Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board

Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board — January 21, 2026 - 5:40 PM

[Testing. Aptions. Testing captions. Comcast channel 77. The broadcast will have closed captioning. Any lobbyist must register with the city clerk and comply with related requirements before appealing before the planning, zoning and appeals board. A person MAY not lobby until registering. A copy of the code section about lobbyists is available in the city clerk's office and online. Any person making a petition or formal request concerning real property must make the required disclosures in writing, available in the office of the city clerk and online. Anyone requesting action to disclose any consideration [Unclear. ] Any person MAY be heard by the board through the chair on any proposition before the board unless modified by the chair. Any person requiring assistance, auxiliary aids. Etc. MAY notify the board liaison. Any person speaking before the board must provide their name and address. Members of the public MAY submit comments through the online comment form, which have been and will be distributed to the board so they can consider comments prior to taking action. The comment form will remain open during the meeting until the chair closes public comment. All comments will be included in the public record and will be considered by the board prior to taking action. The members of the board shall disclose any. X parte. Communication to remove the presumption of prejudice [Unclear] 7. 1. 4. 5 of the Miami 21 zoning ordinance. Staff will briefly present each item to be heard. For applications requiring board approval the applicant will present the request. If the applicant agrees with the staff recommendation they MAY agree. They MAY waive the right to an evidentiary hearing on the record. The order of presentation shall be as set forth in Miami 21 and the city code. [Unclear] Staff will make any recommendation and presentation they have. Anyone wishing to make an appeal MAY need a verbatim record of this meeting, which MAY be requested at the Office of Communications or online. The public has been given the opportunity to provide public comment during and within reasonable proximity and time of the meeting. The city has provided different public comment options to indicate support, opposition or neutrality. Board members, are you comfortable with the rules and procedures for the meeting? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> We're going to wait because we don't have quorum. >> We're waiting for one more board member to join us. >> One more. [Unclear.] >> Alright. Let's rise for a moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance. [Pledge of Allegiance. ] >> If you intend to testify, please remain standing and raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth/ You MAY remain seated. >> I'll go ahead and call attendance. >> And then let us know about the absence waivers. [Roll call. ] >> We do have quorum. I do have absence waiver requests from Mario Bailey, Manuel Vadillo, Javier Lopez, and Arthur Porosoff. >> Would anyone like to move to approve? >> [Unclear. ] All in favor? >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Okay. There are no minutes for approval. Public has already been sworn in. Public comment. Should we close that? Online? Okay. >> Are we able to close the online public comment? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> I was overhearing conversations. Are there some items we are deferring? >> So, item. ... Items 4 and 5 are to be deferred to FEBRUARY 4th and item 6 to be indefinitely deferred. >> So, 4, 5, and 6. >> I'm going to go through. - >> Oh, 7. >> 4, 5, and 7. Okay. >> I'm getting the appeals mixed up. >> No problem. Very quickly, as we have been doing, I'm going to run through and ask who is here for what. So, number 8 is citywide text amendment for Wynwood Norte. Who is here for that? I figured. No offense. 1610 Northwest 6th? Anybody? Oh wait, that's the one-no, that's not you. 5 and 6 is deferred? >> No. 4 and 5 is deferred to FEBRUARY 4th. >> 7 is also deferred. 419 Northeast 19th Street. That's that over there. Alright. Elections. That's us. And, annual report. >> We'll clean that up when we get to it. If we can have a motion on the deferrals. >> Yes. >> I'll move to defer 4 and 5 to FEBRUARY 4. Do the readings separately? Or can I do them separately? >> Can we do them together? >> You can do them altogether. >> Defer 4 and 5 to FEBRUARY 4th. And, defer 7 indefinitely. >> Should we do a roll call? >> [Roll call.] >> Passes [Unclear.] >> Two things I didn't bring up. There are two discussion items. I wanted to know if anyone was here from the public on those. One is pzab rules and procedures, and the other is land use table. These are discussion items but I want to know if anyone from the public is here for that. Okay, we will start with, is it 419? >> Can we start with item 1? And then if we can also take care of the elections. >> Oh, first? >> Yes, please. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Item 1 is a resolution to approve the annual report; however, this was approved at your last meeting so there is no action required. It's been signed by the chair and submitted to the city manager. >> So we don't have to do it? >> There's no action required. >> Item 2 is election of the chairperson, so if there are nominations. >> I'll move to nominate Adam. >> Second. >> And MR. Gerston, do you accept? >> I accept. >> Thank you. >> Are there any other nominations? Sma >> We'll do a roll call to make it official. [Roll call.] >> It passes. [Unclear.] >> I vote for myself, if that counts. [Laughing.] >> I move to keep the vice chair in place as well. >> MR. Lc3pez, do you accept? >> I do, thank you. >> Any other nominations for vice chair? >> Okay, roll call. [Roll call. ] >> This passes by a vote of 7 to 0. >> Okay. We're all ready to proceed. Are we back to 419? >> Item 6. >> Yes. Let's do item 6. >> This is pzab item 6, file id 18655. A resolution of the Miami, lanning, zoning and appeals board... .. Filed on behalf of MRS. Velc!Zquez. 1609-w8 issued by the office of zoning. Section 1. 2. 5. The city of Miami 2021 code... .. I apologize. Ordinance number 13114 as amended, the zoning ordinance of the city of Miami Florida, for a waiver to allow a 10% reduction on the setback for secondary frontage. From the Miami code, a waiver to allow for a reduction in the parking requirement in a transit oriented dept... Ent... A waiver to allow above ground parking on a secondary frontaget o extend into the second layer beyond 50% of the podium lengj. ... If approval is granted for that portion of the podm.. ... For a property located on Bayshore drive. Providing for an effective date. Eading. ] >> Before we start, at the tail end of your presentations, reiterate what the vote means for... .. If someone makes a motion. In other words "if you would like to support my position, you can vote in favor f.. ... " that way we avoid confusion. >> [Unclear. ] >> Good morning everyone. I'm Jacob Kern, the assisstnt zoning director. This is a project located in district 2, and is an appeal of waiver number pz-21-16099. Approved with conditions by the office of zoning. This is located at 419 northeast 19th street, and on Bayshore drive. I'll show you on some maps where it's at. The office of zoning recommends denial of the appeal. >> Denial of the appeal, alright. >> To show you where we're at, downtown is to the south. You can see American airlines in Bayside to the southeast. We can zoom in closer, and in yellow, you see the project is in close proximity to Bayfront park. If you're familiar with the Edgewater neighborhood, there is the large [Unclear] Project. Those projects will now be one going forward, so they can develop on the parcel. You can see the awkward, small small parcel, and the larger site. The zoning in this area is t636l. They're allowed 36 stories by right, and with the use of public benefits, they can get up to 60 stories. Here is an image of the proposed tower. It's a t636. Important things to know about that vacant parcel, overall the [Unclear] Site is very large, several acres, but the vacant portion is only 60 wide, and 100 feet deep. That poses design challenges. The use is all multifamily. To talk about the proposed project, it's 285 dwelling units The [Unclear] Project already has 436, about double the seize f the new project. Between the two projects, existing plus new, it's a total of 721, of which 436 already exist. Looking at the density allowed on those sites. ... They're looking at 2,501 units. It goes significantly toward additional density if they tried. They're proposing 55 stories. 36 is allowed by right, and they will need to engage with our public benefits program to achieve the additional 19 stores . They have 100 proposed parking spaces. I've highlighted in blue the waivers that have been shown concern, and others that have not had issues. Miami 21 normally requires a 10 foot setback, and they've asked for a reduction to 9 feet. This is a pre waiver reform project, filed with us back in 2023. It's taken them years to work through the process and get everything fixed. They modified the design and reduced some of the units. They made a number of design changes. They also asked for a 10% reduction in the second layer, where your typically of a liner. They've asked for a 10% waiver to reduce that liner. Those liners constrain the sight. They've asked for a 10% reduction in the aisle width, and the stall width. This will be a valet only building. Number 5 is a