Planning board approves targeted T4 ‘missing middle’ amendments to encourage infill housing

The Miami Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board voted unanimously June 4 to recommend code amendments targeting the T4 transect zone, a form-based category intended for “missing middle” housing such as duplexes, fourplexes and small apartment buildings.

Grama Jones, assistant director of planning, framed the package as a set of narrow, targeted interventions designed to unlock more T4 development without changing basic density or core Miami 21 transect rules. Jones said the city will return later with broader options but first is seeking incremental changes to remove regulatory barriers that have limited T4 development.

Key changes approved by the board include: - Increasing the by-right maximum lot area for T4 parcels from 20,000 to 40,000 square feet, with an option to extend another 30% where projects meet additional urban-design safeguards (facade articulation, frequent pedestrian entrances, maximum driveway aggregates and stronger streetscape requirements). - Introducing a flexible lot-coverage program allowing coverage to increase from 60% up to 70% where the project provides qualifying on-site or off-site open space (or a cash contribution) and meets civic-space design standards. - Allowing side setbacks between abutting T4 parcels to be reduced from 5 feet to 0 feet (townhouse-style party-wall construction), while preserving a 5-foot setback where T4 abuts T3 to protect single-family areas. - Reducing rear setbacks between abutting T4 parcels from 20 feet to 5 feet and adding requirements for breaks or arcade-like passages on long frontages to reduce massing. - Allowing slightly larger roof elements (trellises, mechanical screening) while keeping habitable rooftop space limits in place.

Jones told the board many restaurants and small retailers in T4 were constrained by duplicate limits, so the package also removes an existing separate 40-patron cap on restaurants (staff said an existing 4,000-square-foot cap for commercial uses remains). Board members and staff emphasized that the changes are meant to be design-forward: additional coverage or width thresholds are tied to articulation, pedestrian access and civic-space quality to avoid simply encouraging largescale, undifferentiated massing.

Speakers from the planning and development community commented in support. “Through a series of small, specific, tailored amendments, you’re able to unlock this transect zone and provide for small infill,” said Joe Ruiz, a planning consultant. Board members debated implementation language, and one member suggested that when open space is provided as a public benefit it should be genuinely usable by residents rather than a fractionated rooftop space; staff noted existing flexible-coverage programs allow private open space but agreed to take the comment as implementation guidance.

The board’s recommendation will accompany the ordinance to the City Commission for consideration.