Loading...
12-16-2004 Workshop A~~R:a -.' 19200 West rnnn"" r¡nh n,;"e Aven"", FI, City Commission Workshop Meeting December 16, 2004 Following 10 A.M. Special Meeting Executive Conference Room 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. '. AGENDA Revised Waterways Park Plan* EAR Comprehensive Plan Update . Process . Major Issues . LDR Amendment relating to Parking Garages within the Building Envelope Decorative Street Lighting for Biscayne Boulevard* Village at Gulfstream Park DRI Update* Adjournment * Back-up Information Exists This meeting is open to the public. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, all persons who are disabled and who need special accommodations to participate in this meeting because of that disability should contact the Office of the City Clerk, 305-466-8901, not later than two days prior to such proceeding. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF AVENTURA OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM City Commission ~ Eric M. Soroka, ICMA-CM, City" g December 8, 2004 , Revised Waterways Park Plan BACKGROUND Earlier this year, the City Commission approved the execution of the Purchase and Sale agreement with Gulfstream for six acres. The Agreement contained the following major points: 1. City will purchase park parcel for a purchase price of $3,800,000. The property was appraised in 2000 at $3,850,000. 2. City will take the parcel in an "as is - where is" condition and will be responsible for any environmental cleanup and liability. Gulfstream will contribute up to $1,000,000 toward the clean up work. 3. As a condition to closing, Gulfstream shall have obtained from the City zoning approval to extend the MO zoning and conditional use approval for the parcels zoned medical office for residential uses which does not exceed twenty (20) stories in height and 35 dwelling units an acre. 4. As a condition following the closing, at Gulfstream's cost, the City agrees to be a joint applicant with Gulfstream for the westerly expansion of the existing canal located north of Yacht Club Drive to Gulfstream's adjacent property including the development of a marina. Upon final approval by all applicable regulatory authorities, Gulfstream will pay the City $1,900,000. 5. The City agrees that the property will be used for park purposes and accessory uses to the park. Memo to City Commission December 8, 2004 Page 2 Recently, representatives of Gulfstream approached the City to discuss the possibility of rearranging the proposed park land to be purchased by the City, in order to allow the southern extension of the race track and chute. The original park site is shown on the attached Exhibit A and contained approximately 1.6 acres of unusable wetlands. After meeting several times with Gulfstream and revising the plans, we feel that a better park site and layout has been developed. The new park site is shown on the attached Exhibit B. The positive points of the new plan are as follows: . The usable land area is approximately 5.65 areas. . The land contains less wetland area. . The baseball multi-purpose field is larger than the original plan. . The playground area is larger. . The parking facilities are larger. . Ajogging path was added. The only negative point of the new plan is the fact that the new 6 acre area is no long contiguous with the current waterways park. It will be connected by a sidewalk. In addition, it should be pointed out based on the new plan and the location of the track chute, Gulfstream will no longer be pursuing the westerly expansion of the existing canal. Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the City Commission accept the revised park plan and authorize the Purchase and Sale Agreement to be amended to reflect the new land area. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. EMS/aca Attachment ~ 4- ~ ...c. ~ ! ~ ~ ~ .. ¥ ~ ~ ~ § ~. ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ¡¡ " '0 I ; ; ~ s ~ ~ ~ a '"I'" : ¡ ho-:ì p.",d.!' I ! N,E. :CORNER TRACT1'8'" .. N"E,,' CO~N,ER S,'.EQION'J4,-i5! 4.2!T,' , .-, ""0' I 'I" I' ijJ' , :~~"~o:~';¡i~~LL m.it: ,r i i. AS' ~, '" "'COON 54-"-<2 I L ì; " -t:b~~j," ~-; :å~ !~~ I~~ /' "'o'<;'¿~ ,¡: , 'é, ~ , : "', " '" 'p R (j ~I --it . l' ,- 7.-.;: RESIDEN ~,;>'b' '- , O¡ ! '-, ,- "'~,'".. ~'I [I CaMo. 6IonIono . -. he. r; --.}. ~'"'~-~ ~ ~ .". "...n.", ""riO. """ ;. 'í . '~-::.~:~":;~.',~.:7.::'~:" II, SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION GULF STREAM PARK - DADE COUNTY PORTION PROPOSED PARK BOUNDARY LEGEND: BCR D{" C,A- DB, LB L ~PB -1-1- O"B PG P. Poa PDC R R/'N SQ, n, u,( .,owo,d C~nty Roo"d, ~~~i-Dod' Counly Roo.,d, C.n",'ino Coni'" on,'o (Dono) D"d B.ok Li"""d Bv,in... Lon.lh (Me) ~i""'onoov' P<at Book Non-V,""v'" 'm" to" Ol/'do' R.."d, 800k p,.o Plol 800' Point 01 Be,innin. Potnl 01 Commen,=enl Rodiu' R',hi-of-Woy S,u.., Ful Ulility (ooem",' ~ II--O~ r~'" i 1".200' 01-21931 3 I~" I~ 1 , 10-22-03 I '" u: ~ ~ vi VI >- ¡;; ;;: ~ '" :J '" '" < VI Pi I- a ~ '" VI :;5 6 'i! ~ ~ z ¡¡j '" ~ ~ ~ is g ~ g ~ ;: ¡¡¡ I- < E1-1-1 i\, ,'-I- 'b ;: , w .. u. ID z ~ vi 5 ~ i3~< tñi:!:;5;:;::¡ ~ëE~;!:i~ u: vi ~ "t ~ N z ~ i I , , .. I _.._,-,,--,~ -~..~.. I ~,.._-----="-- - -,,-- '. ì ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ¡¡; f) ë; ~ ...... OJ) ...... ¡.., 0 f ! ' , ! æ E: ~ ~ rJ) ~ ~ I ) ~ ~ ,\ 0 \ 1 I ,I . . . I ! I . I 0 I I, ¡ : r ì I ~ ¡ I, r I', .... : "0' j "'1 : I I /1 I,' !I' 111,.,. , I I, . " --a--~- WETLAND BOUNDARY SHOWN ON CITY SURVEY TOTAL AREA=293,631 S.F, AREA ON GULFSTREAM SITE: 261,545 S.F. (JJor¡<.:>Uj ,/2~iLJ -rr /----~ POSSIBLE NEW / PARK BOUNDARY: 262,124 S.F. (6.01 Acres) SITE PLAN I:=F;~~~ARK I ¡:;:;~~. EB J ~,_o.._---"-,, --- ,.~¡"'ooo bit PARKING (+/- 75 SPACES) ENTRANCE #' ,>,' ? CV" ----, I~-I~-o~ uJ~ts6p - #-2 City of Aventura, Florida 2005 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report December 16, 2004 Commission Meeting ,1 Bell David Planning Group and The Corradino Group 1 What is the City of Aventura's Comprehensive Plan? The City of Aventura's Comprehensive Plan is the City's blueprint for existing and future development for the next 20 years. The Plan's goals, objectives and policies reflect the City's vision for its future, and for how it will meet the needs of existing and future residents, visitors and businesses. 2 What is an EAR? An Evaluation and Appraisal Report is a review of the City's Comprehensive Plan. - Required every 7 years - Responds to changes in State, regional and local planning requirements - Identifies progress made towards achieving the Comprehensive Plan - Identifies changes to the City such as population increases, annexations and changes in land use 3 Purpose of Workshop As part of the EAR, the City must identify the major planning issues it is facing, and make recommendations to amend the Comprehensive Plan to address these issues. The purpose of this workshop is to gain your input on the issues that should be addressed in the EAR. 4 Preliminary Issues Based on discussions with City staff, three preliminary issues have been identified: - Development and Redevelopment - Hurricane preparedness and emergency management - Quality of life 5 Development and Redevelopment - The level of development and redevelopment projected to occur in the City - Key challenges that the City is facing in terms of development and redevelopment - Areas that demonstrate a need for redevelopment - Review of development standards (Le. design parking...) and land development regulations 6 Emergency Preparedness - Updates to the City's hurricane evacuation and emergency preparedness plans - Development and redevelopment impact to the City's emergency management plan - Transportation impacts on emergency management - The City's emergency management plan as part of the regional system - Emergency management plans of adjacent jurisdictions 