thank you all right i'd like to welcome you all to the pab's public hearing on the 2026 out of cycle application number cdmp 2026 10 and application number cdmp 2026 11. will staff please call the roll yes good afternoon for the roll call elisa sapata carlos diaz padron eva fernandez jr eric fresco solomon janet michael gangora horatio juemez frank lago max lasner michael montiel j will morris daniel rogers vice chair thomas and chair mcrae present miami school board representative natalie simon homestead air reserve base larry ventura mr chair you do have quorum all right thank you so 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 reserve base we are all residents of miami-dade county and serve on this board without pay it's our responsibility to make recommendations to the commission on planning related issues the public hearings will be conducted by the pab's acting well acting as the county's local planning agency with assistance from the department of regulatory and economic resources department the purpose of this hearing is for the pab to receive public comments on the proposed cdmp app amendments and the initial recommendations of the department and to formulate recommendations addressing whether or not the commission should first should transmit the standard application number cdmp 2026 0010 and cdmp 2026 0011 the pab will also make recommendations to the commission regarding subsequent final action on standard application number cdmp 2026 010 and 2026 011 persons wishing to speak during their hearing should fill out a speaker card at the desk in the lobby and indicate the application they wish to address so just a little bit here on the public hearing procedure staff staff staff is going to go ahead and give a brief explanation of the application before public comments will be heard next at the conclusion of the public hearing for that agenda item the planning advisory board is going to adopt the resolution for its recommendation for the board of county commissioners now on to the chair's report i've got no items in the chair's report let's go ahead and introduce mr garrett roe to get the show rolling for us thank you mr chair and good afternoon good afternoon good afternoon board members so today as you mentioned mr chair we only have two items so hopefully this meeting will be quick we have one the both our staff filed applications so staff will be the only presenters today i'll call on mr james mccall to present the first item so if you could go to the podium um so mr cheer i'm joined here by our assistant county attorney ms veronica sanchez to my right miss rosa davis our planning section supervisor to my left and a few other staff within rr and i want to mention also that we have mr james ferguson assistant director with water and sewer department particularly here on the second item on the agenda so with that mr chair mr mccall can make the presentation recognize good afternoon mr chair and board members this is application number cdmp 2026 0010 applicant is is miami-dade county department of regulatory and economic resources this is a 2026 out of cycle standard application presented in response to board resolution number 687-25 this resolution directed staff to file an application to amend the cdmp in the next available cycle and it asked us to authorize container stacking and storage in conjunction with commercial vehicle storage in areas where commercial vehicle storage is already permitted so the the requests amend the interpretative text of the agriculture and open land land use categories and the land used element to allow cargo container storage and stacking in designated areas for and in conjunction with commercial vehicle storage and there's also a second request to clarify the agriculture text pertaining to temporary parking and storage of passenger automobiles that serve the commercial vehicle storage uses the staff report mentions iso standards oh thank you thank you there we go so the staff report references iso standards the standard for a cargo iso 668 is the standard for cargo containers your typical container is 20 feet or 40 foot long your most common sizes eight feet tall the you know the the weight is around 5 000 to 8 000 pounds of empty unladen container and if you were to stack those four high as in the photo here the left side is the white containers your typical 20 foot cargo container the right side of the image is a typical container stacking and storage operation so you've got a yellow forklift kind of a yellow forklift kind of a yellow forklift kind of in the back there and you've got the containers stacked three or four high in the photo and and so those those the weight would could be up to about uh 32 000 pounds if you were to stack the 20 foot container for high currently in the county there's two distinct uh areas where commercial truck you know commercial vehicles are allowed to be stored the first one is in the agricultural area east of the urban development boundary urban development boundary so so outside the udb east of florida's turnpike south of 326th street theoretical 236th street north of southwest 248th street and about a half mile west of south dade landfill so this this area cargo containers are permitted to be stored currently on a property it has to be 10 acres or larger to to be allowed the proposed text amendment would permit uh the stacking and storage of the containers the area for the cargo storage shall not exceed 20 of the site or one-fifth of the site the containers may be stacked up to the height allowable by right in the agricultural use at the au zoning district which is currently 35 feet high and then there's also a request to clarify the text on temporary parking and storage of passenger automobiles that serve the commercial vehicle storage areas so that's like if i'm an employee i i could drive my vehicle there and be a forklift operator at the site and the temporary parking would you know would be allowed of the vehicle there's a second distinct area in the northwest part of the county open land sub area two uh