Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the City of South Miami Planning Board, Tuesday, October 14th. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Okay, start to my left, roll call.

Jay Miller.

Augustin Barrera. Daniel Guerra. J.R. Corbison. And who do we have on line? Danny.

Mute. There you go, Daniel Alvarez.

All right, thank you. Okay, we have a quorum. First item on the agenda.

Excuse me, Chair. We do have some administrative matters. Would you like to come to those now or do you want to wait?

My apologies. I forgot to flip the page. That's okay. Let's go through your administrative items first.

Okay. I have two listed on the agenda. The first one is we need to hold chair and vice chair elections. We can do that now or we can wait until the end of the meeting. Let's do that at the end of the meeting. Or if you want to hold that to another meeting, that would be acceptable as well. The next thing is the November planning meeting falls on Veterans Day. So we need to pick a new date for the November meeting. So if you want, I'll take a look at some dates and send the board members an email with those dates.

Will it still be on a Tuesday?

It can still be on a Tuesday. It just can't be on the third Tuesday because that's the date that commission meets on.

So it could be on the 11th. I have it on the 11th.

That is Veterans Day.

Yeah, that's Veterans Day. Oh, I thought Veterans Day was earlier on the month. It's the 18th or the 4th. So we could do it on Tuesday the 4th? I'm good with that. That's it. The commission meets first and third Tuesday. I thought you said we couldn't do the third.

Yeah, so the 4th would be the first Tuesday and the 18th would be the third. So we could do...

Well, why don't we just. 25th is Thanksgiving week. Do you anticipate stuff coming?

As possibly, we may have a large scale development project coming to you. I'm not 100% sure, but.

Can we do it on, just do it Wednesday the 12th?

If you want to do it on the 12th, I can look to see if that date is available.

Yeah. You can do the 12th?

Okay.

For sure.

I'll check with the clerk tomorrow and see if that date is available.

No, it doesn't work for one of the board members. And I'll float it to the rest of the board members.

How about Thursday the 13th? I can float the 12th and the 13th to them. Okay. To the board.

Is that okay? Actually, the 12th to the 17th, I'm out of time. I don't think I'll be able to zoom on that one.

All right, so the 18th is a commission meeting. The 19th.

I'm good at 19th, in the evening, right? Yes, sir. Joseph, 19th?

I'm good whenever. You're good whenever? Yes. Okay. Danny, is the 19th of November work for you?

I'm good whenever as well. Okay.

So do you want me to check on the 12th, the 13th, and the 19th? No, just the 19th.

Yeah.

Okay.

We got five right now that said yes.

Yeah, okay. I'll speak to the clerk tomorrow about November 19th, and I'll send the board an email about that.

It'll be just a long day for me. I have urban development in the afternoon, so, okay.

So the third item I wanted to talk to you about is not on the agenda, but I wanted to get a consensus about how the board feels. Every meeting, I put together packages for the board members. I produce a package for each board member. Only a few of the members picked them up. I wanted to poll the board to see if they still wanted me to continue producing these hard copies, or you're fine with just reading them online. I spoke to Jay earlier, and I believe you still prefer to get our copy. I do. If you do prefer, I'd be more than welcome, more than glad to put a package together for you.

Are you still going to produce the ones that are here on the desk? I'm sorry? Are you talking about these that are printed already? Yes. Oh, yeah, yeah.

So you still want one? For the meeting, yes. I'm not going to pick it up. I read it before online.

Yeah. OK. For me, it depends on the complexity of the item. If it's highly complex, then I'll pick it up.

I have no problem producing the package for each of the members. I just wanted to check to see, try to cut down on paper and stuff. But no, I have no problem producing the package. All right. So I'll continue doing it for everyone. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you for your time. So the next items are the public hearing items. Mr. City Attorney, did you want to do the quasi-judicial statement before I read them in, or would you like me to read the titles into the record?

No, I'll do the statement first. Ladies and gentlemen, tonight's items, first two items on our agenda are quasi-judicial items. That means that each person wishing to provide testimony will have to identify themselves and also be sworn in. If you choose not to be sworn in, your testimony that you may provide will be given its due weight. With that, if you intend to testify and you are in chambers, please stand up, raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? And your response? Thank you very much. For those of you who are maybe on Zoom, if you intend to, well, I don't see anybody, but just in case, if you intend to testify, we'll ask you to turn on your camera, and you'll be sworn in at that time. Chairman, it's all yours.

Thank you.

So the first item is PB-2025-009. The applicant is DNA 2012 LLC. This is a resolution of the city of commission of the city of South Miami, Florida, granting approval of or denying an application for variance approval pursuant to section 20-5.9 of the land development code. seeking a reduction of lot size or frontage on lots one and two of a proposed plat for the property located at 6240 southwest 65th avenue within the low density single family residential rs3 zoning district providing for conditions corrections implementation severability and an effective date just for point of order the second item is for this same project as well would you like me to read that one into the record as well rather wait Okay, the second item is PB-2025-010. Applicant again is DNA-2012-LC. The resolution of the Mayor and City Commissioner of the City of South Miami, Florida approving or denying an application for tentative plat pursuant to section 20-4.2 of the Land Development Code seeking to subdivide a property located at 6240 Southwest 65th Avenue. within the low-density single-family residential RS3 zoning district, providing for conditions, corrections, implementation, severability, and an effective date. The applicant is present, as well as our consultant, Mr. Mark Ivers of the Corradino Group, who will be providing the presentation on behalf of staff. Thank you.

Okay.

Go ahead.

How's the logistics of this? Mark will go over his portion on behalf of staff, or do we jump in now?

Mark, why don't you go first? Mark, yeah.

I was wondering who you were. Hello, Mark.

