Final Growth Management presentation_7-14-08July 2008Major Development Project Impact Major Development Project Impact Analysis and MitigationAnalysis and MitigationClarion AssociatesClarion AssociatesTischlerBiseTischlerBiseGlatting JacksonGlatting Jackson
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Consultant TeamConsultant Team City of Miami Beach Clarion Associates Project Management Impact Study Methodology Development Regulations Craig Richardson, Project Manager Chris Duerksen Chad Meadows TischlerBise Fiscal Analysis Modeling Paul Tischler Carson Bise Dwayne Guthrie Glatting Jackson Transportation Analysis Impact Study Methodology Tim Jackson Brent Lacy Frances Chandler-Marino Mary Raulerson Laurence LewisImpact Analysis
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Clarion AssociatesClarion AssociatesSpecialists in Growth Management Strategies and Code DraftingRecent Growth Management Strategies−Southern Beaufort County, SC (Hilton Head)−Blaine County, ID (Sun Valley)−Pitkin County, CO (Aspen)Recent Work in Florida−Lee County (Affordable Housing Mitigation Strategy) −Marathon and Islamorada (Affordable Housing Mitigation Strategy)−Plan for Redevelopment—Lehigh Acres−Sanibel (Home Size Policy Options)−St. Lucie County Code Amendments
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Clarion AssociatesClarion AssociatesFlorida Development Code Work−Palm Beach County −Sarasota County−Temple Terrace−AlachuaWorking in 24 StatesPrime ContractorKey Personnel−Craig Richardson−Chad Meadows
CC LL AA RR II OO NN TischlerBiseTischlerBiseFiscal, Economic, and Planning Consulting FirmOffices in Maryland and CaliforniaPrepared More Impact Fees and Fiscal Analyses than Any Other FirmWill Serve as Principal in Review and Analysis of Fiscal ImpactsKey Personnel−Paul Tischler−Carson Bise−Dwayne Guthrie
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Glatting Jackson Kercher AnglinGlatting Jackson Kercher AnglinTransportation PlanningOffices in Florida and AtlantaPre-Qualified Contractor by FDOTWill Serve in Review of City’s Transportation System, Off-Street Parking, and TransitKey Personnel−Laurence Lewis−Tim Jackson−Frances Chandler-Marino
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Overview of PresentationOverview of PresentationWork Program & ScheduleProject Goal SummaryBackground & ContextRecommendations Next Steps
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Work Program & ScheduleWork Program & SchedulePart I - Policy Framework--Task 1:Task 1:Review Baseline Data and StudiesReview Baseline Data and Studies……………….... 2007.... 2007Prepare Draft Goals; Reconnaissance/Interviews; Kickoff Meeting/Work Session--Task 2:Task 2:Policy Options MemorandumPolicy Options Memorandum……………….......... First half 2008.......... First half 2008Prepare and revise Draft Memo--Task 3:Task 3:Growth Management WorkshopGrowth Management Workshop…………………………July 14, 2008July 14, 2008Determine preferred policy option directionPart II – Implementation…………TBD−Comprehensive Plan Amendments−LDR Amendments−Other Strategies (as appropriate)
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Major Development Projects (Major Development Projects (MDPsMDPs) ) ––Current DefinitionCurrent Definition““Nonresidential and Nonresidential and mixedmixed--use use developments of developments of 50,000 square feet of 50,000 square feet of gross floor area or gross floor area or more located within more located within the light industrial the light industrial district or one of the district or one of the commercial zoning commercial zoning districts in the citydistricts in the city““
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Project Goal SummaryProject Goal SummaryOverOver--arching Project Goal:arching Project Goal:“Develop a planning and regulatory system to evaluate the impacts of MDPs within the city - then appropriately mitigate these impacts”Impacts to Examine:Impacts to Examine:(identified by Planning Board (identified by Planning Board --January 2007)January 2007)1. Off-Street Parking 5. Public Schools 2. Public Transportation 6. Neighborhood Context 3. Roads 7. Costs of Growth 4. Public Parks/Open Space 8. Workforce Housing
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Background and ContextBackground and ContextThe City has Spent the Last Decade The City has Spent the Last Decade Trying to Address Growth ConcernsTrying to Address Growth Concerns……1998 City-wide “Down Zoning”Reduction by 6,000 dwelling unitsFAR Increase by Referendum Only2004 Charter amendments limited FAR to 2001 levelsConcurrency Management SystemComprehensive approach to ensuring adequate infrastructure capacityLimits to Lot AggregationRemoved incentives for lot assembly in certain target areas2005 Ballot InitiativeNon-binding referendum to further regulate MDPs approvedEstablish a Major Project Review Process
