HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 7, 2005 Intent Letter & Supporting Docs•
•
•
BaRCQW & RADELL
XONINca. LAND USE AND ENVtFID,NNIENTAL LAW
DIRECT LINE: (305) 377-6227
E-Mail• MTapanes@BRZOningLaw.com
VIA HAND DELIVERY
March 7, 2005
Ms. Lourdes Slazyk
Director, Planning Department
City of Miami
444 SW 2nd Avenue
3rd Floor
Miami, Florida 33130
Ms. Teresita Fernandez
Executive Secretary, Hearing Boards
City of Miami
444 S.W. 2nd Avenue
7th Floor
Miami, Florida 33130
Re: Southeast Overtown Park West
Notification of Proposed Change (NOPC) to
Development of Regional Impact Development Orders
2Ga3lSF51 r 1 1 3i 2' S3
Dear Ms. Slazyk and Ms. Fernandez:
This law firm is special counsel to the City of Miami Community
Redevelopment Agency. On behalf of our client, we are pleased to submit a
Notification of Proposed Change to a previously approved Development of
Regional Impact (DRI) Development Order, seeking modification to the
Increment II Development Order for the Southeast Overtown/Park West DRI. It
is the applicant's position, for the reasons set forth in the NOPC, that the
requested modifications do not create additional or previously unreviewed
regional impacts, and thus do not constitute substantial deviations.
We look forward to working with you and your staff on this
matter. Should you have any questions regarding this application, please do not
hesitate to call our office.
WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTER • 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD. SUITE 850 • MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131
PHONE. 305.374.5300 • FAX. 305.377.6222
•
•
Ms. Lourdes Slazyk and Ms. Teresita Fernandez
March 7, 2005
Page 2
Sincerel
7.7C-J
r-71_ Z:
Melissa Tapanes Llahues
Enclosures
CC: Alejandro Vilarello, Esq.
Mr. Frank Rollason, Executive Director
Ms. Carolyn Dekle, SFRPC
Mr. Dixon Ezeala, DCA
Mr. David Korras, FDOT
Ms. Cathy Sweetapple
Mr. Rob Curtis
Mr. Paul Lambert
Jeffrey Bercow, Esq.
BERCOW RADGLL
kale .. r-o Eti ,,,,,Hw.CP,r,%1-1-..w
•
•
•
FORM RPM-BSP-PROPCHANGE-1
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
DIVISION OF RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
BUREAU OF STATE MANAGEMENT
2555 Shumard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
(850) 488-4925
NOTIFICATION OF PROPOSED CHANGE TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACTS (DRI)
SUBSECTION 380.06(19), FLORIDA STATUTES
Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, requires that submittal of a proposed
change to a previously approved DRI be made to the local government, the regional
planning council, and the state land planning agency according to this form.
I, Jeffrey Bercow, the undersigned authorized representative of the City of Miami
Community Redevelopment Agency hereby gives notice of a proposed change to a
previously approved Development of Regional Impact in accordance with Subsection
380.06(19), Florida Statutes. In support thereof, I submit the following inforrnation
concerning the Southeast Overtown/Park West development, which inforrnation is true
and correct to the best of our knowledge. I have submitted today, under separate cover,
copies of this completed notification to the City of Miami, to the South Florida Regional
Planning Council, and to the Bureau of State Planning, De.artment of Community
Affairs.
March 1, 2005cow, Authorized Agent for
ty of iami Community Redevelopment
gency
•
•
•
2. Applicant (name, address, phone).
City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency
300 Biscayne Boulevard Way
Suite 430
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 579-3324
Fax: (305) 372-4646
Attn: Frank Rollason, Executive Director
3. Authorized Agent (name, address, phone).
Jeffrey Bercow, Esq.
Melissa Tapanes Llahues, Esq.
Bercow & Radell, P.A.
Wachovia Financial Center, Suite 850
200 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33131
Phone: (305) 374-5300
FAX: (305) 377-6222
4. Location (City, County, Township/Range/Section) of approved DRI and Proposed
change.
See attached legal description Exhibit "A".
5. Provide a complete description of proposed change. Include any proposed changes
to the plan of development, phasing, additional lands, commencement date, build -
out date, development order conditions and requirements, or to the representations
contained in either the development order or the Application of Development
Approval.
Indicate such changes on the project master site plan, supplementing with other
detailed maps, as appropriate. Additional information may be requested by the
Department or any reviewing agency to clarify the nature of the change or the
resulting impacts.
