Loading...
04-24-90 SPECIAL9 OFFICIAL AGEN DA 1111 IN i CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI 6130 Sunset Drive ..Next Resolution: 61 -90 -9087 Next ordinance: 7-90- 14 48 SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING Next Comission Meeting: 5/01/90 APRIL 24TH, 1990 7:30 P.M. A. INVOCATION B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ORDINANCES- 2ND READING.AND PUBLIC HEARING: 1. An Ordinance adopting the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 4/5 (Planning Board /Administration) * * ** ** Presentation of Auditor's Report Discussion of City finances Discussion of bonding t You are hereby advised that if any person desires to appeal any decision with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA ADOPTING THE CITY IS COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission transmitted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan on October 17, 1989 to the State, Department of Community Affairs to bring the Plan into compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and the comments of the Department; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission desire to adopt the Plan. NO W& THEREFOREr BE IT ORDAINED Y THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH XIAMIj, FLORIDA: Section I. The Mayor and City Commission hereby adopt the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of the City including the language contained in the letter dated October 24, 1989, and attached hereto i as Exhibit "I" previously trans ted to the State, Department of Community Affairs. Section 2. That the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan shall include the designation of general retail on the. property located at 6600 Southwest 57th Avenue, South Miami, Florida, as legally described on Exhibit 112" attached hereto. Section 3. That this Ordinance shall become effective immediately, and the Mayor and City Commission of the City shall initiate all necessary changes to the official zoning map of the City. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1990. APPROVED MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLE RK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY-ATTORNEY t Deletions shown by ---- - - - - -- Additions shown by Passed on first readings October 17, 1989 Passed on second reading: 5 E t t -2- In short, we believe that the redevelopment of a,community shopping center on this site will return the ,property to its original use, will provide specific necessary services to the surrounding neighborhoods and will allow for MA provide for the achievement of the goals of the South miand Comprehensive Plan in a manner that is more compatible with the neighborhood than the current lox density office designation for the Property. IV. ADDITIONAL MATERM D' No additional material Is being submitted at this t , howeverl an Impact and Compatibility Analysis as required by pule 9J- 11.006(D) Florida Administrative Code will be submitted after the initial public rks fore the planning Board. In addition, to the issues raised by the Florida Administrative Rule, the Impact and tibility - -• s .• Analysis will also attempt to address any issues raised at the `initial public workshop with the Planning Board. iDC0612CHN _ i S rM _. mss. .. '. � ` .��.v... - • i �,- _ a ri r w , e. -3- �flsf�! Repwmu to I of Commitr 1 fa (W-U9 =to" %"La 07 COMM vescription of Proposed Plan Axerfteft 1 - Future present Urd 1020 YAP iii Ot 2-4 71 ct li o i Owtion S Paragrayb ara U , Proposed ruture p is _. Present TarA Use ID"IgutIons, i. Sirs of 3 o A Description of e- ilability of any demand on the, tollovir4 Public Factlitiest Sanitary sever • 1.9 f solid as 7-S Drainage 7-9 Potable a 7-9 Traffic Circulatign 10-13 S. Coupatibility ot the 2-6 f azen&ie t objectives and policies. s. -rim ® s•.�'� j4. •s'C�r'P+3 �d�g.���A A'• ♦ 1 t..�.,y[ -_ ��y� ��+r"�f+�Q� _ � .r • - ' Y • L .'�+• •6 tjtpr. a v s •...4•r �s .. ` ..Y•Y. `. r. •� " ii r r ••' e ms.. . ��. 1.• I _ • �• } i•s � • �]w s •� d:~i • .f 'i qM•�� �. 1 • ..4i , Nam man 1 - a z • s, + • i a F SOUTH IMAMI . - . LN a 8 Casa 9= mm ®. r MM • - ;.... � -•:gyp- � ' ®"°.'�`�'� s'q+ ' ® 's � .fir 4. ° j� e.` { .i���� .•..�• ".�•. i 1•.8l..��• .,,� � r-- 'mot, �." "-1 •• .® • • low i r - .! . IFI i s O • opt � r j f t } •_ --• ti t}I . =s . '.� a i --f� et�yP •• o �1+� ®f= Y1��-�4f •' •s 114t i•• � • s 1. • • - � � • e i . • J e t ta�;�a. f t,�- `j,�(,. ... ... � - °' °:...• �•. �•a+! �a-�dR�t ri'kf,' L��'`ao. .•.•fie •• .P ��i'2 . •Yy..� y e n_.— d • Conservation Goal l s To pmem WA OrAarm the s! ti ft t • js+ iT®1 1: In ordw to kolp &Cbivm CmIrIjame am by ISM Conti=& to botA TGqAIm . um part of rw devalm"t l 4 I CoupatibUlty Analysist US 1w, plam VU3. Ampal"ImAd sa COW== ill bei to be both q=;T-1; = Amu P, VA to aid in US law"C J'` HOC �S: .