LTC 139-2004 Island Gardens/Watson Island - Notification of Proposed Change
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
Office of the City Manager
Letter to Commission No. 139-2004
m
From:
Mayor David Dermer and Date: June 2, 2004
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez ~. .y-",_r
City Manager ()--v
ISLAND GARDENS I WATSON ISLAND - NOTIFICATION OF PROPOSED
CHANGE
To:
Subject:
The purpose of this LTC is to update the Mayor and City Commission on the status of the
Notification of Proposed Change (NOPC) to the Downtown Miami Development of
Regional Impact (DRI).
On May 13, 2004, the Administration transmitted comments on the NOPC to the South
Florida Regional Planning Council (the "Council"). This package of comments included:
. Resolution 2004-25566, which the City Commission adopted on May 5, 2004
· May 5, 2004 Commission Memorandum
. May 5, 2004 Transcript of the Watson Island discussion item
. DMJM Harris (City's transportation consultant) Report on their review of the
Transportation Assessment submitted as part of the NOPC
. Urban Environmental League letter to the City of Miami
. February 7, 2002 letter to the City of Miami
On May 20, 2004, Shutts & Bowen, LLP, representing Flagstone Island Gardens,
submitted their response to the City of Miami Beach's comments to the South Florida
Regional Planning Council. Additionally, on May 27,2004, the Downtown Development
Authority also submitted its response to the City's comments to the Council. Copies of their
responses are attached.
On May 28, 2004, the South Florida Regional Planning Council submitted its comments on
the NOPC to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). In this letter, Council
staff recommends the proposed changes be determined to be a substantial deviation,
because the proposed project will require additional development order amendments or
conditions to satisfy impacts created by the marina that have not been identified as
proposed changes to the development order for the Downtown Miami - Increment II DR!.
The Council had comments on Seagrass and Benthic Community Mitigation and on
Transportation, and their letter states that portions of the traffic analysis do not clearly and
convincingly rebut the presumption that no roadways will be significantly impacted.
Additionally, the Council states that the Development Order should specify that
development on Watson Island is limited to the types and amounts proposed within the
NOPC and are not subject to the application of the existing flexibility matrix. As an
example, the Council recommends that the uses on Watson Island cannot be converted to
residential uses without an amendment to the comprehensive plan and an amendment to
the DRI.
The Council identifies is that no development, including the vested portion of the marina
uses, should be permitted until issues related to the existing public use deed restriction on
the land has been resolved with the State. The Council also forwarded to the DCA the
City's comments, as well as comments from the Florida Department of Transportation,
DERM, and the South Florida Water Management District.
The Council letter to DCA notes that "the development order should specify that
development on Watson Island is limited to types and amounts proposed within this
application and is not subject to application of the existing flexibility matrix. For example,
the uses on Watson Island cannot be converted to residential uses without an amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan and an amendment to the DR!."
On May 28, 2004, the Department of Community Affairs transmitted its comments to the
City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department. In this letter, DCA agrees with the
Council's concerns and states that it has determined that additional modifications are
necessary to ensure that the NOPC does not require review as a substantial deviation to
the DRI development order.
On June 2, 2004, the City of Miami Planning Advisory Board will meet to consider a Major
Use Special Permit (MUSP) for the Island Gardens Project. In the agenda item regarding
the MUSP approval for Island Gardens project, the memorandum includes a finding that
the proposed development project will benefit the area by creating new residential and
commercial opportunities on Watson Island..." (i.e. 105 fractional ownership units.)
Therefore, the introduction of residential uses requires both Comprehensive Plan and DRI
amendments, neither which have been sought to our knowledge. This obviously also
requires a review of the impact on hurricane evacuation, which at this point has not been
required by SFRPC as no residential had been contemplated.
Future Pendinq Actions
Another issue related to Watson Island is the public use deed restriction. The development
property was deeded to the City of Miami by the State of Florida in 1949. The City of Miami
is currently processing a waiver of the deed restriction, which must be approved by the
Florida Cabinet. This item is expected to go to the Cabinet Aides on June 16 and to the
Cabinet for approval on June 24.
The City Commission should discuss the City of Miami Beach's position, if any. relative to
the aforementioned issues. Accordingly, a discussion item has been scheduled on the
June 9, 2004, City Commission agenda.
If you have any comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
JMG\Ctfc/kc
c: Murray Dubbin, City Attorney
Robert Parcher, City Clerk
Christina M. Cuervo, Assistant City Manager
Jorge Gomez, Planning Director
Fred Beckman, Public Works Director
Kevin Crowder, Economic Development Division Director
Attachments:
May 28, 2004 DCA Letter
May 28, 2004 South Florida Regional Planning Council Letter
May 21,2004 South Florida Water Management District Letter
May 14, 2004 Miami-Dade County DERM Letter
April 29, 2004 Kittelson & Associated Inc. Letter
May 13, 2004 City of Miami Beach Letter
May 20, 2004 Shutts & Bowen Letter
May 27, 2004 Downtown Development Authority Letter
June 2, 2004 Miami Planning Advisory Board Agenda Item - Analysis for Major Use
Special Permit for the Island Gardens Project
N:\$ALLIKEVIN\Commission Items\L TCs\Watson Island June 20042.doc
Co.. Cl
-\ .r::- ::u
,"''''", 'z rn
... j
~. 0
. I
fT'l rn
?J W
.... -
~.,
(fJ :t>' -<
3
<=> N m
...., 0
-n W
n en
rn
--
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
"Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home"
JEB BUSH
Govemor
THADDEUS L. COHEN, AlA
Secretary
May 28, 2004
Ms. Lourdes Y. Slazyk
City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department
444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, Third Floor
Miami, Florida 33130
Dear Ms. Slazyk:
The Department has reviewed the Notice of Proposed Change, received on April 14,
2004, for the Downtown Miami Increment II, which proposes to modify the boundary to allow
for the development of a hotel, related retail and marina uses on Watson Island. The proposed
change to modify the boundary ofthe NOPC and to expand the marina use constitute changes
that are subject to Section 380.06(l9)(e)(3), F.S., and are presumed to result in a substantial
deviation, unless adequately rebutted. The Department has determined that additional
modifications are necessary to ensure that the NOPC does not require review as a substantial
deviation to the DRI development order.
The NOPC clearly explains the intent to develop the island as previously described;
however, the NOPC does not propose any specific development order (DO) conditions to limit
the development in accordance with the proposed development plan. As such, the development
order would potentially allow the reallocation of uses based on the flexibility matrix within the
current DO. This could potentially result in the development of uses on the island, resulting in
regional impacts not previously reviewed. To correct this problem, the development order
should be amended to include a condition that specifies the uses allocated to the Watson Island
parcel and to incorporate a basic master plan for those uses.
The Department is also concerned that the proposed marina may result in a substantial
deviation, unless it is clearly established that the proposed redevelopment of the marina would
not result in a divesting of the vested marina use as described in our November 15, 2004 binding
letter (BLIVR 11003-001), shown in Exhibit C to the NOPC. In order to retain vesting, the
redevelopment must occur within the same footprint as the vested marina. In that case, the
resulting new marina use would be eight slips, which is less than the substantial deviation
threshold set forth in Section 380.06(19)(b), which provides that an additional 20 slips would
trigger a substantial deviation. The development order should demonstrate that no more than 19
slips would occur outside of the vested footprint.
Ms. Slazyk
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD $ TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399.2100
Phone: 850.488.8466/Suncom 278.8466 FAX: 850.921.0781 /Suncom 291.0781
Internet address: htto:llwww.dca.state.fl.us
CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE
2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212
Marathon, FL 33050-2227
(305) 2B9.2402
COMMUNITY PLANNING
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee. FL 32399-2100
(B5O) 4B8-2356
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee. FL 32399-2100
(B5O) 413-9969
.HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
(B50) 4B8-7956
May 28, 2004
Page Two
Finally, theDepartment has received the attached letter, dated May 28, 2004, from the
South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC), which letter sets forth similar concerns. We
recommend that the City and applicant coordinate with the SFRPC staff to resolve the concerns
outlined in their letter before proceeding to a final public hearing. If you have any questions
regarding our concerns, please contact Ken Metcalf, AICP, Regional Planning Administrator, at
(850) 922-1807.
Sincerely,
Charles Gauthier, AICP
Chief, Office of Comprehensive Planning
cc: Ms. Carolyn Dekle, Executive Director, SFRPC
Ms. Dana Nottingham, Executive Director, DDA
Ms. Judith Burke
South
Florida
Regional
Planning
Council
*
" 'I';,~~'!':
.,
''Or: ~ ,_,.._
........ ; ..
2C-1; f" Y ,,! nl
'). "'--
'-, ( J
May 28, 2004
Mr. Dickson Ezeala
Florida Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Re: Increment II of the Downtown Miami Development of Regional Impact (DRI)
Island Gardens/Watson Island - Notification of Proposed Change
Dear Mr. Ezeala:
On April 13, 2005, Council staff received a Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) for the Downtown Miami
- Increment II DRI. The application proposes to increase the land area of the Downtown Miami DRI to
accommodate the development of a marina, hotel and retail uses on a portion of Watson Island.
Council staff does not object to this development plan; however, Council staff recommends the proposed
changes be determined to be a substantial deviation, pursuant to Chapter 380.06(19), F.5. because the
proposed project will require additional development order amendments or conditions to satisfy impacts
created by the marina that have not been identified as proposed changes to the development order for the
Downtown Miami - Increment II DR!. Additionally, portions of the traffic analysis do not clearly and
convincingly rebutt the presumption that no roadways will be significantly impacted. Prior to the
adoption of any amendments to the development order the City of Miami should ensure that the
following issues have been addressed.
Seagrass and Benthic Community Mitie:ation
The application identifies the proposed marina will require mitigation for impacts to seagrass beds and
benthic communities, including the relocation of corals. According to the analysis submitted, the project
would require a mitigation area of 1.87 acres. This area was determined by utilizing a mitigation ratio of
3 to 1, while the appropriate mitigation ratio is reported by the South Florida Water Management District
to be 3.5 to 1. No development order conditions have been proposed to address this impact. Pursuant to
Rule 9J-2.041(7), F.5. the development order shall establish the acreage, location, and type of habitat of
offsite mitigation.
The application describes a relocation plan for corals that would commence in May 2004. This proposed
relocation plan needs to be updated and integrated as part of the development order as should NOPC
Exhibits D-4 through D-6 that depict the location of the marina and marina slips as well as procedures for
Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures, and waste pumpout and disposal.
The monitoring of seagrass mitigation areas and coral relocations should also be incorporated into the
Annual Monitoring Report provisions.
