[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6546865,"mediaKeyId","3440091-b8a7d4d313c83c58e86cef0abb82a3ee","parentId",3440091,"title","Board backs Little River transit‑oriented node map change, approving comprehensive‑plan amendment sent to state review","audioSeconds",4180,"startMs",8295000,"endMs",12475000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3440091-b8a7d4d313c83c58e86cef0abb82a3ee&start=8295&end=12475","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3440091-b8a7d4d313c83c58e86cef0abb82a3ee/thumbnail_8295000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6546865/Miami/Miami-Dade-County/Florida/Board-backs-Little-River-transitoriented-node-map-change-approving-comprehensiveplan-amendment-sent-to-state-review","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6546865-4d1029aa46c152b34e5faa80e38bdc8a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770578048&Signature=gEcvJxo5btpdwiZ6WQ4zRnIvubJroSY9tkC0vYWb-1UBL~rmvMrkA3RXgGsHGvF6N8cdxQ9IpD3d4~UpZEy~JQ9~9f9GjBaEcJrczLHJVnkP8TyDmGeO3ZITIrOsQZCp3b~JtRkFAjgGIITpjF1EHYaEuycMsOLXinQ53hTjACLqt3wPtyMs7dKIzi6b2jQkVCiu7dd4A6i8w7VeBQ0Dtk02G87EYNf0seL3jg4KQGi5Ekkjth6FBYSxKg3JBm8VDba8jj9614iNNkMG5zOnMgtABsW52soPBsxe0lEA3rRNqXF40bMnbphnv6OHcZ63qGeXkhq7PxB~MbLVcCETOA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Miami, FL","date","2025-05-21T18:02:00Z","article","The Miami Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board voted on May 20 to recommend approval of a comprehensive‑plan text amendment that creates a Transit Oriented Node (TOD) future‑land‑use designation and to amend the Future Land Use Map for roughly 143.75 gross acres in the Little River/Little Haiti area to TOD Node 1 and TOD Node 2.

City planning staff presented the amendment as a two‑part action: (1) a text amendment defining the TOD node designation and its tiered density and non‑residential floor‑area ratios, and (2) a map amendment that applies TOD Node 1 and Node 2 to an area generally bounded by NW Seventh Avenue (west), NW 70th Street (north), NE Second Avenue (east) and NW 70th Street (south). Staff said the change directs higher‑intensity, mixed‑use development around an anticipated fixed‑rail station and clarifies how the existing future‑land‑use designations would correspond to the TOD tiers.

Under the proposed text, TOD Node 1 would allow up to 150 dwelling units per acre and a non‑residential maximum floor‑to‑lot ratio (FLR) of 11; TOD Node 2 would allow up to 250 dwelling units per acre and an FLR of 17. Staff said the amendment also provides for tiered increases in density and FLR (up to TOD Node 4) subject to land‑development regulations and maintenance of concurrency requirements. The staff presentation noted a gross acreage of 143.75 and net acreage of 106.22 (net excludes rights‑of‑way and waters).

Catherine Engleton (Planning Department) explained the amendment was being considered under Florida’s expedited state review process and emphasized that the action before the board concerned only the comprehensive‑plan text and map change; any subsequent zoning or design standards would be considered later. She reviewed demographic context and historical patterns in the area, including references to early federal “security” maps and legacy industrial zoning that have contributed to concentrated industrial uses and lower household incomes in the study area. Staff said concurrency analysis for potable water, sewer, schools and transportation passed; park/recreation metrics flagged granular deficiencies that staff said would be further studied and addressed through capital improvements and park‑acquisition policies.

Residents and stakeholders raised concerns. Multiple speakers from the area — including residents near Victory Homes public housing and members of local neighborhood groups — urged the board to consider potential gentrification and displacement, whether promised parks and open space would be preserved, infrastructure capacity, and the need for guaranteed affordable housing. One commenter noted that Victory Homes represents roughly 24–25 acres of the site and urged caution about high‑rise redevelopment on that land.

Board discussion centered on the scope of the amendment (it establishes the future‑land‑use framework for this area, not final zoning), the need for more detailed analysis of infrastructure and park provision, and the role of future zoning and master‑planning steps. Several board members asked staff for broader TOD‑node analyses across the city and requested clarity on the number of nodes and projected population/density changes tied to future transit investments; staff said those analyses are part of later work and that the county and state would review concurrency and transportation details as part of the expedited review.

A board member moved to approve the staff recommendation so staff could continue with the process; the motion passed with seven votes in favor and one no (Paula DeCarlos). The board added direction for staff to return with additional detail as the zoning and Miami 21 implementation steps are developed, and staff confirmed that future zoning actions and master‑planning exercises will require further public notice and opportunities for community review.

