Loading...
13Agenda Item No:13. City Commission Agenda Item Report Meeting Date: February 5, 2019 Submitted by: Jane Tompkins Submitting Department: Planning & Zoning Department Item Type: Ordinance Agenda Section: Subject: An Ordinance amending the City of South Miami Official Zoning Map to advance Goals of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element and the purpose of the Transit-Oriented Development District including the following rezonings: (1) certain parcels from Transit-Oriented Development District Mixed Use 4 (TODD MU-4) to Transit-Oriented Development District Mixed Use 5 (TODD MU-5); and (2) certain parcels from Transit-Oriented Development District Light Industrial 4 (TODD LI-4), to Transit-Oriented Development District Mixed Use 6 (TODD MU-6). 3/5 (City Manager-Planning Department) Suggested Action: Attachments: Cover Memo Re LI4 Zoning Map Amendment.docx Attachment MU-4 to MU-5 Parcels.pdf Attachment LI-4 to MU-6 Parcels.pdf Ord_Re_LI4_to_MU6_and_MU4_to_MU5_Zoning_Map_Amendment__2_CArevComparedCAapproved.docx Addendum 1 to Consultant Analysis_Traffic Impact Analysis.pdf Zoning Map TODD MU-4 to MU-5 and LI-4 to MU-6 (010819).jpg Attachment_Consultant Analysis 01282019.pdf MDC School Concurrency Preliminary Analysis.pdf Miami Herald Notice of Public Hearings Ad.pdf Miami Herald Courtesy Notice Ad.pdf MDBR Public Hearing ordinances Ad.pdf MDBR Public Hearing all Ad.pdf 1 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO:The Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Commission VIA:Steven Alexander, City Manager Jane K. Tompkins, AICP, Planning Director FROM:Silvia E. Vargas, AICP, LEED AP, Planning Consultant Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Inc. DATE:January 15, 2019 SUBJECT: An Ordinance amending the City of South Miami Official Zoning Map to advance Goals of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element and the purpose of the Transit-Oriented Development District including the following rezonings: (1) certain parcels from Transit- Oriented Development District Mixed Use 4 (TODD MU-4) to Transit-Oriented Development District Mixed Use 5 (TODD MU-5); and (2) certain parcels from Transit-Oriented Development District Light Industrial 4 (TODD LI-4), to Transit-Oriented Development District Mixed Use 6 (TODD MU-6). SUMMARY: Initiated by:City of South Miami Purpose:The proposed rezoning from TODD LI-4 to a new zoning district called TODD MU-6 will provide additional flexibility in building heights, implementing the amended intent of Comprehensive Plan Policy FLU 1.1.1 in a specific part of the TODD; while the rezoning of certain parcels from TODD MU-4 to MU-5 improves the cohesiveness of the TODD MU-5 zoning district and creates more viable infill and redevelopment opportunities.The new TODD MU-6 district will be established in the Land Development Code via a concurrent text amendment application. All the proposed zoning changes help further Goal 3 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Subject Parcels:Refer to Attachments 1and 2 for parcel identification by folio number, and address. 2 2 | P a g e BACKGROUND: The TODD zoning districts were established to enact the TODD future land use designation in 1996-1997. However, development and redevelopment of land within the district have been noticeably slow. Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Inc. (CGA)was retained by the City to helpdetermine whether the current TODD boundary and applicable policies and regulations serve the vision for that district effectively. The consultant analysis focused on several areas of concern, including: 1. The zoning of approximately eleven (11) acres of land generally located to the north and northeast of the Metrorail Station parking garage, currently zoned TODD Light Industrial 4 (TODD LI-4) as shown in Figure 1. Building height is capped at 2 stories in TODD LI-4. This limitation, combined with the generally small size of parcels in this area, poses a significant challenge against redeveloping transit-supportive mixed-use buildings in TODD LI-4. The recommendation is to rezone these parcels to a new zoning category, TODD MU-6, which will allow greater flexibility in building heights (up to 12 stories through bonuses, similar to the TODD MU- 5 zoning district). 2. The zoning of approximately five (5) acres of non-contiguous land, with parcels located to the north and to the west of the Metrorail Station parking garage. These parcels are zoned TODD MU-4 and are impacted by similar conditions regarding size and building height restrictions as those zoned TODD LI-4. The recommendation is to rezone these parcels to MU-5, increasing the cohesiveness of the TODD as a whole. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The City proposes to amend the official Zoning Map as shown in Figure 2 on the next page. Figure 1: Location Map of Subject Parcels 3 3 | P a g e Figure 2. Proposed Amendment (map excerpt) The proposed rezonings are in compliance with the requirements of Section 20-5.7 of the City’s Land Development Code, and are compatible with the character of recent and planned development in the TODD. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Commission approve the proposed rezonings. The map changes are concurrent with a request to amend certain applicable sections of the Land Development Code that establish the criteria and standards for the TODD MU-6 zoning district and adjust the standards for TODD MU-5. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Parcels Proposed for Rezoning from TODD MU-4 to TODD MU-5 2) Parcels Proposed for Rezoning from TODD LI-4 to TODD MU-6 3) Draft Ordinance 4) Consultant Analysis (prepared by Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Inc), dated 12/12/18 5) Proposed Zoning Map Amendment 4 ATTACHMENT 2 PARCELS PROPOSED FOR REZONING FROM TODD MU‐4 TO TODD MU-5 Folio Address Lot Size (Sq. Ft.) Ownership 09‐4025‐026‐0070 6490 SW 57 AVE, SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3631 18,900 7 ELEVEN INC 09‐4025‐028‐1400 5876 SW 68 ST, SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3693 36,500 SOMI GRP LLC 09‐4025‐028‐1440 5920 SW 68 ST SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3528 14,600 5920 CRN S LLC 09‐4025‐028‐1460 5928 SW 68 ST SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3524 7,300 59TH STREET DEVELOPMENT LLC 09‐4025‐028‐1470 5940 SW 68 ST SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3524 6,883 J & K AMERICAN INC 09‐4025‐028‐1480 6811 SW 59TH PL  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3514 18,000 RAVI S RAMUIT & W LINDA L  09‐4025‐028‐1490 6845 SW 59 PL SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3514 8,896 RAVI S RAMUIT & W LINDA L  09‐4025‐028‐2080 5927 SW 70 ST, SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3527 46,470 ROSALIND T SPODEK  NATIONWIDE POSTAL MGMT 09‐4025‐080‐0001 5975 SUNSET DRIVE,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 0000 27,000 REFERENCE FOLIO 09‐4025‐011‐0020 5960 SW 71 ST SOUTH  MIAMI FL 33143‐3532 14,810 L ATELIER INC 09‐4025‐082‐0001 6143 SW 72 ST, SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐0000 20,760 REFERENCE ONLY 09‐4025‐011‐0070 6101 SUNSET DRIVE,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 5039 25,366 METRO SOUTH SENIOR  APARTMENTS LP (SPLIT ZONING) Total land (sq. ft.)*245,485 Total building area (sq. ft.) Total land (acres)*5.64 FAR 5 ATTACHMENT 3 PARCELS PROPOZED FOR REZONING FROM TODD LI‐4 TO TODD MU-6 Folio Address Lot Size (Sq. Ft.) Ownership 09‐4025‐028‐1191 6800 SW 57th AVE ,  SOUTH MIAMI FL 33143‐ 3452 22,924 SO MIAMI KAL‐SI‐STEM LLC 09‐4025‐028‐1190 5711 S DIXIE HWAY,  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3602 2,880 PSYCHO‐SOCIAL REHAB CENTER  OF DADE COUNTY 09‐4025‐028‐1180 5711 S DIXIE HWAY,  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3602 5,750 PSYCHO‐SOCIAL REHAB CENTER  OF DADE COUNTY 09‐4025‐028‐1170 5711 S DIXIE HWAY,  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3602 11,500 PSYCHO‐SOCIAL REHAB CENTER  OF DADE COUNTY 09‐4025‐028‐1160 5752 PROGRESS RD,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3650 5,750 FINLAY REALTY HOLDINGS CORP 09‐4025‐028‐1151 5760 PROGRESS RD,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3650 5,750 FINLAY REALTY HOLDINGS CORP 09‐4025‐028‐1120 5770 PROGRESS RD,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3650 11,500 5770 PROGRESS LLC 09‐4025‐028‐1100 5786 PROGRESS RD,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3650 11,500 DENT MASTERS BODY WORKS,  LLC 09‐4025‐028‐1091 5795 S DIXIE HWY,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3602 14,375 DENT MASTERS BODY WORKS,  LLC 09‐4025‐028‐1090 5801 SW 70 ST, SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3651 17,767 ROBHIL INC 09‐4025‐028‐0960 5780 SW 68 ST, SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3619 15,394 SO MIAMI KAL‐SI‐STEM LLC 09‐4025‐028‐0970 5748 COMMERCE LN,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3641 17,250 PSYCHO‐SOCIAL REHAB CENTER  OF DADE COUNTY 09‐4025‐077‐0001 REFERENCE FOLIO 09‐4025‐028‐1021 5810 COMMERCE LN,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3643 2,875 KRAU INVESTMENTS LLC 09‐4025‐028‐1022 5820 COMMERCE LN,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3643 9,545 5820 COMMERCE LANE LLC 09‐4025‐028‐1023 5842 COMMERCE LN,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3643 1,955 HELEN M HUFFMAN TRS 6 Folio Address  Lot Size (Sq. Ft.) Ownership 09‐4025‐028‐1030 5844 COMMERCE LN,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3643 5,750 BURGESS LTD PARTNERSHIP 09‐4025‐028‐1031 5850 COMMERCE LN,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3643 2,875 5820 COMMERCE LANE LLC 09‐4025‐028‐1040 5864 COMMERCE LN,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3643 8,625 COMMERCE LANE INVESTORS LLC 09‐4025‐028‐1060 5868 COMMERCE LN,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3643 5,865 BGM ENTERPRISES LLC 09‐4025‐028‐1070 5880 COMMERCE LN,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3643 8,510 166 WEST 27 HIALEAH  INVESTMENT LLC 09‐4025‐028‐1080 5821 SW 70 ST, SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3624 8,337 MESK HOLDINGS LLC 09‐4025‐028‐1380 342 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI FIRE WELL 09‐4025‐028‐1370 5798 SW 68 ST, SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3619 16,314 MIAMI DADE COUNTY ISD RE  MGMT 09‐4025‐028‐1360 5791 COMMERCE LN,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3640 14,062 5791 COMMERCE LANE LLC 09‐4025‐028‐1350 5793 COMMERCE LN,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3640 6,000 5793 COMMERCE LANE LLC 09‐4025‐028‐1340 5795 COMMERCE LN,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3640 6,000 CONSTANTINE TSAOUSSIS /  CAROL ANN HORKOWITZ 09‐4025‐028‐1330 5835 COMMERCE LN,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3642 4,500 JONATHAN M STONER 09‐4025‐028‐1320 5839 COMMERCE LN,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3642 4,500 5839 41 COMMERCE LLC 09‐4025‐028‐1310 5851 COMMERCE LN,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3642 5,500 DISON LTD 09‐4025‐028‐1300 5863 COMMERCE LN,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3642 5,500 DISON LTD JACK L DISON  CHARLOTTE DISON 09‐4025‐028‐1290 5879 COMMERCE LN,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3642 6,000 SMF INVESTMENTS CORP 7 Folio Address  Lot Size (Sq. Ft.) Ownership 09‐4025‐028‐1280 5879 COMMERCE LN,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3642 5,557 SMF INVESTMENTS CORP 09‐4025‐028‐1260 5858 COMMERCE LN,  SOUTH MIAMI, FL 33143‐ 3642 4,309 LOUIS STINSON JR TR 09‐4025‐028‐1200 5818 SW 68 ST, SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3621 13,833 J A M WELDING SERV INC 09‐4025‐028‐1210 5834 SW 68 ST, SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3621 8,456 5834 SW 68TH STREET LLC 09‐4025‐028‐1230 5846 SW 68 ST, SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3621 8,750 BEEMER REPAIR SHOP INC 09‐4025‐028‐1235 1,965 BEEMER REPAIR SHOP INC 09‐4025‐028‐1240 5858 SW 68 ST, SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3612 31,958 5858 SW 68TH ST LLC 09‐4025‐028‐1500 5907 SW 69 ST, SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3534 32,400 ALAN D MOBLEY TR 09‐4025‐028‐1520 5897 SW 69 ST, SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3665 10,800 ALAN D MOBLEY TR 09‐4025‐028‐1550 5875 SW 69 ST, SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3665 14,400 ALAN D MOBLEY TR 09‐4025‐028‐2060 5887 SW 70 ST, SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐1458 49,500 ALAN D MOBLEY TR 09‐4025‐028‐2070 5890 SW 69 ST, SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3666 31,050 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI   09‐4025‐028‐2080 5927 SW 70 ST, SOUTH  MIAMI, FL 33143‐3527 15,000 ROSALIND T SPODEK  NATIONWIDE POSTAL MGMT Total land (sq. ft.)*493,373 Total building area (sq. ft.) Total land (acres)*11.33 FAR 8 Page 1 Ordinance No. _____________________1 An Ordinance amending the City of South Miami Official Zoning Map to 2 advance Goals of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element and the 3 purpose of the Transit-Oriented Development District including the following 4 rezonings: (1) certain parcels from Transit-Oriented Development District 5 Mixed Use 4 (TODD MU-4) to Transit-Oriented Development District Mixed 6 Use 5 (TODD MU-5); and (2) certain parcels from Transit-Oriented 7 Development District Light Industrial 4 (TODD LI-4), to Transit-Oriented 8 Development District Mixed Use 6 (TODD MU-6).9 10 WHEREAS, the City of South Miami established the Transit-Oriented Development 11 District (TODD) zoning districts in 1997; and12 WHEREAS,development and redevelopment in the TODD have been slow to occur since 13 then; and14 WHEREAS, the City retained Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Inc. (CGA) to help 15 determine whether the current TODD boundary and applicable policies and regulations serve the 16 vision for that district effectively; and17 WHEREAS, the consultant analysis recommended rezoning certain parcels of land, as 18 identified in Attachment 3, from Transit-Oriented Development District Light Industrial 4 (TODD 19 LI-4) to a new district, Transit-Oriented Development District Mixed-Use 6 (TODD MU-6), 20 established in the Land Development Code, to provide additional flexibility in building heights in 21 a specific area of the TODD; and22 WHEREAS, the consultant’s analysis also recommended rezoning certain parcels of land, 23 identified in attachment2, from Transit-Oriented Development District Mixed-Use 4 (TODD MU-24 4) to Transit-Oriented Development District Mixed-Use 5 (TODD MU-5) to improve the 25 cohesiveness of the TODD MU-5 zoning district and to create more viable infill and 26 redevelopment opportunities; and27 WHEREAS, the City Commission wishes to accept these recommendations; and28 WHEREAS, the proposed rezonings implement the intent of Policy FLU 1.1.1 of the 29 Future Land Use Element Comprehensive Plan, advance Goal 3 of the Comprehensive Plan and 30 corresponding policies related to the TODD, and are in compliance with Section 20-5.7 of the 31 City’s Land Development Code.32 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY 33 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:34 9 Page 2 Section 1.The foregoing recitals are hereby ratified and incorporated by reference as if 35 fully set forth herein and as the legislative intent of this Ordinance. 36 Section 2. The official Zoning Map of the City of South Miami is hereby amended as 37 shown in the document titled “Attachment: Proposed Zoning Map Amendment,” which is 38 attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance.39 Section 3. The City Commission incorporates by reference the supporting analysis40 provided in Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Inc.’s “Memorandum” dated January 7, 2019 and 41 “ADDENDUM 1: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS” both of which are attached hereto and made a part of 42 this Ordinance.43 Section 4. Severability. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance is for 44 any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, this holding shall 45 not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. 46 Section 5. Ordinances in Conflict. All ordinances or parts of ordinances and all sections 47 and parts of sections of ordinances in direct conflict herewith are hereby repealed. 48 Section 6. Effective Date. The Zoning Map amendment(s) adopted by this Ordinance will49 become effective only if the concurrent amendments to the Land Development Code that establish 50 the criteria and standards for the TODD MU-6 zoning district are enacted and then this Ordinance 51 will become effective immediately after, and on the same date as, the effective date of those 52 amendments.53 PASSED AND ENACTED this ____ day of _____________, 2019.54 ATTEST:APPROVED:55 56 ________________________________________________57 CITY CLERK MAYOR58 1st Reading 59 2nd Reading 60 61 READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: COMMISSION VOTE:62 LANGUAGE, LEGALITY AND Mayor Stoddard:63 EXECUTION THEREOF Vice Mayor Harris: 64 Commissioner Gil:65 Commissioner Liebman:66 ________________________Commissioner Welsh:67 CITY ATTORNEY68 10   1    ADDENDUM 1: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS   Parcels Re‐Designated from Mixed‐Use Commercial Residential (MU‐C/R) to Transit‐Oriented  Development District (TODD) Future Land Use   (Moderate Intensity Office to TODD MU‐5 zoning)  January 7, 2019  The estimated maximum intensity of retail, office and residential uses in the subject area, under existing  conditions and following the proposed amendment are shown in Table 1. The proposed amendment  increases the area available for retail and office uses, and adds 140 multi‐family dwelling units.  Table 2 estimates the vehicle trips from the maximum existing possible collection of land uses using  information from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual., 10th ed..  Trip  generation formulae are used if available, and if the land use intensity is within the normal range of ITE  data.  ITE Land Use #820, Shopping Center is used to estimate the trip volume from an unknown  collection of potential retail uses.  The intensity of retail is below the normal range of intensities for this  Table 1 – Existing and Proposed Uses  Estimated Development Capacity Based on Current Zoning Current Zoning Current Land Area (ac) Sq. Ft. Permitted Max Height Re- develop- ment Goal Potential Bldg Floor Area from Redevelop- ment (incl Parking) Potential Bldg Floor Area from Re- develop- ment (Excl Parking) New Retail Floor Area (0.3) New Office Floor Area (2) New Residential Units MO 3.94 171,626 4 0.5 343,253 171,626 15,618 104,006 - Estimated Expanded TODD Development Capacity Based on Proposed Zoning Proposed Zoning Proposed Land Area (ac) Sq. Ft. Proposed Max Height Re- develop- ment Goal Potential Bldg Floor Area from Redevelop- ment (incl Parking) New Max Bldg Floor Area New Retail (0.3) New Office (2) New Residential Units TODD MU-5 3.94 171,626 8 0.8 1,098,406 768,884 69,968 465,944 140 Approx Mix Ratio Based on Market Assessment (0.3:2:1) Approx Mix Ratio Based on Market Assessment (0.3:2:1) 11   2    land use and the average rates are used as a result. The pass‐by capture rate uses the formula contained  in the 9th edition of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. Pass‐by capture is applied only to PM peak period  trip estimates, the only period in which data was collected. The AM peak and daily trip generation  estimates are conservative to some degree given an unknown amount of pass‐by capture that could be  deducted from both.  While internal capture is possible between retail and office uses, Table 3 demonstrates that the retail  intensity is insufficient to make them quantifiable in this collection of uses using the methodology in the  ITE Trip Generation Handbook 9th ed.. Reduced by pass‐by captured trips, the net peak hour generation  (virtually identical for both AM and PM) is estimated at 139 two‐way trips.      Table 2 – Trip Generation for Existing Uses  Rate (1) or Eqn. (2)PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour Use Daily AM PM Trips Daily Traffic In Out Total In Out Total Shopping Center 820 K Square Feet 15.618 1 1 1 Total 590 29 31 60 9 6 15 Internal 0.0 0 0 0 External 29 31 60 Pass-By 66.7202040 Net New 9 11 20 General Office Building 710 K Square Feet 104.01 2 2 2 1,102 19 99 118 107 17 124 Office Total 104.01 Total 1,102 19 99 118 107 17 124 Internal 0.0 0 0 0 Net New 19 99 118 Total Total 1,692 48 130 178 116 23 139 Internal 0.0 0 0 0 External 48 130 178 Pass-By 202040 Net New 28 110 138 Trip Generation Rates from ITE Trip Generation 10th Ed. Shopping Center Pass By Capture Rate from ITE Trip Generation Handbook 9th Ed. ITE LU# Measurement Unit # of Units Capture Rate 12   3      Table 4 develops the trip generation for the proposed collection of uses, and Table 5 develops the  internally captured trips possible between this collection of uses.  Reduced by pass‐by and internally  captured trips, the net peak hour generation (PM) is estimated at 660 two‐way trips.   Table 3 – Internal Trip Capture for Existing Uses  PM Peak Hour Trips Internal External Total Group Uses In Out In Out In Out 1 Retail Total 0 0 29 31 29 31 0.0 2 Residential Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 3 Office Total 0 0 19 99 19 99 0.0 Total 0 0 48 130 48 130 0.0 Interaction Max % # Trips From Office to Retail 23 22.8 To Retail from Office 2 0.6 Office to Retail 0 From Retail to Office 3 0.9 To Office from Retail 31 5.9 Retail to Office 0 From Office To Residential 2 0.0 To Residential from Office 2 0.0 Office to Residential 0 From Residential to Office 0 0.0 To Office from Residential 0 0.0 Residential to Office 0 From Retail to Residential 12 0.0 To Residential from Retail 31 0.0 Retail to Residential 0 From Residential to Retail 53 0.0 To Retail from Residential 9 0.0 Residential to Retail 0 Maximum Directional Capture Rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 9th. Ed., Tables 7.1 and 7.2 Cap- ture Rate 13   4       Table 4 – Trip Generation for Proposed Uses  Rate (1) or Eqn. (2)PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour Use Daily AM PM Trips Daily Traffic In Out Total In Out Total Shopping Center 820 K Square Feet 69.968 1 1 1 Total 2,641 128 139 267 41 25 66 Internal 10.5131528 External 115 124 239 Pass-By 43.1 52 52 103 Net New 63 72 136 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)221 Dwelling Units 140 2 2 2 761 37 24 61 12 36 48 Residential Total 140 Total 761 37 24 61 12 36 48 Internal 36.1111122 Net New 26 13 39 General Office Building 710 K Square Feet 465.944 2 2 2 4,721 79 412 491 399 65 464 Office Total 465.94 Total 4,721 79 412 491 399 65 464 Internal 1.2 4 2 6 Net New 75 410 485 Total Total 8,123 244 575 819 452 126 578 Internal 6.8 28 28 56 External 216 547 763 Pass-By 52 52 103 Net New 164 495 660 Trip Generation Rates from ITE Trip Generation 10th Ed. Shopping Center Pass By Capture Rate from ITE Trip Generation Handbook 9th Ed. ITE LU# Measurement Unit # of Units Capture Rate 14   5       Table 5 – Internal Trip Capture for Existing Uses  PM Peak Hour Trips Internal External Total Group Uses In Out In Out In Out 1 Retail Total 13 15 115 124 128 139 10.5 2 Residential Total 11 11 26 13 37 24 36.1 3 Office Total 4 2 75 410 79 412 1.2 Total 28 28 216 547 244 575 6.8 Interaction Max % # Trips From Office to Retail 23 94.8 To Retail from Office 2 2.6 Office to Retail 2 From Retail to Office 3 4.2 To Office from Retail 31 24.5 Retail to Office 4 From Office To Residential 2 8.2 To Residential from Office 2 0.7 Office to Residential 0 From Residential to Office 0 0.0 To Office from Residential 0 0.0 Residential to Office 0 From Retail to Residential 12 16.7 To Residential from Retail 31 11.5 Retail to Residential 11 From Residential to Retail 53 12.7 To Retail from Residential 9 11.5 Residential to Retail 11 Maximum Directional Capture Rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 9th. Ed., Tables 7.1 and 7.2 Cap- ture Rate 15   6    Figure 1 shows that the subject area is within Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) number 1118 as used in the  Miami‐Dade Long Range Transportation Plan Directional Trip Distribution Report.   Figure 2 shows an excerpt from that report, highlighting the 2010 directional trip distribution  percentages for use in distributing estimated trips generated form or destined to TAZ 1118.  Figure 3 shows the distribution percentages as they are published (leftmost) alongside a couple of  alternatives that either sum them to align with the four main compass headings, or average them to  align with the most frequently used eight headings, which are used in this analysis.   Figure 4 depicts an estimate of how traffic generated in the subject area would distribute to the  surrounding road network.  Around the edge of the figure are the eight percentages from the rightmost  arrangement in Figure 3. The percentages assigned to each road segment assume some dispersion when  a street grid is available, and recognize that only some segments have the connectivity to attract long  distance trips. Figure 1 – Subject Area TAZ  1118  16  7      Figure 2 – Trip Distribution Report Excerpt 17  8    Figure 3 – TAZ 1118 Trip Distribution Percentages Year 2010TAZ 111813.7 17.411.4 15.6 16.99.0 16.315.3 9.121.5 1.816.9 3.519.2 10.2 2.7SSS20.4EWNNN31.1EWEW30.5 18.1 18  9    Figure 4 –Trip Distribution Percentages by Road Segment 15.611.47.8 7.811.4 5.7 4.816.95.7 8.7 4.87.85.7 4.8 3.916.93.99.6 13.520.815.315.3 15.3 24.9 9.1 9.19.119.2 2219.2 12.919.219.210.22.7SW 56th St.SW 67th AveNSW 72nd Ave.Sw 57th Ave.SW 64h St.SW 72nd  St.SW 72nd  St.SW 62nd Ave.SW 80th  St.SW 64h St.SW 56th St.SW 80th  St.SW 67th AveSw 57th Ave. 19   10    Figure 5 shows excerpts from roadway databases maintained by Miami‐Dade County for state and  county facilities, the source used for roadway information in this analysis. The service volumes are peak  hour two‐way.  Table 6 contains the road segments in Figure 4 for which information was available in the traffic  databases. The trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 4 are applied to the potential new traffic  (the difference between the peak hour two‐way trips from Tables 2 and 4) to determine the new traffic  on each segment. This volume is compared to the segment’s minimum standard level of service volume.  There are no segments on which the new traffic will exceed five percent of this service volume, and  consequently no analyses of existing or future conditions were developed.  The number of trips estimated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual were not reduced by an assumed  non‐auto mode share in the existing or proposed conditions. It is not appropriate to reduce ITE  generated trip estimates in this way without first knowing how many of the total trips to and from the  studied sites that compose the ITE data were by non‐auto modes. Put another way, if non‐auto mode  shares were the same everywhere, then they are already accounted for in ITE trip generation estimates,  which are for vehicle trips only. 20  11      Figure 5 ‐ Miami‐Dade County Roadway Database Excerpts Miami‐Dade  STA. ROADWAY LOCATION CLMAX LOS PHP STARTDOS TRIPSAVAIL‐ ABLE TRIPS 5% 10%EXIST‐ ING LOSADOPT‐ ED LOSCON‐ CUR‐ RENCY LOS9242 LUDLAM RD/SW 67 AVE S/O BIRD RD/SW 40 ST SW 40 ST TO SW 56 ST 2 1269 1344 ‐75 14 ‐89 1 0 F E E+79243 LUDLAM RD/SW 67 AVE N/O SW 72 ST SW 56 ST TO US 1 2 1269 859 4106 404 0 0 D E D9260 MILLER DR/SW 56 ST W/O RED RD/SW 57 AVE TO SW 67 AVE 2 1269 1349 ‐80 0 ‐80 1 0 F E E+69261 MILLER DR/SW 56 ST W/O SW 69 AVE BET SW 67 AVE ‐ SR 826 4 32222563 659 0 659 0 0 C E C9634 SW 57 AVE N/O SW 72 ST TO SOUTH DIXIE HWY 4 4104 1329 2775 4 2771 00DE+50D9656 SW 72 ST W/O CARTAGENA CIR. COCOPLUM PLAZA TO 57 AV 2 1269 937 332 23 309 0 0 D E D9684 SW 72 AVE S/O BIRD DR/SW 40 ST TO SW 56 ST 4 4833 1266 3567 5 356200CE+50C9686 SW 72 AVE S/O SW 56 ST TO SW 72 ST 2 1903 1266 637 0 637 0 0 E E+50 E9688 SW 72 AVE S/O SW 72 ST TO SW 80 ST 1 1903 1371 532 8 524 0 0 F E+50 E+8FDOT Traffic StationsSTA. ROADWAY LOCATION CLMAX LOS PHP STARTDOS TRIPSAVAIL‐ ABLE TRIPS 5% 10%EXIST‐ ING LOSADOPT‐ ED LOSCON‐ CUR‐ RENCY LOS34 SR 959/RED RD/SW 57 AV 200' N SR 5/US‐1 A 2 1130 1806 ‐676 0 ‐676 1 0 FEE+5970 SW 72 ST/SUNSET DR US‐1 TO SW 67TH AVE A 4 2920 1869 1051 0 1051 0 0 D ED127 SR 5/US‐1 400' E OF SW 57 AVE. A 6 8085 5158 2927 0 2927 0 0 C E+50 C164 SR 5/US‐1 200' S DAVIS ST/SW 80 ST A 6 8085 5600 2485 134 2351 0 0 F E+50 E+61067 SR 986/SUNSET DR 200' E SR 826 A 4 3580 2950 630 0 630 0 0 C E C 21  12    Table 6 – Study Area Roadway Segments Seg‐ ment Num‐ ber Roadway Station Location Analysis SegmentState/ CountySeg‐ ment #Road‐ way TypeMin. Std. Serv‐ ice Vol‐ ume Peak Hour 2‐ WayPercent of Project Traffic on the Seg‐ mentProject Incre‐ mental Traffic on the Seg‐ ment ‐ Peak Hr 2‐ WayProject Traffic as a Per‐ cent‐ age of the Serv‐ ice Vol‐ umeSignif‐ icant Yes/ No1 SR 5/US‐1 200' S DAVIS ST/SW 80 ST West of SW 62nd Ave State 164 A 6 8085 19.2 100 1.2 No2 SR 5/US‐1 400' E OF SW 57 AVE. East of SW 62nd Ave State 127 A 6 8085 20.8 108 1.3 No3 SR 986/SUNSET DR 200' E SR 826 West of SW 67th Ave State 1067 A 4 3580 15.3 80 2.2 No4 SW 72 ST/SUNSET DR US‐1 TO SW 67TH AVE SW 67th Ave to US‐1 State 70 A 4 2920 24.9 130 4.5 No5 SW 72 ST W/O CARTAGENA CIR. COCOPLUM PLAZA TO 57 AV East of US‐1County 9656 2 1269 9.1 47 3.7 No6 MILLER DR/SW 56 ST W/O RED RD/SW 57 AVE TO SW 67 AVE SW 57th Ave to SW 67th Ave County 9260 2 1269 4.8 25 2.0 No7 MILLER DR/SW 56 ST W/O SW 69 AVE BET SW 67 AVE ‐ SR 826 West of SW 67th Ave County 9261 4 3222 11.4 59 1.8 No8 SR 959/RED RD/SW 57 AV 200' N SR 5/US‐1 North of US‐1 State 34 A 2 1130 7.8 41 3.6 No9 SW 57 AVE N/O SW 72 ST TO SOUTH DIXIE HWY SW 72nd St. to US‐1 County 9634 4 4104 0.0 010 LUDLAM RD/SW 67 AVE S/O BIRD RD/SW 40 ST SW 40 ST TO SW 56 ST North of SW 56th St. County 9242 2 1269 7.8 41 3.2 No11 LUDLAM RD/SW 67 AVE N/O SW 72 ST SW 56 ST TO US 1 US‐1 to SW 56th St. County 9243 2 1269 9.6 50 3.9 No12 SW 72 AVE S/O BIRD DR/SW 40 ST TO SW 56 ST North of SW 56th St.County 9684 4 4833 0.0 013 SW 72 AVE S/O SW 56 ST TO SW 72 ST SW 56th St. to SW 72nd St. County 9686 2 1903 5.7 30 1.6 No14 SW 72 AVE S/O SW 72 ST TO SW 80 ST SW 72nd st. to SW 80th St. County 9688 1 1903 0.0 0Existing Peak Hour Two Way Trips 139Proposed Peak Hour Two Way Trips 660Incremental Peak Hour Two Way Trips 521 22 23 1  Memorandum ☐Fort Lauderdale Office ∙ 1800 Eller Drive ∙ Suite 600 ∙ Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 ∙ 954.921.7781(p) ∙ 954.921.8807(f) ☒Miami‐Dade Office ∙ 10800 Biscayne Boulevard ∙ Suite 950 ∙ Miami, FL 33161 ∙ 786.485.5200(p) ∙ 786.485.1520(f) Date: January 15, 2019  To: Jane K. Tompkins, AICP, City of South Miami Planning and Zoning Director  From: Silvia E. Vargas, AICP, LEED AP, Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Inc.  Subject: Transit Oriented Development District (TODD)  Project: Analysis of TODD Land Use, Zoning, Development & Market Conditions & Trends  CC:  1.Overview and Purpose  The City of South Miami has had a transit‐oriented development district (TODD) as far back as the mid 1990’s (Figure 1).  However, the redevelopment of land located within the district have been comparatively slow.  This may be due, in part, to the natural progression of development markets and to the ups and downs of  economic conditions in the last two  decades, or the current regulations  may have discouraged development.  At this time, the City of South Miami  wishes to consider whether its TODD  policy and regulatory framework still  effectively serves the original vision  for that district.   