The URL can be used to link to this page

12bORDINANCE NO. An Ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map, amending the designation of an approximately 2.60 acre property generally located northwest of the intersection of SW 72 nd Street and SW 67 th Avenue, as legally described herein, from "R" Religious to "RM- 18" Low Density Multi-Family Residential. WHEREAS, Fellowship Church, (the "Applicant"), submitted an application to amend the City of South Miami Official Zoning Map to change the designation of an approximately 2.60 -acre portion of the property located at 6781 Sunset Drive , and as legally described in Exhibit 1, from "R" Religious to "RM - 18" Low Density Multi-Family Residential; and WHEREAS , the Local Planning Agency reviewed the proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map, and held an advertised public hearing and provided for public participation in the process and rendered its recommendation of denial to the City Commission on a vote of six (6) ayes to ze r o (0) nays on November 14, 2017 ; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has complied with the requirements of the City's Land Development Code ("LDC") for rezoning, including Sections 20 -5.6 and 20-5.7; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Department recommends approval of the application for rezoning ofthe property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The recitals set forth above are adopted and made a part of this ordinance by reference. The City Commission finds that there is competent substantial evidence to support the amendment to the City of South Miami Official Zoning Map, as requeste d, and the City Commission hereby adopts an amendment to the Official Zoning Map changing the designation for an approximately 2.60 -acre property legally described as : the North 160 feet of the East 100 feet of the west 1/2 OF N 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 and the East 1/2 OF N 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4, less the East 35 feet in Section 26, Township 54 South, Range 40 East, lying and being in Miami-Dade County, Florida , as indicated on the Maps below, changing of the Zoning Map from "R" Religious to "RM-18" Low Density Multi-Family Residential. Exlsting Religious (R) Zoning Classification proposed Low Density Multi-Family Residential {RM-18) Zoning Classification Section 2. Codification. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made part of the Official Zoning Map of the City of South Miami as amended. Section 3. Severability. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, this holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or the Guidelines adopted hereunder. Section 4. Ordinances in Conflict. All ordinances or parts of ordinances and all sections and parts of sections of ordinances in direct conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance is contingent upon the adoption and effective date of a change in the FLUM of the City of South Miami's Comprehensive Plan changing the designation of this property from Religious to Multiple Family Residential (Four Story). This Ordinance shall thereafter become effective upon the effective date of the FLUM of the City of South Miami's Comprehensive Plan changing the designation of this property from Religious to Multiple Family Residential (Four Story). PASSSED AND ENACTED this __ day of ______ , 2018. ATIEST: CITY CLERK 1'\ Reading 2nd Reading READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: LANGUAGE, LEGALITY AND EXECUTION THEREOF CITY ATIORNEY APPROVED: MAYOR COMMISSION VOTE: Mayor Stoddard: Vice Mayor Harris: Commissioner Gil: Commissioner Liebman: Commissioner Welsh: MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW Pl.' 's'1P,j Dally "'CPOI Salur(l;;y SU1d3\ and LegaiHol,dJys MlwYH-Dade Cou~ly Flolda STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE: Before tile undersigned authonty personally appeared JOHj.~J:', Oll'/A, who 0'1 oath says that he or she 15 the LEGt.L CLERK legal Notices of the Miami Dally Busmess R~v,e'.v flk1a fl11aMI ReView, a dally (except Saturday, $u":cay and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami In MIami-Dade County Florida. that the attached copy of adver!<seme'lt being a Legal AdJertlsement of Notice 11": the matter of I~OTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OF SOUTH MIAMI RELIGIOUS TO MULTIPLE FAMilY R=S'JE~mAL (FOUR STORY) -APR 17,2018 ':-', 1he XXX X Court, ", .. a5 published In sala newspaoer In the ISSlies of O~ 'Or:. '2018 ,'"'ilan\ fl.Jriher says that the said Miami Dally BUSiness PeVleli IS a ne'.vspaper published at Miami, m said Miami-Dad e County FlOrida and that the said newspaper has Ilere'ofcre bee" contmuously published In said Miami-Dade County, Florida each day (except Saturday. Sunday and 1 ega 1 Holidays) and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office In Miami In said Miami-Dade County, Florida, for a peflod of one year next preceding the Ilrst Dvbl cation of t'1e attached copy of adverilsement, and affiant further says that he or sne has nelthe; paid nor promised any person, firm or CO'poratlon any discount, rebate, commiSSion 0' relur"o for the purpose of securing thiS advertisement for pur,l.catlon ,n the said newspaper JOI-IJ. NA OLIVA personally known to me BARBARA TI lOMAS 111 Cml.llllission# GG. 121171 ~ Expires Novcmber2. 2021 ! G~~_d~~ _~~:~~:; ~J:n In511rance ,-~O,~3.~::~~_,:9,. j ICUW @Ii' SOQ.!l'j'~ MO ... MD NOTiC!!! Oli' 1I>1lJi1!i.lC ~rw.liiliN4ll NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida will conduct Public Hearlng{s) at its regular City Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 17, 2018, beginning at 7:00 p.rn .. , in the City Commission Chambers, 6130 Sunset Drive, to consider the following item(s): 1. An Ordinance Adopting a Small-Scale Amendment to the Future Lilnd Use Map of the City of South Miami's Comprehensive Plan, amending the designation of an approximately ZOO-acre property generally located northwest of the Intersection of SW 72nd Street and SW 67th Avenue, and as legally described herein, from Religious to Multiple Family Residential (Four Story). Proposed Land Use (Muttiple--Family Residential (Four-Story)) 2. An Ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map, amending the designation of an approximately 2.60 acre property generally located northwest of the intersection of SW 72nd Street and SW 67th Avenue, as legally described herein, from "R" Religious to "RM_18" low Dens!ty Multi-Family Residential. -,. .. It~"; 11" ! 'i~tl>r """ Proposed low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-18) Zoning Classification All interested parties are invited to attend and will be heard. For further information, please contact the City Clerk's Office at: 305-663-6340. Maria M. Menendez, CMC City Clerk Pursuant to Florida Statutes 286.Q1 05, the City hereby advises Ihe public that it a person decides to appeal any decision made by this Board, Agency or Commission with respect to any matter considered at its meeting or hearing, he or she wi\! need a record of the proceedings, and that for such purpose, affected person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal IS to be based. 4/6 18-89/0000309671M 2/7--- 285[: ! NEIGHBORS The 'People's Fair April 13, 14, & 15 Friday, Saturday & Sunday it· .- Ronald Reagan Equestrian Center at Tropical Park 7900 SW 40 Street, Miami, florida (Bird Road Exit at Palmetto Expressway/SR 826) ~_oo" Three Days of Wholesome Fun For the Entire Famll,! J. • BIggest & llest Show Eft' T • 5 Star Rodeo Eftnl • Planls and Rowers GaIo,e • Petting Zoo • Bull Riding Em ... g .... and Team Roping ExhIbllion • Pony Rides • largest Kids Fun Zone Enr • Majes\kt Dancing & Leaping Spanish lind ...... Horse. • The "Frost Sci ..... Treeh ....... presented br lIIe Palricia and Phillip Frost M .... m 0\ Sci ..... Admission $3.00 Kids Under 12 FREE Veterans & Present Members of the Anned Forces FREE For more Information call: 305-222·2116 www.miamicatlleshow.org OUf s1tn:w is proudw hue ralSl1d QverssQo,OOO.OOfurthe: school of autiSm! AI pt'(;(!eti\k furtt$! t~ go to the' SrMh R6rtt1aAulism Charter-School . .t "ot1prO!~ OfYiI1iZa,tion, th.rpro'lides tree. services bJ 1W2Ii1ied recipient~ilt MUIn'Ii-Pade CtllUlt~. TO\']\' OF CUTLER BA Y :\01'ICE OF P{!BLIC HEARI:\G 1) \1 (" 'kl B:)'. 1::' \\'cdnf' .... t1a,' .. \prillX. 20 I l'<! ,1t s:on p,m .. , It,dl (,cJl,:.\.ll (·ildJ:!h'; .... ]:; 2(; Cdl11+ B:l\ j'ldll:l" (il 'h~' Puhl!· Ikdtlll)J i" I; -11'.I,k) 'h" dc'..:cnh"d h'I\>\\ ih' '\ HESOU '110:0, OF TilE \<IA yOR '\"D I'm'" COl :o,CII. OF TilE TOW" OF (.[ n.ER II \ y, FI {IRIDA. APPRO' I:'>C .\·JOIlIFlC \n{):o,~ TO eEl{ 1.\1" CO'-OIIIO"S 1:0, H~:SOLl '1'10:0, 1';-20 FOI{ EDl ('ATlO"AI, FAClI.lTY 1·~~.I:o, JIm SOl TIlL\:o,n ,\IALL LOCHED AT 20505 SOl:TH DIXIE HICHn.\\'. AS LEG,\!.L\ [)F~CI{/I!FJ) 1:,\ EXIIIIII'I ",\ ", CO:,\SISTL"G OF .\]'PI{OX[\i.\'1 FL Y 'ItU5 .. \CI{I':S: ;\:'\P PJ{OVIllI:'lC FOI{ .. \:'\ En'Fe liVE JHTE. ,Hl~l:! l" ·1 ]1","\ ,1;11:-:111J ,~; Ih,' u:ni.!1'l;II1\l' dr (kk:r,,j I' .11 \11" j k' R\':~\llu\!\m 111.1\ ill Ol:lt.:' ttl" I"'\\ll CL'tk dU·11t~!. :~ ;- ,'"' lP,li '" "lhlJj\' ',h,1\ i' "\J.J\;llc\' ··\:w.L apF\.'f,~ :" \I' ,1)i",'-I1Jl ,:hlv\' dud I'" t, \!'\'t"l t,! "I .\ln~'llCr!<\ \' 01' l);"'TJl:,ll"\ ;\\.1 JJ 'NO .. /\ U. \) "P"~'t.d h' P ,!""'~I,LI1t",' ;\; ,11 !l:'l"l/'I'''''' d,'~" :)1 h)i I,: ~'Il i~ I,'"" "I, I SUNDAY APRil 8 2018 I MIAMIHERAID.CDM CITY OF SOFfH MIAMI NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING "IOTICE IS HEREBY !'Ivcn t!,;.,l lile' ('lIV C!)mml"i<m "I Iht: CII) 1)1 SOllth ,\'ljcHl1i. Fhnida \\111 conduct rncctm;: >.d1l'Jlllcd for (11 a" rC~)UIM «i1Y (\llDllli:-.,jPll lX~?jnnlDg ~H 7:1l!l p ll) .. 1ll trh: City [\) (;WI:'lt!.:l lhl...' h)ll()\\HlP: ltnn(;.)' [ ,\n Onlinanre ,\duplin!! a Small-Seale '\memlmrn! tn the Futurt, Land l SI' ~Iap or the City of South ,~lial1lrS Compn,hcnsive Plan. anwnding the dc~ignation IIf an appnr"imatt'ly 2.(iO~al're propert)' gl'lll'rall) lo('ah~d northwt·",t of tilt" intvrscrtinn of S\\' 72r,,1 Stn'{'t and S\\ 6Th A H'lHIC~ and as Il'gall., described hen'in. frurn R(·Ii~.doll!" to :\lultiple 1~'::lmil.\ I{t~sidl'ntial {Four Story L jPropo<:!?d Lclrd U~p;M J!~iplp-FBI"';lv (fo:)! StorY:1 An Onlinam'e mm'llfling II", Oftidal Zoning ;\Iap, <l11H'llding thl' ctesignation uf an approximate!} 2.6U (l\'rl' prOpl'rty gl~ncraH) locah>d [",rlinn,,' "I' til\' intersctlion or SW 72'''' Strel'! and S\' 1i7'" ;\ "'nu,'. as h'gaJl~ d('~\'rib('tJ Ilf.'rpin. from "Ro Rtligious to ··Rl\'I~ IS" Lo\\ Dt·lI.-iit: \Julti-Family R,>,idmtiaL /\L!, Illtt..Tl''';l'~'d P()rtll~'" me in\'ikd to rltlt. .. 'nd ilnd ,vIIl be hCdrd hir krth~~] inf(lnnatJon. plci.'L'-.(' C(llll;t\'l the Cil) Ckrh..·" 01IiCt:" at ~{J:'-()().3-(1~..:J.O ,vLmCl M Mc'l1endel. CMC ell)' ('krk I'L::>"'\!, ill I t \$JI'.I;·' Ih'U 11\. J,j, 1,,"<" till' 1i1.1~ II a 1" Jr:'I·.ll :tll: lku,:.'n 11, [j",nli 1'1 C, ll:Jlll"l':1! I": Il ;{-"P~'ll \\1 Latt,', ~$;.'ldt'rL'.J .lllh 111t'dllll' 'r h~'drltJ;':" 1)1'\'1 ','Ill (i"tfll]'T' IId~ ;t!!':~·l(·d 111,1'" Jl~'(',J II' ['j)\ur" ~j:t ,j idb,itun 'lJ ' .. r'~n ,,,In.Jl :r.l' I~ I" ".' h;I':,; II GreenbergTraurig VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Jane Tompkins Planning Director City of South Miami 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami, FL33143 August 3,2017 Updated October 12,2017 Jorge L. Navarro, Esq. Tel (305) 579 -0821 navarrojo@gtlaw.com RE: Fellowship Church / Letter of Intent and Application for Rezoning, Land Use Amendment, PUD-R Special Use, Variance and Plat Approval/Property located at 6781 Sunset Drive, South Miami, Florida Dear Ms . Tompkins : On behalf of Fellowship Church, (collectively, the "Applicant"), please accept this as the letter of intent in connection with a request fo r a rezoning , land use amendment and PUD-R special use approval at the above referenced property. Additionally, the Applicant is requesting a variance of Section 30-3.6(F)(I)(f) to permit private drive way widths of 22 feet for the off-street parking facilities serving the residential units at the property where 35 feet is required . The Property is currently improved with a religious facility and ancillary surface parking uses. As discussed further below, the Applicant seeks a re -designation of a portion of the Property to Multifamily Residential on the City 's Future Land Use Map with a rezoning to RM-18 and a PUD-R special use permit in order to proce ed with the development of a residential project (the "Project"). Specifically, the Project consists of approximately 2.6 acres of unimproved land, as le§all y described in Exhibit A attached hereto, located at the eastern portion of the Property along SW 6i Avenue as illustrated below. MIA 186074232v4 GREENBERG TRAUR IG. PA .• ATIORNEYS AT LAW. WWW.GT LAW.COM 333 S.E. 2nd Avenu e . Suite 4400 • Miami . FL 33131-3238 • Tel 305 .579.0500 • Fax 305 .579.0717 PROJECT INFORMATION Fellowship Church Letter of Intent Page 12 The City's Future Land Use Map (the "FLUM") currently designates the Property as Religious. Per the City's Zoning Map, the current zoning for the Property is R (Religious) as well. The Applicant seeks a re-designation of a 2.6 +/-acre portion of the Property on the City's FLUM to Multifamily Residential with a rezoning to RM-18 and a PUD-R special use permit in order to proceed with the development of residential project on the eastern portion of the Property, which is currently vacant. The Applicant is also requesting a variance pursuant to Section 20-5.9(7) of the City Code to permit a private drive way width of 22 feet where 35 feet is required. Lastly, the Applicant is required to replat the Property in order to create the thirty-two (32) lots for the proposed townhome development. As renected in the enclosed Site Plan prepared by I31itstein Design Architects (the "Site Plan"), the Project consists of 7 residential structures, which are designed wi~h three (3) or more residential units each, that are served by a private drive with large open green areas. Specifically, the Project provides for 33.9% open space and includes a 20 foot setback with green areas from the existing single family residences to the North. The Site Plan design achieves an environmentally sensitive and well landscaped setting that creates ample visual buffers fi'om the abutting prope11ies and right of ways through the incorporation of lush landscaping along the perimeter of the Property. As discussed below, the Site Plan proposes a Project that is consistent with the uses in the area and that will beautify the surrounding neighborhood. Per the recommendation of the City's Environmental Review and Preservation Board, we have also revised the Site Plan plan to reduce the asphalt widths for the private drive ways serving the residential units at the Property to 22 feet in width. The reduced drive way widths will provide greater interior side setbacks from Building Nos. 4 and 5 while increasing the open green spaces and landscaped areas throughout the Project. Additionally, the reduction in pavement areas will support the City's heat island reduction efforts and promote reduced storm water runoff and improved water quality. MIA 186074232v4 ANALYSIS Fellowship Church Letter of Intent Page 13 1. The Project will create an appropriate transition between the Office Uses to the South, the Residential Uses to the North, and the existing Religious Uses to the West. The Project fronts onto SW 67 Avenue and is bounded by single family residential, multi- family, religious and office uses. As reflected in the City's Zoning Map below, the Property is currently bounded by RS-2 zoning to the North, LO zoning to the South, R zoning to the West, and RT-6 zoning to the East. The proposed r~sidential uses will create a more appropriate transitional use and buffer between the more intense office uses to the South, the single family residences to the North and the existing church to the West. From a use perspective, the proposed residential uses will also be less intense than the religious institution and accessory uses that could otherwise be developed at the Property. !I a S7CC' i7S) !'l ~ q. r--"'---"''--------. il I ",' ." , ~ ~ \ i (/it~ ~ ! g: ~. , ~ ;~l 1 ~ , ~·t m SW 69T H TER '--____ -..----' i . .-.-.......... .--\ 'Ill U lt ni1 Q j I ~» 'w 10TH LN EE l l i\ \ 7\:l"J RT.6 ,c~~ ~ 771:~9 I ~== .. -... 't SW 71$ T ~N II f\r~ D 10 ~ R ;7)1 ~ ~ ~\ LO \ ' "ro L_-1 sw ~,o ,,_~o.~ ,on I "" ~ I I ~ i J r _---L -------I .... ----~:)~~ ... -----neil ~ ~ i. 7Y.C· 2. The Project is compatible with the surrounding uses and consistent with the development pattern in the immediate vicinity of the Property. The Project as designed is compatible with the surrounding religious institutions, office MIA 186074232v4 GREENBERG TRAURIG . P.A .• ATIORNEYS AT LAW' WWW.GTLAW.COM Fellowship Church Lett e r of Intent Page 14 buildings and residential neighborhood. Below is an analysis of existing uses in the vicinity of the Propet1y which comprise the neighborhood. • Immediately to the south of the Property is an LO (Low Intensity Office) zoned property which is currently improved with a two-story office building and ancillary surface parking facilities. The proposed residential project will create an appropriate transition and buffer from the more intense office uses to the south to the less intense residential uses to the n0l1h. Additionally, from a massing perspective, the proposed design of the residential units at the Propet1y will provide a visual transition in terms of scale between these uses. • To the west of the Property is the Fellowship Church. The Project and proposed residential uses are compatible with the existing religious facilities the west. MIA 186074232v4 GREENBERG TRAURIG. P.A .• ATTORNEYS AT LAW. WWWGTLAWCOIvI Fellowship Church Letter of Intent Page 15 • Abutting the Property to the east is the Banyans of South Miami Condo, an RT- 6 development. This abutting residential project serves as a buffer to the surrounding single family neighborhood, fulfilling the same purpose as the proposed Project. • Two blocks east of the Property is the Orr's Pond project, a similarly zoned PUD-R development. Like the Project, the Orr's Pond development also abuts a major roadway (SW 72 Street) and a single family neighborhood. CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, the proposed Rezoning, Land Use Amendment, PUD-R Special Use, Variance requests, and re-plat will create an appropriate transitional use and buffer between M IA 186074232v4 GREENBERG TRAURIG . P.A .• ATIORNEYS AT LAW. WWW.GTLAW.COM Fellowship Church Letter of Intent Page 16 the residential neighborhood and the more intense office and institutional uses to south and west of the Property. Additionally, the Project as designed is compatible with the scale and character of the uses in the immediate vicinity of the Prope11y and consistent with the established land use pattern in the area. We look forward to working with you and to your depaliment's favorable consideration of our application. Should you require any additional information or would like to discuss this request further, please do not hesitate to contact me at (305) 579-0821. MIA 186074232v4 GREENBERG TRAURIG. P.A .• ATIORNEYS AT LAW. WWWGTLAWCOM EXHIBIT itA" The North 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, less the East 35 feet and the West 340 feet of the South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, less the South 50 feet and beginning 50 feet North of the Southwest corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 cont. North 32 feet, West 15 feet, South 321 feet East 15 feet to the Point of Beginning in Section 26, Township 54 South, Range 40 East, lying and being in Miami-Dade County, Florida. RECE~'/E D M;t.Y 1 8 2017 City of SonthM iumi PlAnning & Zoning I)cpUI'tmcnt City Hull, 6130 Sunset Drlve. Soulh MiftOlI, Florldll33143 Telephone: (305) 663-6326; Fax: (30.5) 668-7356 Plarm i r.~t and Zoning Depmil1lEmt Application For Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Public Hearing Bcfol'e Local Planning Agency (LPA) & City Commission Address of Subjecl Properly : 6781 SunseL Dr. Meets & Bounds: See Exhibit "A" Appllcanl: Fellowship Church Represenlaliva : Jorge 1. Navarro, Esq. Address : 333 SE 2 Avenue Miami. Florida 33131 Property Owner : Fellowship Church Mailing Address : 2450 Highway 121 North Grapevin e, TX 76051 Architect/Engineer: Peter Blitstein Lol(s) __ Blook Subdivision . __ . __ .. __ . PB • Size of Property : Acres Phone: Organ/zallon : Greenberg Traurig (305) 444-4433 AS THE APPLICANT , PLEAS E INDICAT E YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THIS PROJECT: ..!.Owner _Owner's Representative _Conlraollo purchase _Opllon 10 purchase _ TenanULessee APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE FOR THE FOl.LOWING: SUBMITTED MATERIALS PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE ITEM : pLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY: _Comprehensive Plan Amendment Text _~_LAIIIl{ of Inlenl _Fulure Land Use Map Amendment x ruluro I.and Uso Map Amendment (SiIl f1 I1.Scale Map Amondmont) Note: See DCA Form RPM-BSP Small -Sc ale 1 (Allnched) Briefly Clxplllin DPI,/lcallofl, clte specific Plan secUons to be amended; or Indlcale r-LU.~cilIHUQ..ry_l~ IOl1nO : _ _ See Letter ofIntent . OFFrCE USE ONLY: _.~~,llJsllnCAlion s for cl1ange __ public Facllllles Impacl Report 2.'pftll)r of ownership or leller from owner ._1 'nwm of allorney _ Conlracllo purchase ._?S.. Currenlsurvey (1 orIginal soalod and slgned/1 reduced copy @ 11" )C 17 ") ~ 1 G copies of Sile Plan . JL 1 reduced copy @ 11" x 17" . _ . .J\flilhwll · RecelpLs attesllng 10 mall 1l0IiC:Il:1 sont _..!.tl'luilil1U labelS (3 sols) and map • ..!...Requlred Fee(s) Date FUed Pelil/on Req uired-=' Date of LPA Hearing Date of Commlssion __ _ Petition Accepled _._ •. _____ . Method of Paymenl ____ _ City of South Minmi P lal'lflltlg & /'(JllinJ; f)eparlment City Hall, 6130 Sunset Drive, South Miami, Florida 33143 Telephone: (305) 663·6326; Fax: (305) 668·7356 Application/or Public Hearing before Planning Board & City Commission one · LEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE ITEM : )(variance~ Ilt1/-//?, X Special US~ a/lf"1- _Special Exception _Other (Waiver of Plat) Text Amendment to LDC X"Zonlng Map Amendment _ PUD Approval _ PUD Major Change rienyexpla in application and cite specific Code sections See Letter of Intent Subsecllon:__ Page #: __ Amended Oate : __ _ --o(JIl\t'~r t.l.v' v ~ Print Name TenanULessee ·x Justifications for change _ Statement of hardship ~ Proof of ownership or letter from owner _ Power of attorney _ Contract to purchase X. Current survey (1 original sealed and slgned/1 reduced copy @ 11/1 x 17") .!. 16 copies of Site Plan and Floor Plans 24 x 36", 1 reduced copy @ 11" x 17" _ Affidavit-Receipts attesting to mail notices sent ~ Mailing labels (3 sets) and map ...x Required Fee(s) Upm receipt, IIpplbations I1ml ull ~\Jb/llilk:d matol'ias will be reviewed for compliulloo with the 1..111111 Levelopment Code ami olher IIpplcable n:gulllliUls. Ap pliuutiuns IOlllulnot in cIIllllliance will be re.iooted and rclurIl:d to the appliual1l 1)~lilt:Y: Date Flied Petition R e:q:::-:-u r!:::re::-:d'=--=--=--=--=-- Method of Payment Dale of PB Hearing Date of Commission Petition Accepted ----- Z:\Ponns\Current Planning Department Fonns\Planning Department Fonns\Planning Board\PB • Rezoning Application · Revised 2- 20·2013 .doc City of South Miami P/mlflmg & #ming De-partmolll City H:tll, (iBO SUll~l OriltC, South Miami, Florida 13 t43 l'elt!phouer: (.30S) <163·6326: f'l1.,(: (}OS) 6(1fI,..7356 Applicatioll./fJl-Puhlic Hellring he)lJJ."e Plannillg Board &. City COJIl1I1l:V ... iOIl Add(Qss of s..bjed P{openy. 6781 ~unSei UrWc L4li(s) _ BlOCk _'Subcivlslon PB . St."C Exhibll"J\'I' --Meets & Bounds: AppliCant Fellowsh ip Cliurch Phone: 7 p ~ -307 ~~/7 o~~~ IRePfE!$9i'i1at(j(e~ Jorge L Na\'litto. Esq. Ofgal\izaliOfl~ Grct.'i1bcrg Ttautig, P.A. Address: 333 SE 2nd AVei.U~. Suite 4400 PhOI'le: 30 5-579-0821 Miami Florida 33131 PropeFty owner: r-clIQ\\fShip Churth 5ignatun~: ~gAddmss: 2450 Higbw"y 121 North Phone: G" .TX16051 Arc:h ilettlEn!JIr'teer: P~I¢t: BUtstein Phone: 3OS-444-4433 A$ THE APP UCANT. PlEASE INDlCATE YOOR ·RELATION$HI ?TO THIS PROJECT: ,!;avl'Ier _OINne£S RepresentatiVe _C1')nlract to purcliase _Option 10 purchase _Tenar\tILessee APP UCAT.ON IS HEREBY MADE FOR THE FOLLOWING: SUBMITTED M~TERIAlS PlEASE CHEOJ( UtE APPROPRIATE ITEM: PLEASE CIiECKALL lHAT APPLV: _ TsxrAmelldment 10 lDC _Variance .x leiter 0' iruent _ ZoB1ng Map Amendment _SpeCIal Use .!Ju&tllkallons for change _ PUI} Approval _SpeCIal Exception _ Slatement 01 hardShip _ PUDMajorChange .,.XOther (WslYer 01 PIal) ..x. Proof 01 owner&b\p or leUer from owner _ Power oIatforney Briefly elqlfal'll spplfeali'on and clU! specl1lc Code sections: _ ContlaCf to puIChaS9 .x Current :survey (1 origInal sealed and Sce Leiter o( Intent signed'. reduced copy @ t l' x 11") lS. 15 ooples of Site Plan and Roor Plans 24 x 36ft , 11 reduoed C<lpy @ 11 " x 11 ~ _ A1lldavlt-ReClMp1s atlEMlling to ma ll no1ices sent Sectlon:_ Sub&i!oCUo:n:_ Page It:_ Amended Oate.: ..x: MaIling labels (3 sets) and map /) ) .x. Req uir ed Fee(s) .. '~~ .... ~~~'l'PIi""!O' ... ","""'1< .0'._ ,.r,,,""'" .d ,n .... 