�.. � •. � • � •• •� _! �•.:; ,-� � J t • ••• rw 4 s, � • STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS Ci0iItaVIE%V DItIYi T A I I A K A S S I 1 0, 1t021OA 3239! March 6, 1990 ti c �a�aw Stepan B The sonorable William J. Porter Mayor of South Miami 6130 Sunset Drive Florida 33143 south $YlaTtl' - Dear mayor Porter: The Department has completed its review of the proposed ,comprehensive plan amendment for the City of South Miami, which was submitted on November 27, 1989. Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional and local agencies for their review and their comments are enclosed. I am enclosing the Department's Objectioqp, Recommendations �--� and Comments Report, issued pursuant to Rule 93- 11.020, Florida Administrative Cade. Upon receipt of this report, the City off. South Miami has 60 days in which to adopt the proposed amendment, adopt-the amendment with changes, or reject the amendment. e process for adoption of local comprehensive plan amendment is outlined in s.163.3184, Florida Statutes, and le 9J- 11.0110, Florida Administrative Code. i r -• within five working days of the date- of adoption, the City of south Miami mast submit the following to the Department: 1 give copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendment; A co 6f 44ditional changes. iaot rev ously'revieVed; 7► listing of findings by the local governin b y' if any,, E which were not included in the ordi7nance; and A- statement indicating the relattonship of the additional anges to the Department's objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. ` IMERMamouGEMINT ® WG AA'o C0K 7 L0 NT a RE )tom 4 g: L �i d The Honorable William J. Porter March 6, 1990 Page Tw® The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct the compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent. As a deviation from the requirement above, you are requested .•+� to provide one of the f ive copies of the adopted amendment directly to the Executive Director of the South Florida Regional Planning Council. The regional planni ncils have been asked to review adopted amendments to determine local comprehensive plan compliance with the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan. Please fo �. rd these documents to the regional planning council .oncu.rrent with your transmittal to the. Department. Your cooperafn in this'matter is appreciated. .If you wa�ld like the Department to participate in the public hearing for amendment adoption, such request shourd be received by the Department, certified mail, at least It days prior to the scheduled hearing: date. If you have any questions, please contact Bob Nave, Bureau Chief at (904) 487- 4545. ' Ven y s, e Paul R. Bradshaw, Director Division of Resource Planning and Management PRB/bdv Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Repdrt•- Review Agency Comments cc: Sonia Lama, Director, Planning and Zoning _ - a V. Jack OsterholV, Execrative A)ir4dtor, South Florida .._. .Regional Planning Council j is -- f I: Size 7.2 acres, Surrounding land Uses North: Multi - family (10 -20 (Bxfisting) - DU /acre) and single family (3 -9 DU /acre) South: ' commercial East: (Coral Cables): Public/Institutional West: Single family and Public/Institutional Surrounding Land Use No density maltiplo (Future) (2 stories) and single family (2 stories), to /net acre - and approximately 4 /acre (10,000 sq. ft lot) , _ respectively, South: Auto Services /Office Special Redevelopment -(2 stories) which allow heavy automobile services and repair, redevelopment of existing offices vitb special use approval. East (Coral Gable): Religious /Instructional tjse • (places of v ®..hip and related accessory uses, maxima F.A.R. 2.0), University use (Maximum 74.3t Of 0.5 for entire us). -- •. West: Single family- (2 stories) and Public and Semi- 'Public (4 stories), the latter' includes schools, unicipal facilities, vtil d churches. - None CIRCULATION E M �® OWICTIONS None a s The propoped text change (page 2.11, Traffic C,irculattoi Element) states that N(u]ntil December 31, 1995, the peak 29-r-IM level of service standard for US 1 small be 115 percent of the peak pgxjnd traffic count in 1959* (emphasis added). Those references to peak rind are eodif icatitns.to the , stipulated.,Aettlement agreement• vhich specifies' peak boU. Recommendatio n Revise the text to replace "peak period' with *peak hour.