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Background & ContextBackground & ContextPopulation/Housing Units−−The Permanent Population is Declining, but the Number of The Permanent Population is Declining, but the Number of Housing Units is Rebounding since 2000.Housing Units is Rebounding since 2000.62,11984,0862005(1/1/05 Miami Beach Tax Roll indicates 65,183 Housing Units)59,72362,41364,129Number of Housing Units87,93392,63996,298PopulationSource: US Census200019901980Year
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Background & ContextBackground & ContextNon-Residential Development−The City Added 1,093,530 square feet of Nonresidential Floor Area from 2000 - 2004. Approximately 40% OfficeApproximately 25% HotelApproximately 25% Structured Parking−−The Amount of New The Amount of New Nonresidential Development is Nonresidential Development is SignificantSignificant
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Roadway Capacity−17 of the 64 Major Intersections (27%) are Below LOS D for the PM Peak Hour in 1998.(Source Miami Beach “Environmental Scan”Document)−−The City is Essentially The City is Essentially ““BuiltBuilt--outout””, and Adding New Roadway , and Adding New Roadway Capacity is Very Difficult or Cost Capacity is Very Difficult or Cost Prohibitive.Prohibitive.Background & ContextBackground & Context
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Background & ContextBackground & ContextOff-Street Parking−−““Parking Shortages Exist in Various Areas and More Parking Shortages Exist in Various Areas and More Shortages are Expected With New Development as Shortages are Expected With New Development as available land is lost and more vehicles are addedavailable land is lost and more vehicles are added””(Source: 2003 Parking Supply/Demand Analysis) (Source: 2003 Parking Supply/Demand Analysis) Source Miami Beach “Environmental Scan” Document)13,588TOTAL8,333Metered Spaces5,255Attended FacilitiesNumber of SpacesType
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Background & ContextBackground & ContextPublic Transportation−−Transit Ridership is Relatively Flat, and may not be Popular AmoTransit Ridership is Relatively Flat, and may not be Popular Among ng Certain SocioCertain Socio--Economic Groups.Economic Groups.(Source Miami Beach “EnvironmentalScan”Document)
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Background & ContextBackground & ContextParks and Open Space−−More Open Space Resources are Needed in South Beach.More Open Space Resources are Needed in South Beach.2.86 Ac/1,000 peopleSouth BeachThe City has 726.83 Total Acres of Open Space(Source Miami Beach “Environmental Scan” Document)15 Ac/1,000 peopleMid-Beach6.74 Ac/1,000 peopleNorth BeachCurrent Level of Service [Adopted LOS = 6 Acres/1,000 people]
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Background & ContextBackground & ContextSchool Capacity−−Under Current Projection Methodologies, School Under Current Projection Methodologies, School Enrollment is Expected to Slightly Increase in the Coming Enrollment is Expected to Slightly Increase in the Coming Years.Years.7,4887,2547,111TOTALSource: City of Miami Beach Growth Management Outline1,6911,8452,107High School1,2731,1011,112Middle School4,5244,3083,892Elementary SchoolYear 2015Year 2010Year 2006
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Development PotentialDevelopment PotentialExisting Development and Potential Buildout8,008,359 sf of new floor area29,719,66721,711,308Nonresidential(square feet)7,827 new residential units73,01065,183Residential(units)Difference (Potential New Development)Estimated BuildoutExisting DevelopmentSource: Existing development is from 2005 tax rolls;Preliminary buildout results from analysis of zoning data
CC LL AA RR II OO NN RecommendationsRecommendationsThree Major Areas of Recommendations:−−1. Regulatory1. RegulatoryApplicabilityProceduralSubstantive−−2. Programmatic2. ProgrammaticParkingTransportation−−3. Funding3. FundingParkingWater/Sewer FeesSchools
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Regulatory RecommendationsRegulatory RecommendationsApplicability ChangesApplicability Changes1. Apply MDP requirements in all zoning districts2. Expand MDP definition to incorporate building function/character (not just size) 3. Exclude desirable features (e.g., roof gardens, public areas, etc.) from MDP floor area totals4. Establish variable size thresholds for MDPs in different portions of the city5. Incorporate higher MDP size triggers for mixed-use structures
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Regulatory Recommendations (Regulatory Recommendations (concon’’tt))Procedural ChangesProcedural Changes6. Establish MDP process as its own individual review procedure7. Relocate the MDP provisions to Chapter 118 of the LDRs8. Broaden the pre-application requirement to include other city departments (not just Planning)9. Clarify the roles of the Planning Board and the Design Review Board/Historic Preservation Board (Planning Board –use/operation; DRB/HPB – design)