To assist in providing analysis and  recommendations to inform decision‐ making, the City has retained Calvin,  Giordano & Associates, Inc. (CGA)  and its subconsultant Lambert  Advisory Services to complete an  analysis of the TODD (represented in  Figure 1 by the blue boundary) for  the purpose of determining the need and appropriateness of amending the Comprehensive Plan policies  and/or the corresponding regulations in the Land Development Code (LDC), as they pertain to this district.  A  particular focus of this study are those parcels within the district that are zoned TODD Light Industrial 4 (TODD  Map Source: Google Earth  Figure 1 TODD Light Industrial 4 (LI-4) 24   2    Memorandum LI‐4), which exist to the northeast and north of the South Miami Metrorail Station (represented in Figure 1 by  the red boundary).   To date, the consultant team’s study has completed the following component steps:    1. Broad review of existing conditions and trends related to demographics, socioeconomics, housing, land use  and development, summarized in Section 4 of this memorandum;   2. Preparation of a high‐level assessment of market and economic conditions, summarized in Section 4.g of  this memorandum (refer to Appendix 1); and  3. Development of a generic massing model exercise and calculations to help visualize a theoretical  “maximum development” scenario of TODD based on the market assessment. (refer to Appendix 2 and  Appendix 3).  4. A public workshop to review the consultant team’s findings and preliminary recommendations with the  City Commission, Planning Board, Community Redevelopment Agency Board, residents, business owners  and property owners.  The consultant team used the feedback obtained at the workshop (summarized in  Appendix 4), to finalize recommendations regarding potential amendments to the LDC related to the  TODD.    2. Summary of Recommendations  The massing model generated by CGA hypothesizes the effect of certain potential changes to the TODD  policies, the land use and zoning maps, and development regulations, consistent with FLU Goal 3, Objective  3.1, and Policy 3.1.1; specifically:    Rezoning land from TODD MU‐4 to TODD MU‐5, allowing for redevelopment up to 8 stories through  existing bonuses.       Expanding the boundary of the TODD, consistent with Policy FLU 3.1.4 of the Comprehensive Plan, by  amending the land use of the “gap” parcels that divide the two “halves” of the TODD from Mixed Use  Commercial/Residential (MU‐C/R) to TODD.     Rezoning the “gap” parcels from Medium Density Office (MO) to TODD MU‐5 on the Zoning Map.     Allowing redevelopment up to 12 stories through earned bonuses, in those areas of the district  closest to the South Miami Metrorail Station by creating a new multi‐story, mixed‐use TODD zoning  subcategory called MU‐6).     Rezoning land from TODD LI‐4 to the new TODD MU‐6 zoning category on the Zoning Map.   Bonuses for TODD MU‐6 to build above the base number could include items that meet various City  goals (e.g., sustainability, affordable housing, etc.):   providing a percent of workforce or affordable housing units (e.g., 10%+ of the units);   Assembling a minimum amount of contiguous acreage (e.g., 1 acre) to make up a larger  redevelopment site. 25   3    Memorandum  creating bicycle and pedestrian amenities (e.g., bicycle storage, lockers, repair stations, showers,  etc.)    providing civic or green space of a certain size and functionality, to augment the City’s system of  parks and recreation and provide for the needs of new and existing residents.     Reducing the minimum parking requirement for residential uses in the suggested TODD MU‐6 and the  TODD MU‐5 districts, and establishing maximum parking caps for all of the TODD districts. (NOTE: Per  recent City action, the effective parking provision for Alta Developers yields a ratio of approximately  1.3 spaces per multifamily unit). This would require amending Section 20‐8.8 and related sections of  the LDC.   Changes such as these will bring the South Miami TODD more in line with modern best practices in transit‐ oriented districts, while more effectively furthering FLU Goal 3 of Comprehensive Plan of “achieving a tax base  adequate to support a high level of municipal services via increased mixed‐use projects and flexible building  heights in designated Transit‐Oriented Development Districts [TODD], to the extent that development and  redevelopment in these districts does not adversely impact surrounding neighborhoods and uses.”    3. Background  The Transit‐Oriented Development District (TODD) and its associated zoning and land development regulations  were developed and adopted by the City of South Miami between 1995 and 1997. At the time, the City’s  Evaluation and Appraisal Report had recommended that the City amend the Comprehensive Plan to create the  Transit‐Oriented Development District “to promote redevelopment and infill development in appropriate  areas” of what was, then, identified as the “central office district west of South Dixie Highway” adjacent to the  South Miami Metrorail Station. The object was to permit more flexibility in height, in order to facilitate the  development or redevelopment of mixed‐use, multi‐story projects supportive of transit.    The transit orientation of this district, with its related incentives for development and redevelopment, was to  serve as an additional impetus for the revitalization of this area, which is included within the boundary of the  South Miami Community Redevelopment Area.  These developments have occurred on land zoned (or rezoned to) TODD MU‐5, the only zoning subcategory in  the TODD that currently provides flexibility in building heights.  One other mixed‐use development, by Alta  Developers, is in the pipeline, also in the MU‐5 zoning district. Meanwhile, there has been little to no demand  for redevelopment in the two zoning subcategories of the TODD where the building height is capped at two  stories with no flexibility. The analysis in the next few pages explores whether this and other regulatory  conditions, such as parking requirements, are creating barriers to development and redevelopment contrary to  the stated goals, policies and objectives for the TODD.      4. Key Analysis Findings  a. Population Characteristics   According to the consultant’s market and economic assessment, the Miami‐Dade Transit Corridor  in which South Miami’s TODD is included could add between 700‐800 persons/year in population, 26   4    Memorandum or about 300‐350 new households annually through the year 2040, based Miami‐Dade County  projections.      South Miami could capture between 1/4 and 1/3 of these new households over the next 15 years.     South Miami’s population is slightly younger, by average age, than that of the surrounding area  (average age). However, the population segments between the ages of 20 and 64 continue to  expand. As those large groups age, the City may wish to consider the implications for future  housing needs in terms of typologies.      The City’s population has a higher average household income than Miami Dade County, which  provides retail expenditure opportunities.      By contrast, the region’s overall lower household income levels and high housing costs offer  growth potential for the rental, multifamily residential market in South Miami.      The City will wish to consider the implications of these findings (future household capture  potential, local and regional population characteristics) by establishing future housing policy and  strategies, particularly in those areas of the City targeted for redevelopment, including the TODD.    b. Housing Trends   Very little net new housing has been produced within the City limits in the past decade.      Over 60% of the existing housing  stock is single‐family detached  homes, owner‐occupied, and at  least 40 years old (according to the  U.S. Census Bureau American  Community Survey 2012‐2016).  Housing values have risen steadily  for the past 5 years.     Other than the recent affordable  assisted living facility, the City has  not seen any multifamily  development since 2004 (Valencia  Apartments).  As of this writing, the  6075 Sunset Drive project has been  approved with 205 units.      There are three other mixed‐use development projects that are in various stages of planning at the  City, both within and outside the TODD, which include residential components. The combined total  6075 Sunset Drive. Credit: Behar & Font Partners, PA  27   5    Memorandum multifamily units which might be provided by all these projects could total about half of the City’s  total potential housing unit demand share for the next 15 years      Another project, Treo SoMi Station, is in the approval stages through Miami Dade County, on  County‐owned land, but will only provide student apartments.      c. Existing TODD Land Use   The district encompasses approximately 37.5 net acres (parcels).       The general development character of the district is one of mostly low‐rise (6 stories or less), low‐ density development.      The mix of land uses consists primarily of office buildings, many with some ground‐floor retail and  services; some stand‐alone one‐story retail; light‐industrial and auto‐related services; and  governmental and institutional uses, including City Hall.      The land is divided into a grid of compact blocks and generally small parcels, particularly in the light‐ industrial area. There, many of the parcels are individually owned, posing a challenge to  redevelopment because multiple small parcels would need to be assembled and possibly re‐platted.      The first major land use change in the  TODD did not happen until the Valencia  Apartments mixed‐use building was  developed in 2004. Valencia Apartments  was also the first mixed‐use building in the  TODD to incorporate residential.       It took more than another decade for the  second such building to be developed  (Metro South, which actually resulted from  the outcome of a lawsuit against the City,  based on the American with Disabilities  Act and the Fair Housing Act).      6075 Sunset Dr., Treo SoMi Station, and  the redevelopment of City Hall all include  rental housing, and are designed to exceed  four (4) stories.           Metro South Senior Apartments. Credit: apartments.com  28   6    Memorandum d. Comprehensive Plan Policies   The updated South Miami Comprehensive Plan contains several goals, objectives and policies which  inform this analysis. Recommendations are based on, and are intended to further, these goals,  objectives and policies.  They include:     Policy FLU 1.1.1    Future Land Use Categories  Transit‐Oriented Development District [TODD]  The Transit‐Oriented Development District is intended to provide for the development of office uses,  office services, office‐related retail, retail, retail services, and residential uses in multi‐story and  mixed‐use projects that are characteristic of transit‐oriented developments. Permitted heights and  intensities shall be set forth in the Land Development Code, including design standards. Zoning  regulations shall encourage development within the TODD in conjunction with limiting new  development within the Special Flood Hazard Area and other environmental sensitive areas. The City  shall pursue incentive programs for redevelopment including higher densities, flexible building  heights and design standards to ensure that responsible, effective and aesthetically pleasing projects  result.  FLU Policy 1.1.2   The City shall periodically review and, as appropriate, revise its land development regulations in  order to: eliminate inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan and other City of South Miami  September 2018 Comprehensive Plan 5 Future Land Use Element GOPs goals contained in City‐ adopted documents. Public input on the revisions shall be obtained through a variety of sources and  activities. Revisions should implement recommendations contained in neighborhood or special area  plans; ensure appropriate transitions between different neighborhoods and uses; ensure  appropriate height and site development requirements; promote pedestrian friendly, mixed‐use  development and redevelopment; buffer neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible  uses; provide additional standards regulating tear‐downs and new construction, reconstruction or  additions in developed single family residential neighborhoods in order to ensure that such  development and redevelopment is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; provide for  appropriate incentives and bonuses, and; evaluate the costs and benefits of existing incentives and  bonuses.  FLU Policy 1.1.3   In reviewing proposed amendments to this plan and the Zoning Map, compatibility with adjacent  uses shall be the major determinant.  FLU Policy 1.1.7  Discourage urban commercial sprawl by promoting growth in the core area surrounding the  Metrorail Transit Station by creating a district for new growth which is contained and transit‐ oriented, thereby relieving the pressure for commercial rezonings outside of this core area.   29   7    Memorandum FLU OBJECTIVE 1.4 Innovative zoning   Maintain and review a revised Land Development Code that includes innovative zoning techniques  relative to the transition between residential and non‐residential districts.   FLU Policy 1.4.1   The City shall utilize volumetric studies and mixed land use zoning categories to achieve creative  development in the transition areas between commercial and residential land uses.  FLU OBJECTIVE 1.6 Increase Community Resiliency   Increase Community resiliency through land use and built environment decisions.   FLU Policy 1.6.1   The City of South Miami shall encourage greener, more energy‐efficient and climate resilient  construction practices by:   * * *  b) encouraging commercial developers and builders to require that the construction or renovation  of commercial facilities meets Florida Green Building Coalition, US Green Building Council  Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), or other acceptable commercial building  standards;   FLU Policy 1.8.3   Within two (2) years of adoption of this element, the City shall explore incentives for use of green  building standards in new development and redevelopment.  FLU Policy 1.8.5   The City shall continue to support transit ready commercial and multi‐family development along  major transportation corridors and the Metrorail corridor.  FLU GOAL 3 Transit‐Oriented Development District (TODD)  Provide for increased intensity of mixed‐use projects and flexible building heights in designated  Transit‐Oriented Development Districts (TODD), to the extent that development and redevelopment  in these districts does not adversely impact surrounding primarily residential neighborhoods and  uses.   FLU OBJECTIVE 3.1 Support higher densities and intensities in TODD  Support higher densities and intensities in the TODD areas to take advantage of the proximity of the  Metrorail and create an area where residents can live and work in a pedestrian‐oriented environment.   FLU Policy 3.1.2   The City shall maintain and, as appropriate, expand the Transit‐Oriented Development Districts  delineated on the Future Land Use Plan Map. Development and redevelopment in these districts 30   8    Memorandum shall occur in accordance with adopted development and redevelopment plans and the land  development regulations, and shall not adversely impact surrounding neighborhoods and uses.  FLU Policy 3.1.3   The City shall, by 2022, review the TODD area and amend the Comprehensive Plan and zoning  regulations to ensure they are designed to achieve the goals of the City, and especially, those  associated with affordable housing and parking regulations.  FLU Policy 4.4.1  In coordination with the Transit‐Oriented Development District, permit more intense development  only in those areas which are located outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area.  FLU GOAL 5 Revitalization of commercial areas outside of the Hometown District.   