Good evening. This is Mark Alvarez with the Cordino Group on behalf of City of Miami planning staff. We have reviewed both the plot approval and the variance for the plot approval, and I'm going to provide a quick summary of our report. So we have, the property is along 65th Avenue. It's 6240 65th Avenue. It's in a residential area. If you're familiar with the area, it's entirely residential. The existing use right now is there's a single family home. It's a very large lot. There's hedges sort of on the front so you can... really barely see the house um there is also a um in addition to the single family residential there's a single house there's a shed and a workshop also on the property and a stone wall the structures are actually quite old and um i think that the house dates back to 1925. So that's what we have on the property right now. It is over an acre. Sorry, I have to actually go back to that. Yes, it's 46,613 feet is 1.07 acres. The RS-3 is an area that is by zoning, it's intended for lots for single family homes on lots between 10 and 15,000 square feet. And the entire area is in the RS3 until you get to Ludlam Road, and then it changes. Although there's a little sort of notch right around this area that goes west on Ludlam that's still RS3. The characteristic of the area is exactly what RS3 calls for. We see that most of the lots are in the range of 10, 11, 12,000 square feet lots, both sides of 65th Avenue to the properties north to the properties south, which are the sides. It's the same. We have a few large lots. Let me go to the... We do have a few large lots. These are some more of the houses. I want to go back to the lot that's just to the south. We have a single family home there. It's also RS3 at 6310 Southwest 65th Avenue. On that particular property, and this would not be on the property that's the subject of tonight's review, but it's abutting it to the south. And you can actually see there's an area that's fenced off a little differently on on that property there used to be a Right-of-way 63rd Terrace alley. It was abandoned by the city in 1992 and that that alley once was there and it it was only a stub, but it somewhat gave the suggestion that we might split this block and have access into the interior of a very long block. And I'll tie this together in a minute or so. Everything around that is more or less Homes that are approximately the right size, except for towards the back of this property to its north and south, there are some large lots there. One of them is actually landlocked, and one of them has access to the other side from Loveland Road on the terraces coming in. Um, so here's the map and you see again, this is the last large property, but I think what you want to look at here is the size of this block. Um, the way is plotted. We have some landlocked lots, they're actually part of other lots, but The way it was plotted, it doesn't have any through streets that go east-west. I brought up the neighboring lot, which would be the one just to the bottom of the slide below the red dashed lines, which used to have this alley that was abandoned by the city. That could have provided access for this lot to have other houses fronting to the south, but it's no longer there now for... about 30 years. We do also see that there are some lots just to the north and southwest that are fairly large. They're facing 63rd Terrace and 62nd Terrace. They're actually the stub ends of those streets, which do not really have cul-de-sacs. They're just kind of stubbed into the street. But anyway, the future land use, as you see, it's all yellow. It's all single-family residential. The existing development is exactly what's intended there, single-family homes. And it's all RS3 in that area. And again, RS3 provides for single-family homes that have basically, as far as the lot size goes, as far as the lot conditions go, We're looking at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. It was intended for the 10 to 12,000 by comprehensive plan. And the minimum lot frontage on any of those lots that's permitted is 75 feet. So we see this as mostly consistent. What has been brought to you today is the applicant would like to do a site plan to take this lot and split it into three lots. And the way that they can do that is to split it going into the lot They would dedicate a portion of, which is something that the city would use for the right-of-way for 65th Avenue, they would dedicate 25 feet, and they want to look at a site plan that have three homes facing south, and they would provide the easement for access into those three homes. So the way that they have to do this is they want to bring the easement, that access into the property up to lot number two. lot number one, which is one on the left, would be a flag lot. The reason they're doing that is for fire safety. The Dade County requires that if you don't have a cul-de-sac or a T-turn around or any way for a fire truck to turn around, the maximum you can go is 150 feet. So this property, if it had a T-turn, if it had a cul-de-sac, it would wipe out a lot of the property. There would be no room for much development. So they have gone in 150 feet. And this necessitates that there are two variances required. One would be for lot two, which is the middle one. So it's required to have a 75-foot frontage. And the frontage on the access way for lot two is 44, almost 45 feet. So it's enough to get the driveway for the garage and a little bit of the frontage. The other lot will be a flag lot where the left-hand lot is lot one. And it would be a flag lot which would extend its property to the south border of the existing lot, the existing property. And it would... more or less have its private driveway going to the end of the easement. Again, it comes down to somewhat of the same thing. But again, for the reasons of fire safety regulations, they can go no further than 150 feet. So they are proposing a flag lot on this property. And that lot one would require the way we have to count it is we have to look at the frontage as just being the part that faces that easement, which is 25 feet. And on this table, we've shown the frontage by lot dimensions or by the addresses. And those frontages are fine. We have 75 feet for lot, sorry, we have 161 feet for lot one, 105 feet for lot two, 105 feet for lot three. So in other words, the frontages are normal, but because this is a flag lot, we have to look at it by what touches the easement, the public access. And again, that easement, I believe, is going to be a private easement. It's not actually a public street Is that correct? Yeah. So we have two parts to this. One is the variance analysis. We can't really plot, we can't approve the plot unless we approve the variance. So we're doing the variance first. We have a number of criteria for the variance. We first look to see if it's necessary to relieve some extraordinary conditions that exist with the lot, with the specific property. And again, part of what I've explained, it's extraordinary conditions in a few ways in that the lot is very deep to do. We can't say that they can't do anything with a lot because they can keep it the way it is. It has a single family home. But to develop it into three lots, there's no other way that's practical to do that. So we are looking at this as an extraordinary condition if we are accepting the idea that we would like to redevelop this as three homes on three lots that are