HomeMy WebLinkAboutletterCITY OF MIAMI URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOAPRDA40i'ru. L'
Planning and Zoning Department 9P.O. Box 330708 lan Ali 23 AM 11: 0 `-
Miami, FL 33233-0708
January 27, 2005
Mr. Joe Arriola
Chief Administrator/City Manager
City Hall
3500 Pan American Drive.
Miami , FL 33133-5595
RE: ANNUAL REPORT - URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
Dear Mr. Arriola:
The Urban Development Review Board is pleased to present this annual report in satisfaction of City Code
Section 2-434, specifically responding to the following questions:
A. WHETHER THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD IS SERVING THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS
CREATED.
The Urban Development Review Board is a special review board that assists the Director of the
Planning and Zoning Department by making informed professional recommendations on the
architectural, landscape and urban design aspects,of highly visible buildings/projects, principally in
the Downtown, Brickell, Riverside, Coconut Grove, Wynwood, Buena Vista, and Upper Eastside
areas. The quality of the projects reviewed by the Board benefits greatly from the insightful input;
received from its members, as does the Planning Department, which incorporates the comments
made by the Board into the analyses presented to the City Commission.
s. WHETHER THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 SERVING CURRENT COMMUNITY NEEDS.
The Urban Development Review Board is serving current community needs by being responsive
to new development and changing conditions in Miami by making professional recommendations
prior to the issuance of Class II and Major Use Special Permits.
c. A LIST OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD'S MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS
During 2004, 12 meetings were held. The Board made recommendations on over 50 projects,
including the following major projects: One Miami, Everglades on the Bay, island Gardens al
Watson Island, Midtown Miami, American Airlines Arena, Lynx, Paramount at Edgewater Square,
Opus, Ice, to mention a few that will have a profound impact on the future skyline of our City.
D. WHETHER THERE IS ANY OTHER BOARD, WHETHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, WHICH WOULD BETTER SERVE
THE FUNCTIONS OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD.
At its meeting of December 16, 1993, the City Commission passed Resolution 93-166,
establishing the City Boards and Committees Review Committee (CBCRC) to evaluate the
performance and effectiveness of each existing City Board and Committee and to make
recommendations regarding the continuation, abolishment or consolidation of these Boards and
Comm ittees.
The CBCRC presented its report, which among other recommendations recommended that the
Urban Development Review Board (UDRB) and Historic and Environmental Preservation Board
(HEPB) be merged.
At its meeting of March 24, 1994, the City Commission passed Resolution 94-129 asking the City
Attorney's Office to conduct a careful review of the Ordinances creating the UDRB and the HEPB
in order to accomplish the merger of both boards.
At the City Commission meeting of September 22, 1994, the study evaluating pros and cons of
the proposed merger of the UDRB and the HEPB, prepared jointly by the City Attorney's Office
and the Planning, Building and Zoning Department, was presented along with the necessary
legislation to create a merged Board by combining the purposes, powers and duties of both
boards. The study was discussed and the proposed merger denied unanimously by Motion 94-
712
Thus, after careful consideration the City Commission has concluded that it is in the best interest
of the community to maintain the UDRB and the HEPB as separate entities.
Further our Board concurs that the review of land use development issues that pertain to the
review of building projects are better served with individually balanced Boards. The separation of
powers between the Zoning, Planning, Historic Preservation and the URDB ensures each
applicant an equitable review.
E. WHETHER THE ORDINANCE CREATING THE BOARD SHOULD BE AMENDED TO BETTER ENABLE THE BOARD
TO SERVE THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS CREATED.
The City is under going an unprecedented growth along the central business district, water front
corridors and expanding substantially inland. This growth is shaping existing and redefining new
urban neighborhood producing a vibrant cosmopolitan city. Our Board which consists of
architectural and urban planning professionals carefully review each project before us for
contextual fit into the surrounding district. We evaluate the scale and massing, pedestrian and
vehicular circulation, building and streetscape materials to determine its impact. Our
recommendations are then passed on to the Planning Director for a final decision. We have
proposed to the department and a proposed ordinance is prepared for submission to the City
commission to amend our role where our finding will be final, subject to appeal from the City
commission. Our Board unanimously supports this proposed ordinance.
F. THE COST BOTH DIRECT AND INDIRECT OF MAINTAINING THE BOARD.
There are no direct costs.
Indirect costs arise from staff assigned to the Board. This staff is not assigned exclusively to the
Board but also has other responsibilities. Indirect costs are estimated at $5,487.46 (see
attachment).
Thank you for the opportunity to present this report.
Sincely,
Todd Tragash, AIA
Chairman
2
URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
INDIRECT COSTS
INTAKE
Liason (Urban Designer) 6.0 hrs. x $23.04 x 11 mo. = $ 1,520.64
Design Review Committee 1.0 hrs. x $110.00 x 11 mo. _ $ 1,210.00
Subtotal = $ 2,730.64
MEETING
Liason (Urban Designer) 5.0 hrs. x $23.04 x 11 mo, _ $ 1,267.20
Assistant City Attorney 3.0 hrs. x $29.78 x 11 mo. = $ 982.74
Subtotal $ 2,249.94
FOLLOW-UP
Liason (Urban Designer) 2.0 hrs. x $23.04 x 11 mo. = $ 506.88
Subtotal = $ 506.88
TOTAL = $ 5,487.46
3