3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140, Hollywood, Florida 33021
Broward (954) 985-4416, State (800) 985-4416
SunCom 473-4416, FAX (954) 985-4417, Sun Com FAX 473-4417
email: sfadmin@sfrpc.com, website: www.sfrpc.com
Mr. Dickson Ezeala
May 28, 2004
Page 2
Transportation
The flexibility matrix for Downtown Miami - Increment II DR! contains slightly different conversion rates
for many of the land uses. The revised matrix, which now includes marina, does not indicate why these
rates have changed. Changes in the rates were not part of the agreed to traffic methodology.
General
The development order should include a revised legal description of the subject property, including
submerged lands.
As indicated in the pre-application summary, the development order should also specify that
development on Watson Island is limited to the types and amounts proposed within this application and
is not subject to the application of the existing flexibility matrix. For example, the uses on Watson land
cannot be converted to residential uses without an amendment to the comprehensive plan and an
amendment to the DR!.
The development property was deeded to the City of Miami in 1949. The City of Miami is currently
processing a waiver of the "public use" deed restriction. No development, including the vested portion
of the marina uses should be permitted until this restriction is approved.
Attached for your consideration are comments from the Florida Department of Transportation, Miami-
Dade County Department of Environmental Regulation, and the South Florida Water Management
District. Additional comments from the City of Miami Beach and responses to these comments from the
applicant and the Downtown Development Authority are attached.
Council staff is coordinating with other review agencies in the hope that these concerns may be
addressed by the applicant prior to the public hearing. We, therefore, respectfully request that you notify
us of the public hearing, as soon as it is scheduled. Please do not hesitate to call me or Javier Betancourt,
Council staff, with any question or comments regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
J'
ca~:::t2
Executive Director
CAD/tnb
Attachment
cc: Attached Distribution list
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
\
3301 Gun Gub Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 . (561) 686-8800 . FL WATS 1-800-432-2045 . TOO (561) 697-2574
Mailing Address: P.o. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 . www.sfwmd.gov
CON 24-06
Environmental Resource Regulation
May 21,2004
..FD".~e
HAY 2 4 'rI4
Mr. Kirk Lofgren
Coastal Systems International, Inc.
464 South Dixie Highway
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Dear Mr. Lofgren:
SUBJECT: Application Number 030714-19,lsland Gardens Mega-Yacht /-farbor,
S31fTS3S/R42E, Miami-Dade County
The staff has completed a review of the additional information received April 24 and May 12,
2004 for the above-referenced application. Pursuant to Rule 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code
(FAG), the District requests the following information to complete the application.
1. As previously requested, the response received states that negotiations to modify the
deed restrictions are being finalized. As previously requested, please provide the
Board of Trustees final action regarding this issue to the District.
.. .
2. As preyipusly stated, dredging is Proposed within the 100.-foqteasement (Q:R:B:
3622). Please provide documentation from the easement holder (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers) that the proposed dredging will not contlict with the easement holder's-
activities. This documentation is necessary to provide a reasonable assurance that
the project, as proposed, can be constructed.
3. The turbidity screens typical plan contained within the turbidity management plan at
the project site indicates that the turbidity screens will only extend to a depth of -14-
feet. Please revise this proposal to indicate that turbidity screens will extend to the
bottom. Additionally, please provide a typical plan for the mitigation sites indicating
that turbidity management devices will extend to the bottom.
4. The response package indicates that the benthic mitigation plan includes two
options. Please provide a revised proposal identifying whiCh option will be
incorporated into this plan. Please provide executed copies of all necessary permits
to conduct the proposed work.
5. Theuesponse package received FelBruary12, 2004 discusses the MiamicDade ...
County Manatee Protection Plan (MDCMPP). The response.received on April 2:3;
::;OVERNING BOARD
'lii:olas J. Gutierrez, Jr., Esq_, Owir
~me1a Brooks-Thomas, Vice-OJair
rela M_ Bague
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
Michael Collins
Hugh M. English
~rt E. 'incl""hI P"
Kevin McCarty
Harldey R. Thomton
Henry Dean, Executive Director
"l" ...J'I' U'-II" ~~
Mf Kirk"Lofgren
May21,2004
Page 2 of 5
. 2004'pr6Vides a draft response from Miami-Dade County regarding the project's
consistency with the manatee protection plan. Please provide a final, signed copy of
this cbrrespondence.
The following comments are provided to assist the applicant in submitting a permittable.
propqsal. Be advised that resolution of these issues will be required prior to staff recommending
approval of this application.
A. Theseagrass mitigation proposal includes a proposed mitigation ratio qf3:1. The
applicant has provided the appropriate information necessary to coridlJcta UMAM
(Rule 62-345, Florida Administrative Code) analysis, as requested by the applicant.
The result of this analysis indicates that a mitigation ratio of 3.5: 1 .0 would be
required to offset the seagrass component ofthe proposed impact Please provide a
revised seagrass initigation plan consistent with this ratio. As an option.theapplicant
may choose to provide additional (over and above what is required to offset .the hard
bottom impacts proposed) hard bottom mitigation (out-of-kind)at a 0.5:1.0 ratio.
In accordance with Rule40E~1.603(1)(b), FAC, if the requested information is not received
within 90 days of the date of this letter, this application may be processed for denial if not
withdrawn by tM applicant Please submit four copies of this information and include the above
referenced application number. Should you have any questions, please call Ron Peekstok at
561-682-6956; Please include a copy of the enclosed "Transmittal Form for Requested
Information" to each of the required copies of the requested information.
~.~
Ed Cronyn
Senior Supervising Environmental Analyst
Natural Resource Management Division
cc: Miami-Dade County DERM - Many Tobon, Lee Hefty, Molly Messer
U,S: Army Corps of Engineers - Penny Cutt
NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service - Audra Livergood
U.S.E.PA - Ron Miedema
U.S.FW.S, -'Alan Webb
FFWCC -'- Ann Richards
South Rorida Regional Planning Council - Allyn Childers
Greenberg, Traurig,P.A. - Reginald Bouthillier
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
..Ii>>
MRM
May 14,2004
~.,."JP.C
MAY 2 1 '04
.,:.. .--r
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
33 SW 200 A VENUE
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33130-1540
(305) 372-6754
FAX (305) 372-6759
Ms. Carolyn Deckle, Director
South Florida Regional Planning Council
3440 Hollywood Blvd., #140
Hollywood, FL 33021
Re: Notification of Proposed Change (NOPC) Expansion of BoundarieslWatson Island
Dear Ms. Deckle:
DERM has reviewed the information submitted concerning the City of Miami Notification of Proposed
Change Expansion of BoundarieslWatson Island and offers the following comments:
Coastal Resources:
The DRI includes a proposed marina for large, luxury yachts ("mega-yachts") located on the northwestern
portion of Watson Island. Work in tidal waters requires a Miami-Dade County Class I Coastal
Construction permit. The Coastal Resources Section of DERM has received an application for the above
project and is currently processing the application. Due to the work proposed, the application must be
reviewed at a public hearing and approved by the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
prior to the issuance of the Class I Permit. In addition, the applicant should be advised that Permits or
approvals are also required from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the South Florida
Water Management District, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Because the Class I application is not
yet complete, it is not possible for DERM to make a recommendation of either approval or denial of this
particular facility at this time. However, the following information should be noted during the DRI
process.
· The review of the information submitted for this DRI application has revealed that
several documents are inconsistent with the most recent information in the Class I permit
application file. Specifically, these inconsistencies are located in Exhibits D-4, D-5, D-6,
D-7, and D-IO.
· The proposed coastal construction project involves activities that represent significant
potential impact to tidal waters, including dredging and construction of a large piers and
docks. Minimum dredging and filling for construction of marine facilities may be
permitted pursuant to Sec. 24-58.3(B)(3) of the Code of Miami-Dade County, provided
that all other relevant requirements of Ch. 24-58 are met. Sec. 24-58.4 of the Code of
Ms. Carolyn Decide, Director
Notificatign of Proposed Change (NOPC)
Expansion Of BoundarieslWatson Island .
Page 2
Miami-Dade County requires that adverse environmental impacts be avoided and
minimized, and that unavoidable impacts be offset by appropriate mitigation.
. An annual operating permit is also required from Miami-Dade DERM for marinas,
terminals, and other similar existing or proposed vessel facilities, pursuant to Ch. 24-35.1
of the Code of Miami-Dade County.
. The Miami River and Biscayne Bay are essential habitat for the West Indian manatee, an
endangered species. Projects involving any construction in tidal waters or that include
vessel storage or docking facilities should be consistent with the Miami-Dade County
Manatee Protection Plan, pursuant to Sec. 24-58.3 of the Code of Miami-Dade County.
. It is generally recommended that water-dependent and water-related uses along the
shorelines be retained. However, local and state regulations generally prohibit
construction of non-water dependent fixed or floating structures in or over water or
filling tidal waters for non-water dependent purposes.
The waters of Biscayne Bay and the Miami River within or adjoining the project area are part of the
Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve and are classified by the State of Horida as Outstanding Horida Waters.
As such, they are subject to strict regulation pursuant to Horida Statutes and Administrative Code,
particularly regarding water quality protection and use of state-owned submerged lands.
Water and Sewer:
The proposed development is located within the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department (MOW AS D)
water and sewer franchised service area. The source of water and sewer service for this development is the
Hialeah Preston Water Treatment Plant and the Miami Dade Central District Wastewater Treatment Plant,
both of which have adequate capacity to meet projected demands from this project. Connection of the
proposed development to the public water supply and public sanitary sewer system shall be required. The
estimated demand for this addition is 189,164 gallons per day (gpd). This figure does not include
irrigation demands.
Stormwater Mana2ement:
The proposed development shall require an Environmental Resource Permit issued by FDEP. A Class II
Permit is required for the proposed overflow of runoff into the bay. A Class V drainage well permit is
required by FDEP, for the construction of the proposed drainage wells.
Hazardous Waste:
The referenced site is currently or was historically permitted with DERM under storage tank permit UT-
1282 (Watson Island Fuel & Fishing Supply). The. site is a petroleum contaminated site with two
identified petroleum discharges documented. A search within 500' of the property did not identify sites
with records of current contamination assessment/remediation activities. Be advised that solid waste sites
were not identified within a Yz mile radius of the site.
Ms. Carolyn Deckle, Director
Notification of Proposed Change (NOPC)
Expansion of Boundaries/Watson Island
Page 3
Air Oualitv:
Fugitive dust emissions should be minimized during all construction phases. Any involved demolition will
require an asbestos sUrNey and any required asbestos abatement shall be done prior to demolition.
In summary, the above information is offered concerning DERM requirements. It is recommended that
actual design development be closely coordinated through this office to insure compliance with all
applicable Code requirements.