* 2. a) The proposed text change '(page 2.11, Traffic Circulation Element) states that w(a,fter December 311 1995, the peak gtrjo level of ;service standard shall be 150 percent of D capacity for US 10 (emphasis added). This reference to peak period is a modification to the stipulated settlement agreement 'which specifies peak ou . Recommendation b Revise the text to replace *peak period* with "peak - - -- hour.0 s b) The impact analysis of the proposed land use amendment on traffic circulation levels of service s does not include impacts on US 1 or Red Road, north of SW 66th Street. The submitted analysis has not demonstrated that the land use amendment, if } developed at the saxinium intensity permitted,, would be consistent with the level of service standard • established for US 1. This level of service 6 R 4 standard was partially Justified based on the City•s claim that it "substantially re ed the amount of ,development that was permitted under the plan effective prior to 1989..." (included as part of the Proposed text amendments) The analysis does not indicate that the proposed land use change is consistent with the justification. Revise the analysis to include Impacts on US I and ,Red Road (north of Sid 66th Street) and evaluate this impact on the level of service standards established for these roads. Include an evaluation of the land use amendment to demonstrate its compatibility with e reduced development justifi tion used to establish the l vel of service standard on US 1. If the impacts from the map amendment is significant. revisions to the Traffic Circulation slement may be necessary to maintain internal consistency. gals, objectives and Policies • - 3. J -5.007 L2jjcj 2 . The proposed revisions to Policy 1.1.1 '(Page 2.14, Traffic Circulation Element) regarding levels of service on US l reference peak "period" standards • rather than peak "hour.■ This modificktion to the stipulated settlement agreement does not meet tlia requirement to establisb peak hour level of service standards on roads, Recommendation Revise the ,three references in sub-paragraphs 1 and 2 of Policy 1.1.1 to replace "peak period* with *peak 5 hour." 4. 93-5.007(03. • Information has not been incluMed• monstrati -ng that _ the map amendment will be c"bmpatible with Policlt 1.1.2 to control roadway access or with a neighborhood traf f is faanagement program that was to have been , _ - implemented 'by 1990 (Policy 1.1.3). Information has not been included that this traffic managemeAt program � has been implemented and how the program will be applied to the land use change. These policies are located an page 2.15 of the Traffic Circulation Sleet t (Note that "operational /safety related improvements to ; 1 - 1 l impacts.` Include an analysis of the most intense development allowed for the land use and include information regarding the adequacy of potable water pressure to serve the land use at the adopted level of service standard of 20 psi. L Cbectivs and Policies 2. Adopted level of service standards for potable hater, sanitary sever and solid waste were not utilized in the impact assessment of the proposed map amendment. commendation Revise the impact analysis on public facilities to be based on the City's adopted level of service standards JPM for ',potable grater, sanitary sewer and solid waste. cO NTS None< CAPITAh IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT - -A. oBJECTIONS Bata and Analysis 1. 9J- 5.016 (il al and 9J-5.011121M Because the data and analysis has not addressed impacts rased on the adapted level of service standards, public facility needs to support the proposed amendment cannot be evaluated. Recommendation Include the data and analysis, as described in the objections cited for 9J- .006(2)(c), 9J- 5.007(2)(b) and -M$J- 5.011(1)(f)1. Based on this data and analysis ' identify public facility needs to support the map amen4ment, indicating general fiscal implications and relative priority of needs, and revise the schedule of improvements, if necessary. 9 2. 211 2 Ol6f2l (f) An assessment of the City's ability to finance capital improvements required based on the most intense development allowed for the proposed land use is not included. - econendation - include an assessment of the City': ability to fina capital improvements based on the most intense development allowed for the proposed land use. e��s. Cb actives _and�alicies 3. ®6.016 31 tcl4 The proposed revisions to Policy 1.2.7 (page 8.9, - Capital Improvements Element) concerning levels of service on US 1 refers to peak "period" standards rather than peak "hour". This modification to the stipulated settlement agreement does not meet the requirement to establish peak hoar level of service standards for roadways. Recommendation Revise the three references in sub- paragraphs 1 and 2 in Policy 1.2.7 to replace "peak period" with `peak hour.* B. CoMKENTS 1. The level of service standard established for Sunset Drive has been established as •F" on this state road and should be changed to "E." This change on page 2.21, in Table 2 -9 on page 2.13, in Policy 1.1.1 on page 2.14 of the Traffic Circulation Element and in Policy 1.2.7 on page 8.9 of the Capital Improvement Element. i'CNSISTE?lCY WITH T STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLM A. OWECTIONS 1.