Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAnalysisAnalysis for Major Use Special Permit for 600 Biscayne located at approximately 600 and 666 Biscayne Boulevard; and 215 NE 6 Street CASE NO. 2005-058 Pursuant to Ordinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, the subject proposal for the 600 Biscayne project (MU-2005-020) has been re- viewed to allow a Major Use Special Permit per Articles 13 and 17, located at approxi- mately 600 and 666 Biscayne Boulevard; and 215 NE 6 Street, Miami, Florida, to com- prise of an approximate 650-foot, 62-story high mixed use structure to be comprised of approximately 685 total multifamily residential units with recreational amenities; ap- proximately 6,500 square feet of restaurant space; a museum of approximately 12,000 square feet; and approximately 835 total parking spaces; providing for certain floor area ratio ("FAR") bonuses. This Permit also includes the following requests: MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMITS MUSP, as per Article 17 for development of 685 residential units; MUSP, as per Article 17 for parking structures with approximately 835 parking spaces. Per City Code, Chapter 36, Construction Equipment Request for waiver of noise ordinance while under construction for continuous pours. The Major Use encompasses the following Special Permits: CLASS 11 PERMITS CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 4, Section 401, to allow construction fence and covered walkway; CLASS 11 SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 10, Section 10.3.2.2, for construction and development signage approval; CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 4, Section 401, to allow for outdoor eating areas and outdoor cafes; CLASS 11 SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 908.2 for access from a public street roadway with driveway greater than twenty-five feet in width; CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 9, Section 922.1 and 923.2, to reduce one of the 6 required loading berths from 12 x 55 to request two 10 x 20. CLASS I PERMITS CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 9, Section 906.9, to allow for a special event namely a ground breaking ceremony; CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 9, Section 917,1.2, to allow valet parking; CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 9, Section 920.1, to allow a trailer(s) for construction and other temporary offices such as leasing and sales; Page 1 of 7 CLASS 1 SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 9, Section 918.2, for parking and staging of construction during construction; CLASS 1 SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 9, Section 925.3.8, to allow development/construction/rental signage; CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 9, Section 922.4(c), to allow maneuvering of trucks on public rights of way; CLASS 1 SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 9, Section 920.1, to allow a construction trailer and watchman's quarters. REQUEST for applicable MUSP conditions to be required at the time of shell permit instead of at issuance of foundation permit; a. The requirement to record in the Public Records a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions providing that the ownership, operation and maintenance of all common areas and facilities will be by the property owner or a mandatory property owner association; and b. The requirement to record in the Public Records a unity of title or covenant in lieu of unity of title. Pursuant to Articles 13 and 17 of Zoning Ordinance 11000, approval of the requested Major Use Special Permit shall be considered sufficient for the subordinate permits requested and referenced above as well as any other special approvals required by the City which may be required to carry out the requested plans. in determining the appropriateness of the proposed project, the Planning Department has referred this project to the Large Scale Development Committee (LSDC) and the Planning Internal Design Review Committee for additional input and recommendations; the following findings have been made: • It is found that the proposed development project will benefit the area by creating additional residential opportunities in the Downtown NET District, located at the NW corner of NE 6 Street and Biscayne Boulevard. • It is found that the subject property is located in the "City of Miami" Plat within the Parkwest neighborhood of the City. • It is found that the existing zoning designation for the property pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida is the CBD "Central Business District" Zoning District. • It is found that the proposed project is located on a Primary Pedestrian Pathway. • It is found that the proposed density of the project (685 units at 464 units per acre) is below the maximum 1,478 units (1,000 units per acre) on the 1.478* net acre site. • It is found that the project has convenient access to the Metromover system at the Freedom Tower station, located adjacent west of the subject property, with Page 2 of 7 connections to the Metrorail and Tri-Rail systems, for efficient use of existing mass transit systems. • It is found