To achieve revitalization and renewal of areas designated as redevelopment areas.  FLU OBJECTIVE 5.1 Continue efforts of the Community Redevelopment Agency   Continue to support the South Miami Community Redevelopment Agency’s (SMCRA) mission in order  to spearhead efforts to work with citizens and stakeholders to improve the quality of life for citizens,  businesses and property owners in the South Miami Community Redevelopment Area.   FLU Policy 5.1.2  Continue to implement priority SMCRA programs and projects, including but not limited to: "in‐fill"  housing, construction of multi‐family units, substantial rehabilitation of housing (HUD Complex), and  streetscape and infrastructure improvements.  FLU GOAL 6 Support the Economic Viability of the City   To support the economic viability of the City through an adequate tax base and development that  allows for the efficient provision of City services.   FLU OBJECTIVE 6.1 Increase the City’s tax base through appropriate development   Continue to increase the City’s tax base and fiscal health through new development and  redevelopment, increased property values, annexations, impact fees, grants, and other strategies as  appropriate.     FLU Policy 6.1.1   Zone for new development and redevelopment in accordance with the Future Land Use Map,  including multi‐story and mixed‐use districts.    31   9    Memorandum  Together, these policies indicate an intention to periodically consider the tools that implement the  TODD, to ensure they are helping the City effectively achieve its stated goals.     e. Future Land Use Map   The FLUM (Figure 2) shows that the TODD is split into a northeast and southwest halves, which are  physically separated by a “gap” of 1‐1/2 blocks designated Mixed‐Use Commercial/Residential (MU‐ C/R) in the FLUM.        There is reason for this “gap” in the TODD to be closed to give the district more cohesion.      FLU Policy 3.1.4, as quoted in the previous section, requires the City to maintain and, as appropriate,  expand the TODD boundaries outlined on the Future Land Use Plan Map.     The existing land use on these 1‐1/2 blocks is very similar to the existing land use in the surrounding  TODD blocks.     While the MU‐C/R future land use is not incompatible with the character of the TODD, the “gap”  blocks are actually zoned “Medium‐Intensity Office” (MO) in the Zoning Map. The MO zoning district  accommodates professional and business office space; however, other than adult congregate living  facilities and transient (hotel) units, residential uses are not permitted in this zoning district.       Figure 2.  Map Source: City of South Miami  32   10    Memorandum f. TODD Zoning and Land Development Regulations   The TODD zoning district (Figure 3) includes five (5) subcategories: TODD Mixed Use 5 (MU‐5), TODD  Mixed Use 4 (MU‐4), TODD Light Industrial 4 (LI‐4), TODD Public/Institutional (PI) and TODD Parks and  Recreation (PR).     The majority of the TODD, approximately 16.6 acres, is zoned TODD MU‐5. The next largest district is  the TODD LI‐4, with 11.3 acres of land. Only about 5 acres remain zoned TODD MU‐4, after the  proposed Alta development obtained approval to rezone a portion of the site from TODD MU‐4 to  TODD‐5, consistent with the rest of the site. The remainder of the TODD district, about 10.6 acres  zoned either TODD PI or TODD PR, consists of the City Hall property and Jean Willis Park.     Table 1: TODD Subdistrict Land Acreage          Source: Miami Dade County Tax Collector Parcel Information   ZONING SUBDISTRICT Land (Sq Ft) Acreage TODD MU‐4 220,119 5.05 TODD MU‐5 721,349 16.56 TODD LI‐4 493,283 11.32 TODD PI 168,142          3.86 TODD PR 27,443            0.63 TOTAL  1,630,335 37.43 Map Source: City of South Miami  Figure 3.  33   11    Memorandum    The purpose of the TODD district is to enhance the presence of a mass transit center located within  walking distance of the boundaries of the district. The TODD is intended to provide for the  development of office uses, office services, office‐related retail, retail, retail services, and residential  uses “in multi‐story and mixed use projects that are characteristic of transit‐oriented developments.”  This should reduce the amount of car traffic in and around the mass transit center.       The precise characteristics of transit‐oriented developments are not further defined in the LDC.     While TODD regulations are intended to encourage redevelopment through flexible building heights,  design standards, and performance‐oriented incentives, redevelopment is not encouraged equally in  all of the TODD subcategories. In the case of the TODD MU‐4 and LI‐4 categories, some of the current  regulations may actually discourage redevelopment:      Permitted Uses:  • TODD LI‐4 allows both residential and commercial, as well as light industrial uses; this allows  existing uses to continue, but also perpetuates a pattern of land use that may deter the  addition of residential and certain kinds of commercial uses.      Building Heights:  • Although the long‐standing and express intent of TODD is to encourage redevelopment in  multi‐story mixed‐use buildings through flexible building heights and higher densities,  buildings in TODD MU‐4 and LI‐4 are capped at 2 stories.   • This limitation, combined with the generally small size of parcels, poses a challenge for  redevelopment in both TODD MU‐4 and LI‐4.   • Only the TODD MU‐5 offers flexibility in building heights, with a minimum number of stories  (2), a maximum by right (4) and an additional 4 stories achievable through bonuses, but only  to a maximum height of 100 feet.  • In addition, any development that exceeds the 4‐story base, or is in excess of forty thousand  (40,000) square feet is designated as a Large‐Scale Development which must be reviewed by  the Planning Board and approved by the City Commission.     Parking:  • While density in the TODD can be as high as may be developed while meeting the current  parking requirements, the minimum parking requirements are very high for a transit‐oriented  development district: two (2) spaces per unit for all types of residential uses; variable for  commercial/retail, office and industrial, but starting with as much as one (1) space per 100 sq.  ft. for some uses.  • The LDC does not provide for shared parking reductions or parking bonuses in the TODD.  (Note in the LDC indicates that Ord. No. Ord. No. 15‐07‐1816, § 4, adopted June 5, 2007,  eliminated the parking reductions and parking bonuses for developments within TODD for a  period of nine months to evaluate the effects and appropriateness of these provisions on  future developments within the TODD).  34   12    Memorandum • The LCD does not address emerging innovation topics that are particularly intertwined with  transit‐oriented districts, such as carshare, rideshare and personal mobility services, goods  delivery parking/loading zones, and future parking garage conversions/re‐use (e.g., floor  reinforcement, column spacing, floor leveling, etc.).       g. Economic and Market Assessment    CGA’s subconsultant Lambert Advisory completed a high‐level assessment to assist the City of South  Miami in identifying tools and strategies to support or boost potential redevelopment investment  within the City’s existing Transit Oriented Development District (TODD).      Lambert’s assessment is predicated on the following notions:    The uses considered include multifamily, office, retail/entertainment and hotel.    For comparative purposes, economic, demographic, and real estate market conditions and  trends are assessed within Miami Dade County, the City of South Miami, its trade area, and the  Metrorail Transit Corridor. (Refer to the full Assessment Summary Report, contained in  Appendix 1, for definition of these areas).   The projection timeframe of the study is 15 years.   The analysis is general and high level.   Demand “scenarios” considered in the study range from low (based on past trends) to high  (based on more market shifts and observed conditions)     The estimates of potential demand and capture anticipated throughout the 15‐year projection  period (2019‐2034) are summarized in the tables below:    Table 2: South Miami Estimated Total Potential Demand, by Use (2019‐2034)    Estimates Source: Lambert Advisory   35   13    Memorandum Table 3: Potential TODD District Estimated Capture, by Use, Considering Planned Development    The complete Lambert report can be found in the Appendix 1 to this memorandum.    h. Development Model  CGA created a generic massing model to test the potential development capacity of the TODD.  The model  includes recent, already approved, and “in planning” projects, and considers these projects’ characteristics and  approval conditions. It also considers the districts’ parcels “susceptibility to change,” indicating whether an  existing development, based on age, condition, or which has been recently renovated, rehabbed or expanded  is more or less likely to redevelop within the next 15 years. The model is entirely suppositional, and not meant  to recommend particular development types or designs.  The massing model shows development capacity of the TODD above and beyond projects that are already  approved or planned within the boundaries of the TODD (i.e., 6075 Sunset and Treo SoMi Station) and that  may be expected to be completed within the next 15 years. Several “views” of the modeled development are  included in Appendix 2.     5. Other Considerations  a. Transit‐Oriented Development (TOD) Facts  According to the national nonprofit Center for Transit‐Oriented Development:   In most instances, households living within 1/2 mile of transit own approximately 0.5 fewer cars per  household than their regional average and are 5 times more likely to commute via transit than others  in the region.   Most people who live in TOD areas seek out TOD because it provides access and convenience.   Changing demographics are forcing a new housing market for TOD:    Singles will soon be a new majority of the population.   Older adults will outnumber young people within the next 30 years. According to AARP, more than  71% of older households want to be within walking distance of transit.   More than 37% of households want small lots and clustered development.   Alta Treo * City Hall  Redev Residential (MF/TH units/beds)1,600               203                 99                   389                 334                         Retail incl Restaurant & Serv (sq. ft.)225,000          5,119              23,000            7,500             257,693                Office (sq. ft.)400,000          200,000        182,160                Hotel (rooms)480                   298                         **  () indicates a reduction in overall retail space Estimated  Total High  Demand  (2019‐2034) Remaining  Potential for  TODD District Land Use Type * County land, development subject to terms of lease. Residential component is exclusively student apartments (UM) Projects in the pipeline within TODD  (west of US1) Other projects in plng  stages outside of TODD ** 674                                             (68,312)                                      17,840                                       182                                             Estimates Source: Lambert Advisory   36   14    Memorandum                                                                Demographic groups that are growing most quickly, including older, non‐family (single), and  nonwhite households, tend to use transit more.   In the future, 58% of TOD demand is likely to come from single person households.   Elsewhere, land for TOD is becoming more scares, and construction costs in TODs are high.    Planning for TOD should seek to maximize the return of the high public investment required for transit   Ingredients of successful TOD districts typically include   the ability to cover one’s daily needs without any driving;   the ability to lead an active lifestyle;    the availability of affordable housing near transit (the challenges to this include securing and  assembling land early on, leveraging market activity for affordability benefits, and preserving  existing affordability);    the presence of distinct places and gathering places that build community, reinforce local  character, and support local businesses.  37   15    Memorandum                       APPENDICES:  1. Economic and Market Assessment   2. Massing Model Views  3. Estimates of Current and Potential Development  Capacity  4. Summary of Workshop Input  38 Appendix 1: Economic and Market Assessment39 City of South Miami TODD Economic and Market Assessment (DRAFT)   1 | Page Executive Summary I.Overview Lambert Advisory (Lambert) has completed a high‐level economic and market assessment geared towards assisting the City of South Miami in identifying tools and strategies that may be put in place to spur potential redevelopment investment within certain sectors of the City of South Miami, FL.  Specifically, this market assessment is intended to provide Calvin, Giordano & Associates (CGA) with market‐based data to inform recommendations related to a potential Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code amendment, and focuses on the City’s existing Transit Oriented Development District (TODD). The TODD is defined by parcels situated along the western boundary of South Dixie Highway and illustrated  (in blue) in the following map:  Figure 1: South Miami TODD Area/Parcel Map  Source: Lambert Advisories, using Google Maps and based on City of South Miami Future Land Use and Zoning Maps  II.Study Premises The following are the key principles and assumptions that govern the research, analysis and documentation of this study: The market assessment provides general perspective into potential redevelopment opportunities and demand throughout a 15‐year period for multifamily residential, office, retail/entertainment, and hotel use. Appendix 1 40 City of South Miami TODD Economic and Market Assessment (DRAFT)   2 | Page     The analysis remains at a high level; it is to be considered an exploratory step in the process of  potentially amending the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code.  More in‐depth  field research, case‐study and/or benchmarking analysis may be needed in future phases or  planning processes.     The estimates of demand (by use) are based upon readily available sources of information from  applicable government resources, along with available data gathered from reputable private  industry resources. Lambert conducted only limited field research to independently verify the real  estate market data, consistent with the study’s scope of services as approved.     The manner for reporting and documenting the research, analysis, and findings associated with  the market analysis includes an Executive Summary (this document), which highlights the key  findings and conclusions related to estimates of market demand by use, and an Appendix section  consisting of all the supporting analysis of data detailed in the form of maps, tables, charts, and  graphs.       The analysis does not make recommendations as to how the City (and its planners) should plan  for the future of the TODD area, but instead provides a baseline to inform the plan and code  amendment process, which is designed to be vetted by City residents and their elected officials.      The analysis considers economic, demographic, and real estate market conditions and trends  within Miami Dade County and the City of South Miami, but also two other important geographies  (illustrated in Section 1 of the Appendix). They are:     1) South Miami Transit Corridor (referred throughout the study as the “Corridor”) – The  Florida Department of Transportation defines a corridor as any land area designated by  the state, a county or a municipality between two geographic points and which is used or  is suitable for the movement of people and goods by one or more modes of  transportation.  