The Applicant is requesting the following changes:
A. Request:
To roll-over the unused portion of Increment I approved development into Increment II by
deleting 41,645 square feet of retail use in Increment I and simultaneously increasing
Increment II retail development credits by 41,645 square feet. The approved, proposed
and remaining development credits for each use are shown in the table below.
2
•
•
i
SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST DRI
Status of Increments I and II
Proposed Change to Increment II
Res/Condo
Hotel
Office
Retail
Attractions
Units
Units
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Seats
Increment I Approved
2,000
0
166,000
95,400
8,000
Increment I Remaining
0
0
0
41,645
0
Increment II Approved
2,000
500
337,000
71,700
8,000
Increment II Remaining
(before change)
1,855
416
6,356
71,700
8,000
Increment II
Proposed Change
NONE
NONE
NONE
41,645
NONE
Increment II Totals
(after change)
1,855
416
6,356
113,345
8,000
Rationale:
Resolution No. 01-1159 extended the buildout date for Increment I from 1997 to March
21, 2005. As of March 1, 2005, 41,645 square feet of retail use in Increment I has not
been utilized. However, as the Lambert Advisory analysis provides, the 41,645 square
feet of retail use approved in Increment I will be necessary to capture the expected growth
in demand from additional residents, office workers, and hotel guests during Increment II.
The Lambert Advisory analysis is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
B. Request:
To modify the table describing the land use and increments in The Southeast
Overtown/Park West Increment II Development Order and Major Use Special Permit
(Exhibit A in Resolution 92-609) in order to reflect the proposed change.
From:
Increment I
Increment II
Increment III
Buildout —
Buildout —
Buildout —
Land Uses
(.1997-2005)
(1992-2010)
(1999-2007)
Totals
3
•
•
•
Office
(gsf)
166,000
337,000
500,500
1,003,500
Commercial
(gsf)
95,400
71,700
90,600
257,700
Hotel
(rooms)
0
500
600
1,100
Residential
(units)
2,000
2,000
5,000
9,000
Attractions/
Recreation
(seats)
8,000
8,000
0
16,000
To:
Land Uses
Increment I
Buildout —
(1997-2005)
Increment II
Buildout —
(1992-2010)
Increment III
Buildout —
(1999-2007)
Totals
Office
(gsf)
166,000
337,000
500,500
1,003,500
Commercial
(gsf)
95,400
113,345
90,600
299,345
Hotel
(rooms)
0
500
600
1,100
Residential
(units)
2,000
2,000
5,000
9,000
Attractions/
Recreation
(seats)
8,000
8,000
0
16,000
Rationale: This request reflects the proposed development program for Increment II.
C. Request:
To revise the definition of "Net New Development" found in The Southeast
Overtown/Park West Increment II Development Order and Major Use Special Permit
(Exhibit A in Resolution 92-609).
From:
Any construction or reconstruction which will result in a net increase,
within any "Parcel of Land," of residential dwelling units, hotel rooms,
seats in attractions/recreation facilities or gross square footage for office,
government office, retail/service, convention, wholesale/industrial or
4
•
To:
•
•
institutional uses. Land uses to be removed by demolition of a building or
structure may be credited against the proposed new land uses for purposes
of calculating the net increase, if the Planning Director determines that
there was a valid Certificate of Occupancy existing on the effective date of
this Development Order for the land uses to be demolished. If a change of
land use is proposed, the Planning Director may credit the prior land use
against the proposed land use based upon equivalent impacts as measured
by peak hour vehicle trip generation. Any activity which has on the
effective date of this Development Order a valid building permit or any
currently effective development order shall not be included as Net New
Development. The Planning Director may exclude from Net New
Development any small development under 10,000 square feet in floor
area, if he finds that such development would have no regional impact as
measured by peak hour vehicle trips.
Any construction or reconstruction which will result in a net increase,
within any "Parcel of Land," of residential dwelling units, hotel rooms,
seats in attractions/recreation facilities or gross square footage for office,
government office, retail/service, convention, wholesale/industrial or
institutional uses. Land uses to be removed by demolition of a building or
structure may be credited against the proposed new land uses for purposes
of calculating the net increase, if the Planning Director determines that
there was a valid Certificate of Occupancy existing on the effective date of
this Development Order for the land uses to be demolished. If a change of
land use is proposed, the Planning Director may credit the prior land use
against the proposed land use based upon equivalent impacts as measured
by peak hour vehicle trip generation. Any activity which has on the
effective date of this Development Order a valid building permit or any
currently effective development order (as indicated in Exhibit C attached
hereto) shall not be included as Net New Development. The Planning
Director may exclude from Net New Development any small development
5
under 10,000 square feet in floor area, if he finds that such development
would have no regional impact as measured by peak hour vehicle trips.
