HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdditional Documents(Part 1 of 2)•
Lambert
A d visnry
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
LIMA
•
- Prepared by -
Lambert Advisory, LC
- Prepared for -
Kobi Karp Architecture and Interior Design, Inc.
November 4, 2005
•
c c()a?f�ft is Itniaact rt[riysi.5'
Economic Impact Analysis
LIMA
Lambert Advisory has completed an economic impact analysis for the development of
LIMA, a condominium project located at 2955 Biscayne Boulevard in the City of Miami.
The analysis estimates the tangible direct and indirect economic impacts that will be
derived from the construction and operation of the development. This report identifies
and quantifies the benefits created by the LIMA development, and can supplement the
major use special permit application to be submitted to the City of Miami,
The LIMA property is at the intersection of NE 29"' Street and Biscayne Boulevard, and is
accessible to major thoroughfares, including I-95 and I-195. The residential
development will have a positive impact on the surrounding community in terms of
taxes, jobs, and genera! investment generated, and will also enhance the area's
commercial/retail demand.
We have completed this analysis on the basis of development and performance
information (i.e., price, absorption, timing, costs) that has been provided by Kobi Karp
Architecture and Interior Design, Inc. We have not independently verified this
information or data.
A profile of the project follows.
LIMA
Economic Impact Analysis
Building Features & Profile
Site Size (Net) 1.41 acres
Building Height 41 stories
Number of Residential Units 211 units
Parking 363 spaces
Residential FAR
Existing Commercial
New Commercial (Retail)
Gross Building Area cwlparking)
Source: Kobi Karp, Lambert Advisory, 2005.
251,600 sq.ft.
40,500 sq.ft.
7,600 sq.ft.
455,790 sq.ft.
Construction of LIMA is expected to commence in June 2006, with a duration of 18
months. Occupancy is planned for early 2008.
Based upon the information provided, construction and subsequent operations of LIMA
will generate considerable benefits to the immediate area, the City of Miami, and the
metro -Miami community. There are four key areas in which the project will provide
positive economic impacts:
1. Short-term construction employment and expenditure
2. Long-term residential expenditure
3. Long-term building employment and operating expenditure
•
Tact inaly=sis
4, Indirect flow -through benefits (real estate and retail)
For both short-term and long-term impacts, which are detailed in the following analysis,
the economic benefit to the area is the result of projected increases in revenue from
primary sources, including employment, wages, and taxes. Accordingly, the impact from
these key sources comes from two distinct measures:
a Direct Expenditures — disbursements for site acquisition and development (hard and
soft costs)
Indirect Expenditures — net additional expenditures that flow into the local economy
as a result of the new development
Estimates of the tangible impacts from direct and indirect expenditures are captured by
this analysis. However, potential intangible impacts -- such as the project's ability to
serve as a catalyst for future development in the immediate area — are not included, as
they are nearly impossible to quantify.
Economic impacts from the four key sources are detailed in the following sections.
1. Short -Term Construction Employment and Expenditure
The impact from short-term construction employment and expenditure is directly
associated with the project's development, the table below shows a summary of
estimated development costs, as provided by Kobi Karp Architecture and Interior Design,
Inc.
LIMA
Economic impact Analysis
Development Costs
Item Cost
Hard Costs $50,320,000
Soft Costs $10,064,000
Total $60,384,000
Source: Kobi Karp, 2005.
The majority of development -related expenditures will be made in Miami -Dade County,
and the City of Miami will capture a significant share of these expenditures.
Labor will account for approximately 60 percent ($30 million) of hard costs, and
materials will account for 40 percent ($20 million). Over an estimated 18-month
construction period, at an average annual construction wage of $44,5121 in Miami -Dade
County, with a benefit/overhead multiplier of 1.4, there will be 323 Full Time Equivalent
(FTE) jobs created.
1 State oinorida IDS-202, fourth quarter 2004
•
•
c'' Analysis LJ L r1
Additionally, over $1.2 million in professional fees are expected to be paid to Miami area
firms (e.g., architecture, engineering, legal). Assuming an average profit margin of 15
percent and overhead of 30 percent, nearly $670,000 in professional wages will be paid
out by these firms.
Impact and other fees payable to the City and County during the construction period will
amount to approximately $1.9 million, which will be available for public expenditures
associated with the project including developmental, administrative, permitting, schools,
and other costs.
A detailed profile of impact fees and other relevant non -impact fees paid to the City
and/or Miami -Dade County as a result of the development of LIMA is included in the
following table.
LIMA
Economic impact Analysis
Impact and Other Fees
mpact Fees:
City of Miami Development Impact Fee (Ord. 10426)
City of Miami Development Impact Admin. Fee
Miami Dade County Roads
Miami Dade County Schools
Total
$245,380
$7,361
$203, 348
$360,101
$816,190
Other/Non-Impact Fees:
City of Miami Bonus Fees $644,236
Miami Dade WA.S.A. Connection Fee $297,634
City of Miami Building Permit Fee $56,810
Energy installation Fee $41,529
M.U.S.P Application Fee $45,000
Dade County Code Compliance $30,192
Radon Gas Fee $4,153
Fire Pan Review Fee $3,738
Ground Cover Fee $1,228
Land Use/Zoning, Review for Building Permit $2,000
Certificate of Occupancy $250
Application Fee $35
TOTAL OTHER FEES $1,126, 805
TOTAL PROJECT FEES $1,942,995
Source: City of Miami P4anning, Buiidirg & Zoning; Miami Dade Coun,y; Kobi Karp;
Lambert Advisory. Fees included above may be subject to change.
•
•
•
z : , mpuct Analysis
2. Long -Term (On -Going) Resident Expenditure
Based on demographic and rental housing trends in the area, the LIMA resident base is
expected to consist primarily of younger working professionals. Considering the
proposed average sale price of $512,000, it is assumed that the residents will be mostly
middle and upper income individuals/households with incomes of at feast $120,000.
Therefore, with a total of 211 households in the building, total personal income for the
building is estimated to be over $25 million. Estimating that approximately half of the
owners will relocate from outside the City, nearly $13 million of marginal personal
income will flow into Miami.
We have estimated the marginal impact of 513 million in household income on retail
sales and space demanded, using the Lambert Advisory Retail Trade Model. The
following table provides a summary of additional retail expenditure and demand for
space as a result of development of the apartments by 2008.
