Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Commissioner Sarnoff 3BUILD www.basfonline.org MIAMI 21 ISSUES SYNOPSIS September 3, 2009 I. Greenfield vs. Redeveloped Cities Comments A. Of 23 cities which have considered a SmartCodes, only 2 smaller towns or cities have adopted it as mandatory for the entire jurisdiction. (see list) B. The remaining 21 municipalities have adopted it as optional or for a discrete zone within their city limits. It must be noted, however, that it was learned, just as of the date of this document, that the city of Denver, Colorado, has adopted a Smartcode. If so, this is the first city of comparable size to do so. II. Adoption of LEED Silver Energy Criteria will require approval of a local technical amendment to Florida Building Code (FBC) prior to implementation in Miami 21. Florida Statute 553.4(b) expressly requires any local jurisdiction to apply for and receive FBC approval of a local technical amendment to any portion of the FBC, which amendment proposes to exceed the FBC's building code requirements. This would seem to apply to the energy portion of LEED certification also. Recommendation: Until such time as a local amendment to the Florida Building Code is submitted by the City and approved by the Florida Building Commission, adopt LEED Silver as voluntary, with incentives for compliance, and begin the process of adopting the legally required local, technical amendment. III. Avoid Unintended Consequences — Downtown Dadeland experience Recommendations: A. Modify the code for a particular situation rather than dig up and relocate utilities. The County's Downtown Dadeland ordinance, a SmartCodes ordinance adopted for this area, required the removal and relocation of utility lines, instead of simply amending the code. The County created a special tax district, and charged all property owners to dig up and move the water and sewer lines, rather than amend the code along this section of street frontage. There is no code so sacred that it should not meet a cost -benefit analysis to accommodate the City's financial conditions, to resolve physical development issues at a particular site. B. Be prepared to quickly negotiate between Public Works and Planning Departments, which have conflicting objectives for traffic treatment. Public Works engineers want traffic moving quickly along a roadway, while Planning staff want traffic calming elements installed. City staff must be ready to negotiate these differences for the applicant, who is typically a bystander in this discussion. Then, amend the code based on issues raised during this experience so future applicants are not subject to this bureaucratic tug of war. IV. Fiscal Impacts of Code Implementation Recommendations: A. Conduct a fiscal analysis to determine the hidden - but very real costs to the City — to adopt this new code. B. If Miami 21 is adopted, include a sig -month effective date to ensure that all Codes have been re- written, properly cross-referenced, all involved city departments have been trained, new forms have been.: . printed, and computers have been re -programmed for any new fee structure. 020 ®S- OG c SuY�mi I IGS COir�ln-� e SSl One r _S� mof f � 00- 01Y07 2t ` BAS-F-Ii. BUILDING WITH PRIDE www.basfonline.org EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Ashley Bosch, Esq. - Resident Blok Development Group, LLC Carlos E. Gonzala, Jr. - Frrt Y e Resident SunTrust Bank Mariana E. Pers -Second rice Resident City National Bank of Florida Fernando Marti -m - Resident -Elect Caribe Homes Alberto Milo - S—dary-Treasurer The Urban Development Group, LLC Ray Cestellaom-AssitantSecretary Authentic Construction; LLC Rey Mek.di - rmtnetGatr Past Resident Lcnnar Homes, Inc. Robert Duffy-lmmedate First Yrce Resident Foundation Insurance Group, LLC. Toni P ... Ili-Hiakky-E five rice Resident Builders Association of South Florida Oscar Barbara-Presid,.nd Build -Appointee Q—"` Rkhard Horton-ResidmNrd BudderAppoirdee The Green Companies Luis Quidones • Residential Associate AppointeeBenTrust Financial Oriando Diaz- Residentia[Asraciare Appointee Real Estate Diaz Investment Group, Inc. Lenny Miller • Life E—dve Convnitee Member Pasadena Homes, Inc. MiriaAlvarez-Fi-0 r Bondedm Builders Risk Management J.C. Calleira-E -Ofdo Cemex Laoi Kahn Drody-Fi-0� io Lowell Homes, Inc. John "t estop - E -Oydo Host Interiors Luis Rabell - Ex-Oycio LPR Builders Julian David Gonzalez -E-Offncio C.P.S. Harald Eiseoacher - Ex-Oycfo Carr Residential, LLC BOARD OF DIRECTORS Fred Abbo Prime Homebuilders Hugo Alvarez rez, AlvaAlmardn & Barbara, LLP Tony Barrios Matrix Employee Leasing, Inc. Ernie Ba.u's The Sherwin-Williams Co. Rabe. Bert— Vitmn Homes, Corp. Noah Breaksto,e BTI Developers Layla Caballero The Miami Herald Ale, saader Castellanos Advance Capital services Carlos Castellan' C Sgiurcd Construction, Inc. Edwin Carrion E&D Development, Inc. Jeff Daley Avatar Communities/Brookman Fels Frank De VaMan MarineMac William J. Delgado The Builder's Consultant Group Migoel Diaz De U Portilla Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. Shahia Etessam CD Group LLC & Greataooe Development, Inc. Barbara Fetter Akerman Sentefid Ale. Gaht Cogent Consulting Engineering Construction, LLC Lois Garcia Adonel Concrete Fernando x. Goma Ba.rd`ed FSB Richard Gomez TGSV Enterprises Jose Gonzalez Flagler Development Group Carolina Herren U— Mom" Eduardo Horaero First Bank Florida Diana Iharria Standard Pacific Homes John G. Kiskinis Kiskinis Communicntions, Inc. Ales Latra AlLwtic & Pacific Development Cesar Llano Century Homebuilders PatriciaM. Lubiaa Regions Bank Carlos Lopez Devalt Power',anis Tom C. Murphy Coastal Contraction Group Stanley B. Price, Esq. Bilzin, sumbcrg, Baena, Price & A brad LLP Oscar Rodriguez The Related Group Cynthia Ruiz, Esq. LPR Builders John Storm C—t Communications Jim Werle Werle Associates Capstone Sponsors Keystone Sponsors Cobblestone Sponsors Comcast. Ff$I r�•►lseryiciospora meTl�Can Q� Business Classrbu..e tw,ade. �' Contrahstas- tt.,. sHExwhv.mLuAMs. REGI ONSFASTENERS CORP.......... September 3, 2009 City of Miami Commission, Chairman Sanchez and Members 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 Re: Miami 21 Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioners: Submitted into the public record in connection with item SPA, SP.2 & SP.3 on 09-04-09 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk I am writing on behalf of the Builders Association of South Florida's (BASF) Miami 21 Working group. They have continuing concerns regarding the implementation of this proposed zoning code, which are set forth below. I. As mentioned in previous presentations, it is the group's position that Smart Codes are better suited for greenfield development. In a city with existing development, a Smart Code raises continuous issues about how to properly create the transition between existing development and much different new urbanism requirements. Of the 23 jurisdictions which have adopted a Smart Code, only two small towns — with populations of 12,000 and 27,0000 respectively — have adopted new urbanism as mandatory for their entire towns. The other 21 municipalities which adopted a Smart Code did so on an optional basis or for a specific redevelopment zone — i.e. a greenfield — within a portion of their city. (See attachment),It must be noted, that it was learned, just as today's date, that the city of Denver, Colorado, has adopted a Smartcode. If so, this is the first city of comparable size to the City of Miami do so. H. If adopted, Miami 21 would require that all buildings 50,000 square feet or larger, meet LEED Silver certification, including the energy performance calculations. However, it must be noted that the Florida Statute 553.4(b) expressly requires any local jurisdiction to apply for and receive Florida Building Commission (FBC) approval of a local technical amendment to any portion of the FBC, which amendment proposes to exceed the FBC's building code requirements. This would apply to the energy portion of LEED certification, which exceeds current FBC requirements by 10%. Thus, adoption of LEED Silver Energy criteria will require approval of a local technical amendment to Florida Building Code (FBC) prior to implementation in Miami 21. Recommendation: Until such time as a local amendment to the Florida Building Code is submitted by the City and approved by the Florida Building Commission, adopt LEED Silver as voluntary, with incentives for compliance, and begin the process of adopting the legally required local, technical amendment. 