Miami Shores Village Community Residential Code

Miami Shores Village Community Residential Code Public Input Summary

10-16-2024 2024,09 Miami Shores Community Residential Code Public Input Review, V3

+/- 30-minute read

Table of Contents Executive Summary…………………………………………………2 The Principles of the Future Code…………………………….…..3 Introduction……………………………………………………….…. 4 The CR District………………………………………………….…….5 Discussion of Flexibility………………….…………………….…..5 The Process…………………………………………………………..6 Stakeholders Meetings……………………………………….……..7 The Workshop………………………………………………………..8 Types of Townhome Development………………………..………9 Input …………..………………………………………………...……10 Responses By Category…………………………………………..13 Plot Standards………………………………………………...14 Density Standards……………………………………………15 Building Configuration………………………………………17 Building Expression………………………………………….20 Public Realm…………………………………………………..22 Other Code Comments………..…………………………………..24 Conclusion…………………………..……………………………... 25

1

2024 Miami Shores Community Residential Code Public Input Review

Executive Summary At the regular Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 19, 2024, the Planning and Zoning Board gave staff clear direction to summarize the public engagement to date and produce a set of principles by which the Community Residential zoning code would be written. These will be presented in an upcoming Planning and Zoning Board Meeting.

Once approved, Village staff will work with the applicant to produce a conceptual site plan and renderings. If these met the principles, they would be presented to the board for review or modification. If subsequently approved, the concepts will have zoning put to them, and a code will be written to reflect the same. If a collaborative conceptual plan does not meet the parameters, staff will produce a set of drawings alone that, when approved, will be zoned. As time is of the essence, staff believes that this report, the drawings, and specific zoning code provisions may be addressed in a special Planning and Zoning workshop to be scheduled in early November.

Public Engagement Process This report digests all the public engagement on this effort, particularly the input before, during, and after the September 12, 2024 public workshop. This input was critical in defining how the effort would move forward. The focus is on understanding the wants and needs of the citizens of Miami Shores. By now, we have all figured out that the zoning process is complicated. It is both an art and a science. There are objective standards and subjective preferences. The art is deciphering what the community wants.

The science is putting what the community needs in place to achieve the desired character and quality of life. These needs are accomplished with specific numbers in over two dozen individual yet interacting categories. Zoning is neither right nor wrong, as it is purely a local preference.

This public engagement exercise is iterative, where the general desires of a community are more specifically understood and refined over time until the desired result is achieved. It is through this process, that impacts to each zoning category and how they interact with each other is understood with one another. The ultimate result of this phase of the effort is to produce the general principles by which the citizens of Miami Shores want the zoning code built. Using these, a conceptual plan will be drawn and supported with architectural renderings. Once there is consensus that what has been drawn is desirable, zoning numbers will be put to it.

2

Public Input and Feedback Input was taken in multiple forms. Initially, several stakeholders’ meetings were held with elected officials, planning and zoning board members, citizens, and the property owner. From here, a draft code was created. This Code was placed on the Village’s website in early August 2024, to allow approximately six weeks of public review before a discussion at the Community workshop. Accompanying the code posted on the website was a form to collect public comments on the proposed draft. A Planning and Zoning Board workshop was held on September 9, 2024.

On September 12, 2024, a public workshop was held, and eighty-six people attended.

Seventy-two attendees (83%) identified themselves as residents of Miami Shores. A presentation was given, and verbal feedback was received from attendees. The workshop lasted about 2 hours, and the project team was available both before and after to respond to questions. Input was taken verbally from questions and comments at the meeting and through written surveys, comment cards, and email comments.

Anyone who wanted to discuss the draft code was welcome, and specific comments from citizens and the property owners were noted. Input from all phases of this effort has gone into creating the following principles.

The Principles of The Future Code.

In line with the instructions, the following principles were abundantly clear from the stakeholders’ meetings, workshops, questions, comments, and surveys. These can be listed in 3 broad categories: 1) Process, 2) Character, and 3) Infrastructure.

The goal would be to create a conceptual plan that meets these principles. When approved, the specifics of the zoning code will be designed to match.

1) Process  Fully transparent process, happening as quickly as possible, with significant public input  Public input should be from direct stakeholders or citizens of Miami Shores.

It should be verifiable and auditable  Adhere to the comprehensive plan 2) Character  Preserve the character of Miami Shores  Ample green spaces  Ensuring compatibility with the existing Miami Shores community in: o Scale 3

o Aesthetic o Cost  Diversity in unit sizes  Interconnected street grid, integrating with the existing roadway network  Should maintain consistency with the surrounding community, particularly in parking, setbacks, front yards, and landscaping.  Larger setbacks to provide larger front yards  Minimize building mass  Properly buffer single-family single-story homes. o It is acceptable to provide incentives for developments that align with community goals 3) Infrastructure  Roads, parks, and infrastructure should be public and shared by all  Road rights of way should be consistent with others in Miami Shores  Concurrency requirements should meet comprehensive plan standards  Minimize traffic, light, and noise

Introduction The character of Miami Shores makes it one of the most unique and desirable communities in Miami-Dade County. Maintaining this position in a rapidly changing environment does not come without effort. Incorporated in 1932, Miami Shores is a planned community developed initially by the Shoreland Company, boasting unique architecture, beautiful tree-lined streets, and a central location. Over the past several years, much energy has been invested in perpetuating the Village’s character by updating its Comprehensive Plan and revising its Zoning Code. Today, the Residential Districts of the code are being revised. The Community Residential District (CR District) is being created specifically to redevelop land that is part of Barry University. This document summarizes the public engagement efforts in the Community Residential District code creation.