that the proposed project is directly adjacent to the north and west of the historic Freedom Tower, the former Miami News building, which was erected in 1925. • It is found that the proposed project entails a 12,000 square foot museum to be located in the Freedom Tower. • It is found that the proposed project is located within an Archeological Conservation area and is therefore subject to a Certificate of Appropriateness for any ground disturbing activity within the designated area. • It is found that the project is expected to cost approximately $525,761,794, and to employ approximately 383 workers during construction (FTE-Full Time Employees); The project will also result in the creation of approximately 30 permanent new jobs (FTE) and will generate approximately $2,783,325 annually in tax revenues to the City (2005 dollars). • It is found that the proposed project was reviewed by the Internal Design Review Committee on March 15, 2005 and the following pertinent comments were made: Context- (1) The committee appreciates the provision of a context plan showing the plans and elevations of existing and proposed buildings in the vicinity of this project; (2) Clarify the proposed building layout for the property on the block to the south of the site, shown on the context plan; Freedom Tower issues — (1) It is critical to develop this proposal in a way which is compatible with the existing Freedom Tower, which is one of Miami's most important historic landmark buildings; (2) Provide a 3-D rendering of the proposal as viewed from the pedestrian level looking from the north to the south, in order to determine the appearance of the Freedom Tower and the proposed building, as viewed from Biscayne Boulevard. It is appropriate to provide an open plaza space between the building front and Biscayne Boulevard in order to preserve views to the Freedom Tower; (3) The plaza spaces along Biscayne Boulevard and between the rear of the Freedom Tower and the lobby and dropoff area of the new proposal along NE 6th St. need further design treatment. The plaza behind the Freedom Tower does not connect to the sidewalk well, as it is 5' above the level of the sidewalk, and the NE 6th St. sidewalk is fronted with a vehicular ramp, stairs, retaining walls and handicapped ramps. In addition, the plaza will frequently be in shadow because of its narrow depth compared to the height of the new proposed building, and the palm trees within the plaza are not appropriately positioned; they should follow a regular grid; (4) Consider collaborating with the Burle-Marx firm in order to incorporate the Burle-Marx paving pattern from Biscayne Boulevard's sidewalk into the site and to design a great cohesive urban plaza space, incorporating such elements as fountains, benches, landscaping, sculpture, etc.; (5) Indicate the proposed use for the Freedom Tower square footage, and indicate if the required parking for this use is proposed to be included in the garage; (6) The addition of a glass curtain wall system to the rear base portion of the Freedom Tower is inappropriate. This portion of the building should be maintained with the existing historic window pattern; Urban Design — (1) The revised loading bay configuration is in improvement over the previous proposal, as loading functions have been internalized within the building. However, the ground floor of the proposal still provides an excessive amount of service functions facing NE 6th St., NE 2ha Ave. Page 3of7 and NE 7th St... Consider providing a design which allows some active retail, amenity or lobby spaces on the ground floor facing these streets, while internalizing service room functions within the center of the building; (2) The location of the north garage ramp away from Biscayne Boulevard is an improvement over the previous submittal; (3) The committee appreciates the provision of liner residential units facing NE 7th St. However, given the small depth of these units, provide actual floor plans of these apartments to ensure that they are in fact feasible, and clarify if these are single -height or loft spaces; (4) Despite this addition, the proposal still includes an excessive amount of exposed garage facing NE 6th St., NE 7t, St. and NE 2nd Ave. Consider attempting to provide additional habitable commercial or residential liner spaces on at least the first three levels of the garage podium; (5) Given the importance of the site, the portions of the proposal which face the streets with garage and blank wall surfaces shall be treated with an exceptional level of design. Consider an artistic treatment and/or incorporating some of the materials and articulation of the residential tower into the base of the building; Verifications — (1) Clarify the method by which the building is proposed to be built over the FEC Railway right-of-way; (2) The proposal is encroaching over the setback line on NE 6th St. Indicate if the project is seeking a variance for this portion of the site; (3) The central core of the tower does not connect to the ground floor or other corridors within the building. Clarify how this vertical circulation is proposed to be resolved; Architecture — (1) The committee cannot provide a complete set of comments on this