also with the same rule the property 10 acres are greater so that's the agricultural area and the photo there and this is the second area the northwest corner of the county open land sub area two east of okeechobee road all the way north to the miami-dade broward county line west of florida's turnpike extension this area is outside of the urban development boundary and it excludes the former opelaka west airport so currently the the currently commercial truck storage is allowed on 10 acres or greater sites this proposed text amendment would allow cargo container stacking in storage not to exceed 25 percent of the site or one-fourth of the site and also containers may be stacked up to four high in this area the staff recommendation transmit and adopt the proposed text amendments to the cdmp land use element the two main reasons for that the proposed allowance of container storage and stacking in conjunction with truck parking we find compatible with other uses in open land sub area one and agriculture areas the second reason the application supports commercial vehicle storage uses in the area it allows cargo container storage and stacking on sites with a valid certificate of use for commercial vehicle storage so resolution 68725 it also mentioned that to the extent necessary staff shall prepare appropriate legislation to amend the applicable zoning and environmental county code provisions necessary to implement the cdmp amendment so that would come later if this cdmp amendment amendment were to be adopted then staff would would work on an update to the zoning code and the section of the zoning code is section 33.281 the section that deals with commercial vehicle storage areas the application schedule next stop currently we're today we're at planning advisory board september 14th next stop is board of county commissioners on september 24th in 10 days and then that's the transmittal hearing for uh you know consideration by the board and then a future adoption hearing we we expect would be in november of this year and i'm happy to take any questions on the application thank you for the presentation does the board have any uh questions for staff vice chair thomas uh thank you for the presentation i i just wanted to confirm that the areas we're talking about are specifically storage area one and storage area two regardless of the change to the agricultural or the agricultural land use terminology so it's just those two areas that we're talking about that's correct right currently the land use element has the two figures the figure 5.1 is the agricultural area you know south of north of 248th street and then also the second area is defined in the land use element in figure 5.2 that's the northwest open land sub area one so those two distinct areas are currently allowed for truck you know for commercial vehicle storage so to reiterate they would need to be within those areas and they would need to be designated as agricultural or land use and have the ability to have truck parking is that a fair way to say it right that's my understanding right that those two areas the truck parking is is allowed in the open land and the agriculture if i may mr chair just just one one uh i guess point of clarification the the agricultural area the air to the south which is just north of 248th street that area's designated agriculture is roughly 220 plus acres right so that area is specifically allowed truck parking this this amendment would allow the container storage and stacking there the other area is the open land sub area one that mr mccall spoke to that area is designated open land not agriculture so just wanted to make that clear but yeah that area is would be allowed the container storage and stacking as well okay so areas outside of those zones that are designated as agricultural uh such as horse country yes would not have the ability to do this is that correct correct all right thank you uh board member you recognize what why wouldn't they be allowed to be done in those other areas that are designated agriculture the text in the application is specific to the area identified on the figure 5.1 that mr mccall showed on screen the 220 acres it does not speak to or provide an allowance for anywhere else but that area are those areas those are urban expansion areas the the um the the yeah let me let me double check that let me double check that i think one of them is i think the one to the south is where there's currently truck parking there so yeah the the area to the south is in the urban expansion area it's designated uh but you know and just to reiterate that the text is specific for um each of these two areas right if the footprint as shown on the two figures the text does not allow for any for the container storage and stacking outside of those areas so just just wanted to to restate that point but truck parkings are already allowed truck parking is allowed in those areas currently yes right we're just adding in association with the truck parking that the container storage and stacking actually would now be allowed if this application would be is approved and staff is doing this tax amendment because the applicants the owners of the properties wanted to modify this this application is filed in response to a directive from the border account commissioners so we have a resolution that um directs that we file the application resolution r 687-25 okay got it any other questions for staff all right seeing none um i'm not going to open public hearing uh for application number cdmp 2026 0010 i do not have any speaker cards does anyone here wish to speak on this item sorry have to lower this all right please state your name and your address for the record you recognize yes um good afternoon uh mr chair board members george navarro with offices at 333 southeast 2nd avenue i know there was a comment regarding uh the uh operators of the different truck parking facilities that are located within these two areas that your staff mentioned uh i'm here this afternoon on behalf of national truck parking which is one of the largest