Rationale: This request will clarify that the Development Order does not govern
previously approved developments of regional impact located within the Southeast
Overtown/Park West Development of Regional Impact.
D. Request:
To modify the definition of "Total Allowable Development" found in The Southeast
Overtown/Park West Increment II Development Order and Major Use Special Permit
(Exhibit A in Resolution 92-609). --
From:
•
To:
•
The quantity of Net New Development for which Certificates of
Occupancy may be issued under the terms and conditions of this
Development Order, together with the applicable Master Development
Order, as may be modified pursuant to F.S. 380.06(19) (1991), and which
shall be measured by the following land uses:
Office (sq. ft.) 337,000
Retail/Service (sq. ft) 71,700
Hotel (rooms) 500
Residential (units) 2,000
Attractions (seats) 8,000
The City may permit simultaneous increases and decreases in the above
described land use categories, provided that the regional impacts of the
land uses as changes will not exceed the adverse regional impacts of the
land uses in Increment II of the Project as originally approved, as
measured by total peak hour vehicle trips.
The quantity of Net New Development for which Certificates of
Occupancy may be issued under the terms and conditions of this
Development Order, together with the applicable Master Development
Order, as may be modified pursuant to F.S. 380.06(19) (1991), and which
shall be measured by the following land uses:
6
•
•
•
Office (sq. ft.) 337,000
Retail/Service (sq. ft) 113,345
Hotel (rooms) 500
Residential (units) 2,000
Attractions (seats) 8,000
The City may administratively permit simultaneous increases and
decreases in the above described land use categories, and without need of
filing for Notification of Proposed Change, provided that the regional
impacts of _the land uses as changes will not exceed the adverse regional
impacts of the land uses in Increment 11 of the Project as originally
approved, as measured by total peak hour vehicle trips. Exhibit D includes
the equivalency matrix upon which simultaneous increases and decreases
in land use categories will be made.
Rationale: This request reflects the proposed development program for Increment 1I, as
well as provides the City with flexibility while maintaining the same level of impact on
public facilities.
E. Request:
To modify Finding of Fact G in The Southeast OvertownlPark West Increment II
Development Order and Major Use Special Permit (Exhibit A in Resolution 92-609).
From:
The project entails the redevelopment of 209 acres of prime real estate
adjacent to the Miami Central Business District for new residential, office
and commercial activity. The CADA proposes Net New Development
within the Project Area for the land uses, quantities and phases defined
herein as Total Allowable Development. As originally proposed in the
Master Development Order (Resolution 88-110), Increment II of the
project (1994-1999) consisted of the following:
Element Area
Office (gross sq. ft.) 205,000
Retail/Service (gross sq. ft,) 37,300
Hotel (rooms) 500
7
•
•
To:
•
Residential (units) 2,000
Convention (gross sq. ft.) 310,000
Pursuant to certain changes in market conditions and to the proposed
location of a performing arts center within the boundaries of the DRI, the
Master Development Order and the Increment I Development Order are
being amended concurrently with this development order, to reflect the
following land use categories for the revised time frame 1992 to 1999:
Element Area
Office (sq. ft.) 337,000
Retail/Service (sq. ft.) 71,700
Hotel (rooms) 500
Residential (units) 2,000
Attractions (seats) 8,000
The Master Development Order made provision for "the simultaneous
increases and decreases between the land use categories (sic), provided
that the regional impacts of the land uses as changed will not exceed the
adverse regional impacts of the Project as originally approved, as
measured by total peak hour vehicle trips." The substitution of additional
commercial development and attractions development for convention
development does not exceed the total trips generates by the original
configuration proposed by the Master Development Order.
The project entails the redevelopment of 209 acres of prime real estate
adjacent to the Miami Central Business District for new residential, office
and commercial activity. The CADA proposes Net New Development
within the Project Area for the land uses, quantities and phases defined
herein as Total Allowable Development. As originally proposed in the
Master Development Order (Resolution 88-110), Increment II of the
project (1994-1999) consisted of the following:
Element Area
Office (gross sq. ft.) 205,000
8
•
•
•
Retail/Service (gross sq. ft.) 37,300
Hotel (rooms) 500
Residential (units) 2,000
Convention (gross sq. ft.) 310,000
Pursuant to certain changes in market conditions and to the proposed
location of a performing arts center within the boundaries of the DRI, the
Master Development Order and the Increment 1 Development Order are
being amended concurrently with this development order, to reflect the
following land use categories for the revised time frame 1992 to 2010:
Element Area
Office (sq. ft.) 337,000
Retail/Service (sq. ft.) 113,345
Hotel (rooms) 500
Residential (units) 2,000
Attractions (seats) 8,000
Rationale: This request reflects the proposed development program for Increment II.