LIMA
Area Expenditure Potential (from New -to -Miami LIMA Residents)
2008
Type of Good __...
General Merchandise
Apparel and Accessories
Furniture and Home Equipment
Electronic and Appliance Stores
Sporting Goods, Books, Music Stores
Miscellaneous Shoppers Goods
Shoppers Goods - Sub -Total
Food Stores
Eating & Drinking Establishments
Health & Personal Care Stores
Liquor
Convenience Goods - Sub -Total
Building Materials
Total
Estimated Marginal Sales per
Expenditure Growth Square
2008 Foot
$285,565
$274, 741
$113,878
$108,918
$103,889
$158451
$1,045,443
$1,459,056
3902,602
3468,971
$31,302
$2,861,930
$227
$290
$227
$200
$250
$420
$258 4 044
$422
$375
$407
$280
$401
$281380 $115
Square
Feet
Demanded
1,258
947
502
545
416
377
3,457
2,407
1,152
112
7,128
2,447
$4,188,753 $308 13,620
Source: Larnbert Advisory, 2005
alysis LIMA
•
•
•
In addition to the net new expenditures attributable to LIMA residents, the 7,600 square
feet of new retail planned will also attract retail expenditure -- primarily from the area
immediately surrounding the property, with limited additional support from visitors from
outside of the area. Assuming that 20 percent of the expenditure in LIMA retail comes
from outside the City, and based upon sales per square foot of $308, nearly $470,000
will be expended within the City per year which is now going to other areas.
3e Long -Term (On -Going) Building Employment and Operating Expenditure
There are a number of areas where positive public benefits or economic impacts will
result from the on -going operation of the residential development. These include:
• Additional employment from operation of the condominium community and
stores;
• Property tax revenue to the City of Miami and Miami -Dade County; and
• Purchase of goods and services.
We estimate that seven H E workers will be needed to operate the building and eight
b I E workers will be employed in the retail stores. Positions such as building managers,
parking garage attendants, maintenance staff, and security personnel will need to be
filled, At an average Miami -Dade County wage of $42,6922 the operation of the building
will generate nearly $700,000 in wages each year. Positions at various skill levels will be
made available to area residents.
Increased sales tax revenue will result from the operation of the 7,600 square feet of
new retail space. Assuming the net new retail expenditure in stores totals $470,000,
approximately $33,000 in additional sales tax will be collected from retail sales.
Additionally, an estimated $200,000 in goods and services related to building
maintenance will be purchased annually within Miami -Dade. This includes cleaning
services, maintenance supplies, utilities, etc.
State of °lorida ES-202, tour th quarter 2004
0
0
FinaNy, the development OfLIMA will provide significant benefit to the [Uv and Countv
by way of real property and personal property (ad va|nrer0) taxes. The tax amount is
based Upon the County Tax CnUeC1or's (2004) nnMage rate of20.23895 [perthousand
doAarsofvaluc\, broken down as follows,
'
LIMA
Economic Impact Analysis
AdValorem Tax Breakdown
Item m0a
ge
City ofMiami Opera -ling 8.7163
City of&Xiam� Debt 0.950
School Operations 8.00
School Debt U597
Environmental Projects
South Florida Water Management
FIND
County Millage
County Debt
Childnan'oTruet
Library
TOTAL
0.100
0,597
O�O385
5,835
0.285
0.444
0.486
26,23895
`
Annual Tax
$616.276 |
�
$56,270
$479,182
$35.381
$5S23 /
. �
$35.361
$2.280
$3517538
$16.881
$26,311 '
$28,786 .
$1,554,170
Source: Miami Dade County Property Appraiser, Lambert Advisory, 2005.
Real property is LvpiCO|k/ assessed at between 80 and 90 percent of Fair Market Value.
For the purposes of this analysis, we calculate ad valorem taxes for LIMA based on 85
percent of development costs, including property acquisition (approximately $70
million), Accordingly, the development should generate approximately $1.6 million in
nS8| property taxes by 2008. This represents an estimated net marginal increase of
roughly $1.4 nn|}lioo Over the 8d valorem tax collection the City vvOU|d receive if the
property were valued 3tcurrent use.
L'con omic' Irnpac't Analysis LIMA
•
•
•
4. Indirect Flow --Through Benefits
There will be a number of long term indirect flow -through benefits beyond construction
from the project, particularly from the building operations and retail employment. The
14 F-i E jobs created as a result of building and retail operations are assumed to have a
1,2 multiplier impact of 18 additional jobs. This multiplier is derived from the U.S.
Department of Commerce's 1999 RIMS II model, and identifies indirect secondary and
tertiary impacts created throughout the region due to the "ripple effect" of the primary
employment.
LIMA
Economic Impact Analysis
Summary, Economic Impacts
Short Term Construction Employment & Expenditure
Full Time Jobs
Direct Wages
Professional Wages (Miami -Dade County)
Impact Fees Toward Public Expenditure
Total Impact, Short Term Const, Employment & Expenditure
Long -Term (On -Going) Resident Expenditure
Marginal Expenditure Growth — Residents (2008)
Marginal Impact from On -Going Resident Expenditure
Long -Term (On -Going) Building Employment and Operating Expenditure
Full Time Jobs
Total Direct Wages Created
Sales Tax from Additional Retail Sales (2008)
Goods & Service Purchased in Miami -Dade County
Ad Valorem Taxes (2008)
Total Impact from On -Going Operations of the Building/Retail
Indirect Flow Through Benefits
Full Time Jobs (Indirect) — Miami Dade County
Total Indirect Wages Created
Total Flow Through Indirect Benefits
Impact
323
$21,600,000
$800,000
$1,900,000
$24,300,000
$2,000, 000
$2,000,000
14
S600,000
$33000
S 190,000
S1,600,000
$2,400,000
18
$700,000
$700,000
Source: Lambert Advisory. 2005
Based upon the analysis set forth herein, the LIMA project will clearly have a positive
economic impact on both the City of Miami and Miami -Dade County. Total employment
created during the development phase is approximately 323, with on -going annual
employment of 32 FTE jobs. Accordingly, there is an estimated $24.3 million impact
from short-term construction employment and expenditures, and a stabilized $4.4
million annual revenue stream from resident expenditures and building operations
(including real property taxes).