A Transit Station Area as a one‐half‐mile radius around a transit station.     For the purposes of this study, we reviewed the segment of corridor stretching from Bird  Road (north) to Dadeland Station (south) within one‐half mile of the Metrorail line that  bounds US‐1.  This Corridor represents the geographic area within which the South Miami  TODD District will most heavily compete for future transit‐oriented housing development.     2) South Miami Trade Area (referred throughout the study as the “Trade Area”) – which is an  approximate 10‐minute drive‐time radius,1 and represents the geographic area from  which the TODD may generate the majority of its customers for retail and office uses.                                                                 1 The 10‐minute drive time is calculated by ESRI.com during non‐peak periods; therefore, we recognize there is a a level of variability that needs  to be considered for peak and non‐peak traffic periods.  41 City of South Miami TODD Economic and Market Assessment (DRAFT)   3 | Page     The estimates of potential demand by use consider a range of demand “scenarios.” The low end  of the range is derived from the estimate of “constant” demand (based on historic trend), while  the high end of the range is defined as an “upper” capture scenario which could result from a  variety of factors (e.g., the amendment of regulations to increase development flexibility; the  potential for transit improvements contemplated by the TPO; continued pressure for provision of  affordable and workforce housing, both locally and throughout the county; eventual “spillover”  from development already occurring in other nearby Transit‐Oriented Development nodes along  the US‐1 spine; etc.)    III. Key Conclusions  Based upon the assumptions set forth above and the analysis work completed for this engagement,  Lambert has prepared the following estimates of potential demand and capture anticipated throughout a  15‐year projection period going from 2019 to 2034.    Figure 2: South Miami Estimated Total Potential Demand, by Use (2019‐2034)      Figure 3: Potential TODD District Estimated Capture, by Use, in Consideration of Planned Development      Alta Treo * Shops at  Sunset  (net)** Winn‐ Dixie*** Residential (MF/TH)1,600               203                 99                   414                 260                 723                         Retail (incl Restaurant & Serv)225,000          5,119              23,000            (84,032)         15,720           265,193                Office 400,000          200,000         17,840          182,160                Hotel 480                   182                298                         ** Net planned redevelopment: proposed reduction of retail; slight increase of office space; large increase of  residential and addition of hotel *** Does not include square footage of the repositioned grocery store.  Estimated  Total High  Demand  (2019‐2034) Developments in the  pipeline within TODD  (west of US1) Developments in plng  outside of TODD (east of  US1) Remaining  Potential for  TODD District Land Use Type * County land, development subject to terms of lease. Residential component is exclusively student apartments  42 City of South Miami TODD Economic and Market Assessment (DRAFT)   4 | Page    IV. Analysis Summary and Highlights  The balance of this Executive Summary provides highlights of the research, analysis and results from the  economic and market analysis.  As noted, supporting documentation of data and analysis is included in the  Appendix.   (i) South Miami TODD Geographic Highlights  As illustrated in Figure 1 on page 1, the South Miami TODD study area is defined by the corridor bound by  South Dixie Highway to the east, and generally between: S.W. 68th Street to the north; S.W. 74th Street to  the south; and, S.W. 62nd Avenue to the west.  At the center of the TODD area is the South Miami metro‐rail station, and to the south is the South  Miami/Baptist Health complex.  The study area is located roughly 8 miles south of Downtown Miami.   Within and immediately surrounding the study area is low‐ to moderate density residential and commercial  development.     The market analysis considers the implications of competing supply and demand factors from surrounding  activity nodes, especially those located in Coral Gables and Dadeland Station, which provide the two other  transit centers on the defined Corridor.   (ii) South Miami TODD Estimates of Demand by Use  Sections 2 through 6 of the Appendix compile and analyze the supporting demographic, economic and real  estate market data supporting the estimate of demand within the TODD District for multifamily housing,  retail/entertainment, office, and hotel.  Following is a snapshot of key findings for each potential use:     Multifamily Housing (see Section 3):  According to the most recent population projections from  Miami Dade County,2 population within the South Miami Transit Corridor (Corridor) is forecast to  increase from 32,909 in 2010 to 45,794 in 2040; or, an average annual growth of 430 persons.   Based upon an average multifamily household size of 2.3 persons, this represents demand for  5,600 housing units, or 190 units average annually within the Transit Corridor during the 30‐year  timeline.    If we look at the County’s data as the baseline to forecast population/household growth within the  Corridor during the next 15‐year period (2019 to 2034), the Corridor is projected to grow by a total  2,800 households. Lambert’s research, however, indicates that there have already been 1,964 units  built since 2010, with an additional 1,758 units currently under construction and anticipated to be  completed by around 2020.  Therefore, there could be approximately 3,572 multifamily units built  between 2010 and 2020 (+/‐ 360 units/year on average).      This  not  only  represents  nearly  double  the  pace  of  the  County’s  current  projections:  the  development being built already surpasses the total demand for a 15‐year projection period.  In  addition, there are approximately 1,794 multifamily units that have been or are expected to be                                                               2 Traffic Area Zone (TAZ) population data downloaded from: Miami‐Dade_TAZs_2040_Pop.shp 43 City of South Miami TODD Economic and Market Assessment (DRAFT)   5 | Page    submitted for plan approval within the Corridor. Approximately 50 percent of these (867 units, as  submitted) are potential projects located within the City of South Miami, including: Alta (203 units),  Shops at Sunset redevelopment (414 units, net), Winn Dixie redevelopment (260 units).  Even if  these planned projects were built within a 5‐ to 6‐year period from now, this would indicate a  development pace of roughly 300 to 350 units average annually, which is directly consistent with  the development trends since 2010.    Considering this, and in the effort to forecast potential demand for multifamily housing within the  TODD District, our analysis considers both the County’s population modeling as well as actual  development trends and activity. We estimate average annual household growth for the Corridor  to be consistent with recent and foreseeable development trends noted above, which results in an  average of about 320 units annually.      This equates to an estimate of 4,800 total units for the Corridor between 2019 and 2034, this being  the base of demand upon which the three Corridor stations will compete.  If we assume from a  conservative (low) basis that the Corridor could capture 25 percent of the total demand, there  would be 1,200 units from 2019 to 2034.  However, if the City were to capture its one‐third fair  share through policy changes and/or other incentives, then we could consider the higher projection  estimate to be 1,600 units during the same period. It is worth mentioning that the estimate for the  TODD District includes the previously‐noted 867 units “in planning” in South Miami.      We should also emphasize that the demand set forth herein is for total housing irrespective of  affordability.  The  City  may  wish  to  consider  the  benefit  of  establishing  workforce/affordable  housing policies, whether in relation to the TODD District planning or a broader (citywide) basis.      Retail (Section 4): The retail market analysis provides a general overview of market conditions at  the regional, Trade Area and City level.  Sunset Place long served as a significant regional retail  destination for the City and the Trade Area, and is now pending a repositioning into a larger mixed‐ use development.  Dadeland Mall (including Downtown Dadeland) represents the Trade Area’s  major single shopping destination, while other regional malls such as The Shops at Merrick Park  and The Falls sit just outside of the Trade Area.      From 2000 to 2018, there was approximately 1.7 million square feet of retail space built in the  Trade Area, or almost +100,000 square feet of retail per annum.  Presently, the Trade Area retail  occupancy is generally very strong at +98 percent.3     The City of South Miami, however, has experienced limited new retail development since 2000. In  terms of total retail inventory, the City comprises approximately 10 percent of the Trade Area’s  total retail stock.  Located within the City of Coral Gables, Gables Station represents the only new  major retail center currently under construction (120,000 square feet). Also nearby is Paseo de la                                                               3 Costar 44 City of South Miami TODD Economic and Market Assessment (DRAFT)   6 | Page    Riviera, a mixed use development which will include some retail space. Notable retail development  in planning within the City of South Miami includes the potential redevelopment of Winn Dixie and  the Shops at Sunset. Both of these are mostly a repositioning of existing retail, with the Shops, as  planned, potentially reducing the amount of existing retail by about 84,000 square feet.    In the effort estimate retail demand for the TODD, we apply the Lambert Advisory Retail Trade  Model, which utilizes a variety of data sources and a series of models that estimates expenditures  within the Trade Area and translates it into demanded square feet of retail space by merchandise  category.  It takes into account expenditures by residents, workers and visitors within and outside  of the Trade Area.      In all, there is an estimated demand for approximately 1.5 million square feet of retail in the Trade  Area over the next 15‐year period.      Based upon the City’s current capture rate of the Trade Area’s overall retail (10 percent), the lower  limit of potential demand is +150,000 square feet.  If we consider the future capture to be more in  line with the City’s proportionate share of the Trade Area’s population (15 percent), then the higher  level of demand is estimated to be +255,000 square feet.       Office (Section 4):  The Trade Area comprises 8.5 million square feet of office, with the City having  a total 1.5 million square feet, or 12 percent of the Trade Area’s office inventory.     From 1990 to 2000, the Trade Area added less than 400,000 square feet of total office space.   However, from 2000 to 2010, there were upwards of 2 million square feet added, including some  large‐scale developments such as South Miami Medical Arts Building, Town Center One and 4000  Ponce.  Including the South Miami Medical Arts complex, the City saw more than 600,000 square  feet of office, or nearly 27 percent of the Trade Area’s office space built since 1990.4    Overall, the office market occupancy is quite strong in both the Trade Area (+95 percent) and City  (+99 percent).  The City’s office inventory is nearly fully occupied and, in spite of the diminishing  amount of space, the City absorbed 160,000 square feet of office space during the past five years  (nearly one‐third of the entire Trade Area demand).  Furthermore, despite the very strong market  conditions, there is no new office currently under construction (200,000 square feet of office  development is planned at Treo SoMi and 120,000 square feet is planned at Downtown Dadeland).      The basis for determining office demand within the Trade Area considers office sector employment  projections, along with current and prospective office market conditions at the local and regional  level. Based upon office employment projections from the Florida  Department  of  Economic  Opportunity (FDEO), the Trade Area’s office demand is estimated to total 1.6 million square feet  during the next 15‐year period.  If, in a lower‐case scenario, the City were to capture its current 12                                                               4 Costar 45 City of South Miami TODD Economic and Market Assessment (DRAFT)   7 | Page percent share of Trade Area demand, that would represent about 200,000 square feet. However,  if we use a higher‐capture rate that is consistent with recent development and absorption trends  (or 24 percent of Trade Area capture), the potential TODD office demand may increase to 400,000  square feet.  Lambert strongly believes the higher capture rate is achievable when considering the  benefit of having offices located within transit development that is proximate to a major hospital.   Hotel Market Overview (Section 5):  There are six hotels (+815 rooms) within the entire Trade Area. Four hotel/motels closed the past few years, including the University Holiday Inn which will be replaced by a new 252 hotel at the under‐construction Paseo de la Riviera. Since 2000, there have been two new developments (Hampton Inn Dadeland and Courtyard  Dadeland) built within the Trade Area, with a total 260 rooms. One additional new hotel (Hilton  Dadeland)  is  currently  under  construction.  The  potential  redevelopment  of  Shops  at  Sunset  includes a 182‐room hotel.  In order to measure potential hotel demand for the TODD District, Lambert prepared an illustrative  hotel demand model that evaluates the impact of adding new hotel supply to an existing set of  hotel properties. Therefore, after adding the Hilton Dadeland to the existing base of Trade Area  hotels, the hotel market can support an estimated 380 to 480 additional hotel rooms during the  next 15‐year period, including the proposed hotel development at Shops at Sunset.  