F. Request:
To add Paragraph 21 to The Southeast Overtown!Park West Increment II Development
Order and Major Use Special Permit (Exhibit A in Resolution 92-609).
21. March 21, 2010, the buildout date for this project, is hereby established as
the date until which the City agrees that the Southeast Over/own/Park West
Development of Regional Impact shall not be subject to down -zoning, unit
density reduction, or intensity reduction, unless the City can demonstrate that
substantial changes made by the developer in the facts or circumstances
underlying the approval of the DRI development order have occurred, or that
the DRI development order was based on substantially inaccurate
information provided by the applicant, or that the change is clearly essential
to the public health, safety, or welfare,
Rationale: This request establishes, pursuant to state law, that the buildout date is also
the date until which the project shall not be subject to downzoning or other similar
actions.
9
•
•
6. Complete the attached Substantial Deviation Determination Chart for all land use
types approved in the development. If no change is proposed or has occurred,
please indicate no change.
The Substantial Deviation Determination Chart is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
7. List all the dates and resolution numbers (or other appropriate identification
numbers) of all modification or amendments to the originally approved DRI
development order that have been adopted by the local government, and provide a
brief description of the previous changes (i.e., any info along with the information
not already addressed in the Substantial Deviation Chart). Has there been a change
in local government jurisdiction for any portion of the development since the last
approval or development order was issued? If so, has the annexing local government
adopted a new DRI development order for the project?
Master Development Order:
The Master Development Order for the SEOPW DRI was approved on February 11, 1988
by City of Miami Commission Resolution NO. 88-110.
Increment I Development Order:
The Increment I Development Order was also approved by the City Commission on
February 11, 1988. The Increment I Development Order approved the Increment I land
uses and gross square footage as described in the Master Development Order.
Increment II Development Order:
On September 24, 1992, the Miami City Commission approved Increment II of the DRI
(Resolution No. 92-609). The Increment II Development Order started the Increment in
advance of the original 1994 commencement date, and amended the proposed uses
originally anticipated in the Master Development Order. The modification eliminated
"Convention" gross square footage, and added 8,000 "Attractions" seats as well as
additional "Office" space to Increment II.
Subsequent Amendments:
In 1992 and 1993 there were three modifications to the SEOPW DRI. Resolution No. 92-
607 changed the Master Development Order's phasing schedule for Increment I by
amending it to 1988 through 1997 (instead of 1988 through 1994), and amended the
10
•
•
Master Development Order's phasing schedule for Increment II to 1992 through 1999
(instead of 1994 through 1999). Resolution No. 92-608, adopted on the same date,
changed the phasing schedule of Increment I and Increment II to correspond with the
amended Master Development Order, and changed Increment I land uses and intensities
as follows: increased permitted retail development from 66,200 to 95,400 gross square
feet; eliminated convention use; and added 8,000 "Attractions" seats. In 1993,
Resolution No. 93-217 amended Condition No. 4 of the Increment II Development Order
concerning the construction of a portion of NW 1st Avenue and the potential reallocation
of the Applicant's proportional share of certain right-of-way acquisition dollars.
In December 1999, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 00-289, which extended
the buildout date for Increment II by 4 years and 11 months, to November 30, 2004.
On October, 25, 2001, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 01-1159.
Resolution No. 01-1159 accomplished the following: 1) substituted the City of Miami
Community Redevelopment Agency for the City of Miami as developer; 2) extended the
buildout date for Increment I from 1997 to March 21, 2005; 3) extended the buildout date
for Increment II to March 21, 2010, and the termination date to March 21, 2015; 4)
extended the buildout date for the Master Development Order to March 22, 2013, and
established an expiration date of December 31, 2017; 5) extended time limitations for
Conditions 5 and 6 of the Master Development Order; 6) clarified certain language of the
Master Development Order; and 7) allowed "telecommunications hub" as a permitted use
within the Master Development Order.
8. Describe any lands purchased or optioned within 1/4 mile of the original DRI site
subsequent to the original approval or issuance of the DRI development order.
Identify such land, it size, intended use, and adjacent non -project land uses within
114 mile on a project master site plan or other map.
The applicant has not purchased or optioned any lands within 1/4 mile of the original DRI
site.