proposal due to the preliminary nature of the drawings. In the next submittal, provide elevation drawing details, showing all of the building's elevations at the street level and showing typical tower levels, at a scale no less than 1/8"=1', in order for the committee to review the building's impact on the pedestrian realm. In addition, indicate all proposed building materials on the elevation drawings; (2) Provide a drawing of the east building elevation without the Freedom Tower in front, in order to view the appearance of the portion of the building directly behind the Freedom Tower. The Planning Department's review resulted in design modifications that were then recommended for approval to the Planning Director. • It is found that on April 4, 2005, the Miami -Dade Aviation Department provided a Height Analysis review of the proposed project and found that it does not conform to the Miami -Dade County Height Zoning Ordinances. The proposed building height requires the applicant to file with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Form 7460-1, "Notice of Proposed Construction Alteration for Determination of Known Hazards". In addition, construction cranes for this project exceeding 200 feet in height must be filed using the same form. • It is found that the Large Scale Development Committee reviewed the project on April 5, 2005 to address the expressed technical concerns raised at said Large Scale Development Committee meeting. • It is found that on April 25, 2005, the City's Traffic Consultant, URS Corp., provided a review of the Traffic Impact Analysis submitted by the applicant and has found the traffic analysis sufficient. • It is found that the proposed project was reviewed for design appropriateness by the Urban Development Review Board on April 20, 2005, which recommended Approval (UDRB Reso. 4-20-05-4) with the following notes and concerns: (1) How will the FEC Right -of -Way be treated; (2) Ground floor lobby on the north that is served only by vehicular drop-off should be better connected to the street; (3) The rear Page 4 of 7 modification of the existing Freedom Tower should not be modern material imitating the historic, but the design should also represent a modern addition in it's own right. • It is found that the proposed project was reviewed by the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (HEPB) on June 7, 2005, which approved (HEPB 2005-42) a Certificate of Appropriateness for ground disturbing activity involving new construction within an Archaeological Conservation Area subject to the following conditions: (1) Submit monthly reports to the City of Miami during any archeological testing and monitoring activities to document the results of any finds; (2) Submit two final reports to the City of Miami within 90 days of completion of the archeological investigations and monitoring; (3) Submit a detailed archeological management or mitigation plan to the City of Miami prior to the commencement of any further archeological investigations or construction activities if significant archeological material is identified. • It is found that Miami -Dade Public Schools provided a revised review of the proposed project on July 19, 2005. The student population generated by this development is estimated at 185 students. The schools serving this area of application are Frederick Douglas Elementary (43 students) — 60% Florida Inventory School Houses (FISH) Capacity with the proposed project; Riverside Elementary (42 students) — 149% FISH; Jose De Diego Middle (46 students) — 117% FISH; and Booker T. Washington Senior High (54 students) - 59% FISH. Pursuant to the interlocal agreement, Riverside Elementary and Jose de Diego Middle School meet the review threshold of 115%. At an average of $6,549 per K-12 student, the total annual operating cost for the additional students residing in this development, if approved, would total $1,211,565. Based on the State's July 2005 student station cost factors, capital costs for the estimated additional students to be generated by the proposed development is $2,981,764. • It is found that with respect to all additional criteria as specified in Section 1305 of Zoning Ordinance 11000, the proposal has been reviewed and found to be adequate. Based on these findings, the Planning Department is recommending approval of the requested Development Project with the following conditions: 1. Meet all applicable building codes, land development regulations, ordinances and other laws and pay all applicable fees due prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Allow the Miami Police Department to conduct a security survey, at the option of the Department, and to make recommendations concerning security measures and systems; further submit a report to the Planning Department, prior to commencement of construction, demonstrating how the Police Department recommendations, if any, have been incorporated into the PROJECT security and construction plans, or demonstrate to the Planning Director why such recommendations are impractical. 