� -5 ®021 The proposed map amendment is inconsistent with the following policy of the State Comprehensive Flan (s.187.201, F.S.)s Policy (16)(b)1., to encourage efficient development in 10 -r RESPONSE TO DEP OF COMMMITT "AFFAIRS OBJECTIONS, ® TIONS AND COMMMM CITy OF SOUTH XIMI comprehensive Plan Amendments USE ELZMZNT A OBJF=Ioxs Data None ai si 1. 2J-5.006(2 a and 9J -5.006 3 c 3 The analysis of the a ailability of public facilities at the adopted level of service,standarda, to serve the plan amendment is incomplete. The City's adopted level of serv:Lce standards for solid waste, potable water and sanitary sewer were not used in the analysis. In addition, traffic impacts on -U.S. 1 were not considered nor were impacts on Red Road north of S.ii. 66th Street, where Red Road is a two lane facility currently operating at level of service F (see attached comments from the Florida Department of Transportation). The analysis is also incomplete because the impacts on public facilities is limited to a 135, 000 square foot shopp&ng center rather than the maximums or most intense development that would be allowed on the site if the land use map change is approved and the site developed. Le s_ nse s a) The City's adopted level of "service standards for traffic, solid waste, potable water and sanitary sewers have now been spG =ifically, utilized in the analysis presented below. b) An analysis of the traffic impacts on U.S. I and Red Road North of S . W . 56th Street are presented below. • c) The maximum or most intense development' permitted under the Land Development Regulations adopted on October 26, 1989 is approximately 250,000 i arm feet. The revised analysis presented j>elow is based on this "maximum permitted intensity "_ however, the actual development proposed by the Brandon Company is approximately 125,000 square feet, therefore, there is a 100 percent safety factor built into the analyses presented. 2. 9J- 5.00612ltcl The City did not include an analysis of the deed for - the proposed land use change as it relates to the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population, including the category of the proposed land use, density and intensity of uses, the estimated gross acreage by category and the description of the methodology used. Response: Rule 9J-5.006(2) establishes certain data and analysis requirements for the preparation of the Future Land Use Element. As part of the required data and analysis, Section 9J- 5.006(2)(c) establishes a requirement to analyze "the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population. The City of South Xiami - provided; all required data and analysis as part of the preparation and adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan in January 1969. The Department found that the City's Future Land Use Element was in compliance with all applicable requirements. The property covered by the Future Land Use Map Amendment ( the *Property*) involves only 7.2 acres of land or ' less ' than one -half of one percent of the area covered by the Future Land Use Map As shown on the existing land use nap, the Property is currently 'ised for commercial, purposes. Indeed, it has been used for commercial purposes for more than twenty years. There: are no residential uses on the Property. The current future land use designation of the Property is Low Intensity office. The Low intensity office use does not contemplate any residential uses. The proposed _ future land use designation is General Retail. Therefore, this amendment involves a change from-one non - residential land use to another non- residential land use and will have no impact positive or negative =S`n the "amount of land needed to accommodate future population•. Moreover, as shown in the adopted plan, •�.o the population of the City of South Miami is projected to decline over the next ten to fifteen years, therefore, there will be a decreasing need for residential rand in the future. -2- With regard to the possible need to -justify- the proposed change from Office Use to Commercial use, it should be noted that the Property is already used for commercial purposes. The proposed future land use nap amendment does not represent a change in the actual use of the Property. Moreover, the City of South Miami and in particular the Property, is part of the urban core of Dade County. The Property is accross the street from the City of Coral Gables and the University of Miami. Two blocks north and -eight blocks ` south of the Property is unincorporated Dade County. The South Miami Metrorail Station is within 1000" feet of the Property. Hence, it is not possible or reasonable to undertake a study to "Justify" the need for the proposed amendment on such a small tract of land, particularly as. -it relates solely to South Miami. Moreover, the choice of which non- residential land use designation is the proper one for this 7.2 acre tract of land properly falls within the legislative discretion of the City of South Miami City Commission. 