• 9. Indicate if the proposed change is less than 40% (cumulatively with other previous
changes) of any of the criteria listed in Paragraph 380.06(19)(b), Florida Statutes.
11
•
•
•
Do you believe this notification of change proposes a change which meets the
criteria of Subparagraph 380.06(19)(e)2., F.S.?
Yes No X
The proposed change is less than 40% (cumulative with other previous changes) of any
criteria listed in Paragraph 380.06(19)(b), Florida Statutes (2004). This Notice of
Proposed Change does not propose a change meeting the criteria in Subparagraph
380.06(19)(e)2, Florida Statutes (2004), because the Southeast Overtown/Park West
Development of Regional Impact Development Order was rendered pursuant to Section
380.06(25), Florida Statutes (2004).
10. Does the proposed change result in a change to the buildout date or any phasing
date of the project? If so, indicate the proposed new buildout or phasing dates.
No.
11. Will the proposed change require an amendment to the local government
comprehensive plan?
No.
Provide the following for incorporation into such an amended development order,
pursuant to Subsections 380.06(15), F.S., and 9J-2.025, Florida Administrative Code:
12. An updated master site plan or other reap of the development portraying and
distinguishing the proposed changes to the previously approved DR.I or
development order conditions.
Not applicable.
13. Pursuant to Subsection 380.06(19)(0, F.S., include the precise language that is being
proposed to be deleted or added as an amendment to the development order. This
language should address and quantify:
a. All proposed specific changes to the nature, phasing, and build -out
date of the development; to development order conditions and
requirements; to commitments and representation in the Application
for Development Approval; to the acreage attributable to each
described proposed change of land use, open space, areas for
preservation, green belts; to structures or to other improvements
including locations, square footage, number of units; and other major
characteristics or components of the proposed change.
12
•
•
•
See responses to Question 5, above.
b. An updated legal description of the property, if any project areas
is/has been added or deleted to the previously approved plan of
development.
Not applicable.
c. A proposed amended development order deadline for commencing
physical development of the proposed changes, if applicable.
Not applicable; physical development has begun.
d. A proposed amended development order termination date that
reasonably reflects the time period required to complete this
development.
Not applicable.
e. A proposed amended development order date until which the local
government agrees that the changes to the DRI shall not be subject to
down -zoning, unit density reduction, or intensity reduction, if
applicable.
March 21, 2010.
Proposed amended development order specifications for the annual
report, including the date of submission, contents, and parties to
whom the report is submitted as specified in Subsection 9J-2.05(7),
F.A.C.
Not applicable.
13
•
Legal Description:
EXHIBIT A
Begin at a point at the intersection of the center line of N.E. 5 Street; thence west on the
center line of N.W. 5 Street (and N.W. 5 Street) to the east ROW line of I-95 to the south
ROW line of 1-395 to the center line of Biscayne Boulevard; thence southerly on the
center line of Biscayne Boulevard to the point of beginning.
The above described area contains approximately 209 acres.
•
•
•
•
•
EXHIBIT B
Southeast Overtown Park West
DRI Market Overview
Lambert Advisory LC (Lambert) has completed an initial analysis of the potential
demand for residential units, office space, and retail within the Southeast Overtown Park
West (SEOPW) DRI boundaries between 2005 and 2010.
Although Lambert has not completed a detailed demand analysis for hotel rooms within
the boundary of the district given the lack of any historic precedent for new hotel
development in the district during the past thirty years, we believe there is a strong
likelihood that a single limited service hotel of between 150 to 250 rooms may be an
element of the area's revitalization prior to 2010. The opening of the Performing Arts
Center in 2006 immediately to the north of the district, stable occupancy in Downtown
Miami hotels (approximately 70 percent during 2004), the development of high end
condominium product within the district along Biscayne Boulevard, and the general
limited availability of hotel sites with water views in Downtown Miami with the
exception of a limited number of sites within the district, all will support the development
of hospitality product in the area. Therefore we strongly recommend providing an
allowance within the DRI use matrix for a hotel which could be built with as many as 250
rooms.
The following outlines our demand estimates for office, retail, and residential units in the
district and briefly details the methodology for deriving those estimates.
Office
We estimate that between 361,000 and 541,000 square feet of office space will be
demanded in the SEOPW district. This compares to approximately 400,000 square feet
which has been built in the district since 1995 or is currently under construction and
140,000 square feet which is planned and has been reserved through the City of Miami's
MUSP process.
The demand for office space is highly correlated with office employment.