46 October, 2018South Miami Comp Plans and Land Development Code Amendments/TODD District(Economic and Market Assessment)47 Economic/Market Assessment ‐ Objectives•Conduct high‐level economic/demographic assessment of City, Trade Area and Transit Corridor for underlying demand by use•Complete baseline understanding of historical, current and prospective real estate development trends by use•Provide general insight into demand over a 15 year period, by use:Residential (multifamily)OfficeRetailHotel•Provide strategic insight as to how future demand among various uses could drive redevelopment and related land use planning in the TODD District 48 SECTION ONESOUTH MIAMI TODD GEOGRAPHIC HIGHTLIGHTS49 •South Miami Transit Corridor defined as the area within ½ mile of US 1, between Bird Road and Dadeland Station, which represents the area within which the South Miami TODD District primarily competes for future housing demand SOUTH MIAMI TRANSIT CORRIDORSW 72ndSt.50 •Trade Area comprises an approximate 10+ minute drive time from core of study corridor (Source: ESRI.com)•Trade Area is the area within which primary demand for retail and office is “driven” into South Miami’s coreCITY OF SOUTH MIAMI & TRADE AREASW 72ndSt.51 SECTION TWOECONOMIC & DEMOGRAPHICCONTEXT52 SOUTH MIAMI TRANSIT CORRIDOR(Population Projections 2010 to 2040)05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,00050,0002010 2040•Transit corridor projected to add an average 430 persons/year•Estimated 190 households average annually (or 2.3 persons/household)53 TRADE AREA, CITY & COUNTYDEMOGRAPHIC SNAPSHOT: 2010/2016•City of South Miami population roughly 14% of Trade Area•City has smaller avg. household size compared to Trade Area and County•The City and Trade Area have greater homeownership than the County.Trade Area City of South Miami Miami DadeTotal Population ACS 201689,019  12,207 2,664,4182010 Population83,675  11,427 2,445,374Households ACS 201631,057  4,194  853,624Avg. HH Size ACS 20102.59  2.48  2.85Median Household Income ACS 2016$87,082  $60,519  $44,224 Per Capita Income ACS 2016$47,403 $37,482 $24,515 Owner Occupied Households % ACS 201662.4% 60.00% 52.60%Renter Occupied Households % ACS 201637.6% 40.00 47.30%Source: Census ACS 2010 & 2016 54 1990 ‐ 2016AREA ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH RATE 1990 ‐ 2016 •Growth rates among all geographies moderated considerably between 1990‐2000 and 2000‐2010•ACS 2012‐2016 data indicates population growth within all areas•However, it is more illustrative since it uses moving 5 year average as opposed to the more definitive decennial survey. Source: ACS 2016 0.54%0.12%1.04%1.37%0.62%1.11%1.64%0.82%1.44%0.00%0.20%0.40%0.60%0.80%1.00%1.20%1.40%1.60%1.80%1990‐2000 2000‐2010 2010‐2016Trade AreaCity of South MiamiMiami Dade County55 2000 - 2010AVERAGE ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD GROWTH RATE•According to 2000 & 2010 Census, the City actually shows a modest decline in number of households•Partially attributed to an increasing average household size (2.45 to 2.48, respectively)Source: ACS 2010 & 2016 ‐0.48%‐0.43%0.81%‐0.60%‐0.40%‐0.20%0.00%0.20%0.40%0.60%0.80%1.00%2000‐2010Trade AreaCity of South MiamiMiami Dade County56 DEMOGRAPHIC SNAPSHOT: 2016•City has modestly younger population than Trade Area•With slightly higher composition of child‐age•This has potential implications for future housing typologySource: ACS 2016 Trade AreaCity of South MiamiMiami DadeMedian Age ACS 201641.1 39.0 37.7Under 1923.6% 21.9% 23.4%20‐3421.8% 22.3% 21.0%35‐5426.8% 30.7% 29.2%55 – 6512.1% 12.8% 11.5%65+15.7% 12.3% 14.9%TRADE AREAS, CITY & COUNTY57 •City projected to increase 0.63% avg. annually through 2040; Trade Area at 0.78%•The County is projected to increase by 0.79% annually.•Diminishing land availability within City and Trade area likely factoring into TPO population forecasts2010 ‐ 2040 TRADE AREA AND COUNTY FORECAST POPULATIONSource: Miami Dade TPO 81,849 98,82711,739 14,8182,452,487 3,102,1381101001,00010,000100,0001,000,00010,000,0002010 2040Trade AreaCity of South MiamiMiami Dade County58 2016HOUSING TENURE •Trade Area and City have notably higher homeownership rates than County•Positive implications for balancing with potential rental housing demandSource: ACS 2016 Owner62%Renter38%Trade AreaOwner60%Renter40%City of South MiamiOwner53%Renter47%Miami Dade County59 2016MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME$87,082 $60,519 $44,224 $0$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000$70,000$80,000$90,000$100,000Trade AreaCity of South MiamiMiami Dade CountySource: ACS 2016 •Both City and Trade Area have a substantially higher median household income than the County. •City’s household income grew at 2.9% avg. annually from 2000 to 2010•Slightly above CPI at roughly 2.5%60 2016 PER CAPITA INCOME $47,403$37,482$24,515 $0$5,000$10,000$15,000$20,000$25,000$30,000$35,000$40,000$45,000$50,000Trade AreaCity of South MiamiMiami Dade County•The Trade Area and City have far greater per capita income than County•Indicates support for new housing development and increasing expendituresSource: ACS 2016 61 •Clear distinction of median household incomes between east and west sectors of Trade AreaMEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY BLOCK GROUP ACS 201662 2010 to 2015TRADE AREA EMPLOYMENT (10 Largest Sectors) •Trade Area added 10,500 jobs from 2010 to 2015•2.2% avg. annual growth•Health & Social Services by far largest sector in Trade Area (27% of total)•Retail Trade next largest sector at 16%Source: Census On the Map Health Care and Social Assistance, 24,814Retail Trade, 14,599Transportation and Warehousing, 11,169Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, 7,609Educational Services, 7,179Accommodation and Food Services, 6,843Finance and Insurance, 4,404Adm/Support, Waste & Remediation, 3,190RE, Information, Mgt of Companies, 2,999Construction, 2,81363 Miami Dade County Employment Projections by Sector (2017 & 2025)Source: FDEOEducation/Health Sector, Trade/Transportation/Utilities, and Professional/Business Services are among strongest growth sectors0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and HuntingMiningConstructionManufacturingTrade, Transportation, and UtilitiesInformationFinancial ActivitiesProfessional and Business ServicesEducation and Health ServicesLeisure and HospitalityOther Services (Except Government)GovernmentSelf‐Employed and Unpaid Family Workers2025201764 TRADE AREA JOBS INFLOW/OUTFLOW •Roughly 7% of workers in Trade Area, live in Trade Area•Though there’s no “standard” metric, pushing to 10% is considered reasonable•Particularly in light of regulatory/land constraints•Creates opportunities for increased future housing demandSource: Census OnTheMap65 Traffic on the major roads and highways is generally congested, particularly during peak hours.  Secondary roads within the Trade Area have low to mid average daily traffic count. AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTSSource: FDOT Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts 66 SECTION THREE HOUSING MARKET ASSESSMENT 67 Multi‐family Permit Activity (Miami Dade County – 2005 to 2017)02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,0002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017•Following housing bust (2008/9), County’s multifamily permitting has been strengthening, though cyclical during past 3‐4 years•Lion’s share of multifamily development along the coast and Downtown Miami68 City of South Miami Condominium Sales Activity $‐ $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,0000204060801001202008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Sales $Sales•No new condo development in more than 14 years•Valencia is a  conversion from rental•Sale prices rising steadily since 6‐7 years•Though still below pre‐recession peak69 Multifamily Rental Development Trend – South Dade Transit Corridor (2010 to Forecast 2020)•3,600+ units will be built from 2010 to 2020 (370 average annual)•Compared to estimated household demand of 1,900 units •Additional 1,794 units submitted for planning/approval•South Miami has seen no new MF construction since 2004•However, 867 potential new units are in some stage of planning review/approval•Shops at Sunset (404 units)•Alta (203 units)•Winn Dixie Redevelopment (260 units)1,6001,6501,7001,7501,8001,8501,9001,9502,000Built UC In Planning3,572 units1,595 units70 Multifamily Rental Market Overview(County, Trade Area, South Miami)Trade Area One BDR Two BDR Three BDR% of Inventory49% 45% 6%Avg. Sq.ft./Unit770 SF 1,115 SF 1,400 SFSource: Costar (note: unit mix based upon survey of Trade Area properties built since 2000)Avg. Unit  Avg. Month Avg. RentAvg. Annl. ∆Size (SF) Rent Per SF(past 5 yrs)VacancyMiami Dade County 846  $1,379  $1.63 3.5%4.3%Trade Area 875  $1,937  $2.19 5.3%6.4%South Miami 881  $1,762  $2.01 3.2%4.6%71 Estimated Multifamily Housing Demand (2019 – 2034)(South Miami Transit Corridor and TODD area)Low HighTotal Est. Household Demand in Transit Corridor (2019‐2034) 4,800 4,800TODD Area Capture (% Low and High) 25% 33%Estimated TODD Household Unit Demand (2019‐2034) 1,200 1,600•County currently projects an average +190 household demand per year between 2010 to 2040•However, there are already 3,600+ units (360 units avg./year) to be built between 2010 and 2020•An additional 1,794 units are in planning (300‐350 units avg./year, if built out in 5 to 6 years)•Estimates for this analysis consider that an average of 320 housing units/year could demanded from 2019 to 203472 SECTION FOUR RETAIL MARKET ASSESSMENT 73 Retail Development Trends (Trade Area and South Miami)0500,0001,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0003,000,0003,500,0004,000,0004,500,0005,000,000Pre 1990 1990‐1999 2000‐2009 2010‐PresentTrade AreaSouth Miami•Trade Area retail development slowed considerably compared to prior 2 decades•From 1990 to 2010, 150,000+ sf avg. annually•280,000 sf past 8 years•Gables Station (120,000 sf) only major retail under construction in Trade Area. Others are minor: •Paseo de la Riviera (u/c) = 20,000 sq. ft.•Winn Dixie redevelopment (planned) = 46,000 sq.ft.•Treo SoMi Station (planned) = 23,000 sq. ft.74 Retail Market Snapshot (County, Trade Area, & South Miami)Total Inventory Avg. Asking NNN Lease Rate (Per SF) VacancyNet Absorption (past 5 years)Miami Dade County 135M SF $36.54 4.0% 4.6M SFTrade Area 9.4M SF $40.88 1.5% 314,800 SFSouth Miami 912,000 SF $43.45 7.2% (41,000) SF•South Miami’s retail market has higher vacancy than broader region•However, City commands stronger lease rates•South Miami represents 10% of Trade Area inventory•Modestly lower than its proportionate share of population (at 13.5%)75 Trade Area & South Miami Estimated Retail Demand (2019 to 2034)•Prepared on an order‐of‐magnitude•Regional malls have significant impact on Trade Area capture of surrounding area demand•“Low” capture rate assumes City captures current share of Trade Area retail; “High” capture assumes City more in line with its proportionate share of population 2019 2034 ChangeEstimated Population 89,820 101,224 11,403 Per Capita Income $47,403 $51,085 $3,682Total Retail Expenditure Potential $979,281,480 $1,189,341,161 $210,059,681Expenditure Potential by CategoryFood Services & Drinking Places $305,958,459 $371,587,737 $65,629,278Shoppers Goods $1,154,050,974 $1,401,599,390 $247,548,416Convenience Goods $560,483,888 $680,709,858 $120,225,971Sales per Square Foot by CategoryFood Services & Drinking Places $380 $380 $0Shoppers Goods $310 $310 $0Convenience Goods $357 $357 $0Supportable Square Footage by CategoryFood Services & Drinking Places 805,154 977,862 172,709 Shoppers Goods 3,726,877 4,526,306 799,430 Convenience Goods 1,619,536 1,966,933 347,397 Non-Retail Space 922,735 1,120,665 197,930 Total Supportable Retail Space 7,074,302 8,591,767 1,517,465 South Miami - ("Low" Capture at 10%)151,747 South Miami ("High" Capture at 15%)227,620 76 SECTION FIVE OFFICE MARKET ASSESSMENT 77 Office Development Trends (Trade Area and South Miami)0500,0001,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0001990‐1999 2000‐2009 2010‐PresentTrade AreaSouth MiamiColumn1•2000‐2009 the strongest decade of office  development in Trade Area & South Miami•Modest development in decades prior to and after•Trade Area has +330,000 sq. ft. proposed, but nothing currently under construction•Treo SoMi Station (planned) =200,000 sq. ft.•Downtown Dadeland (planned) =110,000 sq. ft.78 Office Market Snapshot (County, Trade Area, & South Miami)Total Inventory Avg. Asking NNN Lease Rate (Per SF) VacancyNet Absorption (past 5 years)Miami Dade County 105M SF $33.88 8.7% 5.2M SFTrade Area 8.5M SF $34.84 4.8% 499,000 SFSouth Miami 1.0M SF $34.30 0.6% 159,980 SF•South Miami’s office market is extremely tight in terms of occupancy•with lease rates in line with broader region•South Miami captured far more than its fair share of net absorption relative to Trade Area past 5 years•Proportionate share of Trade Area office lower than population (at 11.8% vs 13.5%)79 Trade Area & South Miami Estimated Office Demand (2019 to 2034)•South Miami captured far more than its historical fair share of office development and absorption past 5‐10 years•Strong opportunity for “High” capture scenario•Demand includes proposed development (Treo SoMi)Code Title2019 2034Change51Information90% 17,114 17,76565152Finance and Insurance100% 52,702 57,7585,05653Real Estate and Rental and Leasing90% 24,566 27,7733,20754Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services100% 80,958 105,10124,14355Management of Companies and Enterprises100% 10,180 13,5173,33756Administrative and Support and Waste Management50% 43,580 52,3408,76062Health Care and Social Assistance33% 50,458 67,86117,403813Membership Associations and Organizations90% 16,139 18,1341,994Total Office Employment Sectors 75% 295,697 360,24964,552Total Avg. AnnualTotal Change Office Demand Employment 2019‐2034: 64,552 4,303Total Demand @ 215 Sq. Ft./Employee: 13,878,672 925,245Trade Area Capture of County (@ 12.0%) 1,665,441 166,544South Miami ("Low" Capture of Trade Area @ 12.0%)199,853 13,324South Miami ("High" Capture of Trade Area @ 24.0%) 399,706 26,647 80 SECTION SIX HOTEL MARKET ASSESSMENT 81 Trade Area Hotel Development Trend•815+ hotels rooms in general Trade Area (6 hotels)•4 hotels (630 rooms) located at Dadeland•4 hotels/motels closed past few years•Two new developments since 2000•Hampton Inn Dadeland in 2001 (131 rooms) •Courtyard Dadeland in 2004 (128 rooms)•Marriot Dadeland is currently the only full service hotel in south Miami‐Dade County•Hilton Dadeland (Baptist) anticipated opening 2019/20 with 184 rooms•Aloft Dadeland represent repositioning of older hotel in 2016 (119 rooms)•Paseo de la Riviera plans for 252‐room hotel•Shops at Sunset plans for 182‐room hotel82 Illustrative Hotel Demand Analysis•In addition to Hilton Dadeland, primary Trade Area hotel submarket can absorb at least 200 to 300 units during next 10 to 15 years•Based upon current estimated 75% occupancy level•Rate sensitivity affects feasibility for new hotel development in market201920202022202420262028203020322034Commercial %30%% Growth2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%Commercial #66,93268,605 72,078 75,727 79,561 83,589 87,820 92,266 96,937Meeting/Group %10%% Growth2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%Meeting/Group #22,31122,868 24,026 25,242 26,520 27,863 29,273 30,755 32,312Leisure %60%% Growth2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%Leisure #133,864137,210 144,157 151,455 159,122 167,177 175,641 184,533 193,875Total (Occupied Room Nights)223,106228,684 240,261 252,424 265,203 278,629 292,735 307,554 323,124  Avg. Annual Growth 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%Existing Supply (Rooms)815815 815 815 815 815 815 815 815Existing Room Night Supply297,475297,475 297,475 297,475 297,475 297,475 297,475 297,475 297,475New Rooms ‐ Hilton Dadeland00184184 184 184 184 184 184New Rooms ‐ Hotel 2 0 0 0 0150150 150 150New Rooms ‐ Hotel 3150New Room Night Supply00 67,160 67,160 67,160 121,910 121,910 121,910 176,660Total Rooms 815 815 999 999 999 1,149 1,149 1,149 1,299Total Room Night Supply 297,475 297,475 364,635 364,635 364,635 419,385 419,385 419,385 474,135Annual Occupancy 75.0% 76.9% 65.9% 69.2% 72.7% 66.4% 69.8% 73.3% 68.2% 83 SECTION SEVENHEADLINE CONCLUSIONS 84 Headline Conclusions•South Miami and Trade Area forecast steady population growth for the next several years, and modestly higher than previous decade•City and Trade Area comprise notably higher homeownership compared to CountyPotential for growing multifamily rental market•City and Trade Area have significantly higher household income than Miami‐Dade CountyBenefit to housing opportunities and resident expenditure/retail growth•Employment growth within Trade Area is influenced by Healthcare and Professional BusinessEnhanced support for office development with higher‐wage jobs85 •With no new multifamily housing built in City in nearly 15 years, there is measurable demand for new multifamily units during next 15 yearsWith potential modifications to land use/zoning that increase flexibility in the core, the City’s potential to exceed this level could be enhanced •While office development is moderating at the county‐wide level (in part due to lower sq.ft. per employee), demand is anticipated to remain stable for the next several yearsA positive factor is that the City’s office market is tight in terms of occupancyTODD‐related medical office opportunities are strengthened by proximity to hospitalsHeadline Conclusions (continued)86 •Predominance of near‐term retail development in Trade