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Regulatory Recommendations (Regulatory Recommendations (concon’’tt))Substantive ChangesSubstantive Changes10. Switch from guidelines to objective standards11. Incorporate new design and compatibility standards(façade modulation, height, pedestrian orientation, 4-sided architecture, roof form, “step-downs”, contextual bulk requirements, etc.)12. Include incentives for sustainable development(LEED, green roofs, xeriscaping, energy conservation, food supply protection)13. Include new park/open space standards(open space set-asides, public gathering spaces)14. Consider new workforce housing requirements(waiver of use & dimensional standards, reduction of parking and landscaping requirements, ombudsman)
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Regulatory Recommendations (Regulatory Recommendations (concon’’tt))Substantive Changes (Substantive Changes (ConCon’’tt))15. Revise and broaden transportation requirementsMore flexibility in off-street parking standardsNew pedestrian circulation provisionsTransit-oriented design features requiredRequirements for employer-sponsored Transportation Demand Management programsTargeted transportation impact analysis (focused within ¼mile of a proposed MDP)Mitigation fees tied to local projects & expanded to help fund transit alternatives
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Programmatic Programmatic RecommendationsRecommendationsContinue city initiative on local transit circulatorsIncorporate on- and off-island park and ride facilitiesProceed with public parking structure programsExplore use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Funding RecommendationsFunding RecommendationsBroaden the scope of the in-lieu parking feeUtilize a transportation impact fee to help fund transit and support alternative modes of transportationConsider an impact fee for park/open space acquisitionRecalibrate water and sewer feesConsider voluntary proffers for supplementary school programs
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Next StepsNext Steps……Provide direction on preferred policy directionsCommencement of Phase II, Implementation
CC LL AA RR II OO NN
CC LL AA RR II OO NN Should we further broaden application of Planning Board MDP reviShould we further broaden application of Planning Board MDP review process to entire ew process to entire city?city?Should we keep existing thresholds of 50,000 Should we keep existing thresholds of 50,000 s.fs.f. structure, or modify? Should threshold . structure, or modify? Should threshold be same citywide? For all uses?be same citywide? For all uses?Should MDP review process should be expanded to include:Should MDP review process should be expanded to include:−−Increased fees and requirements for mitigating local traffic? Increased fees and requirements for mitigating local traffic? Tying approvals to transportation Tying approvals to transportation mitigation projects contained in project bank.mitigation projects contained in project bank.−−Fees for transit improvements, local circulators, pedestrian/bicFees for transit improvements, local circulators, pedestrian/bicycle amenities, etc.ycle amenities, etc.−−Requirements for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) such as:Requirements for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) such as:offoff--peak start and end times for shiftspeak start and end times for shiftsfree or discounted transit passes for employeesfree or discounted transit passes for employeesRideshare/Rideshare/ridematchingridematching/carpool programs/carpool programsGuaranteed ride home / Car sharing programs Guaranteed ride home / Car sharing programs Should review process be expanded to codify neighborhood compatiShould review process be expanded to codify neighborhood compatibility standards, even bility standards, even if development rights are greater than what is nearby?if development rights are greater than what is nearby?Should MDP review process be expanded to include mandatory SustaShould MDP review process be expanded to include mandatory Sustainability requirements inability requirements (e.g., energy conservation, carbon reduction, LEED requirements,(e.g., energy conservation, carbon reduction, LEED requirements,etc.)etc.)Should MDP review process be expanded to require programs to addShould MDP review process be expanded to require programs to address affordable / ress affordable / workforce housing?workforce housing?Finally, timeframe for implementation of new ordinances, comp plFinally, timeframe for implementation of new ordinances, comp plan changes necessary.an changes necessary.Policy Questions to be answered by Commission:Policy Questions to be answered by Commission: