4 to 7 p.m., traffic does not move in this area. So I would really like to make sure that however it is addressed that we get these signals, you know, from that specific area, from Northeast 96th Street up to 125th, addressed, and make sure that we can move cars, especially bringing in the possibility of another, you know, 500 to 1,000 cars into the area. Do we have any further discussion on the item? Board Member Wimbus. The one point I want to make, and staff has said it a couple times, is every single application that wants to use this designation will have to come through a hearing. It's not going to be a, you know, county-wide, across the board, whatever we passed today. So every single time we're going to be able to look at these. You mentioned Kendall Drive. Are you aware of the project that's going next to the Kendall Boys town and doesn't come through us, doesn't come through anybody? It's strictly live local. And they're getting a ton of units. So, I mean, at least these projects will always have to come through us. We'll have to go through the county commission. We'll have to go through the local zoning districts. So, I mean, I'm still more inclined to following staff's direction than strictly what the applicant applied for. So what's your biggest of all the staff directions compared to, is it the two-acre thing? I just think they're wisely trying to make it a language that will be more usable in the future. But still, people will have to, because that designation, we don't have that designation other than the six properties they mentioned that have it. Right, plus or minus. So any property that has, and again, you're not going to be able to jump from low density all the way to high density. It's usually one uptick, right? So all those projects are going to have to come before us. And, you know, so I still think that staff did their diligence, did their job. And, yeah, maybe we should have had it earlier. But, you know, I'm more supportive of what staff has done. Board Ben Montiel. Yeah, I want to say that I appreciate the work that staff puts into this, right? I know they do their homework, but they've put it in front of us in connection with one specific application. And they haven't given us enough of an opportunity, in my opinion, to vet this and think about this and, you know, just do it countywide. I'm not necessarily opposed to it. I just, it's really difficult to make a decision that has a longstanding after effect when it's presented to you in connection with a particular project or a particular application. So I recognize that this may have been the, you know, what moves the staff to say, well, it's probably time to up our definition of high density. And I think that's appropriate, but it's very difficult to make an informed decision on it when it's being presented in connection with one particular application. It hasn't given us enough time to just look at all the facts. That's all. I'm supportive of the project. I think it looks very professional. I think they've put their efforts into it. But I think that the amendment just in terms of the land you sell or the language should be its own application with its own presentation and its own, our own opportunity to, you know, discuss our reasoning with the staff because they deal with this every day, right? And obviously we lean on their expertise, but we don't get that same opportunity. We're not afforded the same luxury. So from my perspective, I would just, I would really be interested in supporting the project while to some extent tabling the issue or separating the issue from the rest of the amendment language until we've had a chance to, I don't know, sink our teeth into it a little bit. Thank you. Board Member Fernandez? Yeah, I'm going to agree with my board members as well. I think just the need to separate this was much more important. I think there were two different debates, and it would have been a lot easier to disentangle this thing, allow these things to live on their own. I will agree, and coming from a design professional who has to interpret all these codes all the time, you have to eliminate the vagueness of the code, right? So there had to be a limitation. You wanted to stop it at 125 and not have a or more, which nobody knows what that means, and it typically requires me making a phone call to staff going, what does the or more mean, right? So the 125 was important, and to give the 150, I think it's critical not just to give it away, but to have some conditions to it, right? And if we're going to do 150 units to the acre, which is not huge, I mean, City of Miami has 150 units to the acre as their identity, but tying it to something that is beneficial, a park, a smart corridor. And I understand the Kendall corridor is anomaly, right? But if you're going to increase density, you've got to make sure you have the infrastructure for it, and that has to do with transportation, walkability, and a park is really important. I mean, City of Miami has, in their concurrency, if you're not within a park area, they don't even want to approve you, and there's not enough parks. And maybe this new language will encourage either private developers, public organizations, to make new parks. So maybe this is a positive thing, because maybe it will force people to say, oh, wow, if I give a park, or if I make a park, or we can donate a park, guess what? We get more density. So it could be a great opportunity. As far as the park is concerned, full support, I think the area needs critical mass. I understand the board of members' concern about transportation and traffic. The critical part of decentralizing the city and reducing traffic comes with creating critical mass outside the core. And you can only do that with having critical mass in certain portions. 