'i ... ",.kn,l, "" """ ,," !J'J, ':~~bM ' r~ .... ,.~~"'(k) B~ as ~7--:_"""~''''~.' ~ .d .. N,,~ 0: ""'. l IOU receip1, :!Jlllllca.f us: alld .all submitted nL1!oe rials Ivill 00. reviewed for compUatu:o ",idl i h~ tand Developmen1 Code alld odbl!t' applicable reguJ;3[iOl '. A'pplical i oll~ found llIot ill C.UUpliaJK'e. will bre. If'ejiN![echmd fC1urni!d Co .,IIe.applicant OFF(Ce use ONLY: DalaFded Date of PB Hearing Date of Commission Petition ReQU ired PetitiOn ACCepfed MethOd of payment Z:\F'Ofm. .. \Curlf'~1Ii PJ ~llniflg Dl!p:IftJllOOl FOIm!.\pJallning Dl!l):Jl1mcnl Forms\PIOllilling Bool'd\PB -W:Jivel' of Pfu[ A:P11 Jk.alioJI • Rcvisoo 4·30-2{)13.doc Traffic Impact Study South Miami Church Project 6781 Sunset Drive South Miami, Florida Richard Garcia & Associates, Inc. South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study Engineer's Certification I, Carlos X. Valentin. P.E. # 78422, certify that I currently hold an active Professional Engineers License in the State of Florida and am competent through education and experience to provide engineering services in the civil and traffic engineering disciplines contained in this report. In addition, the firm Richard Garcia & Associates, Inc. holds a Certificate of Authorization # 9592 in the State of Florida . I further certify that this report was prepared by me or under my responsible charge as defined in Chapter 61 G 15 -18.001 F.A.C. and that all statements, conclusions and recommendations made herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and ability. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT LOCATION: South Miami Church Project -Traffic Impact Study 6781 Sunset Drive South Miami, Florida ~~ R ICHARD GAR CI A & ASSOCIATES, INC . Page Ii I , I South Miami Church Project Traff ic Impact Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Engineer's Certification .......................................................................................... II Executive Summary ................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3 Project Location / Description ................................ _ .......................................................... 3 Existing Condition (2017) ....................................................................................... 5 Turning Movement Counts (TMC's) ..................... _ .......................................................... 5 Level of Service (LOS) ................. _ ............ _ ............ _ ............. _ ............ _ ............ _ ............ _ .. 5 Project Traffic ........................................................................................................... 8 Trip Generation .................................................... _ ............................................................... 8 Trip Distribution ..................... _ ............ _ ............. _ ............ _ ............ _ ............ _ ............. _ ......... 9 Trip Assignment .......................... _ ............ _ ............ _ .......................... _ ............ _ ............... 10 Proposed Future Condition (2018) ...................................................................... 13 Background Traffic Growth ...................... _ ............ _ ....................................... _ ............ _ 13 Committed Development ........................ _ ............ _ ............. _ ............ _ ............ _ ............. 13 Future Traffic Volumes .. AM & PM Peak Hour ................................................................ 13 Level of Service (LOS) ................. _ ............ _ ............ _ ............. _ ............ _ ............ _ ............ _13 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 16 ~A RICHARD GARCIA & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page iii South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Locatio n Map .................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Site Plan .... : .......................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Existing Seasonally Adjusted TMC's . AM Peak Hour .......................................... 6 Figure 4: Existing Seasonally Adjusted TMC's . PM Peak Hour. ......................................... .7 Figure 5: TAZ Map ........................ " ............ " ............. " ............ " ............ " ............ " ........... " ....... 9 Figure 6: Project Trips · AM Peak Hour .................................................. " ........... " ............... 11 Figure 7: Project Trips· PM Peak Hour .............................................................................. 12 Figure 8: Proposed Future Traffic Volumes with Project Trips · AM Peak Hour ............. 14 Figure 9: Proposed Future Traffic Volumes with Project Trips · PM Peak Hour .............. 15 LIS T OF TABL ES Table 1: Existing Condition LOS & Delay · AM & PM Peak Hour ....................................... 5 Table 2: Trip Generation· AM Peak Hour. ........................................................................ 8 Table 3: Trip Generation · PM Peak Hour ............................................................................. 8 Table 4: Trip Distribution Percentages ................................................. " ............. " ............ ".9 Tabl e 5: Directional Trip Assignment ................................................................................... 10 Table 6: Future LOS · AM & PM Peak Hour ..................................................................... 14 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Trip Generation Appendix 2: Trip Distribution / Assignment Appendix 3: Signal Timing, Background Growth and Adjustment Factor Appendix 4: Traffic Counts (TMC's) & Committed Development Appendix 5: Operational Analysis· Intersection Level of Service ~ RICHARD GARCIA & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page iv South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact stu dy Executive Summary This study was prepared to evaluate the traffic impacts associated with the subject project. The subject site is located at 6781 Sunset Drive in the City of South Miami, Florida . This site has an existing church to remain (Fellowship Church) while the subject project consists of residential townhouses (31 dwelling units). The project build-out year is slated for 2018. Moreover. the proposed project will have two driveways on SW 67 th Avenue. The trip generation characteristics for the subject project were obtained from IT E's Trip Generation Manual. 9th Edition . Land Use 230 (Residential Townhouse). as identified by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), most closely resembles the subject project . As such. the ITE published data for LU 230 was utilized to perform the trip generation analysis for a typical weekday's AM and PM peak hour. The trip generation calculations yielded 20 vehicle trips (3 trips-in & 17 trips -out) during the AM peak hour and 23 vehicle trips (15 t rips -in & 8 trips -out) in the PM peak hour. The peak hour trips were distributed to the two most impacted intersections and assigned to the project's driveways consistent with the trip distribution percentages of the project's Traffic Analysis Zone 1016 . Traffic counts and operational characteristics were gathered at the intersections of SW 67 th Avenue/SW 72 nd street and SW 67 th Avenue/SW 69 th Terrace . Manual Turning Movement Counts (TMC's) were performed on Thursday, February 16th , 2017 during the AM peak period (7:00 AM-9:00 AM) and PM peak period (4:00 PM -6:00 PM). Subsequently. the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were determined. adjusted for peak seasonal variations utilizing the Florida Department of Transportation Seasonal Factor (SF) and utilized in the operational analysis for the existing condition . As a result. the studied intersections yielded acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) for the AM and PM peak hour. Based on historical trends and published traffic data from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), regression analyses were performed to determine the background traffic growth within the project's vicinity. The most conservative growth rate yielded 1.92 percent and was used to calculate the background traffic for the future condition in 2018 . The traffic volumes for the future condition with project include background growth , committed trips and the project trips. These traffic volumes were evaluated and revealed that the studied intersections will maintain the existing LOS D or better for the future AM and PM peak hour condition in 2018 . Also. the project's driveways were evaluated and resulted in LOS A. The LOS Summary table contain the results of the operational analysis. ~~ R ICHARO GARCIA & ASSOC IATES,INC . Page South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study In conclusion. the studied intersections are operating at acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) and will maintain the existing LOS for the future condition in 2018. Therefore. off-site traffic mitigation measures are not needed or recommended at this time since the subject project will not adversely impact the traffic operations within the study area . LOS Summary· AM & PM ,Peak Hour Notes : • Critical Approach lor TWSC. ~t& RICHARD GARCIA & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 2 South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study Introduction The purpose of this report is to evaluate the traffic impacts associated with the subject project. The analysis documented herewith evaluates the existing traffic condition and proposed future condition with project traffic during the roadway's AM and PM peak hour. Project Location / Description The subject site is located at 6781 Sunset Drive in the City of South Miami, Florida. This site has an existing church to remain (Fellowship Church) while the subject project consists of residential townhouses (31 dwelling units). The project build-ou t year is slated for 2018. Moreover, the proposed project will have two driveways on SW 67 th Avenue. Figure 1 depicts the site's location map while Figure 2 is the site plan provided for illustrative purposes only. Figure 1: Location Map ~tt& RICHARD GARCIA & ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 3 South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study Figure 2: Site Plan ~ RICHARD GARCIA & ASSOCIATES, INC . Page 4 South Miami Church Project Traffic Im pact Study Existing Condition (2017) The purpose of this section is to identify the current operational and geometric characteristics within the study area in order to provide a comparison to future conditions. Turning Movement Counts (TMC's) Traffic counts and operational characteristics were gathered at the intersections of SW 67 th Avenue/SW 72 nd street and SW 67 th Avenue/SW 69 th Terrace. Manual Turning Movement Counts (TMC's) were performed on Thursday, February 16 th , 2017 during the AM peak period (7:00 AM-9:00 AM) and PM peak period (4:00 PM-6:00 PM). Subsequently, the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were determined, adjusted for peak seasonal variations utilizing the Florida Department of Transportation Seasonal Factor (SF) and utilized in the operational analysis for the existing condition. Figures 3 and 4 depict the existing seasonally adjusted AM and PM peak hour TMC's, respectively. Appendix 4 contains the raw data and the tables utilized to develop the seasonally adjusted volumes. Level of Service (LOS) Using the existing seasonally adjusted turning movement counts, operational analyses were performed to determine the Level of Service (LOS) for the existing condition during the AM and PM peak hour. This analysis was performed following the Highway Capacity Manual methodology and utilizing the latest build of the Synchro 9 software. As a result, the studied intersections yielded acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) for the AM and PM peak hour. Table 1 summarizes the LOS and vehicle delay results while Appendix 5 contains other outputs such as volume to capacity ratio (V/C) and 95 th Percentile Queue. Table 1: Existing Condition LOS & Delay -AM & PM Peak Hour --------~~--~-----, 67 Avenue & SW 72 Street 67 Avenue & SW 69 Terrace Notes : • Criticat Approach for lWSC. ~A RICHARD GARCIA & ASSoCIATES,INC. Page 5 South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study Figure 3: Existing Seasonally Adjusted TM C's -AM Peak Hour ~~~ RICHARD GARCIA & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 6 South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact study Figure 4: Existing Seasonally Adjusted TM C's -PM Peak Hour ~t~ RICHARD GARC IA & ASSOCIATES. INC. Page 7 South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study Project Traffic This section of the report covers the methodology to determine the trips generated by the subject project. In addition to the trip generation calculations, the project trips were distributed to the studied intersections. Trip Generation The trip generation characteristics for the subject project were obtained from ITE's Trip Generation Manual. 9th Edition. Land Use 230 (Residential Townhouse), as identified by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). most closely resembles the subject project. As such, the ITE published data for LU 230 was utilized to perform the trip generation analysis for a typical weekday's AM and PM peak hour. The trip generation calculations yielded 20 vehicle trip s (3 trips-in & 17 trips-out) during the AM peak hour and 23 vehicle trips (15 trips -in & 8 trips-out) in the PM peak hour. Note, these vehicle trips are likely to be reduced based on the rate and extent of transit and pedestrian/bicycle, since neither of these adjustments were utilized in the analysis as a conservative approach. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the trip generation results for the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. Table 2: Trip Generation -AM Peak Hour LAND USE (LU) UNITS Proposed Residential Townhouse 31 D.U. External Trips (Proposed Trips) ITELU CODE 230 ITE TRIP GENERATION RATE I EQUATION Rate 0 .44 Eqn Ln(T)=0.BOLn(X)+O.26 AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS IN 3 OUT TOTAL. 12 17 17 14 20 20 Notes: Sources : fTE Trip Generation, 9th Edition & I1E Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. Results utilized in the analysis. Table 3: Trip Generation -PM Peak Hour LAND USE (LU) UNITS ITELU ITE TRIP GENERATION PM PEAK HOU~ T~IPS . CODE RATE I EQUATION IN OUT TOTAL. Proposed Residential Townhouse 31D.U. 230 Rate 0.52 11 5 16 Eqn Ln(T) =0. B2Ln(X) +0. 32 15 B 23 External Trips (Proposed Trips) 15 8 23 Notes: Sources : ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition & iTE Trip Generation Handbook , 3rd Edition . Results utilized in the analysis . ~ RICHARD GARC IA & ASSOC IATES, iNC. Page 8 South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study Trip Distribution The subject project is located within the Traffic Analysis lone (TAl) 1016 as assigned by the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) on the Miami-Dade Transportation Plan (to the Year 2040) Directional Trips Distribution Report, October 2014. As such, the trip distribution was performed consistent with the trip distribution percentages of TAl 1016 and by interpolating between the 2010 and 2040 TAZ data for the projected design year of 2018. Figure 5 depicts the T AZ map while the directional trip distribution percentages are outlined in Table 4. Appendix 2 contains the supporting documentation. Figure 5: T Al Map 1020 1113 1114 964 963 1005 1017 1018 960 1007 1015 961 IW72.n.f 948 1008 1014 1127 Table 4: Trip Distribution Percentages DIRECTION NNE 14.30 18.60 15.45 ENE 12.80 14.60 13.28 ESE 4.20 4.20 4.20 SSE 2.10 4.40 2.71 SSW 19.80 16 .50 18.92 WSW 18.70 10.90 16.62 WNW 13.70 7.60 12 .07 NNW 14.40 23.20 16.75 ~ RICHARD GARCIA & ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 9 South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study Trip Assignment The vehicle trips generated by the subject project have been further distributed into the four quadrants. Table 5 includes the trip distribution percentages and the corresponding trip assignments to the North, South, East and West. Lastly, Figures 6 and 7 depict the gross vehicle trips assigned to the studied intersections and the project's driveways for the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. Table 5: Directional Trip Assignment AM PEAK HOUR DIRECTION DISTRIBUTION PM 'PEAK HOUR,' -, <, ,. IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL NORTH EAST 17.48% SOUTH 21.63% WEST 28.69% 100.00% @) r 3 o 3 6 6 3 3 5 17 ~ D\rKlIonll~~'-".~C ft~ _ ....... 0 ~ RICHARD GARCIA & ASSOCIATES,INC. 2 4 7 5 3 8 3 3 4 4 3 2 5 6 4 2 6 20 15 8 23 5 3 ~ PM PEAK HOUR g:' 'J 3 1 _4 I'17%" W TRIPS \:.:.Y . '~r ..... 2 3 U2!!i.. ewtc:I;c".,I f*'''''lIIIn cnlt4 _ ........ 0 Page 10 South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study Figure 6: Project Trips· AM Peak Hour ~a1 RICHARD GARCIA & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 11 South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study Figure 7: Project Trips· PM Peak Hour ~A. RICHARD GARCIA & ASSOCIATES. INC. Page 12 South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study Proposed Future Condition (2018) This section of the report describes the traffic parameters utilized to develop the future peak hour volumes and to evaluate the future condition with the project trips . Background Traffic Growth Using available traffic data from the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT Count Stations 1067, 8308 & 8388), regression analyses were performed to determine the background traffic growth within the project's vicinity. The most conservative growth rate yielded 1.92 percent and was used to calculate the background traffic for the future condition in 2018 . Appendix 3 contains the supporting documentation. Committed Development In addition to the background growth rate, the future traffic volumes include trips from the SOMI Civic Center project. Although the current status of this project is unknown, it was included in the analysis as committed development for a conservative approach . Appendix 4 contains the supporting documentation. Future Traffic Volumes -AM & PM Peak Hour The existing seasonally adjusted turning movement counts were augmented with a background growth rate of 1.92 percent and committed trips to develop the volumes for the future condition without project in 2018. Similarly , the traffic volumes for the future condition with project include background growth, committed trips and the project trips. Figures 8 and 9 depict the future traffic volumes with project for each studied intersection . The calculations for the specific movements at each intersection are contained in Appendix 4. Level of Service (LOS) The proposed traffic volumes with project were evaluated to determine the future traffic operations at the studied intersections. As a result, the intersections will maintain the existing LOS (LOS 0 or better) for both the AM and PM peak hour. Also, the project's driveway were evaluated and yielded LOS A. Table 6 summarizes the LOS and delays for each intersection while Appendix 5 includes the Synchro software sheets with other outputs such as queue lengths and volume to capacity ratios . ~~ R ICHARD GARC IA & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 13 South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study Table 6: Future LOS -AM & PM Peak Hour Proposed Future Condition (with Project Trl sl (20181 ''> PM. Peak Hour Location nlerseclion Overall • Cr~iCal P4>P<oach TWSC Overall • Criticall'pproach TWSC Control LOS Delay (sec) P4>P<oach LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) Approach LOS Delay (sec) 1 SW 67 Aveooe & SW 72 Street Trafftc 0 53.6 D 41 .0 Signal -- 2 SW 67 Avenue & SW 69 Terrace Two-Way A 0.6 EB B 12,9 A 0.0 EB B 10,5 Stop 3 SW 67 Avenue & North Driveway (Entrance) ngress A 0,0 --A 0.2 -Only 4 SW 67 Avenue & South Driveway (Exit) Two-Way A 0,3 EB B 11 .6 A 0.1 EB B 12,3 Stop Note.: • Critical Approach Ie< 'lw.>C, Figure 8: Proposed Future Traffic Volumes with Project Trips -AM Peak Hour ff5)(( ~ _____ _ ~~U~ R ICHARD GARCIA & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 14 South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact study Figure 9: Proposed Future Traffic Volumes with Project Trips -PM Peak Hour ~ R ICHARD GARCIA & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 15 South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact St udy Conclusion In conclusion, the studied intersections are operating at acceptable LOS (LOS 0 or better) and will maintain the existing LOS for the future condition in 2018 . Therefore , off-site traffic mitigation measures are not needed or recommended at this time since the subject project will not adversely impact the traffic operations within the study area . ~~ RICHARD GARCIA & ASSOCIATES,INC. Page 16 South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study Appendix 1: Trip Generation ~ R ICHARD GARCIA & ASSOC IATES, INC . Appendix -1 - LAND USE (LU) UNITS Proposed Residential Townhouse 31D.U. External Trips (Proposed Trips) TABLE :A1 TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS AM PEAK HOUR Project Name: South Miami Church Project ITE LU CODE 230 ITE TRIP GENERATION RATE I EQUATION Rate 0.44 Eqn I Ln(T)=O.BOLn(X)+O.26 15% Notes: Sources : ITE Trip Generation. 9th Edition & ITE Trip Generation Handbook. 3rd Edition. Results utilized in the analysis. 3 85% 17 20 LAND USE (LU) UNITS Proposed Residential Townhouse 31 D.U. External Trips (Proposed Trips) TABLE: A2 TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS PM PEAK HOUR Project Name: South Miami Church Project ITE LU ITE TRIP GENERATION RATE CODE I EQUATION % 230 Rate 0.52 67% Eqn Ln(T)=O. B2Ln(X) +0. 32 67% 65% Notes: Sources: ITE Trip Generation. 9th Edition & ITE Trip Generation Handbook. 3rd Edition. Results utilized in the analysis. PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS IN % OUT TOTAL 11 33% 5 16 15 33% 8 23 15 35% 8 23 i , Residential Condominium/Townhouse (230) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic J One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 59 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 213 Directional Distribution: 17% entering, 83% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.44 0.15 1.61 0.69 Data Plot and Equation 600~------------------------------------------------------~ 500 400 -. -........ : -----: 300 .. -..... . . , , . x . ,,/x: x , .. ~'" 200 .". ";,..o!'. ',' ••• ','. ./ ·x ./' . ~x ", .. : .X x ./ X . x: >s</ : x· ·x 100 . . ---:. K" ij( , ",.,.,-" . · .. · .. ······,>/x········ ~ ........ " ...... " ... : ./ ,. .... ~ .... ", ..... . ........ ·x-- o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 X = Number of Dwelling Unils X Acluul Dale Points --FIHed Curve ------Average Rate Fitted Curve Equatl.on: Ln(T) = 0.80 Ln(X) + 0.26 R2 = 0.76 Trip Generation, 91h Edition 8 Institute of Transportation Engineers 395 Residential Condomi niumITownhouse (230) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 62 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 205 Directional Distribution: 67% entering, 33% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.52 0.18 1.24 0.75 Data Plot and Equation 700,----------------------------------------------------------, 600 ..... ,.. . '.' .. 500 ......... . 400 300 .. ' x . " .. '" : x,/ ."", . 200 ..... , ... x , , "1--: .... ' ... .,,,~~ .. _ . , . ,/,/':/' . ,~~ .. ' ..... '.' . , , x x o 100 200 300 400 500 6C10 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 x = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Cata PoInts --Fitted Curve ----_. Average Rete Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 0.32 R2 = 0.80 396 . Trip Generation. 9th Edition • Institute of Transportallon Engineers South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study Appendix 2: Trip Distribution / Assignment ~ RICHARD GARCIA & ASSOCIATES, INC. Appendix -2 - South Miami Church Project Project Trips -AM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project Project Trips. PM Peak Hour DIRECTION NNE ENE ESE SSE SSW WSW WNW NNW TOTAL TABlE:A3 Cardinal Distribution AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1016 Project Name: South Miam i Church Project DISTRIBUTION (%) DIRECTION DISTRIBUTION DESIGN YEAR IN 15.45 NORTH 32.19% 13 .28 o 4 .20 EAST 17.48% 2.71 18.92 SOUTH 21 .63% 16.62 12.07 WEST 28.69% 16.75 100.00 100.00% 3 @ Z 1 6 5 o AM PEAK HOUR OUT TOTAL 6 7 3 3 3 4 5 6 17 20 o 1 AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS -.t 3 3 1 ~ DirecUonal percen lages circled are rounded . 