3. 9J- 5.006(2)(a) and 9J- 5.006LDJb)4. Information submitted with the map amendment states that Red Road (S.W. 57th Avenue) •has been designated as a " facility of historical significance • ( see page 7, Red -Dixie Center, Responses to'9J- 11.006(l)(b)). It is further stated that 'only safety /operational improvements to Red Road are proposed. •. Since these improvements are not specified, it cannon be determined if these improvements will be consistent with Objection 1.3 (page 1.8, Future Land Use Element ) to 0[p]reserve historic resources by experiencing no demolition or reconfiguration of the specified resources.• Response The proposed improvements to Red Road (S*w. 57th Avenue) ere shown on Exhibit` A attached to this response. The proposed improvements have been reviewed and conceptually approved by the FDOT (see Exhibit B). All of the proposed improvements can be accomplished within the limits of the existing pavement base, therefore, the proposed improvements do not involve the widening of Red Road and are consistent with Objective 1.3 of the future Land Use Element. -3- a a Future Land 'Use Map 4. 9J- 5.006(4) The proposed Future Land Use Map amendment is not supported by data and analysis of the availability of facilities and services as cited in the objections for 9J- 5.006(2)(a), I 9J- 5.006(2)(c), "9J- 5.006(2)(b). 9J- 5.011(1)(f)l., 9J- 5.016(1)(a) and (2)(b). Res22nse, Section 9J- 5.006 (4) requires the proposed distribution, extent and location of numerous land use types and natural resources to be shown on the Future Land Use Map. The City complied with these requirements in the initial adoption of its comprehensive plan. The proposed map amendment changes only the Low Intensity Office land use designation of the Property to General Retail. None of the other land use or natural - resources referred to in Section 9J- 5.006(4) are affected by or applicable to the proposed amendment. g. CO NTS _. Done TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEHENT A. OBJECTIONS Data None Analysis 1. 9J- 5.007(2?ial The proposed text change (page 2.11, Traffic Circulation element) states that (u)ntil December 31, 1995, the peak ptLiLod level of service standard for U.S. 1 shall be 115 percent of the peak period traffic count in 1989' (emphasis added). These references to peak period are modifications to the stipulated _ settlCment. agreeiaent which specifies peak hour. Response,, The text has been changed to peak hour instead of peak period in accordance with the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. j• -4 2. 91- 5.007(2) Lbl a) The proposed text change ( page 2.11, Traffic Circulation Element) states that [a'fter December 31, 1995, the peak eP - riod level of service standard shall be 150 percent of D capacity for U.S. 1' (emphasis added). This reference to peak period is a modification to the stipulated settlement agreement vhich specifies peak hour. Response: The text has been changed to peak hour instead of peak period in accordance with the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. b) The impact analysis of the proposed- land use amendment on traffic circulation levels of service does not include impacts on U.S. 1 or Red Road, north of S.W. 66th Street. The submitted analysis has not demonstrated that the land use amendment, if 'developed at the maximum intensity permitted, would be consistent with the level of service standxd established for U.S. 1. This level -of service standard was partially justified based on the City's claim that it ®substantially reduced the amount of development that was permitted under the plan effective prior to 1989. .' (included as part of ' the proposed text amendments). _ The analysis does not indicate that the proposed land use change is consistent with the justification. .. - Responses _ 1) The peak hour level of service established for U.S. 1 until December 31, 1995 'is 115 percent of the peak hour traffic count in 1989. As described in' more ' detail in Exhibit C, the peak hour traffic • count on U.S. i in 1989 was 6,435 The maximum- permitted intensity of development under the General Retail Land Use would generate, approximately 77 new peak hour trips on U.S. 1 (see Exhibit C). This represents only 1.20 .r percent of the 1989 peak hour traffic count, - therefore. , the established level of sere'ce on ` U.S. 1 can easily be aintai -net. if 