15225 NW 77 Avenue ♦ Miami Lakes, FL 33014 ♦ 305.556.6300 (Miami-Dade/Monroe) ♦ 954.525.8225 (Broward) ♦ Fax: 305.556 6304 Page Two Chairman Sanchez and Commissioners September 3, 2009 III. Avoid Issues Similar to Downtown Dadeland experience. This concern is raised because of the implementation of a Smart code for the Dadeland area, known as Downtown Dadeland (DD). The original ordinance was adopted by the County Commission for this small area in 2003, with at least two subsequent amendments. Two major builder concerns arose after the implementation of the DD ordinance: one related to public utilities and the second was inherent conflicts between Public Works and Planning and Zoning Departments' roadway requirements. Utilities Issue — as in other SmartCodes style plans, including this one, all building fronts have to abut the street. After the plan was adopted, it was found that major water and sewer lines ran under the streets. Rather than change the code for these specific streets, Miami -Dade WASD dug up and relocated these major utility lines at enormous taxpayer expense. Further, the County established a special taxing district,to pay for the costs of relocating the utilities, rather than adjust the code. Roadway Conflicts between Public Works and Planning and Zoning Departments — while the Public Works Department's goal is to move traffic quickly along city streets, the Planning and Zoning Department's goal, based on the DD ordinance, was to slow traffic down. Thus, the planning document conflicted with public works' staffs requirements for highway and roadway designs. This generated multiple conflicts to the point where senior level County staff had to spend months negotiating between the two departments about roadway treatment. The applicant was reduced to merely observing the process as time and money were being spent on issues that could have been avoided if they had been resolved before the ordinance was adopted. Recommendations: ■ Modify the code for a particular situation rather than dig up and relocate utilities at taxpayer's expense. There is no code so sacred that it should not meet a cost -benefit analysis to accommodate the City's financial conditions and to resolve physical development issues at a particular site. ■ Be prepared to quickly negotiate between these two departments, who have inherently opposing goals for roadway treatment. Then, amend the code based on needed changes learned from experience. III. Implementation Time and Costs — As with any new code, it must be merged into the city's existing code of ordinances. This massive re -writing and editing task is a hidden cost in City Attorney staff time, revising the City Code of Ordinances, reprinting Building Department forms and retraining staff. Since zoning touches many parts of the City's code, City attorney staff must effectively re -write all provisions of the City's Code, and all of Chapter 62, to ensure that the Code is accurate for the foreseeable future. While the Manager's Memo dated August 26, 2009, indicated that the fiscal impact would be minimal, respectfully, an in-depth fiscal analysis relating to all the costs of Miami 21 adoption should be undertaken to provide the City Commission with the costs required to complete the multiple tasks in comporting the existing code with a new one. Submitted into the public record in connection with item SPA, SP.2 & SP.3 on 09-04-09 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Page Three Chairman Sanchez and Commissioners September 3, 2009 Recommendations: ■ Conduct a fiscal analysis to determine the hidden - but very real costs to the City — to adopt this new code. ■ If Miami 21 is adopted, include a six-month effective date to ensure that all Codes have been re -written, properly cross-referenced, all involved city departments have been trained, new forms have been printed, and computers have been re -programmed for any new fee structure. If the City Commission still chooses to adopt this proposed code, it must be willing to amend it to avoid a series of expensive, unintended consequences, some which were noted above. While the Code has a provision for text revisions on a two-year basis, if needed, (language is permissive), the unintended consequences and implementation costs of some provisions may require Code amendment more often. A code is intended to serve the City as a blue print for the future and to serve its citizens: builders, property owners and residents. Surely, it must be able to withstand adjustment if it is to meet their needs for the foreseeable future. Thank you for the opportunity present the Association's views. Sincerely, Truly Bu o Government Affairs Director, Miami -Dade County Attachments cc: City Manager Hernandez Planning and Zoning Director Gelabert-Sanchez Submitted into the public record in connection with item SPA, SP.2 & SP.3 on 09-04-09 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Learn > Links and Resources r Learn > Introduct on > All Abouthe Code Links and R sources workshops Links and Resources The number of initiatives is considerable. And growing. Jump to: > SmartCod a Workshop Case Studies > Workshop Registration Articles > SmartCod a Advanced SmartCode Timeline > Advanced Registration Links > SmartCod a Local > SmartCod a ListSery > SmartCod a Downloads mi, Build Su port CASE STUDIES . i Administer SMARTCODES - ADOPTED Collaborative map of adopted SmartCodes / Abbeville, Louisiana - June 2006 <-- ma-pjat" a Conway, Arkansas - October 2006 - optional 3 Dardienne Prairie - July 2007 - mandatory for Uptown Zoning District Flagstaff, Arizona - November 2007 - floating zone for areas designated Mixed Use or TND in Regional Plan EI Paso, Texas - July 2008 - optional Flowood, Mississippi - October 2005 - optional Elmore, Alabama - June 2006 - optional Looking for S artCode Fort Myers, Florida - September 2005 - mandatory for downtown calibration se ices? (Chapter 118, Article VII) Click here.Germantown, Tennessee - August 2007 - mandatory for 800 acre business district Gulfport, Mississippi - February 2007 - optional; October 2007 - mandatory for Old Gulfport Community Plan and Mississippi City Plan /p Jefferson County, AL - August 2008 - Regional Sector Plan / / Kona, Hawaii - September 2008 - mandatory for TODs Ij Lake Charles, LA - June 2006 - mandatory for Downtown Lakefront district, City Ordinance 13701 13 Lawrence, Kansas - January 2009 - optional /VLeander, Texas - September 2005 - mandatory for jurisdiction rw) /S Liberty, Missouri - December 2006 -optopt onai /6 Mesquite, TX - November 2007 - mandatory for Truman Heights Neighborhood District - August 2008 - Regional Sector Plan for 20 square miles of Greenfield territory and extraterritorial jurisdiction. Sbbmitted into the public ' .. record in connection with item SPA, SP.2 & SP.3 on. 09-04-09 Priscilla.A. Thompson City"Clerk This? 51 - September 2008 - mandatory SmartCode for the Greenfield territory within the Kaufman -Interstate 20 District Montgomery, Alabama - January 2006 - optional; May 2007 - mandatory for downtown /9, Pass Christian, Mississippi - April 2007 - optional / y Petaluma, California - July 2003 - mandatory for 400 acres in Central Petaluma - Case Study - Presentation �p Pike Road, Alabama - August 2005 - mandatory for Sectors 0-1, G-3, G-4 ` San Antonio, Texas - December 2007 - mandatory for City South as Sarasota, Florida - June 2004 - mandatory for downtown St. Charles, Missouri (New Town only) - June 2003 - optional a�Taos, New Mexico - March 2009 - mandatory for Chemisa Verde SMARTCODES - IN PROCESS Collaborative map of SmartCodes in process Airdrie, Alberta Azusa, California Bay St. Louis, Mississippi Blakely, Georgia Bran, Romania Broward County, Florida Bull Street, infill, Columbia, South Carolina Caroline County, Virginia Columbia, South Carolina D'Iberville, Mississippi Dade County, Florida Davie, Florida Delcambre, Louisiana Dover, New Hampshire Erath, Louisiana Early County, Georgia Fayetteville, Arkansas Gautier, Mississippi Grand Rapids, Michigan Hamden, Connecticut Harrison County, Mississippi Hillsborough County, Florida Hollywood, Florida Hutto, Texas Iowa City, Iowa Jamestown, Rhode Island Jefferson County, Alabama Johns Island, South Carolina Kona, Hawaii Lake Charles, Louisiana Lancaster, Texas Lauderdale Lakes, Florida Lauderhill, Florida Long Beach, Mississippi Margate, Florida McClellan, Alabama Mesquite, TX - Gus Thomasson Corridor Revitalization Code. City Submitted into the public record in connection with item SP.1, SP.2 & SP.3 on 09-04-09 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk s PORTION OF FS 553.4(b) (b) Local governments may, subject to the limitations of this section, adopt amendments to the technical provisions of the Florida Building Code which apply solely within the jurisdiction of such government and which provide for more stringent requirements than those specified in the Florida Building Code, not more than once every 6 months. A local government may adopt technical amendments that address local needs if: 1. The local governing body determines, following a public hearing which has been advertised in a newspaper of general circulation at least 10 days before the hearing, that there is a need to strengthen the requirements of the Florida Building Code. The determination must be based upon a review of local conditions by the local governing body, which review demonstrates by evidence or data that the geographical jurisdiction governed by the local governing body exhibits a local need to strengthen the Florida Building Code beyond the needs or regional variation addressed by the Florida Building Code, that the local need is addressed by the proposed local amendment, and that the amendment is no more stringent than necessary to address the local need. 2. Such additional requirements are not discriminatory against materials, products, or construction techniques of demonstrated capabilities. 