Approximately 80 percent of office employment in the Miami Dade market is driven by
the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sectors, business services (attorney,
architects, etc.), and governmental/institutional users including Miami Dade Community
College. This is particularly true of multi -tenant buildings which tend to dominate the
downtown Miami market. The following table shows our projection of office workers in
Miami Dade County and a low and high estimate of the change in the number of office
workers who will work for downtown businesses including businesses located in the
SEOPW district. We estimate that downtown will capture between 25 percent (low) to
30 percent (high) of the total change in office employment in the County.
•
•
•
Year
Miami Dade Office
Employment
New Downtown
Workers (Low)
New Downtown
Workers (High)
2005
140,931
1,109
1,331
2006
145,511
1,145
1,374
2007
150,240
1,182
1,419
2008
155,123
1,221
1,465
2009
160,165
1,260
1,512
2010
165,370
1,301
1,562
Based upon the growth estimates presented in the table above, there will be .net
absorption demand for between 1.8 million and 2.2 million square feet of office space in
downtown over the next five years. While some demand will be driven by the absorption
of currently vacant space in the market, there is significant demand for new construction
which has been further constrained by a number of announced major office developments
over the past three years converting to condominium use. Condominiums today provide
for higher land values and a perceived lower risk in comparison to office product.
Given the limited availability of office sites in the Central Business District and Brickell
corridor, we believe that it is likely that the SEOPW district could capture between 20
and 25 percent of total downtown and institutional office demand over the next five years
or between 361,000 and 541,000 square feet of office space with no currently built vacant
space in the district to serve this demand.
It should be noted that these office demand estimates, particularly as it relates to the
proportion of downtown capture of total demand Countywide are quite preliminary given
our continuing work on defining the total office market in the county and are likely to
change somewhat over the next several weeks as we continue our analysis. Indeed, .it is
likely given the relative land values in Downtown Miami at this point which encourage
condominium development rather than office development, the captured employment for
downtown overall may be lower than the table above suggests and we will further refine
our analysis to adjust for this trend.
Retail
Based upon broader research recently completed for the Miami Downtown Development
Authority which included surveys of area households, workers, and visitors we were able
to estimate the demand for retail space as the result new of development in the district.
New residents in the district will make purchases close to home, workers make purchases
during the day and after work (estimated from International Council of Shopping Center
daytime worker expenditure data), and hotel guests typically shop in local stores and eat
and drink in local restaurants. The following table details the demand for retail driven
directly as a result of the change in the number of residences, workers, and hotel guests
that would be expected during the 2005 through 2010 period.
•
•
Source of Demand
Gross Square Feet
Demanded
SEOPW
Retention
District Square
Feet
Demand
Households
166,150
70%
116,300
Workers
17,200
90%
15,480
Hotel Guests
8,200
30%
2,460
Total
191,550
134,240
Because not all expenditure made by people geographically based in the district will be
expended in the district, we have assumed a retention factor for each of the groups: 70%
for households who live in the district, 90% for workers who work in the district, and
30% for hotel guests who stay in the district. Based upon these factors we estimate net
demand to be an additional 134,000 square feet of retail space over the 2005-2010 period
in SEOPW.
Residential
Residential demand over the 2005-2010 period for the SEOPW district is particularly
difficult to estimate given the lack of historical precedent in the area. However, currently
there are 2,200 which are under construction or have obtained the MUSP approval and
have been marketing units to potential buyers.
We have developed our estimate of demand for residential product in the district by
examining historic and current trends in the broader competitive market and have made
an estimate of the range of demand within the SEOPW based upon the availability of
land in the district to accommodate growth and land values in the district which allows
developers to offer units at significantly more modest densities and lower cost than found
in the CBD or Brickell corridor.
Between 1995 and 2005, there were 5,000 units of housing built in the three main
districts which would compete for buyers or renters of housing in SEOPW, are
immediately adjacent to the district, or are directly located within the SEOPW district.
The three comparable areas include Downtown, Coral Way, and Wynwood/Edgewater.
At present, there are approximately 9,500 units under construction in SEOPW,
Downtown, Coral Way and Wynwood/Edgewater. During the next eighteen months
almost double the number of units will be occupied than were occupied during the
preceding decade. Adding to this there are another 18,500 units which have been
approved for development, 3,400 units which are currently going through the approval
process, and the developers of an additional 10,300 units have approached the City in
some form indicating that they are in the planning stages of development in these areas.
In sum, while the past ten years saw an average of 500 units per year come on-line in the
SEOPW and surrounding competitive market areas, if all units under construction,
approved, and in some stage of planning come on line over the next ten year, the
absorption of units in these market areas will increase eight fold.