Because the amendment is being processed under the state’s expedited review, city staff will transmit the change to state review agencies; the board’s vote will be included in that transmittal. If the future‑land‑use amendment is approved by the City Commission and cleared through the state review, subsequent zoning and master‑planning steps will determine specific height limits, public benefits, and design standards. Residents and neighborhood groups said they will continue to press for strong inclusionary and anti‑displacement protections and for clear park‑acquisition commitments before tall towers are approved.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Miami, FL - Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board - May 21, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Miami Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board voted to recommend approval of a comprehensive‑plan text and map amendment that creates a Transit Oriented Node designation and applies TOD Node 1 and 2 to about 143.75 gross acres around Little River/Little Haiti.","taxTitle","Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida","taxId",2890,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6546870,"Miami planning board defers Coconut Grove lot-diminishment appeal after heated public comment",7192,968000,8160000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3440091-b8a7d4d313c83c58e86cef0abb82a3ee&start=968&end=8160","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3440091-b8a7d4d313c83c58e86cef0abb82a3ee/thumbnail_968000.jpg","/articles/6546870/Miami/Miami-Dade-County/Florida/Miami-planning-board-defers-Coconut-Grove-lot-diminishment-appeal-after-heated-public-comment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6546870-8023ffc4aef23cafc95685af3f38c922/orig.mp4?Expires=1770578048&Signature=iDVD-MEeEi8ggONXdNyVfXpV~uh8DNYVQ6LFqoTVseoa5xfUPnZxnZpbDsyWMgnkho~23FSW19RTk0kf6OZAsDM8jHfHWIaWf94cJ5sRQUzkqjJ06ChLIcGPByl1GfmHZ8--AkSGWoJg-M0kz1jeixudduhMhnv15gniHjEZd0Dlrr2vFKMQgGqnJM6Ni9wFfR3Or3hg-TSXM5b93k82EonJee8phg8kopuDYJM7VEXTHijfhwsQr8bUDc~OjsGK4ca4A78rpM9ova2bb1MtFjNCmtehMzGSJHLybK1nGvyDpAL9sOumCXJalxsmSc3GyISSF2VVER0FmDlvKdv1CA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Miami Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board voted on May 20 to defer a warrant appeal for 4055 Poinciana Avenue to its June 4 meeting after lengthy presentations and public comment.

The appeal was filed by Mark Grafton on behalf of Ponce Cana Avenue LLC, asking the board to overturn a Planning Department denial of a lot-diminishment warrant that would divide a 21,000‑square‑foot single-family building site into three 7,000‑square‑foot lots to allow construction of three single-family homes. “The planning department did deny the warrant,” Savanne Steiner, assistant director of planning, told the board, and staff recommended the board uphold that denial.

The issue matters, neighbors and staff said, because Coconut Grove’s Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD 3) and Miami 21 policies aim to preserve the neighborhood’s historic lot patterns, scale and tree canopy. Steiner told the board the average lot on the immediate block is about 9,300 square feet and the neighborhood average within the study circle is roughly 11,000 square feet; the Planning Department concluded three 7,000‑square‑foot lots would be inconsistent with Article 4, Table 12 and Miami 21 guiding principles.

The applicant’s team said the parcel was originally three platted lots and argued the proposed subdivision would better reflect other lots in the area. Mark Grafton, attorney for the applicant, noted the lots were platted and the applicant had secured demolition and building-permit work before staff’s denial. Co-presenter Francisco Garcia, a former city planning director and co-author of Miami 21, urged the board to consider historical zoning studies that originally excluded the subject parcel from protected overlays and argued the 7,000‑square‑foot lots would be “contextually appropriate.”

Residents who live near the site urged denial. “Higher density, increased traffic, and less green space — none of those are the goals of Miami 21 or the NCD,” said Debbie Dolson, 4205 Lenox Drive, who said her family has walked and cycled past the property for 55 years. Multiple neighbors, several speaking for themselves and neighborhood associations, warned the split would set a precedent for further subdivisions and increase vehicular activity.

Board discussion focused on the interpretation of Miami 21’s context‑sensitive criteria and on potential compromises such as a two‑lot subdivision instead of three. Several board members asked staff to provide additional analysis of the Coconut Grove NCD3 area (by lot‑size bands rather than averages), and to meet with the applicant about potential conditions — landscaping, open space, lot coverage, building massing and other safeguards — that might mitigate neighborhood impacts.