3. Such additional requirements may not introduce a new subject not addressed in the Florida Building Code. 4. The enforcing agency shall make readily available, in a usable format, all amendments adopted pursuant to this section. 5. Any amendment to the Florida Building Code shall be transmitted within 30 days by the adopting local government to the commission. The commission shall maintain copies of all such amendments in a format that is usable and obtainable by the public. Local technical amendments shall not become effective until 30 days after the amendment has been received and published by the commission. 6. Any amendment to the Florida Building Code adopted by a local government pursuant to this paragraph shall be effective only until the adoption by the commission of the new edition of the Florida Building Code every third year. At such time, the commission shall review such amendment for consistency with the criteria in paragraph (8)(a) and adopt such amendment as part of the Florida Building Code or rescind the amendment. The commission shall immediately notify the respective local government of the rescission of any amendment. After receiving such notice, the respective local government may readopt the rescinded amendment pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph. Submitted into the public record in connection with item SPA, SP.2 & SP.3 on 09-04-09 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk E -Codes Page 1 of 6 d - C 6u Chapter 13-1, Section 13-101 -SCOPE fu SECTION 13-101 SCOPE 13-101.0 General. This code is a statewide uniform code and shall not be made more stringent or lenient by local government. The code provides for a uniform standard of energy efficiency by, at a minimum, setting forth minimum requirements for exterior envelopes, lighting, electrical distribution, and selection of heating, lighting, ventilating, air conditioning and service water heating systems. It shall apply to all new buildings, to additions to existing buildings and manufactured homes, to renovations to existing buildings, both public and private, with certain exceptions, to changes of occupancy type, to the site -installed components and features of manufactured homes at their first set- up, and to the installation or replacement of building systems and components with new products for which thermal efficiency standards are set by this code. New buildings, with the exception of those exempted below, and in accordance with the specific exceptions of individual sections shall be designed to comply with Subchapter 13-4 or 13-6 of this code. 13-101.1 Commercial buildings. 13-101.1.1 New construction. Subchapter 13-4, Commercial building compliance methods. Commercial buildings of any size and multiple -family residential buildings greater than three stories shall comply with Subchapter 13-4 of the code. This chapter contains three compliance methods: Method A: Whole Building Performance Method a 3. ' Method B: Building Envelope Trade-off Method Ln 8 ? Method C: Buildings Prescriptive Envelope Method N CD O a0 O V, = 3 �13-101.1.2 Additions. Additions to existing commercial buildings are considered new building < m iF t�v W 3 = construction and shall comply with Subchapter 13-4 of this code as allowed in Section 101.1.1. O o_ 3 =s n' Additions to existing nonresidential buildings that are unable to comply with code requirements for the A1 addition alone may comply with the code by bringing the entire building into compliance with the requirements for new buildings. 13-101.1.3 Renovations. Renovated commercial buildings shall, when applicable (see Section 202), comply with the prescriptive requirements contained in Form 400C or with Method B of Subchapter 13-4 for insulation, HVAC systems, lighting, water heating systems and exterior envelope components being retrofitted or replaced. 13-101.1.4 Buildings with multiple occupancy types. When a building contains more than one occupancy type, each portion of the building shall conform to the requirements for the occupancy housed therein. Exceptions: Where minor occupancy use does not occupy more than 5 percent of the floor area of the building, t�,+„•iie,.,,ae� ,,:,-,,,-;,,., ,.,,.,,i,,,,; e.,ei,.,,,,,,o aii�,,,,—,.,,,-.,�..a..,,p....•,—a.oicr�„.ems,,,,.,+�..,-oicr�,..,i;., nnimmn