•
•
Currently SEOPW accounts for 12 percent of the units which have been approved or are
in construction among the competitive market areas. We believe that the proportion of
projects which are developed in the SEOPW district in comparison to the competitive
market area will grow over the next several years, given the relative availability and
relative modest pricing of land in SEOPW. Of all the competitive districts with the
exception of the Wynwood/Edgewater area, SEOPW is the only competitive area in the
City where developers are able to price multistory units affordable to families who earn
between AMI and 120% AMI. We believe that over the next five years, SEOPW is likely
to see its capture potential grow from 12 percent of the market to 17.5 percent given the
factors noted above.
We have developed estimates based upon a number of scenarios, but if one assumes that
the current construction trend will continue, over 4,150 units of housing will be
developed in the SEOPW district between 2005 and 2010. We believe that this is an
aggressive estimate, but clearly not out of line with current market trends. In
comparison, if only 50 percent of the approved units, 30 percent of those units in
application, and 25 percent of the units which have approached the City preliminarily, are
completed over the next five year period, SEOPW will capture 2,300 units of new
construction. However, based upon trends during the past several years, these estimates
of "drop out" have no relation to historic reality. Almost all units which have made their
way onto the City of Miami's planning grid over the past ten years have been developed.
Therefore we believe that basing the development program for the district on an over
4,000 unit scenario to be built over the next five years would be the most prudent course
of action at this stage.
•
o
•
EXHIBIT C
Existing DRIs Not Part of the Southeast Overtown/Park West DRI
1. Miami Arena
Unless it is abandoned by resolution according to Florida Statutes.
•
•
•
EXHIBIT 0
Southeast Overtown Park West DRI
Land Use Exchange Rates
Net External .,
pi Peak Ho
TO:
Office
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Attraction/
Recreation
Land gases`:= crr
4'..` rip:Rates . ":
Units r .
K$F::,
., ::'.KSF` .
...Rooms
DU. .
,.: 1000'Seats .,:
FROM:
0.90
4.09
0.42
0.24
11.25
Office
0.90
KSF
1.00
0.22
2.14
3.75
0.08
Commercial
4.09
KSF
4.54
1.00
9.74
17.04
0.36
Hotel
0.42
Room
0.47
0.10
1.00
1.75
0.04
Residential
0.24
DU
0.27
0.06
0.57
1.00
0.02
Attraction/Recreation
11.25
1000 seats
12.50
2.75
26.79
46.88
1.00
' The net external PM peak hour trip rates are based upon those ra es approved for Increment 11 found on Exhibit 2 of Resolution 92.609.
•
•
EXHIBIT E
APPENDIX C
Substantial Deviation Chart
• •
SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION DETERMINATION CHART
TYPE OF
LAND USE
CHANGE
CATEGORY
PROPOSED
PLAN
ORIGINAL
PLAN
PREVIOUS D.O.
CHANGE + DATE
Attraction/
Recreation
Airports
Acreage, including
drainage, ROW, easements, etc.
# Parking Spaces
# Spectators
# Seats
Site locational changes
# External Vehicle Trip
D.O. conditions
ADA representations
Runway (length)
Runway (strength)
Terminal (gross square feet)
# Parking Spaces
# Gates
Apron Area (gross square feet)
Site locational changes
Airport Acreage, including
drainage, ROW, easement, etc.
# External Vehicle Trips
D.O. conditions
ADA representations
Specific acreage was not and has not been assigned to this use.
Spaces were not and have not been assigned to this use.
Spectators were not and have not been assigned to this use.
8,000 seats 8,000 seats
The proposed location for this use was not and has been determined.
11.25 trips/1,000 seats 11.25 trips/1,000 seats
No specific conditions apply to this use.
No relevant changes to ADA representations have been made
for this use.
N/A
• •
TYPE OF CHANGE
LAND USE CATEGORY
PROPOSED
PLAN
ORIGINAL
PLAN
PREVIOUS D.O.
CHANGE + DATE
Hospitals
Industrial
# Beds
# Parking Spaces
Building (gross square feet)
Site locational changes
Acreage, including
drainage, ROW, easements, etc.
# External Vehicle Trips
D.O. conditions
ADA representations
Acreage, including
drainage, ROW, easements, etc.
# Parking Spaces
Building (gross square feet)
# Employees
Chemical storage
(barrels and Ibs.)
Site locational changes
# External Vehicle Trips
D.O. conditions
ADA representations
N/A
N/A
•
TYPE OF
LAND USE
CHANGE
CATEGORY
PROPOSED
PLAN
ORIGINAL
PLAN
PREVIOUS D.O.
