Loading...
02-17-2016 Workshop February 17, 2016 7 P.M. Executive Conference Room  19200 West Country Club Drive Aventura, FL 33180 manager1956 AGENDA 1. Proposed Text Amendment to City LDRs –Width of Driveways (City Manager)* Future Action Required: LDR Amendment/Ordinance 2. Request to Amend Chapter 14 of City Code – Green Building Program (City Manager)* Future Action Required: Ordinance 3. Recommendation from CSAB on “Grown Up” Movie Night (City Manager)* 4. Discussion On Civil Citations Protocol (Commissioner Shelley)* 5. 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. CITY OF AVENTURA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M= ORANDUM TO: City Commission FROM: Eric M. Soroka, I• • IM City Manager BY: Joanne Carr, AICP "fr. • Community Developm nt Director DATE: February 8, 2016 SUBJECT: Request to Amend Section 31-171(a)(6)d. of the City Code to permit a width of 20 foot for two-way drive aisles February 17, 2016 City Commission Workshop I. THE REQUEST Granite Aventura LLC has submitted an application for administrative site plan review to construct a 158 unit, 18 story, 186'6" tall residential condominium building on the vacant parcel at the northwest corner of NE 185 Street and NE 28 Avenue. The site plan proposes an internal, 20 foot wide, two-way drive aisle for the driveway from the lobby to the parking garage along the NE 185 Street frontage of the site. There are no parking spaces proposed on either side of this driveway. A detail of the driveway location, in yellow highlight, is attached as Exhibit#1 to this staff report. Section 31-171(a)(6) d. of the City Code provides that drive aisles less than 24 feet wide shall be one-way only. It does not differentiate between the required width of a two-way drive aisle with or without abutting parking spaces. The applicant advises that it cannot increase the 20 foot width of the proposed two-way driveway due to location of the building's structural columns and required width of landscape buffer. Although the City Code does provide for variance application for site development criteria that do not meet minimums required, the applicant has requested a code amendment to include a 20 foot wide, two-way drive aisle for driveways where there is no parking abutting the driveway in the Off-Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards in Section 31-171 of the City Code. The letter of intent is attached as Exhibit #2 to this staff report. The applicant advises that its request is based on accepted engineering standards and cites, in its letter of intent, the Manual of Uniform Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways (the "Florida Greenbook") produced by the Florida Department of Transportation which allows a minimum lane width of 10 feet for local roads; the Miami-Dade County Code which allows a minimum 20 foot wide two- way drive aisle for driveways where there is no parking on either side; and the National Association of City Transportation Officials, which opines that lane widths of 10 feet are appropriate in urban areas and have a positive impact on a street's safety without impacting traffic operations. The City's Traffic Engineering Consultant and the City's Engineering Consultant have both advised that they have no objection to the proposed amendment and that it is consistent with many other codes and standards. The City's consultants have also recommended that the Code clarify the width of one-way drive aisles for driveways where there is no parking on either side and for one-way and two-way drive aisles next to parallel parking spaces. They have suggested a 15 foot wide drive aisle for one-way driveways where there is no parking on either side, a 12 foot wide drive aisle for one- way drive aisles abutting parallel parking spaces and a 20 foot wide drive aisle for two- way drive aisles abutting parallel parking spaces. This is included in the proposed amendment below. The proposed amendment to Section 31-171(a)(6)d. is shown in underlined text, as follows: Section 31-171. — Off-Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards. (a) General. Every building, use or structure, instituted or erected after the effective date of this chapter shall be provided with off-street parking facilities in accordance with the provisions of this section for the use of occupants, employees, visitors or patrons. Such off-street parking facilities shall be maintained and continued as an accessory use as long as the main use is continued. (6) Size and character of required parking. The following design requirements shall be observed for off-street parking: d. Accessibility. In all zoning districts, the width of access