The City of Miami Springs held a workshop on Wednesday with the City’s Planning Firm, Calvin Giordano and Associates regarding recommendations for the Gateway Overlay District. The stated goal of the update was to provide clarity of purpose, clarity of language, improve organization, update terminology, improve developer incentives, strengthen the city’s position in the development approval process.
Sounds like a snooze fest, right. So let’s get to the highlights.
One thought presented to the City Council by the firm was to expand the Gateway Overlay District beyond the current 2.5 block area (shown below). We vehemently disagree with expanding the Gateway Overlay District unless it includes improved parking revisions and/or strong parking fees. We already have a parking shortfall within the Gateway Overlay District. It’s going to get worse when the Springs Town Center building finally comes online. We don’t need to aggravate the situation further.
Let’s review the presentation from Calvin Giordano and Associates (CGA) below:
The goals above seem very technochratic. After viewing the meeting it seems like their goal was more inline with “How do we make the Gateway Overlay District better and should we take the benefits and apply them elsewhere?”
I was perplexed by the following slide. Is the planner claiming we have a poor definition of the current Gateway Overlay District Boundaries? If a technical change is required let’s fix it. But if it was never properly defined before hand, who failed to do their job?
Below, CGA proposed expanding the Gateway Overlay District one block west to include the block that houses the AT&T building. Again, we don’t recommend expanding the Gateway Overlay District unless it strengthens the parking requirements and/or fees paid to the city for lack of on premise parking.
CGA shared feedback from the Joint Zoning and Planning / Architectural Review Boards that there was general consensus to expand the Gateway Overlay District. We’ll say it again. Any expansion of the Gateway Overlay District must include stronger parking requirements and / or fees paid to the City of Miami Springs for lack of on premise parking by any development within the district. As a reminder, the prior city administration failed to set a fee and collect any money for lack of on premise parking by the Springs Town Center development.
CGA shared some use change recommendations:
- Add brew pubs as a permitted ground-floor use.
- Not require mixed-use development
- Add employer provided accommodations as a permitted use
We disagree with eliminating the mixed use development within the Gateway Overlay District. That goes against the goal of business development. My reading of eliminating mixed use development suggests more apartments and less retail and restaurants within the Gateway Overlay District. Wasn’t the goal to increase retail and restaurants?
Furthermore, what the heck is “Employer provided accommodations?” That’s just another word for residential apartments. Who pays for the accommodations seems irrelevant. And if the “employer” moves away or closes shop, what’s left? Apartments. Just call it what it is. I was very disturbed by the phrase “Employer provided accommodations.”
Apparently, the employer provided accommodations were intended for a single project at 30 Canal Street as CGA’s next slide was about this next block. Councilwoman Jacky Bravo jumped in and felt uncomfortable with making rule changes for the sole purpose of serving a single lot. We agree.
CGA shared that Zoning & Planning and Architectural Review Boards also had some unease.
CGA then broached the topic of architectural design within the district. CGA claims that the current standard may be too narrow and stifle design innovation. We are open to more design options, however, we should give more credits and favorability towards Pueblo Revival design standards. If that includes modern interpretations of Pueblo, that’s okay, too. But even the current standards didn’t really give us the Pueblo Revival look many were looking to get from the Springs Town Center.
MORE DENSITY
CGA proposed increasing the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 1.7 to 2.0 as a way to encourage more development. Again, more density equals more people. More people means more parking. We can only support this with sufficient on-premise parking or payment to the City of Miami Springs for each off-premise parking spot required. The City of Miami Springs failed in this regard with the Springs Town Center project. Let’s not fail again.
We support CGA’s efforts to increase the Creative Excellence Standards as part of the FAR bonus program. Some of the specific items include:
- Art in Public Places
- Water Features
- Gateway Features
- Landscaping
- Site Permeability
- Electric Vehicles / Bicycles
We think Creative Excellence Standards should also include superior uplighting and landscape lighting. Creative Excellence Standards should be features that help to beautify the building and makes it more appealing to everyone that passes by the building, regardless of whether they stop at the building or not.
As such, we don’t support increasing the FAR just because they add EV plugin options. That’s a nice to have. For the record, we fully support the convenience of EV charging. But that’s a benefit to the tenants and not necessarily a benefit to the overall public. Furthermore, we don’t think it follows what Creative Excellence truly means. We want beautiful buildings that include beautiful details like statues, art in public places, water features, landscaping, lighting, etc. EV charging is not something that improves the aesthetics of the building.
We appreciate that CGA is bringing this to light. Any change to the Gateway Overlay District should include stricter parking requirements. We are in a situation where the City of Miami Springs is looking for more parking options. We like the fact that they recommend any change in use be followed with an evaluation for additional parking needs. We also appreciate that CGA wants more specificity to the amount of parking required for mixed-use buildings.
CGA further highlights the ability for a developer to pay a FEE in lieu of on-site parking. That’s something the City of Miami Springs failed to do with the development at One Curtiss Parkway.
We appreciate CGA’s recommendation to involved the Architectural Review Board in the Development Review Process. We also like the idea of increasing the art value allowance for art in public places. However, there’s no guarantee that the artwork we get will be artwork we like. Have you seen the new sculpture at One Curtiss Parkway? Just because new art is added it doesn’t mean everyone’s going to like it.
CGA also recommended support for transit options for mobility. Like what? Outside of 36th Street, the buses don’t come inside Miami Springs anymore. The Traffic Study that was used to justify less parking at One Curtiss Parkway assumed public transit. Well, it doesn’t even exist anymore so that was a bad assumption. Heck, they were supposed to build a bus stop, but there’s no more bus stopping within the community. So what are we talking about? Bike racks?
Summary
Overall, we believe CGA has provided the City Council with a variety of options to consider. We believe CGA brings a level of professionalism and vision that simply did not exist with our previous on-staff City Planner. And while we may have called out some items in this presentation, we believe CGA did an exemplary job in providing the Council options and direction. Our biggest takeaway with any changes and/or expansion of the Gateway Overlay District include:
- Stricter requirements of on-premise parking
- Stricter requirements for paying the City for off-premise parking
- Stricter requirements for the Creative Excellence Standards (aka FAR Bonus Program)
What do you think?
Should the Gateway Overlay District be expanded? Should the Central Business District adopt some of the features from the Gateway Overlay District? If so, what should be adopted?
Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below or via social media.
