The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutsubmittal - 4EXHIBITS IN OPPOSITION OF A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE TERRAZAS RIVER PARK VILLAGE PROJECT July 22, 2004 Submitted by: River Club Condominium Association 1901 NW South River Drive, #29 Miami, FL 33125 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOF ITEM Pz?30N 7-aa=0. Scale and Elevation Comparison Single Family Home River Club Townhomes (abutting Terrazas on the west side) 1 0 - 1111 II swan siso II{ III § ■ 11' 111 ■ ■■ II a II II IM II MI n m m n (I 1111 „j,L m m m 03 m m m m m m C0 m 1 m 03 m m 03 03 m m m OEM *VOW IWO tool >�1 tourarmor; War— OWerriZir- tined -.z w►wur Tira— r •zw'a�p'� Egieljni A SOUTH ELEVATION Neighborhood Height Scale Comparison Terrazas Single River SR 836 Bahia Family Club Condo Home Town homes Comments from the "Award Winning" Miami River Corridor Urban Infill Plan 1. The multicultural neighborhoods along the Miami River are in need of protective zoning to preserve structures and fabric that defines them. 2. The sole measure of success for this plan is the ability of the local government to implement the recommendations within. 3. ...ensuring the orderly development of the river and limiting the negative impacts of gentrification remain very real challenges. 4. While the predominant zoning in the study area is broadly classified as residential, the allowable uses, heights and densities are often incompatible in scale. 5. Through the zoning analysis it has been determined that there are zoning designations within and adjacent to these neiqhborhoods that allow for development inconsistent with the historic character and scale of the neighborhood. 6. the expansion and scale of new development within the neighborhood is indeed impacting the historic character and human scale of the district. 7. ... I-95 serves as a transitional zone bridging Downtown's high - intensity character and the lower scaled, lower key Spring Garden Neighborhood to the west. 8. Furthermore, these neighborhoods have experienced deterioration of their historic buildinastock and unraveling of their built fabric due to neglect, demolition, and inappropriately scaled new construction. 9. Establishment of a neighborhood conservation district to regulate new construction and alterations to existing buildings through the establishment of criteria relating to siting, massing, articulation, and other characteristics to ensure compatibility with the area's historic neighborhood character and scale. 10. Throughout the district, height restrictions should be applied to effect a stronger compatibility and visual connectivity between historic structures and new development and to ensure that the potential historic district, parkland riverfront are not overshadowed by high- rise development. 11. Consideration should be given... for development that... respects the scale and character of the ... neighborhood. 12. Development appropriate to historic, low- to mid -scale residential area should be considered 13. Much of its historic housing stock remains, but has suffered intrusions of larger -scaled residential development and integrity - robbing alterations. 14. For areas identified as significant due to their scale, history, architecture, or environmental characteristics but not meeting criteria for historic designation, consideration should be given to establishment of a neighborhood conservation district or districts to provide protection from incompatible new construction or alterations. 15. Finally, throughout the neighborhood, consideration should be given to establishing height and FAR limits to help protect the scale and character of this neighborhood. 16. Existing single-family zoning along the canal should be protected, while multifamily zoning should be treated as discussed in the previous paragraph so as to maintain the scale and character of the historic district. 17. Guidelines for development compatible in scale and character with the adjacent historic district should be developed 18. ...the complex's (Medical Center) major institutions should partner to ensure that their growth does not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhoods. 19. The appropriateness of high density residential located directly on the River is highly questionable and should be reconsidered. 20. Waterfront development in Allapattah... should be oriented toward low- to medium -density mixed use (not exceeding the existing intensity of NW 17th Avenue) 21. ... Allapattah's waterfront industrial zoning should be maintained. 22. Such a "district" should incorporate design guidelines to insure that future development is compatible and of a scale appropriate to the surrounding neighborhood. 23. The built fabric of the River Corridor has in many locations been disturbed by way of inappropriately -scaled and poorly integrated new development. 24. It is envisioned the building frontage along the Greenway would be "mid -rise" in scale with residential and office towers set back from the river to allow light & air to penetrate the river corridor. 25. In view of the River Corridor's historic scale and character and many identified historic sites and districts 26. In all cases the option of demolition and new construction should be carefully weighed againstpotential loss of community character. 27. While the zoning of these corridors typically allows for both commercial and high density residential use, existing uses are generally low in scale and commercial in nature. 