0 TABlE :A3·' Cardinal Distribution AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1016 Project Name: South Miami Church Project DIRECTION IN OUT TOTAL NNE 14.30 18.60 15.45 0 3 3 ENE 12.80 14.60 13.28 0 2 2 ESE 4 .20 4 .20 4 .20 0 1 1 SSE 2.10 4.40 2 .71 0 0 0 SSW 19.80 16.50 18.92 1 3 4 WSW 18.70 10.90 16.62 1 3 4 WNW 13.70 7.60 12.07 0 2 2 NNW 14.40 23.20 16.75 1 3 4 Based on Miami·Dade Transportalion Plan (to the Year 2040) Directional Trip Distribution Report . October 2014 . Since the current data is only available lor the model years 2010 and 2040. the eight (8) cardinal directions were interpolated to the design year or 2018. DIRECTION NNE ENE ESE SSE SSW WSW WNW NNW TOTAL AM PEAK HOUR GROSS TRIPS: PERCENT: DISTRIBUTION % 15.-15 13.28 4.20 2.71 18.92 16.62 12.07 16.75 100.00 IN 3 15.00% INGRESS CALCULATED 0.463 0.398 0 .126 0.081 0.568 0.-199 0.362 0.502 3.000 TABlE:A3·2 OUT 17 85;00% USED 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 TOTAL 20 (Ca l culated) EGRESS CALCULATED 2.626 2.258 0.714 0.461 3.216 2.825 2.052 2.847 17.000 TOTAL USED 3 3 2 2 1 I 0 0 3 4 3 4 2 2 3 4 17 20 '. ., .. , ". -~.' ~~~.~T'Pti, -c. , .. NN,E " " l ENE :· ,,- f: .ESE !,~E , , r. ·SSW ·, }~'';'' ''.:.wsw'i .j' 3'(:'''':'{ r· '·y,WNW, ,.\~~!IY , " TOTAL TABlE:A4 Cardinal Distribution PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1016 Project Name: South Miami Church Project ,DISTRIBU;nON (%)" ~ .,!o \ .' "DlsTitB~nbN '" , ~-:,_! ift-". ;,,~ ,u) ~'n ", DiRECTfoN> DESIGN YEAR -;, .. .~;' Ii. I ;- 15.45 NORTH 32.19% 13.28 4.20 EAST 17,48% 2.71 18.92 SOUTH 21.63% 16.62 12.07 WEST 28.69% 16.75 100.00 100.00,",. 5 3 2 IN 5 3 3 4 15 o .i P,M .!~~K't\OUR "'{ , OUT TOTAL 3 8 1 4 2 5 2 6 8 23 3 4 PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS '---,> 1 2 3 ~ Directional percentages circled are rounded . 0 TABLE:A4.1 Cardinal Distribution PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1016 PM PEAK HOUR IN OUT TOTAL 14.30 18.60 15.45 2 1 3 12.80 14 .60 13.28 2 1 3 4.20 4.20 4.20 1 0 1 2.10 4.40 2.71 0 0 0 19.80 16.50 18 .92 3 2 5 18.70 10.90 16.62 2 1 3 13.70 7.60 12.07 2 1 3 14.40 23.20 16.75 3 2 5 100.00 100.00 100.00 15 8 23 Based on M1a~de Transportation Plan (to the Year 2040) Dlrectlonal Trip Distribution Report. Octo~r 2014. Since the current data Is only available for the model years 2010 and 2040. the eight (8) cardinal directions were Interpolated to the design ye ar of 2016. DIREcnON NNE ENE ESE SSE SSW WSW WNW NNW TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR GROSS TRIPS: PERCENT: DISTRIBUTION % 15.45 13.28 4.20 2.71 18.92 16.62 1207 16.75 100.00 IN 15 65 ,22% INGRESS CALCULATED 2.317 1.992 0.630 0.407 2.838 2.493 1.811 2.512 15.000 TABlE :A4 ·2 OUT 8 34 .78% USED 2 2 1 0 3 2 2 3 15 TOTAL 23 (Calculated) EGRESS CALCULATED 1.236 1.062 0.336 0.217 1.514 1.330 0.966 1.340 8.000 TOTAL USED 1 3 1 3 0 1 0 0 2 5 1 3 1 3 2 5 8 23 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (TAZ) 964 963 I 1005 1019 1017 960 962 1007 1015 961 SW72Slreet 948 1008 1014 1128 I 1129 1127 1009 1013 945 1010 I 1011 1184 1185 1168 1132 1166 1183 1172 1167 1174 ...... ':)':) r. . Miami -Dade • • : MOBILIT Y OP TIONS - . 2040 Transportat ion Plan -EYES ON THE FUTURE -. ...... MIAMI-DADE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MIAMI-DADE 2040 Lo ng Range Transportation Plan Directi o nal Trip Distribution Report October 23 ,2014 Directional Trip Distribution Report • MIAMI-DADE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE TO THE YEAR 2040 _ Mlaml·Dade 2010 Directional Distribution Summary OrlginTAZ Cardinal Dlrectlon~ County Regional NNE ENE ESE WSW WNW NNW Total TAZ TAZ SSE SSW 1005 3905 PERCENT 17.4 12.6 7.2 14.5 9.3 11.4 10.3 17.4 1006 3906 , TRIPS 162 1?3 45 40 123' , ,,1481 7-l .;1·70; " ;:9'$2 1006 3906 PERCENT 17.0 20.3 4.7 4.2 12.9 15.6 7.5 17.9 1007 39Q7: TRIPS 805 ,516 ~69 314 , .493, ':406 1 ' :·3~3: , ':37J~ ; "'3~507 1007 3907 PERCENT 23.0 14.7 7.7 9.0 14.1 11.6 9.5 10.6 1008 ' 390,8 ' TRjPS 40$ 456 220 ' 17J 437.J A67 ~ . '29.4 ' 3~82; , 2;832 1008 3908 PERCENT 14.3 16.1 7.8 6.0 15.4 16.5 10.4 13.5 ,1009 3909 TRIPS 808 965 763 4n .'.-'" 99 1, ""'76'/ ';6Q9 : , ,859; ; '6;24}' " . - 1009 3909 PERCENT 13.0 15.5 12.2 7.6 15.9 12.3 9.8 13.8 uilo 39(0 TRIPS 234 280 8~ ,54 ' ,60~ :JQ~"" .,?6' "122:: ,:.,,1';039 1010 3910 PERCENT 22.5 27.0 8.2 5.2 5.8 10.4 9.2 11.7 lQIl 39il 1:Rl,PS 759 953 ' 182 208 ,55,3,: :;3t ,~64 "'47~: ,'! .~l·' \ h.,3;n .() 1011 3911 PERCENT 19.3 24.3 4.6 5.3 14.1 13.7 6.7 12.0 , )oi2' ~9'17; TRIPS 4.360 4.1 ii" 362 !.9~8 6.2 i'2\ ~ ,];731 ,.' S;3l5 : '4:8.1 2i t'~4 :9.Qf 1012 3912 PERCENT 12.5 11.8 1.0 5.6 17.8 22.2 15.4 13.8 1013 3913 , TRIPS 8.19 724 228 667 642 : 1 67S~ 414 , '56?~ ~, , 4';738 , 1013 3913 PERCENT 17.3 15.3 4.8 14.1 13.6 14.3 8.7 12.0 101,4 3914 TRIPS 194 144 18 ,1~7 1~7 , 83 9~' 'H6";. 934 1014 3914 PERCENT 20.8 15.4 1.9 14.7 13.6 8.9 10.2 14.6 lOIS , 3915 TRl~S 176 98 . 6 68 ... Ill: ,-124 23 , if]., 6~5 1015 3915 PERCENT 25.7 14.3 0.9 9.9 16.2 18.1 3.4 1l .5 I 1016 3916' TRIPS ~77; 27~; : . i.OI3 , I 288 ' 258 85 42 398 290 1016 3916 PERCENT 14.3 12.8 4.2 2.1 19.8 HI.7 13.7 14.4 1017 3917 TRIPS 175 123 86 14l' 115' , 156 I2I ~ 249 , I:H7 IOI7 3917 PERCENT 15.I 10.6 7.4 12 .2 9.9 13.5 10.5 20.7 :1018 3918 TRIPS 511 303 185 149 527 355 229 , ?,68 I . 2;827 1018 3918 PERCENT 18.1 10.7 6.5 5.3 18.6 12.6 8.1 20.1 1019 3919 TRIPS 951 689 380 565 '840 822 611 1.0~?, 5.,877 1019 3919 PERCENT 16.2 11.7 6.5 9.6 14.3 14.0 10.4 17.3 1020 3920 TRIPS 1,'266 983 400 557 971 596 574 1,003 ' ' 6,350 1020 3920 PERCENT 19.9 15.5 6.3 8.8 15.3 9.4 9.0 15.8 1021 3921 TRIPS 1.702 1.545 536 911 1.117 1,480 1.037 1;525 9.85,3 1021 3921 PERCENT 17.3 15.7 5.4 9.3 11.3 15.0 10.5 15.5 1022 3922 TRIPS 349 513 151 146 397 397 297 447 2.697 1022 3922 PERCENT 12.9 19.0 5.6 5.4 14.7 14.7 11.0 16.6 1023 3923 TRIPS 38 15 4 10 20 40 10 22 159 1023 3923 PERCENT 23.9 9.4 2.5 6.3 12 ,6 25 .2 6.3 13.8 1024 3924 TRIPS 1.179 989 561 838 1.045 1.291 963 959 7.825 1024 3924 PERCENT 15.1 12.6 7.2 10.7 13.4 16.5 12.3 12.3 1025 3925 TRIPS 417 540 99 166 258 233 230 307 2.250 1025 3925 PERCENT 18.5 24.0 4.4 7.4 11.5 10.4 10.2 13.6 ----EYES ON THE FUTURE 153 DIrectional Trip Distribution Report • MIAMI-DADE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE TO THE YEAR 2040 _~ Miami-Dade 2040 Directional Distribution Summary OrlginTAZ Cardinal Directions County , R~I,ol)al NNE ENE ESE SSE SSW WSW WNW NNW Total TAZ TAZ 1005 3905 PERCENT 15.9 16.3 5.3 9.3 13.1 10.2 9.7 20.3 1006 3906 TRIPS '154 174 37 10~ , 1$0 173 80 , 198" ' I~O~6 1006 3906 PERCENT 14.5 16.1 3.5 9.6 14.1 16.2 7.5 18.6 1007 3907 TRIPS 870 741 317 ,489" i~8.l 55'l -306 " ~~6 4.444 , 1007 3907 PERCENT 19.6 16.7 7.1 11.0 10.8 12.5 6.9 15.4 1008 3908, TRIPS ~78 4.03 207 f31, ~8~, 4Q9 ,247 ' , ,438: 2;6(f2, .. 1008 3908 PERCENT 14.5 15.5 8.0 5.3 14.7 15.7 9.5 16.8 .1009 390,9, TRIPS 1.137 1.179 776 :365 : ' i;~45 ) 'H078,l ,666 ~. . tQ)~; , '\'1.'4'7{ 1009 3909 PERCENT 15.2 15.8 lQ.4 4.9 16.7 14.4 8.9 13.8 .1010 , 3910 ,TRIPS 149 ' 323 63 42 i~o '1'23 ' ~ ,59 ; ,'83 ' ., ~962 ~ 1010 3910 PERCENT 15.5 33.6 6.6 4.4 12.5 12.8 6.1 8.6 'lOll , '3911 1:~~~ 647 1.066' 225 '~35 '~~81' .,~~3.,: . .34'8; , ,', 583' ~,: ... 4@8~ 1011 3911 PERCENT 15.3 25.2 5,3 5.6 13.7 12.8 8.2 13.8 ,1012: 39q: 'TRI}>S 6.748' 569 J.~9~' ,9.22!l: ~;,2~3: :,5'.26JI . " o '·~16;~OS~ 6.419 .. ",6.~4~· 1012 3912 PERCENT 14.5 13.8 1.2 4.3 19.9 19.9 11.3 15.0 '1013 3913 tRI'PS 1.448 1.499 302 1~-257 ' 1.3311 ' 1 .. 766 548 ' ' 1;(64; , '8.757: 1013 3913 PERCENT 16.5 17.1 3.5 14.3 15.3 14.5 6.3 12.6 :101-1 391,4 :"I:IUJ>S 136 220 , 28 84 , ISS ;155! 48 , , .~;48· 9'74 1014 3914 PERCENT 14.0 22.6 2.9 8.6 15.9 15.9 4.9 15.2 lOIS , 3915 tRIps 98 57 26 51 6,3 '51 . ' 2~ ·27( 402 1015 3915 PERCENT 24.4 14.2 6.5 12.7 15.7 14.2 5.7 6.7 I 1016 144 - :54 ( 24,8 'i~, . 3;~7$ I 3916 TRIPS 611 479 137 ,~58 ' 1016 3916 PERCENT 18.6 14.6 4.2 4.4 16.5 10.9 7.6 23.2 1017 3917 TRIPS 274 256 89 135 f7? 205 95 ' ~7.8 1.509 1017 3917 PERCENT 18.2 17.0 5.9 9.0 11.7 13.6 6.3 18.4 lin8 3918 TRIPS 446 432 234 352 '729 ' 344 2W 635 3.4U 1018 3918 PERCENT 13.0 12.6 6.8 10.3 21.3 10.1 7.3 18.6 1019 3919 'fRWS 1,242 1.079 447 632 965 849 556 1;178, 6.9,48 1019 3919 PERCENT 17.9 15.5 6.4 9.1 13.9 12.2 8.0 17.0 1020 3920 TRIPS 1.206 1.144 403 546 1.178 735 691 1.24~ 7.151 1020 3920 PERCENT 16.9 16.0 5.6 7.6 16.5 10.3 9.7 17.5 1021 3921 TRIPS 2;112 1.975 502 968 1,481 ' 1.307 1.071 2;002 11,418 1021 3921 PERCENT 18.5 17.3 4.4 8.5 13.0 11.5 9.4 17.5 1022 3922 TRIPS 609 726 246 213 513 428 434 679 3.848 1022 3922 PERCENT 15.8 18.9 6.4 5.5 13.3 11.1 11.3 17.7 1023 3923 TRIPS 31 24 17 II 13 20 14 40 170 1023 3923 PERCENT 18.2 14.1 10.0 6.5 7.7 II .8 8.2 23.5 1024 3924 TRIPS 1.744 1.737 821 1.048 1.712 1.864 1,047 1.830 11.803 1024 3924 PERCENT 14.8 14.7 7.0 8.9 14.5 15.8 8.9 15.5 1025 3925 TRIPS 423 499 125 219 268 289 336 347 2.506 1025 3925 PERCENT 16.9 19.9 5.0 8.7 10.7 11.5 13.4 13.9 ---EYES ON THE FUTURE 1129 South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study Appendix 3: Signal TIming, Background Growth and Adjustment Factor ~ RICHARD GARCIA & ASSOCIATES,INC. Appendix -3 - I I I I ~ r RICHARD GARCIA Be. ASSOCIATES, INC. MIAMI-DADE ATMS SIGNAL DATA SHEET Signal Asset 10: 3OOc\ Signal Location: Loe) \Q.\N\ ~ '6 ~u~cse.± b-r Analysis Period: ~ / PM (Circle One) Local Time of Day Schedule: ~ Plan Local Time of Day Function: -=-Setting (Blank or Number#) Signal Settings: (I.e. Blank, Plan #1 -Phase Bank 1, Max 1) Cycle Length: Offset: PHASE: <1>1 J-F WALK 0 DON'TWALK 0 MIN INITIAL '5 VEH EXT 2. seconds seconds <1>2 4:- ---7" 0 0 l~ ( <1>3 ~~ 0 0 S 2. .Ne,/SB GREEN , 1& ~ I-±~ YELLOW -,\.4\ --\.,,\-~., RED 2 2. 2.4\ SPLIT l~.~ 6'2.4 5~.\ I,\~.t <1>4 ~t 0 0 ; '3 .'5 ~o 12..S" 4 2 .~ "b('A (~\.+ RICHARD GARCIA & ASSOCIATES, INC . MIAMI-DADE ATMS SIGNAL DATA SHEET Signal Asset 10: ~ 4\ Signal Location: lot~H" ~~+ br Analysis Period: AM / (Circle One) Local Time of Day Schedule: ~ Plan Local Time of Day Function: -==--Setting (Blank or Number#) Signal Settings: (i.e. Blank, Plan #1 -Phase Bank 1, Max 1) Cycle Length: Offset: PHASE: <1>1 j~ WALK 0 DON'TWALK 0 MIN INITIAL '5 VEH EXT 2 GREEN 't YELLOW 4 .&\ RED 2. SPLIT 1'5 .~ seconds seconds <1>2 4- --;> 0 0 1(0 , .,~ 4 ·"\ 2. 9~.--\ <1>3 ~ 0 0 5 ~ q 3' 2..4 t~ .1 <1>4 ~t 0 0 , 3 ·~ ~ 4 2.."t '('.4- Print Date: 212212017 Aud. 3004 PI-! I EBl 6 IntmectiDl! ludlam Rd&Sunset Dr .f!l.2 VVBT 57 lH.1. SBl 6 ~ NBT 27 Splits PH:; WBl 6 TOO Schedule Report for 3004: Ludlam Rd&Sunset Dr .n::m... S£blsiulc QIIMltde l.Illn.1t. ~ DOW4 TOO [01) EARLY MORNING 120 J!!I.!. .fH...2 mI. EBT NBL SST 57 6 27 j .... t r"~ ~ Active Phase Bank: Phase Bank 1 .eb.w!. WdII.. (;!2DlWi!11s MiD IDilil1 ~ DIli!! bimU .fI'IAtl llt.IIm B.d Phase Bank 1 2 3 I 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 I 2 3 1 2 3 1 ESL 0 -0 -0 o -0 -0 5 -5 -5 2 -2 -2 7 -5 -5 15 -12 -10 4.4 2 2 WBT 7 -0 -7 14 -0 -14 7 -16 -7 1 -1 -1 40-32-32 o -100 -10 4.4 2 3 SBl 0 -0 -0 o -0 • 0 5 -5 -5 2 -2 -2 7 -10 -5 12 • 15 -7 3.7 2.4 4 NBT 7 -0 -7 15-0 -15 7 -7 • 7 2.5 -3.5 -2.5 16 -25 -14 40-35-40 4 2.4 5 WBL 0 • 0 -0 o -0 -0 5 -5 -5 2 -2 -2 7 -5 -5 15 -12 -10 4.4 2 6 EBT 7 -0 -7 14 -0 -14 7 -16 -7 1 -1 -1 40-32-32 o -100-10 4.4 2 7 NBL 0 -0 -0 o -0 -0 5 -10 -5 2 -2 -2 7 -10 -5 12 -15· 7 3.7 2.4 8 SBT 7 -0 -7 15· 0 -15 7 -7 -7 2.5 -3.5 -2.5 16· 25 -14 40-35-40 4 2.4 Page 1 of2 Em... QIIs1. ~ 6 N/A Print Time: 9:43AM .Astln.. Adive PbascBank Maximum Max 2 Last In Service Date: Unktlown Permitted Phases Default External Permit 0 External Permit 1 External Permit 2 12345678 12345678 -234-6-8 -234-8-8 -234-6-8 Print Date: 212212017 Current TOO Schedule 0500 0600 Elm Fr99 Fr99 16 0700 A~ 1n nA4" 1A 0930 1 1345 A 1430 p!""\. 7 H100 5 6 11 14 1 ~ EBL 180 6 180 7 1AO A 120 6 11;0 A 11;0 Q 100 6 186 10 100 B 141 7 Current Time of Day Function Tjme Function ~ill!ng! * 2 3 WBT SBL 111 6 76 43 111 B -57 6 ,4Q ,49 7A 9 45 6 85 46 46 6 83 A 12i1l£ 2fWi!1I1! TOD Schedule Report for 3004 : Ludlam Rd&Sunset Dr ~Il!IO lIml 4 5 6 7 8 NBT WBL EBT NBL SBT BIOg Qfflli 33 6 111 6 _33 0 30 7 76 48 25 0 33 6 111 6 33 0 27 6 57 6 27 0 '0 8 ,49 49 20 0 M 9 78 9 M 0 19 6 45 6 19 0 21 10 85 46 21 0 18 6 46 6 18 0 '1 7 83 B 21 0 Local Ti me of Day Function lim!. El.lo!OtjgO &diOgli * 0000 TOO OUTPUTS -7-3-SuM TWThF S 0000 TOO OUTPUTS -7-3- 0700 TOO OUTPUTS -2-MTWThF 0600 TOO OUTPUTS -7- 0845 TOO OUTPUTS -7-M TWThF 0700 TOO OUTPUTS -2- 1345 TOO OUTPUTS -2-MTWThF 0845 TOO OUTPUTS -7- 1430 TOO OUTPUTS -7-W 1345 TOO OUTPUTS -2- 1430 TOO OUTPUTS -7- 1530 TOO OUTPUTS -7- No Calendar DefinedlEnabled Page2of2 mt.u1 m 123 1?A B .4R 7n 35 100 5.4 n I:!ill£ 2f WII!!I! SuM TWThF S Su S MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF W MT ThF Print Time: 9:43AM Local TOO Schedule IimI. Elm .DQYi. 0000 Free SuM TWThF S 0500 Free M TW Th F 0600 1 Su S 0600 16 M TW ThF 0700 J.Q. M TWTh F 0845 16 MTWThF 0930 1 M TW Th F 1345 8 M TW Th F 1430 7 W 1530 ...:L MT Th F 1900 5 M TWThF * Settings Blank -FREE -Phase Bank 1, Max 1 Blank -Plan -Phase Bank 1, Max 2 1 -Phase Bank 2, Max 1 2 -Phase Bank 2 , Max 2 3 -Phase Bank 3, Max 1 4 -Phase Bank 3, Max 2 5 -EXTERNAL PERMIT 1 6 -EXTERNAL PERMIT 2 7 -X-PED OMIT 8-TBA 14000 12000 >; ca ~ 10000 GI U :c ~ 8000 u !E ~ ~ 6000 ~ iU c GI 4000 Cl ca .. GI ~ 2000 0 2012 2017 _Observed Count -Fitted Curve -Log. (Fitted Curve) 2022 2027 Year "'Annual Trend R-squared: Trend Annual Historic Growth Rate: Trend Growth Rate (2015 to Design Yea r): Printed: • County: Station#: Highway: 2032 2013 2014 2015 Miami (87) 8388 SW 64 ST 8600 8600 8600 *Axle-Adjusted 8400 8600 8700 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS OFFICE 2015 HISTORICAL AADT REPORT COUNTY: 87 -MIAMI-DADE SITE: 8388 -SW 64 ST, 200 FT E OF SW 64 CT (2011 OFF SYSTEM CYCLE) YEAR 2015 2014 2013 2012 AADT DIRECTION 1 DIRECTION 2 'K FACTOR D FACTOR T FACTOR .. _---------_ ... _------_ .... ----------------_ ....... _----------------- 8600 S E 4100 W 4500 9.00 51.40 5.30 8600 F E 4100 W 4500 9.00 59.30 1.50 8600 C E 4100 W 4500 9.00 5B.90 16.20 8100 C E 0 W 0 9.00 59.10 16.00 AADT FLAGS: C = COMPUTED; E = MANUAL ESTIMATE; F = FIRST YEAR ESTIMATE S = SECOND YEAR ESTIMATE; T = THIRD YEAR ESTIMATE; F ~ FOURTH YEAR ESTIMATE V = FIFTH YEAR ESTIMATE; 6 = SIXTH YEAR ESTIMATE; X = UNKNOWN ~K FACTOR: STARTING WITH YEAR 2011 IS STANOAROK, PRIOR YEARS ARE K30 VALUES 14000 12000 ~ IV ~ 10000 CII U :c CII 8000 ~ u = IV ... I-6000 1:- ~ 0 CII 4000 0) e CII ~ 2000 a Traffic Trends -V2.0 SW 67 AVE --200' SOUTH OF SW 72 STREET 2011 i j _Observed Count -Fitted Curve -log. (Fitted Curve) 2016 2021 2026 Year Trend R-squared: Compounded Annual Historic Growth Rate: Compounded Growth Rate (2015 to Design Year): Printed: 80.27% -4.22% -2.02% 22-Feb-17 County: Statlon#: Highway: 2031 2012 2013 2014 2015 Miami (87) 8308 SW67AVE 11800 10300 10300 10100 *AxIe-Adjusted 11200 10700 10300 10100 \iO:OJoa;a;_'<iiS!J4S)~~.,:" . .,.... ..... -'~".-:;c;;oc:_-. ;,P.i!L.:<:.S!LUS;:X;:=£''''i.-_ ... Ui:.RS'S'i!"Jt::::zW:&+18 ... as ;;;:;;;;:4h4S::'!P· H * ep2 'fIIi!Rr'§ ..... -e5 'i!i~~:c:t!~::L~;,._"'~' .• ~~ .-,-,.,.~-------- FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS OFFICE 2015 HISTORICAL AADT REPORT COUNTY: 87 -MIAMI-DADE SITE: 8308 -SW 67TH AVE, 200' SOUTH OF NW 72ND STREET YEAR 2015 201ll 2013 2012 2011 AADT DIRECTION 1 DIRECTION 2 *K FACTOR D FACTOR T FACTOR ---------------------------------------------------.... ------- 10100 S N 4900 S 5200 9.00 51.40 5.30 10300 F N 5000 S 5300 9.00 59.30 7.50 10300 C N 5000 S 5300 9.00 58.90 16.20 11800 F N 5900 S 5900 9.00 59.10 16.00 11800 C N 5900 S 5900 9.00 58.20 14.10 AADT FLAGS: C = COMPUTED, E = MANUAL ESTIMATEI F ~ FIRST YEAR ESTIMATE S ~ SECOND YEAR ESTIMATE; T ~ THIRD YEAR ESTIMATE; F = FOURTH YEAR ESTIMATE V q FIFTH YEAR ESTIMATE; 6 = SIXTH YEAR ESTIMATE; X a UNKNOWN *K FACTOR: STARTING WITH YEAR 2011 IS STANDARDK, PRIOR YEARS ARE K30 VALUES County: Statlon#: Highway: 45000 ~------------------------------------------------, 40000 : 35000 e III ~ 30000 :c III ~ 25000 u ~ 20000 ~ ~ 15000 III CI m :u 10000 ~ SOOO o 2006 -Observed Count -Fitted Curve -Log. (Fitted Curve) 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Year ** Annual Trend R-squared: Trend Annual Historic Growth Rate: Trend Growth Rate (2015 to Design Year): Printed: 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Miami (87) 1067 SR 98S/SUNSET DR 37000 38000 39000 39S00 39000 39500 38000 42500 37500 * Axle-Adjusted 38500 38600 38800 38900 39000 39100 39300 39400 39500 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS OFFICE 2015 HISTORICAL AADT REPORT COUNTY: 97 -MIAMI-DADE SITE: YEAR 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1067 -SR 99G/SUNSET DR, 200' E SR 826 AADT DIRECTION 1 DIRECTION 2 *K FACTOR D FACTOR T FACTOR ----... _ .. _.--_ .... -----------------------~-----------------_ ..... - 37500 C E 17000 W 20500 9.00 57.40 2.90 42500 C E 19500 W 23000 9.00 59.30 4.20 38000 C E 19500 W 19500 9.00 58.90 2.40 39500 C E 19500 W 20000 9.00 59.70 2.00 39000 C E 19500 W 19500 9.00 58.20 2.30 39500 C E 20500 W 19000 7.87 58.27 3.40 39000 C E 19500 W 19500 7.98 59.96 4.00 3BOOO C E 19000 w 19000 8.07 66.31 5.40 37000 C E 18500 W 18500 7.90 63.12 4.80 39500 C E 19500 W 20000 1.39 58.66 2.60 39000 C E 20000 W 19000 7.70 65.70 2.40 40500 C E 21500 W 19000 B.20 67.10 7.40 41500 C E 21000 W 20500 B.I0 72.30 4.50 41000 C E 20500 W 20500 9.20 69.00 1. 60 40000 C E 20000 W 20000 B.20 53.50 4.40 39500 C E 20000 W 19500 B.20 53.10 1,80 AADT FLAGS: C ~ COMPUTED: E ~ MANUAL ESTIMATE; F ~ FIRST YEAR ESTIMATE S a SECOND YEAR ESTIMATE; T D THIRD YEAR ESTIMATE; F a FOURTH YEAR ESTIMATE V ~ FIFTH YEAR ESTIMATE; 6 a SIXTH YEAR ESTIMATE; X ~ UNKNOWN *K FACTOR: STARTING WITH YEAR 2011 IS STANDARDK, PRIOR YEARS ARE K30 VALUES 2015 PEAK SEASON FACTOR CATEGORY REPORT -REPORT TYPE: ALL CATEGORY: 8701 MIAMI-DADE SOUTH WEEK DATES SF MOCF: 0.98 PSCF ================================================================================ 1 2 3 4 5 6 * 7 * * 9 *10 *11 *12 *13 *14 *15 *16 *17 *18 *19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 01/01/2015 -01/03/2015 01/04/2015 -01/10/2015 01/11/2015 -01/17/2015 01/18/2015 -01/24/2015 01/25/2015 -01/31/2015 02/01/2015 -02/07/2015 02 08 2015 -02 14 2015 02 15 2015 -02 21 2015 02/22/2015 -02/28/2015 03/01/2015 -03/07/2015 03/08/2015 -03/14/2015 03/15/2015 -03/21/2015 03/22/2015 -03/28/2015 03/29/2015 -04/04/2015 04/05/2015 -04/11/2015 04/12/2015 -04/18/2015 04/19/2015 -04/25/2015 04/26/2015 -05/02/2015 05/03/2015 -05/09/2015 05/10/2015 -05/16/2015 05/17/2015 -OS/23/2015 OS/24/2015 -05/30/2015 05/31/2015 -06/06/2015 06/07/2015 -06/13/2015 06/14/2015 -06/20/2015 06/21/2015 -06/27/2015 06/28/2015 -07/04/2015 07/05/2015 -07/11/2015 07/12/2015 -07/18/2015 07/19/2015 -07/25/2015 07/26/2015 -08/01/2015 08/02/2015 -08/08/2015 08/09/2015 -08/15/2015 08/16/2015 -08/22/2015 08/23/2015 -08/29/2015 08/30/2015 -09/05/2015 09/06/2015 -09/12/2015 09/13/2015 -09/19/2015 09/20/2015 -09/26/2015 09/27/2015 -10/03/2015 10/04/2015 -10/10/2015 10/11/2015 -10/17/2015 10/18/2015 -10/24/2015 10/25/2015 -10/31/2015 11/01/2015 -11/07/2015 11/08/2015 -11/14/2015 11/15/2015 -11/21/2015 11/22/2015 -11/28/2015 11/29/2015 -12/05/2015 12/06/2015 -12/12/2015 12/13/2015 -12/19/2015 12/20/2015 -12/26/2015 12/27/2015 -12/31/2015 * PEAK SEASON 03-MAR-2016 11:19:33 1. 02 1. 02 1. 02 1. 01 1. 00 0.99 0.98 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1. 00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1. 00 1. 01 1. 01 1. 02 1. 02 1. 01 1. 01 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 01 1. 01 1. 01 1. 01 1. 01 1. 01 1. 02 1. 02 1. 03 1. 03 1. 04 1. 03 1. 03 1. 02 1. 02 1. 02 1. 02 1. 02 1. 04 1. 04 1. 04 1. 03 1. 02 1. 01 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1. 00 1. 00 1. 01 1. 01 1. 01 1. 01 1. 01 1. 01 1. 02 1. 01 1. 01 1. 01 1. 01 1. 02 1. 03 1. 03 1. 04 1. 04 1. 03 1. 03 1. 02 1. 02 1. 02 1.02 1. 03 1. 03 1. 03 1. 03 1. 03 1. 03 1.04 1. 04 1. 05 1. 05 1. 06 1. OS 1. 05 1. 04 1. 04 1. 04 1. 04 1. 04 830UPD 6 8701 PKSEASON.TXT -- South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study Appendix 4: Traffic Counts (TMe's) & Committed Development ~ RICHARD GARC IA & AsSOCIATES, INC. Appendix -4 - d Z z 0 i= 0 w (J) a: w f-~ 1 2 Notes: 1 2 INTERSECTION APPROACH NAME SOUTliBOUND SW 67 Avenue WESTBOUND (Ludlam Road) & SW 72 Sireet (SR 9B61Sunset Drive) NORTHBOUND EASTBOUND TOTAL SOUTHBOUND WESTBOUND SW fil Avenue (ludlam Road) & SW 69 Terrace NORTHBOUND EASTBOUND TOTAL 1 Intersection Name 2 Intersection Approach 3 Intersection Approach Movement 4 TMC data provided by RGA. Inc. S Date of Count 6 Peak Hour Factor eRicharrl Garcia and AsSOCiates, Inc" 2008 TABLE: A! INTERSECTION APPROACH VOLUMES -AM PEAK HOUR 3 MOVEMENT SBR SBT SBl TOTAL WBR WBT WBL TOTAL NBR NBT NBl TOTAL EBR EST EBl TOTAL SBR SBT SBl TOTAL WBR WBT WBl TOTAL NBR NST NBL TOTAL EBR EST ESl TOTAL Project Name: South Miami Church Project 4 5 6 7 8 9 ,0 AM PEAK BACKGROUND DATE GROWTH @ 1.92% AM PEAK SEASONALLY COMMITTED OF PHF SF FOR PROJECT HRCOUNT COUNT ADJUSTED BUllD-OUT OF 2018 TRIPS 35 136 73 244 40 527 34 601 358 211 68 637 39 1.442 103 1584 A066 5 331 0 336 0 0 0 0 0 299 2 301 8 0 20 28 665 (EXISTING) (1 YEAR GROWTH) 0.97 34 1 0 0.97 132 3 0 0.97 71 1 0 "-237 5 0 0 '" 0.97 39 1 0 <Ii 0.97 511 10 10 ~ ~ 0.97 33 1 a GI .... 583 11 10 .§ .... "l 0.97 347 7 0 ,f Q ,,:. 0.97 205 4 0 GI 0.97 66 1 0 ~ 618 12 0 ::> 0.97 36 1 a ~ t-0.97 1.399 27 37 0.97 100 2 0 1536 30 37 2,974 57 47 0.97 5 0 0 0.97 321 6 0 0.97 0 0 0 ... 326 6 0 0 '" 0.97 0 0 0 ..,-0.97 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0.97 0 0 0 .. co 0 0 0 2 co .c '" 0.97 0 0 0 '" Q LI-0.97 290 6 0 ,,:. 0.97 2 0 0 GI '" 292 6 0 ~ ::> 0.97 8 0 0 t= 0.97 0 0 0 0.97 19 0 0 27 1 0 645 12 0 .--- 7 Seasonal Factor (SF) obtained from FOOT 8 Seasonally Adjusted TMC = Count· SF (Existing CondHlon). 9 A 1.92 percent background growth was utilized ~Ih a project buUd-out of 2018. 10 Committed Dellelopment Trips 11 Proposed Traffic wlo Project = SeaSOllally Adjus1ed TMC + Backgound 12 Project Trips. " PROPOSED FUTURE TRAFFICWIO PROJECT (2018) 35 134 72 241 40 531 34 604 354 209 67 630 39 1463 102 1.603 3078 5 327 0 332 0 0 0 0 0 296 2 298 8 0 20 28 657 13 Total Traffic = Net Traffic wfo Project + Site TraffiC (Proposed Condition with Project) '2 13 PROPOSED PROJECT FUTURE TRAFAC TRIPS (VPH) WI PROJECT (VPH) (2018) 5 40 3 137 3 75 11 252 0 40 0 531 0 34 0 604 0 354 1 210 0 67 1 631 0 39 0 1.463 1 103 1 1.604 13 3091 0 5 1 328 0 0 1 333 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 6 302 0 2 , 6 304 i 0 8 I 0 0 I 0 :10 0 28 7 6154 I 212212017 0 Z z 0 i= 0 UJ <I) ~ UJ ~ 1 2 Notes: 1 2 INTERSECTION APPROACH NAME SOUTHBOUND SW67 Avenue WESTBOUND (Ludlam Road) & SW72 Street (SR 986/Sunset Drivs) NORTHBOUND EASTBOUND TOTAL SOUTHBOUND WESTBOUND SW 67 Avenue (Ludlam Road) & SW69Tenace NORTHBOUND EASTBOUND TOTAL 1 Inlersec:lion Name 2 Intersec:lion Approach 3 Intersection Approach MovemBf1I 4 TMC data provided by RGA. Inc. 5 Date of Count 6 Peak Hour Factor ©Richard Garcia and Associates. Inc .• 2008 TA8LE:A8 INTERSEcnON APPROACH VOLUMES -PM PEAK HOUR 3 MOVEMENT SBR seT S8L TOTAL WBR WBT WBL TOTAL NBR NBT NBL TOTAL EBR EBT EBl TOTAL SBR SeT SBL TOTAL WBR WBT WBL TOTAL NBR NBT NBl TOTAL EBR EBT EBl TOTAL Project Name: South Miami Church Project 4 5 6 7 8 g 10 PM PEAK BACKGROUND DATE GROWTH @ 1.92% PM PEAK SEASONAl!. Y COMMITTED OF PHF SF FOR PROJECT HRCOUNT COUNT ADJUSTED BUILD-Om OF 2016 TRIPS 68 261 36 365 34 1497 153 1684 91 219 104 414 52 649 86 787 3250 16 355 0 371 0 0 0 0 0 382 1 383 1 0 0 1 755 (EXISTING) (1 YEAR GROWTH) 0.97 66 1 0 0.97 253 5 0 0.97 35 1 0 ... 354 7 0 0 ('oj 0.97 33 1 a ~ 0.97 1452 28 36 ~ 0.97 148 3 0 III ;Z 1633 31 36 ~ Ql 0.97 88 2 0 ci u. 0.97 212 4 0 ,.:; '" 0.97 101 2 0 ~ 402 8 0 => 0.97 50 1 0 .<: I-0.97 630 12 15 0.97 83 2 0 763 15 15 3153 61 51 0.97 16 0 0 0.97 344 7 0 0.97 0 0 0 .... 360 7 0 0 N 0.97 0 0 0 uS 0.97 0 0 0 ~ 0.97 0 0 a i 10 0 0 0 ... "! 0.97 0 0 0 0 u. 0.97 371 7 0 ,.:; 0.97 1 0 0 '" "D 372 7 0 I!! => 0.97 1 0 0 .<: I-0.97 0 a 0 0.97 a 0 0 1 0 0 732 14 --..lL 7 Seasonal Factor (SF) obtained from FOOT 8 Seasonally Adjusted TMC ,. Count· SF (Existing Condition). 9 A 1.92 percent background growth was u1ilized with a project build-i>u1 at 2018. 10 Committed Development Trips 11 Proposed Traffic wlo Project .. Seasonally Adjusted TMC + Backgound 12 Project Trips. 11 PROPOSED FUTURE TRAFFICW/O PROJECT (2018) 67 258 36 361 34 1.516 151 1701 90 217 103 409 51 657 85 793 3264 16 351 0 367 0 0 0 0 0 378 1 379 1 0 a 1 746 13 Tolal Traffic'" Net Traffic W/O Project + Site Traffic (Proposed Condition with Project) 12 13 PROPOSED PROJECT FUTURE TRAFFIC TRIPS (VPH) WI PROJECT (VPH) (2018) 2 69 2 2:60 1 :37 5 3,66 3 37 0 1.516 0 151 3 1704 0 90 3 220 0 103 3 412 0 51 0 657 4 89 4 797 15 3279 0 16 5 356 0 0 5 372 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 3 3,81 a 1 3 3:82 a 1 a 10 a 10 D 1 8 754 __ J 212212017 I I StartTime 07:00AM 07:15AM 07:30AM 07:45AM Total 08:00AM 08:15AM .08:30 AM 08:45AM Total GnlndToIaI Apprch% Tolal % Cars % Cars Trucks % Trucks SW67 AVE Southbound RiMI I Thru I Left I Peds I ... , ... 