aisles and driveways for parking lots shall be substantially in conformance with the standards set forth in figure 31-171(1). Every space shall be accessible without driving over or through another parking space, except as provided in subsection 31-171(a)(6)i. Parking stalls abutting the same continuous drive aisle shall have the same angle and orientation. Drive aisles shall be one-way only which are less than 24 feet wide or which abut parking stalls with angles less than 90 degrees, except: (0 one-way drive aisles for driveways with no abutting parking spaces shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide; 2 (ii) one-way drive aisles abutting parallel parking spaces shall be a minimum of 12 feet wide., (iii) two-way drive aisles for driveways with no abutting parking shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide (iv) two-way drive aisles abutting parallel parking spaces shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Parking stall angles and drive aisle direction of flow may change only when the drive aisle is interrupted by a circulation drive or structure. Analysis of the Request The City's Engineering Consultant and Traffic Engineering Consultant have no objection to the applicant's proposed amendment for a 20 foot wide, two-way drive aisle for driveways with no abutting parking and advise that it is consistent with other codes and standards. At the recommendation of the City's consultants, staff is requesting addition of specifications for width of one-way drive aisles for driveways with no abutting parking and for one-way and two-way drive aisles abutting parallel parking spaces. The requested amendment would require an application by the property owner for amendment to the text of the Land Development Regulations. That application would be considered by the City Commission through the public hearing process and would be evaluated using the criteria in Section 31-77 for amendment to the text of the Land Development Regulations. If the City Commission concurs with the proposed amendments, staff will draft an ordinance for consideration by the Local Planning Agency and for first reading by the City Commission at the March 1, 2016 meeting agenda. 3 ws tlfY/llwpOO:fY03CONr0'6 0:�6r:�v0'G. v"'3�.4A-YO fiiik6gtiiri 1.v°RYikeites ' emeoso...-otlA. :evosHtleArim :'QA.'Yhtl newo otcorowl:tl'°! oome.tl rrsr;Yf,]tlL�{- .,:e :btl0: 1S,_:.,mir.r 01:517:4009 R,��� _ .v 1 ZS ..,! 4 L. I w L Y'T•"."c". V ywwq; , _Sww f. �::: ..Cnr_waw'-'- w-- w - - e}°'°'$A6°S e`V--: Id' �• e - ��%�e. .: � • ^w �Q7 itr 9y: �. /��� FEa'� / - % 14.11.iit'tr►t'O 'asrv�cE °LM '' • - j CURD CUTS lili, tl .111111&- ce. .`.OQtltltltl . tltl:tl.Vatldtltltltltltl.*tl:tltlotla0:tltl000000tl•oISISOSS.•.�0._i: tltltltl. . . .tl _�_L.tllf.Q'1 I ,O' P.'�. I- e, ,. . ". 011 - - I— a!! �� iii: �. tl' .1--� .4.-• 00=_ _ _ . or I 17 11 I k oioj : IiILj1 L2rA II.__,..1 N4' {I.z° , N—� � — — 11, il / IA 0 I --•O. 01 III TT I 11 t9 ZO o, I;77 a N 9 % i I / /�.11 rPT , ..I sJ�% VI' iR (r,,Fa I ,-.P PROPOSED 66TORY USINaL COUNTABLE PMgIG V lig n I I�11 S ' e4$1. GAMOE IwICL 1 A01 VAN AGCESSIBIf aPAfFS) M' l m I .- . ,••••• I R�a yya1G a7 ..El....au^ ]TAIOpANOi COUNTABLE PARSING OOM61,0, I 6 ,¢i:Tgf - 0 x'f`8' IR -..-.4%;_l Q rlioiNbw,°,Q N3 TOTAL PAWf6iG SPA^.,E.4 17 511` I ( \� II p'• :a „ r---- :".•••• � •�.4. q — lid'; 6 //%��//, b p� 1 °°+"/ °�g°'�I� l'Z . \♦- U U 1‘ q • >! >0 6I 76 76 ae m ]I ,% ,'i 77 J2 m °i !i. -,re,„., P 1 , •'[ ° ` tl `o�`S — . —I-I—III .., ///� —I I— �,., 36. o :.� - - -�A'�� � JIIfIIul'�III I I ii y 4 — �:"�/�2--11 — — 6i i �r ':� �hj T 4< ��.e° : 71,. 00 I en °� a 'i°+e se ♦ • .-Ji 1'=J�� I\ �''LiI IBCass-:I I •DIS E , °'.•''''',.";-•--','•'-•%;:.,z. . r , „IL tl Li -- /LI a I ° 1.j - v� � „,,14:111 .„,„ ,s\`\ \\--,...,.....<...,;/• '::y , t--•,,,.•:,,,d,..7' ' Lr?I I L j jJ Lceer i! r�(i - I t r� 4:.; 444 .\;i��� `�i{ r� �i+ ° ° ' GYM C • �, ��-- �' ..-1$e`per9 166 11- „ ice k f ���4 \� ` _ ° y v = Ifi /'• � j O. . •\ ` ° % p -- ` f ��h ,- - - j J .° r , �v . FFIr4j' 0 o - � / Q ° / QfIr� U.L ' /• ,4� „ r .3';'' b .e.....:ft. ----- ,./,'_* ° 7 I& I 01 i��' \ � nt � /Ly� e / 1 . W it • •ft xi .,awiza....11 111 ' \4464'74'!"-.7-1 7---w 44.$144Vile51:::91.. ,. limill."---) i � I. Y`^• 1.-f! 1-4770410:37.06?.. / /°° 40'.°0 j � f ■�/ rIGi4B d9.1 e ° q�+P�� ,,fro�,q� e `� 'I< ��g` © .1_ .off S�a �f a ��\\\ .( „,,�' ,. MIAMI GARP — .��_ e — b \ +�i.?:�.'! �jin NE ENS ��— arsYT�!N,^�, r`t ” _� 85th pRIV �► PLoaBNcsoEwwK - _{ ST wEtZLTo. . .. r ¢ r 3 '1 fH' .•\\ �-- —J1�—/ MB pl•ttq I I N•M1 ) L \ I M011Oa®UNIT PAYERS O VENVAY ihi ::'1..::',,,t,,'''4....,,,,�'.., ' �,"'�d `` _'_I�_��'I' ..I IOORd1D LEYII IW�BCAPE PI/l! V6./ hJlr'C'i ,'J 1•1';'',...":.' 