Planning Board - Regular Meeting

All right. All right. We're going to go ahead and call the meeting to order here on September 16th for the planning board. If everyone would please stand for the pledge of the flag. All right, so let's do a roll call here starting from my left here. We've got a couple new folks. Nice to have you. Thank you.

JR Corbison. Daniel Guerra. Joe Hernandez. Daniel Alvarez.

I think that's it, I don't believe. that Gus is online, so we're good there. All right, I'm Jay Miller. All right, Tony, do you wanna do any kind of swearing in here before we get rolling?

Sure, if you intend to speak on any item on this agenda, please, the one item on this agenda, please stand up, raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you.

All right, any administrative matters, Marcus?

None at this time. It's not on the agenda, but I believe next month we have to have chair and vice chair, because I think your tenure ends next month.

Correct.

So probably in November, or maybe at the next meeting, if you want, I can put that on the agenda for you. Okay.

Feel free. Okay. With that said, let's go ahead and Marcus, I'll turn it over to you. Item number one.

Sure. The only item on the agenda is PB-2026-018, the ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, amending Article 12, the Downtown District, Downtown Somi District, excuse me, regulations of the Land Development Code, the modified land development regulations applicable to the DS downtown Somi district, based on an application submitted by Midtown Development LLC, providing for corrections, severability, conflicts, and an effective date. Thank you. This item will be handled by Mr. Mark Alvarez.

And so we're going to do this a little bit different tonight. And we're going to let the applicant actually go ahead of the city's presentation. So Rick, it's all yours.

Really quick. Oh, excuse me, Madam Clerk. Can you make Rick a co-host so he can share his screen?

That's what the P in PDF stands for, right?

Much appreciated.