4

The CR District The Community Residential (CR) district is 28 acres and can be developed in increments of at least 5 acres. Currently, there is one potential applicant for this district: Barry University, in Partnership with Lennar. Their application is for all 28 acres.

The CR land use designation is intended to accommodate a coordinated, integrated, and balanced range of residential uses. Single-family detached dwelling units are allowed at a density of up to six (6) dwelling units per gross acre. Attached are townhouse and multifamily dwelling units at a density of up to thirteen (13) dwelling units per gross acre. Residential uses are allowed at a floor area ratio not greater than 1.0. The zoning code already has provisions for single-family and multifamily housing but not for townhomes. Therefore, townhomes are the focus of this exercise.

A townhouse is an attached one-family dwelling unit that is part of a group of 3 or more such units, provided, however, that up to 10% of the total number of dwelling units on any site plan may be developed in 2 dwelling unit groupings. Townhomes are typically the next level of density up from a single-family home. They are a traditional buffer between single-family neighborhoods and often more dense residential forms or more active commercial areas. They represent a sizeable missing component in the housing stock of Miami-Dade County. They are usually integral components of well-rounded, desirable communities, offering a subtle alternative for those who need it, mainly the younger and the older, as a place to either start in a desirable community or as a way to downsize and stay in their neighborhood. This is particularly important due to the rapidly accelerating affordable housing crisis, displacing existing homeowners of all economic strata.

Discussion of Flexibility An essential conversation in the workshops focused on defining the process by which this code will be written. The discussion centered around closer coordination between the village and the applicant. The Corradino Group recommends that in a situation where one applicant is seeking to develop almost the entirety of a zoning district, creating the zoning for that district would best be done collaboratively.

5

At the regular Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 19, 2024, the Planning and Zoning Board gave staff clear direction to summarize the public engagement to date and produce a set of principles by which the Community Residential zoning code would be written. These will be presented in an upcoming Planning and Zoning Board workshop. Village Staff will work with the potential applicant to produce a conceptual site plan and renderings for this meeting as well to save time. The applicant will be able to discuss the zoning of these concepts. The board can consider all of this, and when satisfied, a code would be written with all of this as a basis. If a collaborative conceptual plan does not meet the parameters, staff will produce a set of drawings that would be zoned.

The Process Zoning is personal to each community.

Along with the comprehensive plan, it is one of the most significant drivers of community character and quality of life. There are no right or wrong approaches to writing a zoning code.

These codes are to represent the community's vision.

The Village has spent some tumultuous years sorting out its vision for the future and getting to this point by crafting its Comprehensive Plan, which created the CR District. A zoning code implements a comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan tells us what can go where and in what quantity. The Miami Shores Comprehensive Plan encourages townhouses, at 13 units per acre, on these specific parcels. The zoning code implements that standard by determining how development will be built. It specifies lot size, unit size, lot coverage, setbacks, height, parking, landscaping, etc.

The entire Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Future Land Use Element, is relied on heavily for guidance in writing the zoning code. Most importantly: Objective 2: Protection of single-family residential areas 6

Objective 3: Redevelopment and renewal Objective 4: Elimination or reduction of uses that are inconsistent with community character Objective 10: Innovative development regulations These have numerous policies that speak to being able to create housing options while maintaining overall community character, with buildings with similar massing, height, and setbacks, while encouraging well-landscaped, walkable neighborhoods.

Stakeholders Meetings Beginning in May of 2024, staff met with members of the Village Council, the Planning and Zoning Board, citizens, and the property owner to discuss concerns and initial comments on the CR code. From these meetings, a first set of issues was arrived at to work from. The first draft of the code was produced in June. It was reviewed internally during July and posted on the Villages website in August for an ample public review period. As a result of the stakeholders' meetings, it was clear that the leadership wished to preserve the character of Miami Shores through a fully transparent process that happened quickly and with significant public input. In doing so, it needed to stay within the density granted in the newly minted comprehensive plan. To ensure compatibility with the existing Miami Shores community, the relative cost of a townhome unit needed to be similar to a single-family home in the Village. The development required an interconnected street grid. The roads, parks, and infrastructure should be public and shared by all and be publicly accessible. The road right of ways themselves should reflect the characteristics of Miami Shores and should be consistent with others in Miami Shores. There would be ample greenspaces and recreational opportunities open to all people in the Village. The community's aesthetic should be maintained, with ample front yards, moderate building mass, and suitably buffered single-family homes, with attention paid particularly to parking, setbacks, front yards, and landscaping. People were concerned that concurrency requirements should meet comprehensive plan standards. Providing incentives for developments that align with community goals would be acceptable in achieving these goals.

The Workshop While an essential foundation to an initial code draft, a limited number of stakeholder meetings were not enough to gauge public sentiment. After more than six weeks of

7

public review on the code, 86 people attended the September 19th Public Workshop, 72 of whom (84%) identified themselves as residents of Miami Shores.

The presentation was highly interactive, mixing an explanation of zoning issues with questions about community character to elicit general and specific feedback and facilitate a discussion on options and alternatives. The potential zoning code was broken into five primary sections and multiple sub-sections that needed input. Aside from the general discussion, during which notes on community preferences were taken, everyone was handed a survey to fill out and express their desires.