• November 2005
•
LI A
MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT
SITE UTILITY STUDY
PREPARED FOR:
KOBI KARP ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIOR DESIGN, INC.
KHA Project No: 042731000
Prepared by:
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC
1691 Michigan Ave. Suite 400
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139
LIMA
Site Utility Study
4 01 ii9V410n1
and Associates.
•
Site Utility Study
Introduction
"LIMA" isa proposed .-rnixed-use... development located on a 1.41±acre property in the
City of Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida. The property is bordered by Biscayne Ave
to the west, NE 30th St. to the north, NE 29th St, to the south and NE 4th Ave to the east.
(See Attachment "A" Maps). Currently, the site is occupied by an existing one-story
building and a 3-story building. The existing 3-story building will remain and the one-
story building will be demolished as part of this project.
The proposed "LIMA" project will include one residential tower housing 211 apartment
units. 7,600 SF of retail space and a parking garage. A tabular breakdown of the project
details was obtained from the Site Data and Development Program prepared by the
Architect and is depicted in Table 1- "Project Summary" below.
Table 1:
Project Summary
Residential
211 apt. units
Retail
7,600
Parking
363 spaces
LIMA
Site Utility Study Page 2
Drainage
Relative to the aforementioned project, the following information shall be used during the
storm water management design and site grading.
Flood Criteria:
The proposed project site grade elevations will be designed to meet floodplain
management criteria according to Federal, State, Miami -Dade County and City of Miami
standards as follows:
The subject property is Located in PANEL 183 of COMMUNITY -PANEL NUMBER
12025C0183 J of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). According to the National
Flood Insurance Program, the property is located within Flood Zone X, which is
determined to be outside of the 500-yr floodplain.
2. Miami -Dade County Flood Criteria elevation is estimated to be 5.0 ft. NGVD. This
will be used to deteiiiiine proposed minimum site grade elevations.
3. The average October ground water table elevation is estimated to be 2.0 ft. NGVD.
This will be used as the control water elevation for stormwater management
calculations (Source: Miami -Dade County Public Works Manual, Volume IT - Design
Standard Detail WC 2-2).
Existing Drainage:
Based on site observations and other available infotination, there is an existing drainage
system within the property. It is assumed that all existing on -site drainage will be
demolished, and a new stormwater .management system will be constructed to retain the
runoff generated by the proposed development.
LIMA
Site 'Utility Study
Page 3
•
•
Proposed Drainage System:
The proposed drainage system will consist of drainage wells in order to collect the
required volume of storm runoff from the specified design storm event_ In accordance
with the requirements of the Miami -Dade County Department of Environmental
Resources (DERM), the proposed drainage system will need to collect and dispose of the
storm runoff generated by a design storm event of 5-year frequency and 24-hour duration.
(Source: Section D-4, "Water Control", of Part 2 of the Miami -Dade County Public
Works Manual). No direct or indirect drainage connections or discharge of storm runoff
from the property to adjacent properties or rights -of -way will be permitted.
Based on preliminary calculations, it is anticipated that at least two (2) - 24" diameter
gravity drainage wells would be required to collect and dispose of the design storm runoff
generated by the proposed development. Preliminary drainage computations for the
project areas are provided in Attachment B "Preliminary Drainage Well Calculations",
which includes the basis for design.
The final drainage design for the project should be in conformance with the requirements
of the Miami -Dade County DERM Water Control Section, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, and other local, state and federal regulatory agencies having
jurisdiction over the project.
1101 Brickell Ave
Site Utility Study
ter Distribution System
The property is located within the water service area of the Miami -Dade Water and Sewer
Department (MDWASD). Information on existing and proposed public water distribution
.mains owned and operated by MDWASD and abutting the property was obtained from
the MDWASD Water Atlas, These are shown in Table 2 below_
Table 2:
Existing Water Mains
(Per MDWASD Water Atlas Sheet)
'oration;
Betweet
Water l ain(
Biscayne Blvd.
NE 30th St. & NE 29t St.
Existing 16-inch diameter
main
NE 30t St.
Biscayne Blvd. & NE 4''' Ave
Existing 12-inch diameter
main
NE 29th St.
Biscayne Blvd. & NE 4th Ave
Existing 12-inch diameter
main
NE 4'h Ave
NE 30t St. & NE 29t St.
Existing 12-inch diameter
main
LIMA
Site Ut
Typically, MDWASD requires that any water services from proposed projects containing
retail or commercial uses be connected to water mains of at least I2-inch diameter. Based
on the MDWASD Water Atlas, there are existing 12-inch diameter and 1.6-inch diameter
mains abutting the property on all four sides.
There is a small possibility MDWAS.D will require that the developer upgrade some of
the existing abutting public water mains, but a final determination will not be provided by
MDWASD until a Water and Sewer Agreement, or request for water service, is submitted
to the MDWASD New Business Office by the developer. Water service meters will be
installed by MDWASD forces at the developer's expense.
A copy of MDWASD Water Atlas sheet has been included in Attachment "C".
y Study
Page 5
nituy Sewer Collection System.
The property is also located within the sanitary sewer service area of the MDWASD.
Information on existing and proposed public sanitary sewage mains owned and operated
by MDWASD and abutting the property was obtained from the MDWASD Sewer Atlas.
'These are shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3:
Existing Sanitary Sewer Mains
(Per MDWASD Sewer Atlas Sheet)
cation
eeir
Sanitary Sewer Mari(,
Biscayne Blvd.
NE 30t St.
NE 29th St.
NE 4th Ave
NE 30t St. & NE 29t St.
Biscayne Blvd. & NE 4th Ave
Biscayne Blvd. & NE 4th Ave
NE 30th St. & NE 29th St.
Existing 60-inch diameter
interceptor and 8-inch
diameter gravity train
Existing 8-inch diameter
gravity main
Existing 8-inch diameter
gravity main
Existing 8-inch diameter
gravity main
Sanitary sewer service laterals from the proposed project may be connected to either of the
existing 8-inch diameter gravity sanitary sewage mains running along the adjacent roads
provided the existing mains have sufficient depth, and provided MDWASD deter uiined that
the existing mains have sufficient reserve flow capacity to handle the anticipated sewage
flows from the development, MDWASD may also require upgrades to the sanitary sewer
system, but a final determination will not be provided by MDWASD until a Water and Sewer
Agreement, or request for sewer service, is submitted to the MDWASD New Business Office
by the developer.