operators in miami-dade county they have an existing facility two within uh the two sub areas we're here to speak in support of this item um this is something that we believe um has real practical impacts on improving the overall efficiency of the transportation network and the regional transportation network in miami-dade county um by allowing empty containers to be stacked on site of these facilities our drivers can avoid making these unnecessary trips um these duplicative trips to off-site locations to pick up an empty container only to bring it back to the location that they need this has some unintended consequences that this request will change which is uh increasing cost to consumers um reducing fewer uh miles on the roadways and improving the overall quality of life for the drivers uh that these facilities serve so we're here in favor of this amendment to the code uh we're supportive of it and we ask for your approval and i'm here to answer any questions thank you all right thank you for your testimony um does the board have any uh discussion well actually let me uh go ahead and close public hearing seeing no uh no further comments here we'll head over to uh board discussion do we have any discussion on the application any discussion is there a motion move it second we have a second all right motion second please call roll okay just to clarify uh the motion was made by board member thomas and that was to transmit and adopt and seconded by j will morris on the motion evo fernandez yes solomon janet frank lago max losner michael montiel yes j will morris yes vice chair thomas yes chair mcray yes motion passes let's now head to the second application mr roo if you could please uh get started again yes mr chair and next up we have um application cdmp 2026 0011 and mr alex david will present that application good afternoon board members i'm alex david with uh the planning division of rr uh this um revision to the propose to those cdmps duly um it's it's because of what we need to do we've gotten a new water supply plan sorry and because of that we've developed a new water supply plan and because of that we need to make changes to the cdmp and i i believe this is the fourth uh time the water supply plan has been revised since the um initiation of the requirement to do water supply planning so uh two a couple things are happening um with this uh application we have to amend the text of the water uh water and sewers uh sub element so the introduction is being revised and also since we have the new water supply plan we must incorporate anything in here into the cdmp the florida statutes as i stated require this be done um it's a coordination it's coordinating planning land use planning with water supply planning and every municipality that does a water supply plan has to do um have set it has to have a 10-year horizon but must be updated every five years so again the amendments are to incorporate any revisions to the water supply plan and also the south photo water management district water supply plan which was adopted about a year and a half ago this is our new water supply plan which was completed in may of this year and basically there are several things that are happening um with respect to the cdmp one of the items besides some revisions we have to revise the water use permit it's been extended out from 2045 to 2065 so that's a major change we're also defining wastewater treatment facilities as part of this exercise updating dates to reflect the new water supply plan and the new uh south florida water management district water supply plan so with that our recommendation is to transmit with with change and adopt and the reason for the recommendation is because we do have to update the cdmp based on the new data in the new water supply plan and it's the same schedule as the last application we're here for you today we're expecting to go to the bcc for transmittal on the 24th with adoption on the 19th of uh november and with that i'll be happy to answer any questions thank you for the presentation uh do we have any questions here for uh staff thank you mr chair just just a request of staff uh my understanding is the water and sewer department has a mascot derop the water drop i if if possible i'd like i'd like i'd like the mascot of water and sewer to make presentations for the water and sewer department going forward we'll note it for the future no no questions thank you mr chair all right so i actually do have a couple questions here um so in terms of the uh policy 6f um it does look like there's a so i did notice it looks like a more it's moratorium on that northwest hialeah area um where there's but if there is potentially a lag uh by the county um there could be a blocking of certificates of occupancy if water hookups lag um is there any part in the county any other area in the county that has something similar happening there in terms of uh that lag or blockage there uh so mr chair if if i may sure um so policy 6f it's water ws 6f is one of the policies that we're amending um this policy provides that the water from the hialeah reverse osmosis water treatment plant is first which is um which accesses the floridan aquifer by the way it does not take water from the biscay and aquifer that it's supposed to be oriented first to serving the area bounded by northwest 154th street 97th avenue northwest and the turnpike right this area was brought within the udb back in the 2005-2006 and at that time the county had water supply limitations and as part of its water supply permitting we had to identify then with the expansion of the udb we had to identify then a source of water specific for this area so essentially this policy is speaking to that commitment that the the reverse osmosis treatment plant is first oriented to serving that area before it can serve other areas within the county right so just wanted to to um explain what the policy is about hi uh good afternoon chair board members jim ferguson assistant director of water and sewer department i think your question was about moratorium yeah so