very much similar and compatible with the neighborhood around them. That the denial of the variance would result in a hardship to the owner, again, it's, you know, In a strict interpretation of hardship, no, we have a house already there. But it would be impossible to develop that in a way that we could have three homes without doing this, without having the flag lot. It is also something that when we look at the kind of conditions that amount up to a hardship, the reason why I brought up the property to the south and the old 63rd Terrace Alley is that there was once access that could have served these homes in the same manner. The city vacated it in 1992, and it creates a circumstance where we have a very... I actually want to go back to one of these maps. I like the yellow one better. We have a situation where the block is very long, and I think just being very practical about it, we see that later on, as it developed from the Ludlam side... that block became split with streets going east-west because there's no other way to develop it along the lines of satisfying the RS3 and creating single-family lots that are compatible with the rest of the area. So the 63rd Terrace Alley would have almost reached the 63rd Terrace. And again, we're looking at this in a very strict view. It's not a hardship, but it's a hardship in a somewhat more liberal view of looking at that. So the, and again, I just covered this, number three is that the hardship conditions are not caused by the applicant and the applicant has not caused those. That was something that was done by the city that removed that east-west connection. The required variance is the minimum necessary. And again, we look at this as that lot would actually fit four RS3 lots. The applicant is looking for three. So we do see that they're not maxing it out. Whereas they could have tried to stuff four lots in there, they're looking for three. And they're trying to make it work with still providing the easement, they're still providing the city the right of way on the 65th terrace side. So there's not a sort of maxing out the property. And finally, is it consistent with the general intent and purpose? And it is. I mean, we're taking what is right now a fairly large lot and we're turning it into something that's a benefit to the neighborhood because we have now three homes, homes that are the same size as the other homes in the area. It starts to look, it probably is the last property except for maybe the interior one. It's in the middle of the block. It's the last property that would create this neighborhood to be very consistent and just have a number of lots in the 10,000 to 12,000 square foot range. So one of the things that we have to look at, and it's one of our criteria, is that we do have to look at the lot frontages and areas and compare it to the area around it. So we have a circle. That's the 500 foot circle. That's the circle from the center of the property. We see, number one, there are three lots that do have frontages that are less than 75 feet, and they're already existing. One is on 75th Terrace, and you see the yellow circle. It's a 69 feet that has a 69-foot frontage. And as I said, we have two large lots that are accessible from 63rd Terrace and 62nd Terrace coming from the Ludlam side. Both of those have 50-foot frontages because they're just at the stop end of the street. And it doesn't have a circle, but you can see... I don't recall the number of it and I can't see it, but there's a lot that's entirely landlocked. It's part of another property, but it is actually a landlocked lot, has zero frontage. We also looked to see if the average, one of our criteria is that the average that they are proposing for their lots is not only consistent with the area, but it's the same as or larger than the average of lots in that area. We did do that exercise and we find that their smallest lot is a little bit above the total average. I think it's 11,780 something. We found that the average of all those lots is 11,766 square feet. Some of them are quite large, a few are a little small, but they do come out to that average. I covered the non-complying frontages. And finally, if we do accept the variance, if we approve the variance, not tonight, but by commission, Then we would move on to the Platte. The Platte has a number of conditions. We combine the reports because they're essentially the same set of conditions. But we do have a few additionals. One would be that the building sites are equal to or larger than what is being proposed, what is the average for the area, and that we just covered and it will be. The building site would not result in any structures that would require variances of some other sort. And again, since they're generous properties and they have provided a preliminary site plan of where the houses could go, it doesn't lock them into that. But we can pretty easily see that there would be plenty of room that we don't have to look at variances later on for setbacks. Um, we do have, uh, the building site is supposed to be free of encroachments. We're going to include it as a condition. There is a coral rock wall, sort of a serpentine kind of wall that's on the survey. We would include it as a condition that they have to address that and, and remove that as a, uh, it crosses two properties. Um, that the building site is free of any declarations of restrictive covenants. It is. We have a condition that the scale of the proposed new construction is compatible with the building character and surrounding area. Again, we're not really at the building part of this, but we have lots that are consistent with the area, and that would allow for buildings that are consistent with the rest of the area. We do have a requirement on the plotting that those sites would be divided in such a way that they're in compliance with the code, with the RS3. And again, that would be accepting the variance. Once we accept the variance, we can say yes to that. And finally, excuse me. that they would not constitute an irregular parcel. Of course, the flag lot is an irregular parcel. But again, that depends on accepting the variance. So if we accept the variance, then we can move on to deciding whether we accept the plot. So there are additional criteria. They're not applicable except for the one that we would have to execute a public record that has the easement, that has everything in it. And that's pretty much it. So we are recommending that the lot frontage variance could be approved. We are also recommending if that is approved, then we are recommending approval of the PLAT. And we have some conditions, and I mentioned one to remove the encroachments, which is the coral rock wall prior. And most of these are normal conditions that we would have a public works review, that we would provide an affidavit for the access easement, that we would record that easement, and that we do have some trees. on the site that are specimen trees and the conceptual site plan shows that some of those would be moved. So we will address that as a condition that those specimen trees will be reviewed by the city staff and the specimens would have to be protected and the present canopy would have to be retained or at least at 50%. So again, with those conditions, we are recommending approval for the variance and for the plat subsequent to the variance. That's it. I don't have any slides, so if you have any questions, please feel free.