3. Obtain approval from, or provide a letter from the Department of Fire -Rescue indicating APPLICANT'S coordination with members of the Fire Plan Review Page 5 of 7 Section at the Department of Fire -Rescue in the review of the scope of the PROJECT, owner responsibility, building development process and review procedures, as well as specific requirements for fire protection and life safety systems, exiting, vehicular access and water supply, prior to the obtainment of a shell permit. 4. Obtain approval from, or provide a letter of assurance from the Department of Solid Waste that the PROJECT has addressed all concerns of the said Department prior to the obtainment of a shell permit. 5. Comply with the Minority Participation and Employment Plan (including a Contractor/Subcontractor Participation Plan) submitted to the City as part of the Application for Development Approval, with the understanding that the APPLICANT must use its best efforts to follow the provisions of the City's Minority/Women Business Affairs and Procurement Program as a guide. 6. Record the following in the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Occupancy, a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions providing that the ownership, operation and maintenance of all common areas and facilities will be by the property owner or a mandatory property owner association in perpetuity. 7. Prior to the issuance of a shell permit, provide the City with a recorded copy of the MUSP permit resolution and development order, and further, an executed, record able unity of title or covenant in lieu of unity of title agreement for the subject property; said agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney's Office. 8. Provide the Planning Department with a temporary construction plan that includes the following: a temporary construction parking plan, with an enforcement policy; a construction noise management plan with an enforcement policy; and a maintenance plan for the temporary construction site; said plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building permits and shall be enforced during construction activity. All construction activity shall remain in full compliance with the provisions of the submitted construction plan; failure to comply may lead to a suspension or revocation of this Major Use Special Permit. 9. In so far as this Major Use Special Permit includes the subordinate approval of a series of Class 1 Special Permits for which specific details have not yet been developed or provided, the applicant shall provide the Planning Department with all subordinate Class 1 Special Permit plans and detailed requirements for final review and approval of each one prior to the issuance of any of the subor- dinate approvals required in order to carry out any of the requested activities and/or improvements listed in this development order or captioned in the plans approved by it. 10. If the project is to be developed in phases, the Applicant shall submit an interim plan, including a landscape plan, which addresses design details for the land occupying future phases of this Project in the event that the future phases are not developed, said plan shall include a proposed timetable and shall be sub- ject to review and approval by the Planning Director. Page 6 of 7 11. Pursuant to design related comments received by the Planning Director, the applicant shall meet the following conditions: (a) The plaza spaces along Bis- cayne Boulevard and between the rear of the Freedom Tower and the lobby and the drop-off area of the new proposal along NE 6 Street need further de- sign treatment; (b) The rear base portion of the Freedom Tower shall be main- tained with the existing historic window pattern instead of the proposed glass curtain wall system; (c) Provide additional habitable commercial or residential liner spaces on at least the first three levels of the garage podium as the pro- posal includes an excessive amount of exposed garage facing NE 6 Street, NE 7 Street, and NE 2 Avenue; (d) The submittal shows liner treatment on Bis- cayne Boulevard and NE 7 Street, but none on NE 2 Avenue and NE 6 Street. If the applicant is unable to provide liner, then garage and blank wall surfaces shall be treated with an exceptional level of design subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. 12. Pursuant to HEPB Resolution 2005-042, the applicant shall meet the following conditions: (a) Submit monthly reports to the City of Miami during any archeological testing and monitoring activities to document the results of any finds; (b) Submit two final reports to the City of Miami within 90 days of completion of the archeological investigations and monitoring; (c) Submit a detailed archeological management or mitigation plan to the City of Miami prior to the commencement of any further archeological investigations or construction activities if significant archeological material is identified. 13. That the height of the proposed structure shall conform to the Miami -Dade County Height Zoning Ordinance as part of the process of obtaining a FAA "Determination of No Hazard". 14. Within 90 days of the effective date of this Development Order, record a certi- fied copy of the Development Order specifying that the Development Order runs with the land and is binding on the Applicant, its successors, and assigns, jointly or severally. Page 7 of 7