'the am n aaerit to General Retail is approved. Indeed; as compared to the present land use designation of Low intensity office, the proposed General Retail designation will generate fewer peak hour trips. ®5® 2) The adopted level of service for Red Road is ®F`. As shown in the comprehensive plan, the existing level of service on Red Road between V.S. 1 and S.W. filth Street is A and north of S.W. 64th Street is apparently?, although no traffic counts have been taken in that area. As described in detail and shown in the analysis presented in Exhibit 0 Level of Service A will be maintained- on the four lane section of Red Road and Level of Service F will be maintained on the two lane section of Red Road .north of S.W. 66th Street. Therefore, the established Level of Service for Red Road can be maintained. Moreover, full development of the property under the General Retail land use designation will produce less peak hour traffic than full development under the current Low Intensity Office designation. Goals, Ob actives and Policies 3. 93 -5 , 007 (3,L(c } 1. The proposed revisions to Policy- 1.1.1 (page 2.14, Traffic Circulation Element) regarding levels of _ service on U.S. 1 reference peak 'period* standards rather than peak *hour". This modification to the Stipulated Settlement Agreement does not meet the requirement to establish peak;; hour level of service standards on road. Response. •� The text has been changed to }peak hour instead of peak period in accordance with the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Oa 7 c 3 4, 9J�- S I } *� Information has ` not been included demonstrating that the map amendment will be compatible with Policy 1,1.2 to control roadway access or with a neighborhood - traffic management program that was to r Iffave been implemented by 1990 (Policy 1.1.3) . Information has not been included that this traffic management program has been implemented and how the program will be - applied to the land use change. These policies are located on gage 2..15 of the Traffic Circulation ,glement ( to that - operational /safety related 4mirroe3ements to the adjacent roadway network will_)� undertaken, .se pa4e 9 of Red -Dixie Center, Responses to 9J- 11,406(1' (b). Therefore, the needed improvements maybe inconsistent with Policies 1.1.2 a 6 Responsez The proposed roadway improvements and site plan shown on Exhibit A. The proposed roadway improvements and site plan are consistent with policies 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 in several ways. One of the two existing driveways on S.W. 57th Avenue will be eliminated and s fully functional intersection will be created at the project entrancelL.eVante. Associated with this improvement will be the elimination of the existing primary project drivevay on S.W. 66th Street. Only minor secondary project access will be provided on S.W. 66th Street thereby substantially reducing Project traffic on S.W. 66th Street. The primary access to the project will be from Red Road which is a minor arterial roadway. in addition, the pro sed . improvements will eliminate westbound ;left turns from Red Road onto S.W. 66th Street thereby eliminating a substantial number of existing vehicles seeking a 'short coat' through the residential neighborhood located west and north of the Property• in short, the proposed improvements will both enhance traf f is flow on iced Road and implement the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program eliminating several existing sources of "short cut' trips through the adjoining neighborhood. s. COKKKM 1. The level of service standard established for Sunset "'• Drive has been established as 'F' on the state road and should be changed to 'E'. This change should be made on page 2. 11, in Table 2 -9 on page- 2.13, in Policy 1.1.1 on page 2.16 of the ` Traffic Circulation Element and Policy 1.2.7 on page 5.9 of the Capital improvements Element to ensure compatibility with the standards established by the Florida Department of Transportation. Res The Department has already reviewed the level of service established for Sunset Drive in its initial ~_ ccopliance review of the Comprehensive plan and found it to be in compliance. -7- SA2iITART $EiiLR SOLID WASH DRRIMACB TER XATUPAsTL GR+.,ptJI1DWATER AQUIFER RECHARGS A. OBJECTIONS Data and Analysis 1• 9J-5•0I111)(f11- -- The facility capacity analysis regarding the impact of the prposed land use map amendment on potable water, solid waste and sanitary sewer is not based on the City's adopted level of service standards. In addition, the impact that is included does not address the impact for the most intense development allowed for the land use. Also, information -_ on page 4.5, indicates some unspecified sections of the City experience low water pressure due to small' diameter distribution lines. It is unknown if the proposed Land use map amendment is in one of these areas. Goals, {3bjectives and Policies 1. 