Any input from the public on this item?

I think they were still going to present.

I know. Well, let them present. What?

Thank you.

Great job. Thank you, Mark. Sergio Perinos with CSP City Consulting, located at 261 Navarre Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida. I'm here representing my all-time friend, The family, the father and the son, Gerardo Aguirre, they have owned this property for quite a long time. First and foremost, I'd like to thank staff. They have done, gosh, this is the first time I meet you. You did an amazing job. There's nothing else to add. He did an amazing, very thorough job explaining every detail about what we have on this property. In essence, the lot, it's a matter of geometry that we have come up with. This is a solution that has gone through quite cumbersome Review process already because we've been to the county a number of times and back with your staff and this is a result of all that Work and Analysis and reviews and looking at different options different geometry. We've gone through every single possibility that you can think of but with that We're seeking the I don't know if I, it's two variances in reality because it affects two properties, but it's really one variance in nature that affects these two lots, whichever way you wanna look at it. You know, the result would be the same. And then, obviously, once that, step is taken, then the proposed T-Plat will be going through that process. As you know, it has to go through the T-Plat process with the county and then come back, and then we'll come back with the final plat, which you'll see, and it will move on to the commission. Is it city council or commission here?

City council.

City Council. We'll move on to them for final determination. With that, I thank you for your time. I thank once again staff for an amazing group of professionals that you have. It's been a delightful way and if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer.

Thank you. Any input from anyone in the public? Is there anyone online? Marcus? I can't see the screen right now.

By the way, Agustin, good to see you. It's been like what? Almost 20 years.

Okay, there's no one on, okay. So I'm gonna close the public hearing, open it up to board member comments.

I'm not sure who to ask this question to, but how long have your clients owned the property in question?

Since 2013.

Okay. And the city abandoned this right away in 1992. Okay.

Any other questions from the board members?

I guess if we could just get a quick definition of what a flag lot is.

Sure.

Just to clarify that.

Mark, can you provide that definition?

I'm sorry. A flag lot is, actually, can we bring this slide up? That's the best way to do this. It's the lot that you saw on the left, the lot one, where a flag lot would be that is somewhat in the interior of the block and there's not a lot of room to meet the street. So it has this easement usually or some kind of right-of-way, some kind of access point that comes out to the street. We call it a flag lot because when you look at it on the map, it looks like a flag on a pole only laying down. So you see on the left, the lot is basically a rectangular lot, but it has an extension that goes towards the road to meet the access way.

Okay.

Okay, just yeah, there's nothing much to it.

Yeah, it's just it's the name of it. We call it a flag lot because it looks like a flag.

Yeah. Okay. There's no more comments to have a motion.

Um, the chair would make a motion that we do this as a consent item because that agenda item and put the two items together since they've been read into the record.

Is there any problem with that? Mr. Attorney? That's fine. Okay. So we're going to put on both items at the same time. So the motion is... So do I have a motion to approve?

With staff conditions?

With staff conditions. Second. Okay. Jay? Yes. I vote yes. Yes.

Yes.

And... Yes. Okay. Passes unanimously. All right. Thank you.

Thank you all for your vote. And once again, staff, thank you so much. We'll keep at it. See you soon.

Third item is PB-2025-008. In ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, amending Article 8, Transit Supported Development District of the Land Development Code to provide regulations for student housing within the TSDD, providing for corrections, severability, conflicts, implementation, and an effective date. And this will be handled by Mr. Alvarez as well.

Okay, so this item was discussed at the last board meeting. We have plenty of discussion with regards to density, parking. I, for one, did research on this particular subject. I met with the owner of the student housing project that's on South Miami, right on US 1, right on the Metrorail station. They have, the first phase was predominantly four bedrooms. The second phase was predominantly one, two, and three bedrooms, because the demand was there for one, two bedrooms, one, three. And as far as parking, 60% of the residents have cars. So after that, I had a meeting with Mark and Tony where we talked about how to address this. And during that conversation, we talked that this really should be treated not as a residential property, which is what was proposed by staff, but almost like a hotel where it's a commercial property. And we talked about the parking requirement being 0.5 for every bed. And that, in reality, we're not going to set, propose not to set a density, but because this is form-based zoning code, and we're going to have a minimum unit size, that would determine the number of units that you could put, or beds you can put on the property, and allow the developer to build one, two, three, or four bedrooms based on what the market demands. So, Mark?

Yeah, correct. I mean, we're on a continuum. So there's no new presentation. But the idea is that if we treat it instead of treating it as a residential property, we don't have to address the density issue at all. Hotels are not residential in this city. So we would treat it the same way as a hotel. And in a lot of ways, it's like an extended stay hotel. So we would treat it as a commercial property, so we don't have to address density in that case, and it's basically up to the form of the building, the height of the building, that would all subscribe to the requirements of TSTD. And then the parking, we had discussed having the parking rate the same as hotels, which parks it approximately on par with residential in the area. Could be even a little more. So it would be half a space per room, actually. So in a unit with four rooms, it would be two spaces. And again, that's pretty much along the lines of hotels, so we're treating it now. If we treat it as a commercial development, we get rid of some of the issues. Just to bring up the point, we were very concerned about changing our definitions of density because it could affect the rest of the area. In particular, we have some concerns about some of our state legislation that's affecting density too, so we decided let's not change that at all. So that's really it. I think those are the two things that we were still left to decide.

Yeah, there was some other issues, but I see there's some people in the public. I don't know if they want to comment. Is there something you want to comment on, sir or ma'am? No?

Okay.

All right. No. No. This is not the commission. This is not the commission meeting. This is zoning.

Okay.

Excuse me, miss. Ma'am?

Senora?

Senora, just so you know, the mayor, the city commission is next week Tuesday at 7 p.m. So it will be in the same room just next week Tuesday.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Any other comments from the public, please?

Please remember to sign in on the.