400-unit building is not critical mass. 5,000 units is critical mass. That brings the need for a grocery store, that need to bring for jobs, offices, retail, commercial, that then supports the critical mass of residential units. So bringing it under two acres is good, because there are a lot of one, one-and-a-half-acre sites that can provide 250 units, and two acres would be limiting it. And I will tell you that, it's very difficult to find two acres in Miami-Dade County nowadays. So those are my two cents. Thank you. I think we've had ample discussion. Do we have any motions? I'll move to adopt with change and with the proffered declaration of restrictions. Second. Is there a second? What was your motion? I didn't hear it. Adopt. The staff recommendation, no. I apologize. You're going back to the staff and not to the – I have to withdraw it for a minute. I'll second it, but add the fact that it would be limited to 120 percent, if you're okay with that. Because remember, their covenant doesn't limit it to 120 percent. They kept it at 140. I'm a no. I thought I had made a motion at the very beginning. There was a motion in the second. Like my motion never got voted on. Yeah, we needed discussion before. My apologies, Board Member. Withdraw that. We'll consider yours if need be. Let's go back to Mr. Gongoro's motion. So what was the motion again? Could you clarify for the record? My motion was to go back to the applicant's version that ties it to a two-acre or larger policy to add the local park designation, to go back to the applicant's maximum 10 percent non-residential use, and, of course, the 120 percent AMI that they proffered. Board Member Thomas with a second. Would you please call the roll on the motion? Before you call the roll, Chair, I have a question. Is this keeping the text amendment together with this project? That I was not clear on. The what? The text amendment and the project. You're keeping them together. Well, I think they have to. This is the text amendment, but I would like the text amendment to come back later so we can go through whether a bigger expansion is necessary. Okay. I'm okay with that. Thank you for the clarity. Mr. Chair, if I may, on the motion, unless I'm mistaken or things have changed and I've not been aware of the change, the applicant's text is necessary in that the applicant needs the change in floor area ratio at a minimum for the project to work, right? So I don't think that there's the ability to divorce the land use change component from the text change without impacting the project as a whole. So I just wanted the board to be clear on that. And before we call the roll, will you indulge my two questions in your motion of the output to 80% AMI for their 14 units and for a light signalization study to move traffic in the area? 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? A light study? We did not receive a light study. If you're referring to a traffic signal warrant study, no, one was not done. Now, just to make clear, the traffic study that was submitted by the applicant, reviewed by staff, shows that all the roadways are operating within the adopted level of service standards. Now, the standards allow for greater levels of congestion because of where the property is located, right? Now, a traffic signal warrant study is one that would typically be done at the time of zoning site planning, right? Not necessarily at the CDMP level, except where we had roadway level of service standard failures, and we were seeking solutions to figure how to address those failures. We do not have failures in the standards based on the study for this project. So a signal warrant study was not discussed, right? So, but certainly if the board thinks it's appropriate to, as a condition for the board's recommendation to include that such a study be done, you know, that may be appropriate for the board to consider. If I may, Chair, my concern is that there's so much additional density coming in, and there is multiple projects. So this needs to be addressed. Typically, too, what I have learned in a lot of these processes is that post-data, going back five years, is used. We don't tend to look forward. And so with the amount of density and projects that are coming into this area, this needs to be addressed to be able to move cars, buses, and everything else back and forth in this northeast Biscayne corridor. So somehow, if we can fit that in, I'm okay with everything else we've discussed. And at least having a few of the units at a little bit more of an attainable level. 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? Yes, certainly. It's at the board's pleasure. Okay. I would like to add that. Through the chair, just for clarity, the project to the south is putting in a new signal through their approvals. And there was a signal warrant study was done for that project, for that new signal, which addresses, I think, the concerns raised here. So I don't want to duplicate what is already, we can just certainly confirm that through staff and make sure that that's brought to the next hearing. But that's already, your concern is being addressed with that new signal just on a different property, which is why it didn't come through our application. Hey, if it has been done, and this will address from Northeast 96th Street up to Northeast 125th, I'm 100% okay with that. This is me trying to make a stopgap. So if confirmation can be provided and something is going to be done to make these lights change at the same time and move cars, no problem. But this is something that is a huge issue in this area. So however it gets addressed, if it can just be my recommendations carried forth to zoning and then on to the BCC, that's fine. As long as it's handled one way or another, I'm 100% okay with that. So I think we're back on the motion, correct? It was seconded. Could you guys repeat it now in final form? Madam Clerk, could you please repeat it one more time in final form before calling roll here? Okay. The motion was made by Board Member Gongora, and as I understand it, it is basically the staff recommendation to transmit with change and adopt with the applicant's proper declaration of restrictions with the following three conditions. And the first condition was to have the park needs to be a local park? Correct. Okay, and then the second, I'm sorry, I, I, could you restate your second part because of, I was taking notes, but could I recommend he restate it altogether? Because I'm not sure you got the motion correct from the beginning. Correct. The motion, 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% AMI, hopefully have some of the lower levels as well. Okay, so on your motion, a statement would be to approve the applicant's original language. The change would be, one, a minimum of a local parks, and that is keeping their original language of the two acres. The second would be keep their language of the 10% of the non-residential. And the third change would be for the applicant's proffered covenant to change it to up to 120% of AMI. And then board member Zapata also made two conditions on recommending the recommendations. I'm recommending the traffic light synchronization study, which I think we're waiting to hear back from, but there is also a mention made of the previous application and the 16 units. I wasn't sure that condition was accepted by the maker of the motion. I don't know how the breakdown was, but I think she wanted them to consider doing some of the workforce housing at the lower percentages. Yeah, but consider or? All right, that's, we would, 