9J- 5.011(21LcJ2. Adopted level of service standards for potable water, sanitary sewer and solid waste were not utilized in the impact assessment of the proposed map amendment. Res nse: The City of South Miami adopted Level Zf Service (Los) standards for grater, sewer and solid waste are as follows Potable water 150 gallons per person per day • sanitary Sewer. 100 gallons per person per day Solid waste 7.6 pounds per person per day These Level of Service standards are for residential uses. Therefore, a residential to commercial corjverstion factor must be applied in order to evaluate the proposed General Retail Amendment. The actual service provider. for both water and sewer . is Ve Miami Dade dater and -Sewer Authority ..Department, (VASAD) . NASA has established a water use standard•. for commercial projects of 5 gallons per day per 100 square feet of commercial use. Therefore, if the Property were developed to its theoretical maximum of 250,000 square feet WASi1D would expect , daily water usage of 12,500 gallons per day. Based upon the South Miami LOS for potable water this is the equivalent of a population of 83.33 persons. Applying this population equivalent to the sanitary sewer and solid waste LOS standards provides the following: Equivalent Los standard usage Population potable hater 83.33 persona iso gallons /day 12,SOO gallons /day sanitary sewer 83.33 persons 104 gallons /day. 8,333 gallons /day solid Waste 83.33 persons 7.6 pounds/day 633.3 pounds/day WASAD has provided a letter indicating that it has the capacity to provide both water and sewer service.to the Property (see Exhibit 9) The Alexander Orr Water Treatment Plant, which supplies water to the Property has a current capacity of 220 million gallons per day with planned expansions to 256 MGD and 290 XGD in 1993 and 3002 respectively. The projected peak demands for 1993 is 224 MGD and for 2005 is 269 MGD. Therefore, there is more than ample water capacity available to meet the .XQ5 standard. The Central District Sewage Treatment Plant will provide sewage disposal for the Property. The plant has been recently expanded to provide a treatment capacity of 220 million gallons per day. This capacity is more than adequate to provide service to the Property and the entire city for the foreseeable future. Therefore,' the LOS standards for sewer can be easily maintained. Further, as indicated in the _•'R letter, the cost of any and all extensions or expansions of lines necessary to serve the property will be the sole responsibility of the property owner. Therefore, there will be no fiscal burden placed on any public entity for the provision of water and sewer service to the Property. Solid waste collection is available from. either the city of South Miami or from any of several licensed 'pfivate haulers. All garbage and trash collected is taken to thS S.B. 72nd Street Transfer Station which has a current capacity of 8400 tons per day. Current usage of this facility is only 1200 tons per day and the Property is expected to generate Tess than one -half -on per day, -hence there is plenty of capacity available. In addition, the County :landfills currently have substantial: excess capacity and are projected to have a remaining excess capacity of mare than 7 million tons in the year 1999. Hence, the LOSS 'standards for solid waste can also easily be maintained. C0 ITS None I�xti r ELEMEW A. OBJECTIONS Data and Analysis 1. 9i- 5.016(l)(a) and 9J- 5.016(21(m ) . Because the data and analysis has not addressed impacts based on the adopted level of service standards, public facility needs to support the proposed amendment cannot be evaluated. 2. 9J- 5.01j{2L(fj - - An assessment of the City's ability to finance capital improvements required based on the most intense development allowed for the proposed land use is not included. Response .The plows showing the proposed roadway improvements and the WASAD leer identify a number of roadway, water and sewer improvements which will be required or are at least desirable to provide service to the Property. Under the existing policies of the City and WASA®, the cost of all improvements required to provide service and /or sheet the LOS standards; will be the sole and complete responsibility of the owner of the property. Further, all development orders approved by the City for the Property will be conditioned upon the owner providing all necessary improvements and facil- it„ies required to maintain the adopted LOS standards. Since the owner of the property Will be solely responsibility for providing all necessary improvements and facilities, the City will not be required to finance any capital improvements and will only benef.ix. - -frost the increased tax revenues generated by the ._proposed project. ®10- 9 Goals, Objectives and Policies 3. 