CR Code Sections and Subsections

Types of Townhome Development Each category was reviewed considering other similar townhome zoning code standards in similar nearby communities. There are differing types of townhome codes.

Some townhomes are created as part of large master planned communities, those formed in smaller pocket neighborhoods, and those more in line with traditional 8

development, integrated organically into existing communities. Examples of each were evaluated and presented.

Abacoa, in Palm Beach County, has more than 6,000 residents and 3 million square feet of commercial space on a site of more than 3,000 acres. This is representative of a master-planned community. Being almost regional in scale and mixed-use, it's too dissimilar to Miami Shores to be an example in process or zoning to follow. It appears that this is different from what the citizens desire.

Meanwhile, the Villa Verde townhome development in Homestead is a contemporary development with about 67 townhomes on just over 6 acres. The scope and scale of this development are very similar to what is being done in Miami Shores, as both are on multiple acres of redeveloping land in an existing built environment by a single applicant. In this example, the applicant and the city staff worked closely together to craft a specific zoning code concurrent with a site plan. The Corradino Group recommends that following this process would be valuable.

While the process that created the Villa Verde development is a good example, the development does not mesh with the surrounding street grid. It seems as if Miami Shores would like to integrate into the existing street grid, so examples of this were explored in Coral Gables, Miami Beach, Pinecrest, Miami Springs, and Palmetto Bay. These types of development or redevelopment tend to happen more organically on a townhome-by-townhome basis and conform precisely to the existing street grid. It 9

appears that the look of these is what is most desired by the citizens of Miami Shores, as they are typically closely related to the surrounding neighborhoods in terms of scale and character. The zoning of these communities should be emulated.

It is recommended that a more collaborative Villa Verde process be followed while striving to create zoning language for a more traditional, integrated townhome style of development found in relatively similar higher-end local communities.

Input The presentation was interactive, moving through a series of slides on the five zoning topics and exploring 33 questions. People were encouraged to ask questions, and notes were taken on the verbal comments and questions asked. They were also asked to respond to questions verbally or by filling out a paper survey and comment card. Email comments were also taken both before and after the meeting. As seen below, the comments from the workshop, the survey, the comment cards, and the received emails are similar. Each points to maintaining character and integrating the proposed development into the community with an open street network. The feedback focused on creating zoning that would support large lots, public recreation amenities, and plentiful on-site open space. People want modestly tall buildings that are buffered and/or transition to and from the surrounding and existing development. There is generally consensus in the community on many of the topics. The following is a summary of the input, broken down into each category.

Eighty-six people attended the workshop, 72 of which (83%) identified themselves as residents of Miami Shores. A presentation was given, and verbal feedback was requested. The workshop lasted about 2 hours, and the project team was available both before and after to respond to questions. Notes on these questions and comments were taken. Generally, these centered around maintaining the community character, which is suburban in nature, with large lots and diverse and often historic architecture. Maintaining the street pattern was also important. While many 10

suggested that the roadway infrastructure be public, it was commented that this should be analyzed to understand the fiscal impacts on the community. The more significant point was that at all levels, the new development was desired to fit in with the existing Miami Shores. It needs to fit in physically by matching the street pattern architecturally, with a suburban feel, diverse architecture, larger yards, and lush landscaping. It also needs to fit in economically, with units priced similarly to the others in the community. Finally, it needs to fit emotionally, with the residents feeling like they are part of the larger Miami Shores community and not simply residents in a gated enclave, paying a different tax rate and receiving different services. When the size of the units was discussed, the tendency was for larger units. Public amenities were desired to be provided and open to the whole community. A discussion on how these would be funded and maintained was held. Providing these amenities is essential, but the funding and maintenance question is better left to the development order, which would accompany a site plan approval, instead of being detailed in a zoning ordinance.

The community's character was stated, with the general sentiment that Miami Shores is unique in the county. People typically prefer larger yards, larger units, and plenty of open space. The presentation may have needed more detail to elicit a viable response to every question. It was clear that people would like to see graphic representations of this zoning code before truly determining how each piece fit together. Without graphics, it’s hard to understand the interaction between height, floor area ratio, setbacks, etc. General questions were asked, such as where the trash would be picked up from. Will there be alleys? People wanted various amenities, like playgrounds for kids and parks with exercise equipment. Other concerns were meeting concurrency and minimizing traffic. While amenities and traffic are important, they are not zoning issues and will be addressed during site planning. This is another benefit of a cooperative approach.

Similarly, it’s at the time of the site plan, and while the development order is being crafted, that the Homeowners Association will have regulations drafted, should one be required. There were comments related to the need for workforce housing, not raising taxes, a concern about exclusionary zoning, and the need for the people who move into this development to be physically and emotionally part of Miami Shores. Careful consideration needs to be given to these issues. Housing in Miami Shores and across the county is becoming less affordable. The need for townhomes is focused on providing an under-provided housing type. Larger lot sizes and larger unit sizes will drive up the cost of those units. A balance must be sought. While it appears that the community wants the infrastructure to be public, that also means that the operations 11

and maintenance will be spread evenly to all Miami Shores taxpayers. If this is a serious desire, the cost should be analyzed.