Okay, good evening. with offices at 600 Brickell. I'm here with Mario Garcia-Serra, the partner that I work with. And we're here on behalf of our client subtext acquisitions LLC, who is proposing a student housing project at 6404 and 6405 Southwest 57th Avenue, which is right across the street from the University of Miami. That property is zoned TSNA, so as the regulations read, well, the amendments, the proposed amendments read today, that property would not be subject to the student housing regulations, but as mentioned, it's across the street from the University of Miami, and it's very close to the Metro Rail, so it would be a prime location for student housing development. So with that in mind, we'd like to propose a few friendly amendments to what is in front of you today. so that the property that we have in mind that is to be developed as a student housing project can be included in this scheme and it can be developed under this scheme. So I'm just gonna go through them pretty quickly. The first one is that off-campus student apartments be permitted in TSNA zone properties that front red road and are north of US 1. So you have the text in front of you. You can see the changes in the green color. That's what we're proposing to- Page six of 11. It says page six of 11, it's not actually page six, but it does say page six of 11 at the top, so that's a good marker.

Can I just stop for a second, I'm sorry. Have you guys looked at this stuff before and are you recommending this? Is the city recommending, looked at these and recommending what she's proposing?

So if I may, Mark may not have looked at it. We've looked at it for legal sufficiency. Legally, it's okay. That's ultimately, you know, the purpose of this meeting is to discuss it. And so they're proposing it as part of their public comment. If you don't like it, you can reject it. If you like it, you can approve it. But in terms of legal sufficiency, we're okay with it. Our office is fine with it.

We did have a meeting with the attorneys, with Tony and Mark.

Correct.

I don't remember if it was Mark. Mark was not there. Okay. To talk about this. And we agreed that they would come tonight and present it. But this is something that we'll have to discuss and we can just basically pass this along to the commission as the commission decides.

You probably got to give her about a minute and a half back that I just took asking that question. Down to 15 seconds.

If Mario's not going to talk, we can give her Mario's time. If Mario's willing to do that. Okay. We'll put it back at two minutes. Okay. Put it back to two minutes.

As I was mentioning, there's just a few friendly amendments. The reason that we're proposing this is because the property is... literally across the street from the University of Miami. It is the ideal location for a student housing development. And so these are just small amendments that would allow this property to utilize the scheme in order to develop for student housing. So the first amendment is that off-campus student apartments be permitted in TSNA zoned properties that front Red Road and are north of US 1. So that really does limit the scope of that amendment to just a few properties. I think just two properties. And the second and third proposed amendment is that general retail and food and beverage establishments be permitted as accessory uses in TSNA zoned properties that front Red Road and that are north of US 1. So the reason we're requesting this is because the project as proposed does have a small element of a cafe or a general retail bookstore or something of the like that the developer thinks is appropriate for the development because of the students that live there, they can get a coffee. or the students on campus can come across the street to get a coffee or use the retail space that's going to be there, and the residents can have access to that as well. So it just makes sense with the student housing project to have that included as part of it. And then otherwise, we're happy to comply with the remaining amendments that are in front of you today. Specifically, our proposed parking numbers would be compliant with what is proposed, so that's nothing to worry about, and we think that this would be a really good first project under this scheme, and that would allow us to develop with student housing particularly in mind, rather than just operating under what's already in the zoning code today, so I'm happy to take any questions if you have any.

So you already have a project that was designed as residential that pretty much looks like student housing. The only difference is this was just basically cemented as a student housing project. Anyone else have questions?

I would just say my concern is I understand what you're saying about in terms of the idea of being able to get coffee or whatever. I'm concerned about commercial bleed into the residential area. And so we've been pretty, we've had a lot of conversations about this. And I don't know what is directly to the west of the pink shaded area that's on here.

It's more of the same. These are those two-story apartments?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's just the retail component at the bottom. Look, I'm all for the housing. I think it's a good demographic to have in that area, and it's totally logical. They're already living in single-family homes all over over there and across the street. I don't know if that's UM's married housing, but it looks like it. the condos or apartments on the other side that I guess you haven't developed. No, on the other side of red, that I don't think has a retail component, which is interesting. Not that I can remember. Retail stops before that. I'm trying to think where you're at. So like from the church, so where you turn on to Ponce, if you were coming from downtown South Miami, you turn on to Ponce there, you go past it, you got the church. I don't believe there's any retail past that on fronting Red Road. I think there is housing. Not on the east side. Correct.

On the west side, there is in Red Road Commons. Right.

Red Road Commons, but beyond that, Red Road Commons, there is not. And on the other side, on the UM side or the Gable side, there is no retail at that point either. So we're introducing retail further into the neighborhood, in my opinion, unless somebody can show me there's something beyond that until you get up to.

What if it's limited to 57th Avenue, which is a major thoroughfare?

So the language is before you now, because when we spoke, when the lawyer spoke, not in terms of planning, but in terms of the law, we had that same concern. And so footnote two is very specific on their page six of 11. It deals specifically with 57th Avenue. So in other words, the accessory use must front 57th Avenue. And that's a, I'm sorry, it's footnote three, I misspoke, specifies that it must front 57th Avenue.

The accessory food and beverage is specifically addressed in number two. Correct.

Correct.

I mean, if you limited it to 57th Avenue, we already have the condition at Red Road Commons. I think it's an amenity to not just the neighborhood, but the students. I wouldn't be opposed to it as long as you're limiting it to 57th Avenue. I agree with you. If it faced the other side of the building, I'd be opposed to that.

So I would want to limit the square footage of what it could be so that it truly is what we're all talking about, which is a coffee shop. And so if we're talking about being able to put something in there relative to the size of a traditional Starbucks or consistent in that area, I don't know anything else to compare it to. I waste a bunch of money there. But if we limit it to a square footage that goes with that, I could deal with that. What I don't want to do is wake up and say, you know, you guys allowed, you know.

The shopping center. What if we did a percent? What if we limit it to 57th and a percentage of the floor area of the ground floor?