Let me just try to figure out how to get on here. And we can start. OK, perfect. The first question, my name is Richard Perez with offices at 5701 Sunset Drive, South Miami, Florida. I'm one of the principals at Midtown Development. And we're in charge of moving forward with the Sunset Place redevelopment. And certainly, I think the question that I think you probably all had when you saw this item come in front of you is, well, why? Why is it that they need these modifications and changes to the plan? And a lot of you are in the construction industry and the design industry and have been out there in working these types of projects. And the one thing that you know from your experience and we know from our experience is that projects of this level of ambition are not a straight line. It's not from one point to the next. It is always a process of refinement. There's always a process of trying to get it better. especially when our ambition isn't about an ordinary project. Our ambition is to do something incredibly special. And that process, I think, was Thomas Heatherwick, and we've heard this from Thomas several times in this quote from him. He said, what we do in the end is often what's left when we have eliminated all the other things we have considered doing. it's like panning for gold. And so in the last 18 months since we got the initial site plan approved, we have been panning for gold. We have been continuously refining, continuously looking at the design, making it better, making sure that it is worthy of South Miami. And so what were the design things that really sort of popped up through this process, through this outreach process to designers, to Thomas's team, our local architects, and users, right? So there were three things that really sort of crystallized that we had to change from the initial site plan that all informed the changes or a significant amount of the changes that you've seen. And so the three changes, and I'll summarize them really quick, is the U-shaped buildings and pushing back the mass of those buildings away from Sunset Place and creating better view corridors. Number two is the parking. condo product and the type of condo that we want here wants dedicated parking and figuring out dedicated parking for those condos. And also, and you see it there, 63 feet between the central building, which we call R3, and the hotel building, which is the one closest to 57th Avenue, those buildings were way too close. And it was really suffocating the center part of this project. And for us, the center part of this project is really what's going to determine the success of this project. Because what has always died in this place is what happens in the middle. And so opening that up and creating that as we went through this over and over again, we said, that's just not going to work. We need to figure out a different solution. And so a lot of what you're seeing here in the amendments, a significant number of those amendments, are really about creating some design flexibility to get us to address those three major issues. And so the first one, and you probably read it, and what's going on with this average setback. The whole idea there is, right now, we have the ability to have those buildings 30 feet, the pedestal of those buildings, to go up. And you can see it here in that prior picture, go up right at 30 feet. And so the idea here is to push that pedestal back an average of 70 feet, so more than twice that, and then move that mass from a long Sunset Drive and give us a little bit more height to make up for that mass and move it to Sunset Drive. And there was also, by pushing those buildings back, we also had a situation where we were straddling two different districts, one permitting 15 and one permitting 12 stories. And it really created inefficiency issues for us. And so the idea is push the buildings back, move the mass from Sunset Drive and up to an additional three stories in a small portion of the area. of that frontage along Sunset Drive. That also allows us to get away from the U-shape. The U-shape wasn't going to work. Those buildings, those units looking into each other was really problematic for a condo building and what we wanted to do. So now what we're talking about is a much thinner pedestal building that will be pushed back from Sunset Drive. And so really that average setback is to move away from that 30-foot line in terms of where the pedestal is and move it much further back with the concession being slightly more height. The interstitial space, and it's a word I've learned through this process, the interstitial space is really space between the floor and the top of a building that's open air. So one of the things that was clear to us is that we needed to have a special place on top of that parking garage. You cannot have a condo building and the types of development that we want here all looking down into a parking garage. And so what you will see as we proceed down this line, and this is the first step of it, is we're going to propose a park, almost a 2 and 1 half acre park on top of that garage. And this interstitial space is going to allow the building that front the garage to rise above the park and create light and air through that whole area, and creating a beautiful, entirely Connected park area on top of the garage. So in that interstitial space and you'll see it. This is actually not a new thing we already had that approved in the development agreement and we're just codifying it in the in the in the in the code itself just you know belts and suspenders, you know in terms of I'll show you that in a second the the rooftop elements in the habitable space This is the same sort of notion. We had a lot of the amenities at that lower deck area where we're thinking about the park. We want to move all those amenities up to the top of the building. Opening up that entire that entire deck area and so all this does is facilitate We were only allowed on top of on top on the on the top top floor on the on the rooftop We were only allowed open-air gazebos and the idea is to move this and allow some Some habitable space like gyms and those sorts of stuff to move up there so that we can free up that ground floor plane that parking garage plane to allow for those uses up there again really sort of focusing in on the things that we were panning for goal. Mezzanines, it's the same. It's something that Thomas and his team are really looking for. The concept of mezzanine was already in the code. It just wasn't clearly defined. So we're providing a definition, some limitations. Again, this is to provide some, as we put in here, some visual interest in articulation rather than a uniform stacked box. So just to provide some additional articulation with regards to the building. And then the parking garage height, the good thing, one of the things that we want to do here is bring underground parking. We said parking was a big deal. So clarify that we can have underground parking along that sunset zone. So permit us to have that dedicated parking for the condo building. But that does two great things for us. We have the ability to go to nine stories and build two additional stories of parking. We're giving that up. we'll say seven stories with the park on top and you know and in that again it facilitates it facilitates that move and then the other sort of key aspect of this is in order to address that issue of those two buildings being so close together what we want to do is cut 50 feet into that garage so there'll be a partial demolition of the garage move that building into into the garage now that massively opens up that central area to 172 feet that will be a park a Central Park and will be Sort of a wonderful roadway that could be used for pedestrians and for and for cars so now we're going from 63 feet 172 feet in the center of the in the center of the uniting that that Plaza that was at the end and straight through to Sunset Drive, visual connection through it. Just by frame of reference, Lincoln Road is 100 feet wide. This is going to be 70% bigger than Lincoln Road, the width of this. Very generous. It creates a real sort of center and heartbeat to the project, enlivening it. And again, allowing us to build over the garage habitable space is addressing that specific issue. And here are the amendments and interpretations that these are the interstitial space. What I hear I provided you in this is what's in the development agreement and what we're putting into the land development code. So it was already in the development agreement. So we're just sort of incorporating the concept. And the balcony projection encroachment was another add. Again, that was in the development agreement. We're just incorporating that into the development code. It's not really a new thing. It's just making sure that it is appropriately addressed in the code. So I mean, those are the major poets. There are a couple of new things. And one is sort of a very new concept, which is this vertiport. We can get into details, but I think that there's additional work that we need to do with staff in that regard. I think it's probably not ready for prime time. And we'll be working with staff as we move forward for us to make sure that we get that right and have the appropriate protections for the city. And then there's a request for permitting for... I have a whole presentation on this, but... Off-site commercial signage the code right now absolutely prohibits it we just want some flexibility to come back in the master standards plan and Potentially have a couple of places where we could put some commercial signs as an urban district We think it's an important part of the overall sort of feel of the district but again and you know Again, it's not to permit it. It's to allow us, to give us the opportunity to come in with a master signage package to address it appropriately. So that's the context, you know, obviously here for any questions you may have. And I know probably, I'm sure Mark has some additional commentary. But thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Thanks. Unless there's something glaring right now for everybody, let's let Mark cover. The city's recommendations in view.

