Loading...
12-02-08 Item 19South Miami kwAnd 1 lAmedcaCkv ••"•1EO CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI till. OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM 2001 To: The Honorable Mayor Feliu and Members of the City Commission Via: Ajibola Balogun, City Manager From: Sanford A. Youkilis, Acting Planning Director Date: December 2, 2008 ITEM No. Subject: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -7.51 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT KNOWN AS THE "FIRST ON SUNSET" PROJECT IN THE "SR (HD -OV)" SPECIALITY RETAIL (HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY) ZONING DISTRICT TO PERMIT: (1) A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO SECTIONS 20 -7.7B AND 20 -7.9B IN ORDER TO ALLOW A TOTAL LOT COVERAGE OF 62.89% OR 121,140 SQUARE FEET WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM 60% LOT COVERAGE AND 60,000 SQUARE FEET; (2) A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO SECTION 20 -7.9B TO ALLOW FOUR (4) BANK DRIVE -THRU LANES WHICH EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TWO (2) BANK DRIVE - THRU LANES; ALL FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 5750 SUNSET DRIVE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 6 THRU 9, 40 THRU 45, 53 THRU 66 INCLUSIVE AND THE EAST 50 FEET OF LOTS 51 AND 52 OF W. A. LARKINS SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 198 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI - DADE COUNTY; REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 31 -05 -12010 ADOPTED ON MARCH 1, 2005; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant, South Miami Corporation, is requesting a revision to the two special exceptions and the site plan for a mixed use project in the Hometown District which is now being called "First on Sunset" The project was approved in 2005 by the City together with a Development Agreement. The project remains as a unified development in the zoning district Specialty Retail Hometown District Overlay, SR (HD -OV). The site is a 4.5 acre property as legally described above. The proposed development consists of three city blocks, referred to as Block A, B and C. The project includes a maximum of 106 dwelling units, 72,249 square feet of commercial space including retail, offices, a bank and a total of 514 on site parking spaces. The revised use and site plan now states that restaurants are not a part of the current development program. In accordance with LDC Section 20 -7.51 all special exceptions require public hearings before the Planning Board and approval by the City Commission which did occur in 2005 (see next paragraph) In that there is substantial revision to the special exceptions and the site plan the proposed modifications must be subject to the same review process. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 2005 The original special exceptions were approved in 2005 by the City Commission, via Resolution Number 31 -05- 12010, adopted on March 1, 2005. The approval in 2005 allowed a development with 139,43 5 square feet (72.29% total lot coverage) for the three blocks. This exceeds the Hometown Overlay District Regulating Graphic Plan (Section 20- 7.9(B), which limits lot coverage to 60% and the amount of square footage to 20,000 square feet per building footprint. The second request approved in 2005 was to allow four drive - through teller lanes as part of the 2 bank facility located at the ground floor level in Block A development. This exceeds the Hometown Overlay District Regulating Graphic Plan (Section 20- 7.9(B), which allows for no more than two drive through facilities on the downtown side streets. REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS (2008): • Lot Coverage /Maximum Sq.Ft. Per Building. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow an overall lot coverage (three blocks) of 121,140 square feet which is 62.89% of the total site. Pursuant to Section 20- 7.9(B) in the Hometown Overlay District's Regulating Graphic Plan, lot coverage is limited to sixty percent (60 %) and the amount of lot coverage square footage to 20,000 square feet per building. • Drive - Through Tellers. The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow for four lanes of drive - through tellers as part of its new bank facility located on the ground floor level in the Block "A" development. This exceeds the Hometown Overlay District Regulating Graphic Plan (Section 20- 7.9(B), which allows for no more than two drive through facilities on the downtown side streets. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The Developer at the request of the Planning Department hired a consultant, Richard Garcia & Associates to prepare a current Traffic Impact Study. The Developer's Traffic Impact Study dated August, 2008 has been reviewed by the city's traffic consultant, Kimley -Horn and Associates. The finding resulted in additional analysis and certain technical corrections made. The Kimley -Horn Sufficiency Review of the Developer's Traffic Impact Report was submitted to the City on October 23, 2008. The report on page 3 provides the following conclusion: "In conclusion, the revised traffic impact analysis adequately addressed several comments provided in the initial review. The comments presented above reflect areas where the analysis could be further refined. However, the analysis provided in the report is sufficient to determine the overall compliance of the project with concurrency requirements of the City of South Miami. Our review indicates that the subject project satisfies the City of South Miami's concurrency requirements. Overall, the traffic circulation plan outlined in the illustrative site plan appears adequate with the exception of a few minor modifications noted above. " STAFF OBSERVATIONS • The proposed development incorporating all three major land uses is consistent with the objectives of the Hometown Overlay District Mixed Use standards specified in LDC Sec.20- 7.2(E). • The proposed development is consistent with the LDC Sec. 20- 7.2(D) which sets forth the following standards: height limit of 4 stories, density of 24 units per acre and a non- residential floor area ratio of .45 (maximum FAR permitted is 1.6) • The special exception for two additional drive -thru tellers is acceptable as it is located entirely within the first floor of Building A. • The special exception for exceeding the 60% lot coverage limit for the unified development is a result of a building design which incorporates the required parking as an internal garage located in the core center of Blocks A and B. • The staff has compared the project to each of the seven economic criteria listed in the LDC (Section20 -7.51) and has determined as was done in 2005 that the proposed development advances the economic development of the City and is compatible with land use, density, and design criteria established for the Hometown District. PLANNING BOARD ACTION The Planning Board at its October 28, 2008 meeting conducted a public hearing on the application and then adopted a motion by a vote of 5 ayes 1 nay (Ms. Young) recommending that the approval of the two special exceptions and the revised site plan be approved with conditions as shown below. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the special exceptions and revised site plan be approved with the following conditions: (1) All residential parking spaces on Block A and B must be designated and reserved to ensure adequate parking for the total dwelling units being developed. (2) All parking spaces for retail and office uses must be off - street spaces throughout the unified development (Blocks A, B, Q. (3) Block C can not be developed with additional residential units if Block A and B are developed to the maximum density of 106 residential units. (4) The portion of parking on Block B which is dedicated for the required parking spaces for Block A, should be re- assigned to Block C, during the construction of Block B. (5) Any on- street parking which maybe required to supplement the project development must be accounted for as there is now a required annual payment to the City of South Miami. (6) Technical comments on the site plan will be prepared by the Public Works Department. These must be incorporated and will be provided in a separate document. (7) A separate Right -of -Way Maintenance Agreement shall be required. The agreement will indicate all provisions required by the Public Works Department. (8) The staff and the consultant agree that the parking lot driveway for Block C on SW 58 Avenue should be modified in order to avoid a conflict with the garage entrance to Block B, also on SW 58 Avenue. , (9) The applicant shall provide some evidence that the project has incorporated aspects of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). (10) A model will be required as a part of the ERPB submittal. (Showing massing, building height, shadows, and contextual studies as per LDC Section 20- 5.13(D)(2). (11) The Special Use Resolution No. 37 -05 -12016 adopted March 15, 2005 which permitted four restaurants as part of the project will be repealed. Attachments • Planning Board Application, dated June 26, 2008 • Notarized Letter of Designation, dated May 29, 2008 • Location Map of the Hometown Overlay Zoning District • Application for Amendment to Development Agreement and Special Exception Approval, dated September 12, 2008 • General Site Data Summary "First on Sunset" • Planning Department Staff Report 10 -28 -08 • Planning Board Minutes Excerpt 10 -28 -08 • Section 20- 7.51/.52 of the Land Development Code • Resolution Number 31 -05- 12010, dated March 1, 2005 • Sufficiency Review of Traffic Impact Report, dated October 23, 2008 • Public Notices Following attachments excluded due to item being deferred • Sketch of Boundary Survey, prepared by ER Brownell & Associates, Inc. • Architectural Plans, prepared by Pappageorge/ Haymes Ldt., dated 7/25/08 SAY X: \Comm Items \2008 \12 -2 -08 \Special Exceptions First on Sunset CM Report.doc I RESOLUTION NO. 2 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH 4 MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -7.51 OF 5 THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR A UNIFIED 6 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT KNOWN AS THE "FIRST ON SUNSET" PROJECT IN THE 7 "SR(HD -OV)" SPECIALITY RETAIL (HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY) ZONING 8 DISTRICT TO PERMIT: (1) A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO SECTIONS 20 -7.7B AND 20- 9 7.9B IN ORDER TO ALLOW A TOTAL LOT COVERAGE OF 62.89% OR 121,140 10 SQUARE FEET WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM 60% LOT COVERAGE AND 11 60,000 SQUARE FEET; (2) A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO SECTION 20 -7.911 TO ALLOW 12 FOUR (4) BANK DRIVE -THRU LANES WHICH EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 13 PERMITTED TWO (2) BANK DRIVE -THRU LANES; ALL FOR PROPERTY 14 GENERALLY LOCATED AT 5750 SUNSET DRIVE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS 15 LOTS 6 THRU 9, 40 THRU 45, 53 THRU 66 INCLUSIVE AND THE EAST 50 FEET OF 16 LOTS 51 AND 52 OF W. A. LARKINS SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE PLAT 17 THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 198 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS 18 OF MIAMI -DADE COUNTY; REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 31 -05 -12010 ADOPTED 19 ON MARCH 1, 2005; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 20 21 WHEREAS, an applicant, South Miami Corporation, received approval for two special 22 exceptions in 2005 from the City Commission, via Resolution Number 31- 05- 12010, adopted on March 1, 23 2005 for a mixed use