Sewage flows within the area of the project are collected by a system of gravity mains and
conveyed to Pump Station #2. At the time this Site Utility Study was performed, a Pump
Station Monthly Information report (PSMI) for Pump Station No. 2 was obtained from
Miami -Dade County DE.RM (see Attachment `;D"). The ••PSMI ••shows that Pump Station No.
2 is operating at an average yearly NAPOT of 2.89 hours/day, and is not under any type of
LIMA
Site Utility Study Page 6
•
ray ,oratt rturn. Based on this information, is not anticipated that any improvements to the
regional pumping and/or transmission systems will be required to connect the proposed
project. However, a final determination regarding the status of the existing transmission and
pumping system and the need for possible improvements will not be made until construction
plans are submitted to the Miami -Dade County DERM Wastewater Section, and a Sanitary
Sewage System Capacity Certification better is issued byDERM. The anticipated sewage
flows from the project are shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4:
Water & Sewer Flow Generation
- Q�"' '
uan
" rx x='' �
sage t
� to A
J
Apartment
211 units
200 GPD/unit
42,200
Retail
7,600 SF
5 GPD/100 SF
380
Total Anticipated New Flow
42,580 GPD*
*Flows from existing buildings to remain are not included.
TV. Solid Waste Generation
Solid waste generated by this project will be collected in standard on -site containers for
refuse and recyclables. Regular pick-up services will be provided either by private hauling
companies and/or by the City of Miami Solid Waste Department, who will transport the
waste to Miami -Dade County's or private disposal and recycling facilities. The volumes of
solid waste projected to be generated by the project are shown in Table 5.
LIMA
Site Utility Study Page 7
•
•
•
Solid
Table 5:
'aste Generation
Total Solid
Waste
Generate
(Tansll/y)
Apartment
211 units
5 lb./unit/day
0.53
Retail
7,600 SF
6 lb./1000 SF/day
0.02
Total Anticipated Solid Waste Generated
0.55
LIMA
Site Utility Study Page 8
•
1101 Brickell Ave
Site Utility Study
Attachment A
Maps
7
PROPOSED',
PROJECT
•
L__
30Hi TE
NE
n
I
0 --
1
ri
n•
Kimley-Horn and Associates, inc.
420 Lincoln Road
Sulie 353
hfiorm Beach, Florida 33139
Rhone: 305--673--20,25
Fax: 305-673-4562
1 ,t A
SEC OF 3ISCAYNE
AND NE. 30TH ST.
SITE LOCATION MAP
•
111.
Kimsey -Horn and Associates, Inc,
1691 Michigan Ave
Suite 400
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Phone: 305-673-2025
Fax: 305-673-4882
LIMA - SEC OF BISCAYNE BLVD.
AND NE 30TH STREET
FJI.R.M. FLOOD INSURANCE
RATE MAP
•
PROJECTS
SITES 1
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
420 Una,' In Road
Suite 353
Miami Bench, Florida 33139
Phone: 305—e73-2025
Fox: 3C5=-673— 882
LIMA - SEC OF BISCAYNE BLVD.
AND NE 30TH ST.
FLOOD CRITERIA MAP
T3
•
�j
63 L.4e
2
'i
1111111
Kimley-Horn and Associates, J
$
1691M-,ichigon Ave
Suite 400
Miomi Beach, Florida 33139
Phone: 305-673-2025
Fox: 305-673-- 4882
End/
x•
LEGEND:
�..®. , .�. 2 aw.,
NOTES
CONTOUR ?t,ITERVAL., 1_0 -FOOT
(Exc6pi ; tn4icated)
041-1.054•s MEAN SEA L.EVEt..
LIMA = SEC OF BISCAYNE BLVD.
AND NE 30TH STREET
AVERAGE OCTOBER GROUND
WATER -LEVEL 1960-75
•
1101 Brickeli Ave
Site Utility Study
Attachment B
Preliminary Drainage Well Calculations
1 I NI A
City of Miami_ Florida
AINA
t �� CAJ C 7LATIONS
I9Rrf 1 WELLS
(MASS DIAGRAM - DERM;CRITERIA)
1. Site Data:
A. Average October Water Table Elevation = 2 00 NGVD
B. County Flood Criteria Elevation = 5 0(I i I GVD
C. FLR.M. or ITMA Base Flood Elevation m I*Tl1';Zone X
D. Average existing perimeter grade elevation = 9 $Q NGVD
2. Total Contributing Drainage Area (A):
0.67 Acres
A. Impervious Areas:
a) Asphalt and concrete pavement = L12I Acres
b) Roof areas = (140 Acres
Total Impervious Area (Al)
B. Pervious areas:
a) Green Areas
3. Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C):
Runoff Coefficient Impervious (CI)
Runoff Coefficient Pervious (C2) =
C = [(Al xCl)+(A2xC2)]/A;
C x A = Total Contributing Area;
C=
CxA=
0.61 Acres (91%)
.06; Acres (9%)
0
30
0.85
0.57 Acres
4. Time required to generate one inch of runoff (per DERM Water Control Section D-4)
Rainfall Intensity (1)= 308.5 / [(48.6 x F° r 1) + t (0.5895 + F2'3)]
Frequency (F) =
years - Frequency Curve
Q = CLA, V = Qt; V o n.> = Qto no, to ,,,} = Time to generate 1 inch of runoff
V (1 �= CIAt(1 i„
1" x A = CIAt€i �> ; Solving for to in.r to = 1" / (IC)
Time to Generate one inch of run-off t(in) = 11.91 Min.
Time to reach the inlet (tc.) 1 i10 a=Min.
Total Time required to generate 1 in of runoff: = 21.91 Min,
DRAINAGE CALCS LIMA ..1s
EIASJN
S. C uillulative Runoff (Inflow Mass Diagraa t)
Q
ICES)
Ace -In -nut
Storm
Runoff'
(C1)
10
.................
15
2.1.91
30
40
50
60
90
120
l80
480
600
......................
900
1314
1 800
2400
3000
3600
5400
7200
10800
0.567
0.567
0.567
0.567
0.567
0.567
0.567
0.567
0.567
0.567
0.567
6.405
6.166
5.641
5.047
4.493
3.956
3.534
3.193
2.477
2.023
1.480
3.63
3.50
3.20
2.86
2.55
2.24
2.00
1.81
1,40
1.15
0.84
1>743
2,098
...................