6 23 11 11 38 19 8 44 17 10 31 26 35 136 73 8 39 24 16 54 21 18 37 32 5 40 23 47 170 100 82 306 173 13.8 51 .6 29.2 1.3 5 2.8 79 ~ 170 96.3 96.4 98.3 3 11 3 3.7 3.6 1.7 0 10 3 6 19 13 o o o 13 32 5.4 0.5 32 100 0 0 40 78 72 73 263 84 91 87 68 330 593 9.8 576 97.1 17 2.9 Richard Garcia & Associates, Inc. 8065 NW 98 Street Hialeah Gardens, FL 33016 Phone: 305-362-0677 Fax: 305 -675-6474 G PI de k roups r nte · ars· True s SW72ST SW67AVE Westbound Northbound File Name : SW 67 Ave_SW 72 SCAM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 2/16/2017 Page No : 1 SW72ST Eastbound Right I Thru I Left I Peds I ... , ... RighI I Thru I Left I peds I ... , ... BJghtj Thru J Left I Peds I .... , .... In!. TOW I 13 122 9 130 9 147 9 128 40 527 10 139 9 136 7 146 9 154 35 575 75 1102 5.9 87 1.2 18.1 73 1084 97 .3 98.4 2 18 2.7 1.6 3 8 12 11 34 14 19 8 12 53 87 6.9 1.4 97.7 2 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 o o 2 1 3 3 0.2 0 100 0 0 138 81 51 147 86 46 168 106 64 148 85 50 601 358 211 163 91 53 164 112 50 163 95 51 176 97 57 666 395 211 1267 753 422 57 31.9 20 .8 12.4 6.9 98.3 99.3 98 .1 22 5 8 1.7 0.7 1.9 i NoIIh 21161201707:00 IWt 211612017 08:45 IWt Cers Trucks b;43 17 460 n.rt Tnt~1 23 11 19 15 68 20 19 16 17 72 140 10.6 2.3 96.4 5 3.6 0 0 0 1 1 2 o 3 o 5 6 0.5 0.1 100 0 0 155 143 189 151 638 166 181 165 171 683 1321 21 .7 98.6 18 1.4 13 441 9 386 12 324 5 291 39 1442 4 247 4 252 9 301 11 414 28 1214 67 2656 2.3 91.6 1.1 43.7 2813 94 98.4 4 43 6 1.6 31 31 22 19 103 16 11 14 26 67 170 5.9 2.8 99.4 1 0.6 0 485 818 0 426 794 1 359 788 1 316 688 2 1586 3088 4 271 684 o 267 703 o 324 739 o 451 866 4 1313 2992 6 2899 6080 0.2 0.1 47.7 100 98.3 98.3 0 48 105 0 1.7 1.7 SW67 AVE Southbound Start Righi I Thru I Left I Peds I ... T ... Time Richard Garc ia & Associates, Inc. 8065 NW 98 Street Hialeah Gardens, FL 33016 Phone: 305-362-0677 Fax: 305-675-6474 File Name: SW 67 Ave_SW 72 SCAM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 2116/2017 Page No : 2 SW72ST SW67AVE SW 72 ST Westbound Northbound Eastbound Righi I Thru I Left I Peds I ..... T"" Righi I Thru I Left I Peds I ....... Righi I Thru I Left I Peds I ...... ''''. Int. lob! I Peak Hour Analysis From 07.00 AM to 08.45 AM -Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins al 07:00 AM 07:00AM 6 23 11 0 40 13 122 3 0 138 81 51 23 0 155 13 441 31 0 485 818 07:15AM 11 38 19 10 78 9 130 8 0 147 86 46 11 0 143 9 386 31 0 426 794 07:30AM 8 44 17 3 72 9 147 12 0 168 106 64 19 0 189 12 324 22 1 359 788 07:45AM 10 31 26 6 73 9 128 11 0 148 85 50 15 1 151 5 291 19 1 316 688 TIlIaI Volume 35 136 73 19 263 40 527 34 0 601 358 211 68 1 636 39 1442 103 2 1588 3088 %App. Tolal 13.3 51.7 27.8 7.2 6.7 87.7 5.7 0 56.1 33.1 10.7 0.2 2 .5 90.9 6.5 0.1 PHF .795 .773 .702 .475 .843 .769 .896 .7 08 .000 .894 .844 .824 .739 .25 0 .844 .750 .817 .831 .500 .818 .944 ru In Tola! ~ Z63 CNJ 35 138 73 19 LeII Peds 4 Peak Hour Data ~ 8.:...t T U ... ~ a-A North Peak Hour Begins a\ 07:00 AM Cars "'co Trucks i g "0 ." ~ ~ "0 ... !!. ~ i ~ Left Thru R hI Peds 68 211 358 1 CiQID 638 c::MZJ Oul In Tola! l I Start Time 07:00AM 07:15AM 07:30AM 07:45AM Total 08:00AM 08:15AM 08:30AM 08:45AM Total GrandToIal Apprch% ToIBI % Cars % Cars Trucks % Trucks SW67 AVE Southbound RighI I Ttvu I Left I Peds I "'. , ... 0 38 0 72 4 68 0 71 4 249 1 78 3 90 1 92 o 61 5 321 9 570 1.5 98.1 0.7 44.5 9 562 100 98.6 0 8 0 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 39 0 72 0 72 1 72 2 255 o 79 o 93 o 93 o 61 o 326 2 581 0.3 0.2 45.4 2 573 100 98.6 0 8 0 1.4 Richard Garcia & Associates, Inc. 8065 NW 98 Street Hialeah Gardens, FL 33016 Phone: 305-362-0677 Fax: 305-675-6474 G roups r nte -ars -rue s PI d C T k SW69 TER SW67AVE Westbound Northbound File Name : SW 67 Ave_SW 69 Ter_AM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 211612017 Page No : 1 SW69TER Eastbound RighI I Thru I Left I Peds I ... !'" RighI I Thru I Left I Peds I ... , ... RighI I Thru I Left I Peds I ... , ... Inl TOI.>' I 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 i North 0 87 0 88 0 93 0 88 0 356 o 71 o 69 o 71 o 90 o 301 0 657 0 99.7 0 51 .3 0 649 0 98.8 0 8 0 1.2 211612017 07:00 AM 21161201708 :45 AM Cars Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 1 o 1 o 2 2 0.3 0.2 2 100 0 0 0 87 0 88 0 93 0 88 0 356 o 72 o 69 o 72 o 90 o 303 0 659 0 0 51 .5 0 651 0 98.8 0 8 0 12 u ;;t ~ 1 0 1 3 5 2 2 1 o 5 10 25 0.8 10 100 0 0 00 ~ 000 r-+! 000 " It 0. "0 00 0 1 0 4 0 4 0 7 0 16 o 4 o 3 o 6 o 1 o 14 0 30 0 75 0 2.3 0 30 0 100 0 0 0 0 [l) [JJoJ oooe!. 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 128 4 164 5 170 10 170 21 632 6 157 5 167 7 172 1 152 19 648 40 1280 3.1 40 1264 100 98.8 0 16 0 1.2 07:45AM 0 71 0 1 72 08:00AM 1 78 0 0 79 08:15AM 3 90 0 0 93 08:30AM 1 92 0 0 93 TolalVolume 5 331 0 1 337 %App. TOlal 1.5 98.2 0 0.3 PHF .417 .899 .000 .250 .906 N~ ~~....1 ~ -' 0" 1:-. ... "'1: n 0 .. ~ Richard Garcia & Associates, Inc. 8065 NW 98 Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 .000 Hialeah Gardens, FL 33016 Phone : 305-362-0677 Fax: 305-675-6474 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 71 1 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 71 1 0 0 0 0 299 2 0 0 0 99.3 0.7 .000 .000 .000 .000 .849 .500 Oul In Total CJiID 337 ~ Peak Hour Data T Nonh Peall Hour Begins at 07:45 AM Cars Trucks ~ T r+ Lefl Thru Ri t Peds 2 299 0 0 ~ 301 CMID Oul In Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 File Name : SW 67 Ave_SW 69 Ter_AM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 2116/2017 Page No : 2 88 3 0 7 0 10 170 72 2 0 4 0 6 157 69 2 0 3 0 5 167 72 1 0 6 0 7 172 301 8 0 20 0 28 666 28.6 0 71.4 0 .855 .667 .000 .714 .000 .700 .968 U Q~ =0 -I 4--'" 20 r-+~o ~~ 'V 8- "0 0- I I StartTIme 04:00PM 04:15PM 04:30PM 04:45PM Total 05:00PM 05:15PM 05:30PM 05:45PM Total Grand Tolal Apprch% Total % Cars % Cars Trucks % Trucks SW67 AVE Southbound Riahl I Thru I Left I Peds I .... T ... 14 66 14 58 20 58 14 71 62 253 16 68 18 64 19 57 18 60 71 249 133 502 18,6 70.3 2.1 7.9 133 494 100 98.4 0 8 0 1.6 12 12 6 9 39 9 12 10 7 38 77 10.8 1.2 76 98.7 1 1.3 0 1 0 0 1 1 o o o 2 0.3 0 2 100 0 0 92 85 84 94 355 94 94 86 85 359 714 11 .3 705 98.7 9 1.3 Richard Garcia & Associates , Inc. 8065 NW 98 Street Hialeah Gardens, FL 33016 Phone: 305-362-0677 Fax: 305-675-6474 GrOUDS Printed-Cars -Trucks SW72ST SW 67 AVE Westbound Northbound File Name : SW 67 Ave_SW 72 SCPM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 2/16/2017 Page No : 1 SW 72 ST Eastbound RIghi I Thru I Left I Peds I ... T ... RIghi I Ttvu I Left I Peds I ,.... T ... RlahI I Thru I Left I Peds I _ T .... IIII.TaIIIl 14 335 37 10 339 24 4 390 46 13 372 36 41 1436 143 6 380 39 11 355 32 17 358 34 19 306 38 53 1399 143 94 2835 286 2.9 88 .2 8.9 1.5 44 .8 4.5 93 2814 98.9 99.3 100 1 21 0 1.1 0.7 0 0 386 24 53 0 373 17 50 0 440 19 40 0 421 25 62 0 1620 85 205 o 425 18 65 o 398 29 52 o 409 16 61 o 363 14 63 o 1595 77 241 0 3215 162 446 0 20.5 56.5 0 50.8 2.6 7 0 99.3 99.4 98." 0 22 1 7 0 0.7 0.6 1.6 T North 211&1201704:00 PM 211&1201705:45 PM Cars Trucl<s 24 25 20 24 93 30 30 13 15 88 181 22.9 2.9 97.8 4 2.2 0 0 0 1 1 o o o o o 1 0.1 0 100 0 0 101 92 79 112 384 113 111 90 92 406 790 12.5 98.5 12 1.5 13 184 19 10 163 11 19 161 14 11 161 17 53 669 61 15 171 25 7 156 30 14 176 16 19 170 30 65 673 101 108 1342 162 6.7 83.3 10 1.7 21 .2 2.6 1333 100 99 .3 100 0 9 0 0 0.7 0 ~ CD '" ijo ::: 5. ~~'" ijg 'Jl lito 00 l:lfl!!. 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 216 795 184 734 194 797 189 816 783 3142 211 843 193 796 206 791 219 769 829 3189 1612 6331 25.5 99." 99.2 9 52 0.6 0.8 SW67 AVE Southbound Start RIghI I Thru I Left I Peds I ......... Time Richard Garci a & Associates, Inc. 8065 NW 98 Street Hialeah Gardens, FL 33016 Phone: 305-362-0677 Fax: 305-675-6474 File Name: SW 67 Ave_SW 72 St_PM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date: 2116/2017 Page No : 2 SW 72 ST SW 67 AVE SW72ST Westbound Northbound Eastbound RighI I Thru I Left I Peds I ""<u RighI I Thru I Left I Peds I ..... <0 RighI I Thru I Left I Peds I ,. ...... "'.e . 'Of~ I Peak Hour Analysis From 04.00 PM to 05:45 PM -Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30PM 20 58 6 0 84 4 390 46 0 440 19 40 20 0 79 19 161 14 0 194 797 04:45PM 14 71 9 0 94 13 372 36 0 421 25 62 24 1 112 11 161 17 0 189 816 05:00PM 16 68 9 1 94 6 380 39 0 425 18 65 30 0 113 15 171 25 0 211 843 05:15PM 18 64 12 0 94 11 355 32 0 398 29 52 30 0 111 7 156 30 0 193 796 lolalVoIuma 68 261 36 1 366 34 1497 153 0 1684 91 219 104 1 415 52 649 86 0 787 3252 ,.. App. lOla! 18.6 71.3 9.8 0.3 2 88.9 9.1 0 21.9 52.8 25.1 0.2 6.6 82 .5 10.9 0 PHF .850 .919 .750 .250 .973 .654 .960 .832 .000 .957 .784 .842 .867 .250 .918 .684 .949 .717 .000 .932 .96.4 CM In Total ~ 366 ~ Peak Hour Data -~ :g~j T u ~~ ~~ g~ ~~-+ Nonh ~:c Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM n Cars 0 .. Trucks ~~ "t1 i & 0>0; II. "0 0- ~ T ~ Lon Thu R' hI Peds 104 219 91 1 ~ 415 CMIl Out In Tola! I I SlartTime 04:00PM 04:15PM 04:30PM 04:45PM Total 05:00PM 05:15PM 05:30PM 05:45PM Total Grand Total Apprch% Total % Cars "'Cars Trucks % Trucks SW67 AVE Southbound Rlghl I Thru 1 Left I Peds I _ ''''' 1 90 1 72 0 88 0 88 2 338 3 100 4 88 5 84 4 83 16 355 18 693 2.5 97.5 1.3 48.8 18 686 100 99 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 73 88 88 340 103 92 89 87 371 711 50.1 704 99 7 1 Richard Garcia & Associates, Inc. 8065 NW 98 Street Hialeah Gardens, FL 33016 Phone: 305-362-0677 Fax: 305-675-6474 File Name : SW 67 Ave_SW 69 Ter_PM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date: 2116/2017 Page No : 1 Groups Printed· Cars -Trucks SW69TER SW67 AVE SW69TER Westbound Northbound Eastbound Righi I Thru I Left I Peds I ... , ... RighI I TIvu I Left I Peds I ... , ... I Righi I Thru 1 Left 1 Peds 1 ... , .... 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 T North 0 90 0 82 0 60 0 82 0 314 o 99 o 96 o 91 o 96 o 382 0 696 0 99.4 0 49 0 693 0 99.6 0 3 0 0.4 2/1612017 04:00 PM 2/161201705:45 PM Cats Trucks 0 0 2 1 3 1 o o o 4 0.6 0.3 4 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 82 62 83 317 100 96 91 96 383 700 49.3 697 99.6 3 0.4 1 0 1 2 4 1 o o o 5 62.5 0.4 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 o o o o o 3 37.5 0.2 3 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 7 1 o o o 1 8 0.6 8 100 0 0 InI.T .... 1 183 156 152 173 664 204 188 180 183 755 1419 1409 99.3 10 0.7 • 1 I 05:00PM 3 100 0 0 103 05:15 PM 4 88 0 0 92 05:30PM 5 84 0 0 89 05:45PM 4 83 0 0 87 TolaJVoIume 16 355 0 0 371 "-AlII>. TOll) 4.3 95.7 0 0 PHF .800 .88B .000 .000 .900 Richard Garcia & Associates, Inc. 8065 NW 98 Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 .000 Hialeah Gardens, FL 33016 Phone: 305-362-0677 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 Fax: 305-675-6474 0 0 0 99 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 91 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 382 0 0 99.7 .000 .000 .000 .965 Peak Hour Data i North Peak Hcu Begins al 05:00 PM CalS Trucks ., T ~ Left Thru Ri hi Peds 1 0 0 ~ 3~ Oul In Tolal 1 0 0 0 1 0.3 .250 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 File Name : SW 67 Ave_SW 69 Ter_PM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date: 211612017 Page No : 2 100 1 0 0 0 1 204 96 0 0 0 0 0 188 91 0 0 0 0 0 180 96 0 0 0 0 0 183 383 1 0 0 0 1 755 100 0 0 0 .958 .250 .000 .000 .000 .250 .925 SOMI Civic Center Traffic study Table 5: Directional Trip Distribution Percentages 16.90 17.10 13.24 13.70 13.40 18.84 2.10 1.70 8 .73 1.80 1.70 6.21 14.30 17.20 10.91 22.20 22.90 17.73 10.30 8.30 12.90 18.70 17.70 11.43 TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 Trip Assignments The net vehicle trips generated by the subject project have been further distributed into the four quadrants. Table 5 includes the traffic distribution with the corresponding trip assignments to the North, South, East and West. Lastly, the net vehicle trips assigned to the count stations within the study area for PM peak hour. Table 6: Directional Trip Assignments .~!ON ~.I'II ~ . DlliTRIIUTlON ~PI!AK.~1III'I . PM PIAKHOURTRPa DPIIIIIIY!M II OUT TUTAI. II OUT TOTAL : 'NNE 1124 30 43 ",fiE 1&84 NORTH 24.87% 30 e 38 13 .. ~~ &73 EAST 27.57% 34 9 43 14 32 46 lIE 6.21 = 10.91 SOllTH 17.13% 21 6 Z7 9 20 211 17.73 ,-, 12.90 WEST 30.63% 37 10 47 15 36 51 NNw 11 .43 TOTAL ,_ 111.80% lU ~ us 5 III III RI CHARD GARCIA & ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 11 r I ~ I South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study Appendix 5: Operational Analysis -Intersection Level of Service ~ RICHARD GARCIA & AssOCIATES,INC. Appendix -5 - TABLE:A7 Level of Service (LOS) Summary -AM & PM Peak Hour Project Name: South Miami Church Project Location 67 Avenue & SW 72 Street A 0.6 EB B 12.9 A 0.0 EB B 10.5 SW 67 Avenue & North Driveway (Entrance) A 0.0 A 0.2 SW 67 Avenue & South Driveway (Exit) A 0.3 EB B 11 .6 A 0.1 EB B 12.3 Notes: • Critical Approach for TWSC. South Miami Church Project Existing Condition -AM Peak Hour i I I I I ~ HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: SW 67 Ave & SW 72 St 10.5 119.7 13.9 37 .0 6:~ 6:;t' *SA M 7.0 76.0 *48 25.0 3:3 51.7' ~M 18 .. 3 0.0 1.1 0.1 2.1 12.4 117.8 64 §.4 7.0 76.0 6,p 15.6 . 0.0 1.1 Existing Condition -AM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project 14.4 36.4 *64 6 ~4 "43 30.0 8.4 32:0 0.1 0.0 1,1 '. I 1',1" :1 ') _ HeM 2010 etrl Delay ~Gt;12:'O'f.OTI'QS • 52 .0 o Timings 1: SW 67 Ave & SW 72 St 1: SW 67 Ave & SW 72 St t EXisting Condition -AM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project Il)ter:section IiQS: ~ ICU Level of Service D I Queues 1: SW 67 Ave & SW 72 St t Existing Condition -AM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project • • J' _.: J • . , I I ( -" '1 ~ '. \ • 1528 35 218 76 176 OflO 0.2~ 0!42 Q:63 26 .5 14.2 59.2 79.2 Ii.o O·Po 0.0 0.0 26.5 14 .2 59.2 79.2 6~5)" 1 ~. '12 113 841 31 113 269 ~93 ' 2[~ , I HCM 2010 TWSC 2: SW 67 Ave & SW 69 Ter HeM lane VIC Ratio HGMleorilrollDeiciy' (8). HCM lane LOS HGM195t/:1 %ti le:a(vehj" Existing Condition -AM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project I I South Miami Church Project Existing Condition· PM Peak Hour I HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: SW 67 Ave & SW 72 St Existing Condition -PM Peak Hour South Miam i Church Project t ,1 • I :' I . , . I • , • ~" If'. . ' , ,1 • 15.0 88.2 10.0 Q~4 '6,4 .~.J( 6.~ 9.0 78.0 *9 78.0 '8.1 19,7 9.0 5:3d7, 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.2 '1 Timings 1: SW 67 Ave & SW 72 St t Int!ll'liection tL0S: 0 leu Level of Service E Existing Condition -PM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project .. I I I Queues 1: SW 67 Ave & SW 72 St Existing Condition -PM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project I I HCM 2010 TWSC 2: SW 67 Ave & SW 69 Ter liM " A :0 Existing Condition -PM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project South Miami Church Project Proposed Future Condition -AM Peak Hour ! , , I HeM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: SW 67 Ave & SW 72 St Proposed Future Condition -AM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project I I Timings 1: SW 67 Ave & SW 72 St Proposed Future Condition -AM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project ~ .. -----=-! I~: ~ .'. III D Queues 1: SW 67 Ave & SW 72 St Proposed Future Condition -AM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project I HCM 2010 TWSC 2: SW 67 Ave & SW 69 Ter 701 12·16 Proposed Future Condition -AM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Proposed Future Condition -AM Peak Hour 3: SW 67 Ave & Entrance South MiamiCh .... ch Project Intersection capacity Utilization ~alysjs.Petl<X.t II)ln) 21.0% 1~ " None None 550 ICU level of Service II A HCM 2010 TWSC 4: SW 67 Ave & Exit In! Delay, slveh 0.3 -0.016 0.018 j~ .. 91 1'Q.4 B B o. O~.1 Proposed Future Condition -AM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project .'. South Miami Church Project Proposed Future Condition -PM Peak Hour I I HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: SW 67 Ave & SW 72 St Proposed Future Condition -PM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project I Timings 1: SW 67 Ave & SW 72 St Proposed Future Condition -PM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project li\ter:s~nl IfQS; D ICU Level of Service F I Queues 1: SW 67 Ave & SW 72 St Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Proposed Future Condition -PM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project , HCM 2010 TWSC 2: SW 67 Ave & SW 69 Ter Proposed Future Condition -PM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Proposed Future Condition -PM Peak Hour 3: SW 67 Ave & Entrance South Miami Church Project Intersection Capacity Uliization k alYslS-Peli9d!(mIQ) " None None o~ 5 31.5% ICU Level of Service ,,1~ , HCM 2010 TWSC 4: SW 67 Ave & Exit HCM Lane VIC Ratio [eM Gontrol O~ayj(s) HeM Lane LOS HGM 95ffi Pktire".~(veh) Proposed Future Condition -PM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project I I RICHARD GARCIA. AsSOCIATES, INC. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE: October 3,2017 TO: Jane K. Tompkins, AICP Planning and Zoning Director City of South Miami 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami, FL 33143 FROM: Richard Garcia, P .E. Richard Garcia & Associates, Inc. 8065 NW 98th Street Hialeah Gardens, Florida 33016 SUBJECf: South Miami Church Traffic Impact Study Review Comments & Responses We have reviewed the comments provided by Stantec dated September 8, 2017 for the subject project and offer the following responses and additional information. Comment: 1. Please include the total number of daily trips expected to be generated by the site. Response: We have determined the number of proposed trips generated by the site on a weekday to be 240 trips. Of these 240 trips, 120 trips will be ingress (inbound) and 120 trips will be egress (outbound). These trips were determined using the fitted equations from ITE Trip Generation 9th Edition since the average rate resulted in fewer trips. Please note this was also based on 32 Dwelling Units as well as the subsequent analysis provided herewith. Comment: 2. Based on Section 20-S.S(B)(6)(d) of the City of South Miami's Land Development Code, it appears that the scope of study should have looked at a 1.0-mile radius. Please indicate if an agreement with City Staff was reached on a reduced study area and document it in the report. Response: An agreement was not reached with the City. The subject project is not a significant traffic generator as evident from the 21 AM peak hour trips and the 24 PM peak hour trips (based on 32 dwelling units). Therefore, the two intersections studied are reasonable and the most impacted intersections for this project. Intersections further away will have little or no traffic assigned as the volumes assigned to the study intersections are single digit (-less than 10). Furthermore, such a project would not require a Traffic Study based on FDOT criteria (less than 600 trips/ day). Lastly, the study provided is of sufficient detail and study size to make any traffic engineering judgements. Comment: 3. Figure 2 depicts two one-way lanes inbound at the northern entrance and two one-way lanes outbound at the southern exit. Is the section of those roads west of the north-south connector bidirectional to allow Units 9-14 and the visitor parking across the street to exit and allow Units 21-23 to enter? Please explain how this transition will be handled, what procedures will be put in place to keep Page 1 of3 RICHARD GARCIA. AssOCIATES, INC. the directional driveways from being used as two closely spaced bidirectional driveways, and that their proximity will not create safety issues. Response: The Site Plan (Figure 2) has since been modified to allow for bi-directional use. As ,such, we have revised our driveway analysis accordingly. These results yielded LOS B for both driveways (critical approach). Please note this was also based on 32 Dwelling Units as well as the subsequent analysis provided herewith. COmment: 4. Please include a review of turn lane warrants on SW 67 Avenue at the site access point. Right turn lane warrants should be based on National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 279 and left turn lane warrants should be based on NCHRP Report 745. Response: The Turn Lane Warrants included in both the NCHRP 279 and NCHRP 745 have been evaluated for a northbound left turn lane and a southbound left turn lane. Our analysis finds this project does not meet the traffic volume thresholds to Warrant turn lanes. Please note this was also based on 32 Dwelling Units as well as the subsequent analysis provided herewith. Attached please find the analysis described above. Thank you for your attention to this matter and feel free to contact me if you need to discuss this further. Page 2 of3 RICHARD GARCIA. AsSOCIATES, INC. ATIACHMENTS LAND USE (lU) UNITS Proposed Residential Townhouse 32 D.U. External Trips (Proposed Trips) -_._--.--- TABLE:A2 TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS Weekday Project Name: South Miami Church Project ITE lU ITE TRIP GENERATION RATE CODE I EQUATION % 230 Rate 5.81 50% Eqn Ln(7) =0. B7Ln(X)+2. 46 50% 50% -- 24-HOUR TRIPS IN % OUT TOTAL 93 50% 93 186 1.2!J. 50% 120 240 120 50% 120 240 ~ ----_I Notes: Sources: ITE Trip Generation. 9th Edition & ITE Trip Generation Handbook. 3rd Edition. '/.6 • .z. ~~ 11I-tf'S -p,ca. ~ t p.u. Results utilized in the analvsis. LAND USE (lU) UNITS Proposed Residential Townhouse 31 D.U. External Trips (Proposed Trips) TABLE:A2 TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS Weekday Project Name: South Miami Church Project ITElU ITE TRIP GENERATION RATE CODE I EQUATION % 230 Rate 5.81 50% eqn Ln(T)=0.B7Ln(X)+2.46 50% 50% Notes: Sources: ITE Trip Generatjon. 9th Edition & ITE Trip Generation Handbook. 3rd Edition. Results utirlzed in the analysis. 24-HOUR TRIPS IN % OUT TOTAL 90 50% 90 180 116 50% 116 232 116 50% 116 232 -- Residential CondominiumlTownhouse (230) ---..... -.-_. ---_._. ------_ .. ----_. --- Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 56 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 179 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting --------------------- Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit 1---___ A_v_er._aQ.e. FI_al_e ___ ._ 5.81 Data Plot and Equation 6,000 -,------------ <I) -g w ,9- t= OJ '0 :c Ql > Ql ~ Q» 7,000 6,000 5.000 I 4.000 . « 3,000 ,. II I- 2,000 .. 1,000 x ., x __Range of Rates 1.53 -11.79 " x " x " Standard Deviation 3.11 , " ... " , , " x o· .. , -, '""1" , l' T , I· .... ' .. --r .. ~ .. ,---- o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 X '" Number 01 Dwelling Units X Acluat Data Points --Fitted Curve ------Average RSle Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = O,B7 Ln(X) + 2.46 R2 = O.BD 394 Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers LAND USE (LU) UNITS · Proposed Residential Townhouse 32 D.U. External Trips (Proposed Trips) TABLE:A1 TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS AM PEAK HOUR Project Name: South Miami Church Project ITE LU liTE TRIP GENERATION RATE I CODE EQUATION 230 Rate 0.44 Eqn I Ln(T)=O.BOLn(X)+O.26 19% Notes: Sources: ITE Trip Generation. 9th Edition & ITE Trip Generation Handbook. 3rd Edition. Results ·'utllizeciJe'the.arfcllYslsi 4 81% 17 21 \16. U) ~~ t=='CfZ a( t>.U • -----------. -.------------------------------------------------------------------ LAND USE (LU) UNITS Proposed Residential Townhouse 32 D.U. External Trips (Proposed Trips) TABLE:A2 TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS PM PEAK HOUR Project Name: South Miami Church Project ITELU ITE TRIP GENERATION RATE CODE I EQUATION % 230 Rate 0.52 67% Eqn Ln(T)=O.82Ln(X)+O.32 67% 67% PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS IN % OUT TOTAL 11 33% 6 17 16 330" 8 24 16 33% 8 24 Notes: Sources: ITE Trip Generation. 9th Edition & ITE Trip Generation Handbook. 3rd Edition. "t5.:z ~ '1lZ-tP5 fIDe.. ~l 'D.L.l. Results utilized in the analvsis. I South Miami Church Project Proposed Future Condition· AM Peak Hour HCM 6th TWSC 3: SW 67 Ave & N. DIW IntDelay, s/veh 0.1 HCM lane vic Ratio HeM COntrol'Delay'(s) HCMLaneLOS HeM 951h ,%ttle Q(veh) Free Free ~ NQ.n~ J)21 ,92 2 2 ,.5. 1 694 365 365 ~~. 329 6:4,2 6.22 'I! 12, 5.42 5:4'2 3.518 3.318 2.218 "409' 6aO '~!19:4 702 729 4Q9 ~IIQ' 1'194 409 '7,Q~ 729 0 0 J.92' 2 327 0.001 -0.016 . 8 0 11.7 A A B o 0 Free Free -. No!)!} 0 0 92 92 2 2 3M 1 Proposed Future Condition -AM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project HCM 6th TWSC 4: SW 67 Ave & S. DIW Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 HCMLOS HCM Lane VIC Rallo HGM ~on\Tol,Delay (s), HCM Lane LOS HGM 95th o,{,liIeJil(veh) .' 