1 �� �'7 Exhibit #1 Marissa Amuial Akerman LLP One Southeast Third Avenue Akerman Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131-1714 Tel: 305.374.5600 Fax: 305.374.5095 Dir: 305.982.5614 marissa.amuial®akerman.com January 20, 2016 Joanne Carr, Community Development Director City of Aventura JAN i ririo 19200 West Country Club Drive Aventura, FL 33180 Re: Letter of Intent Proposed Text Amendment to Land Development Code Dear Ms, Carr: On behalf of Granite Aventura LLC (the "Applicant"), enclosed herein please find an application for a text amendment to the City of Aventura Land Development Code ("Code"). It has come to our attention that the Code does not differentiate between the required width of a two-way driveway with no abutting parking and the required width of a drive aisle within a surface parking lot. Therefore the minimum standard width presently applied to two-way driveways with no abutting parking is 24 feet, which is wider than necessary to meet safety standards. Further, this requirement creates additional, unnecessary impervious surfaces that add to the heat island effect and increase stormwater runoff. The purpose of this request is to create clarity within the Code to allow appropriate widths of internal site driveways to be permitted. As set forth in Table 3-8 (attached as Exhibit 1) of the Manual of Uniform Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways (the "Florida Greenbook") produced by the Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT"), 10 foot minimum lane width is acceptable for local roads. Further, Miami-Dade County allows lane widths of 10 feet for driveways as set forth in the County Code of Ordinances Chapter 33, Article VII, Section 33-122 (Exhibit 2).This section indicates that, Driveways where there is no parking on either side shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width for two-way traffic.. Finally, according to the National Association of City Transportation Officials, lane widths of 10 feet akerman.com Exhibit #2 137200246,1; Joanne Carr, Planning Director January 20, 2016 Page 2 are appropriate in urban areas and have a positive impact on a street's safety without impacting traffic operations.' Based on the accepted engineering standards for roadways cited herein, 10 foot minimum lane width is acceptable for an internal roadway. A two-way driveway could therefore be constructed at total width of 20 feet if the proposed text amendment is adopted. In order to address the scenario described above, the Applicant requests that Code Section 31-171 (a)(6)d be amended as follows (additions underlined): • Accessibility. In all zoning districts, the width of access aisles and driveways for parking lots shall be substantially in conformance with the standards set forth in figure 31-171(1). Every space shall be accessible without driving over or through another parking space, except as provided in subsection 31 - 171(a)(6)i. Parking stalls abutting the same continuous drive aisle shall have the same angle and orientation. Drive aisles shall be one-way only which are less than 24 feet wide or which abut parking stalls with angles less than 90 degrees, except that two-way driveways with no abutting parking may be 20 feet wide. Parking stall angles and drive aisle direction of flow may change only when the drive aisle is interrupted by a circulation drive or structure. We look forward to presenting this item to the City Commission at its Workshop on February 17'h, to the Local Planning Agency on March 151 and to the City Commission on 20° Reading on April 5th. Thank you for your consideration of this proposed text amendment. Sincerely, Marissa R. Amuial See: http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide,'street-design-elements/lane-width/ {37200246,I} Exhibit 1 {28721073.1, Topic#625-000-015 May- 2013 Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways TABLE 3 - 8 MINIMUM LANE WIDTHS Minimum Lane Width (FEET) Freeways 12 Major Arterials 11 Minor Arterials 11 Collectors (Major and Minor) 11 Local Roads ' 10 Auxiliary Lanes 10 Pavement widths may be reduced for the paving of certain existing unpaved subdivision streets and low volume rural roads. See CHAPTER 3, SECTION A for conditions. TABLE 3 - 9 MINIMUM WIDTHS OF PAVEMENT AND SHOULDERS FOR TWO (2) LANE RURAL HIGHWAYS DESIGN AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (2-WAY) SPEED 250 250 -400 400-750 750 - 1,600 ABOVE 1,600 (MPH) MINIMUM WIDTH OF PAVEMENT (FEET) 30 20 20 22 22 24 35 20 20 22 22 24 40 20 20 22 22 24 45 2D 20 22 22 24 50 20 20 22 24 24 55 20 22 22 24 24 60 20 22 22 24 24 65 20 22 24 