2,879
3,762
4,586
5,384
6,012
6,518
7,584
8,259
9,066
6. Drainage Well Design Discharge Rate:
Based on well discharge rate of:
[ GPM/ft.11ead
*Prod
Inlet. Grate
Elev.
(NC\U)
dct.'t?t ate
Table. elev.
*I-leadloss'in
well due to
1Iagher SG of
Salt Water
(ft.)
Head Acting.
on Well (ft.);
Well Discharge
Rate (CFS)
ure Dimensions
Well Structure:'.
Storage Volume
(CF)
DW-1
9.80
2.00
2.20
5.60
4.99
145.6
DW-2
9.80
2.00
2.20
5.60
4.99
145.6
Well Discharge Rate (CFS)
9.98
*Based on average existing perimeter grade elevation.
**Assuming 100-foot casing length and headloss of 0.022 feet per foot of casing.
Total Storage (CF)
291.20
•
7. t)etention '1'
The clrai.ra! ust be designed to detain runoff for a minimum of 90 scco
Q4 = Design Runoff Kate (CFS) =
Retention Volume (CP) v Qd x 90 see.
Vdi = Detention Volume Per Well (C.F) =
W = Width of Well Structure.(ft_)=
1. = Length of Well Structure (ft.) =
2.86 CFS
257.57 Cl'
128.79 CF
4.0..ft.... .
6.5 ft.
0
dtscharee.
Ii„, n, is the minimum depth required from the top of well casing to the floor of the well box to achieve 90 second detention time:
1-1mi„ (ft.) = Vat I (W x L) = 5.00 ft.
8. Excess storm water runoff excluding well structure storage:
(Mtn.)
Sec)
Well
Discharge,'
Rate
(CFS)
A.ceu
Storm Runoff
(CF)
•
Total Overdo.
(CF1
8
10
15
21.91
30
40
50
60
90
120
180
480
600
900
1,314.35
1800
7400
3000
3600
5400
7200
10800
9.98
9.98
9.98
9.98
9.98
9.98
9.98
9.98
9.98
9.98
9.98
4,791
5,989
8,984
13,120
17,968
23,957
29,947
35,936
53,904
71,872
107,807
1,743
2,098
2,879
3,762
4,586
5.384
6,012
6,518
7,584
8,259
9,066
-3,048
-3,892
-6,105
-9,358
-13,382
-18,573
-23,935
--29,417
-46,320
-63,613
-98,742
9. Excess storm water runoff including well structure storage:
(Min:)':
Accumulated
St0Ttn Runoff.
(CF)
Storage in
Well Structure
(CF)
ecumulated
Well
Discharge
Volume
(CF)
Total Overflow'
Volume
(CF)
8
10
15
21.91
30
40
50
60
90
120
180
480
600
900
1,314.35
1800
2400
3000
3600
5400
7200
10800
1,743
2,098
2,879
3,762
4,586
5,384
6,012
6,518
7,584
8,259
9,066
291
291
291
291
291
291
291
29.1
291
29!
291
4,791
5,989
8,984
13,120
17,968
23,957
29,947
35,936
53,904
71.872
107,807
-3,339.50
-4,182.71
-6,396.45
-9,649.67
-13,673.36
-18,864.51
-24,226.01
-29,708.58
-46,611.06
-63,904.04
-99,033.05
Safety Factor
Safety Factor
3.49
3.78
•
110I Brickell Ave
Site Utility Study
Attachment C
Existing Utility Records
ewer AF5
f 3A3 ... �i StBO ''
I $ I (74-43 )
261
\�3 lc J24+nil 17 ff. NE353t___
7 12"
,1 f-128-- L ' 11 48f13 7441 i1.: _. !'�1p 88 {t1&1 26t8 It 2 1
11
•
•
21111
i278 -- \�� 200
...f t. A1T183'1
! 34 S7
7 ,...,._' 7.It1 x6y�
f5371 15371
1.2t °i�., l 22
B4.';2t 19)
[2 141
c 11.-�747r C3 �.•#4h .,.� 4241,..E
4>
1
21_
� 1 11 807
23
t E I22,t 228 �; %,426 227
`Y'
,0. 1,.221 12t13y
, 45 _i.' f218 l 1 i
., F. i 1 1 11sx4 1 4 ;
1
• _.A. _.._.,,.'... _ .._.
.. 181rt 82034.
1i;
\
12 •4 "
2214 _ -3 82 12' 201
,1rxsz
1A j
f s.ra �f:„
♦ .t..,.,,,.
,.i 'E�„,.__ 1
11641 s
12173
230
3 t.
371 1P8
16371 j
0 E
Ear
4--4 10"
32
_.A9 _j..
20 j
218 214 ,"-'' 213
a3710
17,r.
�u-}p• • 10" G L r -
1 209 is 212
w asYrq .NE 711 T$fl.I` -
2_ 7 ..
-a111 , 201 , .„ Ey6 rlrzurr '- ..,,-
1 21-3 21
\
! ; 21128 I58b ... 1T11 YJ.SB a_.. _ �.
•
.176 174 172 171 I. 117O
,__._ 157,71 l 11,7o..) —
1 , 1,16
6 I4 1 �1
1.1? �f• �"NE 211 sr_;._1s4
N
11113
•2¢3L1 11 1�7 1f.1>,1, I' 00° (1504) E1G69.1
r
48 [1648 n.l �w
>%Ip n�rn u.g-..� 1 NE 27 63
146l14g 11 .j ....3 04 750 3 I
15
188
151
H4a
•
Il
t
rrq
iLI. 2'
•
.v
J f! !219 u) (12 5
yr
Kir IA.
l 3 / f;•ts� j
27 ST 0—
�a
ewe
8125'1 (245
(2244
o
(I812
1 NE358T \ 24�-,
12 r,.......,_
1145
N
r
1182 8144
1
12'
e4e
-f
ii.A,i Jf;l��
1182
:...._
. 15
1
�
_ HE 31 8T
;:E"
1185
1
NE33TER
13'
NE 30 ST
1182
12. _ .. T2 2
?'�LlhJftLShc� 17..'�11122
188
11P.0/25/Z 3 8p11
4 } 7, 1., I; f1Ulf: N5 24 TES.