The board voted to defer the item to the PZAB meeting on June 4, 2025. Roll call recorded eight votes in favor of the deferral and one opposed (Paul Maine). The board asked staff to return with additional analysis of NCD3 lot-size distributions, options for a two‑lot division, and possible conditions to address design, landscaping, open space and parking impacts.

Staff repeatedly cautioned the board that the warrant review focuses on Miami 21 criteria and that design details are generally addressed later in the permitting or design-review process. The applicant said it would work with staff during the deferral period and was open to designing conditions and safeguards.

The deferral leaves the underlying planning questions unresolved; the board directed staff and the applicant to continue working toward a return presentation on June 4 that includes empirical lot-size breakdowns, potential conditions, and any alternative lot configurations discussed during the hearing.","The Miami Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board deferred a warrant appeal that would have allowed an existing 21,000-square-foot Coconut Grove parcel to be subdivided into three 7,000-square-foot lots. Staff had recommended upholding a denial; neighbors urged protection of the Neighborhood Conservation District.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6546856,"Planning board adopts new podium and parking‑screening rules, incentives for habitable liners and micro‑units",1726,13570000,15296000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3440091-b8a7d4d313c83c58e86cef0abb82a3ee&start=13570&end=15296","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3440091-b8a7d4d313c83c58e86cef0abb82a3ee/thumbnail_13570000.jpg","/articles/6546856/Miami/Miami-Dade-County/Florida/Planning-board-adopts-new-podium-and-parkingscreening-rules-incentives-for-habitable-liners-and-microunits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6546856-685874846ebd54ccb462fdb5d900d63d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770578048&Signature=LaDzltQweUXwCnsX0C-z5ov7jzBgStdtWfsMHYJ432WC3DNWFkxpavG3BxIezrhwdfihO8nnTZH0Atlkcbf8uQ6ILJikdl~itFzgONdhHGt2kFln97jAfDGtZoRkPD2~PrysyCT4AwYML8GjS00xD68zg9FXbR3JLnCyYhDS86am4aNpzNmGkHfx9tWcNnQ6KBX-u~pvFVPpUKs6H5R1CTrs6~zZpU4yNoTrE5OcTTv0v-HcqafcoVZqFrykyjHoBcOHWKNrMcXU8a9s3HAW~~wE09EvFPX3KiBzi-7kMOqVOu1DYyy-LZ~Tejvnbn9xoBRx5qZK8aIxP-wh5mB~qA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board voted unanimously in favor of updates to Miami 21 and the zoning code on May 20 that create clearer podium and parking‑structure design standards, new definitions, screening requirements and incentives intended to reduce the visual and pedestrian impacts of above‑ground parking.

Urban design staff presented the package as a multi‑part set of amendments: (1) define a podium by a height cap (converting the prior “eight stories” approach to a measure in feet — up to 125 feet in the higher transects) to produce more consistent outcomes; (2) require high‑quality architectural screening where liners are not feasible and prohibit faux vegetation as a screening substitute; (3) permit controlled encroachments for screening (up to 5 feet on principal frontages, up to 3 feet on rear elevations) to allow more design flexibility for naturally ventilated garages; and (4) offer incentives to encourage habitable liners (active uses on the podium front that conceal parking): bonuses include additional residential units (one extra 0.25–0.5 dwelling units per liner unit depending on transect), allowance for micro‑dwelling units (under 400 square feet) inside liners with relaxed parking requirements, and extra floor‑area allocation tied to liner square footage in T6 zones.

Planner Samantha Maldonado (Urban Design) described the intent as giving designers usable, predictable tools so above‑ground parking contributes positively instead of creating “car canyons.” She noted Miami’s shallow water table makes underground parking costly, so above‑ground solutions are necessary; the code changes aim to improve their design so they better conceal mechanical elements, spandrels and lighting and provide pedestrian‑scaled frontages where possible.

Industry representatives who helped shape the draft told the board the amendments strike a workable balance. “These incentives are great,” said a design‑industry commenter who briefed staff during stakeholder meetings; he praised the conversion from stories to a feet‑based podium cap as producing more predictable results.

Board members asked for follow‑up refinement of rooftop/upper‑level elements and for staff to monitor outcomes after implementation to ensure consistency across transects and streetscapes. The board voted to send the package forward with the requested refinements; the motion passed (7–0). Staff said they would work on additional guidance and will monitor permit outcomes and design results.