~ince ly, ~
uY
Alyc . Robertson, Assistant Director
Envi onmental Resources Management
cc: David Dahlstrom, AICP, Senior Planner, SFRPC
\
II]
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
110 E. BROWARD BLVD., SUITE 2410 . FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 . (954)735-1245 . FAX (954) 735-9025
Apri] 29, 2004
Project #: 4533.10
Karen McGuire
FDOT District 6
602 South Miami Ave.
Miami, FL 33]30
RE: Downtown Miami Increment II NOpe
Expansion of Boundaries/Watson Island
Dear Karen,
Kittelson & Associates has reviewed the notification of proposed changes for the Downtown Miami
Development of Regional Impacts dated April 8, 2004. The proposed changes include:
1. an increase in the area and a new description of the boundaries of the Master Development Order
to include the Watson Island Property;
2. modification of the Master Development Program Table for Increment n, in order to
accommodate the development proposed on Watson Island. This development includes the
redevelopment of an existing operational marina. There are 42 existing slips that are considered
vested trips, and 8 new slips are proposed.
The traffic analysis (Appendix F of the NOPe) notes that trips will be redistributed from the
Brickell, CBD and Omni sub-areas to accommodate 605 hotel rooms. Other land uses, including
221,000 sqft ofretai], 7,774 sqft offish market/restaurant, and 4,000 sqft of maritime gallery will
be redistributed from the CBD or Omni sub-areas. The 50-slip marina was included in the
analysis, even though 42 ofthese are considered vested trips.
The new roadways added to the increment II analysis include Aiton Road from ] 5th Street to
South Point, and Macarthur Causeway from Collins A venue to Palm Is]and Entrance. New
traffic counts were taken for these segments - all other segments have traffic counts per the
increment II DR! (2002).
Comments are provided below:
. The proposed land use is anticipated to generate 489 AM and 1135 PM vehicular trips
(with the transit, bike and pedestrian reductions).
C:\DOCUME-1\CMiskis\LOCALS-1\Temp\Downtown Miami NOpe.doc
Downtown Miami DRI
April 29, 2004
Project 4533. 10
Page: 2
. The redistribution of trips tends to reduce the total number of significantly impacted links
(project trips >5%) within the project area. There are two newly impacted links between
the Watson Island Entrance and North Miami Avenue along Macarthur Causeway;
however these calculations are based on the incorrect vehicular service volume thresholds
east of Bayshore Drive. As per the increment II DRI, the applicant has used the LOS
threshold E directional service volume of 5990 (1998 LOS Manual) for a freeway in
error. The Causeway is an arterial.(Class II), not a freeway. Using the correct directional
service volume of 2730 (1988 LOS) - the new calculation for the person trip
methodology is as follows:
Sample segment WB between Fisher and Palm Island:
Existing roadway person capacity
Existing bus capacity
Total
Existing persons in vehicles
Existing bus patrons
Growth
Committed
Total
= 4368
= 1348
5716
= 4879 (3485 vehicles in the peak direction)
= 552
= 280 (0.84 compound over 6years)
= 622
= 6333
The projected persons exceed the persons capacity.
. The new traffic counts on the Macarthur Causeway between Bayshore Drive and 1-95 are
less than the traffic counts per the increment II DRI (2002).
Although the methodology is consistent, we continue to be concerned about the following:
. Trip Generation: reductions in the ITE trip generation (the vehicle occupancy, transit,
pedestrian and bike reductions) equate to approximately 45%.
. Levels of Service: the adopted levels of service, which take into account parallel transit
facilities (such as E+20), are not appropriate for a person-trip methodology. Future
conditions tables include these thresholds, however, they are meaningless.
. Vehicle Occupancy: the forecast vehicle occupancy is 1.6 persons per vehicle. In what
year is such a rate suppose to occur? In the DRI analysis for the year 2009, the capacity
is based on the vehicle occupancy of 1.6 but the total number of person-trips is based on
a vehicle occupancy of lA. If it was assumed that the vehicle occupancy increased to
1.6 by 2009 (or some smaller number), the analysis may indicate additional failing
segments.
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Downtown Miami DRI
April 29, 2004
Project 4533. 10
Page: 3
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Miranda Blogg
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HAll 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139
OFFICE OF THE em MANAGER
TELEPHONE: (305) 673-7010
FAX: (305) 673-7782
May 13, 2004
ts.,.ft.P.c
HAY 1 3 '04
Carolyn Dekle
Executive Director
South Florida Regional Planning Council,
3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Shite 140
Hollywood, FL 33021
Dear Ms. Dekle:
The purpose of this letter is to transmit the City Qf Miami Beach's comments on
the Notification of Proposed Change filed for the expansion of the Downtown
Development of Regional Impact (DRI) district boundaries to include the
northwest quadrant of Watson Island.
On May 5, 2004, the Miami Beach City Commission held a public hearing to
solicit public input regarding this NOPC and adopted the attached resolution. For
several years, the Mayor and City Commission of Miami Beach have expressed
serious concern regarding the impacts of the proposed developments on Watson
Island. The NOPC expands the boundaries of the DRI to include a significant
development program on Watson Island, not previously contemplated on the
Island, which will further exacerbate the adverse impacts already realized to
date. The Mayor and City Commission of Miami Beach feel this is an extremely
important issue for our barrier island's future sustainability.
MacArthur Causeway is the key linkage between Miami Beach/South Beach and
the mainland, which makes it a key infrastructure asset to the region's economy.
Recent developments on Watson Island (i.e. Parrot Jungle and the Children's
Museum) have already demonstrated adverse traffic impacts on the MacArthur
Causeway, and inevitably, additional impacts will result from the proposed Island
Gardens project as well as the proposed FT AA Headquarters and other
development planned on Watson Island.
Throughout this DRI process, City of Miami Beach staff has stayed in contact
with Council staff, and, as early as February 2002, the City of Miami Beach
communicated its desire to participate with the City of Miami on discussions
related to Watson Island and participate on the Stakeholder Council formed by
the City of Miami. Miami Beach has never been informed .of any meetings of the
Stakeholder Council to address our ongoing concerns.
Included as attachments to this letter are:
1. Commission Memorandum dated May 5, 2004
2. Commission Resolution adopted May 5, 2004
3. Summary of comments from May 5, 2004 Public Hearing
4. DMJM & Harris, Consultant to the City of Miami Beach, Review of
"Transportation Assessment Proposed Boundary Change to the
Downtown Miami DRI Increment un Report, dated May 12, 2004
5. Urban Environmental League Letter dated March 31, 2004
6. City of Miami Beach correspondence to the City of Miami, dated
February 7, 2002
As part of the City's review of the NOPC, the attached Commission
Memorandum includes comments relative to Boundary Expansion, Land Use,
Build Out Date, Transportation Methodology. Transportation Assessment,
Comprehensive Plan, Development Moratoriums, and the FTAA. I have
summ:arized our initial findings below, and additional information pertaining to
each finding is provided in the attached memorandum. I would especially call
your attention to item 5, which clearly demonstrates that the Transportation
Assessment did not analyze all of the roadway segments that were identified in
the Council's Final Pre-Application Summary. A summary of the relevant issues
and areas of concern are as follows:
1. The NOPC appears to be a substantial deviation as defined
in 380.06(19){e){3), because land area, on which new
development is proposed, is being added to the DRI and has
not previously been reviewed.
2. The change in the number of hotel rooms approved in
Increment " may be a substantial deviation as defined in
380.06(19)(b){11), because the increase is greater then 5%
and greater than 75 units. It must be determined if this is
considered a substantial deviation.
3. The Build Out Dates identified in the NOPC (May 20, 2014)
appear inconsistent with the Development Order and City of
Miami Resolution 02-107 {May 28,2009.
4. Based on the Build Out Dates identified in the NOPC of May
20, 2014, does the law at the time of application submittal
apply and thus, dictate such an extended Build Out Date as
a substantial deviation? .
5. It appears that the Transportation Consultant did not analyze
the study area defined by the South Florida Regional
Planning Council, and rather than review the impact on all
North. South. East and West roads in Miami Beach (as
specified in the pre-application summary), only studied the
impact on the MacArthur Causeway and Alton Road.
6. Additional analysis and detailed information is required to
determine the traffic impact the project will have on Miami
Beach roadway segments.
/
7. The City of Miami Beach is unable. at this time, to determine
whether all committed developments in Miami Beach were
analyzed, or only committed developments on 5th Street and
on Alton Road were analyzed as part of the traffic analysis.
Therefore, the City requests a copy of all committed
developments that were reviewed.
8. The public notice for two Watson Island comprehensive plan
amendments on the Island Gardens site is clearly a
proposed change to the comprehensive plan for the project
and would appear to contradict the statement in the NOPC
that comprehensive plan amendments are not required by
the proposed change. Can it be clarified if the proposed
change to the comprehensive plan may not be a "required
change" for the project to proceed, and therefore the
response in Number 11 ofthe NOPC is correct?
9. Do the moratoriums and issues related to them affect
roadways that are impacted by the Downtown DRI and have
any bearing on the traffic analysis and/or substantial
deviation review?
10. Does the proposal of Watson Island as one of two preferred
sites for the Secretariat of the FTAA have any bearing on the
proposed change and the substantive deviation review of
impacts on areas that are affected by the Downtown DRI?
Additionally, the City engaged DMJM Harris, as the City's transportation
consultant, to review the Transportation Assessment in the NOPC. The City's
consultant concurs with the City's findings in number 5 above, that the
Transportation Assessment did not analyze the study area, as defined by the
Planning Council's Final Pre-Application Summary. The consultant concludes
that their "review found various sources for discrepancies throughout the report
with various degrees of impact. Discrepancies that need to be addressed and
corrected due to their systematic impact to the overall project are:
1. Definition of Build-out Year, 2009 or 2014 and subsequent
corrections to the analysis.
2. Selection of appropriate growth year factor (2.5% to 5%) for
the Miami Beach area and the MacArthur Causeway and
subsequent corrections to the analysis.
3. Use the FOOT standard Maximum Service Volume (MSV)
and level of service for MacArthur Causeway and
subsequent corrections to the analysis.
4. Include all committed trips to the roadway system and
assess the im~acts on MacArthur Causeway and the
intersection of 5 Street at Alton Road."
. '
I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with the City of Miami Beach's
comments on the NOPC to the Downtown Miami DRL The NOPC has significant
impacts on Miami Beach and we appreciate, in advance, your attention and
diligence in reviewing the City's comments, the consultant report and public input
contained herein. If you need additional information, or have any questions,
please contact me at 305-673-7010.