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. Okay, so the third condition would be for up to 120% of the AMI and that at time of zoning to consider, to recommend a lower percentage? Correct. Okay, that was made by board member Gongora and seconded by board member Thomas. Yeah. That means recommend a lower percentage to what? To the 120? I think, I think the recommendation is that some of the housing, that they not do it all at the 120%, that they consider requiring some of it at the lower percentage. I'll try and provide a little clarity, Chair, if I may. So I had recommended that 14, there's 14 original units in the Covenant and I asked that if they could be up to 80% AMI instead of the 120%. I didn't want the offered housing to be top loaded and all be at 100, 110, 120%, which we know can start getting up in the market rate condition. So I ask if a few of the units of small percentage could be at a lower, maybe from 60 to 80 instead of 60 to 120. So the typical way, if I can, Mr. Chair. How do you do that? The typical way we would do this is we would request that from the applicant. The applicant would either agree or not. And then we would make a motion based off of that and we can vote it up or down. But I've not seen, and the county attorney can correct me, I've not seen where we do a kind of a split of this is what we require to move this forward with a recommendation. And then we have some additional recommendations we want you to consider. I'm not sure that we do that, but please guide us if you could, please. Thank you for that. All right, I'll leave the motion as is. We had an answer, though, from the attorney here. Through the chair, so my understanding of the question, I'm sorry. The question is whether we normally split, like, what we're asking for and then also, like, what we want BCC to consider. Is that? Our motions usually have to do with the applicant, what they're asking for, and staff's recommendations. So we either approve with staff recommendation or we recommend approval without, in this case, without staff recommendation and a reiteration of conditions. And that's usually it. We don't typically do, in my experience, having been here a couple years, we don't typically do, and by the way, we'd like you to think about X, Y, or Z. We usually address that with the applicant now. If the applicant says no, then that's a basis for our individual votes. But we typically, I've not seen conditions or recommendations that aren't really, you know, we're saying approval with this or that. So I'm looking for clarity, not sending a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners with a maybe. Understood. Thank you for clarifying that. Is there a path? You've heard the discussion. Is there a profit from the applicant? Can you do anything with regard to the AMI voluntarily before we call the vote? Through the chair? So, yes. I mean, I want to make sure it's very clear that we are already going above what is otherwise required with our 35%. That is not required. 12.5% is 69 units. We're doing 192. That's 123 units that could either always be fully market rate that we are restricting, not to 140, but to 120%. That is as much, you know, as much as a voluntary proffer that we are already committed to make, and that's how this project will be designed to work. And we gratefully appreciate that you recognize that that is way more than the two projects south of us have not given anywhere near that amount. So, but we are. And it's already in writing. We've already proffered it. It's in our covenant to you. So, Chair, can I ask for a further clarification from the applicant? So, all of the units that are being proffered, the 192 units, will be at 120% AMI is what I'm now understanding. They will be no higher than 120. So, I'm struggling with then my request is to set aside 14 units up to 80%. Since we don't have a breakdown and it's from 60 to 120, will there be units at 60%? At 90% is there, there's no, so I'm concerned that the 192 units will end up working out at all 120%. That is what I'm trying to achieve in that there's a few units set aside at the lower end of the scale. So, again, that's not a requirement. That's not how the project has been vetted that we would have such low affordable units and instead they went to make sure that this limitation on what could otherwise be market rates is how this project will, you know, from its pro forma be penciled out. So, you know, 123 more units than otherwise could have been. So, that is a very heavy restriction to make sure that this does have a workforce housing component. Out of the 192, I'm hoping that 14 could be set aside. So, I understand. I tried and I'm hoping that, you know, 14 could be at a little less. It's my understanding that 120% AMI is somewhere between $90,000 to $95,000 a year and most of the folks in the county do not make that amount of money. So, it would be, you know, a wonderful thing for your project to accommodate 14 families. So, thank you. Thank you for listening. All right. So, I believe we're back on the motion. I'll just leave the motion and let's see if it passes. So, for clarity, yeah. So, are we back on the motion with or without the recommendations, Mr. Gungor here? What's the motion? If we're allowed to make recommendations, I'll leave them in there. I'm not sure if we're allowed to. I know it's not what we normally do from what you're telling me. I'm okay leaving them in there. So, is the board comfortable or do you want them removed? I want to gain some consensus. Staff, is there any issue with us moving forward, I guess, adding the recommendations or removing the recommendations? Is that something we could do? That recommendation is about the 16-year-old. Yeah, that's where we're at. And through the chair, how do you enforce it? Like, you know. That's our staff to answer. How do you enforce it, you know. So, and Mr. Chair and board members, your recommendation is a recommendation to the board, right? Whatever conditions that you include within your recommendations are conditions that you'd like the board to consider. If the applicant agrees with them, fantastic, right? They'd make the necessary changes to the application to, I guess, fulfill whatever conditions. If the applicant does not agree, then it's just something that you recommend the board consider, the BCC, and the BCC may or may not act on those conditions, right? So, essentially, that's how it works. How do you enforce, I mean, practically, because practically, when this thing gets built, they say you have to do this, how do you do it? Because this, look, those things, by definition, are not easy to enforce. We all know that, because I don't know who's checking on