Good evening. Mark Alvarez with the Corradino Group on behalf of City of South Miami planning staff. We have reviewed the request more strictly to the zoning aspect of it without reference to the site plan. But I appreciate Rick's presentation because it helps visualize these things. There are essentially six pieces of the zoning change. The first would be to modify the massing, and I think Rick is going that basically what we would be making a trade off, I actually need my diagram, here on the sunset, the part closest to the sunset drive. And that's called in the existing code right now the sunset sub area. And it's allowed to go to 12 stories with bonuses, but four stories as a right. And that section goes from sunset drive to 105 feet back. the modification, so basically it's four stories and 50 feet as of right, then it could go to eight with the first bonus and to 12 with the second bonus. The change there would be to actually divide that area into the first 30 feet and the reason for doing that is in the way that it's written right now is the bonuses require that that part, in other words to get the bonuses on the sunset layer, they have to keep the first 30 feet at 4 and 50. So this basically makes that part of the as I write package. As a staff review, we like it better because that was the most critical part that we wanted to make sure stayed in the right context for the historic context of Sunset Drive. So this would no longer be a requirement that to get the bonus, we sink this down. It's just there already. The other part of that, so some of that is made up in height. Instead of going to 12 stories with a bonus, that would go to 15 stories. One of the changes that happened is right now, as the code is written, that area that goes to above the two stories or four stories, that area has some requirements for variation in the front wall in that surface facing sunset. And the way that it was done in the code right now is that above the second floor, all stories must be 50% of the lot area of that zone. It allowed a lot of flexibility, but it forces it to either be all the way back or have some kind of variation or some kind of cuts. The way it's written right now, it could be simply of large mass all the way back. We don't like that. So what's being proposed now is helpful on that, because what it's actually doing is it's forcing some variation every 10 feet to measure this average. And then the average has to be 70 feet. So it's doing a better job of forcing some kind of variation. So one of the questions we could ask is, does it give them more entitlement? One of the things to keep in mind is that the way the code is written right now, we can't actually control the entitlement anyway, because FAR of 1.8 is there, and we have a density of 150. But the way our code is written, density does not equate to floor area. We don't count FAR for our residential. So it's actually, if that's a question, that's something that we can't answer at this point. It doesn't actually change their entitlements because their entitlements are not directly controlled until we would see site plans. So that's change one. The change two, well, I'll go in Rick's order. The next change was about changing some definitions, and most of these definitions were relating to the height and the floor areas for the interstitial zones, for the additional amenities on the rooftops, and the mezzanines as well. We recognized all of these as, again, very internal to the project. As far as some of the rooftop amenities, while we recognize the beneficial purpose that they're going to, we evaluated a zoning code as if those things could actually happen in a place where we don't want them. So even evaluating that way, most of these buildings, when we talk about changing from 20 feet to 25 feet for a rooftop amenity or Placing those amenities either these buildings are high enough that it doesn't really interact with the street or their interior to the project So again, we would on even on that sort of cold zoning level. It's not really an issue That we have with it For the structured parking, again, that's basically taking the parking garage from nine to seven stories and to permit underground parking up to the property line of Sunset Drive. And again, something that we actually always wanted to promote with the downtown because we don't want surface parking. We don't want large areas of parking. We want areas of habitable space. So again, I think this is something that we would support. because it removes visible parking as a use. Again, the active green garage, we have talked about this with the TSDD. We absolutely promote the use of the rooftop spaces for active habitable spaces and green spaces. So again, we support that change. Advertisements is an interesting area. I think we're comfortable with it because they have to provide a master signage plan. So right now, it's very premature to say one way or the other. What this does is it allows them to provide off-site advertisements or messaging in that master signage plan. And at this point, we would not have a problem with prohibiting that. And we can make that decision when we see it. And then the last one was the vertiport. The vertiport was, as Rick alluded to, that was a later addition on this code. We have more work to do to evaluate that. We have a few issues. We initially, in the staff report, suggested that it be a special use so that we have more control over it, as opposed to a permitted use. We're doing a little more investigation, and we realize probably needs a comprehensive plan amendment because it's not a permitted use. It's definitely not ancillary or a normal ancillary use. But also the state chapter 163 requires that if you have a public Aviation facility usually you would have airports sub element to the transportation element So we're gonna we're gonna look at that. There's some preemptive statutes that have come out of Tallahassee we're gonna have to spend some time to evaluate this and decide what the process is to Address the vertiport and then what the protections are that we'll need to look at for the vertiport So that one we're not supporting at this point the way it is That's it any questions

What about the number two on the conditions thing, on the mezzanine piece? What does that do from a practical standpoint?