more specifically uh because i know there's a requirement to hold off on certificate of occupancies if they aren't able to hook up or connect so you could have blockages at the city or at the county uh well well you tell me are there any significant blockages i'm not aware of any moratoriums due to water supply okay okay all right is that the question asked so you're not aware of any lag any potential build up there uh in getting hook up hooked up to the no system okay all right obviously developers if there is no water distribution system in front of their property they would have to extend it at their cost all right understood thank you for that for that no problem do we have any other questions for staff here all right so uh i'm now going to open uh the public hearing for application number twenty twenty six zero zero one one um i do not have any speaker cards here as well is there anyone in in the public wishing to speak on this item all right going once going twice seeing none um i'm now going to close the public hearing is there any board discussion on this application move to transmit and adopt second all right seeing a motion we have a second uh we please call the roll okay and that was a motion to transmit with change and adopt and that was made by board member losner and seconded by i'm sorry was that board member thomas thank you okay on the motion uh evo fernandez solomon genet frank lago max losner yes michael montiel yes jay will morris yes vice chair thomas yes chair mcrae yes motion passes eight to zero thank you thank you all right we're now moving on to uh any old well any new or old business um mr chair i do have a yep we do got one item here uh you're recognized the vice chair thomas good afternoon everyone uh i wanted to follow up on a discussion we had at our last meeting uh it was during the uh biscayne shores application uh where there was a request to modify the high density residential land use definition i followed that through to the board of county commissioners it looked to me as a as an observer like that got bifurcated from the application and it looked like a county commissioner had taken it on as a potential item that they were going to work on but i wanted to find out if there was something we could do as a board to request that you consider that the staff consider working on this definition so that we can review it and resolve whatever the the pending item was that you had so that's the request i don't know if the other board members feel strongly about that but i know it was something we had kind of chit-chatted about but never really had a plan on how to do and i don't think we've ever tried to do in the past but i know we don't have directive authority but i think we do have the ability to request and ask for reports and i that would be my motion is to request that and have you report back to us if there's something to do on that item mr roe yeah um i guess so through the chair i guess the the question i'm having is uh pertaining to the biscuit insurers application you said the refine the definition i didn't uh quite catch what definition we were talking about it's the high density residential land use category uh was the request there was a change that was happening to that uh and it ultimately i believe got bifurcated from the application uh because the county commission did not want to have it riding along with the application it's a i realize you'll probably have to go back and check on that and see how it was done but i wanted to make it uh something that you could come back to us and report on if there's something to be done because it looked like you were making an argument that something needed to be done yes so um i can provide some background right so that application was amending the high density category text right which that that land use category um currently is on property within municipalities right carl gable city of miami and north miami beach it's the designation does not apply to property outside the uh the municipalities at this point in unincorporated date at this point um the category allows for 60 to 125 dwelling units per acre per gross acre or more right and um the text amendment was seeking to provide some scope of what the or more means and it was including criteria that i would guide how it would be applied right so it was um directing the any identities over 125 units to the acre to occur within the smart plan corridors and you know adjacent to a park and among other uh requirements i do remember it mr roe i just want to make sure that if you didn't get that accomplished that there's a mechanism for you to come back to us because it looked like it was an important item and i want to make sure that we hear it that we hear it if it's necessary yes so um one there was conversation at the time uh when the bcc heard the item to have a separate i guess um directive or item coming from the bcc to address um the the what what staff had tried to address with that application with that application and uh you know so we're we're pending that happening right so that means we don't have anything to do the bcc is given a directive there was not a directive issued by the board but there was conversation about some you know something coming through the board so we i guess that's to be determined exactly what will happen there but you know if if something comes from the board or a commissioner then it would be addressed in that way would you guys be able just to report back to us at certainly meeting uh where we stand and if there's anything that needs to be done that's really all i'm asking for okay yeah no certainly certainly we can close the loop on that yeah certainly we can uh which which by the way um we that application got transmitted to the state and regional agencies for their review and comments and the their comments coming back to us was based on a statutory um some state law right it's if generated from a senate bill 180 that um limits counties and local governments from um adopting more you know criteria that's uh that's more restrictive or burdensome or seem to be more restrictive or burdensome um and the comments from the state basically pointed to the fact that um that application as filed you know could be seen in that way so you know we we've had to work with the applicants to revise it but you know just to give you some background so you know we're working through that so you know certainly we'll update you as to where we end up with it i appreciate that okay just follow up to the county attorney um realizing we don't have directive authority as a board uh is it appropriate to ask for report back on items or suggestions that we can make to staff i mean certainly you can ask staff and staff is willing to do it and it seems they are all right i just want to make sure we're doing it the right way so uh following up on a similar item we had a discussion at the last meeting believe it was the same application same definition and i expressed some concern about tying the definition to the smart plan uh the smart plan itself uh as i think many of us know i i personally know because i served as a trustee on the citt this is something that came through tpo and kind of works its way down through all the different mechanisms of count of the county government through code through the land use plan in order to achieve the goals of that ideation exercise that happened at the tpo and it's resulted in one corridor being completed and the rest of them not it's been in the news recently um where it's been reported the mayor had a memo that stated we were 7.6 billion short over the next 20 years for that plan but the plan still exists in the cdmp it still exists in our code and as a as the planning agency i think we should test whether that plans transit assumptions development standards input and implementation schedule still fit together it's not a role to discuss transit i'm a big transit fan but as it relates to land use i think it's appropriate for us to consider and to when it comes time to making changes to the cdmp which were in that mode consider whether changes should be made so i have some ideas of what i would like to see and i'd like to hear from the fellow board members on whether they think this is appropriate to ask for now or what we're asking for in particular i'm interested in the kendall corridor because that's my area i know each of you have your own corridors i think in the news recently we've had an area called continental park that's gotten a little bit of attention because of the land use being 60 units to the acre related to that smart plan language in the cdmp and the neighbors i think rightfully so have some concerns as to whether they're actually going to get rapid transit for changing the character of their neighborhood so unfortunately because it's there in the plan our great staff doesn't have the opportunity to opine on the land use aspects of that application and we don't get the opportunity to make a recommendation on it so i think it would be appropriate for us to review the cdmp policies the maps the code provisions that'll allow or encourage development based on the planned corridors i think it would be appropriate for us to understand the current funding statuses and reasonably projected inflammation timelines for each of the corridors to develop to understand the development standards available before transit service begins including how they apply so we know we have to build up the capacity to argue for funding to the federal government for these corridors and that's part of why we've implemented the plan and have changed the land use but if the plan is not there or it's delayed by decades we probably have the response not probably we have the responsibility in my opinion to review that and make a recommendation as to if there should be a change should we as a board review that no absolutely not i'm not saying that i'm requesting that staff take a look at that and in particular come back with options to retain modify phase or remove the provisions where the underlying transit assumptions have materially changed including which options require cdmp or code amendments and i know that's a huge task but it is part of in my opinion the responsibility of the planning authority so i'd love to hear from my colleagues on what they think about that that would be my request do we have any discussion on uh board member thomas's proposal here well considering that i i get to um work on projects that are on this corridor and many other corridors i do agree that um if you know that the smart quarter was done in anticipation of mass transit right whatever that may be and unfortunately things are moving quickly so what today may not be applicable may be applicable in five years because technology continues to increase and and speed up this this uh new opportunities of mass transit so b i think there needs to be some sort of consideration for probably a phasing of that um because it's almost like the chicken and the egg right if you don't create enough density along a quarter you'll never be able to justify the transportation so if you put no density along the corridor that will never have transportation so i think i think um it's i think that's a good point to bring up and i think it's a a point that um the uh planning staff should take into consideration in which some of this stuff should be phased right that we meet certain milestones and if there's a milestone that we say we have need to have certain number of you know homes or ridership to meet that that we don't trigger the next you know phase of that until that's uh achieved and we do it smartly i i appreciate the the feedback and i think if you look at the tpo's work from almost 10 years ago uh it's basically what you've described they're saying we need x number of people in order to qualify for federal funding and that's why i think it it cascades down into the various aspects of of code and planning but i think it's it's fairly obvious that some of the fundamentals have changed and to your point technology is changing we're looking at air taxis at some point