Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grills Med Square South Miami design, expresses concern over alley removal and waivers
Summary
The South Miami Design Review Board reviewed a proposed 6‑story medical office with a townhome transition at 6800 SW 62nd Ave. Staff and the applicant requested waivers for floor area and parking stall size under the new TSDD code; board members praised the design but raised traffic, scale and streetscape concerns and transmitted comments without a formal recommendation.
The South Miami Design Review Board examined DRB2025‑016 on a city block at 6800 Southwest 62nd Avenue, a proposal for a 6‑story medical office building paired with a 2–3‑story townhome buffer. City planning consultant Mark Alvarez told the board the project is among the first large proposals under the new Transit Supportive Development District rules and “This project has 2 waivers,” notably a floor‑area waiver for the upper floors and a waiver on parking stall dimensions to allow 8.5‑foot stalls rather than the more suburban 9‑foot standard.
Staff and the applicant described the project as an as‑of‑right medical use with an internalized patient drop‑off and parking to limit curbside impacts. Alejandro Arias, representing the applicant, said the design seeks to keep activity internal: “The medical office building will encompass an internalized dedicated patient drop off and pickup area to prevent any offloading on city street networks.” The design team presented renderings showing a stepped façade, curb‑edge trees and a pedestrian‑oriented ground floor with retail frontage.
Board members praised the architecture but repeatedly pressed the team on site‑planning changes and neighborhood impacts. Multiple members said the project materials shown at the hearing differed from earlier plans because the alley was removed; one board member said, “The elimination of the alley makes a big difference in the way I look at the project.” Mariano Corral, the board’s landscape‑credentialed member, said he liked the design but added, “I cannot approve or move forward with something like this” without more certainty on sidewalk width, tree placement and utility conflicts.
Members asked staff and the applicant for additional technical information, including shadow and traffic studies and a massing/section analysis that would show how the six‑story building stacks up against the existing RS‑3 neighborhood to the west. Chair (speaker 2) said, “At the very least, we would like to see again shadow studies, traffic studies.” The applicant told the board a traffic study had been submitted in March and is under city review.
After extended discussion about whether the hearing represented a conceptual or later stage review under TSDD procedures, a motion to approve the application “based on the comments that we all have made” carried in the room but the board did not transmit a formal positive recommendation. Staff said it will forward the board’s comments to the planning commission as the application proceeds through the required review stages. The applicant and staff were told to incorporate the board’s technical and design comments as the project advances.
Next steps: the project will proceed to subsequent planning and commission review with the traffic and shadow analyses and the board’s comments included in the record.