9J- 5.016(3)(c)4. The proposed revisions to Policy 1.2.7 (Page 5.9, Capital Improvements Element) concerning levels of service on U.S. I refers to peak •period• standards rather than peak '•hour•. This modification" to the Stipulated- Settlemgnt Agreement does not meet the requirement to establish peak hour level of service standards for roadways. Response: The text has been changed to park hour instead of peak period in accordance with the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. • �. -COHMNTS 1. The level of service standard established for Sunset Drive has been established as 'F • on this state road and should be changed to 'Es. This change on page 2.11, in Table.2 -2 -Qn page 2.13, in Policy 1.1.1 on • page 2.14 of the 'traffic Circulation Element and in Policy 1.2.7 on page 8.9 of the Capital Improvement Element. 2. The Department has already reviewed the level of service established for Sunset Drive in its initial compliance review of the Comprehensive Plan and found it to be in compliance. Ct�P�SSTEPB NI T STAVE CD SIVE PLAN A. OWECTIONS 1. 9J -5.021 - The proposed map amendment is inconsistent with the following policy of the State Comprehensive Plan (6.187.201, F.S. ) Policy (16)(b)1., to encourage efficient development in areas which will have the capacity to service new population.and commerce. Response: - As shown above, there is already adequate infrastructure capacity to serve the Property. In addition, the City and the 'Property are within the - -11- ., sue• r'r� - urban inf ill area of Dads County. Henc* the proposed amendment is completely consistent with the state plan. 9. -.CO N'S None C ®3�i5Y� 1�C7 tiITH THE GI CT PLAN O C?I S i. 9J -5.021 The proposed land use sap amendment is inconsistent with the following goal and policy of the Regional plan for South Florida: Goal 59.1 and Policy 54.1.5, maximizing the. use of existing infrastructure and increase densities on land uses in areas where excess capacity for public infrastructure exists. Response: As shown above, there is existing adequate infrastructure capacity available to serve the Property. Hence, the proposed amendment is fully consistent with the Regional Plan. 176RLD490E a -12- • -��� - '.� __ _ ; - _��F•�— � —. : _... Via.,.,_, _f - - -- — page •. i. �.`. a1 e•ta. -w mss. �„i e�, ktO.F i : �••: • • ". 1i • i r Ia �-r••.• 3 +,Ai�•. • • !° ..i . • r �• .. •° °+ • V. • �• • ' ° • 9 -.,... t t pres t t , have pail la water and a4V4ks systen capacity for the rater nc project. IMOV•r, the availability of aat®s and as ervico for subject property is conditional upon the approval of various regulatory asmies and no odntinoing unconditional ent can be made at this time. • ConsequentlP this letter is for informational purpom only and Is not- iatssded a a c t for service* All nditions noted herein are effectiv, only for sixty 0! days the dato Of is letter• n evelo t plans for subject pr y are tizalixed# and Upon the owner's rwpestr we X21 be p eased to ,& pace n agre nt for wat and never s r 1oes.,p lded e par eat is able to offer sa e i s at t ` of the c etea a est. The afire t will detail s mir ats for • eo f-site on-site facilities# i of icc ection, a cation urge , capacity reservation and all other terms and conditions oecessa for s4krvice in acco rd Frith► the riapast"At s__ Rules d ulatiosa.; •_ we can . •of:. Surther •- assistance In this _ tters. =- please colitact . Very truly you , • Militias bevel t ° ]Raw business Manager :l cot Dulce PLOariSU99 Rick iss =' = "I . .. , ;*• { • ® • - .• 0�.^5,�2; 36 Z.Eda£`,F.. w AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN April 9, 1990 ANTHONY AB /BRANDON COMPANY TOTAL LAND AREA 7.2 ACRES 313,632 sq ft I.- EXISTING DEVELOPMENT - LO, ZONING DISTRICT Existing F.A.R. 0.19 Existing Building Area (square feet) 60,960 Existing Number of Parking Spaces 372 Existing Building height (stories) 1 II. MAXIMUM POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - LO ZONING DISTRICT Maximum F.A.R. 0.70 - Maximum Buildable Area (sq ft) 219,543 Required Number of Parking Spaces (Office) 879 Maximum Allowable Building Height (stories) 2 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BY APPLICANT - GR ZONING DISTRICT Proposed F.A.R. 0.43 Proposed Building Area (square feet) 235,000 Required Number of Parking Spaces (Retail) - 450 Proposed Building Height (stories) 2 Iii. MAXIMUM POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - GR ZONING DISTRICT Maximum F.A.R. 0.80 Maximum Buildable Area (sq ft) 250,906 Required Number of Parking Spaces (Retail) 837 Maximum Allowable Building Height (stories) 2 -_ I