Area is focused around south Gables area and DadelandHowever, given the potential resident (multifamily) and employment (office) growth, retail can be a strong supporting use to mixed‐use development in the City’s core area•There is opportunity to capture two to three hotels in TODD District in the next 15 yearsFocus on select service/boutique hotel(s) in the range of 100‐150 rooms eachHeadline Conclusions (continued)87 City of South Miami TODD DistrictSummary of Estimated Potential Total Demand by Use (2019‐2034)*Low HighMultifamily Residential 1,200 units 1,600 unitsRetail 150,000 sq.ft. 225,000 sq.ft.Office 200,000 sq.ft. 400,000 sq.ft.Hotel 380 rooms 480 rooms* Total including South Miami current proposed and planned projects (except Treo SoMi Station residential, which is exclusively student apartments)88 Appendix 2: Massing ModelViews89 Figure 4: Plan View 90 Figure 5: View East Along Sunset Drive 91 Figure 6: View East Along SW 70th ST 92 Figure 7: View North/West Across US-1 93 Figure 8: Birdseye View Southwest Along US-1 94 Appendix 3: Estimates of Current and Potential Development Capacity95 "Hole in the Donut" FLUM and Zoning Map Amendments (MU-C/R to TODD; MO to TODD MU-5) Estimated Development Capacity Based on Current Zoning Current Zoning Current Land Area (ac) Sq. Ft. Permitted Max Height Redevelopment Goal Potential Bldg Floor Area from Redevelopment (incl Parking) Potential Bldg Floor Area from Redevelopment (Excl Parking)New Retail Floor Area (0.3) New Office Floor Area (2)New Residential Floor Area (1)New Residential Units Additional Population MO 3.94 171,626 4 0.5 343,253 171,626 15,618 104,006 - - Estimated Expanded TODD Development Capacity Based on Proposed Zoning Proposed Zoning Proposed Land Area (ac) Sq. Ft. Proposed Max Height Redevelopment Goal Potential Bldg Floor Area from Redevelopment (incl Parking) New Max Bldg Floor Area from Redelopment (Excl Parking) New Retail (0.3) New Office (2) New Residential (1) New Residential Units Additional Population TODD MU-5 3.94 171,626 8 0.8 1,098,406 768,884 69,968 465,944 232,972.00 140 344 Transit Oriented Development District (TODD) Rezonings Estimated Development Capacity Based on Current Zoning Current TODD Zoning Current Land Area (ac) Sq. Ft. Permitted Max Height Redevelopment Goal Total Potential Bldg Floor Area from Redevelopment (incl Parking) Total Potential Bldg Floor Area from Redevelopment (excl Parking)New Retail Floor Area (0.3) New Office Floor Area (2)New Residential Floor Area (1) New Residential Units (Excluding Already Approved Project)*Additional Population LI-4 11.32 493,099 2 0.3 246,550 123,275 11,218 74,705 37,352 22 50 MU-4 5.05 219,978 2 0.3 109,989 54,995 5,004 33,327 16,663 10 22 MU-5 16.56 721,354 8 0.8 4,616,663 2,308,332 210,058 1,398,849 699,424 215 481 PI 3.86 168,142 8 0.5 672,566 336,283 30,602 203,788 101,894 61 137 PR 0.63 27,443 - - TOTAL 37.42 1,630,015         5,645,768 2,822,884 256,882 1,710,668 855,334 513 1,262 *Alta/6075 Sunset Dr. Estimated Development Capacity Based on Expanded Boundary and Proposed Zoning Proposed TODD Zoning Proposed Land Area (ac) Sq. Ft. Proposed Max Height Redevelopment Goal Total Potential Bldg Floor Area from Redevelopment (incl Parking) Total Potential Bldg Floor Area from Redevelopment (excl Parking)New Retail Floor Area (0.3) New Office Floor Area (2)New Residential Floor Area (1) New Residential Units (Excluding Already Approved Project)*Additional Population LI-4 --2 MU-4 --2 MU-5 ** 21.61 941,332 8 0.8 6,024,522 4,217,166 383,762 2,555,602 1,277,801 562 1,382 MU-6*** 11.32 493,099 12 0.9 5,325,471 4,260,377 387,694 2,581,789 1,290,894 775 1,905 PI 3.86 168,142 8 1.0 1,345,133 941,593 85,685 570,605 285,303 171 421 PR 0.63 - - TOTAL 37.42 1,602,572         12,695,126 9,419,136 857,141 5,707,996 2,853,998 1,416 3,484 *Alta/6075 Sunset Dr. ** Includes rezoned MU-4 land ***Rezoned LI-4 land Approx Mix Ratio Based on Market Assessment (0.3:2:1) Approx Mix Ratio Based on Market Assessment (0.3:2:1) Approx Mix Ratio Based on Market Assessment (0.3:2:1) Approx Mix Ratio Based on Market Assessment (0.3:2:1) 96 Appendix 4: TODD Workshop - Compilation of Comments97 South Miami TODD Workshop  December 12, 2018  Compilation of Comments  Housing  Addressing workforce and affordable housing is a must, should be required, not an incentive. Potential tools: Remove/reduce minimum unit sizes from code Microunits Affordable housing often gets just “lip service” What is a reasonable “share” of affordable housing? (should be significant) Low incomes in SoFla don’t support affordable housing – structural problem with low wages and incomes that need to be solved on a regional scale Look at City of Miami Omni area’s new ordinance on affordable housing bonuses to see if they make economic sense for SoMi Will adding building height not make it more difficult to provide affordable housing? (costs increase with building height?) Light Industrial  LI district is being shortchanged, LI should not be eliminated; instead the city should prize the LI area and LI businesses should be retained, for they have no other place to go. Some potential ways in which they could be protected: Dictate that LI uses must be allowed to remain Dictate that redevelopment sites in LI must be a minimum of 1 acre Look at Coral Gables overlay (uses did not lose their rights) Auto‐repair services uses are not tied to transit, so they don’t need to be next to Metrorail, but they provide good jobs – that’s the reason to protect them Auto uses serve more than individuals, they have agreements with insurers, this is a central location Consider the potential for economic development tied to UM (incubator space) Parking  Parking is a problem in the LI area that needs to be resolved; primarily employee and customer parking conflicts Potential tools to address parking issues: Consolidated offsite surface parking Structured parking (e.g., municipal garage; automated parking system, etc.) Shared parking Valet parking Require parking to be on upper floor of mixed‐use buildings (above residential)98  Relax parking requirements for existing uses   Consider impact of new technologies on the future of driving/parking: driverless cars, car  sharing, reuse of parking garages   People who don’t own cars probably live close to their work   Northbound traffic from      Development Intensity   Could the city increase the density around LI so that the LI businesses can stay? Could TODD’s  surrounding buffer area be studied as the location of additional density so LI could be  protected?    Require a minimum of 4 stories in new buildings   Require a minimum Floor Area Ratio   Any building over 10,000 sq. ft. of area should be green   Additional size, height and parking should be a bonus leading to requirement for affordable  housing   Office uses are good because they bring people to business district and downtown – services,  restaurants   Prohibit large office complexes to have their own employee cafeterias to ensure they frequent  local businesses.       99 100 101 10A WK419FromthefrontpageMIAMIHERALD.COM H1 ANTIQUE MALL in SOUTH DADE Space /Moving Sales 10-6pm New Years SaleContinues OpenEvery Day Coins,Lalique,Cottage,Lladros,Toys,StarWars, Nautical,Military,Jewelry,Kitchen,Linens, Painted Furn,Lighting,Hats,Sports,Art,Knives Over 20 Years as theLARGEST CITY OF SOUTHMIAMI NOTICEOFPUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the City of SouthMiami,Florida proposes to adoptthe following ordinances: An Ordinance modifying the following sectionsofthe Land Development Code: Section20-3.1Zoninguse districtsand purposes (A)and (B);Section20-3.3 Permitted Use Schedule;Section 20-3.4 Special Use Conditions;andArticle VIII,Transit- Oriented Development District,Sections 20-8.1 through 20-8.17. An Ordinance amending the City of South Miami OfficialZoning Map to advance Goalsofthe Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element and the purpose of the Transit-Oriented Development District includingthe following rezonings:(1)certain parcelsfrom Transit-Oriented Development District Mixed Use4(TODD MU-4)to Transit-Oriented Development District Mixed Use 5(TODD MU-5);and (2)certain parcelsfrom Transit-Oriented Development District Light Industrial 4(TODD LI-4), to Transit-Oriented Development District Mixed Use6(TODD MU-6). The followingPublic Meetings and/orHearings will be held in the CityCommission Chambers,6130 Sunset Drive beginning at 7:00 p.m.: Tuesday,February 5,2019 -City CommissionMeeting –PublicHearing/First Reading Tuesday,February 12,2019 -Planning Board Meeting –Public Hearing Tuesday,February 26,2019 -CityCommissionMeeting –Public Hearing/Second Reading ALLinterested parties are invited to attendand will be heard. For further information,please contactthe City Clerk’sOffice at:305-663-6340. Nkenga A.Payne,CMC CityClerk Pursuant to Florida Statutes 286.0105,the City hereby advisesthe public that if aperson decides to appeal any decision madebythisBoard,Agencyor Commission withrespecttoanymatterconsideredatits meeting orhearing, he or she willneed arecord of the proceedings,and that for such purpose,affected personmay need toensure that averbatim record of the proceedings is made which record includesthe testimony and evidence upon which the appealistobebased. RogerStone,the former informal adviser to Presi- dent Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign who had worked for decades on U.S.political campaigns, was indicted Friday in Fort Lauderdale as part of spe- cial counsel Robert Muell- er’s Russia investigation. The seven-count indictment charges him with lying to Congress and obstructing the probe. So who,exactly,is Roger Stone,the man born 66 years ago in Norwalk,Con- necticut? NO STRANGER TO PRESIDENTS Stone worked on the 1972 campaign of Presi- dent Richard Nixon,which helped the Republican incumbent handily defeat Democratic challenger George McGovern.It was his first major official polit- ical job. Stone worked on Repub- lican Ronald Reagan’s failed 1976 campaign for president,apresidency ultimately won by Demo- crat Jimmy Carter,who beat sitting President Ger- ald Ford.Stone would be more successful helping guide Reagan to victory in 1980against Carter. Stone has atattoo of his idol —Nixon —onhis back.He got it in 2004 in California.“I was drunk, and it seemed like agood idea,”he said in a2014 Miami Herald profile. Stone also tried to get Jack Kemp and Bob Dole into the president’s seat in the White House in the 1980s and 1990s. His allegiance to Trump dates to the time he served as the future president’s casino lobbyist in the 1990s when he first sug- gested to Trump that he consider running for presi- dent in 1998. SOUTH FLORIDAISHIS HOME The consultant moved to Fort Lauderdale in 2001 after 9-11. “I could see the smoke of the Pentagon from my office,and that was it for me,”he told the Herald in 2014. HIS FIRST ‘POLITICAL TRICK’ Stone is aself-pro- claimed “dirty trickster.” His first trick?Helping a Democrat. According to The Washington Post,when Stone’s high school held a mock vote in the 1960 presidential election,Stone stumped for Democrat John F.Kennedy against Nixon.Yep,that Nixon,the man he would later immor- talize in ink on his back. But 12 years before he helped guide Nixon into a second presidential term, he campaigned at his high school for Kennedy in a rather underhanded way that hit students where they lived:“I remember going through the cafeteria line and telling every kid that Nixon was in favor of school on Saturdays.It was my first political trick,” Stone said in the 2007 Post story. ABUMPY RIDE IN SOUTH FLORIDA Stone’s retreat from D.C. to Fort Lauderdale wasn’t without its bumps.He has said there have been two attempts on his life. One happened in 2017, when he told Miami Herald news partner CBS4 that he was avictim of a hit-and-run driver in Pom- pano Beach while en route to the airport to promote his book,“The Making of the President 2016:How Donald Trump Orchestrat- ed aRevolution.” He said at the time the accident “‘certainly could be’Russian hacking-scan- dal retaliation.” The Broward Sheriff’s Office confirmed that there had been an accident where Stone said it oc- curred.But he wasn’t listed as apassenger in the car that got hit.He said he took an Uber home and left the driver behind because it was taking deputies too long to arrive. He also claimed he was poisoned around Christ- mas 2016 withpolonium but recovered. “I know some people chortle and say this was a way for me to sell books,” he told CBS4 at the time. ‘MIAMIVICE’STYLE BEFORE IT WASATHING “Miami Vice”star Don Johnson wasn’t the first to make going around with- out socks afashion state- ment. Stone did it as far back as Reagan’s 1980presi- dential campaign,asarto- rial decision not beloved by the fastidious future first lady,Nancy Reagan.She told her husband Stone was missing something down there. “I’m not wearing socks until the Soviets are out of Afghanistan,”Stone told the soon-to-be president, The New York Times reported.‘‘I had to say something,and that an- swer seemed acceptable to Gov.Reagan.” Howard Cohen: 305-376-3619, @HowardCohen Trump confidantRoger Stone has along historyinpolitics BYHOWARD COHEN hcohen@miamiherald.com CHARLESTRAINOR JR ctrainor@miamiherald.com Protesters gather as Roger Stone speaks Fridayafter being indicted at the federal courthouse in Fort Lauderdale. being released on bond following his arrest Friday morning.He is charged with obstructing justice, tampering with awitness, and lying to Congress in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential elec- tion. Stone,dressedinanavy blue poloshirt and jeans, told athrongofreporters and spectators outside the courthouse that Mueller’s investigation was “politically motivated”and that he had been “falsely accused”of lying to the House Intelli- gence Committee. The behind-the-scenes Trump adviser also de- clared he would notmake anydealwith the special counsel to testify against Trump,saying “there is no circumstancewhatsoever under which Iwill bear falsewitness against the presidentnor will Imakeup lies to ease the pressure on myself.” “I look forward to being fullyand completely vindi- cated,”Stone,66,said. Theseven-countindict- ment filed against Stone reveals fresh details on how Trump campaign associates inthe summer of 2016 actively sought the release of emails that the special counsel says were hacked byRussian officersand then providedtothe anti- secrecy website WikiLeaks. Theindictment says uni- dentified senior Trump campaign officials contact- ed Stonetoask whenstolen emailsrelating to Demo- craticpresidentialnominee HillaryClinton might be disclosed. Mueller’scasealleges cover-ups anddeceptionby Stone —not thatheconspir- ed with WikiLeaks or with the Russian officersac- cused of hacking the emails.Stone,instead,is accusedoflying to congres- sional members in aMay 2017 letter andinhis Sep- tember 2017 testimony about WikiLeaks’activities. Heisalso accused of ob- structingacongressional probe intowhether the Trump campaign collab- orated withRussiatosabo- tage the U.S.election to help him beat Clinton,as well as beingaccused of tamperingwith acongres- sional witness. Theindictmentsays Stonerepeatedly discussed WikiLeaks withTrump campaign associates and detailshis conversations about emails stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and posted onlineinthe weeksbefore Trumpdefeated Clinton. Prosecutors allegethat Stone shared information about WikiLeaks’strategy with Trump campaignasso- ciates,includingsenior aide Steve Bannon.The indict- ment says Stone exchanged emailswith Bannon,who is referredtoasa“high-rank- ingTrumpcampaign offi- cial.” Inaddition,the indict- ment delves into whatpros- ecutors say were Stone’s false statements to law- makers about his conversa- tions withJerome Corsi,a conservative writerand conspiracy theorist,and Randy Credico,aNew York radiohost.They are identi- fied in the indictmentas “Person 1”and “Person 2.” The indictment accuses Stoneofcarrying out a “prolonged effort”to keep Credico fromcontradicting Stone’s testimonybefore theHouse Intelligence Committee.Prosecutors claim thatStonerepeatedly told Credico to “do a‘Frank Pentangeli,’”referringto the“The Godfather:Part II”character who lies to Congress.Stoneisalso accused of threatening Credico as well as hisdog, Bianca. On Friday,Trump and his defense team blasted Stone’s indictment.Trump attorneyJay Sekulowsaid it “does not allegeRussian collusion by Roger Stone or by anyone else.”Trump calledthe investigation the “Greatest WitchHunt in theHistory of our Coun- try!” During his brief hearing inFortLauderdale federal courtafterhis arrest,Stone was granted a$250,000 bond that was jointly rec- ommended by U.S.prose- cutors and his defense team. Stonewas shackled around the waist,wrist,and ankles during his first ap- pearance beforeMagistrate JudgeLuranaSnow.The courtroom was packed with journalistsand spectators, whiledozens of TV news camerapeople andphotog- rapherswaitedoutside the courthouse. Stonethanked the judge after she grantedhis bond, which restricts his travel to South Florida,Washington, D.C.,New York City,and the eastern area of Virginia. The judge asked Stoneto surrender his passport as a condition of his bond.He told her that he does not own acurrent passport because his had expired. Prosecutors Jared Strauss and Aaron Zelinskywith the U.S.attorney’sofficein South Floridaalso request- ed that Stone undergo a substance-abuse screening. The judge ordered one as part of his bond conditions. Stone’s arraignment date must stillbeset in the fed- eral court in Washington, D.C.In the meantime, Stonewill be abletostay at his FortLauderdalehome as he awaits trial.Stone’s defense team consists of FortLauderdale lawyers Bruce Rogow,Tara Cam- pion,RobertBuschel,and GrantSmith. Outside the courthouse, Rogow,the most prominent member of Stone’s team, called the FBI’searlymorn- ing arrestofthe longtime GOPpolitical operative a “spectacle.” “Everyoneknows where Roger Stone is;he’s not in hiding,”Rogow said.