Surveys Of the 86 people who attended the workshop, 35 returned surveys, representing 40% of those attending. These are included in an appendix of this document. Each survey has been numbered. An Excel spreadsheet has been created to analyze the results. This includes the survey number, the name of the respondent, the question, and the answer.

In summary, on average, 37% of the respondents answered questions. The most answered questions were about front setbacks (69%) and unit size (63%). More than half the respondents responded to nine of the 33 questions (27%). People were most interested in the topics of lot area, open space, private open space, unit size, setbacks, and parking. The specific numbers are less important than the general themes in the process.

Generally, people want larger lot sizes than were suggested in the initial draft of the code, at 1,400 sf or a minimum width of 75’. They prefer more open space (39%) than the 10% suggested in the original draft. A minimum unit size of 1,200 sf was suggested in the original draft, and the survey results show people preferred larger unit sizes than that at nearly 1,400 sf, which would be larger than all of the similar local townhome zoning examples researched. The result on height and number of stories came back that nearly everyone that responded preferred buildings under 40’, but about half preferred two stories and half preferred three stories. People prefer larger setbacks than the 5’ initially suggested. They would like about 16’ on the front setback and 18’ on the side setback. And about 10’ in the rear setback. This indicates a preference for larger front yards and more open space, like the existing single-family character.

People generally desired more parking than the suggested two spaces per unit (2.7 / unit).

Comment Cards On the reverse side of the survey was a comment card. These comments were examined. There were hundreds of individual comments that could be categorized into about 18 general comments that were made on paper or were similar to what was heard at the workshop. An Excel spreadsheet was created from these, tallying the number of times they were asked. This sheet is also available in the appendices of this 12

document. What is consistent with the input from the survey cards, where generally questions were answered about 37% of the time, the most prolific comment was “ I don’t understand enough to answer all questions / I need more education on the subject.” In total, 26 of 35 respondents, or 74%, made this comment or something like it. This leads us to the need to graphically represent future development and work backward from this visual preference into a zoning code and not the traditional way of doing zoning first. Other comments centered around the desire for public amenities, preserving the character of Miami Shores, lush landscaping, large front yards, larger units, issues of parking, mixing of unit types, and the desire for a diverse architecture.

Email Comments, by Way of the Website Six email comments were made. These focused on maintaining the community's character and needing public amenities. Two of the six liked the Lennar proposal, and two would like to see buildings built to 40’. See attached appendices for details.

Survey Responses By Category The workshop discussed five zoning categories and asked for feedback on 33 questions.

Below is an analysis of comments for each category.

13

When compared with other cities where the townhome development has organically grown in the existing fabric of the community; the suggested Miami Shores CR Plot Size is much larger because we are working with a 28-acre tract and a potential applicant who wishes to develop the entire area. This process compares to the Homestead example in that it’s a multi-acre site with a new zoning designation being developed by one current owner. The common open space suggested in the first draft was lower than in similar communities. As was the parcel area and the parcel open space.

The responses to the questions in this area were numerous. Lot area, open space percentage, and private open space were all answered by over 50% of the respondents.

There is consensus that people would generally like a larger lot area of about 1,400 sf or 75’ in width. Similarly, they would like close to 20% private open space. Both responses are higher than the initial proposed language. Plot common open space at about 40% is higher than nearly all other communities examined. An issue for consideration here is that larger lots and more open space will drive unit prices higher while also reducing the number of units that can be developed.

14

While density is not debatable, as set in the comprehensive plan, floor area ratio and dwelling size are to be determined. On average, the other communities’ studied densities are about 16 units per acre. Miami Beach and Coral Gables have 30 dwelling units per acre and 20 dwelling units per acre, respectively. Pinecrest has about 16 dwelling units per acre. Miami Shores, at 13 dwelling units per acre, is lower than average, making it less dense than the communities mentioned above. When compared with other communities, to evaluate development projects, about half use a floor area ratio. At 0.65, the proposed code is lower than Miami Beach and higher than Pinecrest. Input on this could show it could reasonably range from 0.65 to 1.0 as the Comprehensive Plan allows. It needs to be considered if FAR should be measured on each parcel as opposed to by the plot.

Sixty-three percent of the respondents had an opinion on unit size. The preferred size was about 1,400 sf. This is higher than the 1,200 sf recommended and would be higher than any compared community. The lowest square footage 15

allowed in cities compared was 500 sf in Coral Gables. The highest minimum average was 1,100 sf in Miami Beach and Miami Springs. It is suggested that the development have a range of unit sizes.

Building configuration deals with heights, building grouping, and frontage. Compared with other codes, the height suggested in the initial draft of 35’ and three stories is about average. It’s acceptable in similar places to allow heights between 35 and 40 feet. Thirty-seven percent of respondents answered the height question, and a preferred height of 36’ was arrived at. Forty-three percent answered the number of stories desired question. The average number of preferred stories was 2.5; about half the respondents suggested three stories, and the other half suggested two stories.

Most other codes measure the max building length when looking at something like building grouping. Generally, Pinecrest and Palmetto Bay allow for 240 ft of building lengths. Others are 100 to 150 feet. Consideration should be given to building width.

It appears that eight units grouped are generally accepted, but more than that drew negative comments. It's hard to answer this question without knowing the building's width. Only 23% of the people answered the street frontage question, and one of the least responded to questions. This means the topic could have been further explained, so people could better form an opinion. Of the eight responses, the average frontage desired was about 11 feet. One respondent responded with a frontage suggestion of 120’, which skews the final number.