24 24 MINIMUM WIDTH OF SHOULDER (FEET) ALL 6 6 6 8 8 Geometric Design 3-34 Exhibit 2 {28721073.1] Sec. 33-122. -Required;definitions of parking space. Permanently maintained off-street parking for vehicles shall be provided in connection with any building or premises used or designed to be used for the purposes set forth in this article. Parking spaces on private roadways shall not be credited towards required parking. For the purpose of this article, each parking space shall be a minimum of eight and one-half (8.5) by eighteen (18) feet with the following exceptions: (1) Where parking spaces for the handicapped are to be provided, they shall be a minimum of eighteen (18) feet long and the width and quality shall be in accordance with the South Florida Building Code. Parking stall and aisle dimensions shall conform to the charts entitled "Minimum Parking Stall Dimension" and"Striping Detail" hereby incorporated as part of this section. �1 • t �I I MINIMUM PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS (IN FEET) AT VARIOUS ANGLES • Dimension Symbol (8.5'x 18') 45° 60° 75° 90° • Stall width, parallel to aisle A 12.0 9.8 8.8 8.5 Stall length of line B 26.5 22.9 20.3 18.0 Stall depth to wall C 18.7 19.8 • 19.6 18.0 • Aisle width between stall lines D 12.0 17.0 21.0 22.0 Stall depth, interlock E 15.7 17.7 18.5 18.0 Page 1 Module,wall to interlock F 46.5 54.6 59.1 58.0 Module, interlocking G 43.5 52.4 58.0 58.0 • Module, interlock to curb face H 44.7 52.4 56.7 55.5 Bumper overhang(typical) I 1.8 2.2 2.4 2.5 Offset 1 6.0 2.5 0.6 0.0 • Setback K 12.7 9.0 4.7 0.0 • Driveways L ** ** ** ** • For parallel parking minimum widths and length are 8.0' x 23.0'. ** Driveways where there is no parking on either side shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet in width for two-way traffic and fourteen (14) feet for one-way traffic. Access drives between the paved portion of the right-of-way and the property line shall comply with the Miami-Dade County public works manual. Page 2 CITY OF AVENTURA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M= ORANDUM TO: City Commission FROM: Eric M. Soroka, IC A-C City Manager BY: Joanne Carr, Al' P Community Develop in Director DATE: February 9, 2016 SUBJECT: Request to Amend Chapter 14, Green Building Program for clarification of calculation of incentives and bonuses February 17, 2016 City Commission Workshop I. THE REQUEST The owner of the property at 2875 NE 191 Street has requested consideration of an amendment to Chapter 14, Green Building Program, of the City Code to clarify the calculation of the incentives and bonuses listed in that Chapter. II. BACKGROUND Staff is currently reviewing an application for administrative site plan review for construction of a new hotel on the Turnberry Plaza property. This site currently contains a 10 story, 119,197 square foot office building. The proposed hotel is 12 stories with 189,098 square feet. The owner has registered the hotel project with the US Green Building Council and proposes to attain LEED® Gold certification. The existing office building was built in 1985 and is not LEED® certified. Chapter 14, Article VI., Green Building Program, of the City Code was adopted through Ordinance No. 2009-18. Section 14-115(11) of the Green Building Program permits a lot coverage and floor area ratio bonus for those buildings that attain LEED® Gold or Platinum certification. The incentives and bonuses were included to reward the higher levels of green building. Award of these bonuses is subject to approval at public hearing using the conditional use approval standards in Section 31-73 of the City Code. This section of the Code does not specifically address a situation where there is an existing building on site that is not certified at one of these two levels. Based on the current language in Section 14-115 (II) of the Code, only the portion of the property on which the green building project is located would be used for calculation of the lot coverage and floor area ratio bonuses. This may be a disincentive to attain the higher green building certification. In order to preclude the construction of a LEED® Gold or Platinum certified building that is smaller than an existing building on the same site that is not certified, it is recommended that the bonuses be calculated on the total lot area only when the LEED® Gold or Platinum certified project is the same size or larger than the existing building or buildings. It is further recommended that this amendment apply only to sites with an existing office building or buildings to encourage non-residential development. The proposed amendment to Section 14-115 (II) is shown in