28. Creation and application of a zoning classification requiring pedestrian -oriented mixed commercial residential development of limited height would eliminate the awkward juxtaposition... with high- rise subsidized residential structures. 29. Mixed -use development along the River's commercial corridors... represents an untapped opportunity to increase housing availability, maintaining neighborhood retail and services, and preserve neighborhood scale and character. Building shadow completely engulfs the park by approximately 5:50PM EST Sunset is at 8:15 PM EST Angle of the sun: 16.5 degrees. III W I I .1 i,,, tl' aJ i ii_ A I_,IIti'sup,111. u tJ��L'Jmul _. IIIj,1,,. i„�I,�,��I,III. .I I m I,I 11 I.I`, . I,I� m �1 �� 1-L j1�11 _,,. I_I m f111 1 1 '1 1!'"'' IIII m 11 „11 �IviIII. IIII m III ,I. IIII m II 11 1 Ul11��11111. 111 11 11I 41 ,1 1111A I11 m �- 1111 Ea: 1111 m 1111 m 11 1, 111�1 unu 1,11 m 1111 11 I10„ ,11 Iltl m 11 1111 12. bb"N 11.1'1_1. 1111 I IN1411 111 I.. 1 ..� m I II II 11IIIi1 ®®!®®; ii f .i ii iii i 1111 11 i1,i Illy �Iluni. 11111 t jl won.. ■ MIMI. e11r/0 Building shadow begins to cover the park by 2:OOPM EST Angle of the sun: 67 degrees Sun's positioning on June 21 st, 2006, the longest day of sunshine in Miami. Source: US Naval Observatory, Astronomical Applications Department — TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The Traffic Impact analysis used in the approval process was flawed, and to date is obsolete due to several factors, and therefore should not be used in determining effective traffic circulation. The reasons are as follows: a.) The study was done for only a one day period, with a single peak period turning movement study of 4:00-6:00pm, on July 24, 2003. A one day study is insufficient to determine an average pattern or amount of traffic flow as there can be significant variances between days. b.) A one day study during a summer month fails to take into account the additional congestion of morning and afternoon traffic due to the school session. c.) As far as can be determined, the report failed to include the impact of bridge raisings, and the number, frequency, and length of said raisings. The future projections do not include projections for further, future growth of the Miami River in terms of cargo shipments and the positive shipping impact from the Miami River dredging, that would in turn increase the number of ships and their frequency, and therefore the number of bridge raisings. d.) The study area was too small to realistically determine impact. The study area did not include the following intersections and corridors, which are critical, due to their immediate proximity and location, to access the main work centers of the hospital/courthouse, downtown, 836 East, and I95: i. NW 17th Avenue and NW North River Drive ii. NW 17th Avenue and NW 14 Street iii. NW 12th Avenue and NW 11 Street (to access 836 and I95 to downtown) iv. NW 12th Avenue and NW 12 Street (The only direct access to the neighborhood from SR836 and I95) v. NW 12th Avenue and NW 7th Street (to access 836 and I95 to downtown, this intersection already has a Level Of Service below the minimum requirement) e.) The study reflects only the Phase 1 buildout of the project. It does not include Phase 2. f.) The Metrobus routes stated in the report are irrelevant, as none of the routes come through NW North River Drive, and the roadway is too narrow to comfortably and efficiently accommodate one. There is no guarantee, or even an estimate, as to what percentage of new residents of a luxury condominium would use public transportation. g.) The report stated it took into account projects approved but not yet completed in the vicinity. This is fundamentally flawed because projects that are being considered, whether planned, still in the planning and development stages, still in the approval stages, etc., will greatly impact traffic, and therefore any future projections made by this report are outdated and therefore invalid. There are at least four developments currently approved, or awaiting approval within the immediate area: i. Phase 2 of the Terrazas development with 120 units, with at least another 150 vehicles; same location. ii. Hurricane Cove with over 1000 units, with at least 1500 vehicles; less than 100 meters away. iii. Royal Atlantic Development with over 600 units, with at least 900 vehicles; 0.7(seven tenths) of a mile away. iv. The Miami Riverhouse condominium, with over 220 units and over 300 vehicles; half a mile away. v. Other projects that are known to be in conceptual planning and development are Brisas Del Rio condominium development (the Florida Yacht Basin). vi. Determining that a project with 200 residential units (Phase 1 only), and at least 250 to 300 vehicles, will only generate an additional 71 vehicular trips cannot be realistically and statistically accurate. This only represents about 35% of the projected resident population. Based on the aforementioned points and concerns, I submit that the traffic impact analysis prepared for Phase I of Terrazas should not be considered as an accurate analysis of present, and more importantly the future traffic impact in the immediate area, and thus cannot be used in the determination to approve the Major Use Special Permit. A new study should be initiated that takes into account and consideration all the concerns brought we have brought regarding traffic. Anything less would be recklessly short-sighted, as well as contrary to the Land Use Policies of the MCNP with regards to the adverse impacts of future land use disrupting or degrading man made amenities, and the mitigation of potentially adverse impacts on future developments. Failure to take