Key numeric changes and provisions in summary:
- Podium defined as the portion of a building up to 125 feet (converted from the prior “eight stories” rule in higher transects).
- T5 tower setback threshold converted from five stories to 95 feet in height (same logic: measure by feet).
- Incentives: residential bonus per dwelling unit in the liner and extra floor area in T6 tied to liner square footage; micro‑dwelling units (<400 sq ft) allowed inside liners with relaxed parking requirements; tower setback relief for up to 30% of podium frontage when liners are provided below.
- Screening material standards: require durable materials and concealment of spandrels; porous screening materials must include an opaque backing; faux/artificial vegetation not allowed as the primary screening material.

The board instructed staff to examine consistency of roof and mechanical‑screening elements and to return with any technical clarifications as needed. The item was approved and will move forward for final adoption through City Commission processes.","The board approved zoning changes that measure podiums by feet (not stories), set podium‑screening standards, allow limited screening encroachments, and incentivize habitable liners and micro‑dwelling units to conceal parking.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6546860,"Board approves changes limiting CU denials tied to certain code violations; standards to keep life‑safety exceptions intact",117,12548000,12665000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3440091-b8a7d4d313c83c58e86cef0abb82a3ee&start=12548&end=12665","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3440091-b8a7d4d313c83c58e86cef0abb82a3ee/thumbnail_12548000.jpg","/articles/6546860/Miami/Miami-Dade-County/Florida/Board-approves-changes-limiting-CU-denials-tied-to-certain-code-violations-standards-to-keep-lifesafety-exceptions-intact","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6546860-4743f18d7ff3dc0f8a714421099be961/orig.mp4?Expires=1770578048&Signature=A-Hz2SUefnU8dtYYzMexTcTOUICHlPW~TPoPxmfUls3fxM9Y~XEMOlzhvMYYLeau8UwHhyyxT9yg2T-kLr74GhTf4f6cP2Pj8DNUE7O0pzoD5iGBL6LuCMbAyQCQYKthsZOZBcFs~pbUj9T7mzvgXzlZGwJM4tIP5kfVxCAonC5gsr5-qck3~kOPHgtEk1XcU1ynCkTqHMHBgmplIuJccyo1okN8lqPbe1mS-LCddNIsvv1T567K6n6Acvba~62q1uh7OqkjriSWUnlM60FG3dMszgCF08kEcHHo7eQNAbNBzeCyKHmYqzswzXtaFYvwVbPVhGl~MhgbvwoqsSoLwg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board unanimously recommended approval on May 20 of amendments to the city code and to Miami 21 that change how Certificates of Use (CUs) can be denied or revoked.

Staff said the changes remove routine enforcement or paperwork violations from being automatic grounds for CU denial or revocation and instead centralize those criteria in Chapter 2 (administration) to provide alternative compliance paths for businesses while preserving life‑safety protections. Under the proposed changes, an occupied structure with an unsafe‑structure finding by the Unsafe Structures Panel would require a Florida‑licensed engineer’s letter confirming safety for occupancy; failure to provide such a letter or a demolition order would continue to support CU denial or revocation.

A Planning Department staff presenter told the board the intent is to avoid putting small and local businesses out of operation for non‑life‑safety violations; staff cited that roughly a third of recent CU applications were affected by open violations, many of which were administrative or technical rather than immediate life‑safety concerns. The amendments clarify which violations will trigger CU action and preserve immediate city authority when a building poses a real danger.

Board members supported the change and emphasized the balance between allowing businesses to continue to operate while ensuring public safety. One board member urged that the city not “weaponize compliance” and called the changes “a simple fix that’s long overdue.” The board voted 8–0 on two related items: an ordinance amending City Code procedure (Item 3 / File ID 17597) and a Miami 21 text change removing redundancy and deferring CU‑denial criteria to Chapter 2 (Item 4 / File ID 17598).

Staff said the new procedure would still require annual or more frequent engineer certifications when the Unsafe Structures Panel requires them; a building official’s determination that a structure is in imminent danger would still lead to revocation. The amendments were described as creating compliance flexibility for minor violations while preserving life‑safety enforcement for buildings that present real structural risks.

The board recommended sending both items to the City Commission.","The Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board recommended approval of code amendments that move criteria for denial or revocation of Certificates of Use (CUs) into the city code and restrict CU revocation to life‑safety failures or demolition orders; small‑business advocates welcomed the change.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board backs Little River transit‑oriented node map change, approving comprehensive‑plan amendment sent to state review

Miami planning board defers Coconut Grove lot-diminishment appeal after heated public comment

Planning board adopts new podium and parking‑screening rules, incentives for habitable liners and micro‑units

Board approves changes limiting CU denials tied to certain code violations; standards to keep life‑safety exceptions intact