R5B - Create Alton Beach Bayfront Overlay

Ordinances - R5 B

COMMISSION MEMORANDUM

9:16 a.m. Second Reading Public Hearing**

RECOMMENDATION

The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission (City Commission) open and continue Second Reading of the subject ordinance to June 25, 2025.

As indicated herein, Planning Department staff have expressed concerns with the proposed amendments pertaining to increases in FAR and building height, as well as the proposed modifications to minimum setbacks. In this regard, careful consideration must be given to the impacts of these proposed modifications to the LDRs, particularly as to how they may impact the established scale, character and context of the West Avenue corridor.

BACKGROUND/HISTORY

The subject application was submitted on August 11, 2024, by West Ave Owner LLC with respect to the property located at 1250 West Avenue. This is a private application filed pursuant to Sections 2.4.1 and 7.1.10 of the Resiliency Code. The application proposes to create the Alton Beach Bayfront Overlay within the City’s Future Land Use Map, the text of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and the City’s Resiliency Code.

ANALYSIS

Planning Board and City Commission Review Requirements The application submitted herein is in accordance with Section 7.1.10.2(a) of the Land Development Regulations of the City Code (LDRs), which requires the following 3-step process, prior to the review by the City Commission:

a.

Step One – Planning Board Preliminary Review. The Planning Board, at a duly noticed public hearing, shall perform an initial review of the

proposed ordinance. Notice of the Planning Board preliminary review hearing shall be given in accordance with the applicable provisions in Chapter 2, Article IV of the Land Development Regulations. If the proposed ordinance involves less than ten (10) contiguous acres, the notice requirements for the preliminary Planning Board review shall also include a minimum 30-day mail notice for all properties within 375 feet of the properties subject to the proposed floor area or FAR increase, and a 30-day published notice.

Prior to the Planning Board’s preliminary review stage, the Administration, either internally or with the assistance of an outside consultant, will perform an impact analysis of the proposed FAR increase; and such impact analysis shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

1.

Calculation of the actual square footage increase for affected properties such as, for example, the maximum allowable square footage for residential, office, retail, hotel or other uses resulting from the FAR increase.

2.

An infrastructure analysis regarding potential impacts on traffic/mobility, parking, water, sewer, resiliency, parks and open space, as well as any other area of concern identified by the City Commission or the Administration.

3.

Massing studies, which illustrate the volume and location of the area associated with the proposed increase in FAR.

For private applications, the applicant shall be required to provide all data and exhibits related to the above noted impact analysis as part of the application submission. The findings of this impact analysis shall be presented to the Planning Board at the preliminary review stage.

b.

Step Two – Community Outreach Meeting: Subsequent to the Planning Board’s preliminary review meeting, the City shall facilitate a public meeting for all affected stakeholders, in order to solicit additional input and feedback, as well as for City staff to address any outstanding issues or questions. A reasonable effort shall be made to ensure that such public meeting is held no later than 45 days from the date of the preliminary review by the Planning Board. Courtesy notice of the meeting shall be given by the applicable City department, in coordination with the Planning Department, in a manner consistent with the City’s courtesy notices for other community meetings, workshops, or presentations.

c.

Step Three – Planning Board Transmittal: At a second duly noticed public hearing, which is separate and apart from the preliminary review hearing, the Planning Board shall consider and transmit the proposed ordinance to the City Commission with a recommendation. Notice of this transmittal hearing shall be given in accordance with the applicable provisions in Chapter 2, Article IV of the Land Development Regulations.

After transmittal by the Planning Board to the City Commission a similar 3-step review process is required, as follows:

a.

Step One – First Reading Public Hearing: After transmittal of the ordinance by the Planning Board, the City Commission shall hold a first reading public hearing. Notice of the first reading shall be given in accordance with the applicable provisions in Chapter 2, Article IV of the Land Development Regulations. If the proposed ordinance involves less than ten (10) contiguous acres, the notice requirements for first reading shall also include a minimum 30-day mail notice for all properties within 375 feet of the properties subject to the proposed floor area or FAR increase, and a 30-day published notice.

b.

Step Two – Community Workshop: Subsequent to the approval of the ordinance at first reading, and prior to second reading,

at least one additional community workshop, which is separate and apart from the first reading public hearing, shall be held. This additional community workshop shall be considered a courtesy meeting, and open to participation by all affected stakeholders, including residents, property owners, or businesses in the surrounding area that may be affected by the proposed floor area or FAR increase, as determined by the City Commission. Such community workshops may be held in a virtual, in-person or hybrid formats, at the discretion of the City Commission, and shall be noticed in a manner to be determined by the City Commission.

c.

Step Three – Second Reading / Adoption Public Hearing: After the community workshop described above, the City Commission shall hold a second reading public hearing to consider final adoption of the proposed ordinance. Notice of the second reading shall be given in accordance with the applicable provisions in Chapter 2, Article IV of the Land Development Regulations.

Proposal The applicant is proposing to create a new overlay, entitled the Alton Beach Bayfront Overlay, as well as amend the RM-3 development regulations specific to properties in the overlay. The proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan and the LDRs would enable the construction of a luxury housing development, including an accessory restaurant, located at 1250 West Avenue.

The attached ordinance includes a proposed increase in maximum FAR from 2.75 up to 5.75, as well as a building height increase from 150 feet to 330 feet. The applicant is also proposing to modify requirements pertaining to minimum setbacks, allowable encroachments into required yards and the review provisions for mechanical parking systems.

The following is a summary of the proposed modifications to the FAR, building height and setback requirements, as compared to the current regulations:

Current Maximum Proposed Difference

FAR: 2.75 (230,194 SF) 5.75 (481,315 SF) +3.0 / +251,121 SF) Note: each 1.0 increase in FAR results in an addition of 83,707 SF to the site.

Height: 150 Feet 330 feet +180 feet

Front Setback Pedestal: Tower:

20 feet 50 feet 20 feet 50 feet None None

Side Setback Pedestal: Side Sum: Tower:

16 feet 32 feet 50 feet 16 feet 42 feet 26 feet None +10 feet -24 feet (each side)

Allowable Projections: 6 feet 10 feet -4 feet

Rear Setback Pedestal: Tower:

42 feet 63 feet 42 feet 63 feet None None

The following is a summary of the proposed FAR and height bonuses:

• •

FAR bonus of .25 for not exceeding a density of 75 apartments per acre.

• •

FAR bonus of .25 for executing a covenant prohibiting short term rentals in perpetuity.

• •

FAR bonus of .50 for the design and construction of a bay walk extensions at adjacent properties on West Avenue.

• •

FAR bonus of 2.0 for acquiring an existing property on the east side of West Avenue that has a transient use and conveyance of the property to the city.

• •

A building height bonus of 180 feet above the current maximum height of 150 feet for a project that implements all the above bonuses, allowing for a maximum height of 330 feet.

In accordance with the requirements noted above for FAR increases, the applicant has included the following with the application submission:

Calculation of the actual square footage increase resulting from the FAR increase The draft ordinance includes an FAR bonus of up to 251,121 square feet. The current maximum permitted square footage for the subject property is 230,194 square feet (2.75 FAR) and a total maximum square footage of 481,315 square feet (5.75 FAR) is proposed.

Infrastructure analysis regarding potential impacts on traffic/mobility, parking, water, sewer, resiliency, parks and open space The applicant submitted the attached utility analysis prepared by Hazen and Sawyer, and the attached utility report, prepared by Thomas Engineering Group, both of which address water, sewer, and fire flow requirements. Additionally, the attached planning and traffic report for the proposed development was prepared by the Curtis Group, and addresses traffic and mobility impacts. As it pertains to parks and open space, if there is a net addition of residential units to the site, in relation to the residential units in the existing building, a small deficiency in certain recreation facilities may result. This would require the payment of concurrency mitigation fees at the time of building permit.

Massing studies illustrating the volume and location of the area associated with the proposed FAR increase The attached plans and perspective renderings, which were provided to the Planning Board, illustrate the volume and location of the area associated with the proposed FAR increase. The following is noted based upon the attached plans and drawings:

• •

The current maximum FAR for the site (2.75 / 230,194 SF) is contained roughly within the first 13 floors of the proposed new building (approximately 158 feet), including 52 apartment units and 180 restaurant seats.

• •

The increased FAR provides for up to 251,121 of additional square feet of floor area.

• •

The increased maximum height provides up to 180 feet of additional building height.

• •

The average unit size proposed is 3,250 square feet.

Economic Analysis Although not technically required, the applicant has also provided the attached Economic Impact Analysis, prepared by the Washington Economics Group.

The proposed LDR amendment has been modified since the Planning Board transmitted the proposal, and the applicant has reduced the maximum proposed FAR to 5.75 and reduced the maximum proposed building height to 330 feet. Notwithstanding, the proposal still far exceeds the maximum FAR established in the Comprehensive Plan for the RM-3 district, and is still out of scale with the existing buildings in the immediate area, including structures that are non- conforming with today’s maximum requirements for height and FAR.