..
I9re�1•
\ 1
NE2$ ITT
2
N •
Attachment D
Pump Station Monthly Information
1101 Brick -ell Ave
Site Utility Study
•
•
50888Vitandiv InImmatione
Pump Stptiotv 30-8002 Alias Page. )40441ollunt:
RNAMi DA.DP. WATER in'tER )EPAMENT
sel:
17,-)Tre-
S t£11.1-1 [ - - Gen.a4os Telt/nett, El 43.4
Nanillee of PRIV*: 5
Ye414/44,14144144412 89
fics Ihrw4qird). 2.325213
Pink: 4.5 Ns
Z Cap: 45
Stn 61.44 C44,44444pd1 51.6011,0111
54n NeCaP C40144.1 j.
99 Net Capacierlepdi 35661300
nek abed rieepeke4 4.16100
. .
„._
5121"aV4' • 2_5-
, .7 5 : : • : : : :•. : : r.BROD59„:
Date:
kie.144POT Avg Oa'', Rdg fig i Pump: Comecats:
119.1,wcW-1:71 "ft P:
aj . Use
Tr
Prepared by:
`comer &; Associates, In
•
Lira
MUSP Traffic impact Study
List of Exhibits
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2
1.1 Study Area 22
1.2 Study Objective
2.0 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 4
2.1 Data Collection 4
2.1.1 Roadway Characteristics 4
2.1.2 Traffic Counts 5
2.1.3 Intersection Data 5
2.2 Corridor Capacity Analysis 8
2.3 Intersection Capacity Analysis 10
3.0 PLANNED AND PROGRAMMED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 12
4.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
4.1
4.2
4.3
13
Background Traffic 13
Committed Developments 13
Project Traffic 13
4.3.1 Project Trip Generation 13
4.3.2 Project Trip Assignment 16
4.4 Future Corridor Capacity Analysis 20
4.5 Future Intersection Capacity Analysis 20
5.0 CONCLUSIONS 24
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Approved Methodology & Site Plan
Traffic Counts & Signal Timing
FDOT' s Quality/LOS Handbook --- Generalized Tables
Downtown Miami DRI Increment I1 Transit Ridership
Intersection Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Committed Development Information
Transportation Control Measures
Page
•
•
Lirna
MUSP Traffic ci Study
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit Page
1 Location Map 3
2 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 6
3 Existing Lane Configurations 7
4 Existing Corridor and Transit Conditions 9
5 Person -trip Volume and Capacity — Existing Conditions Matrix 11
6 Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis Results 10
7 Committed Development Map 14
8 Future PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes without Project 15
9 PM Peak Hour Project Trip Generation 17
10 Cardinal Distribution 18
11 PM Peak Hour Project Vehicular Trips Assignment 19
12 Person -trip Volume and Capacity — Future Conditions Matrix 21
13 Project PM Peak Hour Vehicular Volumes 22
14 Future with project PM Peak Hour Vehicular Volumes 23
15 Future Intersection Capacity Analysis '-)0
Page
Li Ma
MUST' -finpac! Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Lima project is a residential project located on the east side of Biscayne Boulevard between
NE 29 and NE 30 Street in Miami, Florida. The project consists of 211 residential dwelling units
and 8,244 SF of retail space. Access to the site is proposed on NE 29 Street and NE 4 Avenue
via two-way driveways. Build out of the project is anticipated by the year 2008. The subject site
is located just outside the boundaries of the Downtown Miami Area -wide DRI.
Existing and future traffic conditions for the project area corridors were established using the
person -trip based corridor capacity method. This method, consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan, promotes improved transportation efficiency through increased private
vehicle occupancies and makes mass transit a full partner in the urban transportation system.
Analysis results show that the project area corridors are projected to operate within the
established corridor threshold.
The intersection capacity analysis was performed at the intersections under study using vehicular
volumes and the Highway Capacity Software (HCS), based on the procedures of the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual. Results of the future intersection analysis show that all intersections
operate within the standard adopted by the city_
Puge 1
•
•
34USP 1)-05c Irn uct Study
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Lima project is a residential project located on the east side of Biscayne Boulevard between
NE 29 and NE 30 Street in Miami, Florida. The project consists of 211 residential dwelling units
and 8,241 SF of retail space. Access to the site is proposed on NE 29 Street and NE 4 Avenue
via two-way driveways_ Build out of the project is anticipated by the year 2008. The subject site
is located just outside the boundaries of the Downtown Miami Area -wide DRI.
1.1 Study Area
Consistent with the approved methodology for this project (See Appendix A), the traffic study
was performed for PM peak hour conditions. For traffic analysis purposes, the study area has
been defined as I-195 to the north, I-395 to the south, Biscayne Boulevard to the east and 1-95 to
the west. Corridor capacity analysis was performed along Biscayne Boulevard from 1-395 to I-
195, along NE 36 Street from Biscayne Boulevard to 1-95 and along NE 20 Street from Biscayne
Boulevard to 1-95. Intersection capacity analysis was perfoiiued for the following intersections:
• NE 29 Street / Biscayne Boulevard (signalized)
• NE 30 Street / Biscayne Boulevard
• NE 29 Street f NE 4 Avenue
• NE 30 Street / NE 4 Avenue
1.2 Study Objective
The objective of this traffic study is to assess possible PM peak hour impacts on the project area
corridors using the person -trip corridor capacity method. This method is designed to meet the
challenges posed by Florida's growth management laws: to promote compact urban
development, discourage suburban sprawl and improve urban mobility. The method is consistent
with the City's Comprehensive Plan and promotes improved transportation efficiency through
increased private vehicle occupancies, thus making mass transit a full partner in the urban
transportation system_
Page 2
195
ST
1
14)
c+1
ST
N
9 ST
NE 27 5
Ea' ST
NE 20ST
1-395
LU
NE 13 ST
PROJECT
SITE
cIP
PROJECT:
LIMA MUSP
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
711LE:
LOCATION MAP
EXHiBiT No.
1
Page3
mu
,fitUS''Trta a-tm etSrudy
•
•
2.0 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
2.1 Data Collection
Data collection for this study included roadway characteristics, intersection data, intersection
volumes, and signal timing. The data collection effort is described in detail in the following
sections,
2..1,1 Roadway Characteristics
Biscayne Boulevard
Biscayne Boulevard (US-1) is a major arterial that provides north/south access throughout the
City of Miami from downtown (the CBD) north to the Broward County line. Between NE 20
Street and NE 36 Street, Biscayne Boulevard is a two-way, four -lane divided roadway.
Exclusive left turn lanes are provided at major intersections. On -street parking is prohibited. The
posted speed limit is 30 mph.
NE 20 Street
NE 20 Street is a local roadway that provides east/west access within the study area. Between
Biscayne Boulevard and N. Miami Avenue, NE 20 Street is a two-way, two-lane undivided
roadway and between N. Miami Avenue and 1-95 it is a two-way, four -lane undivided roadway.
On -street parking is permitted between N. Miami Avenue and I-95. The posted speed limit is 35
mph_
NE 36 Street
NE 36 Street is a local roadway that provides east/west access within the study area. Between
Biscayne Boulevard and N. Miami Avenue, NE 36 Street is a two-way, four -lane undivided
roadway and between N. Miami Avenue and NW 3 Avenue it is a two-way, two-lane undivided
roadway, returning to a two-way, four -lane undivided roadway west of NW 3 Avenue to 1-95.
Exclusive left turn lanes are provided. On -street parking is permitted between N. Miami Avenue
and NW 3 Avenue. There are no posted speed limit signs within the study area.
Page 4
Lima
MUST' T rezlc Impart Study
•
2.1 m2 Traffic Counts
Peak period vehicle turning movement counts and 24-hour directional counts were collected at
the intersections and segments under study. Seasonal adjustment factors were obtained from the
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Traffic counts are included in Appendix B.
Exhibit 2 shows the adjusted Existing PM peak season, peak hour traffic volumes at the study
intersections.
2,1.3 Intersection Data
A field survey was conducted to determine the lane configurations for the roadways and
intersections under study. Existing signal timing data was obtained from Miami -Dade County
for the analyzed intersection. Signal information is included in Appendix B. This information
provided the signal phasing and timing used in the intersection capacity analysis. Exhibit 3
shows the existing lane configurations for the intersections and roadways studied.
Page 5
NE 31 ST
NE 30 ST
0,1
w
NE 29 ST
B1SCAYN,E BOULEVARD
00
CD
CD 0
Lrl
14
4
161
49
1
— 16
0
En NI
C•,1
co 1— 18
37
N. T. S.
63
32 —
31
NE 28 ST
43
20
NE 27 ST
PROJECT:
LIMA MUSP
MUSP TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
TTLE
EXISTING PM PEAK
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
EXHIBIT No
2
Page 6
PROJECT;
LIMA MUSP
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
T1TEE:
EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION
Limo
MU'SP Trrafftc !n pOE; i L
2.2 Corridor Capacity Analysis
Existing traffic conditions for the project area corridors have been established using the person -
trip based corridor capacity method. The methodology for this analysis is outlined in the Miami
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The existing traffic conditions analysis identifies the
person -trip volumes and person -trip capacities of the corridors, establishes existing person -trip
usage and identifies whether or not person -trip deficiencies exist. An adopted standard of LOS E
applies to the transportation corridors as measured by the person -trip method. The existing
conditions analysis establishes the multi -modal corridor conditions within the project area.
Person -Trip Volumes
Link volumes collected were adjusted to peak season traffic conditions using seasonal
adjustment factors provided by 1-DOT. Peak hour maximum service volumes were obtained
from FDOT's 2002 Quality/Level of Service Handbook. Transit (bus and fixed rail) ridership
and capacity were obtained from Increment II of the Downtown Miami Area -wide DRI. An
analysis of existing vehicle roadway and transit conditions is shown in Exhibit 4, supporting
information included in Appendix C.
Person -Trip Capacity
Vehicle occupancy for the person -trip capacity calculations is based upon a comprehensive study
performed for the City of Miami. The vehicle occupancy factor of 1.6 persons per vehicle is
approved for use as the practical capacity of a private passenger vehicle to determine the person -
trip capacity of the vehicular traffic system.
Bus and fixed rail capacity for each corridor was determined based on the number of transit
vehicles per hour and the person -trip capacity of each transit vehicle. This information was
obtained directly from the Miami -Dade Transit Authority.
Page 8
CORRIDOR
Biscayne Blvd
1-395 NE 14 Street
NE 14 Street NE 15 Street
NE 15 Street NE 19 Street
NE 19 Street NE 20 Street
NE 20 Street NE 29 Street
NE 29 Street NE 36 Street
TO
NE 36 STREET
0is08yne Blvd N. Miami Avenue
N. Miami Avenue NW 3 Avenue
NW 3 Avenue I.95
NE 20 STREET
Biscayne 81vd N. Miami Avenue
N, Miami Avenue NW 3 Avenue
NW 3 Avenue 1.95
Exhibit 4
Existing Corridor and Transit Conditions
Roadway Conditions (vehicles)
Transit Cor tltlons (persons)
Total
Total
Total
Total
Count
Raw PM
Peak
PM
Dir Max
Bus
Bus
Metroraii
Motrorall
Matromover
Metromover
Transit
Ridership
Transit
Capacity
Existing
Source/
Peak Hour
Season
Peak Hour
Service
Ridership
Capaolty
Ridership
Capacity
Ridership
Capacity
(2]
PI
Dir
Lanes
Period
Volume
Factor
Volume
Volume [1]
(2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
•(2] .