unified three block development project in the Hometown District; the approval 24 allowed the development to have 139,435 square feet (72.29% total lot coverage) and to have four drive - 25 through teller lanes as part of a bank facility; and 26 27 WHEREAS, the applicant in September, 2008 submitted a revised site plan which requires a 28 change to the special exceptions approved in 2005; and 29 30 WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a revised special exception to allow an overall lot 31 coverage (three blocks) of 121,140 square feet which is 62.89% of the total site which coverage exceeds the 32 Hometown Overlay District regulating graphic plan maximum sixty percent (60 %)lot coverage and exceeds 33 the maximum lot coverage of 20,000 square feet per building; and 34 35 WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting the continuation of a special exception to allow for four 36 lanes of drive - through tellers as part of its new bank facility located on the ground floor level in the Block 37 "A" development which exceeds the Hometown Overlay District regulating graphic plan of no more than 38 two drive though facilities on downtown side streets; and 39 40 WHEREAS, the applicant's revised site plan indicates that the proposed four restaurants approved 41 by adoption of Resolution 37 -05 -12016 on March 15, 2005 are no longer part of the development; and 42 43 WHEREAS, a special exception request in the Hometown Overlay District requires the Planning 44 Board's recommendation and approval by the City Commission; and 45 46 WHEREAS, after review and consideration, the Planning Department recommended approval 47 of the application with conditions; and 48 49 WHEREAS, at its October 28, 2008 meeting the Planning Board after public hearing voted 5 ayes 50 1 nay to recommend approval with specific conditions; and 51 1 WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to accept the recommendation of the Planning 2 Board and enact the aforesaid resolution. 3 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION 5 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: 6 7 Section 1. That the subject application submitted by the South Miami Corporation, requesting a special 8 exception to allow an overall lot coverage (three blocks) of 121,140 square feet which is 62.89% of the 9 total site which coverage exceeds the Hometown Overlay District regulating graphic plan maximum sixty 10 percent (60 %) lot coverage and exceeds the maximum lot coverage of 20,000 square feet per building is 11 hereby approved subject to conditions set forth in Section 3. 12 13 Section 2 That the subject application submitted by the South Miami Corporation requesting a special 14 exception to allow for four lanes of drive - through tellers as part of its new bank facility located on the 15 ground floor level in the Block "A" development which exceeds the Hometown Overlay District 16 regulating graphic plan (Sec.20 -7.9B) which allows for no more than two drive though facilities on 17 downtown side streets, is hereby approved subject to conditions set forth in Section 3 below. 18 19 Section 3. The special exception application is approved subject to the following conditions: 20 21 (1) All residential parking spaces on Block A and B must be designated and reserved to ensure adequate 22 parking for the total dwelling units being developed. 23 24 (2) All parking spaces for retail and office uses must be off - street spaces throughout the unified 25 development (Blocks A, B, Q. 26 27 (3) Block C can not be developed with additional residential units if Block A and B are developed to the 28 maximum density of 106 residential units. 29 30 (4) The portion of parking on Block B which is dedicated for the required parking spaces for Block A, 31 should be re- assigned to Block C, during the construction of Block B. 32 33 (5) Any on- street parking which maybe required to supplement the project development must be accounted 34 for as there is now a required annual payment to the City of South Miami. 35 36 (6) Technical comments on the site plan will be prepared by the Public Works Department. These must be 37 incorporated and will be provided in a separate document. 38 39 (7) A separate Right -of -Way Maintenance Agreement shall be required. The agreement will indicate all 40 provisions required by the Public Works Department. 41 42 (8) The staff and the consultant agree that the parking lot driveway for Block C on SW 58 Avenue should 43 be modified in order to avoid a conflict with the garage entrance to Block B, also on SW 58 Avenue. 44 45 (9) The applicant shall provide some evidence that the project has incorporated aspects of Leadership in 46 Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). 47 48 (10) A model will be required as a part of the ERPB submittal. (Showing massing, building height, shadows, 49 and contextual studies as per LDC Section 20- 5.13(D)(2). 50 51 52 53 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Section 4. City Commission Resolution Number 31 -05- 12010, adopted on March 1, 2005 granting special exceptions for the First on Sunset Project is hereby repealed. Section 5 This resolution shall be effective immediately after the adoption hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED this , day of , 2008. ATTEST: APPROVED: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY MAYOR XAComm Items\2008 \12 -2 -08 \Special Exception 2008 Bank Project Resolution.doc Commission Vote: Mayor Feliu: Vice Mayor Beasley: Commissioner: Palmer Commissioner Beckman Commissioner City of South Miami Planning & Zoning Department City Hall, 6130 Sunset Drive, South Miami, Florida 33143 Telephone: (305) 663 -6326; Fax: (305) 666 -4591 Application for Public Hearing Before Planning Board & City Commission Address of Subject Property: See Exhibit "A" 'Applicant: South Miami Corporation f:epresentative;: Jerry B. Proctor, Esq. Address: 200 So. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2500 Miami, Fl 33131 Property Owner: South Miami Corporation Mailing Address: c/o Jerry B. Proctor, Esq. Address: 200 So. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2500 Miami, FI 33131 Architect/Enaineer.- Subdivision _ _ _ =_PB hone: 305.350 -2361 Organization: Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP Phone: 305 - 350 -2361 Signature: See attached affidavit Phone: ne: AS THE APPLICANT, PLEASE INDICATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THIS PROJECT: ~ - X _ Owner: -__- Owner's Representative Contract to purchase ...... ._ Option to purchase --Tenant/Lessee APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE FOR THE FOLLOWING: SUBMITTED MATERIALS PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE IT CM: PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY: _ Text Amendment to LDC _ Variance X Letter of intent Justifications for change Zoning Map Amendment _ Special Use PUD Approval Special Exception _ _ _ — Statement of hardship _ _X PUD Major Change X Other _X Proof of ownership or letter from owner -- X Power of attorney explain application and cite specific Code sections: Briefly u -- - - - -- -- --- - -- - -- -- X Contract to purchase Current survey (1 original sealed and Modification of Development Agreement. _ signed /1 reduced copy @ 11" x 17 ") _ -. - -__ X_ 15 copies of Site Plan and Floor Plans reduced copy @ 11" x 17" - - - - - -- X 20% Property owner signatures _ Mailing labels (3 sets) and map Section: Subsection: Page #:___ _ Amended Date: -Required Fee(s) The undersigned has read this completed application and represents that the information and all submitted materials are true and correct to he best of the applicant's knowledge and belief. T� 6/26/08 Applicant's Signature and titl Date Upon receipt, applications and all submitted materials will be reviewed for compliance with the Land Development Code and other applicable registrations. Applications found not in compliance will be rejected and returned to the applicant. OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Filed ?'- Z`{ —4 S' Date of PB Hearing Date of Commission Petition Required 6,!o. Petition Accepted Method of Payment_�_�..__ M1 \M1 1565230.17681329j=­; �c 6 /1'V08 10:59 AM k� May 29, 2008 Sandy Youklis, Acting Planning Director City of South Miami 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami, Florida 33143 Re: Application for Amendment of a Development Agreement Dear Mr. Youklis: I, W. Rockwell Wirtz, as President of South Miami Corporation, hereby attests that South Miami Corporation owns the property described in Exhibit "A ", and designate Jerry B. Proctor, of the law firm Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP to represent South Miami Corporation in the application for public hearing for the property described on Exhibit "A ", located in the City of South Miami. 9, 1 6/26/08 W. Rockwell Wirtz, as President of SOUTH MIAMI CORPORATION Date STATE OF' Illinois } ) SS: COUNTY OF Cook ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 26th day of June 2008, by W. Rockwell Wirtz, as President of South Miami Corporation, a Florida corporation, on behalf of said corporation, He /She is personally known to me or has produced a State of Illinois driver's license as identification. Sign Name:�``�� ", Print Name: Cynthia E. Krch My Commission Expires: 8/4/2011 NOTARY PUBLIC Serial No. (none, if blank): [NOTARY SEAL] _ d CYNTHIA E. KRCH `= OFFICIAL SEAL Notary Public, State of Illinois Sincerely, 9 My Commission Expires August 4, 2011 MIAMI 156,',21 .176513'_'9325 6/19!08 City of South Miami. PB -08 -032 First On Sunset Project'- 5750 Sunset Drive Special Exceptions / Development Agreement Amendment 0 300 600 900 1,200 Feet \5711, 6845 5.07 - 5875 5764 m N SW 69TH ST J 5770 6601 5620 ' ' , ' Pry "r \ O 5763 4A�5F; 7570 5927 5867 G ;�.�.. - Q�OV <: 5755 % �. VENERAAVE $ N soyG �se 5507 N ' - -- i 5821 i W-* E 1578 SW 70TH ST S ' _..._ SAN REMOAVE 5715 6801 5620 i i ,583 1575 SW 71 ST ST - -- ' SAN IGNACIOAVE ' n / '''/CO,�•` __.__.- __ . —. -_ ' 6915 i .- _.____- ._.- _ - -.._ - - _. _____ 1549 5957 � 5795 tR 5837 5825 5801 5703 - ./ 5875 SUN�ET DR SW 72ND ST 5800 N ' 5640 5600 - -- �' �-`. 5738 - _ 5700 v 7230 7230 5695 5659 7277 G ' 5829 ____ - 7230 - 7236 7301 -- - -I - -- .. - — SW 73RD ST 7242 5940 7337 5824 _— Ts 11 _... U dx.. 4 xit 7300 1 U - - 7310 7325 7327 - _- 5650 "' 7301 W7� ?y � = �0 59013.�rs an $€ L ^ 7375 5605 - - - -- - - - -- - -- - -- cn SW 74TH ST - - -- - -. ----- --- - -- _.__ ; ---- - - - - -- - — - - - -- - _... 7400 7400 - 5975 5839 5801 5950 5901 ! 5730 _..._ —_: ...... -__. 5791 _ —__- ___ —_____ .__.._._._ • _ e SW 74TH TER _ SUBJECT 7426 7aai ia4o- 7420 -- PROPERTIES �4co_ ' -- —' 1430 ,___., ...__ �_.._.___ -_. _____... .-- __.__- _- .._.— ___.__ _ 5850 5864 5880 _ -- U ,,, N 5730 7450 _ _ < ° - m � _ �-' - 7500 _ _ - -- N � 1 -7491 7490_. 7505 7500 7500 7501 -7500 � - _7561 _, 7540 ,N 7511 7515 7500 = -- 7580 _ 7521 7510 7520 ' -- — 7520 7541 7532 7533 ' zo M c m ^ _ _ -__ _.— _ _______.__ - -_ 7530 7550 7590 _ '°" ...7563 7548 - -- . —_ —__ 7549 - - -- - - - -SW -76TH ST — — -- — - -- - -- - - -- -- E SW 76TH ST 7601 7600 7611 S64 5652 7610 N u 5743 5723 GIS Data by Miami -Dade County, 11/2007. Made by City of South Miami, Engineering & construction, UU /MM /T T T T. `= B Mn Sumberg F,T - 0 PI' = S .