CHANGE + DATE
Mining
Operations
Acreage mined (year)
Water Withdrawal (gaUlday)
Size of Mine (acres), including
drainage, ROW, easements, etc.
Site Iocational changes
# External Vehicle Trips
D.O. conditions
ADA representations
Office Acreage, including
drainage, ROW, easements, etc.
Building (gross square feet)
# Parking Spaces
# Employees
Site Iocational changes
# External Vehicle Trips
D.O. conditions
ADA representations
N/A
No specific acreage was nor has been assigned to this use.
337,000 gsf 337,000 gsf N/A
A specific number of parking spaces has not been assigned to this use.
A specific number of employees were not and have not been assigned to this
use.
A specific location for this use was not and has not been identified,
0.90 trips/1,000 sf 0.90 trips/1,000 sf
No specific conditions apply to this use.
No relevant changes to the ADA representations have been made for this use.
• • i
TYPE OF
LAND USE
CHANGE
CATEGORY
PROPOSED
PLAN
ORIGINAL
PLAN
PREVIOUS D.O.
CHANGE + DATE
PetroleumlChem. Storage Capacity
Storage (barrels and/or lbs.)
Distance to Navigable
Water (feet)
Site Iocational changes
Facility Acreage, including
drainage, ROW, easements, etc.
# External Vehicle Trips
D.O. conditions
ADA representations
Ports (Marinas)
Residential
# boats, wet storage
# boats, dry storage
Dredge and fill (cu. yds.)
Petroleum storage (gals.)
Site Iocational changes
Port Acreage, including
drainage, ROW, easements, etc.
# External Vehicle
Trips
D.O. conditions
ADA representations
# dwelling unit
Type of dwelling units
# lots
# External Vehicle Trips
NIA
N/A
2,000 du 2,000 du
Multi -family Multi -family
A specific number of residential lots were not and have not been assigned.
0.24 trips/du 0.24 trips/du
•
•
TYPE OF
LAND USE
CHANGE
CATEGORY
PROPOSED
PLAN
ORIGINAL
PLAN
PREVIOUS D.O.
CHANGE + DATE
Wholesale,
Retail,
Service
HotellMotel
R.V. Park
Acreage, including
drainage, ROW, easements, etc.
Floor Space (gross square feet)
# Parking Spaces
# Employees
Site locational changes
# External Vehicle Trips
D.O. conditions
ADA representations
# Rental Units
Floor Space (gross square feet)
# Parking Places
# Employees
Site locational changes
Acreage, including
drainage, ROW, easements, etc.
# External Vehicle Trips
D.O. conditions
ADA representations
Acreage, including
drainage, ROW, easements, etc.
# Parking Spaces
Building (gross square feet)
# Employees
Site locational changes
Specific acreage was not and has not been assigned to this use.
113,345 sf 71,700 sf
The increase of 41,645 sf of retail use results from rolling -over the
unused portion of Increment I approved development into Increment II
by deleting 41,645 square feet of retail use in Increment I and
simultaneously increasing Increment II retail development credits by
41,645 square feet.
Spaces were not and have not been assigned to this use.
Employees were not and have not been assigned to this use.
The location for this use was not and has not been identified.
4.09 trips/1,000 sf 4.09 trips/1,000 sf
No specific conditions apply to this use.
This use was not specifically identified in the ADA development program.
500 rooms 500 rooms
The gross square footage for this use has not been assigned.
Spaces were not and have not been assigned to this use.
Employees were not and have not been assigned to this use.
The location for this use has not been identified.
Specific acreage was not and has not been assigned to this use.
0.42 trips/room 0.42 trips/room
No specific conditions apply to this use.
This use was not specifically identified in the ADA development program.
N/A
• • •
# External Vehicle Trips
D.O. conditions
ADA representations
TYPE OF
LAND USE
CHANGE
CATEGORY
PROPOSED
PLAN
ORIGINAL
PLAN
PREVIOUS D.O.
CHANGE + DATE
Open Space
(All natural and
and vegetated
non -impervious
surfaces)
Preservation,
Buffer or Special
Protection Areas
Acreage
Site Iocational change
Type of open space
D.O. conditions
ADA representations
Acreage
Site locational changes
Development of site proposed
D.O. conditions
ADA representations
N/A
N/A
Note: if a response is to be more than one sentence, attach a detailed description of each proposed change and copies of
the proposed modified site plan drawings. The Bureau may request additional information from the developer or his agent.