Yeah, the conditions, one was about the vertiport. I'm sorry, I should have said that. The other was the mezzanines. It was really a condition that the mezzanines were, it's actually beneficial for their internals. There's a requirement, there's a relaxation to, or actually they put a number on the number of mezzanines that would be the maximum in any building. It was four. The way it's written, it was written really to the sunset zone, and it just made sense to, looking ahead, it made sense to allow the same in the taller buildings. So it's actually a benefit to the project. It just made sense to us to, if we're going to allow four mezzanines in the lower buildings, we can allow them in the higher buildings too.

So when we originally drafted drafted our code, we were looking at the idea that these are going to be shorter buildings than we're looking at today, I guess. why they thought four was sufficient. I mean, I'm trying to sort of understand.

No, it was just the way these amendments were written. The height of the buildings in the Sunset Zone has changed, but the way it was written, it was written specifically to the lower buildings on Sunset that we would allow four different mezzanines. Yeah. And it didn't make sense to, if we're going to provide that in the lower buildings, we could also provide it in the taller buildings.

Why don't we give up? I mean, I'm just curious. Tell me, why wouldn't somebody want to a permit for mezzanines? I mean, what would be the beef?

It doesn't have a great effect, especially as these buildings get taller and taller. What the mezzanines do, usually they're on the lower floors, and they provide a way to have a more exciting kind of space, particularly for retail. It is very common in zoning codes that there's That kind of relief to allow mezzanines is usually around 25%, 33% is the norm, sometimes as high as 50%. We like to see them when we get to the site plan level. We like to see them that they actually interact with the floor below them. We don't really want them as just a free floor. But as long as they interact and we'll look at that at the site plan level, we'll be happy to accommodate those. And again, we do have buildings already Avalon, too, has two mezzanines in it. One is for parking, and one is for rooftop with the duplex kind of condos. So it's not uncommon, and we just thought they'd probably ask for it later. So let's just do it.

OK. Thank you.

Thank you.

Rick, anything you want to add to his comments before we start?

Looking forward to it. I think we've exhausted the topic.

OK. All right. Mr. Chair, can I make one clarification? Yes. There's a typo in the chart. The chart labeled table 20-12.8. On the column that says secondary sunset zone, it says four stories slash 50 feet. That should really just be four stories.

OK. All right, with that said, first let's open up for any public comment. Anyone in the audience that wishes to speak? I don't see anybody here representing the public other than the applicant. So online, if you wish to ask a question, please raise your virtual hand so that Marcus can acknowledge you and get you sworn in. I don't see anyone, so that will be the end of public comment. All right, so questions from the members of the planning board or comments?

I have a question. On the interstitial, I looked them up also.

Interstitial space, yeah.

Is there a limit on the amount of interstitial floors that you can have since they don't count as a floor and you can have 25% uh, habitable, uh, and it's still not counted as a floor. Is there a limit on how many interstitial floors you can have?

I don't think the code provides for a limit. I mean, there are practical realities. It's very expensive to build these interstitial floors. The idea here is to do it on that parking garage level and on what we call the R1 building, which is the one furthest north. We also, if you remember the prior site plan, a lot of these buildings, the whole idea behind the design is that you have a village. feel down there with the retail and the buildings over them. And all of those are really interstitial floors. But to answer your question directly, there is no limit to the number, but there's practical limits in terms of the reality of construction and how expensive it is to build those types of spaces.

So we had a lot of discussion on a previous project relative to the amenities on a rooftop. In this case, it was on a third floor facing towards single family homes primarily. And the neighbors were not happy about it. downtown South Miami is a little bit different and so I would think that you guys will limit yourselves to some degree because you're people buying these units are not really gonna want to have paddle ball despite some people's fixation on it paddle ball going on underneath their nose Right, right. So is there anything that limits us, though, from what we're approving today to make sure people make the right decision on that, either by hours, limitations, or anything else?

In terms of the use of those spaces? Yeah. I haven't really seen that in other projects. These are going to be condo buildings.

Yeah.

They're going to protect themselves. I would think. Quite a bit. And it's not a worry that we have. And especially here. I mean, you're talking about especially impacted neighbors. I mean, it's not. We're very, very, very far away.