%,T L A 11 ^•n Jerry B. Proctor, Esq. T ei 305.350.2361 Fax 305.351.2250 jproctor @bilzin.com September 12, 2008 Hand Delivery Mr. Ajibola Balogun City Manager City of South Miami 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami, Florida 33143 Re: Tax Folio Nos.: 09- 4034 - 022 -0060, 09- 4036- 022 -0310, 09- 4036 -022- 0300, 09- 4036- 022 -0320, 09- 4036- 022 -0290, 09- 4036- 022 -0330, 09- 4036- 022 -0430, 09- 4036- 022 -0440, 09- 4036- 022 -0450, 09- 4036 -022- 0410, 09- 4036- 022 -0420 Addresses: 5750 Sunset Drive, 5795 SW 73 Street, 7320 SW 57 Court, and 5791 SW 74 Street Application for Amendment to Development Agreement and Special Exception Approval Dear Mr. Balogun: Our firm represents the South Miami Corporation, fee simple owner of approximately 4.5 +/- acres of land in Downtown South Miami (the "Property "). The Property consists of approximately one -half block on the south side of Sunset Drive, west of SW 57 Court, an entire block between SW 73 Street and SW 74 Street and between SW 57 Court and SW 58 Avenue, and an area of approximately one -half block in size located west of SW 58 Avenue, north of SW 74 Street. The Property was approved for a mixed -use development by the City Commission in 2005, consisting of 108 residential units, 13,820 square feet of restaurant floor area, 23,559 square feet of retail floor area, 17,713 square feet of bank area and 32,120 square feet of office floor area. Approvals by the City in 2005 consisted of: 1. Special Exception of Hometown Overlay District requirements to permit 72.29% lot coverage (60% permitted). 2. Special Exception of Hometown Overlay District requirement to permit four lanes of drive - through tellers (two lanes permitted). MIAMI 1510337.7 7681329325 9/19108 September 12, 2008 Page 2 3. Special Use to permit four (4) general restaurants. 4. Ordinance approving a Development Agreement for the project, pursuant to Section 163.3221, F.S. South Miami Corporation (the "Applicants ") hereby requests modification of the Development Agreement, as recorded in Official Records Book 26203 at Pages 1380- 1401 of the Public Records of Miami -Dade County. Proposed modifications consist of: AMENDMENT TO CONDITION #4 FROM: Use of Property. The Property described in Exhibit "A" is to be utilized for the project described in Exhibit "C ": a mixed use residential, office and retail project with a residential use not to exceed 108 dwelling units on approximately 4.5 +/- acres. The project will include "chamfered" corners where it abuts roadway intersections pursuant to Exhibit "C ". The occupied space of the project will not exceed four stories or fifty six (56) feet in height unless otherwise permitted by the South Miami Comprehensive Plan or its Land Development Regulations. The total of occupied space of the project shall not exceed four stories. Non - occupied space shall not exceed a maximum height of fifty six feet. The project shall be built in two phases as follows: Phase I shall consists of Blocks "A" and "B" described in Exhibit "C ". • Phase II shall consist of Block "C" described in Exhibit "C ". • The Company may elect to implement the development plan in one phase. • The Company may elect to utilize Block "C" as a temporary bank facility with drive - through lanes (not to exceed four lanes) which facility shall be removed upon the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Bank facility on Block The overall development of the property shall be conducted in accordance with the approved site plan on file at the City, (attached and incorporated as Exhibit "B ") including elevations, architectural features and estimated commercial square footage pursuant to Section 20.3 -7, of the LDC. TO: Use of Property. The Property described in Exhibit "A" is to be utilized for the project described in Exhibit "C ": a mixed use residential, office and retail project with a residential use not to exceed 108 dwelling units on approximately 4.5 +/- acres. The project will include "chamfered" corners where it abuts roadway intersections pursuant to Exhibit "C ". The occupied space of the project will not exceed four stories or fifty six (56) feet in height unless otherwise permitted by the South Miami Comprehensive Plan or its Land Development Regulations. The total of occupied space of the project shall MIAMI 15 10337.7 7681329325 9/19M September 12, 2008 Page 3 not exceed four stories. Non - occupied space shall not exceed a maximum height of fifty six feet. The project shall be built in phases as follows: ■ Phase I shall consist of Block "A" described in Exhibit "C ". ■ Phase II shall consist of Block "B" described in Exhibit "C ". ■ Phase III shall consist of Block "C" described in Exhibit "C" • The Company may elect to implement the development plan in one or more phases. ■ The Company may elect to utilize Block "C" as a temporary bank facility with drive - through lanes (not to exceed four lanes) which facility shall be removed upon the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Bank facility. on Block „Al, and, to substitute a new Exhibit "B ". The revised plan is submitted as part of this application. AMENDMENT TO CONDITION #8(d) (d) All development shall be in accord with the site plan submitted with the special exception and special use applications, said site plan incorporated in Exhibit "C ". The attached site plans serve to amend the plan of record to the Property and would operate as the approved plans of record in this paragraph as well. In addition, pursuant to Section 20 -7.51, the Applicants hereby request approval of the following Special Exceptions: (1) Special Exception of Hometown Overlay District requirement to permit 62.89% lot coverage (60% permitted) (72.29% previously approved). (2) Special Exceptions of Hometown Overly District requirements to permit four (4) lanes of drive - through tellers (two lanes permitted). The revised site plan reduces the overall impact of the development on the surrounding area, while retaining the quality of designed envisioned in the Hometown Plan. Particularly, the plan eliminates any restaurant uses on the Property. Since the 2005 hearing, a number of successful restaurants have opened in the vicinity of the Property. The applicant's new development program continues to propose up to 108 residential units, but reduces the non - residential air - conditioned space from approximately 87,000 square feet to just over 65,000 square feet with concomitant reductions in parking demand and traffic impact on the community. N41AM1 15 1033 7.7 7681 329325 9/19/08 September 12, 2008 Page 4 The new development plan offers complimentary uses such as residential and office development that will operate harmoniously with the restaurants and other uses opened in the vicinity since 2005, and will not overburden roadways or other city services, due to different peak hours of operation, and also illustrates a compatible scale and orientation. The reduced impact of the development envisioned in this application is underscored by the findings of the new traffic study, attached herewith, as prepared by Richard Garcia and Associates. The proposed development follows the spirit and letter of the City's Hometown District regulations and Comprehensive Plan requirements by: (1) Enhancing the City's community identity and "sense of place "; (2) Creating a developed identity that will recognize the importance of pedestrian comfort and the pedestrian environment; (3) Providing a mixture of uses in a vertical design that will most efficiently use parking resources and enhance the health of the "town center" concept in the Hometown Plan; (4) Providing a variety of design treatments, building shapes, and roof treatments to break up the massing of the development; and (5) Incorporating street trees and other plantings to create a pleasant pedestrian style and environment. Areas on which the development plans meet or exceed Hometown District standards include: 1. The project complies with the mixed use standards required for the district, incorporating retail, office and residential uses that create a sustainable urban pattern. 2. The project utilizes "genuine" materials presented in a straightforward and functional manner. 3. There are a variety of different housing types and sizes to suitable to a wider range of buyers and lifestyles. 4. The car is "disciplined" into working with the pedestrian nature of the project without eliminating its presence. MIAMI 1510337.7 7681329325 9/19/08 September 12, 2008 Page 5 5. The project incorporates numerous setbacks, differing building heights and breaks, a variety of roof shapes to break up the massing of the development and the incorporation of street trees and plantings help to create a pleasant pedestrian scale and environment. 6. The project is below, the maximum Floor Area Ratio of 1.6. 7. The project has arcaded walkways at all commercial and retail frontages. 8. The parking is concealed entirely within the building and not visible from the street. 9. The buildings respect and respond to the neighboring properties. 10. The project creates an opportunity to create a real "main street" identity to the city center with a portion of SW 73rd Street having the ability to be closed for street fairs and events. 11. Where residential units are located on the ground floor, the first floor is raised above grade, screened by landscape buffers and separated by stone retaining walls and railings. The Special Exception of lot coverage above results in a substantial footprint reduction on the Property from the approved plans in 2005. Although the Applicants may develop the 2005 plans, they now wish to consolidate the development footprint, thereby reducing the project's impact on the surrounding area. The second Special Exception, to permit four (4) drive - through teller windows is unchanged from 2005. The bank drive - through windows are concealed inside the building proposed on Block A, not visible from adjacent public streets. Thank you for your consideration of this application. Sincerely, 4 - Jerry B. Proctor JPB: rm cc: Ricardo Soto - Lopez, Planning Director, City of South Miami Luis Figueredo, Esq., City Attorney, City of South Miami T. Allen Eagleson Arnie Piechocki Richard Garcia Allison Schmitt 1v4I.ANI1 15 10337.7 7681329325 9/19/08 South Miami Ail- America City 1 2001 To: Honorable Chair & Planning Date: October 28, 2008 Board Members From: Ricardo Soto -Lopez Director of Planning PB -08 -032 (A) Applicant: South Miami Corporation Re: Special Exception Request SR (HD -OV) Hometown Overlay First on Sunset - 5750 Sunset Drive Request: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -7.51 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT KNOWN AS THE "FIRST ON SUNSET" PROJECT IN THE "SR (HD -OV)" SPECIALITY RETAIL (HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY) ZONING DISTRICT TO PERMIT: (1) A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO SECTIONS 20 -7.711 AND 20 -7.9B IN ORDER TO ALLOW A TOTAL LOT COVERAGE OF 62.89% OR 121,140 SQUARE FEET WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM 60% LOT COVERAGE AND 60,000 SQUARE FEET; (2) A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO SECTION 20 -7.9B TO ALLOW FOUR (4) BANK DRIVE -THRU LANES WHICH EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TWO (2) BANK DRIVE -THRU LANES; ALL FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 5750 SUNSET DRIVE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 6 THRU 9,40 THRU 45,53 THRU 66 INCLUSIVE AND THE EAST 50 FEET OF LOTS 51 AND 52 OF W. A. LARKINS SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 198 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI -DADE COUNTY; REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 31 -05 -12010 ADOPTED ON MARCH 1, 2005; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant, South Miami Corporation, is requesting approval to construct a unified development in the zoning district Specialty Retail Hometown District Overlay, SR (HD -OV). The site is a 4.5 acre property as legally described above. The proposed development "First on Sunset" consists of three city blocks, referred to as Block A, B and C. The project includes a maximum of 106 dwelling units, 72,249 square feet of commercial space including retail, offices, a bank and a total of 514 on site parking spaces. The attached General Site Data Summary includes all applicable calculations to the current proposal, and contrasts the differences between the 2005 submittal and the new current 2008 proposal. The amended proposal states that restaurants are not a part of the current development program. The proposed unified development requires the Planning Board's recommendation and approval by the City Commission, as the LDC Special Exception - - South Miami Corp. October 28, 2008 Page 2 of 5 applicant is requesting two special exceptions to modify regulations pertaining to lot coverage and the number of drive -thru teller lanes. These special exceptions were approved in 2005 by the City Commission, via Resolution Number 31 -05- 12010, adopted on March 1, 2005. The approval of the project in 2005 allowed 139,435 square feet (72.29% total lot coverage) for the three blocks. This exceeds the Hometown Overlay District Regulating Graphic Plan (Section 20- 7.9(B), which limits lot coverage to 60% and the amount of square footage to 20,000 square feet per building footprint. The second request approved in 2005 was the four drive - through teller lanes as part of the bank facility located at the ground floor level in Block A development. This exceeds the Hometown Overlay District Regulating Graphic Plan (Section 20- 7.9(B), which allows for no more than two drive through facilities on the downtown side streets. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The special exception section in the Hometown Overlay District regulations (Sec.20 -7.51) allows for the City Commission to waive compliance with any of the requirements or standards in the chapter upon a finding that the proposed development complies with and implements seven economic and design objectives of the Hometown Overlay zone. Attached copy of the objectives noted in the "Special Exception" section, Land Development Code. The procedure for approving special exceptions requires a public hearing before the Planning Board and then a second public hearing before the City Commission. Both newspaper notice and mail notices are required. Attached copy of the process is noted in Sec, 20 -7.52, "Procedure for special exception," Land Development Code. REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS (2008): Lot Coverage /Maximum Sq.Ft. Per Building. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow an overall lot coverage (three blocks) of 121,140 square feet which is 62.89% of the total site. Pursuant to Section 20- 7.9(B) in the Hometown Overlay District's Regulating Graphic Plan, limits the lot coverage to sixty percent (60 %) and the amount of lot coverage square footage to 20,000 square feet per building. • Drive- Through Tellers. The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow for four lanes of drive - through tellers as part of its new bank facility located on the ground floor level in the Block "A" development. It appears that vehicles will enter the facility from SW 73 Street and exit on SW 57 Court. STAFF OBSERVATIONS • The proposed development incorporating all three major land uses is consistent with the objectives of the Hometown Overlay District Mixed Use standards specified in LDC Sec.20- 7.2(E). LDC Special Exception South Miami Corp. October 28, 2008 Page 3 of 5 • The proposed development is consistent with the LDC Sec. 20- 7.2(D) which sets forth the following standards: height limit of 4 stories, density of 24 units per acre and a non - residential floor area ratio of .45 (maximum FAR permitted is 1.6) • The special exception for two additional drive -thru tellers is acceptable as it is located entirely within the first floor of Building A. • The special exception for exceeding the 60% lot coverage limit for the unified development is a result of a building design which incorporates the required parking as an internal garage located in the core center of Blocks A and B. • The granting of special exceptions require a finding by the City that the below listed seven conditions are applicable to the project. (Sec.20- 7.51): (1) The proposed development contributes to, promotes and encourages the improvement of the Hometown District and catalyzes other development as envisioned in the Hometown District regulations. (2) The proposed development is compatible with the land uses and development intensities prescribed by all applicable city regulations. (3) The proposed development must possess integrity of design compatible with the design criteria established for the Hometown District and with the overall image of the city. (4) The proposed development shall be designed in a manner that provides for effective management of traffic (vehicular and pedestrian), parking, lighting, noise and waste generated by the development, and management of the impacts of the development on public facilities and services. (5) The proposed development does not expand the permitted uses within the Hometown District. (6) The proposed development will not have an unfavorable effect on the economy of the City of South Miami. (7) The proposed development, when considered cumulatively with other development, both present and future, within the Hometown District, will not create excessive overcrowding or concentration of people or population. The staff has compared the project to each of the seven criteria listed in the LDC, and has determined that the proposed development advances the economic development of the City and is compatible with land use, density, and design criteria established for the Hometown District. Based upon this review the Planning Department finds that the proposed development supports LDC Special Exception South Miami Corp. October 28, 2008 Page 4 of 5 the granting of special exceptions. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The Developer at the request of the Planning Department hired a consultant, Richard Garcia & Associates to prepare a current Traffic Impact Study. The Developer's Traffic Impact Study dated August, 2008 has been reviewed by the city's traffic consultant, Kimley -Horn and Associates. The finding resulted in additional analysis and certain technical corrections made. The Kimley- Horn Sufficiency Review of the Developer's Traffic Impact Report was submitted to the City on October 23, 2008. The report on page 3 provides the following conclusion: "In conclusion, the revised traffic impact analysis adequately addressed several comments provided in the initial review. The comments presented above reflect areas where the analysis could be further refined. However, the analysis provided in the report is sufficient to determine the overall compliance of the project with concurrency requirements of the City of South Miami. Our review indicates that the subject project satisfies the City of South Miami's concurrency requirements. Overall, the traffic circulation plan outlined in the illustrative site plan appears adequate with the exception of a few minor modifications noted above. " RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Board approve the special exception application with the following conditions: (1) All residential parking spaces on Block A and B must be designated and reserved to ensure adequate parking for the total dwelling units being developed. (2) All parking spaces for retail and office uses must be off - street spaces throughout the unified development (Blocks A, B, Q. (3) Block C can not be developed with additional residential units if Block A and B are developed to the maximum density of 106 residential units. (4) The portion of parking on Block B which is dedicated for the required parking spaces for Block A, should be re- assigned to Block C, during the construction of Block B. (5) Any on- street parking which maybe required to supplement the project development must be accounted for as there is now a required annual payment to the City of South Miami. (6) Technical comments on the site plan will be prepared by the Public Works Department. These must be incorporated and will be provided in a separate document. (7) A separate Right -of -Way Maintenance Agreement shall be required. The agreement will indicate all provisions required by the Public Works Department. LDC Special Exception South Miami Corp. October 28, 2008 Page 5 of 5 (8) The staff and the consultant agree that the parking lot driveway for Block C on SW 58 Avenue should be modified in order to avoid a conflict with the garage entrance to Block B, also on SW 58 Avenue. (9) The applicant shall provide some evidence that the project has incorporated aspects of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). (10) A model will be required as a part of the ERP13 submittal. (Showing massing, building height, shadows, and contextual studies as per LDC Section 20- 5.13(D)(2). Attachments: • Planning Board Application, dated June 26, 2008 • Notarized Letter of Designation, dated May 29, 2008 • Location Map of the Hometown Overlay Zoning District • Application for Amendment to Development Agreement and Special Exception Approval, dated September 12, 2008 • Section 20- 7.51/.52 of the Land Development Code • Resolution Number 31 -05- 12010, dated March 1, 2005 • Sufficiency Review of Traffic Impact Report, dated October 23, 2008 • Copies of Public Notices • Sketch of Boundary Survey, prepared by ER Brownell & Associates, Inc. • General Site Data Summary "First on Sunset" • Architectural Plans, prepared by Pappageorge/ Haymes Ldt., dated 7/25/08 RSL /SAY /LCH Z: \PB \PB Agendas Staff Reports\2008 Agendas Staff Reports \10- 28- 08\PB- 08- 032(A) Special Exceptions -5750 Sunset -FISRT ON SUNSET.doc 3 COR P O RATED) 1927 .ORt CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD Action Summary Minutes Tuesday, October 28, 2008 City Commission Chambers 7:30 P.M. EXCERPT I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:38P.M. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. II. Roll Call Action: Chairman Morton requested a roll call. Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Morton, Ms. Yates, Mr. Farfan, Mr. Cruz, Ms. Young, and Ms. Chael. Absent: Mr. Comendeiro City staff present: Ricardo Soto - Lopez, (Planning Director), and Sanford A. Youkilis (Consultant), and Lluvia Resendiz (Zoning Tech). III. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: Mr. Youkilis advised that because the second Tuesday of the month is a national holiday the Planning Board meeting was rescheduled for Thursday, November 13, 2008. III. Planning Board Applications/Public Hearing PB -08 -032 (A) Applicant: South Miami Corporation A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -7.51 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT KNOWN AS THE "FIRST ON SUNSET" PROJECT IN THE "SR(HD -OV)" SPECIALITY RETAIL (HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY) ZONING DISTRICT TO PERMIT: (1) A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO SECTIONS 20 -7.7B AND 20- 7.9B IN ORDER TO ALLOW A TOTAL LOT COVERAGE OF 62.89% OR 121,140 SQUARE FEET WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM 60% LOT COVERAGE AND 60,000 SQUARE FEET; (2) A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO SECTION 20 -7.9B TO ALLOW FOUR (4) BANK DRIVE -THRU LANES WHICH EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TWO (2) BANK DRIVE -THRU LANES; ALL FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 5750 SUNSET DRIVE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 6 THRU 9, 40 THRU 45, 53 THRU 66 INCLUSIVE AND THE EAST 50 FEET OF LOTS 51 AND 52 OF W. A. LARKINS SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 198 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI -DARE COUNTY; REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 31 -05 -12010 ADOPTED ON MARCH 1, 2005; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Planning Board Meeting October 28, 2008 Page 2 of 8 Ms. Young read the item into the record. Action: Ms. Cabrera - Hernandez read the staff report into the record. Mr. Cruz expressed concerns with the results of the traffic study analysis conducted by the City's consultant Kimley -Horn & Associates. He stated that he was pleased with the analysis but just wanted to go over some of the findings, Mr. John McWilliams, Kimley -Horn, explained that during the initial review he provided comments. When the October 23, 2008 memo was written Mr. McWilliams wanted to respond to each of the comments he asked for certain things that were not addressed. The reason you see open ended items was that he was tasked with comparing the analysis with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the level of service standards the City has for its roadway network. The City's Comprehensive Plan calls for a level of standard "F" as their standard. Therefore regardless of how the analysis pans out, if the applicant can justify 10% increase at intersections operating at "D" "E" or "F" then there is no standard to say that it does not comply with the concurrency standard. Mr. Proctor advised the he has a companion matter related to the development and therefore requested that item PB- 08- 032(A) and PB- 08 -32(B) be heard together. Motion: Ms. Yates moved to have items PB- 08- 032(A) and PB- 08- 032(B) discussed simultaneously. Mr. Cruz seconded. Vote: 6 Ayes 0 Nays PB -08 -032 Bl Applicant: South Miami Corporation AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIA-NH, FLORIDA AMENDING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATE STATUE 163.3221 FOR A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS "PROJECT SUNSET" NOW KNOWN AS THE "FIRST ON SUNSET" PROJECT WHICH WAS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE NO. 05 -05 -1827 ADOPTED MARCH 15, 2008; AMENDING CONDITION NO. 4 TO ALLOW THE PROJECT TO BE DEVELOPED IN THREE PHASES INSTEAD OF TWO PHASES; AMENDING CONDITION NO. 8(D) TO ACCEPT A REVISED PROJECT SITE PLAN DATED JULY 25, 2008; ALL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED GENERALLY AT 5750 SUNSET DRIVE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 6 THRU 9, 40 THRU 45, 53 THRU 66 INCLUSIVE AND THE EAST 50 FEET OF LOTS 51 AND 52 OF W. A. LARKINS SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 198 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI -DADS COUNTY;; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Farfan read the item into the record. Action: Mr. Soto -Lopez stated that the applicant has two requests; the phasing of the project and two special exceptions. He requested that the Board consider them as he will not go through all the details because the documentation in the report was sufficient. Mr. Proctor stated he was the representative of South Miami Corporation which is developing 2 'h blocks within the City. He provided the Board with a description of the property itself and those properties adjacent to the proposed project. He further explained the mixed uses that will be in the Planning Board Meeting October 28, 2008 Page 3 of 8 first floor. He stated that the previous proposal for the development was approved by the Planning Board and the City Commission. He also stated that as part of that development proposal there was a Development Agreement submitted by the property owner and approved by the City Commission. It covered all requirements and description of the development requirements upon the property owner and description of City obligations. The agreement had 10 year duration. In 2005 the development was 4 stories and included 108 residential units. It was proposed to be developed in two phases. The owner has revised the plan and is asking for amendments to the development agreement and the site plan. The intensity of the development has been reduced by 15,000 square feet. The lot coverage has lowered from 72% to 62 %. He advised that no restaurants will be a part of the new proposal due to the fact that along SW 73 Street there have been a number of restaurants opened. There is a market shift that was taken into account and therefore the restaurants were eliminated. One of the primary reasons why we are opining that the impact of traffic is reduced in this development is caused by the elimination of the restaurants. Mr. Proctor provided a description of the changes in the Development Agreement. He noted that the development of project will be in two phases Block "A" will be developed first and block `B" will remain as is in order for it to be used as a parking. Once block `B" is developed block "C" will be used for required parking. He stated that there are more than required parking spaces on site to comply with the regulations. He reiterated that he is not asking to amend any other requirements other than the phasing aspect of the development and the site plan. Mr. Morton questioned if the 10 years begins under the first day of signing the agreement. Mr. Proctor replied that the agreement was recorded in February of 2008 and it will be effective February 2008. Mr. Morton questioned if the amendment will not trigger the 10 year start. Mr. Figueredo replied that it can be considered but the addendum to an existing agreement will not extend the term unless it is specifically extended. Mr. Morton questioned the reason for dropping the restaurants. Mr. Proctor replied that the restaurants were dropped based on market conditions therefore there will be no late night activities on the block. Mr. Morton questioned if Block `B" were not completed will there be sufficient parking for block "A" Mr. Proctor replied that enough parking will be provided. Mr. Morton also questioned the impact that the construction access would have on Sunset Drive. Mr. Proctor stated that they have to present to the City the hours of operation and function of the development. The property owner is prepared to take those steps. Mr. Morton questioned why the original agreement stated that $232,000 was going to be paid for if enough parking is being provided. Mr. Proctor stated that the concurrency fee to be paid to the city was for Parks and Recreation concurrency. Mr. Soto -Lopez stated that the $232,000 is an undervalue to the City. He also stated that there is no affordable housing required in the original agreement. Mr. Cruz questioned why the development agreement will be effective 2008 and not be effective 2005. Mr. Proctor stated that it was the position of the City that it starts the day it was recorded. Mr. Figueredo stated that the agreement was not recorded until 2007. There is a provision stating that a development agreement must be recorded within 20 days after being signed by both parties. The applicant has not executed the development agreement under two Planning Directors ago. Then the Planning Director Julian Perez noticed that the agreement has not been signed and made it a priority to get it executed. There was back and forth discussion as to when the development agreement was signed. Ms. Chael stated that she recalled when the first development agreement was approved there were various street improvements that the bank agreed to make as well as certain commitments to incorporate green area. She questioned if those commitments are addressed in the new Planning Board Meeting October 28, 2008 Page 4of8 development agreement. Mr. Proctor stated he was not aware of those requirements except that there was s $40,000 commitment to traffic calming and mitigation that was imposed by the City Commission. That commitment was accepted by the applicant and incorporated into the development agreement. Ms. Yates stated that page 4 of the development agreement states that the requirement was removed and replaced with a cash payment. Mr. Cruz further questioned the execution date of the development agreement. Mr. Soto -Lopez interjected and stated that he was not here at the time of the execution and that Mr. Cruz was suggesting that staff had committed fraud. Mr. Cruz requested that the Mr. Soto -Lopez allow him to finish his statement and noted that he has a lot of respect for the Planning Department. Mr. Figueredo stated that the once the City Commission approved the development agreement the agreement is a binding document. At this point if the applicant wants to change the site plan then the change will require an addendum to the development agreement. Mr. Figueredo further added that the items will be before the City Commission however it will not be a decision as to whether the agreement is binding. The City Commission will be charged to vote on an amendment to the agreement and not whether the agreement is a binding document. Mr. Soto -Lopez stated that as the Planning Director he would not have allowed such items to fall through the crack. Mr. Papageorge, architect for the project provided the Board with a detailed architectural and design description of the First on Sunset Project and its intent. Mr. Morton stated that he favors the idea of closing of the street. He did however note that the enclosed street is the only access to parking access off of that street. Mr. Papageorge stated that half of the street could be closed and would make a nice pedestrian connection from one side of the arcade to the other. Mr. Morton questioned why a sky bridge was not considered. Mr. Soto -Lopez stated that there is no provision in the Land Development Code requiring a sky bridge. Mr. Cruz questioned if parking on in block "C" cannot be changed to anything else other than a parking lot. Mr. Proctor stated that any change other than what is being proposed would have to come back to the Planning Board and City Commission for approval. The property owner has no plans to develop block "C" to anything else other than parking. To develop block "C" will create a design challenge. Mr. Papageorge stated that block "C" will be maintained and landscaped to hide the parking from the sidewalk which will provide better quality than what it is now. Mr. Proctor stated that block "C" is overflow parking for retail. The residential parking will be contained in block "A" and block "B." Mr. Soto -Lopez stated that block "C" cannot be developed with additional residential units if block "A" and "B" are developed to the maximum 106 residential units. Mr. Cruz stated that under those circumstances block "C" should be excluded. Mr. Soto -Lopez stated that because the applicant is maxed out on the issue of residential units per acre block "C" cannot be developed. Mr. Proctor noted that if any future owner desires to make any changes to block "C" he /she must go before the Board for a public hearing. Mr. Proctor also stated that staff has conditioned that all residential parking must be contained within block "A" and `B" and he has no problem with that condition. Ms. Chael observed that the required parking for block "A" and `B" are self sufficient and therefore block "C" is self standing. It seems that the City's perception that it is always short on parking. She questioned if the owner would consider having valet parking. Ms. Chael commended the group for the ability to finally implement a piece of the Hometown Plan. She questioned if the architect considered included LEED aspects into the project. She noted that the development of the project with a LEED perspective would be a great example. Ms. Chael recommended that the landscape plan include shade trees and native landscaping. Planning