16

When discussing setbacks, the proposed setbacks of 5’ are significantly lower than those of compared communities. Other communities have much larger setbacks, the lowest of which is Coral Gables at 10’. On average, the other compared communities have a 17’ setback. The front setback question was answered most at 69%, showing that large front yards and open spaces are arguably one of the most essential things when maintaining the character of the community. On average, the respondents would prefer a 16’ setback. A 5-foot setback would need a significant landscape or streetscape between the front of the house and the roadway to soften the look and provide a more suburban, less urban feel.

Similarly, the initial draft rear setbacks of 0 are much lower than the 10-to-25-foot rear setbacks in other places. Comments generally focused on larger rear setbacks, with 54% of the respondents wanting rear setbacks of about 10’.

The 0’ proposed side setbacks are usually smaller than those in other communities. The community suggests larger side setbacks, with 54% of the respondents suggesting an average of about 18’. This aligns with the desire for large yards and a more suburban feel. Larger setbacks or distance between the house and the street are desired to keep with the character of the Village.

17

18

Building expression has been introduced as a way to soften the look of the building by providing building articulation via step-backs. The community has made it perfectly 19

clear that monolithic boxes, or “sugar cubes,” are not desired. These regulations don’t exist in many other communities; if they do, they come into play when assessing bonuses. There are multiple ways to achieve the goal of softening the buildings. There was no clear preference in this category, except for the need to soften the look of the building and prevent monolithic structures. It was strongly expressed that active roof decks be curtailed to minimize noise pollution and the disruption of the quiet characteristics of the neighborhood. The Building Expression category of questions was among the survey's least responded to. Yet two things become clear. The community does not like monolithic structures. Thirty-four percent of respondents would like a second story step at an average of 15’. Also, 80% of respondents do not want active rooftops.

20

The public realm, including streetscape, landscape, parking, loading, and lighting, is critical to seamlessly integrating any development into an existing community.

The community strongly discourages private streets. Street specifications must be better defined and match those currently in Miami Shores. Similarly, the street network needs to be integrated with Miami Shores. Cul-de-sac developments are not preferred.

21

Landscape spacing can be variable depending on the shade trees to be planted. 20-30 foot spacing is generally acceptable. The Miami-Dade County Landscape regulations should be referred to and adhered to. Landscaping proposed in the code is typically the same as in other communities. The community leans towards more landscaping and larger trees. Shade trees are preferred, so limiting the percentage of palm trees is acceptable.

The community leans to more parking spaces than 2 per unit. There was a preference for two parking spaces inside an enclosed garage. What has been proposed in the draft is about normal. One visitor space for every 5-10 units was further suggested. Loading is typically done by several units. The Draft code suggests one loading space for every 22

25,000 gross floor area. Regarding parking, it is recommended to defer to regional standards, like the traffic trip generation methodologies. When addressing lighting, care needs to be taken to avoid light pollution.

Other Code Comments Anyone in the community is invited to discuss the first draft of the code or provide specific edits or comments if desired. Barry University, the property owner, reviewed the code and had questions and suggestions. Other general comments were taken.

Representatives from Barry University and Lennar provided about 26 comments on the draft code. Many of these were practical, suggesting clarification of terms, adding definitions, and similar things to make the final code more easily understood and consistently interpreted. The needed definitions were for floor area, floor area ratio, frontage, fronting, and the front yard and front yard gardens. Ancillary uses need to be cleaned up as they may contain contradictory language. There was a question about whether FAR would be calculated on the overall site or the individual parcels. There were questions about whether the minimum street width of 11’ was in conjunction with setbacks and planting strips. They would also like clarification on whether the Village will entertain the development of the charter school parcel. They would like more flexibility in the landscaping requirements. Loading is suggested to be at one space per 25 units. They believe there are other or better ways to create building articulation and prefer to delete the stepback language. They would like a height limit of 40’. They suggested an alternative review process. Such constructive comments would further the efficient and effective use of the code to attain a higher-quality product. There are disagreements on zoning between the applicant and the public comments, but these do not appear insurmountable. Many of these issues will likely be resolved as a conceptual plan is created and reviewed by the community.

There have been comments on things that may need to be added to the CR Code. For consideration, these are:      

Ban on short-term rentals Regulations that prevent the creation of a cul-de-sac street layout Should we have a minimum parcel width Should we have plot volume controls Need to define Development Boundary Need regulations about the clubhouse and pool. Specifically architectural and landscape features to mitigate noise  Need a mechanism to require the dedication of land adjacent to Doctors Charter School for the use of an athletic field 23

Conclusion This phase of the project began in May 2024, after the process stalled the past winter. It was impressed upon the consultant team that time is of the essence as is a full and transparent public engagement process. The desired result was a high-quality code that fit the character of Miami Shores. Doing all of this is a balancing act. Fast and good are often equally opposing forces. The first step was to hold stakeholder meetings with local decision-makers. Subsequently, a draft code was produced and placed for public review for about six weeks before a Planning and Zoning Board and public workshops were held. These were the primary pieces of public engagement. Comments and questions were solicited verbally based on a presentation of zoning concepts, surveys, and comment cards were taken, and email comments and individual conversations with other stakeholders were also taken.