“The spectaclethis morningwith the SWAT teambreaking intohis house,searching thehouse,scaring his wife, scaringhis dogs,completely unnecessary.Atelephone call would have done the job,and Mr.Stone would have appeared.” Stonehimself described the scene at his FortLau- derdalehome,saying 29 FBI agents in 17 vehicles with flashing lightsarrived at the crackofdawnto arrest him.He said “they could have simplycontact- ed my attorneys and I wouldhave been morethan willingtosurrendervolun- tarily.” Stoneisthe sixth Trump aide or adviser —and the 34th person overall — charged by Mueller.The nearly two-year-old probe has exposed multiple con- tactsbetween Trump asso- ciates and Russia during the presidential campaignand transition period.It has revealed efforts by several people to conceal those communications,including the latestallegations againstStone. “I willplead notguilty to thesecharges,”Stonesaid after his release from feder- al custody Friday.“I will defeat themincourt.” This report was suppleme- neted with information from The Associated Press. FROM PAGE 1A STONE 102 22A SUNDAY JANUARY272019Local&State MIAMIHERALD.COM H1 CITYOFSOUTHMIAMI COURTESY NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the City Commissionofthe City of South Miami, Florida will conduct Public Hearing(s)at its regular CityCommissionmeeting scheduled forTuesday,February 5,2019beginning at 7:00 p.m.,inthe City Commission Chambers, 6130 Sunset Drive,to considerthe following item(s): An Ordinance modifying the following sectionsofthe Land Development Code: Section 20-3.1 Zoning use districts and purposes (A)and (B);Section 20-3.3 Permitted Use Schedule;Section 20-3.4 SpecialUse Conditions;and Article VIII, Transit-Oriented Development District,Sections 20-8.1 through 20-8.17. An Ordinance amending the City of South Miami Official Zoning Map to advance Goals of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element and the purpose of the Transit-OrientedDevelopment Districtincluding the followingrezonings:(1)certain parcels from Transit-Oriented Development District Mixed Use 4(TODD MU-4)to Transit-Oriented Development District Mixed Use 5(TODD MU-5);and (2)certain parcels from Transit-Oriented Development District Light Industrial 4(TODD LI- 4),to Transit-Oriented Development District Mixed Use 6(TODD MU-6). AResolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into afour year contract for the continuationofMiami Dade County’sDepartment of Community Action and Human Services ongoing Meals for the Elderly Program at the South Miami Plaza,6701 SW 62nd Ave,South Miami,Florida 33143 AResolution relating to aVariance application to reduce the minimum front setback area requirement and to increasethe maximum imperviouscoverage requirement for aresidential townhouse buildinglocated at 6606 SW 56 Street. AResolution relatingtoaWaiverofPlat request to allow asubdivision ofproperty located at 6701 SW 58 Place and as legally described herein. ALL interested parties are invited to attend and will be heard. For furtherinformation,please contact the City Clerk’s Office at:305-663-6340. Nkenga A.Payne,CMC City Clerk Pursuant to Florida Statutes286.0105,the City hereby advisesthe publicthat if aperson decides to appeal any decision madebythis Board,Agency or Commission with respect to any matter considered at its meeting or hearing,he or she will need arecord of the proceedings,and that for such purpose,affected person may need to ensure that averbatim record of the proceedings is made which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. CITY OF OPA-LOCKA NOTICETOTHE PUBLIC PLANNING &ZONING BOARD MEETING TUESDAY,FEBRUARY 5,2019 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Opa-locka Planning &Zoning Board will hold aspecial public hearing at aMeeting on Tuesday,February 5,2019 at 7:00 PM at the Sherbondy Village,215 Perviz Avenue,Opa-locka,Florida,to consider the following item (s): PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.APPLICANTNAME:TEJAS CHOKSI&RACHANA ARORA 12815 NW 45TH AVENUE, OPA-LOCKA,FL 33054 PROPERTY OWNER:STRK PROPERTIES,LLC 12815 NW 45TH AVENUE, OPA-LOCKA,FL 33054 PROPERTY ADDRESS:VACANT LOT AT NW 43RD AVENUE & NW 133RD STREET OPA-LOCKA,FL 33054 REQUESTS: ARESOLUTIONOFTHE PLANNING &ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF OPA-LOCKA,FLORIDA,RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ALAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGE FROM GOVERNMENT TO INDUSTRIAL FOR THE VACANT PROPERTYATTHE CORNER OF NW 43 AVENUE AND NW 133 STREET,OPA-LOCKA,FL 33054 AND IDENTIFIED BY FOLIO 08-2129- 000-0111 IN THE I-3 ZONING DISTRICT;PROVIDINGFOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ARESOLUTIONOFTHE PLANNING &ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF OPA-LOCKA,FLORIDA,RECOMMENDING FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A102,500 SQUAREFOOT WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE ON THE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF NW 43 AVENUE AND NW 133 STREET,OPA-LOCKA,FL 33054 AND IDENTIFIEDBYFOLIO 08-2129-000-0111 IN THE I-3 ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ARESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING &ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF OPA-LOCKA,FLORIDA,RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A102,500 SQUAREFOOT WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE ON THE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF NW 43 AVENUE AND NW 133 STREET,OPA-LOCKA,FL 33054 AND IDENTIFIED BY FOLIO 08-2129-000-0111 IN THE I-3 ZONING DISTRICT;PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVEDATE. Additional Information on the above items may be obtainedinthe Office of the City Clerk,780 Fisherman Street,4th Floor,Opa-locka,Florida 33054.All interested persons are encouraged to attend these meetingsand will be heard with respecttothe publichearings. In accordancewith the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,persons needing special accommodationstoparticipate in the proceeding should contact the Office of the City Clerk at (305)953-2800 for assistance no later than seven (7)days prior to the proceeding.Ifhearing impaired,you may telephone the Florida Relay Serviceat(800)955-8771(TTY),(800)955-8770 (Voice),(877)955-8773 (Spanish)or (877)955-8707 (Creole). PURSUANTTOFS286.0105:Anyone who desires to appeal any decision madebyany board, agency,or commissionwith respecttoany matter considered at such meetingorhearing willneed arecordofthe proceedings,and for that reason,may needtoensure that averbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimonyand evidence upon which the appeal may be based. COPIES OF THE PROPOSEDDOCUMENTSSHALL BE AVAILABLE FROM THE COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND AT THE PUBLICHEARING. body,even if the conversa- tion takes place online in a public forum. While it’s not illegal for public officials to post about city business on social media,responding to another official’s post could be aviolation of the Sunshine Law,said Frank LoMonte,director of the University of Florida’s Brechner Center for Free- dom of Information. “The [Florida]attorney general’s office has taken the position that an ex- change of views among members of an elected board in any medium,even an online one,qualifies as a‘meeting’for purposes of Florida’s open-meetings law,”LoMonte said in an email.And any public meetings have to be open to the public and adver- tised ahead of time. “A commissioner could certainly go on the official City Hall Facebook page and post an announcement about some upcoming event,or even comment on some newsworthy item. That’s perfectly legal,” LoMonte added.“Where the posting turns into a meeting is when the mem- bers of the body use Face- book to deliberate among themselves over an issue that might foreseeably come before them for a vote.” In the case of the en- trance sign,the City Com- mission had already voted to send the proposal to the city’s design review board, but the issue will likely come back for another vote. Arriola said he did not feel he was violating the Sunshine Law by com- menting on his colleague’s post because commission- ers had already voted to send the proposal to the design review board.“We had already voted on the matter and Ibasically reit- erated what Isaid publicly at ameeting,”he said. The discussion about the entrance sign wasn’t the first time Beach commis- sioners have taken to Face- book to discuss city busi- ness. Last summer,for exam- ple,the City Commission made acontroversial deci- sion to pause astreet raisingproject that was part of Miami Beach’s efforts to prepare for sea level rise.When aformer Beach commissioner crit- icized the decision on Facebook,residents and current commissioners responded.On one com- ment thread,Alemán re- plied to aresident and then another commissioner, Michael Góngora,respond- ed as well. “I try never to comment on other commissioners’ Facebook posts on city business as acourse of practice,”Góngora said in an email,adding that he had commented on the initial post before the other commissioner weighed in. Alemán said she also tries to be careful not to engage with colleagues online.“Occasionally I’ll post and I’ll notice some- times colleagues comment, but I’m always careful not to comment back because I don’t want to violate the Sunshine Law,”she said. “And it can be frustrating at times because Imay not agree or I’d love to make a counter-argument,but I just have to bite my tongue,so to speak.”This type of behavior likely doesn’t violate the spirit of the Sunshine Law,which was created to keep public officials from negotiating backroom deals in secret. But social media has sparked questions about how Florida’s broad open government law applies to the digital age,creating a potential minefield for public officials. “A lot of the times the challenge for public offi- cials is while they think they may be engaging within apublic forum whereeverything is trans- parent,technically some- times they may inadver- tently run afoul of the letter of the law,”said City Attorney Raul Aguila,who noted that in his experi- ence most online ex- changes of this nature are “in good faith and inad- vertent.” “These are not people who are calling each other up and having secret con- versations or meeting in dark corners to discuss government business,”he added.“The challenge is advising them that the Sunshine Law does apply to certain social media interactions and hopefully the law will catch up to technology,but in today’s world technology moves at astaggering pace.” Miami Beach commis- sioners aren’t the only public officials who have run into these issues.Three members of aSouth Flor- ida Water Management advisory board may have violated the Sunshine Law in 2017 whenthey dis- cussed aproposedLake Okeechobee reservoir on Facebook,according to the TC Palm. Public officials have also been criticized for deleting social media posts about city business,which are considered public records subject to disclosure and retention requirements.In Central Florida,aEustis city commissioner may have broken the Sunshine Law in 2017 whenhein- vited other cities to donate their Confederate monu- ments to Eustis in aFace- book post,then deleted a flood of negative com- ments,the Daily Commercial reported. Barbara Petersen,presi- dent of the Florida First Amendment Foundation, said that her organization often gets questions about social media.She advises public officials to err on the side of caution. “The point is they’re supposed to be having these discussions in front of the public and aFace- book account,an Insta- gram account,whatever else they may be using, that’s not public enough,” she said.Not all residents see social media posts on aparticular page,she added,or know that city business is being dis- cussed online. Petersen and Aguila said they weren’t aware of any cases involving com- missioners arguing on social media that resulted in criminal charges.Lo- Monte said that at most, any violations of this na- ture would likely result in asmall fine. This isn’t the first time a Beach official has run into trouble on social media.In 2016,radio show host and activist Grant Stern sued then-Mayor Philip Levine after he refused to turn over alist of people hehad blocked on social media. The legal dispute,which has yet to be resolved, centered on what social media posts are deemed public under the Sunshine Law. FROM PAGE 21A FACEBOOK AFort Lauderdale wom- an and her attorney —who have reached settlements with at least 20 hotels and motels in Florida over the businesses’websites not explaining how their prop- erties meet the needs of people with disabilities — have set their sights on two Keys resorts. Cheri Honeywell and her attorney,Jessica Kerr,of the Advocacy Group in Fort Lauderdale,filed lawsuits this month in federal court against the Glunz Ocean Beach Hotel and Resort in Key Colony Beach and Casa Morada in Islamorada. The suits state that the hotels violated the Amer- icans With Disabilities Act because their websites’ reservations systems “fail to provide information about the accessible fea- tures of the hotel and its rooms to persons with disabilities.” Honeywell and Kerr have filed at least 31 law- suits against hotels,motels, and resorts throughout the state,starting with busi- nesses in North Florida in June 2018. Thehotels typically set- tle with Honeywell and Kerr within afew months, according to areview of the cases. Citing confidentiality provisions,Kerr declined to disclose the details of the settlements. Requests for comments from Glunz Ocean Beach Hotel and Casa Morada went unanswered. COURTS ADAsuits targethotels’websites for notdisclosing howaccessible theyare AFortLauderdale woman is suing twoFlorida Keys hotels that herattorneysaid violated the Americans with Disabilities Actbecause their websites don’t adequately detail their properties’wheelchair accessibilityfeatures. BYDAVIDGOODHUE dgoodhue@flkeysnews.com 103 104 105 106 107