0 ,0 Stop Stop . -'~~ 408 6N~ 1 \1~ 408 ~, 731 B ,; 0.001 -0.D18 a '0 ' 1·1l6 A A B o 0.1 ' Proposed Future Condition -AM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project South Miami Church Project Proposed Future Condition -PM Peak Hour HCM6thTWSC 4: SW 67 Ave & S. OIW Int Delay, s/veh 0,1 0' , iOI 0 '~ '~ l2' ~i 2 2 2 2 11 3 ,7 ·4~7 \343 ~ 117.:1 ' HCM Lane VIC Ratio H€~'Gon1rol DeJ8J (s) HCMLaneLOS HCM '~Ih\o/otile'Q(veh) 343 682 655 0.006 • 0.008 8.'1 0 1.1.8 A A B o 0 Free Free .' NOlle -0, 0 9~ 2 ~8.5' ' . ... 92 ' 2 2 Proposed Future Condition -PM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project HCM 6th TWSC 3: SW 67 Ave & N. DIW Int Delay. s/veh 0.1 HCM Lane VIC Ratio H.6M ,gQritrolr~y ,(s) HCM Lane LOS HG'f;;1 .95Jtl'%tlle Q(veh) 2" Free Free -NQne. 01 0 '9~l "~ ~~ 2 2 2 ." 2 ,5, ,~3~ 388 0 ~.esj 117.0 ' 0.005 -0.01 811 0' ,13 A A B o 0 Free - Q' 0 9~ 2 385- Free NOlie ~92 2 f ~3 0 Proposed Future Condition -PM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project 279 ~IONAL COOPERATIVE 279 HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT INTERSECTION CHANNELIZATION DESIGN GUIDE -~ -----..... -.. , ._ .•. _ .. , IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMElfT RESEARCH LIBRARY I ) TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD NATIONAL ~ESEA~CH COUNCil \ { r, ~~-r...Efr 11,tR1JS. }-.\OT W~~~1'E. D 51 • ~ · ! ~ i :> :> ... ~ 0 • • u ~ z • ;;; " ~ ~ · , • > VA ADYANCI"G VOl,.UME NOTE WHU'.".q< Cooy"" 10" ••• 10 •• 1 . .0. UFT-TVA" LANE IS HOT HOA""llV WARRAHTfg vnLeSS THE .. DVAHCIHCl VOLUME IV., IN THE 5A"'E OIIlECTIO" AS THE LEH-TuRHI'IG TA."'CEXC&£DS400V'H IV,"OOVPHI. ). ... V,.. Af)VAHCUiO VOI.V,.e f V'II I 2000 4-LANE UNDIVIDED ROAD V~ HFT 'TunNING VOLUMe 'VPlII Figure 4·12. Volume \W1rronlS !orleji.rurfl lones or unsignallzed inters(!C/jollS. (Source: Ref. 4-7) a partially shadowed len-turn lane, as illustrated in Figure 4·14. With partially shadowed left-tum Janes. the offsct created by the approach tap~r does not entirely prolect or "shadow" the tum lane. Length of L.ane The left-tum lane length is among the most imponMlt design element of left·tum lanes. Its design is directly tied to the par- ticular function of the lane, which is based on prevailing speeds, trllffic volumes, and tlOmc control. The design basis for length can be deceleration. storage, or a combination of both. Len-turn lanes on high-speed highways should be designed to BCcommodate vehicle deceleration and braking. The chan- nelization principle of removing slow or decelerating vchicles from through traffic appliC$ at such locations. Figure 4-15 il- lustrates the functional basis for design of deceleration-based left·tum lanes according to AASHTO. The assumed "reason- able" driver behavior includes deceleration in gear for 3 sec., followed by comfortable braking completely within .the turning lane. Where constraints exist and speeds are moderate. an al- Right-tum lanes can be incorporated within standard cross sec. tions that include parking lanes. Removal or parking upstream of the intersection creates the opportunity to develop an e~c1u· sive right-tum lane. AI suburban .and high-speed lUral intersections, design con- cerns should rocus on right·turn IlIn~ as a solution to potcnlial rear·end conflicts. High volumes or right turns generated by Shopping centers, developments, and office buildings may war- rant construction of right-tum lanes of multilane highways. For 2-lane highways, volume warrants for rigbt turns are generally much lower. This is becaus~ right and through vehicles arc restricted to a single lane. Figure 4-.ll. and Table 4·1 can be consulted to provide guidllnce ror Including right-tum lanes. Additional factors nOI explicitly covered in the volume war- rants, but clearly appropriate in considering right-tum lanes, include: I. Geometries (both horizontal and vertical) that significantly affect the ease or speed or the right.turn maneuver. 2. Marked roulllS that make a tum (Note: these may require right-turn lanes regardless of volume considerations; driver ex· pectations are important in Ihis case). 3. Minimum stopping sight distance to the Intersection (ver- sus desirable stopping sight or decision sight distance). Recon811uctlon/Rehabllitation Analysis of site-specific accident data may lead to the decision to add a right-tum lane to a location. In urban areas, a pre· dominance of rear-end sideswipe accidents involving right.tum· ing vehicles could be treated with the addition of an exclusive lane. In rural areas, frequent high-speed rear-end accidents may warrant addition of a right-tum lane. In both cases, availability of right-of-way and costs of construction would determine the feaslblUty or desirability or right-tum lane additions. DESION OF RIGHT-TURN LANES Design of right-tum lanes Is similar to that of left-tum llUlcs. A right-tum lane can fultin one or more of thc following fune- lions: J. A means of sare deceleration outside the high-speed through lanes (or right-turning traffic. 2. A storage area ror right-turning vehicles to assist in op· timization or traffic signal phasing. 3. A means of separating right-turning vehicles rrom other traffic at STOP-controUed intenection approaches. Design elements or interesl include the departure taper, length of lane, width of lane. and recovery area. The functional requirements ror right· tum lane design are similar to those for len-turn lanes. When the principle function Is to provide for deceleration, the design should be based on deceleration In gear for 3 sec, rollowcd by comrortable brllking. With right turns it may be appropriate to assume that braking continues not to a slop as with left-tum lanes, but rather to the design speed of the turning roadway or comer radius. Design for storage at signalized Intersections is based on IIr- rival rates for right-tum volumes and departure conditions (i.e., 63 Table 4-7. Summar)' 0' state daigm pratti~ In IIroridlns rlgbt-lllm lanes on rural blgblfB),s. cOtmmol'/S WARRANnNO RIGHT TURN LANE OFf MhJOII. (TIlROUOH) HIGHWAY THROUGJI RIGHT-TURN HIOllWAY STATf. VOLUME VOJ.UME CONOJnONS Alaska N/A DHV .. 25 vph Idaho DHV .., 200 vph DHV = 'vph 2-Jane Michisan N/A ADT = 600 vpd 2.lane Minnesota ADT == t,SOO vpd All Des. speed > 4S mph crossroad Utah DHV ... 300 vph ADT = 100 vpd 2-1anc Virllinia DHV = SOO DHV ... 40 vph 2·lanc. AU DHV = 120 vph. Des. speed > 45 mph OHV = 1200 vph DRV = 40 vpb 4-lane All DRV = 90 vph Wesl Viralnia DHV = SOO vph DHV = 250 vph Divided hillbwa)'S c:rossrood Wisconsin ACT = 2500 vpd ADT .., 1000 vpd 2·IDIH: DHV-dcsign houri), volume ADT -averalle daily traffic available green time, cycle length). In designing for storage, the adjacent through lane volume will oreen control the desirable length. This is because right·tum lanes have greater capacity due to greater signal timing flexibility and potential for right· turn-on-red. Right-tum lanes at SlOpped approaches should be of sufficient length to cnable right·turning vehicles to bypass queuM through andlor lel\-turnlng vehicles. This allows the higher capacity right·tum movement to operate indcpendently of other stopped movements. Lane W1dtNI Lane width requirements for right-turn lanes are similar to those for other lanes. In general, 12·ft lanes are desirable. al· though widths lIS low as 9 ft may be used in severely constrained situlltions. Narrower lane widths of'ten result from conver5ion of a parking laue (typically 8 to 10 f't wide) to a right-tum lane at an intersection. Designel'$ should be aware of the operational effects of barrier- type cu rhs on driven. Right-tum lanes adjacent 10 such curbs should be designed to full widths (II to 13 1\) to neglile the constricting effects (If the curb. This is particularly important if the gutter width dimension is nomino.!. Dellgn Vatues Figure 4·24 summarizes the functional requirements and re- sulting design values for design of righl.turn lanes. I 64 100 a: 80 J o X :.:: «( w no Z 60 20 120 'i 100 ~ a: :l 0 X 80 ¥ ~ Do ~ VI 60 2: a: ;:) t- t- X CJ q: 40 e~ R\~~'T 1"tI\tl).) L.~ \J~~ VfIH'= "?~ bW) 2 -LANE HIGHWAYS .. FULL· WIDTH TURN LANE NOTE: For posted speeds at or under 45 mph, peak hour right turns greater than 40 vph, and total peak hour approach len than 300 vph adjust righe turn volumes. ' Adju.n peak hour right turns .. Peak hou r riQht turns -20 FULL·WIDTH TURN LANE TAPER NOTE: For application on high speed highways 500 600 4 -LANE HIGHWAYS 200 400 1000 1200 TOTAL PEAK HOUR APPROACH VOLUME (VPHI Figure 4·]3. Traffic yo/ume gUidelines for dtJigll of right'lurn lanes. (Source: Ref. 4·11) 700 1400 REPORT 745 Left-Turn Accommodations at Unsignalized Intersections TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES _~_r-~_~~~~_''' __ ~ ___ '''~ , • ~._~.~_. __ 0_ ----.~~--.---~~------~- 10 25 'l:' ~ 20 .. ~ ~ 15 i ~ 10 .. :0 t;' 5 j o L 0 Runl. Three Leg •• Four Lanes on Major Left-turn lane not warranted lefHurn lane warranted -----~------... - 50 100 150 200 250 Major Highway Volume (veh/hrlln) (a) Three Legs 25 ~--r=============~======~-' !Rural. Four Lags. Four Lanes on MaJod ~ 20 ! ~ 15 " '0 > 10 -------- E ~ ~ 5 Left-turn lane not warranted o o 50 100 Left-tum lane warranied 150 200 Major Highway Votume (veh/hrlln) (b) Four Legs 250 Figure 3. Recommended left-turn lane warrants for intersections on rural four-lane highways . • Crash modification factors available in the AASHTO High- way Safety Manual (4). and • Construction costs. For rural conditions, different safety performance func- tions arc provided for two-and four-lane highways and for three-and four-leg intersections. For urban and suburban arterials, prediction equations are provided for three-leg and four-leg intersections. Separate urban and suburban predic- tion equations are not provided based on the number oflanes on the major road approach. The prediction equations are not a function of speed limit; therefore, the developed war- rants also are not a function of speed limit. A range of values was used in the benefit-cost evaluation to identify volume conditions when the installation of a left- turn lane at unsignalized intersections and major driveways would be cost-effective. Plots and tables were developed that indicate combinations of major road traffic and left-turn lane volume where a left-turn lane would be recommended. War- rants were developed using the following: • A range of values for the economic value of a statistical Hfe, • Crash costs based on values in the Hig/may Safety Manual, 50 ------~--r=~==~==========M C 45 'E .!'; 40 ~ 35 -; 30 ~ 25 ~ 20 ~ 15 '7 10 ~ 5 o o len-tum lane warrantee! 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Major Arterial Voluma (vehlhr/ln) (a) Thre~ Legs • A range of construction costs, and • A benefit-cost ratio of 1.0 and 2.0. The research team suggested a benefit-cost ratio of 1.0 along with the mid-range economic value of a slatisticallife and moderate construction cost to identify the warrants for a left-turn treatment. For urban and suburban areas. that is a left-turn lane. For rural areas, that is a bypass lane. Benefit- cost ratio of 2.0 has been argued as being a more practi- cal value to use to offset the potential variability in other assumptions. The warrants based on a benefit-cost ratio of 2.0 were selected for a left-turn lane on rural highways. These values were similarto the warrants that resulted when the lower crash costs based on older Highway Safely Mallual costs were used_ Left-turn lanes can reduce the potential for collisions and improve capacilyby removing stopped vehicles from the main travel lane. Left-turn lane warrants were developed as part of NCHRP Project 3-91 using an economic analysis procedure for rural. two-lane highways; rural, four-lane highways; and urban and suburban roadways. The methodology present~d in the NCHRP Project 3-91 report (1) could also be used if a transportation agency has available local values for delay 50 r----------,============r 'l:' 45 Urb~n an~ .Suburban Arterial, I i 40 _ Four. legs --_ II 135 I "'e 30 LelHum lane ; -a 25 >20 ~ ~~ o , o warranted ' Left-turn lane not warranlecl 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Major Arterial Volume (veh/hrlln) (b) Four Legs Figure 4. Recommended left-turn lane warrants for intersections on urban and suburban arterials. () Stantec September 8. 2017 Jane Tompkins. AICP Planning & Zoning Director City of South Miami 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami. FL 331 55 Ponc:e de Leon Boulevard. SuHe 900 Coral Gables. florida 33134 Tel: (305) 445-2900 Reference: South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact study Review Dear Ms. Tompkins: Stantec has reviewed the South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study prepare8 by Richard Garcia & Associates. Inc. dated February 23. 2017. The study evaluated the traffic impacts of 31 residential townhomes. Stantec offers the following review comments on the traffic impact study: 1. Please include the total number of daily trips expected to be generated by the site . 2. Based on Section 2Q.5.5(8)(6)(d) of the City of South Miami's land Development Code. it appears that the scope of study should have looked at a 1.O-mile radius . Please indicate if an agreement with City Staff was reached on a reduced study area and document it in the report . 3. Figure 2 depicts two one-way lanes inbound at the northern entrance and two one-way lanes outbound at the southern exit. Is the section of those roads west of the north-south connector bidirectional to allow Units 9-14 and the visitor parking across the street to exit and allow Units 21-23 to enter? Please explain how this transition will be handled. what procedures will be put in place to keep the directional driveways from being used as two close IX spaced bidirectional driveways. and that their proximity will not create safety issues. 4 . Please include a review of turn lane warrants on SW 67 th Avenue at the site access point. Right tum lane warrants should be based on National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 279 and left tum lane warrants should be based on NCHRP Report 745. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study. Should you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance. please feel free to cal me. Sincerely. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. I(;;)fc . Matthew R. Crim. P.E .• PTOE Transportation Engineer Ph: 832-523-9111 matt .crim@stant ec.com Design with community in mind RICHARD GARCIA a. ASSOCIATES, INC. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE: October 3,2017 TO: Jane K. Tompkins, AICP Planning and Zoning Director City of South Miami 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami, FL 33143 FROM: Richard Garcia, P.E. Richard Garcia & Associates, Inc. 806S NW 98 th Street Hialeah Gardens, florida 33016 SUBJECT: South Miami Church Traffic Impact Study Review Comments & Responses We have reviewed the comments provided by Stantec dated September 8, 2017 for the subject project and offer the following responses and additional information. Comment: 1. Please include the total number of daily trips expected to be generated by the site. Response: We have determined the number of proposed trips generated by the site on a weekday to be 240 trips. Of these 240 trips, 120 trips will be ingress (inbound) and 120 trips will be egress (outbound). These trips were determined using the fitted equations from ITE Trip Generation 9th Edition since the average rate resulted in fewer trips. Please note this was also based on 32 Dwelling Units as well as the subsequent analysis provided herewith. Comment: 2. Based on Section 20-S.S(B)(6)(d) of the City of South Miami's Land Development Code, it appears that the scope of study should have looked at a l.o-mile radius. Please indicate if an agreement with City Staff was reached on a reduced study area and document it in the report. Response: An agreement was not reached with the City. The subject project is not a significant traffic generator as evident from the 21 AM peak hour trips and the 24 PM peak hour trips (based on 32 dwelling units). Therefore, the two intersections studied are reasonable and the most impacted intersections for this project. Intersections further away will have little or no traffic assigned as the volumes assigned to the study intersections are single digit (~less than 10). Furthermore, such a project would not require a Traffic Study based on FDOTcriteria (less than 600 trips/day). Lastly, the study provided is of sufficient detail and study size to make any traffic engineering judgements. Comment: 3. Figure 2 depicts two one-way lanes inbound at the northern entrance and two one-way lanes outbound at the southern exit. Is the section of those roads west of the north-south connector bidirectional to allow Units 9-14 and the visitor parking across the street to exit and allow Units 21-23 to enter? Please explain how this transition will be handled, what procedures will be put in place to keep Page 1 of3 RICHARD GARCIA It ASSOCIATES, INC. the directional driveways from being used as two closely spaced bidirectional driveways, and that their proximity will not create safety issues. Response: The Site Plan (Figure 2) has since been modified to allow for bi-directional use. As such, we have revised our driveway analysis accordingly. These results yielded LOS B for both driveways (critical approach). Please note this was also based on 32 Dwelling Units as well as the subsequent analysis provided herewith. Comment: 4. Please include a review of turn lane warrants on SW 67 Avenue at the site access point. Right turn lane warrants should be based on National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 279 and left turn lane warrants should be based on NCHRP Report 745. Response: The Turn Lane Warrants included in both the NCHRP 279 and NCHRP 745 have been evaluated for a northbound left turn lane and a southbound left turn lane. Our analysis finds this project docs not meet the traffic volume thresholds to Warrant turn lanes. Please note this was also based on 32 Dwelling Units as well as the subsequent analysis provided herewith. Attached please find the analysis described above. Thank you for your attention to this matter and feel free to contact me if you need to discuss this further. Page 20[3 RICHARD GARCIA &. ASSOCIATES, INC. ATfACHMENTS LAND USE (LU) UNITS Proposed Residential Townhouse 32 D.U. External Trips (Proposed Trips) -_ .. _ .. - TABLE: A2 TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS Weekday Project Name: South Miami Church Project ITE LU ITE TRIP GENERATION RATE CODE I EQUATION % 230 Rate 5.81 50% Eqn Ln(T) =0. 87Ln(X) +2. 46 50% 50% _. 24-HOUR TRIPS IN % OUT TOTAL 93 50% 93 186 120 50% 120 240 120 50% 120 240 Notes: Sources: ITE Trip Generation. 9th Edition & ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. 'i'!l. ~ ~~ ~ -p,cz. ~, P.u. Results utilized in the analysis. LAND USE (LU) UNITS Proposed Residential Townhouse 31D.U. External Trips (Proposed Trips) TABLE:A2 TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS Weekday Project Name: South Miami Church Project ITE LU ITE TRIP GENERATION RATE CODE I EQUATION % 230 Rate 5.81 50% Eqn Ln(T) =0. 87Ln(X)+2. 46 50% 50% ~. ---------------._. ____ 0 Notes: Sources: ITE Trip Generation. 9th Edition & ITE Trip Generation Handbook. 3rd Edition. Results utilized in the analysis. 24-HOUR TRIPS IN % OUT TOTAL - 90 50% 90 180 116 5QD~ 116 232 i 116 50% 116 232 ---- Residential Condominium/Townhouse (230) -----------------------... -.-.-. ----------_._------_. Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 56 Avg, Number of Dwelling Units: 179 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit I Av.-ra59ae1 Rate ----_ .-_~-a-n-9-e-O-f -R-a-te-s-----~-s~~d_;;.;,Devjation __ J L. ______ ~~-~ ______________ L~5~3 ____ ~11~,~79~ ____________ ~3~-~11~ _________ ~J Data Plot and Equation 8,000 -r------- 7,000 6,000 CI) -0 I c w c. 5,000 1 ~ I x '" u ! x :c I (IJ 4,000 -. > ell OJ ~ Q) > « 3,000 -x II I-x 2,000 - 1,000 o 1 '~, -,.----,--'---'---'--'-1 '''h'-r-'-- o 100 200 300 ~oo 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 x = Number of Dwelling Unils X Aclual Data Points ---Fitted Curve ------Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.87 Ln(X) 9-2.46 R2 = 0.80 394 Trip Generation. 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers LAND USE (lU) UNITS Proposed Residential Townhouse 32D.U. External Trips (Proposed Trips) TABLE:A1 TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS AM PEAK HOUR Project Name: South Miami Church Project ITE lU ! ITE TRIP GENERATION RATE I CODE EQUATION 230 Rate 0.44 17% Eqn I Ln(T)=O.BOLn(X)+O.26 17% 19% Notes: Sources: ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition & ITE Trip Generation Handbook. 3rd Edition. Results utilized in the analysis. 2 ~ 4 83% 83% 81% 12 17 17 14 21 21 VG. '3D-nz<~ FcfZ at D.u. LAND USE (LU) UNITS Proposed Residential Townhouse 32 D.U. External Trips (Proposed Trips) ---- TABLE:A2 TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS PM PEAK HOUR Project Name: South Miami Church Project ITE LU ITE TRIP GENERATION RATE CODE I EQUATION % 230 Rate 0.52 67% Eqn Ln(T) =0, 82Ln(X) +0. 32 67% 67% --~-------_.- PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS IN % OUT TOTAL 11 33% 6 17 16 33% 8 24 16 33% 8 24 Notes: Sources: ITE Trip Generation. 9th Edition & ITE Trip Generation Handbook. 3rd Edition. \J.t5.:z. a.""flZ.lP5 ~e.. ~l D.t,..(. Results utilized in the analysis. South Miami Church Project Proposed Future Condition· AM Peak Hour HCM 6th TWSC 4: SW 67 Ave & S. D/W Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, vehlh 3 6 Future Vol, veh/h 3 6 1 ConRicnng Peds, #lhr 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free RT Channelized -None -None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Mvrnt Flow 3 7 1 325 Conflicting Flow All 696 369 369 0 Slage 1 369 Stage 2 327 Crifical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Slg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pol Cap-1 Maneuver 408 Stage 1 699 Stage 2 731 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 408 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 408 Stage 1 698 Stage 2 731 HCM Control Delay, s 11.6 HCM LOS B Capacity (vehfh) HCM Lane VIC Ratio HCM Control Delay (5) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 677 677 1190 0.001 8 A o 1190 1190 o 555 -0.018 o 11.6 A B 0.1 1 1 0 Free Free -None 0 0 92 92 2 2 368 1 0 o Proposed Future Condition -AM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project HeM 6th TWSC 3: SW 67 Ave & N. D/W Inl Delay, s/veh 0.1 Proposed Future Condition -AM Peak Hour Soulh Miami Church Project i,.'~<lW:ra~~:{;~~~Jff>~"'~Bfi?,ruir:~~8~':'S-~B'~~~~u~"'~~:,!;;w.:!~~~~~ry lYIP)!t:tJI!tl.Ut;''!I<fAi'.\'-wm~e~~p;" ~'i!:~!:f~~SU~;t>ij ~.>~.f§{".~~)l~~ilr~ Lane Configurations ¥ 4' 1+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 5 1 301 335 1 Future Vol, veh/h 3 5 1 301 335 1 Conflicting Peds, #Jhr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Slop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized • None None -None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 Peak Hour Faclor 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 MvmtFJow 3 5 1 327 Conflicting Flow All 694 365 365 0 Stage 1 365 Stage 2 329 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Slg 1 5,42 Cmic:al Hdwy stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3,518 3,318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 409 Stage 1 702 Stage 2 729 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 409 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 409 Stage 1 701 Stage 2 729 HCM Control Delay, S 11.7 HCMLOS B Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane VIC Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tiJe Q(veh) 680 1194 680 1194 o 1194 • 545 0.001 -0.016 8 0 11.7 A A B o 0 0 0 92 92 2 2 364 1 0 o South Miami Church Project Proposed Future Condition· PM Peak Hour HeM 6th TWSC 4: SW 67 Ave & S. D/W Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Lane Configurations V tf Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 3 -6 384 Future Vol, veh/h 1 3 6 384 Conmcling Peds, #lhr 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free RT Channelized -None -None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 Peak Hour Faclor 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 1 3 7 417 Conflicting Flow AU 817 386 367 0 Stage 1 386 SIage2 431 CriHeal Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.516 3.316 2.218 Pot Cap·1 Maneuver 346 Stage 1 687 Stage 2 655 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 343 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 343 Stage 1 682 Stage 2 655 HCM Control Delay, S 11.8 HCM LOS B Capacity (vehlh) HeM Lane VIC Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %Hle Q(veh) 662 1171 662 1171 0.1 1171 -537 0.006 -0.008 8.1 0 11.8 A A B 0 a ft 354 2 354 2 0 0 Free Free -None 0 0 92 92 2 2 385 2 0 o Proposed Future Condition -PM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project HCM 6th TWSC 3: SW 67 Ave & N. D/W Lane Configurations ¥ 4' ~ Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 2· 5 380 354 3 Future Vol, veh/h 2 2 5 380 354 3 ConOicting Peds, #/hr a a 0 a 0 a Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage length a Veh in Median Storage, # 0 Grade, % 0 Peak Hour Faclor 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 MvrntFlow 2 Conflicting Flow All 810 Stage 1 387 Stage 2 423 CriticalHdwy 6.