these. But how do you enforce that from a county point of view? When the county comes, because the county's got to come in and be the watchdog here, right? How do you enforce that? It has to be a commitment that's tied to the application, and the way that it's done is through the covenant. I know, but we all know, everybody, these people I'm not talking about, but generally speaking, I'm assuming if the county's not a watchdog for this, give me a break. You know, people will be violating this left and right. Well, they're going to have a covenant, number one, and number two, it gets reviewed by the public housing authority. So housing authorities controls all projects, all AMIs. There are over 8,000, you know, affordable workforce housing done by all the major players in the county, and they all have to go through an auditing program every year. I don't, I don't, yeah, it will be, because it will be part of that covenant, right? They're going to enforce, they have to accommodate the 120 AMI, and they will have to accommodate the 14. Now, I will tell you this, from being in that space, 14 units, although I think it's a great gesture, doesn't do a lot, right? 60 to 80% AMI is the kind of product that's done by an affordable housing developer. You do not get, and it makes things very, very murky for the developer, because when they go get financing, there's very hard for those things to pencil, right? The only way 60 to 80% pencils is when a developer is getting tax credits, bond, money, all sorts of layered stock layers that they're able to make the fund. And even then, even then, only up until two years ago is mixed income housing seen in a positive light from a financial purpose, because it was, again, even then it was still murky. So I'm just saying, I think the ask is a great ask. I just think it makes things a little bit murky, 120, and yes, 120 right now is what we consider market rate or, you know, a higher income. But the purpose of limiting a project at 120 AMI is for 30-year covenant. What does that mean? That that rent only goes up 3% every year, right? If this area becomes vertical and the rents are $9,000, there's still going to be a $2,800, right? So you have to think long-term, not just currently, right? So it's a 3% increase, a rent can go from $2,800 to $2,900 or $3,000. And on top of that, when you're putting AMIs, you also have to take into account the market, right? You may have 120 AMI, you may be allowed to collect $3,200 in rent, but if the market's $2,800 in rent, you're not going to get $3,200. It's still a market-driven rent basis, regardless of what the AMI is. All right, so back to the motion. So to clarify, is the motion including the recommendation? Let's remove that from the motion, and then if she wants, she can make a subsequent motion. I'm going to leave my motion as to leave it clean. Let's go ahead and call the roll on that. Okay, so the motion, as I understand, was to approve with the applicant's original version and with Mr. Gungora's three conditions, that will be a local park, a maximum of 10% for non-residential, and that the workforce housing be up to 120% of the AMI. So those were the three conditions. Did you say the two acres, the two acres? Well, if you're approving the applicant's original language, the two acres is back in, but in addition to that, you wanted this also to be a local park. Okay, so that was made by Mr. Gungora, seconded by Mr. Thomas. On the motion, Elisa Zapata? No. Carlos Diaz-Padron? Yes. Ivo Fernandez, Jr.? Yes. Eric Fresco? No. Solomon Genet? Michael Gungora? Yes. Horatio Juemez? No. Max Lozner? Yes. Michael Montiel? Yes. Vice Chair Thomas? Yes. Chair McRae? Yes. Okay, motion does pass, 823. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you. And now for the second CDMP application on the agenda, Mr. Jerry Bell. Oh, Mr. Jerry Bell's gone. Mr. Rowe, if you could introduce this item or? Yeah, so. Good afternoon again. I will be discussing the second application, which is CDMP 20250022, Midwest REO 5. Again, this is a text amendment, and it would be county-wide. And what the request is, is under the business and office category to create what I'm calling a subcategory of industrial support centers to allow light industrial and mixing, the mixing of uses, light industrial with commercial and retail in the business and office. Again, to make use of this industrial support center, there are a number of criteria that you would have to meet. The first one is that any site requesting this would have to be a minimum of five gross acres, have direct access on a major roadway, be within a one-mile radius of a land-use plan map designated terminal, which is one of the railroad yards, Opelaka, MIA, and Tamari Executive Airport. So those are what are designated terminals within Miami-Dade County. And the fourth criterion is to not be located within 660 feet of a parcel that is designated residential. Also, part of the text amendment would require that the maximum allowable percentage of industrial is 90 percent, and there could be no less than 10 percent for commercial retail uses. Basically, in reviewing this application, the requested text amendment, we believe we could support it because it really creates a synergistic relationship between businesses, light industrial and business uses. So I basically went through this slide. Whoops. I know this is kind of hard to read. That's why we brought a larger map to show the limited number of business and office sites within the county that meet this criterion. This is the actual language that is being proposed, and staff also I'd like to say that any applicant wishing to take advantage would have to come through the same process to apply to a requested designation of a property to industrial supportive service support centers. And to just wind this up very quickly, we believe, in the staff's review, we believe that this is consistent with the CDMP. It provides greater allowances for integration of light industrial with commercial and other uses under business and office. We believe these types of uses would support infill development. And it does encourage, we believe, intensified and compatible development along major corridors. Since this was a countywide application, this did not go to a community council before you today at the PAB. And the schedule for this one, this application, is a transmittal hearing in July, July 23rd, with the proposed adoption hearing on September 24th of this year. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. All right, thank you, Mr. David. Do we have any questions here for staff? All right, board member Thomas. Just briefly, is there a project tied to this text amendment? Because I noticed there's an example on A14, A15, A16 of a retail strip that looks like it's on Red Road. Is there a particular project that's... I'm sorry, on which... So, like in the last application, we had a particular project that we could analyze, and this is a text amendment, and I'm not seeing... There is... I assume he's got a client with a project? There is no concurrent... There is no concurrent application. There is a submittal to zoning, but it's not a concurrent application. So it's not traveling with this. So, and if I may, Mr. Chair, through the Chair, so the property that the applicant is seeking to have developed with the type of uses that they're contemplating is already designated business and office, right? So there's no need for a land use change for the site that the applicant is considering. Of course, the applicant can speak to that site specifically. But, you know, that's why we only have the text change only and not an accompanying land use change as well. I'm not sure if that was clarifying for me. I'm sorry. So there is no project. It is a county-wide text amendment, and they're representing a client who's got a separate application that's not being before us today. Is that clear? Is that what I understand? And the reason I'm asking, I'll take away the mystery. So I looked up the applicant Midwest REO number five. They have a project that's written about in the South Florida Business Journal, a five-story warehouse that would have retail and office space. It's on Northwest 36th Street. I'm very familiar with that. I drive by it all the time. I'm just curious why it's not here, and would it be covered by this? Okay. So I believe that's a site that an applicant can speak to it. You would not have seen a site-specific application, right, because there's not the need for it if this text would be approved. So the text provides for the flexibility that would allow for them to seek the appropriate zoning approvals after, right? So there's no land use change that would warrant them bringing such an application for you. The text change is all that's needed. I don't know if that clarifies, but you can have the applicant speak to their project, Mr. Thomas. You know, the applicant can address the particular project that they're considering. There it is. All right. Great. Any other questions before we get to the applicant? That's all I'm asking for. Any other questions, the staff, before we get to the applicant? No, I just want to make a point. It's common when you already have the land use that you just seek for a text amendment. And once that text amendment matches your current land use, then you're going for a zoning application. So it's a common, the reason being that they already have that designation. If they'd be changing the designation, then they'd both have to come in. Okay. Kind of like the prior project. The prior project was upticking their designation. All I'm looking for is context. No, I know. But I think that's, they're going to, all right. That's a, oh, we got one more. I'm sorry. Remember, Montiel, questions. Forgive my ignorance, but what specifically is an industrial support center? Can you give me an example? Can you, if we could go ahead and get to the applicant, if that would be better for staff? See if the staff can answer. Well, at the pleasure of the board, Mr. Chair. So if you, if you'd wish I could answer the question, best I can, but, you know. We'll keep it brief, then we'll let the applicant. Just a general idea, right? I just want to kind of understand what, what falls in that category. Okay. So it's, it's a new concept, right? Well, actually, not entirely new, because the, the, within the business and office land use category text, it allows for what's called employment centers, right? Employment centers facilitate the mixing of commercial uses with light industrial in, in, it's ultimately is to be generating employment for an area. This builds on that concept, calls it something different, right? But allows for a greater percentage of industrial type uses within the commercial area than the, the employment center does. Right. No, see, no further questions. Now the applicant clarifies some, some things here for us. You recognize. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, board members. James Williams of Gunster Law. Office is okay at 600 Brickle Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33131. I'm here representing the applicant Midwest Rio 5 LLC in connection to the CD&P application that's before you. Now, before I begin, I just want to thank staff very quickly for their tireless work around this application and for working closely with us in drafting the proposed CD&P language that's before you. I promise to keep my presentation brief. I know we've all been here for quite some time, so I only have a short 45 minute presentation. I'm just kidding. It's, it's roughly 10 minutes. And happy birthday, board member Diaz Padron. So, jumping right into the request here. So, the question was, what is an industrial support center, right? And it's a term of art we've essentially created that is going to apply to the business and office land use category. So, right now, the business and office land use category exists. What we're trying to do is provide for a mix of uses that can be horizontal or vertical that will allow for industrial uses, our light industrial uses, mixed in with retail commercial uses in office on the ground floor, essentially for the vertical. Like I said, this can be horizontal or vertically applied. Now, the question came up, we represent an applicant, right? We're not just doing this just to help, you know, create a new amendment for the code. What we're doing here is we're really interested in the vertical concept, right, of how can we start making the lands more efficient in Miami-Dade County. We all know that there's always the expansion pushes for the UDB applications. Largely, a lot of them are just not residential, but they're also industrial. And so, this kind of project is unique because right now we can't do a vertical industrial with retail on the ground floor, right? So, this is the reason why we're coming before you to put something forward like this, and that's why we call it now the industrial support centers. Now, the industrial support centers consist of five primary things that need to be met. I look at it as five because Staff Ready includes a 90% with a 10% retail commercial. So, let me walk you through what would classify in the business and office designation as an industrial support center. Well, the first thing is you need to have five acres. The second is you need to be along a major roadway. And that