7 Quality of Life The City of Aventura is densely developed and substantially built-out. How can the City maintain and improve its quality of life given on- going development pressure and competing needs? - Public schools - Housing - Public safety - Parks - Infrastructure needs 8 0> ('-. en CD ::J en en I- CD ..c: +-' 0 Next Steps . A workshop with adjacent municipalities and County, regional and State agencies. . Develop the EAR . Present draft EAR to Council . Transmit draft EAR to DCA . Present EAR for adoption by City Council and transmit to DCA 10 Schedule . ISSUE IDENTIFICATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Nov. - Dec. 04 . DEVELOPMENT AND PREPARATION OF DRAFT EAR Jan. - June 05 . PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED EAR July 05 . TRANSMIT PROPOSED EAR TO DCA Sept. 05 . REVISE PROPOSED EAR Oct. 05 . PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT PROPOSED EAR Nov. 05 . TRANSMIT ADOPTED EAR Dec. 1,05 11 CITY OF AVENTURA OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM FROM: City Commission ~ Eric M. Soroka, ICMA-CM, c~~age December 7, 2004 Decorative Street Lighting - Biscayne Boulevard TO: DATE: SUBJECT: At the last Commission Workshop Meeting, the Administration was requested to obtain additional information regarding the installation of decorative street lighting on Biscayne Boulevard. The following is in response to the above request: 1. The City can utilize its own design and color for the street poles so long as FDOT approves the final plans. 2, The decorative street lights in Hallandale produce the same light as the cobra-head lights. In the event the Commission wishes to approve this project, it is recommended that the City's Landscape Architect design the street lights and obtain FDOT approval so that we can develop the overall cost of the project. EMS/act CCO1330,04 CITY OF AVENTURA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: BY: City Commission ~EJ Eric M. Soroka, I~~ City Manager - Joanne Carr, AICJ:r. / n Planning Director'~ ' THROUGH: DATE: December 6, 2004 SUBJECT: Status of Gulfstream Park DRI Application The following is a summary of meetings held since my last memorandum of October 4, 2004, A meeting was held with all parties on October 26, 2004, following the Regional Planning Council's finding of insufficiency on September 29 to discuss the outstanding issues. The City of Hallandale Beach's position was that the applicant is not addressing additional trips on the roads in that the Local Traffic Study suggests signal timing and lane markings only, FDOT District #6 advised that it was not convinced that the development was exempt from roadway improvements because it was within a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) and asked for a letter of interpretation on this issue from the Department of Community Affairs. Our City's Special Counsel asked for examples from other DRI's and suggested that a recent Miami-Dade DRI may have been required to mitigate for road improvements inside and outside the TCEA. The applicant advised that there is an amendment underway to Broward County's master plan to delete the transportation concurrency exception area provision and enact a transit oriented concurrency program. Most of the discussion centered on specific traffic analysis in the Local Traffic Study and due to the technical nature of the data, all agreed that a separate meeting of transportation engineers should be convened to come to consensus on the data presented. On November 4, 2004, the transportation engineers for the applicant, for the Cities of Hallandale Beach and Aventura, for Broward and Miami-Dade Counties and for FDOT Districts #4 and #6 met to discuss the technical traffic data presented and outstanding issues, On November 9, 2004, all parties met to discuss the outcome of the transportation engineers' meeting on November 4. Five items are to be completed for the impact assessment report. Those items were: 1. Evaluate the ramps on 1-95 and Ives Dairy Road 2. Re-evaluate the ramps on 1-95 and Hallandale Beach Boulevard 3, Prepare a transit baseline study using LOS "D" with a translation of that level of service to transit needs 4. Translate Transportation Demand Management to trip reductions 5. Prepare a County Line Road feasibility study The applicant's traffic engineers agreed to provide the above information by November 19,2004 and provide the new study for review at a meeting on December 2,2004. The applicant's attorney also presented its proposal for a "Flexible Development Program" which contemplates a range of uses from minimum level in Phase I to a maximum level in Phase III (build out). The handout received from the applicant at the meeting is attached. The mix of uses in the "Minimum Development Program" is the minimum commitment of mixes by the applicant but it will ask for a Development Order that allows the 2014 maximum with an interim cap of 2,040 trips. The 1.3 million square feet of retail in the 2014 maximum column is to be revised by the applicant to 1.2 million square feet. On November 22, 2004, staff received the supplemental traffic evaluation and information report from the applicant's traffic engineers, Staff, City's Special Counsel and the City's traffic consultant reviewed the report for discussion at the meeting scheduled for December 2. On December 2, 2004, all parties met to discuss whether adequate information had been submitted to allow the South Florida Regional Planning Council to make a sufficiency determination and then move the application along to the development order conditions negotiation stage. The FDOT and Broward County representatives were satisfied with the information. The representative from Dade County Transit advised that he requires more information as to the basis of calculation of transit trips shown in the report and analysis of a proposed transit stop. The representatives from the City of Hallandale Beach had just received the supplemental traffic report the day preceding the meeting and had not had time to review it. There is also the outstanding issue of sanitary sewer capacity. Our City's Special Counsel suggested that sufficiency determination should not be made until the question of roadway mitigation within a TCEA is resolved. The applicant's attorney answered that question will remain unresolved pending the outcome of the land use amendment underway in Broward County to delete the TCEAs and this can be discussed further during the development order negotiations. The South Florida Regional Planning Council will delay issuance of sufficiency until the applicant submits the required information to and satisfies Dade County Transit and until the City of Hallandale Beach reviews the supplemental traffic report and provides the Planning Council with evidence that sanitary sewer capacity will be available. The applicant anticipates that these items will be completed by December 15, 2004 and is looking for a sufficiency determination on or about that date. Once the sufficiency determination is made, negotiations will begin for development order conditions, The applicant is expecting to have negotiations completed for hearing at the Regional Planning Council meeting in February, 2005. Although the applicant has completed the traffic studies and has tentatively agreed to some transit improvements, it is still not willing to mitigate by way of any road improvements because of its location in a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA), Our City's position has been since the beginning of the DRI meetings that DRl's are not excepted. The applicant disagrees and this question remains open. City staff and City's Special Counsel have scheduled a meeting with Department of Community Affairs staff on December 9, 2004 to discuss whether a DRI is exempt from road improvements