Sincerely,
J~ Gonzalez
City Manager
c: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners. City of Miami Beach
Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners, City of Miami
Joe Arriola, City Manager, City of Miami
Ken Metcalf, Florida Department of Community Affairs
Dana Nottingham, Director, Downtown Development Authority
Ryan Bayline, Shutts & Bowen
Attachments (6)
'.-
LL,P
i\TIQ:ffNE\';t~J;I,lOOuN~S.f!r ~W
May 20, 2004
f:J.P./R & '
-.-.C
.'1 '01
Carolyil Dekle, Executive Director
South Florida Regional Planning Council
3440 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 140
Hollywood, Florida 33021
Re: Notice of Proposed Change
Increment II of the Downtown Development of Regional Impact
Island Gardens/Watson Island
"'.".;.-..-'
Dear Ms. Dekle:
. This firm represents Flagstone Island Gardens,LLC ("Flagstone"), the contract
lessee. of the. property located in the northwest quadrant of Watson Island (the
"Property"). Flagstone is the developer of a proposed mega-yacht marina and mixed-use
development known as Island Gardens (the "Project"). In connection with the
development of the Project, the Downtown Development Authority (the "DDA")
submitted a Notificatiori of Proposed Change (the "NOPC") as Developer under
mcrement II of the Downtown Development of Regional Impact ("DDRI"). The NOPC
requests a change in the boundaries ofthe existing DDRI to include the Property.
By way of background, in February 2001, the City of Miami (the "City"), as
owner of the Property, issued an RFP for a mega yacht marina and adjacent upland
development. After a nwnber .of public hearings, Flagstone's proposal for the Project
was chosen by an independent Selection Committee and later approved by the City
Commission. Thereafter, the Project was placed on the ballot of the November 2001
general election, where it was approved by referendwn of sixty-eight (68%) of the City's
voters. On April 19, 2002, the DDA voted to expand its boundaries to include the
Property. At a public hearing held on December 12, 2002, the City Commission
approved the expansion of the DDA boundaries. During the following year, Flagstone
and the City. negotiated the lease and development agreements for the Project, which
were approved by. the City Commission at public Qearing. Thereafter, the Project was
approyed by the Urban.Development Reyiew Board, the Miami-Dade County Shoreline
Development Revi~w Committee, the Waterfront Advisory Board .andt4e City Zoning
Board, all at public hearings. . " . .
On April 13, 2004, the DDA filed the NOPC with the Department of Community
Affairs ("DCA"), the South Florida Regional Planning Council ("SFRPC") and all other
1500MIAMJ~TER . 201S0lTIHBISCAYNEBOULEVARD . MlAMI.FLORIDA33131 . MlAMI(305)358-6300 . FACSlMlLE(30S)381-9982 . WEBSITE:.wwwshntt..-hwmm
MIAMI
FORT LAUDERDALE
WEST PALM BEACH
ORLANDO
TALLAHASSEE
AMSTEROAM
lONDON
Ms. Carolyn Dekle
May 20, 2004
Page 2
interested parties, including the City of Miami Beach ("Miami Beach"). On May 13,
2004, Miami Beach submitted its comments on the NOPC to the SFRPC. This letter will
serve as Flagstone's response to that submittal.
Miami Beach identified the following issues related to the NOPC, as those in need
of resolution:
1. The NOPC appears to be a substantial deviation as defined in
380.06(19)(e)(3), because land area, on which new development is proposed,
is being added to the DR! and has not previously been reviewed:
The NOPC proposes to expand the existing boundaries of tbe DDRI to
include tbe Project. Pursuant to Florida Statute 380.06(19)(e)(3), any
addition of land not previously reviewed is presumed to create a
substantial deviation. As you know, tbat presumption may be rebutted
by clear and convincing evidence. It is clear tbat all of tbe evidence
submitted witb tbe NOPC, including tbe Traffic Assessment prepared by
David Plummer & Associates, Inc. (tbe "Traffic Assessment") clearly
demonstrates that tbe proposed expansion of tbe DDRI is not a
substantial deviation. While the statute states tbat a presumption of
substantial deviation exists, the material submitted for review by the
DDA clearly rebuts such a presumption.
2. The change in the number of hotel rooms approved in Increment II may be a
substantial deviation as defined in 380.06(1 9)(b )(11), because the increase is
greater than five (5%) percent and greater than seventy-five (75) units. It
must be determined if this is considered a substantial deviation.
The Development Order for Increment II identifies the quantities of Net
New Development for wbicb certfficatesof occupancy may belss1ted~
There has been no increase in the Net New Development nor any increase
in tbe number of hotel units permitted. The Development Order for
Increment II approved the construction of 1605 botel units under the
DDRI. The 605 hotel units planned (or the Project utilize less tban forty
percent (40%) of the available approved hotel units. Furtber,the
Development Order allows the City to permit simultaneous increases and
decreases in the allocation of Net New Development, withouttbe need for
the filing of an NOPC. Therefore, even if the Project included more tban
the 1605 hotel units presently available, it would not be a substantial
deviation. .
3. The Build Out Dates identified in the NOPC (May 20, 2014) appear
inconsistent with the Development Order and City of Miami Resolution 02-
107 (May 28;2009.)
,
,
Ms. Carolyn Dekle
May 20, 2004
Page 3
There has been DO change to the Build Out Date established in the
Development Order for Increment II, approved under Resolution 02-
1307. The response to question 10 in the NOPC states that fact clearly.
The Build Out Date for Increment II is May 28, 2009. There was simply
a scrivener's error in the text that stated the Build Out Date was May 28,
2014. The Build Out Date for Increment III, as established in Resolution
94-849 remains December 30, 2014.. We reiterate our position that the
approval of the NOPC will not result in a change to the Build Out Date
for Increment II or Increment III.
4. Based on the Build Out Dates identified in the NOPC of May 20, 2014, does
the law at the. time of application submittal apply and thus, dictate such an
extended Build Out Date as a substantial deviation.
As stated above, there has been no change to the Build Out Dates for
Increment II or Increment III. Increment II's Build Out Date remains~
May 28, 2009 and Increment Ill's .Quild Out Date remains December 30,
2014. As there is no extension ofthe Build Out Date, there is ~o issue as
to whether it might constitute a substantial deviation.
5. It appears that the Transportation Consultant did not analyze the study area
defined by the South Florida Regional Planning Council, and rather than
review the impact on all North. South. East. and West roads in Miami Beach,
(as specified in the pre-application summary), only studied the impact on the
MacArthur Causeway and Alton Road.
No significant impact is reported on any corridors leading into Miami
Beach (the MacArthur Causeway, 5th Street, and Alton Road).
therefore, the Traffic Assessment was cotnpleted in the fashion directed
by the.SFRPC and outlined in the Final Pre-Application Summary dated
November 25, 2002 (the "Summary") and all information contained
therein is complete. The Traffic Assessment studied an area, which
included all corridors leading to Miami Beach and ,all North, South, East
and West roads, including Alton Road, wherever a significant traffic
impact is reported.
6. Additional analysis and detailed information is. required to determine the
traffic impact the project will have on the Miami Beach roadway segments.
. The Traffic Assessment fully analyzed the traffic impaCt ofthe Project. It
also analyzed the collateral impacts the Project will have, not only on
Miami Beach roadways, but on the main roadways and thoroughfares
connected thereto. The Traffic Assessment included all information
Ms. Carolyn Dekle
May 20, 2004
Page 4
requested by the participants at the pre-application meeting held at the
SFRPC, as outlined in the Summary.
7. The City of Miami Beach is unable, at this time, to determine whether all
committed developments in Miami Beach were analyzed, or only committed
developments on 5th Street and on Alton Road were analyzed as part of the
traffic analysis. Therefore, the City requests a copy of all committed
developments that were reviewed. . . .
Miami Beach provided information to David Plummer & Associates, Inc.
and to DDA's traffic consultant, outlining all committed developments
within the study area. Only the Portofinoproject was reported to
generate over four hundred (400) PM peak hour trips. As outlined in the
Summary, it was determined that only committed developments reported
to generate over four hundred (400) PM peak hour trips would be used in
compiling the Traffic Assessment for the Project.
8. The public notice for two Watson Island comprehensive plan amendments on
the Island Gardens site is clearly a proposed change to the comprehensive plan
for the project and would appear to contradict the statement in the NOPC that
comprehensive plan amendments are not required by the proposed change.
Can it be clarified if the proposed change to the comprehensive plan may not
be a "required change" for the project to proceed, and therefore the response
in Number 11 ofthe NOPC is correct?
There were two comprehensive plan amendments (the "Amendments")
proposed for the Project. Both Amendments provided for the exchange
of small parcels of Parks and Recreation designated property for
Commercial designated property and a simultaneous exchange of equal
size parcels of Commercial for Parks and- Recreation designated
property. The net effect of the Amendments created no change in the
amount of Parks and Recreation or Commercial designat~d property
within the Project. More importantly, neither of the Amendments is
required for either the approval of the Nope or the Project. The
Amendments permit Flagstone to slightly reposition certain I}uildings in
the Project. However, there is no change in the proposed uses, size or
intensity ofthe Project whether or not the Amendments are approved.
For your information, the first Amendment was approved at public
hearing by the City's Planning Advisory Board anc:J then by the City
Commission at first reading. Tl1ereafter, it was approved by the DCA on
a No Need to Review Basis and resubmitted to the City where it was
approved at apublic hearing on sec~nd reading by the City Commission.
.'
Ms. Carolyn Dekle
May 20, 2004
Page 5
The second Amendment was approved at public hearing by the Planning
Advisory Board and has not as yet been heard by the City Commission.
9. Do the moratoriums and issues related to them affect roadways that are
impacted by the Downtown DRl and have any bearing on the traffic analysis
and/or substantial deviation review?
".,' "
The moratoriums recently enacted by the City have no impact on the
Project or this NOPC. the property subject to tbe moratoriums, which
are in efftct for only a ninety-day (90) period, are not located in close
proximity t!' the Project. Further, none of the areas affected by the
moratoriums are within the boundaries of the DDRI.
10. Does the proposal of Watson Island as one of two preferred sites for the
Secretariat of the FT AA have any bearing on the proposed change and the
substantive deviation review of impact on areas that are affected by the
Downtown DRI?
The proposal to locate the headquarters of the Free Trade Association of
the Americas ("FT AA") has no bearing upon, nor should it be factored
into, the substantial deviation review Of the NOPC. One of the locations
proposed by the City is on Watson Island.. However, it is not within the
boundary of the Property nor will it fall within the new proposed
boundary of the DDRI. As you know, the City has not as yet been
selected to host the headquarters ofthe FfAA, nor has the actual location
of the secretariat been approved by any board or commission.
Miami Beach also identified purported "discrepancies" within the Traffic
Assessment submitted as part of the NOPe. Miami Beach suggests that the Traffic
AsseSsment did not analyze the appropriate roadways arid intersections. We will respohd
to each of the concerns as identified in the materials submitted by Miami Beach.
I. Definition of Build Out Year, 2009 or 2014 and subsequent corrections to the
analysis.
As provided in response number 3, the BUild Out Date for Increment II
remains May 28, 2009.