we're looking at all kinds of things that are different than a decade ago and that rate of change is happening faster and faster so i think it would be appropriate again to like you say perhaps look at a phased approach but i don't want to get into having uh recommend to the staff what they should do i just think we should look at it mr roo yes mr chair and i um you know the the pab i'll say the pab has will have the opportunity to um discuss some of these questions when you receive the evaluation and appraisal of the comprehensive plan right so that's that's going to be due to the board in the coming months um you know and on the on the question specifically how it's it's it um is that uh age old question of you know paralleled with the chicken and the egg which one comes first land use or transportation you know because if you're planning for um transportation you know you need the densities to support the transportation the motor transportation and you know do you have do you bring the densities first or the service the transit service first so you know we grapple with that question you know quite a bit as planners um i will say though that with the allowances in the cmp for the various corridors right and the development that the cdmp ultimately allows one one key um criteria that's inherently built in into the allowance is that compatibility with the neighborhoods is a significant consideration so you know it the development should be right sized based on the neighborhood that is happening in and you know we are as we evaluate um these applications from that perspective in determining you know essentially um is it allowed the can it take advantage of the allowances for these corridors or not and you know so we are involved in that process right but um as far as the pab is concerned right you will have an opportunity to get into some of that discussion when you have the ear before you so i think what i'm asking for is knowing that we're going into those discussions it would be great to have this information so that we can make an advised recommendation and so that's what i'm asking for is if it's possible like we can't direct you to do it but we certainly can ask uh can we have this information so that we can make informed decisions when it comes time to review the cdmp changes that will be coming in the next couple of months in addition to your previous comment the the way in which staff is involved is in the form of an interpretation letter correct that's one way yes so it really all it is is it's reviewing the text it's saying yes you're conforming with the text and reminding you that you need to be compatible with it it doesn't have the full scope of the work that you do to present to us to make a recommendation it bypasses us when it bypasses that work and goes straight to zoning um i guess yeah it i guess the the context is appropriate to consider in that the the allowances that are already in the comprehensive plan don't need to come back to this board whenever there's a project so i guess that's what you're speaking to when you say it bypasses you guys so yes the the comprehensive plan was already amended to include those allowances then the appropriate path for any projects to to you know seek the um the development rights or zoning you know they just they go through the zoning application process but um there's a determination of consistency with the cdmp that you know we will evaluate and ultimately issue a position on not our concern that's that's at the bcc level for them to make that determination i don't want to step on their toes at all that's not the point here right the point is we've made up a change to the plan a number of years ago that was based off of underlining assumptions that arguably are not the same today and i think we should have the information to understand what those underlining assumptions are so that we can make a thoughtful recommendation when it comes to changing the cdmp yeah and you know we can we can certainly follow up with you at any point you know we're we're always welcoming to whatever questions you have information requests and you know we're here to help you make you know your your work easier on this board so certainly we'll be following up with you i'm giving you a heads up yes yes so you know we're here we're here more than we're here i would love for you to come back to us with the information i described okay so and i guess um what i'll do is to ensure that we're fully responding to the questions that you have we'll have a follow up with you before your next meeting with the board in the next board meeting so that we we ensure that we're hitting all the points that you're concerned about these things take time i realize this is a complex ask uh before we have to review the cdmp changes that are coming is when we would need that information so i'm not asking for it right away i think it would just be good for myself and my colleagues to have this information in hand so that we can make a thoughtful recommendation yeah we you know i commit to working with you to making sure that you know whatever information we can provide we will so thank you thank you mr chair no problem did we have any discussion or any other uh new business any old business all right i think we might have missed uh staff announcement my apology staff mr rhodi have any announcements uh we did have an announcement we passed out the flyer for the shenley park workshop and that's going to be this saturday um september 19th from 10 o'clock till noon at 80 dance ad barnes park so if you're interested in that please pick up the flyer and then uh the next pab meeting is going to be in three weeks on monday october 5th and as we have a lot less agenda items than we have expected we're going to be moving the time back from 10 o'clock to the regular two o'clock time and i'll send you out the email reminder about that and for the time change thank you thank you all right seeing no further business uh board member morris moves we rise adjourned all all right meeting is adjourned you you