The Planning and Zoning Board has given clear instructions for how this process will unfold from this point forward, which was to summarize the public engagement to date and produce a set of principles by which the zoning code would be written. These will be presented at an upcoming Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. Once approved, Village Staff will work with the potential applicant to produce a conceptual site plan and renderings. If these met the principles, they would be presented to the board and edited. The approved concepts would have zoning put to them. If a conceptual plan did not meet the principles, staff would produce a conceptual set of drawings that would subsequently be zoned.

This is an iterative process but has advanced significantly in recent weeks. Much consensus has already been built, and differences in opinion are not insurmountable.

Important and complex details will need to be worked out as the process concludes, but nothing facing this project is unusual or unexpected at this point.

The principles by which the conceptual plan and zoning code should progress, as gleaned from significant public engagement, are as follows: • • • •

Preserve the character of Miami Shores Fully transparent process, happening as quickly as possible, with significant public input Public input should be from direct stakeholders or citizens of Miami Shores.

It should be verifiable and auditable Adhere to the comprehensive plan 24

• •

• • • • • • • • • • •

Ample green spaces Ensuring compatibility with the existing Miami Shores community in: • Scale • Aesthetic • Cost Diversity in unit sizes Interconnected street grid, integrating with the existing roadway network Roads, parks, and infrastructure should be public and shared by all Road rights of way should be consistent with others in Miami Shores Should maintain consistency with the surrounding community, particularly in parking, setbacks, front yards, and landscaping.

Concurrency requirements should meet comprehensive plan standards It is acceptable to provide incentives for developments that align with community goals.

Larger setbacks to provide larger front yards Minimize building mass Properly buffer single-family single-story homes.

Minimize traffic, light, and noise

25

Overall Average PLOT STANDARDS

DENSITY STANDARDS

BUILDING CONFIGURATION

Setbacks

Groups

Site Area

5 acres

6.6 acres⇧

Lot Area

1,000 sq. ft.

1,665.4 sq. ft. ⇧

Lot Width

none

79.2 ft. (new)

Common Open Space

20%

39 % ⇧

Private Open Space

10%

22.3% ⇧

Floor to Area Ratio

up to 0.65

0.7 ≅

Dwelling Unit Size

1,200 sq. ft.

1,426.3 sq. ft. ⇧

Site Density

13 units per acre

Per Comprehensive Plan

Building Height

35 ft., 3 Stories

33.6 ft., 2.6 Stories ⇩

Front

5 ft.

15.1 ft. ⇧

Between Buildings

10 ft.

19.5 ft. ⇧

Rear

0 ft.

9.3 ft. ⇧

Residential Zoning

10 ft.

15.5 ft. ⇧

Units per Group

3 - 8 units

2.9 to 6 units ⇩

Unit Max. in Courtyard

13 units

9.3 units⇩

10%

10% ≅

Min. 5 ft.

10.3 ft. ⇧

Street Frontage Trees

1 Tree or 3 Palms

2.2 T ⇧or 2.2 P ⇩

2nd Story Step Back

15% lot width

15.5% lot width ≅

3rd Story Step Back

12% lot width

10.6% lot width ⇩

Distance

25 ft.

25 ft. ≅

1st story

25 ft.

25 ft. ≅

2nd & 3rd story

80% width

57.5% width ⇩

Corner Conditions

Wrap Around

Pairs Street Frontage

BUILDING EXPRESSION Vertical Articulation

Yes or No

23% Yes, 77% No ⇩

Landscape Width

5 ft.

7.4 ft. ⇧

Sidewalk Width

6 ft.

5.6 ft.⇧

Tree Spacing

20 ft.

20 ft. ≅

Tree Shade

min. 85%

85% ≅

Light Posts

max. 15 ft.

15 ft. ≅

2 spaces/unit

2.6 spaces/unit ⇧

1 space/10 units

2 space(s)/10 units ⇧

1 space/25,000 sq. ft.

1 space(s)/25,000 sq. ft. ≅

Roof Decks PUBLIC REALM

Streetscape

Parking Visitor Parking Loading

From: To: Subject: Date:

Kathleen Gunn Mario Duron; Joseph M Corradino; Eddy Nunez Fwd: Proposed Draft Community Residential Zoning District Regulations - New Form Submission for Miami Shores Florida Friday, September 13, 2024 8:36:17 AM

Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: no-reply@services.evo.cloud Date: September 12, 2024 at 8:18:09 PM EDT To: Kathleen Gunn <GunnK@msvfl.gov> Subject: Proposed Draft Community Residential Zoning District Regulations - New Form Submission for Miami Shores Florida Reply-To: no-reply@services.evo.cloud 

A new submission has been received for Proposed Draft Community Residential Zoning District Regulations at 09/12/2024 8:17 PM I believe we all agree that any townhomes developed in the Shores should be commensurate with the high quality expected of all new homes built in our community. This would also have the added benefit of maximizing our tax base. Consistent with the draft proposed code for our new Community Residential District, today's market generally calls for three story townhomes being allowed in order to have the square footage expected of relatively upscale townhomes. However, I am concerned whether a strict 35 foot height limit may backfire and work against achieving this goal. In today's market place, a townhome commensurate to the Shores quality and expectations ADD YOUR probably needs to have MINIMUM ceiling heights of 10 feet on COMMENTS the 1st floor and 9 feet on the other floors. The ground floor also HERE: has to be a certain height above grade, and additional space is needed between floors and for the roof structure. While a 35 ft. limit is probably close to what is needed, I am concerned that it may miss the mark just enough to devalue the new homes being built for future residents. I urge the Board to have a little bit of an open mind on this and suggest that the Board ask staff to explore the issue with Barry and/or Lennar to obtain their feedback and to be informed as to whether there are any potential benefits of allowing a little more height. I expect there is a number between 35 and 40 that will result in a good balance.