Yeah.

You know. Yeah. So if the ground floor is 20,000 square feet, it could be. I'd be okay with that. It could be 20%. Yeah.

I don't know if it specifically needs to be said here, but I would expect it to be coffee and food that works with it, not alcohol. So.

Well, it has to be a use that would be complimentary. It should somewhere, I don't know if we could say that, Mark or attorneys, is complimentary to student housing.

I could argue when I was in college. Let's not get too nebulous on this. However you draft the language, you understand what I'm saying. Fronting 57th Avenue, only access from 57th Avenue. And no more than 20% of the ground floor space area.

For the record, I think, I just want to state for the record that one of our big concerns with this concept, and I think that Ms. Moniz's draft language addresses, is the Live Local Act. The Live Local Act specifies that when you have a mixed use category, Live Local applies. There's a special caveat that says we're not going to do this for accessory uses. So especially in some communities, they'll allow a condo building to have a little coffee shop in the bottom. And it's the smallest little thing. And what the act refers to as being subordinate and incidental. Right? And so the language that was presented to us tonight uses that same phrase, subordinate and incidental. So... You're the lawyer. So as long as you think that covers us... I think that that protects us. Right. Because, you know, we don't want to tail wagging the dog, right? No. We want this to remain a residential project with a small, subordinate, incidental... Correct. Commercial use. Commercial use.

Service. It's not... Correct. That's not the one... That's our goal.

Yeah. So, Mark... I know you only had a few minutes to look at that, but we would love to get your comments.

Thank you. And I was aware of conversations, and I just wasn't aware of this coming forward tonight. I think I missed those conversations. But I was aware of this. One issue to, I hate to throw a fly into the ointment, but as we go forward tonight, one of the things that we decided we would consider student housing to be a commercial use, not residential. TSNA is the one thing in the downtown that's strictly residential. I would suggest that you go forward with your recommendations of, in general, what we should do, and I'll work with the attorneys and we'll work out that problem. But that's something that we'll have to solve.

Yeah, because I think when we all looked at this, we were all thinking of commercial on the other side of US 1, not really thinking the fact that 57th Avenue is somewhat commercialized to a certain extent and creating an exception for those parcels that face 57th Avenue, right?

Right, but what I'm saying also is that if... Not changing the designation, but allowing this specific use only on certain parcels Yeah, but also when we, going back to the larger part of the discussion, one of the things that we decided on through our conversation we brought forward tonight was to solve our student housing issue in terms of density and how we measure density by considering it like a hotel to be a commercial use. Right. So the commercial uses aren't a problem being on 57th Avenue. What we have to solve is that the TSNA sub-district is supposed to be strictly residential. So we have to, what I would like to know is what you want us to recommend and bring forward, but we're going to have to work on a legal solution between council and me and myself to try to sort that out. Because I think if we do decide to make it a commercial use, or we could keep it a residential use, and we'll address the density question. Do you know where I'm going with this?

I know where you're going with it. I don't think it's an issue. I think we can work it out.

I mean, it's pretty clear, I think, at least what I'm thinking of, and I don't know what the others are, but if I was going to do a motion, it would be using that incidental part relative to the business, no more than 20% of the ground floor of frontage facing 57th Avenue. And however you draft it, it's necessary whatever zoning designation we're given this time.

Yeah, that's the thing is there would have to be an exception for certain parcels in certain locations. That would permit then the uses under the other zoning category. And now you guys can work out.

Yeah.

Okay.

I have a question, Mark. Yeah, Joe. When the TSDD was being conceptualized and developed, why was off-campus student apartments originally not permitted in the TSA?

when we were there was a workshop that we had I guess it's over a year ago now where we brought up a number of issues for the it was a it was a sunshine meeting and we brought we brought 15 different issues forward I think some of the dynamics of that was that the commission was fairly overwhelmed but we did bring up that student housing was a possibility for the downtown area. We actually at the time did have a student housing developer making calls to ask about that. At the time I think the commission had explicitly gave us the direction to not include it into the TSDD. I think as we've gone through and again I think there were a lot of overwhelming issues as we were working out the downtown code. We started to look at it again and we've had a number of developers come for student housing As staff, I absolutely recommend it. As a resident of the city, although I don't mind the student housing that's around me, but I know a lot of people don't like students living in the houses around the city. So I think it's something that we do fully recommend and think is a very good thing to have students living in the downtown. We populate downtown. We have people spending money. And we have residents. We put people in there. So it's a good idea. It just got delayed. on the first round of doing all this. There were a lot of issues to sort through, and that's really it. I mean, it's just the way things kind of happened through the history of that.

I guess my question is more specifically related to the fact that on the chart on page six, off-campus student apartments are specifically listed as not permitted in the TSNA.

So and I'm wondering why okay that because we wanted to protect so one of the conversations that we've had and in fact when this first came up we thought well let's address this because we again we don't want to have student housing at the edges of the downtown where we do affect the neighborhoods for example we have Along 73rd Street, we have TSNA on the south. We developed all that TSNA to really create that transition, both in terms of heights and sizes of the buildings, but also in terms of the use that we felt that residential-like uses across the street from each other, residential and residential. So we have sought to keep it away from the TSNA. We have a very particular parcel that we're speaking about here on Red Road, because it is across the street from from University of Miami, and it does make sense, but it's in TSNA because.

Right, but it's also next to a neighborhood that we're originally trying to protect from that.

Correct. On the backside of it, it is a neighborhood.