waiver they're appealing, the 50% reduction. This project is in a tod, and will make payment into the Transit Enhancement Fund. Usually, for a seccnd [Low ... This is a typical waiver. Miami 21 says you need a door every 75 feet. It's struggling to get those doors every 75 feet, so they've asked for some relaxation. Miami 21 specifies that a waiver permits minor deviations from the code ocean roject by project basis. And, it's consistent with the guiding principles in article 2 of this code. The waivers are not intended to alieve certain cases of hardship. [Reading. ] Here are some of the guiding principles in Miami 2021. Article 2 says that new development should be structured to reinforce a pattern of neighborhoods and neighborhood centers. This project lines up with that principle. Neighbors and urban centers should be compact, pedestrian oriented, and mixed use. Again, they emphasize the transit use. The ordinary activities of daily living should occur within walking distance of most residences. This is essentially in line with that guideline. The last one I think is really important. The city has an objective to maintain the future growth capacity of the city core to ensure its prmnnce... ... To sum up, the city has prioritized grown in the core, at the expense of preserving single family neighborhoods in corridors out west. To go into detail on the first waiver, this is a 10 foot reduction along the south. This is the 10% waiver of the 10 foot setback, going from 10 to 9 feet. It's a pre waiver reform project, but even under today's rules... .. With the waiver reform, we put in guidelines. People were asking for waivers frequently, so we put in guidelines on when to ask for a waiver. If they comply with guidelines 1 through 7, even through today's rules, they could ask for the. . Existing buildings are proposed to remain on the lot. The [Unclear] Building occupies 80 to 90%, leaving us with a small residual. It's an eyesore, a vacant piece of land, and it's an awkward shape, making it difficult to develop parking garages and the project in general. This is only for the secondary frontage. On the south side of the diagram, you see two circles. We circled the setback of the [Unclear] Project on that frontage. They don't even have the 10 foot setback on the south. They have one circle on the left, and 8 feet on the right. Even if the existing building doesn't develop the setback. ... They've asked for a 1 foot reduction, even more than the existing [Unclear. ] Cally in Miami 2021, you have 100 feet of frontage in this transact zone. On the left hand side, they have 5 feet in depth. On the eastern most half, you don't have 100 feet in depth. There are waivers for under 100 feet where you can ask for relief. The west side has it, butj. He east side doesn't. Waiver 2 was a relaxation of the 2nd layer. The red is the first layer, and the blue is the second layer It's intended for the liners. Because the site is so constrained, accommoding the loading and parking, they've asked for a reduction in the depth of that liner, so it's only 13. 5 feet instead of 15 feet. That's a minor adjustment. They also asked for a reduction of the drive aisle. When we did waiver reform, the aisles used to be 23 feet, and then we reduced it to 22, and then we said you can't go beyond this. They've asked for a 10% waiver to go down. At that time, there was no prohibition on going below 23 feet. We were willing to give that waiver, because the entire parking garage will be valet. It won't be a random person driving on the to. There's the drive aisle. They were also struggling with some of the columns, and the depths. This is the parking space you can see in yellow. They have all the parking spaces meeting the requirement of 18 feet in depth, but they needed relief on a handful of parking spaces. It's only for a handful, not the total. This map here shows for waiver number 5, this is the 50% parking reduction. This project definitely is within a tod.. . [Unclear. ] This is the 50% parking reduction within a tod, and as a result, they will pay into the transit enhancement fund. The first 30%, you pay the price of the waiver. Beyond 30% going to 50%, you have to pay $50,000 per parking space into the transit enhancement fund. Waiver number 6 is the parking encroachment into the second layer. This is the bare minimum to make an efficient parking garage work. The parking garage did receive recommended approval. You can see what was approved. This is the pedestrian separation waiver. You can see it's tasteful, not like other projects in the city. It's toned down, classy, dignified. In conclusion, some things to highlight, because it will do 19 floors of public benefits, they'll have to give $4. 6 milllon to our benefits trust fun. ... No, $4. 6 million in direct benefits, with $2. 