2. Selection ofthe appropriate growth year factor (2.5% or 5.0%) for the Miami
Beach area and the MacArtliur Causeway and subsequent corrections to the
analysis. .
Each component of the future traffic gr()wth calculation was applied
consistent with the established and approved methodology. It should be
Ms. Carolyn Dekle
May 20, 2004
. Page 6
.
noted that the composite traffic growth rat~ for th~ roads analyzed in
Miami Beach ranges from 2.9% to over 11 % per year. The growth rates
are based on the following: normal growth, unbuilt Increment I DDRI,
unbuilt Southeast Overtown Park West DRI, Portofmo DRI, and
Increment II DDRI traffic.
3. Use the FDOT standard Maximum S~ice Volume (MSV) and level of
service for MacArthur Causeway and subsequent corrections to the analysis.
Tbe MSV established in the Increment II DDRI was used and carried
througb in the NOPC. However, if an arterial road servic~ volume were
used in the analysis, the Project would not have a significant impact on
Miami Beach.
4. Include all committed trips to the roadway system .and assess the impacts on
MacArthur Causeway and the intersection of 5th Street at Alton Road.
Committ~d developments were included in tbe road link. analysis as per
the approved methodology. This analysis clearly showed that the Project
does not have significant impacts on Miami Beach.
I appreciate you providing us with the opportunity to respond to the comments
made by \~iami Beach regarding the NOPC. If you have any questions regarding the
Project or the NOPC, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
q~t~k,\
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners, City of Miami
Joe Arriola, City Manager, City of Miami
Laura BiIlberry, DiTt~ctor-Asset Management, City of Miami
Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners,.City of Miami Beach
Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager, City of Miami Beach
Christina Cuervo, Assistant City Manager, City of Miami Beach
Mr. Ken Metcalf, Florida Department ofCommooity Affairs
Mr. Dana Nottingham, Director, Downtown Development Authority
Mr. Mehmet Bayraktar, Flagstone Island Gardens, LLC
. Mr. Joseph Herndon, Flagstone Island Gardens, LLC
Mr. Ramon Alvarez, pliVid Plummer & Associates, mc,
685629
lDDAM~~
"a.. .:
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AlftHOAIT'/
fln;l Union FtllIlncial Cenler
200 S. els<;aYfW Boulev-.>rd
SuIIe 1818
Mian,;. Florid:l :13131
Tel., (3OS}57~15
Fae {JOS} 311-2423
E-Mail.d<1afJOdamiaml.com
May 27, 2004
Ms. Carolyn Dekle
Executive Director
South Florida Regional Planning Council
3440 Hollywood J30ulevard, Suite 140
Hollywood, Florida 33021
Re: Notice of Proposed Change
Increment n oC the Downtown Development oC Regional Impact
Island Gardens/Watson Island
Dear Ms. Dckle:
The Miami Downtown Development Authority (the "DDA") would like to take this
opportunity to express its comments regarding the City of Miami Beach's findings to the
Notification of Proposed Change (the "NOPC") for the development proposed at the northwest
quadrant of Watson Island (the "Property"). The project being proposed is a mixed-use waterfront
development known as Island Gardens (file "Project"). The DDA submitted the NOPC under
Increment 11 of the Downtown Development of Regional ImpaCt ("DDRI"). The Nope submitted
requests a change to the boundaries of the existing DDR! to include the Property and the addition of
"marina" as a new use.
Pursuant to the City of Miami Charter. on December 14, 2000 tbe City CommIssion
adopted Resolution No. 00-1081, which authorized the issuance of a Mega-Yacht Marina and Mixed
Use Waterfront Development Opportunity~Watson Island, Request for Proposals. for the
development of approximately 10.79 acres of upland and 13.35 acres of SUbmerged land on Watson
Island_ Thrcc proposals were received in response to the RFP and following an extensive review
process. Flagstone's proposal was selected. Flagstone's proposal was approved by voter referendum
by the electorate of the City of Miami on November 6, 2001 and the City Commission accepted the
election results on November 15, 2001 by Resolution 01-1198. Flagstone's proposal contemplates
that the project will include. but not necessarily be limited to, consb11ctiol) of a mega-yacht marina, a
four (4) and a five (5) star hotel, retail space. and parking garage, together with certain other
amenities. In April 2002, the DDA voted to expand its boundaries and annex the Property, and at a
public hearing held on December 12, 2002. the City Commission approved the expansion of the
DDA boundaries. The City and Flagstone subsequently negotiated and entered into an Agreement to
Enter Into a Ground Lease (the "Agreement") which was approved by the City Commission at a
public bearing and executed on January I. 2003, cOJlsistent in all material respects with the Watson
Island RFP and Flagstone proposal. Thereafter, the Project has gone through several public hearings
and has been approved by the Urban Development Review Board, tbe Miami~Dade County Shoreline
Development Review Committee, the Waterfront Advisory Board and the City of Miami Zoning
Board.
Ms. Carolyn Dekle
May 27,2004
Page 2
In April, 2004, the DDA filed the NOPC with the Department of Community Affairs (the
"DCA"), the South Florida Regional Planning Council (the "SFRPC") and all other interested parties
including the City of Miami Beach. On May 13,2004, the City of Miami Beach submitted its comments
on the NOPC to the SFRPC. This letter will serve as the DDA's response to that submittal. The City of
Miami Beach considered various issues related to the NOPC, as those in need of resolution, and by
means of this letter, the DDA wishes to clarify any misconceptions that may be unclear at this time.
I. The City of Miami Beach noted that the NOPC appeared to be a substantial deviation
pursuant to the definition in 380.06(19)(e)(3), due to the issue that the land area, on
which the new development is being proposed, will be added to the DR! and has not
previously been reviewed.
In reality, the NOPC submitted proposes an expansion to the existing boundaries of the
DDR!. The expansion of the DDR! boundaries will annex the Project to the DDR!
boundaries. Pursuant to Florida Statute 380.06(19)(e)(3), any addition of land not
previously reviewed is presumed to create a substantial deviation. However, this section
also states this presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.
Considering all of the back-up information submitted along with the NOpe, which
includes the Transportation Assessment: Proposed Boundary Change to the Downtown
Miami DR! Increment II prepared by David Plummer & Associates, Inc. (the
"Transportation Assessment'') undoubtedly demonstrates the proposed expansion and
annexation is not a substantial deviation in any manner. The evidence submitted for
review by the DDA visibly refutes that a presumption of substantial deviation exists. The
Transportation Assessment concluded that there are no significant changes in the traffic
impacts of Increment II if the requested boundary change is approved. In fact, the
Transportation Assessment finds that impacts on critical segments and ramps are less
with the proposed boundary change than in the approved Increment II Application for
Development Approval (ADA).
2. The City of Miami Beach believes that the change in the number of hotel rooms
approved in Increment II may be a substantial deviation as defined in 380.06(l9)(b)(Il),
because the increase is greater than five (5) percent and greater than seventy-five (75)
units. It must be determined if this is considered a substantial deviation.
In reaching the conclusion stated above, the City of Miami Beach has not appropriately
applied the Florida Statutes nor the provisions of the Increment J1 Development Order.
Pursuant to subsection 380.06(22)(c), Florida Statutes, "If a development is proposed
within the area of a downtown development plan approved pursuant to this section
which would result in development in excess of the amount specified in the development
order for that type of activity, changes shall be subject to the provisions of subsection
(/9), except that the percentages and numerical criteria shall be double those listed in
paragraph (19)(b).
Regardless. the Development Order for Increment II simply identifies the quantities of
Net New Development for which certificates of occupancy may be issued. The
Development Order approves the construction of additional hotel units in the amount of
1605, under the DDR!. The hotel units that are planned for the Project are a total of 605
Ms. Carolyn Dekle
May 27, 2004
Page 3
and therefore utilize only a fraction of the available approved hotel units approved in the
Development Order. In addition, the Development Order allows for the City to permit
simultaneous increases and decreases in the allocation of Net New Development, without
a need to file for an NOPC. Therefore, should the Project have proposed more than the
1605 hotel units presently available, the proposal still would not constitute a substantial
deviation. The NOPC that has been submitted simply allocates the hotel units from the
approved Development Order without changing any unit count within the boundaries.
3. Miami Beach has interpreted the Build Out Dates identified in the NOPC (May 20, 2014)
to appear inconsistent with the Development Order and DDA Resolution 02-107 (May
28, 2009).
This issue is invalid because no modification to the Build Out Date established in the
Development Order for Increment lJ, approved under Resolution 02-1307 has ever been
considered in the proposal. Below you will find our response to the City of Miami
Beach's comment No. 10 and you will find that it very clearly states this fact. The Build
Out Date for Increment II is May 28, 2009. The approved expiration/termination date
for the Increment II development order is May 28, 2014. The conflict in dates is due
simply to a scrivener's error in the text that listed the Build Out Date was May 28, 2014.
The Build Out Date for Increment III, as established in Resolution 94-849 remains
December 30,2014. At this time the City reiterates its position that approval of the
NOPC will definitely not result in any change to the Build Out Date for either Increment
Il or Increment Ill.
4. The City of Miami Beach questions the applicability of the law from the time of
application submittal and whether it dictates such an extended Build Out date as
identified in the NOPC of May 20, 2014 as a substantial deviation.
As listed in the above paragraph, we reiterate there has not been change to the Build
Out Dates for Increment Il or Increment Ill. Increment Il's Build Out Date remains May
28,2009 and Increment Ill's Build Out Date remains December 30,2014. As there is no
extension of the Build Out Date, there is no issue as to whether it would constitute any
deviation. substantial or otherwise.
5. The City of Miami Beach has implied that the Transportation consultant did not analyze
the study area defined by the South Florida Regional Planning Council, and rather than
review the impact on all North, South, East, and West roads in Miami Beach, (as
specified in the pre-application summary), only studied the impact on the MacArthur
Causeway and Alton Road.
In truth, the Transportation Assessment studied an area that includes all roadway
corridors leading to and from Miami Beach within the reasonable boundaries of the
study area and all North. South East and West roads, including Alton Road at various
points wherever a significant traffic impact could be considered. The project study area
used in the Transportation Assessment (Section 1.1, page 5) and the Final Pre-
Application Summary (the "Summary") that was prepared by the SFRPC on November
25, 2002 (page 2) are the same. Therefore, the Transportation Assessment information
that was submitted is complete and in compliance as directed by the SFRPC.
Ms. Carolyn Dekle
May 27, 2004
Page 4
6. The City of Miami Beach suggests that additional analysis and detailed information
should be required to determine the traffic impact the project will have on the Miami
Beach roadway segments.