First Name: Tim Last Name: Crutchfield Phone: 7862107573 Email: thcrutch@gmail.com Address: 390 NE 102nd ST City: Miami State/Province: FL Postal Code: 33138 Upload No File Uploaded Attachment 1: Upload No File Uploaded Attachment 2:

From: To: Subject: Date:

Kathleen Gunn Joseph M Corradino; Mario Duron; Eddy Nunez FW: Proposed Draft Community Residential Zoning District Regulations - New Form Submission for Miami Shores Florida Thursday, September 12, 2024 4:47:52 PM

From: no-reply@services.evo.cloud <no-reply@services.evo.cloud> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 4:31 PM To: Kathleen Gunn <GunnK@msvfl.gov> Subject: Proposed Draft Community Residential Zoning District Regulations - New Form Submission for Miami Shores Florida

A new submission has been received for Proposed Draft Community Residential Zoning District Regulations at 09/12/2024 4:31 PM The proposed project, as currently outlined, is egregious to say the least.

The maximum number of units and the minimum number of green cover ADD YOUR and consideration of density is being Put forth. It’s all about profits with no COMMENTS consideration to Scale. The developer needs to rethink the entire design so HERE: that there are setbacks and green spaces and less density, and keeping with the community aesthetics.

First Name:

Beth

Last Name:

Boone

Phone:

3059703568

Email:

beth@miamilightproject.com

Address:

61 NE 102nd St.

City:

Miami Shores

State/Province: FL Postal Code:

33138

Upload No File Uploaded Attachment 1: Upload No File Uploaded Attachment 2:

From: To: Subject: Date:

Kathleen Gunn Joseph M Corradino; Eddy Nunez; Mario Duron FW: Proposed Draft Community Residential Zoning District Regulations - New Form Submission for Miami Shores Florida Thursday, September 12, 2024 4:04:29 PM

From: no-reply@services.evo.cloud <no-reply@services.evo.cloud> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 4:02 PM To: Kathleen Gunn <GunnK@msvfl.gov> Subject: Proposed Draft Community Residential Zoning District Regulations - New Form Submission for Miami Shores Florida

A new submission has been received for Proposed Draft Community Residential Zoning District Regulations at 09/12/2024 4:01 PM I support the Draft Community Residential Zoning District Regulations and think it makes eminent sense to allow some additional multi-family housing and townhouses in Miami Shores. I also like the looks of the modified Lennar proposal. It would represent a modest increase in housing ADD YOUR units and would bring a number of benefits, including our first park on the COMMENTS west side (at last!), additional tax revenues, and more land for Doctors HERE: Charter. Miami Shores is a community composed predominantly of singlefamily homes, and that is fine, but we should not let ourselves become a community composed exclusively of single-family homes, which would mean becoming an exclusive enclave of the rich, who will be the only ones who can afford to live here.

First Name:

Douglas

Last Name:

Barnes

Phone:

305-934-7521

Email:

douglasmbarnes@outlook.com

Address:

10108 NE 1st Ave

City:

Miam Shores

State/Province: FL Postal Code:

33138

Upload No File Uploaded Attachment 1: Upload No File Uploaded Attachment 2:

From: To: Subject: Date:

Kathleen Gunn Joseph M Corradino; Mario Duron; Eddy Nunez FW: Proposed Draft Community Residential Zoning District Regulations - New Form Submission for Miami Shores Florida Thursday, September 12, 2024 3:44:06 PM

From: no-reply@services.evo.cloud <no-reply@services.evo.cloud> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 3:23 PM To: Kathleen Gunn <GunnK@msvfl.gov> Subject: Proposed Draft Community Residential Zoning District Regulations - New Form Submission for Miami Shores Florida

A new submission has been received for Proposed Draft Community Residential Zoning District Regulations at 09/12/2024 3:23 PM I am unable to attend in person, but feel very strongly about preserving the character of the village I love. We lived in Coral Gables for a year before buying our home in Miami Shores. Although Coral Gables is full of beautiful homes and trees, I much prefer the 'character' of Miami Shores.

To me, that character has nothing to do with how many families live in a ADD YOUR building; rather, it has to do with the sense of a true community, where COMMENTS teachers live next to architects, roofers live down the street from doctors, HERE: and so on. I don't want us to have a zoning code that will only permit people who can afford million dollar homes. My husband and I couldn't afford to buy our own home in today's market, and I think that is true for many of my friends and neighbors. Let's not turn into a village where only wealthy people can afford to live. That would change the character of Miami Shores in a very negative way in my opinion.