7 million in public benefits. There's 1. .8 million in payment to the transit fund, and a contribution of $11,000, and a $50,000 contribution to a nearby park, a voluntary contribution. In conclusion, the project is an in-fill project on a small, vacant site, and it is a best use for the property. It is consistent with its location in a tod area, and provides 561 bicycle parking spaces. The design elements contribute to an enhanced pedestrian experience and improved street scape. The last thing to mention, when this project started, many options were not available that are available today. In 2023, the Live Local Act. Didn't exist. I mentioned at the beginning that this project isn't at the highest density. Under the Live Local Act, they could get 1,000 dwelling units per acre, and reach a t680. We could be looking at an 80 story building by right. One important thing under live local, is if they put a tiny cafe on the ground floor, then the entire project is zero parking. We could be looking at a 100% reduction, which is something from state law, which we can't stop. Micro units are now allowed by right. I fear if this doesn't happen, the alternative could be way denser and way higher. I want to point that out. That's our presentation today. >> Thank you. >> [Unclear. ] Real quick? You guys recommend approval? >> Denial of the appeal. The appellant is appealg... ... They granted the waivers. >> There's a neighboring person trying to overturn what was granted by the city. The city is requesting to deny the appeal. >> Thank you for the presentation. I have s >> You can distribute. Do you have one for each board member and one for our record as well? >> Absolutely. >> Thank you very much, chair, members of the board. My name is Jeremy shearer, representing the appellant. Please note, as I mentioned I distributed presentations and I do wish them to be entered into the record. This appeal concerns compliance with Miami 21. It is not opposition to development. It's not a referendum on density. The issue is whether the city applied the correct legal standard when it approved a covenant in lieu of unity of title and zoning waivers that depend entirely on that covenant. Miami 21 requires a mandatory threshold standard for a covenant in lieu and that was not standard. Let's talk about it. Legal deficiency number one. >> [Unclear. ] I am in the middle of a presentation. [Several talking. ] I'd appreciate not being interrupted. You will have a chance to rebut. >> It's not a rebuttal, it's procedural. >> Typically, the appellant presents and you will have the opportunity to present your case and rebut too. That being said, there is some flexibility through the chair to create order. The general rules are that the appellant does present first. >> What I'd like to do, this is going to happen throughout, is note the specific objection then we can deal with the substance later will 's just allow a gentle notation as we go. In other words, let him object, that way we know when, then we can come back to it. >> Understood. >> Thank you. >> Continuing, section 71. .7. 5 of Miami 21 governs covenants in lieu of unity of title, only where the city determines that the covenant will not create negative impacts on the surrounding community. This is mandatory and must be made at the time of approval. Let me read from the code verbatim from Miami 21. The request for submittal of a covenant in lieu of unity of title shall be evaluated with regard to its impact on the community. If a negative impact on the community exists, there quest for submittal of the covenant in lieu of unity of title shall be denied. Not MAY be denied, not might be denied, shall be denied. The city does not have discretion to ignore this mandatory language. Therefore, the first predicate is to determine whether negative impacts exist. What are potential negative impactcs? Miami 21 talks ancillary . The code identifies specific impact categories. They include parking, traffic, pedestrian safety, ingress/egress, and emergency access. The code requires the city to decide, is the covenant in lieu permissible under 7. 1. 7. 