major roadway, and I'll show you in just a second what that looks like, is on the future land use map. You have to be within one mile radius of a land use plan designated terminal. And I'll, again, show you what that looks like in just a second because that's on the actual land use plan. It's actually not a definition yet in the text. You have to be, you cannot be within 660 feet of a residential designation on the land use plan map. And the project must consist of no more than 90% industrial uses with a minimum of 10% commercial and retail uses. Now, one of the things I do want to note, well, there's three points. And for some reason, it seems like I got cut off at the bottom on this main slide here. But if you are near an airport, which most of them are, because that's what these terminals are, is typically airports and major railways and things of that nature, you still have to adhere to the FAA and Miami-Dade County Aviation regulations. That's a given. The second thing you want to look at is it must be designed to be consistent and compatible with the neighborhood. And the third thing is, is that they will not permit data centers. Now, what does that typically look like? Well, this is kind of the first of its use in the United States. If you go through Google or you go through AI and you try to find a vertical building that's industrial with ground floor retail and commercial, you won't find anything. I've done it several times to just try to make that claim. And that's what I'm saying. You really don't see it. I've seen things in the U.K. where it's vertical industrial. They do have that, but not with the ground floor retail. Now, one of the things that I said is we are very interested in the vertical side. And the reason is because you can see it on this slide. We're typically used to, in Miami-Dade County, seeing on the slide to your left, on the portion of the slide to your left, you're typically seeing 10 acres or more industrial parks, single story, and that's it, right? The question is, how do you support that workforce, right, in that area for that actual project and for the surrounding area, right? And so we're looking now on the right side, and these are just conceptual renderings for illustrative purposes. We are actually seeing a vertical industrial building with ground floor retail that activates it, that gives the workers of that project, whichever projects, not just hopefully ours down the road, but others in Miami-Dade County, this could be applied to, the ability to shop and have their neighborhood services met. And the bottom right-hand slide is an example of a vertical building that we were talking about, industrial support center, that has a ramping system in the back that actually would allow box trucks to go all the way up. Now, this is just a rendering. It's conceptual. Miami-Dade County still has to review it in terms of the traffic, in terms of the operation. Everything gets reviewed, and that's on the zoning side. This is on the big picture industrial support center side, right? Now, what are terminals? And as Mr. Alex David was saying earlier, what I've done is I've indicated that they're in purple. They're your Miami International Airport, Opelika Executive Airport. There's a terminal in between the two. We don't have a name for it. We have the Port of Miami, and then you have Miami Executive Airport. There's also another one, which is Homestead General, but it's outside the UDB, which we can't develop outside the UDB. Now, I've given you two example slides that I thought were helpful, and I know it's an overload of colors, but that's just how the feature land use map is set up. So when you're looking at the boundaries of cities, you can see you have Hialeah to the north, to the east. You have Virginia Gardens. You have Miami Springs. You have the city of Miami. If you want to look at unincorporated Miami-Dade County, which is where this would apply to, you could look to the west. So you see that area all in gray? If you look at Northwest 79th Avenue, you can see that red. So the requirements are, and I've reiterated them on the screen, it needs to be business and office. You have to have five acres, direct access to a major roadway. Now, a major roadway are those thinner black lines you're seeing on the screen. The large black lines, that's the 836, the 826, those are your major highways. So, again, you have to be along, having direct access on major roadway. When you just look at those three criteria, that is extremely limiting, right? This is not a catch-all for everyone to come in and start putting vertical industrial buildings, right? It has to be limited. And then you also have the 660-feet residential designation. Now, 660 feet is an odd number, I give you that. But that's what's already in the CDMP right now. And for reference purposes, that's roughly 18 full-size school buses, bumper-to-bumper, in a single line. So to give you some reference and context, that's a significant distance in terms of buffer. This is Miami Executive Airport on your screen. Same thing. What I would pay attention to is, if you look at where I have Southwest 104th Street, that label, if you run down that arrow, which is roughly one mile, you'll see that there is that red area. All of that red is business and office. You'll see that it's near residential, which is yellow and orange. And then you have a boundary on a certain portion of gray, which is your industrial. When you look at the context of the code, our properties would only be developed, or be able to be developed in the county if you're along that major roadway, which automatically restricts you from anywhere near close proximity to the residential, unless you're going to assemblage all those properties, and that is a significant assemblage. I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm just saying that is a massive amount of land. And so you have restrictions that we put in place to preserve residential, to not just be a catch-all for developers of industrial. It's very limiting. Now, I could go through all of the policies and objectives that this is, that the proposed amendment is consistent with, but I'll save you the time. The key takeaway from this slide, and I don't know if you can see it on the bottom of your screen, but I'll read it, is that industrial support centers advance the CD&P by concentrating comparable mixed-use industrial activity near established terminals, road and infrastructure, allowing for more efficient developments, and managing potential land-use conflicts through design and buffering. Now, the department reviews I have gone through have been numerous, and I'm happy to report on this application, most of them just took one review, which is an anomaly, to say the least. So we have parks, stern, planning, fire rescue, solid waste, planting and traffic, historic preservation, water and sewer, and Department of Transportation and Public Works have all not objected to this application. Now, with that, I'll conclude my presentation. My team and myself are here to answer any questions you have. I would like to request that you all make a recommendation consistent with staff to adopt the changes, to transmit and adopt the changes they've made moving forward to this application. And with that, I'd like to thank you again for your time and consideration. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Williams. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Before we go, I have a quick one. I know that the planning staff is recommending it, and it seems interesting. My only question, and maybe it's okay, is how it might impact nearby residential. I saw that they're proposing a 660-foot distance from residential properties. I don't know if that's a normal number or how far that is, if that distance is good or enough. And then you have some other language about not detrimentally impacting nearby properties. The exact language I'm reading from the text amendment is to ensure compatibility with any adjoining or adjacent uses. So I guess my two questions are really tied to not impact residents. Is 660 feet enough? Where did that come from? And what would be done to ensure compatibility? So great questions. If I may have the PowerPoint brought back up, because I think it could be helpful. Well, other way. So 660 feet is just a number that's already in the CDMP in terms of distances. So we found it consistent. It was honestly more than enough for us, and staff has felt the same way. Like I said, that's roughly 18 full-size school buses back-to-back. So it's a significant distance in terms of proximity. Now, the consistent compatibility go hand-in-hand with that height, right, with that distance separation. So you wanted the distance separation, but you also want the buildings to be designed consistent and compatible. The consistent and compatible are really going to be, that's why we did light industrial. So it's not types of uses where you're going to be able to manufacture glue in any of these types of units, right? They're not going to produce nuisance or anything like that. They'll be enclosed, and so they'll be consistent with what you typically already see in the business and office. So in certain business and office categories, right, when you look at the zoning, because this is more of a zoning-specific situation, in a BU3 zoned category, they actually allow contractor's yards in the BU3. And so we're at the land use stage, which is just the general of what's permitted. But everything we've proposed and we've worked with staff very closely is consistent with what would already be permitted in that area. But when you come to the consistent, compatible, overall architectural design or implementation, that's going to be really up to staff and the zoning code. That's specific to the area. One of the things I do want to know as to transportation, right, the impacts on transportation, the reason we limited it to a major roadway was simply because major roadways typically connect you fairly quickly to a highway. And so with box trucks coming in and out, we didn't want to do it on residential streets, so that's why we specifically limited it to a major roadway specific. Typically, since we're within a mile of airports for the most part of these terminals, that will typically take you to 826, 836, I-75, I-95 fairly quickly and get you away from any residential congestion. And planning staff, I'm assuming you all feel comfortable that the 660 feet is adequate? Yes, sir. And just so you know, 660, if you're going avenue to avenue, that's about one block from one avenue to the next center lines, just approximately. And then north to south on streets, it's from the center line about two blocks north. So it's two blocks by about a block. That's about 660. Okay, thank you. Do you feel comfortable? I feel comfortable. When I see 660 feet, I think of my last school apartment, which was very tiny. I'll take your word that it is adequate. Yeah, so we're comfortable. We'll remember Thomas with a question. Conceptually, I'm okay with it. I just want to make sure a couple things. And it's probably going to be addressed in your zoning. Well, it will be addressed in your zoning. One, the types of uses. So it'd be really, really nice when we see an application that's going to change the CDMP that it comes with a list of, for example, what light industrial is so that we can make that assessment without having to go and find it. So if you could provide that, that would be awesome. And secondly, I know this area really well, Northwest 36th Street. I wish you luck with trying to get trucks in and out of 36th Street because you take your life in your own hands when you go down that road. Every day, people cutting back and forth across, trying to get from one side to the other, get to the Palmetto, or get to the perimeter road that runs along the Palmetto. So I'm sure you'll address that when you get to the zoning piece. Just my two cents on that. But if staff can provide us with the list of light industrial, that would be helpful. I have it with me if you'd like to see it. It's about 100 uses, I think, within the IU1 category. I'm comfortable, but I think it would be good when we review in the future to have those things. Thank you. Point taken. Any other questions for the applicant? I have a question. Board Member Janay. Yeah, so we've been doing research to figure out on ground floor retail commercial with vertical industrial. We've done Google searches. At least I have, right? Whenever anyone brings me an application, it's first in the United States or something along those lines. I like to search. And I really couldn't find anything. Like I said, what I found was industrial, vertical, where you have it in the U.K. You have certain buildings downtown that are vertical, industrial, but they don't have an actual ground floor. And they're typically like two stories. Like there's a FedEx, I believe, downtown. Honestly, I don't know. When I looked at this application when it was first brought to me, I thought it just made sense, right? You're providing your employees a place to now shop, get dry cleaning, eat, cafe, anything in the area. And if you look at 36, which, again, this is CD&P, it's county-based, not project-specific, but, for instance, 36, that whole area is heavy, heavy industrial. And there's not a lot of retail commercial, like