First Name:

Mary

Last Name:

Benton

Phone:

703-635-8108

Email:

marybenton@earthlink.net

Address:

10108 NE 1st Ave

City:

Miami Shores

State/Province: FL Postal Code:

33138

Upload No File Uploaded Attachment 1: Upload No File Uploaded Attachment 2:

From: To: Subject: Date:

Kathleen Gunn Joseph M Corradino; Eddy Nunez; Mario Duron FW: Proposed Draft Community Residential Zoning District Regulations - New Form Submission for Miami Shores Florida Thursday, September 12, 2024 3:15:12 PM

From: no-reply@services.evo.cloud <no-reply@services.evo.cloud> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 3:12 PM To: Kathleen Gunn <GunnK@msvfl.gov> Subject: Proposed Draft Community Residential Zoning District Regulations - New Form Submission for Miami Shores Florida

A new submission has been received for Proposed Draft Community Residential Zoning District Regulations at 09/12/2024 3:11 PM My name is Jeffrey Saadeh and I live at 261 NE 102nd St, Miami Shores, FL 33138 Writing to express my opinion on the Barry University proposal from Lennar. You may know that it's literally been two years since Barry and Lennar initiated the proposed development of the vacant, blighted lot owned by Barry. My concern is that too much time has gone by and it appears to me like we are trying to throw out good in our search for perfect. No proposal is perfect. But the concept slides I've seen from Lennar appear to be a vast improvement over what's there and will have many benefits for the village, including: pickleball courts, dog park, tot lot, the first green park in Miami Shores westside, and 1.3 acres of deeded land for Doctors Charter School. Plus, an injection of much needed tax revenue for Village coffers. I've seen the concept slides for the Alternative vision and they look great as well. But I have concerns that it will be more expensive to build, reduce the number of housing units available, and will require that the units be sold at a higher price. Already there is an affordability issue in Miami Shores. The townhomes proposed by Barry will be sold at market price which likely will be around $500K to $750K. I'm concerned that the price will be pushed close to $1M which is much ADD YOUR less affordable in the alternative vision. In addition, I believe the Village COMMENTS residents rejected having a multifamily component included during the HERE: comp plan initiative. Lennar had proposed some in their original concept.

Regarding the specific zoning, please consider the following: -Allow a height up to 40 feet not 35 feet, consistent with the comprehensive plan. 35 ft vs 40 ft is not so perceptible to the eye and will allow for higher ceilings and better units -Eliminate complicated step-back provisions based on lot widths which is really more appropriate for single-family homes with larger lot widths. This is highly irregular for townhomes. No similar provision is made in Miami Beach or Pinecrest code. -I wonder if other jurisdictions have similar front yard garden provisions for this type of development . Is this overly specific for code? Is it even achievable in this type of development? -We should keep the provision that allows 5-foot

front yard setback. This allows for pedestrian-friendly townhomes purposefully designed to push parking and trash pickup to alleys behind the homes so that the back-of-the-house operations are out of sight to surrounding duplexes and single-family homes. The proposed development is a great addition to the Shores, and especially in West Miami Shores.

Let's not make it too onerous for stuff that may not make such a big difference. Thanks for your consideration! Jeffrey 323-333-5982 First Name:

Jeffrey

Last Name:

Saadeh

Phone:

323-333-5982

Email:

jeffreysaadeh@gmail.com

Address:

261 NE 102nd St

City:

Miami Shores

State/Province: FL Postal Code:

33138

Upload No File Uploaded Attachment 1: Upload No File Uploaded Attachment 2:

From: To: Subject: Date:

Kathleen Gunn Joseph M Corradino; Eddy Nunez FW: Proposed Draft Community Residential Zoning District Regulations - New Form Submission for Miami Shores Florida Thursday, September 12, 2024 2:59:46 PM

Feedback on the code from the website…

Pls include in your review of the comments.

From: no-reply@services.evo.cloud <no-reply@services.evo.cloud> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 2:06 PM To: Kathleen Gunn <GunnK@msvfl.gov> Subject: Proposed Draft Community Residential Zoning District Regulations - New Form Submission for Miami Shores Florida

A new submission has been received for Proposed Draft Community Residential Zoning District Regulations at 09/12/2024 2:05 PM I'm Max Wolfe Architect residing at 107 ne 96 street. Having served on the P & Z Board, coached baseball at the rec center, served as a scout master and lived here for 42 years - I am very interested in maintaining and enhancing the unique character of Miami Shores. Miami Shores, at a minimum, needs to research and review the successes/failures of the current land use conditions of the existing developments with on our Village. Miami Shores needs to create the tools and code regulations that ensure that any final land use proposal for this Barry University property presents a truly “integrated, cohesive and balanced solution”, as required in ADD YOUR our existing codes and in compliance with the recently adopted COMMENTS Comprehensive Plan. Miami Shores needs transitional Zoning that respects HERE: the existing single family neighborhood, while allowing the Barry/Lennar team to create a positive, successful development, including: • community friendly integration of new and existing • larger, usable front yard setbacks – Lower & upper levels • appropriate FAR, i.e.; .45 single Family, .55 multi family • appropriate building heights • sustainable landscaping • sufficiently wide sidewalks • pervious hardscape materials • progressive drainage solutions, i.e.; French drains, retainage ponds, buffering berms (maintain all water on-site) • sufficient public green space/park space (as already required) • public roads with multiple entry/exit points, thereby avoiding conflict with the Charter School First Name:

max

Last Name:

sturman

Phone:

3052169641

Email:

max@maxwolfearchitect.com

Address:

107 NE 96 Street

City:

Miami Shores

State/Province: FL

Postal Code:

33138

Upload No File Uploaded Attachment 1: Upload No File Uploaded Attachment 2: