West Miami planning board weighs grasscrete, gravel and shrubs as case-by-case option for swales; no ordinance adopted

The Planning and Zoning Board for the City of West Miami spent its Nov. 12 special meeting discussing whether to allow alternative materials in public right‑of‑way swales where curb and gutter are not present and vehicles routinely park.

City Engineer Frank Francisco Alonso told the board he prepared the item at the manager’s request to show options for treating swale areas that currently erode when cars park on them. "It's basically just a concrete matrix where you can park on it. It can take traffic, but it allows for drainage," Alonso said as he described grass‑filled paver systems often called grasscrete or turf block.

Why it matters: board members said the choices affect drainage, neighborhood appearance and who will be responsible for maintenance and cost. Alonso cautioned that full curb‑and‑gutter is the engineering ideal but would require new catch basins and reconstruction of drainage — a significantly higher expense. "Talking like, you know, half a million dollars a block," Alonso said as an example of full reconstruction costs, which the board noted could be prohibitive to implement citywide.

Discussion and concerns: Members and several residents questioned long‑term appearance and upkeep. One resident said curb and grass remains their preference: "Curbing and grass would be my choice," and said some paver installations look good at first but degrade if not maintained. Board members raised several recurrent issues: whether installing a permeable paver would encourage more on‑street parking in front of homes; who pays for initial installation and ongoing maintenance (the resident or the city); and whether shaded areas under tree canopy would prevent natural grass from establishing in a paver grid.

Limits and criteria suggested: Rather than allowing a blanket citywide change, board members repeatedly suggested limiting any permitted alternative to specific areas — parks, schools and selected side streets with documented parking pressure or drainage problems — and tying options to a map and objective criteria. Staff noted there are already a few local examples (locations around 63rd Avenue and 57th Avenue were discussed) but said the visual results vary from marketing photos.

Permitting and enforcement: Staff explained the likely pathway would be a voluntary, case‑by‑case permit option for property owners who request it; the city could also implement its own engineered fixes where drainage is a municipal responsibility. The board asked staff to research code language and enforcement options because current rules require hard‑surface parking on private property but provide limited clarity for parking on the public right‑of‑way.

Next steps: The board did not direct a vote on an ordinance at the meeting. Members discussed having someone from the board brief the City Commission and suggested that the Commission could direct staff to draft an ordinance that would specify approved materials, maintenance obligations and geographic limits. Staff noted a possible next Commission meeting on Nov. 19 (unconfirmed) where the matter could be presented.

Outcome: The Board adjourned without adopting an ordinance or taking formal action; members left the record with a consensus to draft criteria and to seek further direction from the Commission if appropriate.