neighborhood servicing in that area. So what we didn't want to do is remove – right now they have some Dunkin' Donuts and things like that on the ground floor. Well, it's a single story. But we didn't want to remove that and just put industrial and then deplete the retail commercial options in the area. So I don't know to your answer, but I think it's a great concept. Just as a follow-up, I think the vertical industrial does exist. I think when you just put it with a component of the retail on the bottom, that's what's unique. Because I believe at the airport, currently, they have a UPS facility that's vertical, but it doesn't have any of the retail pieces associated with it. Any other questions for the applicant? Board Member Wendt is going to make a point. For decades, it was cheaper to just use vast lands, right? Like, go get 20 acres out there. We're out of land, basically. So we need to be creative. I mean, I think it's a brilliant idea. I think they've worked really hard at identifying where it could work and limiting it to that light industrial mix with BU3, which is really they go back and forth. And some cities really even allow it without having to do changes or designations. So, I mean, I think it's a brilliant idea. I mean, I'd like to make the motion. We're still in questions. We're still in questions. All right. Yeah, I think it's a great counterpunch to Live Local, right? I think, unfortunately, and my office sits in the Bird Road Art District, which is predominantly industrial. They just tore down half a city block of warehouses to build 440 units. I'm okay with that because those were very old, you know, warehouses outdated on a former city dump. So it's going to improve our neighborhood. But at the same time, the reason that Live Local was created, it was to provide affordability because of the incredible business, you know, business forward mentality that our county has. And Live Local, to some degree, is kind of reversing that because you're getting rid of jobs, you're getting rid of industrial, you're getting rid of businesses to put in housing. So I think there's a great counterpunch, and it allows us to densify around the airports and all these areas that need this kind of density. Now we're talking about density, we're talking about industrial density, to be able to combat that. So I think it's a great solution. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Moving on. We're going to go ahead and, well, thank you, Mr. Williams. We're going to go ahead and open public hearing. I do not have any speaker cards on here. Is there anyone in the public that wishes to provide testimony on this item? All right. Seeing none. Public hearing is now closed. On to debate. Do we have members in debate? All right, Mr. Wimbus for a motion. Unless there's more discussion needed. Ready to second your motion. My motion is to adopt and transmit with staff recommendation. Second. We have a second. Please call the roll. Okay, so that was a motion to, as per staff recommendation, to transmit with change and adopt, and that was made by Board Member Huembez and seconded by Board Member Diaz-Padron. Okay. On the motion, Elisa Zapata? Yes. Carlos Diaz-Padron? Yes. Ivo Fernandez? Yes. Okay. Eric Fresco? Yes. Solomon Janais? Michael Gangora? Yes. Horatio Huembez? Yes. Max Lozner? Yes. Michael Montiel? Yes. Vice Chair Thomas? Chair McRae? Yes. Motion passes 11 to 0. Congratulations. Thank you so much. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration. All right. Now we move on to staff announcements. Mr. Rowe, you're recognized. Okay, Mr. Chair, Board Members. So I understand that our next month's meeting, we may not have any items. If that be the case, ultimately, then we would end up having to cancel. So that would then take us into August recess, and then your next meeting would be September, September 14th, right? So, but we'll keep you apprised of what's happening with next month's meeting, right? That's pretty much all I got, Mr. Chair and Board Members. All right. Board Member Laws and Moosie adjourned. We've got a second. Meeting's adjourned. There's access to all kinds of multimedia, and of course, you can access these things online. But, you know, books are still very, very special, and I want to acknowledge that poetry is a big part of the collection here, would you say? What can we say about the poetry collection here? Do we have a section? A growing poetry section under the leadership of our now interim director, Lydia Lopez. Thank you so much. And so it's very fitting that we would be in this space for the announcement of our third Board Laureate during my tenure as mayor, and she will be my last as a poet. So she will live out the term with me, and her artwork will continue to be appreciated and admired for years and years to come. So I want to thank our friends from O Miami, who have brought poetry into the community's soul. I'm especially fond of the wrapping around construction sites. I just want to say that always brings a special lift to my heart. And we are celebrating the 15th anniversary, 15th birthday, of O Miami Poetry Festival. So that makes it. Aki in Miami, se di se quince. This is your quince. Congratulations. We're also so honored and proud to have our second Poet Laureate with us here today, who was our first woman. That's Caridad Moro-Golier. Thank you so much, Caridad, for being with us. We're going to be hearing from you very soon with something special, and it has been a true honor to have you serve. She provided something at the beginning of her tenure. She produced a poem that is emblazoned on my heart about belonging that she recited at my most recent state of the county. And I've just been telling everyone I can, the theme of belonging really is the theme that I hope will be a lasting legacy for my tenure as your mayor. So thank you for putting to words what I feel in my heart. You are also part of the Generation 305 project, or you are that project. And it's culminating on April 12th, and will be part of the quince celebration. So that is also very, very exciting. So we've worked hard to integrate art. Art is also the doorway to civic engagement, to connecting across our diverse community. So many things that arts do to uplift our souls and promote positive social change. That is my sweet spot for arts. And so along with the Poet Laureate Program, we had to have a poet ambassador. So that has been Nicole Tallman since the beginning, and she has served now going on four years as our poet ambassador. And she's done so much in that role. She made sure that we participated actively in O-Miami. And by the way, I am now a published poet. Yes. I did one of those Zippo's.