when it is within a TCEA. The concurrent land use plan amendment was transmitted to DCA on September 28, 2004, The Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report has not been issued by DCA as of December 2, 2004. The applicant has no expected date for adoption of the amendment. I have attached the applicant's original flowchart of actions required for approval and have indicated the status of both the DRI and the Land Use Plan Amendment as of this date. Flexible Development Program The Applicant proposes to implement a flexible development program which contemplates a range of uses from a "minimum"level, which represents the initial portion of the Phase I development, to a "maximum" level as reflecte on Table 1 below: . .1., "'" ~~ J ,'^ V>-?"', Tabl; ÏJ fW ' w.~'mIM' DI t \ Immu axlmum eve opmen ~ Minimum 2010 2014 Maximum Use Development' Development Development Pro~ram Pro~ram Pro~ram Retail 600,000 ..f, 1,050,000 s,f. 1,300,000 s.f. Office 0 s,f. 40,000 s,f. 300,000 s,f. Residential ~u wßl5 units 1,000 units 1,500 units Hotel 0 rooms 250 rooms 500 rooms Movie Theater 3,000seats 3,000 seats 5,500 seats NEW P.M. PEAK 1,209 trips 2,040 trips 2,6,05 trips HOUR TRIPS ~k 1..d-.tt'\. M \\J¡uJ~'. ~~ l.~w... This flexible Development Program was formulated to allow the Applicant to respond to market conditions by increasing or decreasing the intensities and types of use within specified limitations designed to ensure compliance with Chapter 380 requirements, The DR! analysis was performed with an evaluation of the maximum (year 2014) development program listed above, Because the land use intensities cannot exceed the 2014 maximum development program, the infrastructure impacts ofth~ project will not exceed the impacts which have been evaluated for build out of the project. However, to respond to continuing issues related to the significance and magnitude ofproject traffic and demands on transportation infrastructure, the Applicant proposes to create an interim "cap" of trips at the threshold provided in the 2010 development program listed above (2,040 weekday p.m, peak hour trips), Under this plan, the following would occur: The Applicant will initially pursue a plan of development up to 2,040 trips on the site, If the Applicant wishes to develop uses within the DR! that will exceed this 2,040 trip "interim" cap (up to the established maximum of2,605 p.m, peak hour trips), the Applicant will be required to perform an updated traffic analysis, Within the 2,040 trip interim cap, the Applicant will have the flexibility to develop any of the individual uses up to the maximum intensity listed in the 2014 development program, given that the overall new external trip generation does not exceed the interim cap. Examvle: the Applicant could decide to develop up to 300,000 square feet of office, but develop less retail use such that the overall DR! trip generation does not exceed the interim cap of 2,040 p,m, peak hour trips, This flexible program would be governed by an overall trip equation as follows: (0.031 * M)+(1.536 * O)+(?,235 * ~+(0.16 * R)-t(\.587 C)= 2,040 trips Where: M = movie theater/cinema (seats) 0 = office (1,000 sf) H = hotel (rooms) R = residential (d,u.) C = commercial (1,000 sf) :>0 ... == g '" H it ~ , ~ [ . ~ ; ~ H ~~ ~~ n n H iî d ~~ ~ ~ ' "'" .. ~ í - ~i"~ ~ 3 i ';;1 ~ ~ ~ I '~',~ .. ' 3: ' ~ ~ . ~' : .~ ¡¡if if' d H [ ~I d ... . ~ o<! ... 8 '" 0 ~ ~ g .. [ ¡ JJ :>0 ¡ ~ ... = ::\'!¡ ~-~ i~. Q ... 5'3 g g ~ ~ ~ il ~ ".. ~~ h ¡~ i! ~~ i1 . ~ l~ ~t - Ë ~h ~H 1~ U <, ¡;¡! ~~ H 1~ !~ {¡ t ]I I~ , '" ~ , < , ~ õ 0'" -'.' ~3 , ...~ , !II:¡ " I s ~ ~r~ [~õ~,,¡;;il ~~P;H . a .' t ~ , ' ~ 9, ~ ~f [ ¡¡ ~, tiilJ ¡ ..'J~iH." ä¡ \ ¡t. ~H~~ ~ õ. [il n ~2 ~ a~p~ C\ c: r- .., \1\ -I ;I: !"PI )0 3: ",:; 3S, ~:¡: ~~ ~~ " ("I 0 Z ("I c: ;I: ;I: !"PI Z -I 0 ~2: r- c: ;;; )0 Z 0 ;I: !"PI N 0 Z Ž C\ "'; ;I: 0 ("I !"PI \1\ ~ I 0 ~ i} ~'" g~ ~~. g ~ Q :;. -". :¡:... ~'" "