into account additional future growth and development, and plan, revise, and develop accordingly, will result in the same calamitous density that has caused other congestion problems in the city and county with other developments. vii. The Transportation element of the MCNP under TR- 1.8 states that "the Transportation Element shall be coordinated with...projected development and redevelopment... and other similar characteristics of land use that have an impact on transportation". Why then would the city accept a traffic impact analysis that fails to account for, and coordinate with, already known projects that will be developed within the same approximate time frame, and have a cumulative, adverse effect on transportation, commute times and congestion, emergency evacuation, and levels of service? CO 11111 11111 R111 11 '11111 11 1111111111 11 ■1111111111 ■1111111 11 1111111 11 p.m - - 1111111 11 1111111 11 1111111 11 1111111 1111111 11 1111111 1111111 11 1111111 11un1 Q] 11 1111111 Sun's positioning on June 21 st, 2006, the longest day of sunshine in Miami. Source: US Naval Observatory, Astronomical Applications Dept. Half the homeowners will be in shadow until 12:00 PM EST Half the homeowners will be in shadow until 11:10 AM EST VW ■ 11MRT11 ELEVATION Scale and Elevation Comparison Single Family Home River Club Townhomes (abutting Terrazas on the west side) .. Mor ,WWW toL 1101003 'wen '! [Ol1lW ..WWW __ 11412L- voinr- TT- • .. • 11i Ili • ON MMI 11111 111 ■.■ 111 ■.■ 11 ... 11 11 ..■ 11 .. IM O 11 ■■ 11 :: :: 11 1 1111 SOON ---- 1111 MINI 111 !111 1111 II I 1 1 ■ 11 11 1 1111IIN m m m m m m m m m m m MOM *VOW ow um igFor.:.17- - IGin Mad •r— slad h•La. _ seRw�ry�-r IrWO eFur :«— ERN. lir— eFurwririrri— ,,.,.. `.,.w tot we r. mem •AR — — 7.1.. OW Maw P•••.r. RAJ 1 SMITH ELEVATION This is the planned Miami Riverhouse with an additional 8 floors added to its 19, to provide a scale comparison to Terrazas. How can a project of this height be to scale with the surrounding area? How is this considered compatible with the current land use? How does it not impact the living conditions of adjacent residents? How does it positively relate to the neighborhood context? EST VIE\A/ ECONOMIC AFFORDABILITY STUDY Information from B&B Development Key Plan Units Living per Unit Type Description space size Level A 1 B/1 B 724 1 B Loft Conv/2B 1009 2 C Loft Conv/2B 1062 3 D 2B/2B 1270 3 E 3B/3B 1780 1 and Temporary Price Ranges as of March 8th 2004. Monthly Average Price Maintenance Levels Total Units in thousands @0.35/SgFt 18 18 200 253.40 18 36 245-290 353.15 18 54 315-375 371.70 18 54 309-360 444.50 18 18 443 623.00 180 Monthly Property Tax 393.75 495.00 652.50 639.00 940.50 Percentage of 2+ bedrooms & convertible to 2 bedrooms 90% The following income requirement estimates are based on: Generally accepted loan ratios of: 28% of Gross Income for Principal, Interest, Taxes, Insurance (PITI) and 36% of Gross Income for PITI plus Other Revolving Debt DO NOT INCLUDE the cost of insurance due to its high variability, ergo Gross Income is underestimated Uses property tax mil rate of .027 and homestead exemption of $25,000 Include the monthly maintenance as part of PITI at a rate of $0.35 per sqaure foot of living space. Based on a 30 year fixed loan at 6.00% using the average price, or lowest average price for the unit. Uses the monthly amount .of $500 as Other Revolving Debt for calculating loan ratio at 36%; (Car Payments, Credit Card(s), Other loans) Price Calculated yearly Gross income required at: 10% down 200000 $73,755.94 245000 $92,724.93 315000 $116,377.26 309000 $117,538.06 443000 $168,943.52 Median Household Income for City of Miami * Median Household Income for Miami -Dade County $ 23,483.00 $ 35,966.00 *Source: Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, January 2001 as quoted in the City of Miami FY2004 Budget 20% down $68,642.50 $86,460.97 $108,323.60 $109,637.80 $157,617.25 Census Household Income figures for the City of Miami. Average household Income by Quintile 1st Quintile 2nd Quintile 3rd Quintile 4th Quintile 5th Quintile 1999 Miami $ 4,294 $ 13,179 $ 24,252 $ 42,125 $ 125,933 Source: Brookings Institution analysis of Public Use Microdata Sample, U.S. Census Bureau Source: Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy • Growing the Middle Class: Connecting All Miami -Dade Residents to Economic Opportunity 2004 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT AND CHARACTERISTICS* Defined by the boundaries of SR836 on the South, Miami River on the North, NW 20th Ave on West, NW 17th Ave on East Approximate total area in sq ft 1,870,000 # of % of Square % of Land Use Properties Properties Footage Sq Ft Conservation 2 2.63% 468,216 25.04% Single Family Residences 63 82.89% Two Family Residence 1 1.32% 1,218,561 65.16% Medium Density Residential 7 9.21% High Density Residential 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Marine Activity 3 3.95% 183,223 9.80% 76 100% 1870000 STATEMENTS OF FACT There are currently only two structures of four floors in height. Remainder of residential neighborhood is single and two story homes. Over 80% of the total neighborhood is single family homes Over 25% of the total area is a Conservation Zone - Sewell Park Over 90% of the total neighborhood is medium density or less. *Information obtained from Miami Dade Property Appraiser, miamidade.gov/pa MIAMI RIVER CORRIDOR URBAN INFILL PLAN TRANSPORTATION ALONG THE RIVER c) THE RIVER AS A MULTI -MODAL CORRIDOR Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. -September, 2002 Prepared for the Miami River Commission 58 rx