For example, the nearby Waverly condominium at 1330 West Avenue is cited as an example of a non-conforming building that the proposed regulations will be ‘compatible’ with. For informational purposes, the following is a comparison of the proposal with the permitted plans for the Waverly:

1330 West Ave 1250 West Ave Difference

Lot Area: 130,234 SF (3 acres) 83,707 SF (1.9 acres) -47,145 SF / -1.1 acres

Max Height: 279’ to 335’ 330’ -5’ to +51’

FAR:

546,528 SF (4.2)

481,315 (5.75)

+1.55 FAR / -65,213 SF

Lot Width: 200’ 200’ None

Tower Interior Side Setbacks: >50 feet

26 feet

-24 feet

Tower Frontage Maximum Width: 90 feet

148 feet

+88 feet

Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Review Process The proposal requires an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the proposed changes to the maximum intensity requirements for the property. A separate, companion ordinance is proposed for the required comprehensive plan amendments.

PLANNING BOARD REVIEW On October 29, 2024, the Planning Board reviewed the proposed ordinance and continued it to the January 7, 2025, Planning Board meeting. On December 19, 2024, a public workshop was held after the first review of the Planning Board and additional input received from the participants.

On January 7, 2025, the application was continued to a date certain of February 4, 2025, at the request of the applicant, with no substantive discussion by the Planning Board. On February 4, 2025, the application was continued to a date certain of March 4, 2025, at the request of the applicant, with no substantive discussion by the Planning Board.

On March 4, 2025, the Planning Board held a public hearing and transmitted the proposed ordinance to the City Commission with an unfavorable recommendation (4-3).

SUMMARY As indicated herein, Planning Department staff have expressed concerns with the proposed amendments pertaining to increases in FAR and building height, as well as the proposed modifications to minimum setbacks. In this regard, careful consideration must be given to the impacts of these proposed modifications to the LDRs, particularly as to how they may impact the established scale, character and context of the West Avenue corridor.

While certain bonuses proposed by the applicant may be appropriate, collectively they still result in an over scaled project that is hostile to its surroundings. Any development bonuses should be commensurate with the actual public benefits that have been proffered separately and should not result in a project that creates an imbalance with the surrounding context in terms of scale, mass and building height.

The Administration is not opposed to sensible bonuses that result in enhanced urban design and are tied to a legitimate public purpose. To address this, should the proposal move forward, the following modifications to the LDR ordinance are recommended:

1.

The existing setback requirements should remain, with no modifications. The proposed setback modifications would result in the width of the proposed tower increasing from a maximum of 100 feet in width to 148 feet in width. Additionally, the pedestal portion of the building, at all levels, should fully comply with the minimum side setbacks of 16 feet.

2.

The proposed FAR bonuses, collectively, should not exceed 2.0 and the aggregate increase in FAR should not exceed 4.75.

3.

The proposed height bonus should be limited to 150 feet and the maximum allowable height should not exceed 300 feet.

UPDATE The subject ordinance was approved at First Reading on April 23, 2025, as proposed by the applicant, with no changes. Additionally, the City Commission requested that an independent economic analysis be performed, to determine the value of the additional building height and floor area proposed. The City has retained Miami Economic Associates to perform this analysis, which is expected to be completed prior to May 21, 2025.

The proposed amendments to the LDRs and the Comprehensive Plan are tethered to a separate development agreement, which is anticipated to be considered by the City Commission at First Reading on May 21, 2025. For all three of these components to be considered for adoption together, the applicant has requested that the City Commission waive the annual zoning cycle restriction for the subject amendment, pursuant to Section 2.3.2 of the LDRs.

If the City Commission were to approve the proposed development agreement at First Reading on May 21, 2025, Second Reading for the LDR and Comprehensive Plan amendments will be set for June 25, 2025. As such, the Administration recommends that the proposed LDR amendment be opened and continued to June 25, 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT

No Fiscal Impact Expected

Does this Ordinance require a Business Impact Estimate? No (FOR ORDINANCES ONLY)

If applicable, the Business Impact Estimate (BIE) was published on: See BIE at: https://www.miamibeachfl.gov/city-hall/city-clerk/meeting-notices/

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Not Applicable

CONCLUSION

The Administration recommends that the City Commission open and continue Second Reading of the subject ordinance to June 25, 2025.

Applicable Area

South Beach

Was this Agenda Item initially requested by a lobbyist which, as defined in Code Sec. 2-481, includes a principal engaged in lobbying? No

If so, specify the name of lobbyist(s) and principal(s):

Department

Planning

Sponsor(s)

Private Applicant

Co-sponsor(s)

Condensed Title

O/C- 9:16 a.m. 2nd Rdg, Alton Bch Bayfront Overlay District-LDR Amendments. (PrivAp) PL 6/7

Previous Action (For City Clerk Use Only)

First Reading Public Hearing/Ref: PB on 4/23/2025 - R5 AF