Yeah, I think that was a different situation being that those homes already existed. Totally. Totally.

But the request is not so much project specific. It's code, right? I mean, yeah. So could this bite us somewhere else when someone's doing a property?

This could only for the Sunset Place. Only for this? Yeah, it's only for the 10 acres. Okay. Yeah.

Got it. Okay. Other questions or comments? If not, do I have a motion? I think the motion needs to be subject to the two items in the package about removing the vertiports for discussion now and the mezzanine level piece.

Would you like guidance on the motion?

Sure, and also your four-story thing, something we need to capture on there.

Yes, yes.

Okay, so the motion would be to, I'm assuming to recommend approval based on the comments, okay? Subject to the following things. Further analysis of the vert report portion of the ordinance, which would include looking at comprehensive plan issues and the state preemptions, if applicable. I believe there was a comment about the number of interstitial spaces. Interstitial floors. Interstitial floors. Yeah.

If you don't mind, I guess my concern is if you have an interstitial floor that doesn't count as a floor, but you can have 25% of it habitable, and those interstitial spaces are enclosed spaces. So in theory, you can have a floor that has a unit that covers 25% of that floor, and it has a balcony that covers 75% of it, and it would not count as a floor.

So we'll look at it as we proceed.

Yeah.

Thank you for the comment.

So we can make that part of the motion or we don't have to. And then the correction of the typo within the secondary sunset zone. Was there anything else that I've missed there?

I don't believe so.

OK.

So we just need someone to make the motion. I'll make the motion. All right. Subject to as discussed.

I'll make the motion subject to as discussed.

A second? I second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Starting on my left.

A limit. All right. A limit on the number.

Yes. Yeah, a limit on the number of interstitial spaces.

They're not specifying what that limit is. They're recommending that a limit be placed on it. That's what I understand.

Just leave it as a limit because the nature of an interstitial floor is it's actually not a floor. So we can't count the floors. It would be a height limit.

I THINK THE CONCERN THAT MR. CHIKA IS EXPRESSING IS THAT IF THERE IS NO LIMIT, YOU COULD CONSIDERABLY HAVE, YOU KNOW, INTO ETERNITY. I'M SORRY. YOU'RE RIGHT. THANK YOU. INTERSTITIAL SPACES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. ALVAREZ.

All right, we have yes, yes.

Yes, yes, yes. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it.

I do have a question for you guys before you get off stage. Still, you mentioned condos, and it seems like a lot of buildings get discussed as condos and turn out to become apartments. But is your view you still expect this to be primarily condominiums? It's not something holding you to it. Primarily condominiums.

Yeah, our our view is that our one in our two which is first phase the one long sets of drive That's absolutely appropriate for condos and and then There they'll be multifamily in in the project probably the the earth or three which is that central building? And that that that's the core of what we're what our sort of phase one and phase one be there are so it'll be a combination likely a combination of of condos along Sunset Drive in multifamily in the interior.

And I probably should ask this before we voted, but it's not going to change, I don't think. The commercial signage we're talking about, is this relative to the Sunset Place development? Or are you talking about tenants there that are advertising? to have better burgers or could it be, you know, what are we talking about? The remote signage.

Yeah, the commercial signage would be the sort of third party, not retailers there. Okay. And the potential for that. Okay. Yeah. Right, the big. What we call the class C signs.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Got it.

But those would be subject to master signage plan approval by the commission after going to this board.

Yeah. A lot of work to do on that regard as well. Thank you so much. Thank you. Have a great night.

All right. All right. Next item up is approval of the minutes. I'll move it. We have a motion to move and a second.

I hand read them.

I'll second.

All those, any questions? If not, all those in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Opposed? All right. And let's see here. Public comments, new business. Can we have any of that? I'll just remind you what Marcus said about we need to do elections for the chair and the vice chair in October and November. with the missing interested parties. So next meeting is on October. SPEAKER 2, Chair, real quick. SPEAKER 3, Yes.

SPEAKER 2, Would you want that vote to be had in October, or would you have it in November? Or would you like to finish your last month, or would you like to?

I mean, we can have it at the- SPEAKER 3, Can I look at the agenda?

SPEAKER 2, I guess I could put it at the end of the agenda.

Yeah, let's do it at the end of the October agenda. Okay, okay. That'd be fine. All right. If there's other questions or comments, we are adjourned. Thank you.