underlined text, as follows: Chapter 14, Article VI, Section 14-115. II. For those Buildings that attain LEED® Gold Certification or Platinum Certification (i) All of the incentives in I. above; and (ii) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) bonus not to exceed an FAR of 2.0 for properties with a Business & Office Future Land Use Designation, using the conditional use approval standards in Section 31-73 of the City Code rather than the variance approval standards in Section 31-76 of the City Code; and (iii) Lot coverage bonus provided that a green roof and/or green rooftop amenities are provided and maintained for the common benefit of building occupants; and; that increased Florida-Friendly tree canopy and Florida- Friendly plantings designed to calm the heat island effect are located on site, all in an amount equal to the requested increased lot coverage, using the conditional use approval standards in Section 31-73 of the City Code rather than the variance approval standards in Section 31-76 of the City Code. (iv) For projects located on the same site as an existing office building or buildings, which office building or buildings was/were constructed before October 6, 2009 and does/do not meet LEED® Gold or Platinum certification, the bonuses in (ii) and (iii) above shall be calculated based on the applicant's total site area, provided that the new construction that attains LEED® Gold or Platinum certification is the same size or larger than the total square footage of the existing office building or buildings. Analysis of the Request This specific situation was not addressed in 2009 when the Green Building Program was adopted. The intent of the program's incentives and bonuses was to encourage green building in the City and to reward projects that attain the highest level of green building standards. In order to continue that encouragement and to remove any possible disincentive to green building, staff supports the amendment. 2 Staff has analyzed the effect of this amendment on other similarly situated properties in the City and finds no negative impact on the City. The lot coverage and floor area ratio bonuses will continue to be subject to conditional use approval at public hearing as prescribed in Section 14-115 (II) (ii) and (iii). The requested clarification will require adoption of an amendment to Chapter 14 of the City Code, to be considered by the City Commission at public hearing. If the City Commission concurs, staff will draft an ordinance for consideration on first reading at the March 1, 2016 meeting agenda. If the amendment to Chapter 14 is adopted, staff will subsequently process an application to amend the text of Chapter 31, Land Development Regulations, to insert the amendment language into the applicable zoning districts. 3 CITY OF AVENTURA OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM TO: City Commission FROM: Eric M. Soroka, ICMA-CM, Cit :ger DATE: February 3, 2016 SUBJECT: Recommendation from the Com . , ity Services Advisory Board on "Grown Up" Movie Night At the last Community Services Advisory Board Meeting, the Board took action to recommend to the City Commission that a "Grown Up" Movie Night be held at the Aventura Arts and Cultural Center on June 25. Attached is the Movie Night Survey Results that was posted on the City's Website. I have placed this matter on the Workshop Agenda for the Commission's direction. EMS/act Attachment CC01929-16 City of Aventura 2015 "Grown Up" Movie Night Survey Results QUESTIONS YES NO Are you an Aventura resident? 60 4 Were you aware that "Grown Up" Movie Nights were offered in the past? 11 53 If you were made aware of them, would you have attended? 55 8 Would you attend PG-13 rated movies if they were offered at Founders Park? 52 12 If you were interested in attending a Founders Aventura Arts & Grown Up Movie night, would you prefer Park Cultural Center outddoors at Founders Park, or indoors at the Aventura Arts & Cultural Center 32 31 If you were to attend how many people 1 or 2 3 or 4 would be in your party? 44 15 5+ 4 What type of PG- 13 movies are you most Drama Comedy likely to attend? (Check as many as you like) 39 58 Action Suspense 41 31 etirYES NO Would you like to see other activities such as a jazz band at Grown Up movies? 50 14 Would you like to see food trucks? 47 15 CITY OF AVENTURA OFFICE OF THE CITY COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: Eric M. Soroka, ICMA-CM, City Manager FROM: Commissioner Robert Shelley DATE: February 3, 2016 SUBJECT: Discussion on Civil Citations Protocol Please place on the February Workshop Meeting Agenda a discussion on Civil Citations Protocol. Thank you.