5? That's the gatekeeper, to determine that. Only then can it be considered. You can't jump to step two. If a negative impacts, the covenant in lieu shall be denied. This is mandatory language. Neither the staff report nor.. He waiver final decision contain a finding that the covenant creates negative impacts. Rather, it relies on mitigation and payment into city funds. The city never determined that negative impacts don't exist. Second legal deficiency. Selective unity. Now, as the zoning director mentioned there's a covenant in lieu which treats multiple parcels as one site to obtain density and become eligible for waivers; yet, they share nothing in common. They're functionally independent for access, parking, and opening prayer. Y're treated as one to apply for the waivers, but they're treated as two sites to avoid the impact analysis. That's really important. Let me give you examples. Traffic impacts were evaluated as though the seed site was not part of the project. It was deferred to the building permit stage, which is not allowed to be done as a covenant in lieu. There was no traffic study that analyzed how the added density will interact with the access, how ingress/egress works on both parcels. It was not reanalyzed as part of a unified site. [Unclear] As part of the development site. Next example, parking impacts. Limited to the tower parcel only, the project received a 50% reduction in required residential parking relying on. Od status, payment in lieu and garage design. There are no reports on the impacts of the density and Margaret Pace Park. The city analyzed parking impacts as though the seat parcel were not functionally affected. [Unclear] Second layer and frontage layer focused on treatment along the edges. [Unclear] Adjacent to the seta and emergency access across the combined site. These parcels are treated as one site when it comes to density and waiver eligibility but separate sites for traffic, parking, and safety impacts. Let's call it unity for benefits, separation for burdens. I don't think that's the intent of Miami 21. Otherwise, what's the point of 7. 1. 7. 5? It makes no sense. Moving to legal deficiency number three. Section 7.1. 2. 5 requires evidence-based findings for each waiver. They rely on design treatment, private agreements and deferred review. The city never made a no impact finding. Instead, it relies on mitigation. The question that was asked was, how do we manage the impacts? The real question should have been whether impacts existed. Let me give an example of what's wrong with the waiver findings. Language in the waiver decision. The waiver is consistent with Miami 21, the waiver is minor, it improves design. There's no evidence based finding. Number two, it relies on [Unclear] Aisle width. Modern garage design. These are design explanations, not zoning findings. There's no analysis of circulation, safety, or impact on adjacent properties. Finally, the [Unclear] That's contract zoning, which is illegal under Florida law. It must not be on contracts that MAY change or be legally disputed. Finally, the last legal deficiency is site control and authority to enter into a covenant in lieu. Miami 21 requires lawful site control to approve a covenant in lieu. It depended on an. Hoa board. The city accepted it at face value without independent verification. We have a legal analysis representing a group of unit owners which came to the conclusion that a super majority of unit owners would have been required to enter into the covenant. At the very least, the city should have confirmed that. Therefore, what's the requested release? We are requesting reversal of the covenant in lieu or the waivers. Or, at the very least vacate [Unclear] Section 7.1. U7. Determination that no negative impacts exist. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Would anyone from the public like to speak on this item? You guys can go back and forth. >> MR. Chair? >> Sorry, I forgot. Yes, go right ahead. >> While we're waiting for him to set up, I want to remind the board that what's on appeal now is the waiver, not necessarily the covenant in lieu. Those are not appealable to this board. I do want to focus on the criteria for the waiver. >> Excellent. Thank you for clarifying. >> Let me put my name on the record [Unclear] 1450 Brickell Avenue, joined by my colleagues. We represent the owners of the property and the applicant for the waivers. To reiterate, we agree with staff's approval of the waivers and the recommendation today for denial of the waiver appeal. Separately, I will maintain hat [Unclear] Is here as well and she would like to speak after I do to introduce her position as well. I'll start by reiterating, and the reason I stood up to object is because the vast majority of the appellant's argument was based on the validity of the covenant in lieu, which is not before you, and has been fully approved in accordance with the city's process and is fully executed at this point in time. What he is referring to are his client's assertions as to the validity of that and there are other forums-not here-to determine whether that was appropriate. Amanda Quirk, who represents the association, is here and can speak on that issue. It's something that has been vetted over a long course of time. Again, that's where I will start and the reason I stood up. I apologize. I needed to voice that objection because the vast majority of the position was based on whether the covenant in lieu was appropriate or not, and that is not before you and not