The information that was provided in the Transportation Assessment wholly addressed
and evaluated the traffic impact of the Project. In addition, the Transportation
Assessment evaluated the impacts the Project will have, not only on Miami Beach
roadways, but also on the main roadways and thoroughfares connected thereto. As
stated above, the Transportation Assessment complied with all the information requested
by the participants at the pre-application meeting held at the SFRPC, as outlined in the
Summary. Further, the Transportation Assessment satisfies the requirements of Rule 9J-
2.045, Transportation Uniform Standards, Florida Administrative Code (FAC).
7. The City of Miami Beach was unable to determine whether all committed developments
in Miami Beach were analyzed, or only those committed developments on Slh Street and
AIton Road were included as part of the traffic analysis. Due to this uncertainty, Miami
Beach is requesting a copy of all committed developments that were reviewed.
The City of Miami Beach actually provided this information both to David Plummer &
Associates, Inc. and DDA 's traffic consultant. The information Miami Beach provided
outlined all committed developments included within the study area. The only project
Miami Beach reported to generate over four hundred (400) PM peak hour trips was
Porto fino. As stipulated in the Summary, it was concluded that only committed
developments reported to generate over four hundred (400) PM peak hour trips would be
utilized in compiling the Transportation Assessment for the Project.
8. The, City of Miami Beach has interpreted the public notice for two Watson Island
comprehensive plan amendments on the Island Gardens site as a proposed change to the
comprehensive plan for the project and believes there to be a contradiction regarding the
statement in the NOPC that comprehensive plan amendments are not required by the
proposed change. Miami Beach is requesting clarification whether or not the proposed
change to the comprehensive plan may not be a "required change" for the project to
proceed, and therefore questions the accuracy of the response to Number II of the
NOPC.
Based on information supplied by the City of Miami, there were in fact two
comprehensive plan amendments (the "Amendments ") proposed for the Project area.
Both Amendments provided for an equal .exchange of small parcels of Parks and
Recreation designated property for Commercial designated property and a simultaneous
exchange of equal size parcels of Commercial for Parks and Recreation designated
property. Due to the even exchange in parcel sizes, the net effect of the two Amendments
did not in any way alter the. amount of Parks and Recreation or Commercial designated
property within the Project. In addition, and far outweighing this issue, neither of the
two Amendments are a requirement for either the approval of the NOPC or the Project.
The Amendments simply permit Flagstone to slightly reposition certain structures
located within the Project boundaries. However, the Project does not propose to change
any of the uses, size or intensity, regardless of whether or not the Amendments are
approved.
Ms. Carolyn Dekle
May 27, 2004
Page 5
To further clarify the issue, the first Amendment was approved at public hearing by the
City's Planning Advisory Board and subsequently by the City Commission at first
reading. Thereafter, it was approved by the DCA on a "No Need to Review Basis" and
resubmitted to the City where the City Commission approved it at public hearing on May
6, 2004 upon second reading. The second Amendment was approved at public hearing
by the Planning Advisory Board and has not as yet been heard by the City Commission.
Finally, the two comprehensive plan amendments do not in any way alter the amount of
parks or commercially designated property within the DDRl.
9. The City of Miami Beach questions whether the moratoriums and issues related to them
affect roadways that are impacted by the Downtown DR! and if said moratoriums have
any bearing on the traffic analysis and/or substantial deviation review.
The fact of the matter is that the recently enacted moratoria have no impact on the
Project or the submitted NOPC The moratoria are in effect for only a ninety-day (90)
period, and those subject properties are not in close proximity to the Project. In
addition to this. the enacted moratoria does not affect any of the boundaries of the
DDRI.
10. The City of Miami Beach has raised the issue regarding whether there is any bearing on
the proposed change and the substantial deviation review of impact on areas that are
affected by the Downtown DR! due to the proposal of Watson Island as one of two
preferred sites for the Secretariat of the Free Trade Association of the Americas (the
"FTAA").
While it is true that one of the potential proposed locations to situate the headquarters of
the FTAA is on Watson Island, the proposal has never been contemplated to fall within
the boundaries of the Property. In addition, the FTAA proposal does not fall within the
new proposed boundary of the DDRI. As you are probably aware, the City has not yet
been selected to host the headquarters of the FTAA nor has any board or commission
approved the actual location of the secretariat. Therefore, the location of the FTAA
headquarters has no bearing nor should this item be factored into the substantial
deviation review of the NOPC.
In addition, this letter serves to specifically address the concerns documented in the letter dated May 12,
2004 from DMJM+Harris, Inc. to the City of Miami Beach, as requested by the City of Miami Beach, on
the review of the Transportation Assessment. This response was provided by Parsons Brinckerhoff
Quade & Douglas, Inc., upon the request of the City of Miami to further ensure an' independent review
and analysis of the concerns raised by DMJM+Harris, Inc.
1. Study Area.
As noted earlier, the Transportation Assessment was completed in the fashion directed
by the SFRPC Final Pre-Application Summary and all information contained therein is
complete.
2. Link Analvsis.
Ms. Carolyn Dekle
May 27,2004
Page 6
Alton Road
Comment 1: Reported traffic volume between 5th Street and 15th Street during the PM
peak period appears to be lower than expected when compared to other traffic data
collected within the same area in April 2004.
Answer 1: The recent traffic data mentioned in the May 12, 2004 letter and used to
compare the counts was not provided and, therefore, could not be evaluated in order to
determine the magnitude of the changes and potential impacts to the results of the
analysis.
Comment 2: On December 17, 2003, 24-hour counts were collected at one location
between 10th Street and 11 th Street. Seventy-two hour counts are recommended at two
locations along the corridor.
Answer 2: Consistent with the Summary complied on review agency requirements and
based on the information provided in Appendix B, Transportation Assessment, 24-hour
counts were performed by Traffic Survey Specialist, Inc. at the following locations:
-Alton Road Between 100h Street and 11th Street on December 17, 2003
-Alton Road Between 2nd Street and 3rd Street on December 17, 2003
_J'h Street Between Washington Avenue and Collins Avenue on December 17, 2003
-McArthur Causeway Ramp to Northbound Alton Road on December 9, 2003
Therefore, there were two count locations along Alton Road, one in the segment between
IJth Street and 5'h Street and the other in the segment from Jth Street to South Pointe.
These counts were taken on the same day and therefore they can be correlated.
The counts were taken on a Tuesday (December 9) and on a Wednesday (December 17),
which are acceptable days i}ased on the Site Impact Handbook (FDOT) guidelines. The
Handbook indicates that link traffic counts should be collected to provide IJ-minute
volumes suitable for use in peak-hour analysis and 24-hour volumes for converting to
AADT using Department-approved factors. The counts were taken according to these
guidelines (24-hour counts in IJ-minute intervals).
Seventy-two-hour counts are preferable in some instances since they help reduce any
bias that may be introduced when gathering data for only one day. However, the
Summary is the document that sets the agreed upon implemented procedure.
Furthermore, it is not foreseeable that the average of 3-day counts wou(d produce
dramatically different results than those noted in the Transportation Assessment.
51h Street (Segment between Alton Road and Collins Avenue)
Comment 1: A review of recent counts indicates that traffic is higher than the traffic
shown in the report in the PM peak period for this segment.
Answer 1: Data used for the comparison was not provided and, therefore, did not allow
us to measure the magnitude of the differences and the potential impacts to the analysis.
In the absence of that information, the following review contained in this memorandum
Ms. Carolyn Dekle
May 27, 2004
Page 7
is based on the information included in the Transportation Assessment and the
methodology approved by the SFRPC.
The Assessment used FDOT 2002 count station's data and, therefore. current counts
may very well be higher due to the natural growth in traffic. The analysis documented in
the Transportation Assessment report used the most current information at the time and
followed the guidelines provided in the SFRPC Summary. The approved procedure
stated that "there are at least two permanent continuous count stations on MacArthur
Causeway and Miami Beach" adding that "the traffic analysis will be updated based
upon the best available FDOT, County or local count updates at these stations and any
other roadway segments to the east of the DDRl that were not part of the original
Increment II data collection. "
The information provided in Appendix B - Traffic Counts, includes data from FDOT
2002 counts (the most recent counts available) for two stations along MacArthur
Causeway nearby Palm Island Entrance (Stations 0031 and 9080) and two stations on
SR AlA/MacArthur Causeway/5,h Street located 200 feet East and West of the
intersection with Alton Road. respectively (Stations 2528 and 2527).
Comment 2: The capacity of 5th Street is overrepresented, since the Maximum Service
Volume (MSV) for a 6LD road indicated in the Assessment is 2,580 vph for one
direction, whereas the FDOT 2002 Generalized Tables indicate a MSV of 2,330 vph for
this type of road.
Answer 2: It is important to note that this comment is based on the FDOT 2002
Generalized Tables whereas the Assessment is based on FDOT's 1998 Generalized
Tables, consistent with the approved methodology and with the approved DDRl. Since
the DDRl was based on 1998 LOS Handbook. the NOPC must (and did) follow the same
criteria to make them congruent.
Furthermore, based on our prelilminary review of the MSVs used for the comparison,
there seems to be a discrepancy between the Class of arterials that were used in the
Assessment and the one used in the May 12, 2004 letter. The 2,580 vph directional
capacity included in the NOPC Assessment corresponds to LOS D for arterial Class II
(with 2.00 to 4.50 signalized intersections per mile). The 2,330 vph directional capacity
mentioned in the letter corresponds to LOS D for arterial Class III (more than 4.5
signalized intersections per mile and not within primary city central business district of
an urbanized area over 750,000).
In other words, we concur with the use of the FDOT 1998 generalized tables versus the
2002 generalized tables in order to maintain consistency with the original DDRl.
MacArthur Causeway (Segment between Alton Road and Bayshore Drive)
Comment 1: The report classified this section of the road as a freeway instead of a 6LD
state two-way arterial, which at LOS E, the MSV should be 2,790 vph on MacArthur
Causeway from Biscayne Boulevard to Alton Road.
Ms. Carolyn Dekle
May 27, 2004
Page 8
Answer 1: The "Functional Classification" included in the report (Fable 21.A2 (R)) is
"Principal Arterial" (Urban) based on the 1992 Federal Functional Classification,
FDOT 6. Division of Planning and Programs, which is also consistent with the existing
DDRl. The ful/ segment from Miami Beach to mainland is classified as such by FDOT.
This comment seems to rather be related to the Peak Hour Directional Maximum Service
Volume (MSV) used in the aforementioned table.
The original DRl included SR 836/1-395/MacArthur Causeway up to Palm Island
Entrance (in the westbound direction). The MSV assigned to the segment between
Bayshore Drive to Palm Island Entrance was 5,990 vph (directional), which corresponds
to a 6LD Group 2-Freeway segment at LOS E in the 1998 LOS Handbook. This MSV
included in the approved DRl seems logical in view that -in spite of the classification-
the causeway behaves as a freeway and not as an arterial.