Board Meeting October 28, 2008 Page 5 of 8 Mr. Soto -Lopez stated that from what he has seen during this review process the saddest part is that there is no bonus for being next to the train station. Essentially the developer is supporting the entire car dominated mentality which is strange for Chicago people. Mr. Soto -Lopez stated that he comes from a very progressive urban planning standpoint and parking is the deficient aspect of this proposal. It is a wonderful architectural proposal and the whole point is that there is a great loss relevant to the transportation network in terms of bonuses and credits. That is also a deficiency caused by the City government itself. Mr. Cruz questioned if the parking will be angled or parallel. Mr. Proctor stated that it will be parallel parking. Mr. Proctor also noted that SW 73 Street and SW 57 Court are not being relied upon for credit towards required parking. The total parking of 448 spaces is within the property. Mr. Cruz questioned if the Planning Department was requiring that the project be LEED certified. Mr. Papageorge responded that they will come as close as possible to LEED certification. Mr. Soto -Lopez stated the staff's recommendation was that the applicant should come to LEED certification as soon as possible. Mr. Cruz requested that further questions regarding the traffic impact study be addressed by the engineers. Mr. Garcia, traffic impact study engineer responded to the five concerns that Mr. Cruz addressed with regards to the traffic study. Mr. Garcia stated that the analysis they provided was approved and adopted by the County. Mr. Cruz questioned why parking calculations were not reviewed. Mr. Papageorge stated that many of the traffic engineers that review their project do not review for zoning compliance with parking relationships. They are simply dealing with the traffic impact on surrounding the buildings. Mr. Cruz questioned why the total parking count was not provided to Kimley -Horn. Mr. Soto -Lopez replied that they were given various aspects of parking for the different uses and that the consultants received the exact spreadsheet that was provided to the Department. Mr. McWilliams stated that he did not receive the parking total count. Mr. Cruz questioned if he was happy with what the traffic study contains. Mr. McWilliams stated that he is comfortable with his conclusion and that it satisfies the City standards. Ms. Young requested a clarification as to when the plans were revised. Mr. Proctor stated that the corrected plans were dated October 23, 2008. She then questioned if there were substantial differences between the July 25, 2008 site plan and the October 23, 2008 site plan that would warrant the Board's consideration in any way. Mr. Proctor replied that there were no substantial changes. Ms. Yates questioned why they would remove the restaurant uses and would the applicant be required to come back if they decide to include a restaurant. Mr. Proctor stated that they would have to bring it back or reduce some other aspect of the project in order to add a restaurant. It was reduced because of the market and what has happened along SW 73 Street. Chairman Morton opened the Public Hearing. Name Address Position Cathy McCann 5820 SW 87 Street Oppose Ms. McCann thanked Mr. Cruz for the questions regarding the traffic impact study. She requested that the Board compare the architectural style of the building with the original in 2005. She requested that they look at the parking on the top floor of the condominiums because it looks as if they will not be limited to the top floor as the plans indicate. She also referred to the fact that the development agreement is opened for discussion therefore anything about the project can be discussed. There is a question about the execution of the development agreement and now instead Planning Board Meeting October 28, 2008 Page 6 of 8 of having a 10 year agreement we have a 13 agreement. She hoped that the Board does not make a decision tonight. Bob Welsh 7437 SW 64 Court Oppose Mr. Welsh questioned why anyone would want to build a residential building now considering the market. There were a lot of people that thought that the Shops of Sunset will not be successful. Neil Carver was successful with the help of the money behind the Shops of Sunset. A few years later the Shops of Sunset goes to the tax assessor and says that we cannot fill up the units therefore reduce the assessments in order to pay less tax to the City. It is in the City's best interest that whatever is put there will not happen as it happened at the Shops of Sunset. It has to work for the downtown. Mr. Welsh stated that the bank is presently funding opposition to the Charter for the election. The bank had to know that thousands of dollars are being spent for the concerned tax payer coalition campaign against passing the charter amendments for South Miami. Tucker Gibbs Mr. Gibbs stated that he represents the bank and was asked to be present specifically to respond to what Mr. Welsh just spoke about. He, stated that on behalf of the bank, the bank is not funding anything relating to this charter amendment election. He further reminded the Board that they are charged to deal with a zoning issue and asked them to focus on that. Sharon McCain Oppose Ms. McCain asked if Ms. Chael was affiliated with the project. Ms. Chael stated she was not. Ms. McCain stated she agreed with Ms. McCann in that the former project was a better design. She opinionated that the current design was not attractive. She stated that she met with Mr. Ricardo and was provided with a set of plans and advised him that the plans indicate that there is not enough parking. Mr. Soto -Lopez interjected and stated that his name was Ricardo Soto -Lopez and not Ricky Ricardo but rather Soto - Lopez. Ms. McCain stated that Mr. Soto -Lopez has been extremely rude tonight not only to the residents but members of the Planning Board. She recommended that he think about what he says before he says it publicly. Secondly, after the meeting there were many changes to the site plan. She is confused with the parking and expressed that the Board should not rush through the development agreement. Ms. McCain felt that they are short in parking in block "A." Mr. Proctor stated that they will hire South Miami residents however that same promise was made for the Red Road Commons project. She referred to page 3 where the language states that the company may elect to implement the development of the project in one or more phases. She questioned as to why the City will give them the option of when they will provide the City with the $232,000 concurrency fee. She recommended that the Board approve that the project be completed phase by phase and not altogether. Mr. Soto -Lopez stated that staff stands by the recommendation in the report and Ms. McCain is confusing the issues as usual. Ms. McCain stated that Mr. Soto -Lopez has violated the Code of Conduct. Mr. Morton noted that there is a trigger date for both the $232,000 and the 40,000 dollars. John Edward Smith 7531 SW 64 Court Favors Mr. Edward Smith stated that he has been involved with the business community since 1982. The First National Bank of South Miami has been a fabric of this community for a long time. For years there has been much speculation as to what will happen with these 2 '/z blocks of prime real estate. We had an ambitious program brought before the Planning Board and City Commission in 2005. He commended the architect for the project which he finds very refreshing and certainly an elegant Planning Board Meeting October 28, 2008 Page 7 of 8 and upscale structure. There is a great mix of retail office and residential. He likes that SW 73 Street shows a vision of wanting to combine the project and have a very dynamic presence in the community. He stressed that the retail on the ground level should be required to be opened to at least 9 pm. He recommended that we need to have shade trees in the community. He noted that there was a point raised by one of the speakers relative to the bank's participation in the South Miami Tax Payers Coalition; he advised that the information is false, inaccurate, and it has been promoted by Mr. Welsh. Chairman Morton closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Proctor stated that the changes that are being proposed create less impact on the City, less parking, less traffic and improved access points. The building height is the same and the number of units in square footage are also reduced. As you look at the development agreement except for the phasing aspect, the site plan itself have not changed. The commitment for a traffic mitigation fee payable at the time of first building permit is unchanged. The payment of the park concurrency fee at first building permit is also unchanged. We are proposing something that is a reduction in impact than what was approved in 2005. The owner is maintaining the same commitments for the project. Mr. Proctor reiterated that if the plans are changed for any reason he must come back before the Board for approval. We have concerns with regards to the conditions that have been placed by staff. Under item PB- 08- 032(B), condition number 2 talks about a time table for development's completion in 24 months. Mr. Proctor requested that it be removed from the provision or suggested that it be a longer time frame. Ms. Young stated that a letter dated September 12, 2008 says that 108 residential units are allowed and on the same page states that 106 units are permitted. She was concerned that the number did not match. Mr. Proctor replied that staff has determined that using the 24 unit per acre limit only 106 units will be allowed. The survey will be looked at for verification that the project is not above the 24 units per acre limit. Mr. Soto -Lopez stated that the 24 month period was really an example and staff found it prudent to set a limit on construction after a permit is pulled. There must be a prescribed time period for the completion of the project. Ms. Young stated that PB- 08- 032(A) shows three phases as supposed to the two original phases. She then questioned why three phases as opposed to two. Mr. Proctor stated that his client wants to move more cautiously due to the lending atmosphere, marketing and economic environment. We want to develop block "A" and `B" in different phases. Ms. Young stated that she does not understand the additional need of longevity. Mr. Proctor stated that the ability to study the market and the ability to have the financing at this moment on one phase at the time is important. He also stated the longevity is due in part that the City will have the ability to absorb the impact on a more gradual basis and most importantly the ability to provide all of the required parking on an as you go basis even while we are under construction. Motion: Mr. Cruz moved to defer items PB- 08- 032(A) and PB- 08- 032(B) for the next Planning Board meeting. Ms. Young seconded. The motion failed. Vote: 2 Ayes 4 Nays (Mr. Morton, Ms. Yates, Mr. Farfan, and Ms. Chael) Motion: Mr. Farfan moved to approve item PB- 08- 032(A) as presented by staff. Ms. Yates seconded. The motion was approved. Vote: 5 Ayes 1 Nay (Ms. Young) Planning Board Meeting October 28, 2008 Page 8 of 8 Mr. Youkilis requested that Mr. Proctor look at the date in the Development Agreement for the revised site plan; he needed to confirm it is correct. He also questioned if Mr. Proctor was ok with the language that each construction phase shall not exceed a 36 month period. And the development agreement must be recorded within 30 days of approval by the City Commission. Mr. Cruz stated if it was possible to modify the language to state that they cannot build on block "C" Mr. Youkilis advised that the site plan that as approved will have no units and they would have to come back for approval. Mr. Youkilis advised that it was a precaution that the density is dependent on all blocks added together. Mr. Morton questioned that if block "C" were combined with the property to the North would the applicant still have to come back for any change on block "C." Mr. Youkilis advised that they would have to come back for approval. Mr. Youkilis also advised that a unity of title can only be broken by the City Commission. Motion: Mr. Farfan moved to approve item PB- 08- 032(B) with the three amendments made by staff. Ms. Yates seconded. The motion was adopted. Vote: 5 Ayes 1 Nay (Ms. Young) 20 -7.51 SOUTH MIAMI LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 20 -7.51 Special exception. (A) The city commission may, by special exception, waive strict compliance with the provisions of the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance [this article]. In granting a special exception, the city commission must find by substantial competent evidence that: (1) The proposed development contributes to, promotes and encourages the improvement of the Hometown District and catalyzes other development as envisioned in the Hometown District regulations. (2) The proposed development is compatible with the land uses and development inten- sities prescribed by all applicable city regulations. (3) The proposed development must possess integrity of design compatible with the design criteria established for the Hometown District and with the overall image of the city. (4) The proposed development shall be designed in a manner that provides for effective management of traffic (vehicular and pedestrian), parking, lighting, noise and waste generated by the development, and management of the impacts of the development on public facilities and services. (5) The proposed development does not expand the permitted uses within the Hometown District. (6) The proposed development will not have an unfavorable effect on the economy of the City of South Miami. (7) The proposed development, when considered cumulatively with other development, both present and future, within the Hometown District, will not create excessive overcrowding or concentration of people or population. (B) The city commission, in granting any special exception, may prescribe any reasonable conditions, restrictions, and limitations it deems necessary or desirable, in order to preserve and promote the intent of the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance. (C) Special exceptions, if granted, shall be valid only for the specific design shown in the plans and exhibits submitted as part of the special exception application, as provided in Section 20 -7.52 of this Code. All deviations from the requirements of the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance incorporated within and reflected on the site plan and exhibits shall be considered a part of the application. Approval of the site plan and exhibits by the city commission shall constitute approval of the nonuse deviations identified on the site plan and exhibits unless the city commission approves a motion to the contrary. No further individual or separate application for deviations approved by the city commission shall be required. If the applicant wishes to make material changes to the design subsequent to receiving a special exception, the applicant must apply for a new special exception following the procedure set forth herein. (D) Special exceptions, if granted, shall be valid if development, as defined in Section 380.04, Florida Statutes, commences within twenty -four (24) months from the date of final approval and is substantially completed within five (5) years from the date of issuance of the i Supp. No. 7 180 HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY ORDINANCE 20 -7.52 first building permit. The time for substantial completion may be extended by the city commission upon application filed prior to the expiration of the substantial completion period and upon demonstration of good cause. (Ord. No. 19 -94 -1569, § 1, 11 -1 -94) 20 -7.52 Procedure for special exception. (A) Special exceptions under Ordinance No. 19 -94 -1569 [Sections 20 -7.51, 20 -7.521 may be granted only after a minimum of two (2) public hearings. The first public hearing shall be before the planning board, at which time the planning board shall review the project and provide to the city commission an advisory recommendation regarding approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval. The second public hearing shall be held before the city commission and shall be held no sooner than seven (7) calendar days following the planning board hearing. Public notice requirements, as specified in Section 20- 5.5(C) and (G), Applications requiring public hearings, shall be followed. (B) Requests for special exceptions under Ordinance No. 19 -94 -1569 [Sections 20 -7.51, 20 -7.52] shall be in a form acceptable to the city manager and shall include each exhibit required per Section 20- 7.3(B), Application for Development Permit, and per Section 20 -7.4, Site Plan Requirements. In addition, the city commission, at its discretion, may require additional exhibits and may defer approval of the special exception application or schedule an additional public hearing or hearings to review those exhibits. (C) The city manager shall have authority to require additional review and approval by the environmental review and preservation board for developments involving special exception, which review shall follow the procedure set forth in Section 20 -5.11 of this Code. (D) The city commission may grant a special exception upon four (4) affirmative votes of its members. (Ord. No. 19 -94 -1569, § 1, 11 -1 -94) Supp. No. 7 181 RESOLUTION NO. 31 - 0 5 -12 010 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -7.51 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR "PROJECT SUNSET" A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE "SR(HD -OV)" SPECIALITY RETAIL (HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY) ZONING DISTRICT TO PERMIT: (1) A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO SECTIONS 20 -7.7B AND 20 -7.9B IN ORDER TO ALLOW A TOTAL LOT COVERAGE OF 72.29% OR 139,435 SQUARE FEET WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM 60% LOT COVERAGE AND 60,000 SQUARE FEET; (2) A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO SECTION 20- 7.9B TO ALLOW FOUR (4) BANK DRIVE -THRU LANES WHICH EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TWO (2) BANK DRIVE -THRU LANES; ALL FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 5750 SUNSET DRIVE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 6 THRU 99 40 THRU 45, 53 THRU 66 INCLUSIVE AND THE EAST 50 FEET OF LOTS 51 AND 52 OF W. A. LARKINS SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 198 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI -DADE COUNTY; PROVIDING FOE SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the, South Miami Corporation, has submitted Application No. PB -05 -001 requesting approval to construct a unified development in the SR(HD -OV) zoning district. on property as legally described above, said project includes three mixed use buildings with the following total land uses: 108 dwelling units; 87,212 square feet of commercial space (retail, offices, bank, restaurants; and 649 parking spaces; and WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a special exception to allow an overall lot coverage (three blocks) of 139,435 square feet which is 72.29% of the total site which exceeds. the Hometown Overlay District regulating graphic plan (Sec.20 -7.9B) whit` limits lot coverage to 60% and the amount of lot coverage square footage to 20,000 sq. ft. per building; :-d WHEREAS, the applicant, is requesting a special exception to allow for four lanes of drive - through tellers as part of its new bank facility located on the ground floor level in the Block "A" development which exceeds the Hometown Ol erlay District regulating graphic plan (Sec.20 -7.9B) which allows for no more than two drive though facilities on downtown side streets; and WHEREAS, a special exception �'�quest in the Hometown Overlay District requires the Planning Board's recommendation and approval by the City Commission; and WHEREAS, after review and consideration, the Planning Department recommended approval of the application with conditions ; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2005 the Planning Board after public hearing voted 5 ayes 0 nays to recommend approval with specific conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to accept the recommendation of the Planning Board and enact the aforesaid resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The City has determined that the proposed development project advances the economic development of the City and is compatible with land use, density, and design criteria established for the P,4. 2 of, Res. No. 31-05-12010 Hometown District, as set forth in LDC Sec.20 -7.51, which includes seven criteria necessary for approving special exceptions: (1) The proposed development contributes to, promotes and encourages the improvement of the Hometown District and catalyzes other development as envisioned in the Hometown District regulations. (2) The proposed development is compatible with the land uses and development intensities prescribed by all applicable city regulations. (3) The proposed development must possess integrity of design compatible with the design criteria established for the Hometown District and with the overall image of the city. (4) The proposed development shall be designed in a manner that provides for effective management of traffic (vehicular and pedestrian), parking, lighting, noise and waste generated by the development, and management of the impacts of the development public facilities and services. (5) The proposed development does not expand the permitted uses within the Hometown District. (6) The proposed development will not have an unfavorable effect on the economy of the City of South Miami. (7) The proposed development, when considered cumulatively with other development, both present and future, within the Hometown District, will not create excessive overcrowding or concentration of people or population. Section 2. That the subject application submitted by the South Miami Corporation, requesting a special exception to allow an overall lot coverage (three blocks) of 139,435 square feet which is 72.29% of the total site which exceeds the Hometown Overlay District regulating graphic plan (Sec.20 -7.9B) which limits lot coverage to 60% and the amount of lot coverage square footage to 20,000 sq. ft. per building, is hereby approved subject to conditions set forth in Section 4 below. Section 3 That the subject application submitted by the South Miami Corporation requesting a special exception to allow for four lanes of drive- through tellers as part of its new bank facility located on the ground floor level in the Block "A" development which exceeds the Hometown Overlay District regulating graphic plan (Sec.20 -7.9B) which allows for no more than two drive though facilities on downtown side streets, is hereby approved subject to conditions set forth in Section 4 below Section 4. The special exception application is approved subject to the following conditions: • The applicant must agree that all street, sidewalk and street furniture improvements must be consistent with the design and material specifications as set forth by the City in its downtown street improvement program. O The parking lot driveway for Block Con SW 58 Avenue should be eliminated or modified to be limited to a right turn out and right turn in only. Pg. 3 of res. No. 31 -05 -12010 Section 5. This resolution shall be effective immediately after the adoption hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED this �,¢tday of)Yla A 2005. ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY U APPROVED: Commission Vote: 5-0 Mayor Russell: Yea Vice Mayor Palmer Yea Commissioner Wiscombe: Yea Commissioner Birts- Cooper Yea Commissioner Sherar: Yea \\MCGRUPF\PLANTNFNG \Comm Items\2005\3 -1 -05 \Special Exception SM Bank Project Resolution.doc //i Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Memorandum To: Ricardo Soto - Lopez, MUP Planning Director City of South Miami From: John McWilliams, P.Ey�, Ravi Wijesundera, E.I. Date: October 23, 2008 Subject: Sufficiency Review of Traffic Impact Report South Miami Corporation This memorandum summarizes our review of the revised traffic impact analysis report prepared by Richard Garcia & Associates, Inc., specific to the proposed South Miami Corporation project. In a prior memorandum dated September 26, 2008, Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. provided comments on the first submittal of the traffic impact analysis. We have since reviewed the revised traffic impact analysis report dated October 13, 2008, and the accompanying response to comments memorandum. We offer the following comments regarding the revised analysis and overall consistency of the project with respect to the City of South Miami's traffic concurrency requirements: 1. The applicant did not provide quantitative information to support the use of a 10 percent transit reduction factor. However, the use of a 10 percent transit modal share is reasonable given the proximity of the development to the South Miami Metrorail Station and transit routes. 2. In response to a comment on the consistency of turning movement count data along SW 72nd Street, the applicant recounted several intersections during the A.M. peak period. These counts were conducted during the first week of October 2008. A comparison of the new count data with the previous count data indicated a significant decrease in eastbound traffic volume on SW 72 "d Street and SW 70a' Street. It is possible that construction activities on SW 72"d Street may have resulted in a decrease in traffic volumes on those two streets. While the data used by the applicant may not be indicative of normal traffic patterns, we conclude TEL 954 535 5100 FAX 954 739 2247 ■ suite 109 5200 N W. 33rd Avenue Ft. Lauderdale. Florida 33309 PPP'1 Kimley -Horn Mr. Ricardo Soto-Lopez, Octohcr 23, 2008 Page 2 and Associates, Inc. that the analysis still provides sufficient evidence that the project satisfies the City's concurrency requirements (i.e., level of service F). The applicant indicated that capacity data provided in Miami Dade County's Concurrency Database for station 9656 (SW 72 "d Street) does not accurately reflect capacity of the subject roadway segment and, hence, a detailed roadway segment analysis was performed to determine the appropriate roadway capacity. The applicant further indicated that results of the analysis were forwarded to Miami -Dade County and the County agreed to revise its database. However, the applicant did not provide documentation that indicated (1) it was submitted to Miami - Dade County for review or (2) that Miami -Dade County found the calculations/results to be acceptable and agreed to revise the subject capacity. We reviewed the applicant's analysis and noted that the use of a 100- second cycle length along the subject corridor is not appropriate as the peak period cycle length along the corridor is 140 seconds. 4. When determining growth rates for traffic data forecasting, the applicant deviated from the method he used in the previous report. Specifically, the use of a decaying exponential growth function instead of a linear growth function was utilized. The historical . traffic data provided presented no pattern that -would indicate that growth in the area follows a decaying exponential pattern. As a result, the analysis underestimates future background traffic volumes. However, the overall effect of the applicant's methodology is minor and would not have impacted the concurrency results. 5. The applicant refused to provide electronic copies of Synchro analysis for review. Therefore, we could not verify input parameters and analysis methodology with a high degree of confidence, Based upon our review of the output documentation only, the results appear accurate. The illustrative site plan (dated 7/25/08) was provided and examined as part of our review of this project. We offer the following comments on the site plan: 1. The applicant did not provide information relative to project's parking requirements or proposed parking supply. Therefore, our review did not encompass the parking analysis for the subject site. 2. The upper level parking at Block A is controlled by a gate arm located on the ground floor. The distance from the gate arm to SW 73`d Street appears to provide for 4 to 5 queued vehicles. Although the traffic study did not provide a thorough analysis of the expected queue at the subject entry gate, the queue reservoir provided appears to be adequate. ®; -„ Kimley -Horn Mr. Ricardo Soto - Loper. October 23, 2008 Page 3 ® and Associates, Inc. 3. The single angled parkin; space provided on the 2nd floor plan of Block B in the southwest corner of the site conflicts with the adjacent parallel parking space. The angled parking space should be eliminated. 4. Parking access control is proposed on the 151 floor of Block B. The gates are located immediately adjacent to the 90 degree turn in the two -way parking aisle, making it difficult for entering vehicles to maneuver into the restricted area without conflicting with the raised traffic separator or the adjacent parking space. Therefore, we recommend, that the single head -in parking space located immediately north of the westbound drive aisle at the gate arm be removed to allow for a more generous turning radius. In conclusion, the revised traffic impact analysis adequately addressed several comments provided in the initial review. The comments presented above reflect areas where the analysis could be further refined. However, the analysis provided in the report is sufficient to determine the overall compliance of the project with concurrency requirements of the City of South Miami. Our review indicates that the subject project satisfies the City of South Miami's concurrency requirements. Overall, the traffic circulation plan outlined in the illustrative site plan appears adequate with the exception of a few minor modifications noted above. We are available to discuss these comments with City staff or applicant to provide further clarification. First au Sunset ERPB Data Summary 9.19.08 PepMeagwHgma. Ud. General Sit. Data Summer Ir I F M im m FIW Arn flak IFA.R.1 6 M.imum R .id.n I I DImlity 24 MawmYmN m 1 ar Mu4num SAO., ­ism SS•.P Block 8 2005• CURRENT IDifference P Ar . t . - 0 G,PC. Sr 62.5 -B7 MIdins ANP 1.2. 9% MIMMIMMOME. M, Ar 0. 11, An F 6% 0,262 - a 056 _ m em.na 0005 AMIi w .0) P <rc.ma ro nrrre wf. Y .x nl 0 n Yrtl wl Am<ni " DWkI 0.55. Ana 0,344 P-1 —T-1 < nYra .1Ammi k % z% a 0% Prl.n A•.. fl I• P.rF'n A 11,157 F MMMMTM ) •] eY ] f Sr MEMO ni P q A r� y i ] R Pm rarr fl .I Dwel r Um 5 ni 7 VMI, e Rr,Nenlial Prkil fl u <J ] r • ) t rat PrYin A wretl fm.I P., P:a. . a] 2 H2 K 5 IMMM Pw4m Dillrmc. A . ieame 5F I—* FAq 37,506 i .. Sr .. FM BIOC4B GAS 0,135 -0.315 X379 Block 8 2005• CURRENT IDifference P Ar . t . - 0 G,PC. Sr 62.5 -B7 MIdins ANP 1.2. 9% F.. -0.4 o - ..O% Ar 0. 11, An F 6% 0,262 - a 056 _ m em.na 0005 AMIi w .0) P <rc.ma ro nrrre wf. Y .x nl 0 n Yrtl wl Am<ni " DWkI 0.55. Ana 0,344 P-1 —T-1 < nYra .1Ammi k % z% a 0% Prl.n A•.. fl I• P.rF'n A 11,157 F 1.. SF ) •] eY ] f Sr 7 ni P q A r� y i ] R Pm rarr fl .I Dwel r Um 5 ni 7 VMI, e Rr,Nenlial Prkil fl u <J ] r • ) t rat PrYin A wretl fm.I P., P:a. . a] 2 H2 K 5 IS Pw4m Dillrmc. A . ieame 5F I—* FAq 37,506 i .. Sr .. FM BIOC4B GAS 0,135 -0.315 Block 2005• CURRENT Difference GMS Pr r Ara ITO krNly Li­ w . t . - 0 G,PC. 7 F F -26 -73,690 d Mea 1.2. 9% F -0.4 o - ..O% 0 en Yw•S wfo Arneni A P<rc n en YarJ w Amen. A 0. 11, An F 6% 0,262 - a 056 _ D nYrtlS < Dorn Yra s 9 . M Np x l DO 33 16 Rrs`tlenaitl Ilin U 1 F 0,11, nl -16 Rr<Nen in Pw4in fla T .IP Iin D -32 T.lal P.rYln ProaiJeU i 01 vr4in Diller.nce e B Si 6 ,Opp ic.4k SF tawrJ. fAR FAR Blot. c to u os o D - o.D D Total. (Blocks A e a C 200S• CURRENT . Difference Pr r Ar T . t . • 6 G,PC. ee. F 376,807 Sr 6 f 7 F•• -26 -73,690 r Pr en 1.2. 9% ] 6 .e % -0.4 o - ..O% 0 en Yw•S wfo Arneni A P<rc n en YarJ w Amen. A 0. 11, An F 6% 0,262 0.0 6% 0 nYaJS w/ m A 056 0,388 P rcen a e n Yr wf MI n M01 15,02% 2323% % fl M F i F i 01 flellad Arra e B Si 6 ,Opp tma Dweum una. to u os o mla Pw.m Rr Pm � Ta lal PMin Ed - 4 o S.W. s .e � S . o wnni nil Au v I A li a l F T—Ow FAR 21, i ] r • FAR Risk A.e.c 0..5 -0.06 'Par Miller Prog. Manag.ment'Pmject GSF by Black dated lone 28, 2005 " Gross Building S.F. does not Include balconies but don include amenity garden c ••• Mumum mmkr a brat.;ru d. Mm, mM In n Iwd Inlarn.ny au wJl nmwn wJ6kr IM aw,r Nu .mial -WIN. s E J En °• ' y � �0 r 4 a w v C N N LL tl° O m �O f f c P ° v, NlrydAn h n 8•PO P O• O a n -• o'• n•o •O • n• n_ fa�f _ _ f wl C O • e't O�OA Y ^ m f f 4 � %. t0 o 0 Q m ¢ O W a Z c �[ Cc O O Y. m m • li Y N A V m Y A n at f n C y �( P C ♦ x n m N N to • n 3 v • W r O nm' �. • Ic �O A Z f P I'll 1111 n f P f W f O • „� a n O O. W N 19 V d C { C n •. ' w p 7� v fnnn I c I N nP m f Y t°u+ f { M f � m mo u « V s i a � O O c r r N m d Y r Y r W Y C O d s � '� Y. n 9 O N �Oa¢¢�t° • 0 f n m co m f f ° <� f f � n f t0 n n w m f rt n m • h a _ V � V n n pi O O U s s � O C 0 ° M N ¢ V i � G Q Q m N Q It. Q 1,01 It i Q �■ C C Q L O V c < d 's m < lul- s � � . ■ c < � U G u G ■ � � 7y � � V m t < = If O- m v j Y NON A V 7 Y ■ c =� j � •�v_ < m tl< °� d A U U y V C Y m O °oa joL w ° e w O _�. < ° Y ti d c 00. ¢¢ ¢¢ ¢ r 1-• d< <� fA W Q O O �O f nn n Nmn.•t ° v, CO h n 8•PO Nnnnfn�f� O m O• O a n -• o'• n•o •O • n• n_ fa�f _ _ f wl C O • e't O�OA m ^ m f 4 � %. o 0 Q m ¢ W a Z c �[ Cc O O Y. m W m M it at f n C y N y C • m f 0 m O to •A W •m nm' �. • Ic �O A f P I'll 1111 n f P f f O • „� a n O O. W N 19 V d C { C n •. ' w p 7� v fnnn I c I N nP m f Y t°u+ f { M f � m mo � « V s i a � O O c r r N m d Y r Y r W Y C O d s � '� Y. n 9 O N �Oa¢¢�t° • 0 f n m co o -a <� i i •C E < i i 'C ° t0 ^ P f Y D G _ V � V n pi O U s s � O C C ° M ¢ V i � G Q Q m N Q d Q 1,01 It < Q �■ C C Q L O V O < d m � � . y U G u G ■ � � 7y � � V m t < tlow •pO NO O P j 1O .N'I r•1 OOOn■1O ° CO f•'wI' n 8•PO �' OIm •NO O f n p O O O O n O C 0 m • O f 4 � %. n 0 Q m ¢ W a c �[ Cc O O Y. m W m M C rsndm N m O •A V •m nm' �. • Ic �O A f P I'll 1111 n f P f f O • „� a n O O. W N 19 d C { C n w w p 7� e 7 C « V s i a � < c r r N O !� d Y r Y r W Y C .. Y 6 d s � '� Y. n 9 O _ �Oa¢¢�t° • 0 f n m co o -a <� 0 tl •pO NO O P j m fOn OOOn■1O • f CO n 8•PO �' OIm O f n n nn+0 C O n O C 0 m • O f 4 � %. n p Q m ¢ W Y. m m M rsndm N m O •A •m nm' • �O A f P O � O V Z W 19 C V V < go W + " Y < '� Y. n .� O _ • 0 f n m co o n { f O p m N a, t0 ^ P f Y D 1f1 _ n O n pi O U O M V i � G Q Q m N Q d Q 1,01 It s Q m Q Q C t < = O- m v j Y NON A V 7 Y ■ c =� j � •�v_ < A U U y V C °oa joL o 00. 01 r .'a <� 9 u yC V 3 g N C Y N Y tl C � V � v Y Y v C c _u a m i LL u a _a W _$ a v � � c o 5r e o a 3 00 a 12 w � S � N e p C d C C �E Y m E `m V j v d 0 n �o m f m o • f v to P f n n n a N n N ¢ ¢ W Y. m m M O •A cc A O V V < go W + N < '� Y. .� O _ V _ Y n Y Y _ n U V m Q Q m N Q d Q 1,01 in Q - Q m Q Q