Yeah, but I would say, and it's a fair point, and I think it's where sometimes you have nuances when you're doing these zoning districts. A lot both to the north. I'm sorry both to the south and north of this property. You have commercial. Right now, um, so to limit this property from being able to do student housing, I don't think you're protecting the neighborhood. You've already. You already have red road comments. You already have the. whatever house the house yeah there you thank you uh yeah and and the uh and then you have the uh the the art uh a place as well the museum and there's a school and there's a school i'm sorry um so i think there's an official leakage already there yeah and and i think an office i think it's an opportunity to improve a property that helps us get the students out of the neighborhoods which is what we're we're trying to do so we're kind of protecting the neighborhoods by supporting this because we're trying to get those houses not to be student housing and put students in student housing.

Can I point something out here? Just that little pink box on this map, That currently has commercial fronting, if I'm not mistaken, because when I, the little pink box on Red Road that's on the front side of that student housing, there's like three or four commercial tenants there that you would argue would be supportive of having the student housing, which that is, right, essentially, whether it's designated or not. That's who the occupants are. So there must be language somewhere, Mark, that addresses that.

You're talking at 68th Street and Red Road? I am. Yeah. That's the gas station.

That's the old Anthony. Well, that's the gas station right there itself? Yeah. And so then even north of that, even though you don't have it highlighted in pink because it's not one of these things, that's got commercial on the front of it.

Correct. Right. That's Red Road Commons. We left Red Road Commons out of the TSTD because it was designated as a planned area development. So we didn't include that. It has its own set of rules that were part of it as a development agreement. This is a logical extension for student housing. It makes a lot of sense we Would still if it's a TSA that would still require have requirements about the height of the building It's not going to be 15 stories. It's going to be six We don't really see you know again as we stand here now There's not much of a problem, and I have heard the discussions. I don't think there's a real problem with having student housing there. We just have to be a little more sensitive because it is on, it's a red road on one side, but it's residential on the other.

So could you describe the project that your client already has designed that is basically student housing that is by right? Because they already have a project that's designed that has four bedroom units and three bedroom units and two bedroom units and has the parking. It basically... is going to be rented to students.

So the project that we just submitted that is currently proposed is utilizing the existing zoning on the property to create a six-story multifamily building. And it has a total of 263 units and 428 parking spaces. So that is what is allowed as of right on the property today.

And how many beds?

How many beds?

It's over 400 beds.

Mario Garcia-Serra, the office is at 600 Brickell Avenue. It comes out to about a 720-some number, 24, 28, around there. An important point also, too, the westerly half of the project is at three stories. So as you go west towards the neighborhood, you go down from six stories to three stories, facing the single-family residential.

So basically, by right, your project has 720 beds approximately and 400 parking spaces. but it's residential, but in reality, it's gonna be rented by students, so.

We're trying to make it consistent and be what it's actually intended to be, which is off-campus student housing.

So either way, there's gonna be, student housing project built across the street. Fair point. Either way, it's going to be, there's one bedroom, two bedrooms, three bedrooms, and four bedrooms.

You go down that same street and everybody's a student there anyways. You have the three-story townhomes that they built. All that is student housing.

What do your clients gain then by not just building the residential building and it's in essence student housing, but we're not calling it student housing?

Well, I mean, in this situation, if you were to adopt the amendment of the accessory use for commercial of the retail or restaurant use, then they would be able to open that coffee shop for the students.

So this is all about a coffee shop?

Where?

It's a little bit more than that, and it's a sort of a fine legal point also, too. Right now, under the South Miami City Code, a multifamily unit should be occupied by one family, and a family is considered no more than three unrelated persons, right? So if you had a one, two, or three bedroom, you're good. On the four bedroom, unless you've got brother and sister or cousins or something like that, then you're technically not in compliance with the code. So the off-campus student housing ordinance does address that issue. which for us is a significant issue as others might say, just ignore it and it's never gonna be enforced. But the sort of development you're gonna see now is gonna require lenders and financing and they're gonna wanna make sure you're on all fours legally and that you have no weakness on any of those sort of issues. So that's a significant benefit, let's call it, of the off-campus student housing regulations.

Okay, thank you. So this would build like the quad style where you have four rooms, central kitchen and living room, right? And one bathroom for two bedrooms. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Beatty Towers, Florida. Right? So modern version, I hope.

How are you accomplishing the parking for this? Is it structured or surface?

It's structured parking.

They're going to need the coffee shop. It's going to be expensive.

So thank you. Thank you for your comments. So to go back to where we were at the last planning and zoning board meeting, the discussion was the proposal was one unit consisted of four beds and it was one parking space for every unit. That's what I recall. Or Mark, is that quarter parking space? Or it was a quarter.

There's a quarter.

per room or one per every unit? Because every unit is four. Okay. And then we had a lengthy discussion with regards to does that really make sense? The whole issue of density. And that's where we are today with regards to the discussion of making a commercial, making it form-based, allowing the developer to determine the right mix of units and the parking requirements that would then make the project feasible. And then this issue was brought up, which... Does the attorney feel comfortable that if there's something including in the language that you guys will work out prior to the commission meeting to address the request that has been presented to us?

Yes.

Okay.

I just don't know how to put that into a motion. Yeah.

Okay. Can we have two motions? Or do we have to have just one? We're talking about two things.

I think you can have just one motion, but I think what you're trying to ask for, Chair, is a motion to accept staff's proposal, proposed edits, and the edits presented by Ms. Muniz. Is that right?

Yes.

With the caveat that you're asking staff to work with the city attorney's office to ensure that the residential or the accessory use remains subordinate and incidental. So it's not to trigger Lift Local Act. Correct. And furthermore, to provide, well, I don't know if this is part of the motion. Are we including the 20% cap on the floor? I would like to see that, yeah. Okay. And then the accessory use will not exceed 20% of the ground floor.

And has to front 57th Avenue. Has to front 57th Avenue.