To further clarifY the concept. it should be noted that arterials do provide access to the
adjacent land. This access causes obvious friction within the traffic flow and therefore
the arterial lane has less capacity to process traffic than afreeway (or control/ed-access
facility) lane. Since this is not the case for the Causeway, applying the capacity of an
arterial to a facility that has better access management that any surface street would
only underestimate the processing capacity of the facility. In addition, the analysis
documented in the report followed the same methodology as in the original DRl, which
was necessary in order to maintain consistency.
Comment 2: Year 2009 conditions were recalculated using the reduced (2,790 vhp)
MSV.
Answer 2: The section of MacArthur Causeway between Alton Road and Bayshore Drive
was divided in four segments (in the eastbound direction) asfollows:
I. From Alton Road to Fisher Island
2. From Fisher Island to Palm Island Entrance
3. From Palm Island Entrance to Watson Island Entrance
4. From Watson Island Entrance to Bayshore Drive.
Segments 3 and 4 were included as one in the original DR/, and the NOPC study
maintained the criteria adopted in the approved DDRl.
Along segments 1 and 2 there is one signalized intersection (access) at Palm Island
Entrance, another at Star Island, and a third one at Fisher Island (before reaching the
intersection with Alton Road) in the westbound direction.
The spacing of these signalized intersections (based on a brief review of the area) varies
from approximately 0.16 mile minimum to 0.82 miles maximum, resulting in signal
density of 1.92 signalized intersections per mile for the segment. If treated as an arterial,
then these segments should be Class I.
Ms. Carolyn Dekle
May 27, 2004
Page 9
However, a strong case can be made that there are no access points between these
intersections. This establishes a marked difference with the usual concept of arterials in
which the FDOT tables are based and thus the use of capacities related to controlled-
access facilities may very well apply.
It is important as well to note that the MSVs provided by FDOT are based on
generalized values throughout the State of Florida. Actual capacity of a roadway is best
measured using field data, which are not available at this time and for this level of
planning analysis. I
3. Growth Rate:
Comment I: The May 12, 2004 letter mentions that the report uses a 0.84 % growth rate
as a weighted adjusted compound growth rate for Alton Road consistent with the rates
included in the approved DDRI along SR 836/I-39S/MacArthur Causeway, stating that
there is no analysis of justification of this growth rate.
Answer 1: The growth rate was agreed upon and therefore its inclusion -based on
consistency with the approved DDRl-had been granted.
Comment 2: The May 12. 2004 letter mentions that a review of historical traffic data in
Miami Beach yielded an average growth rate of 4.94% per year, with data from five
count stations: two on 5th Street, one on Alton Road and two on Collins Avenue.
Answer 2: The information used to develop this growth rate should be provided for a
more in-depth review. Preliminary calculations using the historical data of the
available count stations in the southern portion of Miami Beach and MacArthur
Causeway did not however produce the stipulated growth rate mentioned in the letter.
4. Trip Generation:
Comment: The May 12, 2004 letter states that there appears to be errors In the
spreadsheet underreporting trips for "Attractions-Movie Theater".
Answer: Without further detail and more specific information on the type, nature, and
location of the errors this comment could not be addressed.
5. Pedestrian/Bike Trip Reduction:
Comment: The Assessment establishes a 3.5% reduction in trips for the PedestrianlBike
mode for the Island Garden Area. According to the letter, there is no justification to
support this reduction and based on the area's characteristic, there should be no
reduction applied.
Answer: Appendix B - Traffic Data of the Assessment includes information regarding
Committed Development Information (Portofino DRl and Parrot Jungle Gardens, Inc.
MUSP Traffic Impact Study). It also includes the Trip Reduction Calculations for
Expanded CBD (Watson Island) sub-area. There is therefore ajustificationlcalculation
included in the Assessment.
Ms. Carolyn Dekle
May 27, 2004
Page 10
6. Committed Proiects:
Comment: Section 3.2, page 49 of the report states that the Parrot Jungle and other
developments will not undergo DRI review but instead they will be included in the DDRI
analysis as committed or background developments. Later the report indicates that Parrot
Jungle was not included as a committed development because it generates 500 trips/day,
less than the 400 vph PM peak threshold.
Answer: The SFRPC Summary, under the title "Committed Development", states that
"committed projects will be included in the traffic analysis and will include projects,
such as, the Porto fino DRl, Parrot Jungle, and the Children's Museum. The Cities of
Miami and Miami beach will be requested by the applicant to provide information about
all committed developments with over 400 PM peak hour trips for inclusion in this
analysis. "
Appendix B of the NOPC Assessment includes the "Parrot Jungle and Gardens, Inc. -
Major Use Special Permit - Traffic Impact Analysis" prepared for Parrot Jungle and
Gardens, InclCity of Miami by Carr Smith Corradino. This traffic impact analysis states
that, based on estimated annual attendance to the Parrot Jungle, 500 daily vehicles are
expected to be attracted by this park.
Section 3.2, page 50 of the NOpe Assessment, thus correctly indicates that "according
to the traffic study provided by the City of Miami, the Parrot Jungle development will
generate 500 daily trips, which translates into less than 400 PM Peak hour threshold.
Therefore, the trips were not included as a committed development but included in the
growth rate. "
In conclusion, the Application is completely consistent with the Pre-Application Summary agreement
with the review agencies, satisfies state law for proposed changes to a previously approved DRI, and
does not create additional impacts to regional resources or facilities. Furthermore, the changes proposed
in the Application are consistent with the regional goals and policies in the Strategic Regional Policy
Plan for South Florida regarding land use, public facilities, and economic development. Based on the
foregoing and in light of the substantial documentation provided in the Application, we submit that the
comments from the City of Miami Beach are without merit and should be disregarded.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 305-579-6675.
Sincerely,
Dana Notti!lgham
Executive Director
Ms. Carolyn Dekle
May 27,2004
Page 11
cc: Honorable Mayor and Commissioners, City of Miami Beach
Jorge Gonzalez, City Manager, City of Miami Beach
Honorable Mayor and Commissioners, City of Miami
Joe Arriola, City Manager, City of Miami .
Laura Billberry, City of Miami
Mary H. Conway, City of Miami
Alejandro Vilarello, Esq., City of Miami Law Department
Ken Metcalf, Florida Department of Community Affairs
Mehmet Bayraktar, Flagstone
Joe Herndon, Flagstone
Judith Burke, Esq., Shutts & Bowen
Jeffrey Bercow, Esq., Bercow & Radell
Rob Curtis, The Curtis & Kimball Company
05/02/2004 10:17
31354152035
HEARING BOARDS
PAGE 05
Analysis for Major Use Special Permit for the
Island Gardens Project
located at approximately 950 and 1050 MacArthur Causeway
CASE NO. 200~045
Pursuant to Ordinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami,
Florida, the subject proposal for the Island Gardens Project has been reviewed to allow a
Major Use Special Pennit pt.."t' Articles 13 and 17, to be comprised of two hotel buildings
housing 500 rooms and 105 fractional ownership units. with accessory uses, 221,000
square feet of retail space, 1,610 total parking spaces, 50 mega-yacht slip marina and an-
cillary uses, maritime gallery, and approximately 6.s:!: acres of public gardens and open
space.
This Permit also includes the following requests:
MUSP, as per Article 17, Section 1701, to permit any nonresidential uses
involving in excess of two hundred thousand (200,000) square feet offioor area;
MUSP, as per Article 17, Section 1701, to permit hotels involving in excess of
three hundred fifty (350) rooms;
MUSP, as per Article 17, Section 1701, to permit any single or combination of
requiring or proposing to provide in excess five hundred (500) offstreet parking
spaces;
Pursuant to City Code, Chapter 35, Section 36-6 Construl..1ion Equipment
Request for waiver of noise ordinance for construction and nighttime dredging.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION, as per City of Miami Zoning Ordinance 11000 as
amended, Article 9, Section 924.10, to allow the projection of clocks or plus into
waterways previously approved on January 26. 2004 by the Zoning Board;
CLASS II, as per Article 6, Section 607.3.1, for development of new construction
within a Special District;
CLASS II, as per Article 6, Section 607.3.1, for development of new construction
within a Special District;
CLASS II, as per Article 15, Section 1511 for development between Biscayne Bay
and the first dedicated right-of-way;
CLASS II, as per Detennination of Use 2001-001, Special Exception to permit
establishments which offer time-share licenses within the "C-t Restricted
Commercial" zoning district;
CLASS I, as per Section 915.2 for FAA clearance letter;
CLASS 1, as per Article 9, Section 10.3.2.2 to allow
development/construction/sales and rental signage;
CLASS I, as per Article 9, Section 918.2, for parking and staging during
construction;
CLASS I, as per Article 9, Section 920.1, to allow temporary construction
buildings and trailers;
Page I ofS
05/02/2004 10:17
3054152035
HEARING BOARDS
PAGE 07
CLASS I, as per Article 6, Section 903.1, for projects designl.od as a single site
occupying lands divided by district boundaries;
CLASS I, as per Article 9, Section 917.1.2, to allow valet parking, including buses
and other vehicles;
Request for the following MUSP conditions to be required at time of shell permit
instead of an issuance of foundation permit;
Request for reservation of Dovmtown DRI credits;
Request for variance to the setback per Article 4, Section 401, "C-l". for the Base
building maximum height at front setback;
Waiver of Charter Amendment to allow certain improvements, as shown on the
site plan, to be located within the 50' setback area.
Note: Designation as a phased development pursuant to Section 2502 of
Ordinance No. 11000.
REQUEST that the following MUSP conditions be required at the time of Temporary
Certificate of Occupancy or Final Certificate of Occupancy instead of at the issuance of
foundation permit:
a. the requirement to record in the Public Records a Declaration of Covenants and
Restrictions providing that the ownership, operation and maintenance of all
common areas and facilities will be by the property owner or a mandatory
property owner association; and
b. the requirement to record in the Public Records a unity of title (If covenant in lieu
of unity of title.
Pursuant to Articles 13 and 17 of Zoning Ordinance 11000, approval of the requested
Major Use Special Permit shall be considered sufficient for the subordinate permits
requested and referenced above as well as any other special approvals required by the
City which may be required to carry out the requested plans.
In determining the appropriateness of the proposed project, the Planning and
Zoning Department has referred this project to the Large Scale Development
Committee (LSDC) and the Planning & Zoning's Internal Design Review
Committee for additional input and recommendations; the following findings have
been made:
· It is found that the proposed development project will benefit the area by creating new
residential and commercial opportunities on Watson Island in the Downtown NET
District, located along MacArthur Causeway.
· It is found that the project has convenient access the Metrobus lines operating along
MacAnhur Causeway. It is also located adjacent to the Watson Island Station. of the
proposed "Baylink" segment of the Metrorail, located east of the subject property, for
efficient use of existing mass transit systems.