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 92 2 2 387 6.22 a 0 a a 92 92 92 222 5 413 385 388 0 4.12 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pol Cap-1 Maneuver 349 661 1170 Stage 1 686 Stage 2 661 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 347 661 1170 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 347 Stage 1 682 Stage 2 661 HCM Control Delay, S 13 0.1 o HCM LOS B Capacity (vehfh) 1170 -455 HCM lane VIC Ratio 0.005 -0.01 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 13 HCM lane lOS A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 92 2 3 0 Proposed Future Condition -PM Peak Hour South Miami Church Project 279 ~IONAl COOPERATIVE 279 HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT INTERSECTION CHANNELIZATION DESIGN GUIDE . -.-.. -_._'\ IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT I RESEARCH LIBRARY J TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL " { 1'l~-L.E fr 1l.AR1J~. ~OT W~~~TEb 51 f > i :: 0 > ... . ., z z i1 ;; ? ~ ~ 0 .-" VO;'U¥l IV"I) NOTE WHEN VO'.tOO VPH CCla\hrGlIIMI. A LEfT -TVAN LAHl IS IolOT NOA~All.. Y WAAA.u'HO V'IHSS THE ADVANCING VOLU",e {V.I IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE lHT-TVRNmG TA .. FFIC E~CEEOS 400 VPH (V.> 400 "PHI. X>Oo ~ > 1S11O "'LANE UNOIVIDED ROAD .0 15 20 H VL UFT rvnNING VOlVJ,4[ .V"'" Figu,e 4·11. Volume wan"(lIllS for left-turn /OIlIlS 01 unsignalized intersections. (Source: Ref. 4-7) a partially shadowed left-turn lane, as illustrated in Figure 4·14. With partially shadowed left-tum lanes, the offset created by the approach taper does not entirely protect or "shadow" the tum lanc. Length of Lane The left-turn lane lenglh is among the most important desigJl elcment of left-lum lanes. lIs design is directly tied to the par- ticular function of the lane, which is based on prevailing speeds, traffic volumes, and troffie control. The design basis for length can be deceleration, storage, or 8 combinillion of both. Left-turn lanes on high-speed highways should be designed to ncoommodate vehicle dcx:eleration and braking. The chan- nelization principle of removing slow or decelerating vehicles from through traffic applies at such locations. Figure 4--15 il- lustrates the functional basis for design of deceleration-b3$ed left-tum lanes according to AASHTO. The assumed "reason- abl~" driver behavior includes deceleration in gear for 1 sec., followed by oomfortable braking oompletely within the turning lane. Where constraints exist and speeds are moderate, an aI- Right-tum lanes can be incorporated within standard cross sec. tions that include parking lanes. Removal of parking upstream of the intersection creates the opportunity to develop lin exclu- sive right·turn lane. At suburban .and high-speed rural intersections, design con- cerns should focus on right-turn lan~s as II solution to potential rear-end conflicts. High volumes of right turns generated by shopping centers, developments, and office buildings may war· rant construction of right-tum lanes of multilane highways. For 2-lane highways, volume warrants for right turns are generally much lower. This is because right and through vehicles are restricted to a single lane. Figure 4-23 and Table 4·1 can be consulted to provide guidance tor mcluding right-tum lanes. Additional fpctors not explicitly covered in the volume war· rants, but clearly appropriate in considering right·tum lanes, include: 1. Geometries (both horizontal and vertical) that significantly affect the ease or speed of the right-turn maneUver. 2. Marked routes thllt make B tum (Note: these may require right-tum lanes regardlcss of "olume considel1ltions; driver ex· pectations are important in this case). J. Minimum stopping sight distance to the intcr~ectioll (ver- sus desirable stopping sight or decision sight distance). R&conltl'\lctionl RehabilitatIon Analysis of site-sp~ific accident data may lead to the decision to odd a right-tum lane to a location. In urban areas, a pre- dominance of rear-end sideswipe aceidents involving right-turn- ing vehicles could be treated with the addition of an exclusi ve lane. In rural areas, frequent high-speed rear·end accidents may warrant addition of a right-turn lane. In both cases, availability of right-of-way and COSl~ of constl'\lction would determine the feMibillty or desirability of right-turn lane additions. D£SION OF RIGHT-TURN LANES - Design of right.turn lanes is similar to that of left-tum lanes. A right. tum lane can fulfill one or more of the follOwing func- tions: 1. A means of safe decelerution outside the high-speed through lanes for right-turning traffic. 2. A storage area for right-turning vehicles to assist in op- timization of tfame signal phasing. 3. A means of separating right-turning vehicles from other traffic at STOP-controUed intersection approaches. Design elements of interest include the depanure taper, length of lone. width of lane, and recovery area. The functional requirements for right-tum lane design are similar to those for left-tum lanes. When Ihe principle function is to provide for deceleration, the design should be based on deceleration in gear for 3 sec, followed by comfortable braking. With right turns it may be appropriate to assume that braking continues not to a stop lIS with left-tum lanes. but rather to the design speed of the turning roadway or corner radius. Design for storage at signaliud intersections is based on IIt- rival rates for right-tum volumes and departure conditions (i.e., 63 Table 4-7. Summary of stole design practice In provJdlnll rlsill-tum lanes on rural bighways. (ONOmONS WARRANTING RIGHT TURN LANE OFF MAJOR (TlIROUOH) HIGHWAV THROUG" RIGHt-TURN HIGHWAY STATf. VOLUME VOlUMt: (ONOmONS Alaska N/A DHV = 2~ vph Idaho DHV = 200 vpll DHV = ~ "pll 2-lane Michillan N/A ADT = 600 vpd I-lane Minnesota ADT = 1,500 vpd All Des_ speed > 4S mph crossroad Utah DHV = 300 "ph ADT = 100 vpd 2·1ane Virginia DHV = 500 DHV '" 40 vph 2·1ane, All DHV = 120 vph. Des. speed ;> 4S mph DHV = 1200 vph DHV = 40 vph 4-1ane All DHV = 90 vph West Virginia DHV = 500 vph DHV = 250 vph Divided higbways crO!lsrOlld Wi~nsin ADT = 2500 vpd ADT = 1000 "pd 2-hme DHV-design hourly volume ADT-mverBllc dail)' traffic IIvailable grcen time, cycle length). In designing for storage, the adjacent through lane volume will often control the desirable length. This is because right-tum lanes have greater capacity due to greater signal liming flexibility and potential for right- turn-on-red. Right.tum lanes at slopped Ilpproaches should be of sufficient length to enable right-turning vehicles to bypass queued through and/or left-turning vehicles. This allows the higher capacity right-tum movement to operate independently of other stopped movements. Lane Wldths Lane width requirements for right-turn lanes are similar to those for other lanes. In generlll, 12-ft lanes are desirable, al- though widths as low lIS 9 ft may be used in severely constrained situations. Nllrrower lane widlh~ often result from conversion of a parking lane (typically 8 to 10 ft wide) to 1\ right-turn lane at an intersection. Designers should be aware of the operational effects of barrier- type curbs on drivers. Right-tum lanes adjacent to such curbs should be designed to full widths (11 to 13 ft) to negate the constricting effects of the curb. This is panicularly important if the gutter width dimension is nominul. Oosign Valuus Figure 4·24 summarizes the functional requirements and re- sulting design value. for design of right-tum lanes. 1 I 64 ::r c.. ~ a:: :;l o :::c :.: '" w Go Z U) z a:. :..:> r- 100 80 60 I-40 X C!I II: 20 2 -LANE HIGHWAYS - FULL WIDTH TURN LANE TAPER NOTE: For PO$ted speeds at or under 45 mph, peak hour right turns greater than 40 vph, an~ lotal peak hour apprOldl less than 300 vph, ad,ust roght turn volumes, Adjust peak hour right turm R Peak hour right turns -20 100 400 500 600 TOTAL PEAK HOUR APPROACH VOLUME (VPH) • 700 120r-----~~----~~------r_------._------~------,_------_t X 100 ~ a: ::l o X 80 :.: is c.. ~ ~ 60 a:: ~ I- r- X C!I a: 40 20 4 -LANE HIGHWAYS FULL ·WIDTH TURN LANE TAPER NOTE: For application on high speed highways 200 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 TOTAL PEAK HOUR APPROACH VOLUME (VPH) Figure 4·]J. Traffic ~olume guidelines for design of right-tuTIl fanes. (Sourl:e: Ref. 4-11) 1400 REPORT 745 Left-Turn Accommodations at Unsignalized Intersections TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD OF mE NAT/ONN ACADEMIES 1D 25 ----r.-------------~ IRural, Three legs, Four Li!!l"~_~I!"~!~ -c- ..<: :i: 20 .. ~ ~ 15 ::> "0 > 10 .. " ~ 5 --' a j a Lefl"turn lana nol warranted 50 100 left·tum lane warranted 150 200 Major Highway Volume (vah/hrlln) (8) Tbreo Logs 250 25 ~--~================--===>- I Rural, Four logs, Four Lanes on Majorl ~ 20 ! E 15 " '0 > 10 E ~ 5 --' o a Lef\-turn lane not warranted 50 100 LeH"tumlane warranted 150 200 Major Highway Volume (veh/hr/ln) (b) Fonr bgs 250 Figure 3. Recommended left-turn lane warrants for intersections on rural four-lane highways. • Crash modification factors available in the AASHTO High- wny Safety Manual (4), and • Construction costs. For rural conditions, different safety performance func- tions arc provided for two-and four-lane highways and for three-and four-leg intersections. For urban and suburban arterials, prediction equations are provided for three-leg and four-leg intersections. Separate urban and suburban predic- tion equations are not provided based on the number oflanes on the major road approach. The prediction equations are not a function of speed limit; therefore, the developed war- rants also are not a function of speed limit. !I. range of values was used in the benefit-cost evaluation to identify volume conditions when the installation of a left- turn lane at unsignalized intersections and major driveways would be cost-effective, Plots and tables were developed that indicate combinations of major road traffic and left-turn lane volume where a left-turn lane would be recommended. War- rants were developed using the following: • A range of values for the economic value of a statistical life, • Crash costs based on values in the HigiJway Safety Manual, 50 ~ 45 .., 40 ; 35 -; 30 5 25 ~ 20 E 15 " t-; 10 4;j 5 .J o o Galt-IUm lanD not warranted . ".. lefHurn lane warranted 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Major Arterial Volume (veh/hr/ln) (3) Thr~e Legs • A range of construction costs. and • !I. benefit-cost ratio of 1.0 and 2.0. The research team suggested a benefit-cost ratio of 1.0 along with the mid-range economic value of a statistical life and moderate construction cost to identify the warrants for a left-turn treatment. for urban and suburban areas, that is a left-turn lane. For rural areas, that is a bypass lane. Benefit- cost ratio of 2.0 has been argued as being a more practi- cal value to use to offset the potential variability in other assumptions. The warrants based on a benefit-cost ratio of 2,0 were selected for a left-turn lane on rural highways. These values were sirnilar10 the warrants that resulted when the lower crash costs based on older Highway Safety Manual costs were used. Left-turn lanes can reduce the potential for collisions and improve capacity by removing stopped vehicles from the main travel lane. Left-turn lane warrants were developed as part of NCHRP Project 3-91 using an economic analysis procedure for rural, two-lane highways; rural, four-lane highways; and urban and suburban roadways. The methodology presented in the NCHRP Project 3-91 report (1) could also be used if a transportation agency has available local values for delay 50 -;:-45 1§ 40 ! 35 E 30 ~ 25 > 20 ! ~~ --' ~ j- o Urban and Suburban Arterial. I I' -Four Logs . ._. --.--.. --------'-1 Left-Iurn lane I;. warranted I Left-turn lane not warranted 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Major Arterial Volume (veh/hr/ln) (b) Four Legs Figure 4. Recommended left-turn lane warrants for intersections on urban and suburban arterials. ~ Stantec September 8,2017 Jane Tompkins, AICP Planning & Zoning Director City of South Miami 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami. FL 33155 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 900 Coral Gobles. Florida 33134 Tel: (305) 445-2900 Reference: South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study Review Dear Ms. Tompkins: Stantec has reviewed the South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study prepared by Richard Garcia & Associates, Inc. doted February 23, 2017. The study evaluated the traffic impacts of 31 residential townhomes. Stantec offers the following review comments on the traffic impact study: 1, Please include the total number of daily trips expected to be generated by the site. 2, Based on Section 20-5,5{B){6)(d) of the City of South Miami's land Development Code, it appears that the scope of study should have looked at a l.O-mile radius, Please indicate if on agreement with City Stoff was reached on a reduced study area and document it in the report. 3. Figure 2 depicts two one-way lanes inbound at the northem entrance and two one-way lanes outbound at the southern exit. Is the section of those roods west of the north-south connector bidirectional to allow Units 9-14 and the visitor parking across the street to exit and allow Units 21-23 to enter? Please explain how this transition will be handled, what procedures will be put in place to keep the directional driveways fram being used as two closely spaced bidirectional driveways, and that their proximity will not create safety issues. 4. Please include a review of turn lane warrants on SW 67 1h Avenue at the site access point. Right turn lane warrants should be based on National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 279 and left turn lone warrants should be based on NCHRP Report 745. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the South Miami Church Project Traffic Impact Study, Should you have any queslions or if I can be of furl her assistance, please feel free to call me. Sincerely. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. It:!f~ Matthew R. Crim, P.E .. PTOE Transportation Engineer Ph: 832-523-9111 matl.crim@slantec.com Dosign with community in mine! CONCURRENCY ANALYSIS Parcel Address: 5701 SW 72 Street November 14,2017 THE CITY OF PI.EASANT LIVING Request: Development ofthiltY-lWO (32) townhomes on a 2.6-acre parcel. The area is largely vacant except for some surface parking that will be removed to accommodate the project. The property is currently designated Religious on the Future Land Use Map. The application is to change the designation of to Multiple family Residential (Four Story). Change in Numbcr of Units: + 32 townhouse units Change in Non-Residential Square Footage: 0 Change in Number Persons (2.46 persons per household): 0 to 79 = -79 persons LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS The impacts of build-out, based on the proposed submittal, on the City's ability to meet its adopted Level of Service standards are summarized below. As can be seen, the City will continue to meet its Level of Service standards. This analysis is based on those standards contained in the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Transportation: See Traffic Study Source: Richard Garcia & Associates, Inc. Potable Water: Residential LOS Standard 117.5 gallons per capita per day Non-residential LOS Standard -No Standard Estimated impact -+ 929 gallons per day based on residential population only Source: City of South Miami 2015 Water Supply Plan Sanitary Sewer: INF Policy 1.1.4 Sanitary sewer level-of-service for sewered areas shall be as follows: the project flow plus the maximum day flow (the average of the five highest daily flows) of the preceding calendar year shall not exceed 98 percent of the county treatment system's rated capacity. Otherwise, septic tanks shall be the level-of service. Source: South Miami Comprehensive Plan, Infrastructure Element City of South Miami I 6130 Sunset Drive I South Miami, FL 33143-5093 305.663.6338 I southmiamifl.gov Drainage INF Policy 1.3.2 The City's adopted Level of Service Standard for stormwater drainage shall be protection from the degree of flooding that would result from a flood that has a one-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Source: South Miami Comprehensive Plan, Infrastructure Element Solid Waste: INF OBJECTIVE 1.2 Maintain solid waste collection services to residents and businesses within the City at the current level of service measu rabi lity. INF Policy 1.2.1 Pursuant to the City's interlocal agreement with Miami-Dade County for use of the County Solid Waste Management System, the County shall insure that the System, which includes County-owned solid waste. disposal facilities and those operated under contract with the County for disposal, for a minimum of five years, collectively maintain an amount of solid waste disposal capacity sufficient to accommodate waste flows committed to the system through long-term interlocal agreements or contracts with municipalities and haulers, and anticipated non-committed waste flows. Source: South Miami Comprehensive Plan, Infrastructure Element Parks & Recreation: REC Policy l.l, 1 Retain the existing park acreage (includes City and School Board recreation acreage) and facilities, thereby providing a level-of-service standard of 4 acres per 1,000 population. Based on 2010 Census -11,657 LOS Standard -4 acres/ 1,000 residents Estimated impact of additional residents: +0.32 acres Current park acres required to meet LOS Standard -46.63 acres Projected acres required to meet LOS Standard at maximum build out: 46.95 acres Existing park acreage (City, 47.84 acres and MDCrS, 3.77 acres): 51.61 acres Projected Surplus --4.66 acres Sources: City'S Park List; 2010 Census Schools: See School Concurrency Determination Memo (Dated 9/25/2017) Iv1 DCP S ApplictJ t loJl Number : Dat e Application Re ceived: Type of Appl ica tion : Ap pli ca nt's Na me : Ad dress/location : Ivta ste r Folio Nu mber: Ad ditional Folio Numbe r (s): PROP.OSED # OF-UNITS SIN GLE-FAMIL.Y DETACHED UN ITS: SIN GLE -FAMILY ATTACHE D UNITS: r4UlTIFAMILY UNITS: 3061 6 8 81 6U8l SOl)TH MIA~lI MIDD LE SOUT H MJANI MIDD LE Miam i~Dade Coun ty Public Schools Con currency Management System SchoQ I Co n c u r rency Determ i nati o n SP091 70 92101.27 0 9/21 /20 17 1: 01 : 13 PN Site Pl an Loc a l Govern men t (LG ): lG Application Num ber: Sub Type : Resid e nce s a t Fe llowship Church 6781. Su nse l Dr ive, Mi arni Fl 3314 3 0940260000130 -163 o o o NO NO South t>l lami Towhouse Re side ntia l Applicat ion Redevelopm e nt -_ ... _-''---_.-...--.. --._-'-....... _._---_. __ .... --'----_._-_. __ .!-.._--------'--_ .. _----'---------_._--... __ ... _-- *An I mpact reduction ?f ~~:1 8% included fo r charter ilnd magnet 5cl1 00l s (Schoo ls of ChO ic e). f -·--·----····---·---.. --·----.---------.------.----._.-. --.. -._-._--... .. -.. ----.. --.--,~()CP S has conducted a public school con curre ncy review for this applica ti o n an d ha s deter mi ned t l mt It P-Q ES ~.ME E T (Concurrency M et) all applicabl e LOS Stand ards for a Fin al Developme nt order as adopted i n the l ocal Gove rn ment's Educat ional Element and in corporated in th e Interlocal Agree m en t fo r Publi c Schoo l Fac ilit y _~!C!..~!ng in M~am ~~!l.9.~.Cou.nty.:. ___ ._. ____ . __ . ___ .... _. __________ ... ______ ._. __ . __ ..... __ . __ Master Concu rre ncy Number: I ssu e Date: Ca pac ity Re served: Tota l Number of Units : 32 9/25/2018 2:00:52 PM MDCPS Auth ori2 ed Si gna ture 1450 NE 2 Ave nue, Room 52 5, ~1 iarni, Flor id a 33132/3 ,-995-7 634 I 30!j -99S-4 76 0 fax I cOllcu rrency@d ad esc hoo l s.net Land Development Code 20-3.7 -Planned unit developments, (A) General Provisions. (1) Planned unit development shall be so related to general development patterns and the objectives of the city's adopted Comprehensive Plan as to provide for the comfort and convenience of occupants, facilitate protection of surrounding neighborhoods and alleviate traffic congestion. (2) Housing, commercial uses, service facilities and principal places of employment for and in planned unit developments shall be related either by physical proximity or by major street networks and rapid transit to promote these objectives. (3) Where there are conflicts between the planned unit development regulations contained in this section and other sections of this Code, the regulations in this section shall apply to all planned unit developments approved as special uses after the effective date of this Code, unless the city commission determines in a particular case that: (a) The regulation fails to serve public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to general city zoning regulations or other requirements; or (b) Actions or other solutions proposed by the applicant, although not literally in accord with the regulations of this section, satisfy public purposes to an equal or greater degree. (B) Basic Requirements. (1) Unity otTitle Required. W (a) A Unity of Title as set forth in Section 20-5,16 shall be required for all Planned Development Projects. (2) Density: (a) The intensity in planned unit development districts shall be governed by those densities and intensities established for the zoning district or districts involved and the city's adopted Comprehensive Plan. (b) If more than one (1) residential zoning district is involved, the maximum number of dwelling units shall be the combined amount permitted in all of the districts, with each district calculated separately according to its site area times the permitted density. (3) Site Characteristics: (a) The site shall be suitable for development in the manner proposed, without potential hazard to persons or property on or off-site, from flooding, erosion, subsidence or soil slippage, or other dangers, annoyances or inconveniences. (b) Soil condition, ground water level, drainage and topography shall be appropriate for the type and pattern of use intended. (c) The site shall meet all requirements for development under the Florida Building Code and other applicable city, county, state and federal regulations. (d) Site division: i. If appropriate to the form of planned unit development, lands to be included in the planned unit development may be divided by public or approved private streets, alleys, paths, bicycle paths, people movers, rights-of-way or easements. ii. The site shall be located and arranged to permit unified planning and development, and to meet all requirements, as well as provide necessary protection against adverse relationships between or among uses in the planned unit development and uses in surrounding areas. (4) Traffic Flow and Control: (a) Traffic flow to and from the development shall be so designed that it will not intrude on local streets in nearby residential areas. (b) Traffic flow to and from the development shall be designed to retain the major portion of such traffic on arterial and collector streets. (c) Adequate ingress and egress to the development shall be required and shall be measured by acceptable traffic engineering projections, methods and standards in determining: i. Safety and convenience of vehicle traffic entering and leaving the site. II. Safety and convenience of pedestrian movements in relation to vehicular traffic. III. General access of residents, employees and visitors to, from and within the site. iv. Access to and within the site in the event of fire, crime or other emergency or catastrophe. v. General traffic flow and control, with determinations to be based upon existing street patterns, or future improvements as they may be decided as a condition of approval. (d) Where rapid or mass transit is a major consideration, the relationship of such facilities shall be a part of consideration of traffic flow and control. (5) External Relationships. (a) Scale shall be such that careful consideration be given to the relationship of the development to nearby uses and structures, and to the manner in which the development will impact the city and surrounding areas. (b) Site planning shall protect surrounding areas from potentially adverse impacts and influences of the development. (6) Screening and Buffering. (a) Yards, fences, walls or vegetative screening shall be provided and maintained at edges of developments to protect occupants from undesirable views, lighting, noise or other deleterious off-site influences and to protect nearby residents and businesses from similar adverse influences. (b) In particular, screening may be required for off-street parking and loading areas, refuse storage and collection areas and intensive recreational areas. (7) Off-Street