And that is already presented in Ms. Munez's comments here. I've read it over a couple times. It must be on 37th Avenue. Motion.

Play the tape back. I was going to say, can we see that on the screen? Yeah. So where are we landing with the parking? Because I'm still unclear.

The parking is going to be 0.5 for every bed.

For every bed?

For every bed. So it's basically 50%. So if you have 800 beds, you'll have 400 parking spaces, plus one visitor parking for every 25 beds.

So we're making that, so it was at .25 before and we're making a recommendation to change it to .5. .5, correct. As I recall, I was seven hours ahead, and it was a very, very odd hour. Where are we going to hear from the study that the city was going to do as to the reasoning between that?

The developer was the one that had all this data that they were going to present that they never came back. So I met with a developer that developed a student housing on the Metro Rail Station right off US 1, and they have 60% of their occupants have cars.

That's the box, right? Chair. Yeah.

Yeah.

The black box. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

So 60% of the occupants have cars. That's a very affluent university, and people have their toys, and they want to bring them. So based on that conversation, that's what we agreed that we would do, 0.5.

Fair, and I think on that location, they're not required to do 0.5, right?

They actually have a lower- Oh, they could have done one per four. Actually, it's an RTZ. They could have done zero.

Right, and that takes me to my point. if we leave it at .5 and let the market decide, a developer's not gonna build, if you give a developer the right to build a building without parking, they won't. I mean, we won't. There's no chance.

No, they put parking. Yeah, of course.

But what I'm saying is, even if you have the right to do it without it, no natural developer would do that because they know it's not marketable. Hold on, give me one moment. So I guess what I'm trying to ask is, Parking's expensive, as I just referenced when they were discussing their structured parking. If we put an encumbrance of requiring a higher parking because we feel that that's what the market requires, why would we put that on developer? Why don't we let a developer determine what is marketable? In other words, I just don't know why raise it. If it's already at .25, why should we raise it?

Because if we don't raise it, okay, so the conversation was, well, we're near a metro rail station, therefore people aren't gonna have cars. So here you have a case study where you have student housing on a major rail station. That was allowed zero. And 60% of the residents have cars.

And that truly is adjacent.

Yeah, right. So if we require less parking, where are the cars then going to park? Now we create the issue of people finding spaces in the streets, places in the neighborhoods, and then we create that challenge of parking.

but I think a developer wouldn't bring that to market if it wasn't marketable.

There's failed developments all over the place. I will tell you my bottom line, if you want to save some time getting out of here, it's 50, it's one half per bed, and that's it. I'm not going lower. I think we're making our own mess. I mean, as a developer,

If he built it again, would he do the same amount of parking? He said yes.

He wouldn't build less. I agree. He wouldn't build less. Yeah, today, for sure. I agree. I agree that that's the reality of it. I just don't know why we... All the projects along the Metrorail that were allowed to be built without parking, all put parking in. Every single one. They have to. But that's what I'm saying. Why would we drive the market? Because the market could evolve and change.

We're driving a minimum standard. If the market changes, it will address the zoning category.

Well, I'm in support of this concept. I am not in support of increasing the parking, but I wouldn't want to hold this up for a recommendation. I do want to move it forward. I would say that we approve it, but I do have an issue in obligating or encumbering a developer to spend more money when, in fact, in the future, we may not need it.

Okay.

I make a motion with half a spot for every bed.

Okay. And that it be considered commercial? And the rest of the points discussed. That's correct.

Staff's recommendation plus Ms. Muniz's recommendation with a caveat that ground floor, that the ground floor accessory use be capped at 20% of the ground floor plate. it must front 56. And furthermore, I'm sorry? 57th. 57th, correct. And furthermore, that staff is going to work with the city planner to ensure that we don't run afoul of live local so that that incidental and subordinate accessory use complies with live local's caveat. That's it.

Do we have to be concerned with other properties that are in CSNA who won't be allowed to do that? because they're not on 57 north of US 1.

Well, we have a rational reason for doing that, and that's those are further from the university, and those are closer to a more residential neighborhood.

Well, I'm asking this question out of ignorance, so forgive me.

No, I don't think there's a concern.

Well, how come they got there just because I have a market to support student housing here?

No, we're taking a legislative action here, and we're setting policy, and we're drawing a line, and that line is U.S. 1. So north of US 1, it's allowed, and south it's not.

Okay. So there's a motion, .5 parking, all the other requirements with regards to the recommendations that are made by staff. Is there a second?

I second.

Motion has been made and a second. Jay? Yes. I vote yes. Daniel? Yes. Yes. Joseph? Danny? Yes, sir. Okay. Item passes. Last item on the agenda is we're going to vote for chair and a vice chair. So open the floor for nominations.

I'll nominate Jay for chair. I accept the nomination.

He accepts the nomination. Do we have any other nominations for chair? Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Okay. We need a nomination for vice chair.

I would nominate JR. Oh, wow.

Thank you, man.

If you have the time. He's here every week, so that would be good. So I'll second that one. Wow. Thanks, guys. Okay. Okay. We have a motion. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye.

Okay, motion passes. Congratulations, new chair and vice chair, you guys. I'm curious to see what I just got. Start next month.

What just happened?

As long as Jay shows up, you're okay. I have a pretty good record. So I have minutes here. I emailed the board members earlier today with a copy, and I do have hard copies here if you need them. I did post them to the website Thursday evening. Meeting minutes from the last meeting? September 9th, yeah, last meeting. Do you, I can hand, oh, I wasn't.

They're here. We all have them. So do I have a motion on the meeting minutes? I have a motion to approve. September 9th, motion to be made by Daniel. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Jay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Hear no oppositions. Motion passes. This is all the new business. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.