Page 2 of 5
05/02/2004 10:17
3054152035
HEARING BOARDS
PAGE 08
. It is found that the project was reviewed by the Large Scale Development Committee
on February 5, 2004 to address the expressed technical concerns raised at said Large
Scale Development Committee meeting.
.. It is found that the proposed project was reviewed for design appropriateness by the
Urban Development Review Board on March 17, 2004, whil:h recommended
approval with the following condition; Apply the 2nd Garage schElme facing 1-395.
The Planning and Zoning Department's review resulted in design modifications that
were then recommended for approval to the Planning and Zoning Director.
. It is found that on May 5, 2004, the City of Miami Planning Advisory Board approved
the Amendment to the Downtown DRl, which expanded the boundaries of the
Downtown DRl to make them consistent with the jurisdiction of the Downtown
Development Authority and to add eight (8) wet slips to the Marina land use category
of the DRI.
. It is found that the Future Land Use Amendment and Change of Zonings a."isociated
with the Island Gardens project were passed on Second Reading by ,he City of Miami
City Commission (Resos. 03-0397, 03-0397a, 03-0397b, 03-0397c) on May 6,2004.
. It is found that the proposed project was reviewed by the Zoning Board on May 10,
2004 for a Special Exception and a Variance, both of which were approved with
conditions.
. [t is found that on May 19, 2004, the City's Traffic Consultant, URS Corp., provided
a Review of the Traffic Impact Analysis submitted by the applicant and has found the
traffic analysis sufficient.
. It is found that with respect to all additional criteria as specified in Section 1305 of
Zoning Ordinance 11000, the proposal has been reviewed and found to be adequate.
Based on these findings, the Planning and Zoning Department is recommending
approval of the requested Development Project with the following conditions:
I. Meet all applicable building codes. land development regulations, ordinances and
other laws and pay all applicable fees due prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
2. Allow the Miami Police Department to conduct a security survey, at the option of
the Department, and to make recommendations concerning security measures and
systems; further submit a report to the Department of Planning Md Zoning, prior
to commencement of construction, demonstrating how the Police Department
recommendations, if any, have been incorporated into the PROJECT security and
construction plans, or demonstrate to the Director of the Department of Planning
and Zoning why such recommendations are impractical.
Page 3 of5
06/02/2004 10:17
3054162035
HEARWG BOARDS
PAGE 09
3. Obtain approval from, or provide a letter from the Department of Fire-Rescue
indicating APPLICANT'S coordination with members of the Fire Plan Review
Section at the Department of Fire-Rescue in the review of the scope of the
PROJECT, owner responsibility, building development process and review
procedures, as well as specific requirements for fire protection and life safety
systems, exiting, vehicular access and water supply.
4. Obtain approval from, or provide a letter of assurance from the Department of
Solid Waste that the PROJECT has addressed all concerns of the said
Department prior to the obtainment of a shell penn it.
5. Comply with the Minority Participation and Employment Plan (including a
Contractor/Subcontractor Participation, Plan) submitted to the City as part of the
Application for Development Approval. with the understanding that the
APPLICANT must use its best efforts to follow the provisions of the City's
Minority/Women Business Affairs and Procurement Program as a guide.
6. Prior to the issuance of a shell pennit, provide the City with a recorded copy of
the MUSP permit resolution and development order, and further, an executed,
recordable unity of title or covenant in lieu of unity of title agreement for the
subject property; said agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of
the City Attorney's Office.
7. Provide the Department of Planning and Zoning with a temporary construction
plan that includes the following: a temporary construction parking plan, with an
enforcement policy; a construction noise management plan with an enforcement
policy; and a maintenance plan for the temporary construction site; said plan
shall be subject to the review and approval by the Department of Planning and
Zoning prior to the issuance of any building pennits and shall be enforced during
construction activity. All construction activity shall remain in full compliance
with the provisions of the submitted construction plan; failure- to comply may
lead to a suspension or re-..ocation of this Major Use Special Pennit.
8. In so far as this Major Use Special Permit includes the subordinate approval of a
series of Class I Special Pennits for which specific details have not yet been de-
veloped or provided, the applicant shall provide the Department of Planning and
Zoning with all subordinate Class I Special Permit plans and detailed require-
ments for final review and approval of each one prior to the issuance of any of
the subordinate approvals required in order to can)' out any of the requested ac-
tivities and/or improvements listed in this development order or captioned in the
plans approved by it.
9. If the project is to be developed in phases, the Applicant shall submit an interim
plan, including a landscape plan, which addresses design details for the land oc-
cupying future phases of this Project in the event that the future phases are not
developed, said plan shall include a proposed timetable and shall be subject to
review and approval by the Director of Planning and Zoning.
Page 4 of 5
05/02/2004 10:17
3054152035
HEARING BOARDS
PAGE 10
10. Pursuant to the Traffic Impact Analysis Review, the applicant is strongly encour-
aged to continue working with the City's Traffic Consultant to resolve all out-
standing Traffic Analysis issues prior to being heard by the City Commission.
11. Pursuant to the Zoning Board review. the applicant shall adhere to the conditions
of approval placed by the Zoning Board as provided in the City Commission
Resolution.
12. Pursuant to the UDRB's and Planning and Zoning Department's review, the
applicant shall meet the following conditions; Apply the 2nd Garage scheme
facing 1-395.
13. The applicant shall continue to work with the City Planning and Zoning
Department in the articulation of the buffer on the eastem side of the parking
garage facing MacArthur Causeway.
14. The applicant will be required to provide landscaping for the roadway and would
be responsible for the development of the beautification and lhe landscaping of
the fa!j:ade to the City's final review and approval.
15. Within 90 days of the effective date of this Development Order, record a certified
copy of the Development Order specifying that the Development Order nms with
the land and is binding on the Applicant. its successors, and assigns, jointly or
severally.
Page 5 of5
"
.e
\
-
06/02/2004 10:17
3054162035
HEARING BOARDS
PAGE 11
C. Legal De.~cription
EXHIBIT "B"
Commence at a point sho\1t"lJ nUrlced by ar. 5/8" diamet~r iron rod'and Cap Sta..'1lped.
F.D.O.T., shown as P.t. Sea. 25+50. on thc.Official Map of Location md Survey of a '
portion OfSc:clion 8706, designated as. paz:: of State. Road A~l-A in D~dc: COUnty,
Florida", prepared by th~ State Road Depanment of the State of Florida. as. recorded in
MapBook,56. at Page 71 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida.. Said point
being the point. of tangency of the original cc:nter line of L~e' Douglas 'MacArthur :
Causeway running Easterly and South Easterly from the Westerlylimiis (West Bri~ge) of,
. Wat,~on Island as shoWn on Sheet J of the State Road Depanment Right-of- Way Map.
Section No. (11706-112) 87060-2 i 17, revised March 25, 1959~said most Northedycurvc
having a .radius .of 1432.69 feet and a central angle of 62 "00' 00 seconds" ; thence South
.59 l 51' 26"Wes(dcparting radially from said centerline adist2nce of 987.36 feet to a
Projected Bul~ead line; thence ~(\rth'17 '12'21" West along said bulkhead line. ~
: distance of238.86 feet to the point and place ofbegiMing;thenceNorth 17'12' 21" West
. continuing alo:Jg, said. blllk!lead Iineadist:\l".r:eoL924:70fee. to the. Southerly'right'of.;
. way line cjf State Road ,A-I-A Douglas MacArthur. Causeway; 'thence..along said
Sou:herly tight of way I:::!c the. following courses anddi~tances; South 89'.'10' 55" East, a .
db:Olnce of 73.08.,"fcet; '. thence Notth.86,}"4~ 00. East/.a distance'of6i'.09., feet.to: no"","; .'
tangent curve ccnca'~eto t.ie Northeast whose'ndialline be~Nortl; 39' 29' 18"E.1st'.
ho.ving a radius ofJ 60.00 feet and cer. tra 1. a..'lg!e of 211 09' 33"; thenccalcmg.silid cUrVe '
al': arc leng!~: uL? 1.88fe::t; .tiv.:m:c._'Sout):".i2:40;. IS"'East -co:ai'nuit,g 'alol1g.said'
Sou:herl)"'Iight oiway line a di$ta.nce of275.49 !-~e\; to a curle concave to the Southl';est
having a radius of 600.00 feet and centl'2langeLof46 '.17' 39" ther.ce along said curve.a!; .
arc length of 4&4.79 fe~t to a pOml of tanger.::y;'thence. S:Juth.26,~-22''36" Eastco!:tinuing
along the southwesteriy right of way line of 5ta:=: Road. No I-A, a distance of 196.59 fee::;
thence South 54 ' 07' 39" West Departing Said right of way lin=. a c:!i!;:ance .0[532.15 ..
fee:: the:1c! North '35' 54' 03" W:st, a.d:st:l,m:eof132.74 feet; thence.Scuth.54.',07' 39"
West, a distance of 150.14 feet to'lhe point of beginning,
136/132/213134 113:17
313541621335
HEARING BOARDS
PAGE 135
'.
PLANNING FACT SHEET
HEARING DATE
Judith A. Burke, Esq. on behalf of Flagstone Island
Gardens, LLC, the contract lessee, and Joe Arriola, City
Manager. on behalf of the City of Miami.
June 2, 2004
APPLICANT
REQUEST/LOCATION
Consideration of a Major Use Special Permit for the
Island Gardens Project located at approximately 950 and
1050 MacArthur Causeway.
See attached.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PETrTJON
Consideration of a resolution, approving with conditions,
a Major Use Special Permit pursuant to Articles 13 and
17 of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000. as amended, for the
Island Gardens Project located at approximately 950 and
1050 MacArthur Causeway, Miami. Florida. to be
comprised of two hotel buildings housing 500 rooms and
105 fractional ownership units with accessory uses,
221,000 square feet of retail space, 1,610 total parking
spaces. 50 mega-yacht slip marina and ancillary uses,
maritime gallery, and approximately 6.5:t acres of public
gardens and open space.
PLANNING
RECOMMENDATION
Approval with conditions
BACKGROUND AND
ANAL VSIS
See supporting documentation.
PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD
CITY COMMISSION
APPLICATION NUMBER
2004-045
Item # 1
r._.....,.".,~........._.....-........."""_._.-''''.._.............--,............-.-........-...---....-....-...-...-....---.."...................-..-..-...'..--.-.-..-."....'..........--........;
;
CITY OF MIAMI · PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
444 SW 2ND AVENUE. 3"0 FLOOR' MIAMI. FLORIDA. 33130 PHONE (305) 416.1400
'tiate..P.iinied.:...S/"27if6'04........--..'.....'................-...........--......,..........................................-.-.__..............__._..........._.........".."...-pa.ge...~