Parking and Loading. (a) Off-street parking shall be provided in such locations and amounts that residents, visitors and employees of the development arriving by vehicle will not have to park in non-planned development-related parking facilities. (b) Off-street facilities for the loading and unloading of goods and products shall be provided in locations and amounts that such activity can be conducted off public streets without inconvenience to vehicle flow into and from the development and without inconvenience to vehicular parking. (c) Determinations as to the location and amount of off-street parking and loading shall consider: i. Rapid or mass transit potential to and from the site and standard traffic engineering projections, principles and practices. Ii. The relationship of off-street parking and loading facilities to adjacent streets, as they presently exist or as they may be improved or patterns changed as a condition to granting approval. iii. Pedestrian circulation and its relationship to proposed off-street parking and loading. iv. Internal traffic flow and control. v. Arrangement of such facilities in relation to fire, crime or other emergency or catastrophe. vi. Screening or landscaping of parking or loading areas to minimize the visual impacts of such facilities. (8) Signs and Lighting. (a) The number, size, character, location and orientation of proposed signs and lighting shall be as necessary to ensure the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. (b) Lighting and signs shall be such as to provide for compatibility and harmony with nearby and adjacent properties and the general character of the surrounding area. (c) Following final approval, the city shall erect and maintain all street name signs and traffic- control signs for public streets. (9) Service Areas. (a) Refuse and service areas tor a planned unit development shall be designed, located, scaled and screened in a manner which minimizes impacts on surrounding properties or adjacent public rights-ot-way. (b) The manner and timing of refuse collection or other service delivery activities shall be arranged so as to minimize impacts on surrounding properties or adjacent public rights-of- way. (10) Control of Potentially Adverse Effects. (a) The use and occupancy of a proposed planned unit development shall be compatible and harmonious with other development in the area, to a degree which will avoid substantial depreciation of the value of nearby properties. (b) As the case requires, special remedial measures to eliminate or reduce, to the maximum extent possible, adverse impacts shall be required. (c) Such special remedial measures shall include, but shall not be limited to: i. Screening or buffering; II. Landscaping; iii. Control or manner of operation; iv. Changes in proposed construction or design of buildings; v. Change in building location; vi. Relocation of proposed open space or alteration of use of such space; vii. Changes in traffic patterns; or viii. Improvement of streets. (11) Streets. (a) Where improvements in existing street systems, including pavement widening, divider medians, signalization and the like are found by standard traffic engineering projections and methods to be required in connection with a proposed planned unit development, approval of a special use permit for a planned unit development shall be conditioned on arrangements satisfactory to the City and the applicant for the provision of such improvements. (b) Emergency access roads shall conform to standard engineering requirements for emergency vehicle use; utilize proper and sufficient signing and lighting; be designed to minimize interference with other access routes and pedestrian circulation; and, wherever possible, a separate, parallel pedestrian walkway system to all emergency entrances and exits shall be provided. (c) Unobstructed access roadways, easements and other facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Miami-Dade County Fire Department {12} Uses. (a) Planned unit development uses shall form complementary and compatible groupings contributing to the efficiency, safety and convenience of the development and its surrounding area by its nature, location and design. (b) Applications for approval of a planned unit development may be denied if the proposed development does not contain facilities demonstrated to be completely compatible, or if a particular use or combination of uses proposed would not be appropriate in the location proposed because of the character of surrounding development, the city's adopted Comprehensive Plan or other uses permitted in the applicable zoning district. {13} Building Heights. (a) In determining the height of buildings, where a proposed development is bounded by one or more public streets, plans for such development shall take into account i. The heights of existing structures surrounding the proposed development; ii. The nature and character of development desired by the city in such areas; and iii. The objectives of the city's adopted Comprehensive Plan for such areas. (14) Pedestrian Amenities. The proposed development shall maximize pedestrian amenities along street fronts, such as providing for covered walkways, landscaping and appropriate street furniture. (15) Transit Availability. Where the location of a development will reasonably relate to rapid or mass transit facilities, the development shall be planned to afford: (a) The fullest opportunities for convenient and safe access to such facilities; and (b) The greatest safety and convenience compared with other possible major points of access to and from the development. (16) Spatial Relationships. The site plan for a proposed planned unit development shall provide for safe, efficient, conven ient and harmonious groupings of structures, uses and facilities; for appropriate relationship of space inside and outside of buildings to intended uses and structural and architectural features. (17) Open Space. Within every development, open space shall be permanently provided and maintained exclusively for leisure and recreational purposes as follows: (a) Each residential development shall provide at least thirty (30) percent of its total site area as usable private or public open space. i. At least one-half of the open space above shall be contiguous. ii. Active open spaces shall be at least twenty-five (25) feet in width at their narrowest dimension. III. Passive open space may be of any size or shape. (b) The following areas shall not be considered as usable open space: i. Parking areas and driveways, ii. Buildings and structures; III. Private ownership areas; and iv. Street surface areas. (18) Sidewalks. (a) Any second level connector from the development to the MetroRail Station shall be constructed in accordance with the PUD agreement. (b) To the greatest extent possible, all sidewalks shall be located at the right-of-way line. (c) All sidewalks shall be modified to accommodate the handicapped. (C) Types of Planned Unit Developments. (1) Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD-R) (2) Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use (PUD-M) (3) Planned Unit Development -Hospital (PUD-H) (D) Residential District (PUD-R). (1) General requirements. (a) A PUD-R district may be established for planned residential development and red evelopment. (b) Such development shall be subject to the general procedures of this Code applicable to all planned unit developments, as well as the requirements of this section. (c) Establishment of a PUD-R district shall consider: i. General housing needs and requirements in the City as a whole; ii. Housing needs in the area in which the PUD-R district is proposed and; iii. Housing needs of a particular type (2) Uses and structures. (a) Principal and accessory uses and structures may be permitted in PUD-R developments, subject to the limitations and requirements herein. (b) Uses and structures in a PUD-R district generally shall be permitted as follows: i. Residential dwellings; ii. Public and private schools; iii. Houses of worship; iv. Social, recreational and cultural facilities, such as neighborhood or community centers, game rooms, libraries, swimming pools, tennis courts and the like; and v. Structures required for the operation of utility, performance of governmental functions, or performance of any function necessary for a PUD-R development. (c) In multi-family residential buildings or complexes of at least seventy-five (75) dwelling units, establishments may be permitted for the sale of convenience goods, eating and drinking places and professional services, provided that: i. The total floor area occupied by all such uses shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the residential floor area of such building or complex; ii. Such estabiishments shaii be designed, scaled, oriented and iocated so that they meet only the requirements of occupants of the development and their guests; and iii. There shall be no signs or other evidence of such establishments when viewed from adjacent rights-of-way. (3) Minimum land area for PUO-R development shall be two (2) net acres. (4) When adjoining a single-family residential district, a landscaped buffer area of not less than twenty (20) feet in width shall be provided (5) Except along boundaries where a PUD-R district adjoins a district permitting the same or greater heights within similar areas, no portion of any building in a PUO-R development shall project through imaginary planes leaning inward from the PUD boundaries at a forty-five (45) degree angle. (6) Walkways. (a) Walkways within the planned unit development shall form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to all dwelling units, appropriate project facilities and principal off-site pedestrian destinations. (b) Open air walking distances between dwellings and parking, delivery and refuse areas shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) feet. (c) If the planned unit development is primarily for elderly housing, such distances shalf not exceed one hundred fifty (150) feet. (7) Bicycle paths. (a) Bicycle paths, if any, shall be coordinated with the local roadway system. (b) Bicycle paths and pedestrian ways may be combined with other easements and used by emergency and seNice vehicles, but shall not be used by other vehicular traffic. (E) Mixed Use (PUO-M). (1) General Requirements (a) A PUD-M district may be established for complementary and compatible combinations of commercial, office, hotel or motel, multi-family residential and similar uses directly located and related to the MetroRail station (b) Such planned unit developments shall be subject to the general procedures, standards and requirements of this Code applicable to all planned unit development, as well as the requirements of this section. (c) The closest major pedestrian entrance to any proposed PUO-M development shall be less than twelve hundred (1,200) feet from the MetroRail station, as measured along the shortest route to accommodate the largest number of pedestrians (2) Uses and Structures. (a) Principal and accessory uses and structures may be permitted in PUO-M developments, subject to the limitations and requirements herein. (b) Specific uses and structures in a PUD-M district shall be as follows: I. Multi-family residential dwellings; ii. Hotels and motels; iii. Child care centers; iv. Houses of worship; v. Vocational schools, business colleges and similar uses; vi. Private clubs and lOdges; vii Professional and business offices, medical and dental clinics and offices and travel agencies; viii. Banks and savings associations; IX. Retail stores, except those dealing in used merchandise other than antiques; x Business and personal service and repair establishments; Xl. Eating and drinking places; xii Cultural or recreational facilities; xiii. Parking lots and structures, subject to controls to insure parking integrity of the development; xiv Uses other than those listed above, reql..(ired for the performance of government, except uses involving storage as the primary purpose; and xv. Structures and uses relating to the operation of public utilities and required to serve the development and neighboring areas; transit or related facilities other than yards, storage, switching or repair shops. (3) The minimum site area for a PUO-M development shall be four (4) net acres. (4) MetroRail Station Access. (a) MetroRail station accessways may be required at second or third floor levels within the development where necessary to avoid pedestrian/vehicular conflicts. (b) Consideration shall be given in designing such accessways for their possible use by buildings and activities in the general area, but not a part of the planned unit development. (5) Approval of a PUD-M district shall not be given until arrangement for providing off-street parking and loading in specific amounts and locations are agreed upon by the city and the applicant. (6) Uses in PUO-M developments shall be so arranged horizontally and vertically that: (a) Retail and service uses shall be concentrated for maximum pedestrian convenience and be located for easy accessibility by visitors and employees working in the development; (b) Residential access shall be separated from other access to the development; (c) Office uses shall be located so as to prevent interruption from all other uses; and (d) Loading zones shall be located so as to prevent interference with pedestrian movements. (F) Hospital District (PUD-H). (1) General Requirements. A PUD-H district may be established for complementary and compatible combinations of hospitals, medical offices, laboratories and related educational facilities and other support services. Such development shall be subject to the general procedures and requirements of this Code applicable to all planned unit developments, as well as the requirements of this Section. (2) Uses and Structures. (a) Principal and accessory uses and structures may be permitted in PUO-H developments, subject to the limitations and requirements herein. (b) Specific uses and structures in a PUD-H shall be the following hospital and accessory uses: j Intermediate care facility; ii. Extended care facility; iii. Medical clinic; iv. Medical offices; v. Laboratory and research facility; VI. Medical educational facilities; vii. Hospital support facilities including a laundry, cafeteria, dietary services, child care, staff and offices and data processing; viii. Convenience facilities for hospital staff, patients and visitors, including chapels, snack bars, gift shops and florists; and ix. Any other uses determined as part of the PUD-H application, to be compatible with the existing and/or prospective character of the proposed development and surrounding area. (c) Accessory uses, such as convenience facilities, which may provide services to members of the public not associated with the hospital and/or to members of the public not having any business at the hospital shall be so located and designed that there shall be no external features which shall indicate or otherwise draw attention to the existence of said uses. (3) Minimum land area for PUD-H development shall be three (3) net acres. (4) Approval of a PUD-H district shall not be given until arrangement for providing off-street parking and loading in specific amounts and locations are agreed upon by the city and applicant. (5) Waste Handling Facilities (a) Storage and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste shall be specifically addressed in the preliminary development concept plan. (b) Provision shall be made and sufficient area must be provided to ensure that all waste material will be stored and disposed of safely and in a manner that will not detrimentally impact surrounding areas (6) The location and design of liquid oxygen and other chemical handling equipment shall be addressed in the preliminary development concept plan such that they will be compatible with the surrounding areas and shall present no hazard to adjacent properties (7) Uses in PUD-H developments shall be so arranged horizontally and vertically that: (a) The location of specific hospital services are easily identifiable for the convenience and/or emergency needs of the hospital user; (b) The amount of parking determined to be necessary to service a particular hospital function is located within a reasonable distance of said function and appropriate pedestrian linkages are provided; (c) The arrangement of uses does not additionally complicate access and circulation routes for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic; and (d) Service areas shall be located and arranged so as to avoid significant interference between pedestrian, vehicular and emergency vehicle movements. (G) Staged Development. (1) Nothing in this Code shall prevent an applicant from developing in stages or phases, provided that the requirements of this Code are met. (2) Staged development shall be subject to the following: (a) Proposed stages shall be delineated on plan; (b) Data required for the project as a whole shall be given for each proposed stage; (c) When any stage is developed, it shall conform to the plan of development as approved; and (d) A time frame for each stage shall be established. (3) Where time limits have been established for the initiation or completion of development stages, or where other requirements have been established for an approved planned unit development, and where such time limits or other requirements are not met, the director of building and zoning shall inform the developer and city manager in writing. The city manager shall promptly call the matter to the attention of the city commission with an account of the circumstances and the findings of the department. The city commission may refer the matter to the planning board for review and recommendation. The developer shall be afforded full opportunity to be heard in the matter. The city commission may take action: (a) That the approval of the special use permit as previously granted be continued with revised time limits; or (b) That approval be continued for part of the planned development with or without revised time limits, that appropriate steps be taken to correct any deficiencies in designated portions of the planned development that have not be developed, and that planned development approval be canceled for the remaining portions of the development as originally approved; or (c) That planned development approval be revoked; or (d) That such other steps be taken as will be equitable to the developer and to the protection of the city's interests. (H) Official Zoning Map. (1) Upon approval of a planned unit development, the boundaries of such development shall be placed upon the Official Zoning Map of the City of South Miami. (2) Placement upon the map shall contain a reference in the margin to the effect of the following: "8y Resolution No. of the City Commission of South Miami, Florida, adopted on (date) , a (indicate type) planned unit development was approved for this property by special use permit. The requirements applying to such permit are on file in the office of the city clerk." (I) Expiration of Planned Unit Development Approval. An approved planned unit development shall lapse after six (6) months if no building permit or certificate of occupancy has been issued for such use and if the city commission has not specified a longer approval period for good cause. Four (4) affirmative votes of the city commission may grant an extension for a previously approved planned unit development if a proper and timely request is made by the applicant prior to the expiration of the approval period. (Ord. No. 23-99-1697, § 3,11-16-99; Ord. No. 04-05-1826, § 1,2-15-05; Ord. No. 17-11-2090, § 1, 4-19-11) Footnotes: ---(1) --- Editor's note-Per instruction from the city. section 3 of Ord No. 23-99-1697 has been added as 3.7(6)(1). and subsections (13)(1)-(8J(H) have been renumbered as (13)(2)-(8)(18) CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting Minutes Excerpt Tuesday, November 14, 2017 CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS 07:00 P.M. The City of South Miami Code of Ordinances, Section SA-5, requires that all lobbyists, as defined in that section, must register with the City Clerk before engaging in any lobbying activities and in most coses pay an annual fee of $500.00 and an additional $100 for each additional issue. This applies to all persons who are retained with or without compensation to influence any action, decision, recommendation of someone with the city, including the city manager, city attorney, department heads, city personnel, or members of the city commission or members of any city board, concerning a matter that could foreseeably be address by the city commission or a city board. There are some exceptions and exemptions. The following are not considered to be lobbyist: a representative of a principal at a quasi-judicial hearing, experts who present scientific or technical information at public meetings, representatives of a neighborhaod association without compensation and representatives of a not-far-profit community based organization for the purpose of requesting a grant who seek to influence without special compensation. Individuals who wish to view or listen to the meeting in its entirety, audio and video versions of the meeting can be found on the city's website (www.sQuthmiamifl.gov). I. Call to Order Action: Mr. Basu called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. II. Roll Call Board Members Present Constituting a Quorum: Mr. Subrata Basu (Chairman), Dr. Velma Palmer (Vice Chairwoman), Mr. Lee Jacobs, Dr. Sally Philips, Mr. Gary Robinson, Ms. Aracely Alicea. Board Members Absent: Mr. Larry Melow. City Staff Present: Ms. Jane Tompkins (Planning Director) and Mr. Marcus Lightfoot (Senior Planner/Zoning Administrator). City Staff Absent: None City Attorney: Mr. Thomas Pepe III. Administrative Matters • None from City Staff • Dr. Palmer informed the Board that she voted incorrectly on Shops at Sunset Place development project and requested to change her vote from yes to no on the items. Mr. Pepe stated that according to Robert Rules, Dr. Palmer can change her vote but it must be at the meeting where the item was heard. Dr. Palmer can put her request on the record, but it cannot change the 1 outcome of the decision. As requested by the City Attorney, Dr. palmer then made a statement that she voted incorrectly on the Sunset Place Development Project that was heard at the Thursday, October 26m 2017 Special Planning Board meeting. She then stated that she would like to change her yes vote to a no on all the items heard. IV. Public Hearings The Board chose to read all the items for PB-17-027 through PB-17-031 into the record first. 1. PB-17-027 Applicant: Fellowship Church An Ordinance Adopting a Small-Scale Amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the City of South Miami's Comprehensive Plan, amending the designation of an approximately 2.60- acre property generally located northwest of the intersection of SW 72 nd Street and SW 67 th Avenue, and as legally described herein, from Religious to Multiple Family Residential (Four Story). Mr. Robinson read PB-17-027 into the record. 2. PB-17-028 Applicant: Fellowship Church An Ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map, amending the designation of an approximately 2.60 acre property generally located northwest of the intersection of SW 72 nd Street and SW 67 th Avenue, as legally described herein, from "R" Religious to "RM-18" Low Density Multi-Family Residential. Ms. Alicea read PB-17-028 into the record. 3. PB-17-029 Applicant: Fellowship Church A Resolution approving a Special Use to allow a Planned Unit Development on an approximately 2.60-acre property generally located northwest of the intersection of SW 72 nd Street and SW 67 th Avenue and as legally described herein. Dr. Palmer read PB-17-029 into the record. 4. PB-17-030 Applicant: Fellowship Church A Resolution approving a variance application to reduce the required width of a private roadway/drive aisle on an approximately 2.60-acre property generally located northwest of the intersection of SW 72nd Street and SW 67 th Avenue and as legally described herein. Mr. Jacobs read PB-17-030 into the record. 2 5. P8-17-031 Applicant: Fellowship Church A Resolution approving an application for tentative plat approval for an approximately 2.60- acre property generally located northwest of the intersection of SW 72 nd Street and SW 67 th Avenue and as legally described herein. Dr. Philips read PB-17-031 into the record. Applicant: Fellowship Church, represented by Jorge Navarro and Iris Escarra Mr. Pepe swore in everyone that spoke on the item. Ms. Tompkins presented the staff report for PB-17-027 through PB-17-031. Ms. Escarra presented the project to the Board. The Chairman opened the floor to public comments on P8-17-027 -P8-17-031. • Bradley Cassel-Oppose • Gustavo Betancourt -Oppose • Xavier Viteri -Oppose • Ricardo Grasso -Oppose • David Kugler -Oppose • Carlos Carcache -Support • Ken Vanhubert -Oppose • Maria Roos -Oppose • Mirla Arteaga -Oppose • Antoinette Fischer -Oppose • Anita Jenkiins -Oppose • Michael Tichenor -Oppose • Manuel Perez -Oppose • Michael Filliben -Oppose • Alicia Varela -Oppose • Shannon Sauls -Support • Bruce Harper -Oppose • Patrick Charlemagne -Support • Jena Staly -Oppose • Simon Gignoux -Support • Horace Feliu -Oppose • Shirley Wyatt -Support • Edward Feenane -Support • Jean Underwood -Support • Xavier Tomaselli -Oppose • Shannon Canady -Support • Orlando Martinez -Support • Victor Chavez -Support • Luis Gil -Oppose • Michael Binkov -Oppose • Frank Perez -Oppose • Lily Ferraro -Oppose • Ileana Perez-Quintana -Oppose The Chairman closed the floor to public comments on PB-17-027 -P8-17-031. Ms. Escarra stated that the max allowed density under the RM-18 zoning district is 45 units and the project is only seeking 32 units. This aligns with the Banyans development which is adjacent to the project. The Banyans development has a density of 43 existing units. Additionally, there are 4 single family areas that abut the RM-24 zoning district, which is a district that is more intense than RM-18. Regarding open space, Ms. Escarra stated that 34,000 square feet of open space will be provided in addition to a 13,OOO-square foot preserve along the residential area as well. 3 Ms. Escarra also stated that a religious use is more intense use than a residential use. The PUD site plan ties the project to the site plan for the project. If there are any changes, they must be reviewed by the City. Ms. Escarra stated that the Environmental Review & Preservation Board (ERPB) required that the applicant file a variance request to reduce the width of the private drive to add more open space area. Also, the project contains town homes that will be energy efficient. Ms. Escarra then invited Orlando Borjes to the podium to speak on behalf of Fellowship Church. Mr. Borjes stated that the Church needs funds to operate and remain a positive influence on the community. He then responded to the residents' questions that included questions on height and greed by the church. Dr. Philips asked if any of the units are affordable housing. Ms. Escarra responded that the units will be sold at market rate. Dr. Philips then asked what market rate would be, to which Mr. Borjes stated that the units will be sold for higher than $600,000. Dr. Philips asked about the change in roads within the project. Ms. Escarra stated that the reduced the project to two (2) lanes to accommodate the request made by the ERPB. Dr. Philips asked if the solar panels shown on the plans be enough to power the residence. Mr. Borjes stated that he could not answer that question at that time. Dr. Philips asked if the applicant spoke to the abutting neighbors about the project. Mr. Borges stated that of the four (4) neighbors that abut the subject area, two (2) of the neighbors were against the project, two (2) were for the project. Ms. Alicea asked if there was an alternative to the RM-18 zoning district that was less intensive. Ms. Tompkins responded that both the RT-6 and RT-9 zoning district would be an option for this project. Because of the dimensional requirements that are tied to these districts, further study would be needed to determine if the project could work in those districts. Ms. Alicea asked what the height limit would be in the RT-6 and RT-9 zoning district, to which Ms. Tompkins stated that both districts have a limit of two (2) stories or twenty-five (25) feet. Ms. Tompkins then clarified that the RM-18 zoning district has a height limit of two (2) stories or thirty (30) feet. The reason why the request mentions the four (4) stories is because it is part of the title for the category that the applicant is requesting. It does not mean that the project can have a height of up to four (4) stories. Ms. Alicea asked if the units were reduced by two (2), could the variance be withdrawn. Ms. Escarra explained that the variance request refers to the asphalt road from 35 feet to 22 feet, which doesn't impact the number of units requested. Ms. Alicea asked if the project will have an entrance along Sunset Drive, to which Ms. Escarra stated no. Ms. Alicea asked if there was a second option to exit the development along Sunset Drive. She then stated that having one could reduce the traffic along SW 67 Avenue. Ms. Escarra stated that they can have the traffic engineer study research the possibility of adding a secondary entrance. 4 Ms. Alicea asked a question regarding school concurrency. She asked how the project was approved when South Miami Middle school had a negative net availability. Ms. Escarra responded that the analysis is based on the number of students when the project will be built versus the number of students that are currently at the schools. There will be an updated analysis once the building permit is pulled. If there aren't enough seats at the time of permit, it must be mitigated prior to the issuance of the building permit. Mr. Robinson stated that some of the neighbors were concerned that more units would be built if this project was approved. Ms. Tompkins explained that the PUD regulations require that a minimum 30% of the area be devoted to open space. If the Board takes staff's suggestions and require that both the setback on SW 67 avenue and the building separation be increased, a small redesign will be required but the number of units will not be increased. Ms. Escarra added that once the conditions are studied, it is possible that the density of the project will be reduced. Mr. Robinson asked about the egress along Sunset Drive to which Mr. Escarra stated that they would look at adding an entrance along Sunset Drive. Ms. Alicea asked if the applicant would be able to meet staff's recommendations regarding setback. Ms. Escarra stated that they must meet the suggestions when they submit for the building permit. Ms. Alicea asked if the project will comply with Section 20-3.7(0)(5) of the Land Development Code (LDC), to which Ms. Escarra stated that it will be addressed. Mr. Jacobs asked what the effect this project would have on the rest of the City regarding precedence. Mr. Pepe responded that a future development would need to have a project that is substantially similar to this project for there to be a precedent. Mr. Jacobs had questions regarding the traffic study. Ms. Escarra invited Richard Garcia, traffic engineer, to the podium to answer Mr. Jacob's questions. Mr. Jacobs stated that it doesn't make sense why there are more people entering the town in the evening than leaving. Mr. Garcia stated that Mr. Jacobs was referring to Figure 4 on page 7 of the traffic study. Mr. Garcia then responded that the numbers mentioned in the figure are accurate. Mr. Garcia then explained the numbers generated in the traffic study. Mr. Jacobs asked if a school bus will be able to fit into the project. Ms. Escarra stated that the proposed radiuses for the project will allow for a school bus to enter and leave the project. Dr. Palmer asked if the church was the developer or are they seeking the approval and will in turn sell it off. Ms. Tompkins responded that the church is seeking the approval and will then sell the project off to a developer. Dr. Palmer then asked if the applicant can be denied full use of the zoning designation later if the project is approved, to which Ms. Tompkins responded that one of the conditions for the project is that it cannot exceed 32 units. Additionally, a restrictive covenant will be required that will run with the land. Mr. Pepe added that the property will be bound to the conditions that were approved if a covenant is put into place. Dr. Palmer stated that there is something wrong with the open space in the City. When using the census data for 2017, it shows that the City would not be in compliance with its open space 5 regulations. Ms. Tompkins responded that because the census data from 2010 is concrete, it is used to determine if the city is not in compliance with the open space regu lations. Because the data from 2017 census is not official, it cannot be used. The next available census data that can be used would be the data from 2020. Dr. Palmer stated that because of concurrency, she could not justify approving this project. Dr. Palmer asked how the project will be in compliance with the height. Ms. Escarra responded that the covenant that will be put in place limits the project to twenty-five (25) feet opposed to the thirty (30) feet that is allowed by the district. Dr. Palmer stated that she is concerned about the fact that the project doesn't seem to benefit the community. Mr. Basu asked if the town homes produced would be rented or owned, to which Ms. Escarra stated that the homes will be owned, which is one of the reason for the plat application. Mr. Basu stated that property dimensions or house setbacks were not included in the project. Mr. Basu then stated that he agrees with the ERPB requirement to reduce the private roadways. However, the project is missing landscape strips and sidewalks along the private drives that should be studied. Ms. Escarra stated that the information can be found on sheet LP-1. Ms. Escarra then gave an explanation on the proposed landscaping. Mr. Basu stated that the project is required to provide street trees which aren't being provided at this time. Ms. Escarra invited the landscape architect Robert Parsley, to the podium to speak. Mr. Basu asked if Mr. Parsley agreed that street trees in the public right of way. Mr. parsley responded that the project doesn't have a traditional right of way. Ms. Escarra then stated that the right of way is private and will be privately maintained. Mr. Basu then stated that there is some form of disconnect between where the right of way is in the project. Mr. Basu asked if the twenty (20) foot buffer on the northern side part of the private property or is it common property. Ms. Tompkins responded that each individual property will have the twenty (20) foot buffer. Mr. Basu then asked if that will be part of the covenant, to which Ms. Escarra responded that it will be a restriction on the lot. Mr. Basu asked why the applicant was requesting a zoning change of RM-18 instead of RT-6. Ms. Tompkins stated that the applicant is asking for more density than what is allowed in RT-6. Ms. Escarra added that they are asking for 12 units/acre which is less than the density allowed in the RM-18 zoning district. She then stated that even though the land can allow for more units, the PUD regulations prevent it. Mr. Basu then asked why the applicant was asking for the PUD deSignation instead of the RT-6/RM-18 zoning deSignation. Ms. Escarra stated that the PUD limits the project to 32 units. If the project were designed under the RT-6/RM-18 zoning designation, then more units would be placed on the land. Mr. Basu responded that the PUD designation allows for flexibility in the dimensional requirements for homes. He then stated that he doesn't see the benefit of using the PUD zoning district for this project and would like to see what the project would look like with a RT-6/RM-18 zoning designation. Mr. Basu stated that there are facets of the project that are not yet resolved. He also stated that RT-6 is a more compatible zoning district for the area. Mr. Basu then stated that he could not support the project in its current form. Motion: Mr. Basu moved to table PB-17-027 through PB-17-031. The motion was seconded by Ms. Alicea. 6 Vote: Yes 6, No 0 (None) Mr. Robinson: Yes Ms. Alicea: Yes Mr. Basu: Yes Dr. Palmer: Yes Mr. Jacobs: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes The Board then held a discussion on whether the item should be deferred so that the comments could be addressed. Motion: Dr. Palmer moved to have the Board review the items in their present state. The motion was seconded by Mr. Jacobs. Vote: Yes 6, No 0 (None) Mr. Robinson: Yes Ms. Alicea: Yes Mr. Basu: Yes Dr. Palmer: Yes Mr. Jacobs: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes Motion: Mr. Basu moved to take PB-17-027 off the table. The motion was seconded by Ms. Alicea. Vote: Yes 6, No 0 (None) Mr. Robinson: Yes Ms. Alicea: Yes Mr. Basu: Yes Dr. Palmer: Yes Mr. Jacobs: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes Motion: Mr. Basu moved to approve PB-17-027 with staff's conditions. The motion was seconded by Ms. Alicea. Vote: Yes 0, No 6 (None) Mr. Robinson: No Ms. Alicea: No Mr. Basu: No Dr. Palmer: No Mr. Jacobs: No Dr. Philips: No Motion: Mr. Basu moved to take PB-17-028 off the table. The motion was seconded by Ms. Alicea. Vote: Yes 6, No 0 (None) Mr. Robinson: Yes 7 Ms. Alicea: Yes Mr. Basu: Yes Dr. Palmer: Yes M r. Jacobs: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes Motion: Dr. Philips moved to deny PB-17-028. The motion was seconded by Dr. Palmer. Vote: Yes 6, No 0 (None) Mr. Robinson: Yes Ms. Alicea: Yes Mr. Basu: Yes Dr. Palmer: Yes Mr. Jacobs: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes Motion: Dr. Philips moved to take PB-17-029 off the table. The motion was seconded by Ms. Alicea. Vote: Yes 6, No 0 (None) Mr. Robinson: Yes Ms. Alicea: Yes Mr. Basu: Yes Dr. Palmer: Yes Mr. Jacobs: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes Motion: Mr. Basu moved to deny PB-17-029. The motion was seconded by Dr. Palmer. Vote: Yes 6, No 0 (None) Mr. Robinson: Yes Ms. Alicea: Yes Mr. Basu: Yes Dr. Palmer: Yes Mr. Jacobs: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes Motion: Ms. Alicea moved to take PB-17-030 off the table. The motion was seconded by Mr. Robinson. Vote: Yes 6, No 0 (None) Mr. Robinson: Yes Ms. Alicea: Yes Mr. Basu: Yes Dr. Palmer: Yes Mr. Jacobs: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes Motion: Mr. Jacobs moved to deny PB-17-030. The motion was seconded by Dr. Philips. 8 Vote: Yes 6, No 0 (None) Mr. Robinson: Yes Ms. Alicea: Yes Mr. Basu: Yes Dr. Palmer: Yes Mr. Jacobs: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes Motion: Mr. Basu moved to take PB-17-031 off the table. The motion was seconded by Ms. Alicea. Vote: Yes 6, No 0 (None) Mr. Robinson: Yes Ms. Alicea: Yes Mr. Basu: Yes Dr. Palmer: Yes Mr. Jacobs: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes Motion: Dr. Philips moved to deny PB-17-031. The motion was seconded by Dr. Palmer. Vote: Yes 6, No 0 (None) Mr. Robinson: Yes Ms. Alicea: Yes Mr. Basu: Yes Dr. Palmer: Yes Mr. Jacobs: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes V. Public Comments/New Business The Chairperson opened the floor for public comments and any new business. Public Comments Section • Antionette Fischer She stated that she liked the old role call where each board member voted individually. New Business Section The Chairman closed the floor for new business. VI. Approval of the Minutes 1. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2017: Motion: Dr. Palmer moved to approve the minutes with changes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Jacobs. 9 Vote: Yes 6, No 0 (None) Mr. Robinson: Yes Ms. Alicea: Yes Mr. Basu: Yes Dr. Palmer: Yes Mr. Jacobs: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes 2. Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes of October 26,2017 Motion: Ms. Alicea moved to approve the minutes with the corrections noted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Robinson. Vote: Yes 6, No 0 (None) Mr. Robinson: Yes Ms. Alicea: Yes Mr. Basu: Yes Dr. Palmer: Yes Mr. Jacobs: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes VII. Future Meeting Date: A) Regular Meeting -December 12, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. --_._----- VIII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:06 P.M. 10 From: Patino, Myra (DTPW) [mailto:Myra.Patino@miamidade.gov] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:46 PM To: Navarro, Jorge L. (Assoc-Mia-LDZ-RE) Cc: Garcia, Marlene E. (RER) Subject: RE: Fellowship Church Application Jorge, Based on the total 24 PM peak hour trips (not 23), a full traffic study is not required for our review. Therefore, we are waiving this requirement. Note: the table shows 31 townhouses in the analysis vs. the 32 townhomes as stated in your email. Thank you, Myra E. Patino, PE, PMP Traffic Engineering Division Miami-Dade County Department of Transportation and Public Works 111 NW 1st Street, Suite 1510 Miami, FL 33128 Phone: (305) 375-1682 http://www,miamidade,gov/pubworks/ 'Velivering Excellence Every Day" &I GreenbergTraurig October 12,2017 Ms. Jane Tompkins, Planning Director City of South Miami, Planning & Zoning Department Sylva Martin Building 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami, Florida 33143 Dear Ms. Tompkins: Jorge L. Navarro, Esq. Tel 305.579.0821 navarrojo@gtlaw .com This is to notify your office that on Thursday, September 14,2017, the following notices of public hearing were mailed out. APPLICANT: Fellowship Church PROJECT NAME: Fellowship Church Townhomes LOCATION: 6781 Sunset Drive, South Miami, Florida 33134 SIZE OF PROPERTY: 2.6 ± acres PRESENT LA.l\lD USE: Religious (R) TOTAL NUMBER OF PIECES: 133 A copy of the letter that was mailed with the notices is enclosed for your records . Should have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Enclosure GREENBERG TRAUR IG. P.A .• ATIORNEYS AT LAW. WWW.GTLAW.COM 333 S.E. 2nd Avenue. Suite 4400 • Miami . FL 33131-3238 • Tel 305 .579.0500 • Fax 305.579.07 17 I ~ I TO: FROM: DATE: RE: NOTICE OF PROPOSED APPLICATION Iris Escarra, Esq. Greenberg Traurig 333 SE 2nd Avenue, 44th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 September 6, 2017 Fellowship Church Application for Rezoning, Land Use Amendment, PUD-R Special Use, and Variance Approval/Property located at 6781 Sunset Drive, South Miami, Florida for a New Residential Townhome Project. In compliance with City of South Miami Code Section, 20-5.5(B)(2), you are hereby notified of a proposed application for an approximately 2.6 +/-acre portion of the above referenced property as further explained in the attached Letter of Intent dated September 6, 2017, addressed to Ms. Jane Thompkins, Planning Director of the City of South Miami. MIA 186074153v1 February 10, 2017 City of South Miami Planning & Zoning Department 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami FL 33143 RE: Property Owners List within 500 feet of: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The N 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4, less the East 35 feet and the West 340 feet of the S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4, less the South 50 feet and beginning: 50 feet North of SW corner of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 Continue North 32 feet, West 15 feet, South 321 feet East 15 feet to the Point of Beginning in Section 26, Township 54 South, Range 40 East, lying and being in Miami-Dade County, Florida. FOLIO NO. : 09-4026-000-0130 LOCATION: 6781 Sunset Drive, South Miami, FL 33143 PREPARED FOR: GREENBERG TRAURIG ORDER: 170207 Total number of property owners without repetition: 133 This is to certify that the attached ownership list, map and mailing matrix is a complete and accurate representation of the real estate property and property owners within 500 feet of the subject property listed above. This reflects the most current records on the file in Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser's Office. Sincerely, THE ZONING SPECIALISTS GROUP, INC. Jose F. Lopez, P.S.M. #3086 7729 NW 146th Street • Miami Lakes, FL 33016 Phone: 305828-1210 www.thezoningspecialistsgroup.com 1 SOO-FOOT RADIUS MAP OF: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The N 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4, less the East 35 feet and the West 340 feet of the S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4, less the South 50 feet and beginning: 50 feet North of SW corner of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 Continue North 32 feet, West 15 feet, South 321 feet East 15 feet to the Point of Beginning In Section 26, Township 54 South, Range 40 East, lying and being in Miami-Dade County, Flor ida . FOLIO NO.: 09-4026-000-0130 LOCATION: 6781 Sunset Drive. Sout h Miami. FL 33143 I'REPARED FOR: GREENDEIW TRAURIG ORDER: 170207 DATE: Feb ruary 8, 2017 N .*, s SCALE: 1"= 200' tJ The Zoning Specialists Group, Inc. 7729 NW 146th Street Miami Lakes FL 33016 Ph: (305)828-1210 www.thezonlngspecla llstegroup.com I HEREBY CERTIFY: That all the properties shown herein are lying within a 500-foot radius from all boundary lines of Ihe subject property , ~ BY ' ¢.---. SE F. LOPEZ. P.S.M. NOTE: NOT VAliD UNLESS SEAlED IMTH THE SIGNINO SURVEYOR'S SEAL Professional Surveyor & Mapper No . 3086, State or Florida . ~ \1 rJ. \ I ~\._ \ _ \ 1_ \ ~ [~1'\ ~-~n1rl .c .-J ~I I _, ---- , .. SUHIUCII'CU 0100 81'41 'Il I 1----1 ," 0020 . ODH ootO . 0001 o,}SOU ~:: •. \ "1 .. ~ .. " .... 0110 lOG \ ,'4.A ------.tl1lt.oU \ I r-\ COl: IUNiITIUDOI 8I(:IIPG:lI ----. ---- I I T II' "\ ~ff~'1 '-J .~ ~:; 'I) II! " \.' ~' m \t2\.':.- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI Planning and Zoning Department 6130 Sunset Drive; South Miami, Florida 33143 Phone: (305) 663-6326; Fax #: (305) 668-7335 On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 7:00 P.M., the City of South Miami's Planning Board will conduct public hearings in the City Commission Chambers at the above address on the following items: sw 72ND ST 1. PB-17-027 Applicant: Fellowship Church An Ordinance Adopting a Small-Scale Amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the City of South Miami's Comprehensive Plan, amending the designation of an approximately 2.60-acre property generally located northwest of the intersection of sw nod Street and SW 67th Avenue, and as legally described herein, from Religious to Multiple Family Residential (Four Story). 2. PB-17-028 Applicant: Fellowship Church An Ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map, amending the designation of an approximately 2.60 acre property generally located northwest of the intersection of SW nod Street and SW 67 th A venue, as legally described herein, from "R" Religious to "RM-18" Low Density Multi-)i~amily Residential. 3. PB-17-029 Applicant: fellowship Church A Resolution approving a Special Use to allow a Planned Unit Development on an approximately 2.60-aerc property generally located northwest of the intersection of SW nnd Street and SW 67 th Avenue and as legally described herein. 4. I)B-17 -030 Applicant: Fellowship Church A Resolution approving a variance application to reduce the required width of a private roadway/drive aisle on an approximately 2.60·acre property generally located northwest ofthe intersection of SW nnd Street and SW 67 th Avcnue and as legally described herein. 5. I)B-17-031 Applicant: Fellowship Church A Resolution approving an application for tentative plat approval for an approximately 2.60-acre property generally located northwest ofthe intersection of SW nnd Street and SW 67 th Avenue and as legally described herein. All interested parties are urged to attend. Objections or expressions of approval may be made in person at the hearing or filed in writing prior to or at the hearing. The Planning Board reserves the right to recommend to the City Commission whatever the board considers in the best interest for the area involved. Interested parties requesting information are asked to contact the Planning and Zoning Department by calling 305·663·6326 or writing to the address indicated above. You are hereby advised that if any person desires to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing, such person will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based (F.S. 286.0105). Refer to hearing number when making any inquiry. MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW Published Daily e>cepl Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays Miami, Miami-Dade County. Florida STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE: Before the undersigned authority personally appeared MARIA MESA, who on oath says that he or she is the LEGAL CLERK, Legal Notices of the Miami Daily Business Review Ilk/a Miami Review, a daily (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami in Miami-Dade County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal Advertisement of Notice in the matter of NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI· PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT -NOV 14,2017 in the XXXX Court, was published in said newspaper in the issues of 1110312017 Affiant further says that the said Miami Daily Business Review is a newspaper published at Miami, in said Miami-Dade County, Florida and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Miami -Dade County, Florida each day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Miami in said Miami-Dade County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he or she has neither paid nor promised any discount. rebate, commission curing Ihis advertisement for n to and sub ad before me this ayof N EMBER, A.D. 2017 QVuvu~ (SEAL) MARIA MESA personally known to me