NB
3L
DPA •PM
1556
0.99
1540
2490
748
1706
0
0
44
960
792
551
2666
3446
SS
N8
3L
2LD
DPA - PM
DPA • PM
1134
1335
0,99
1.00
1123
1335
2490
1660
498
678
2485
102E
0
0
0
0
53
44
960
960
722
538
1988
2768
SB
2LD
DPA - PM
1204
1.00
1204
1680
485
1808
0
0
53
960
486
2429
348
21.13
DPA - PM
1335
1.00
1335
1660
442
1469
0
0
44
960
436
3209
S8
2LP
DPA • PM
1204
1.00
1204
1660
383
2249
0
0
53
960
523
1472
NB
2LD
CPA - PM
1335
1.00
1335
1660
523
1472
0
0
0
0
416
2252
59
2LD
DPA • PM
1204
1.00
1204
1660
416
2252
0
0
0
0
523
1472
NB
2LD
DPA• PM
1509
1.02
1539
1660
523
1472
0
0
0
0
416
2252
SB
2L0
DPA • PM
1091
1.02
1 113
1660
416
2252
0
0
0
0
523
1472
NB
2LD
DPA-PM
1619
1,02
1651
1660
523
1472
0
0
0
0
416
2252
SB
2LD
DPA •PM
1569
1.02
1600
1660
416
2252
0
0
0
0
E8
2LU
DPA • PM
502
1.06
532
1328
33
1292
0
0
0
0
33
52
1292
1292
WB
ES
WO
E33
W 8
2LU
1 Lit
1LU
2LU
2LU
DPA • PM
DPA - PM
DPA - PM
DPA- PM
DPA • PM
460
545
477
545
477
1,06
1.06
1.06
1.06576
1.06
488
576
506
506
1328
760
780
1328
1328
52
33
52
33
52
1292
1292
1292
1292
1292
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
52
33
52
1282
1292
1292
1292
EB
W8
EB
1LU
1LU
2LU
DPA • PM
DPA - PM
DPA • PM
284
270
483
1.02
1.02
1.02
290
275
493
780
760
1328
27
18
27
195
195
195
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
18
27
18
195
195
195
195
W8
2L0
DPA - PM
544
1.02
555
1328
18
195
0
0
0
0
27
195
EB
2LU
DPA - PM
483
1.02
493
1328
27
195
0
0
0
0
0
18
195
WB
21.1...1
DPA • PM
544
1,02
555
1328
18
195
0
0
0
Notes:
(1 ] Peak Hour Directional Maximum Service Volumes are obtained from FDOT's Quality/Level of Service Handbook
(2] Transit and roadway Information obtained from the Downtown Miami DR1 Increment it & Miami Dade Transit Authority
•
Available Person-Tri
ci
The available person -trip capacity for each coiiidor is shown in Exhibit 5 based on the
following: Person -trip capacity — Person -trip volume = Available Person -trip capacity. A
general level of service designation is provided for each study corridor based on the calculated
available person -trip capacity. A person -trip level of service look -up table was developed based
on the ratios derived from the FDOT's 2002 Quality/Level of Service Handbook (see Appendix
C). Based upon the person -trip evaluation for existing traffic conditions, no study corridor
operates below the acceptable "person -trip" level of service standards.
2,3 Intersection Capacity Analysis
The intersection capacity analysis was perfoisried using vehicular volumes and the Highway
Capacity Software (HCS), based on the procedures of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.
Exhibit 6 shows the resulting LOS for existing conditions at the intersections under study,
analysis worksheets are included in Appendix D. All four intersections operate within the
standard adopted by the city.
Exhibit 6
Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis
Weekday PM Peak Hour Conditions
Intersection
S/U
Existing LOS
NE 29 Street / Biscayne Boulevard
S
B
NE 30 Street / Biscayne Boulevard
U*
B/F
NE 29 Street / NE 4 Avenue
U*
A/A
NE 30 Street / NE 4 Avenue
U*
A/A
Source: DPA
lJ unsignalized S= signalized *LOS reported for rnjorlminor approaches at unsignalized intersections_
Page 10
CORRIDOR
FROM TO
Biscayne Blvd
1-395 NE 14 Street
NE 14 Street NE 15 Street
NE 15 Street NE 19 Street
NE 19 Street NE 20 Street
NE 20 Street NE 29 Street
NE 29 Street NE 35 Street
NE 36 STREET
Biscayne Blvd N, Miami Avenue
N, Miami Avenue NW 3 Avenue
NW 3 Avenue 1-95
NE 20 STREET
Iscayne Blvd N, Miami Avenue
N, Miami Avenue NW 3 Avenue
NW 3 Avenue 1-95
Exhibit 5
Person -Trip Volume and Capacity
Existing Conditions Matrix
Roadway Mode
Transit Mode
Segrnant Total
-
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(t)
(9)
(h)
(1)
(1)
(k)
(I)
Roadway
Pers-Trip
Roadway
Pers-Trip
Excess
Total
Total
Pers-Trip
Segment
Segment
Pers-Trip
Segment
Dir
Vehicular
Capacity
Vehicular
Volume
Pers-Trip
Pers-Trip
Pers-Trip
Excess
Pers-Trip
Pers-Trip
Excess
Person Trip
vic
LOS
Capacity
COPPV-1.6
Volume
@PPV=1.4
Capacity
Capacity
Volume
Capacity
Capacity
Volume
Capacity
(a) * 1.6
c) ' 1.4
tb) - (d)
if)-(q)
(b)+(()
d)+(9).
(ii (i)
_ (1)I(1)
(11
121
131
141
151
161
P1
NB
2490
3984
1540
2157
1827
2666
792
1874
6650
2949
3701
0.44
D
SB
2490
3984
1123
1572
2412
3446
551
2895
7430
2123
5307
0,29
C
NB
1660
2656
1335
1869
787
1988
722
1266
4644
2591
2053
0.56
Y7
SB
1660
2656
1204
1686
970
2768
538
2230
5424
2224
3200
0.41
D
NB
1660
2656
1335
1869
787
2429
486
1943
5085
2355
2730
0.46
D
SB
1660
2656
1204
1686
970
3209
436
2773
5865
2122
3743
0.36
C
NS
1660
2656
1335
1869
787
1472
523
949
4128
2392
1736
0.58
D
SB
1860
2656
1204
1686
970
2252
416
1636
4908
2102
2806
9,43
D
NB
1660
2656
1539
2155
501
1472
523
949
4128
2678
1450
0.65
D
SB
1660
2656
1113
1558
1098
2252
416
1836
4908
1974
2934
0.40
0
NB
1660
2656
1651
2312
344
1472
523
949
4128
2835
1293
0.69
D
SB
1660
2656
1600
2241
415
2252
416
1836
4908
2657
2251
0.54
D
EB
1328
2125
532
745
1380
1292
33
1259
3417
778
2639
0.23
C
W B
1328
2125
488
683
1442
1292
52
1240
3417
735
2682
0,22
C
EB
780
1248
578
809
439
1292
33
1259
2540
842
1698
0.33
C
WB
780
1248
506
708
540
1292
52
1240
2540
760
1780
0.30
C
EB
1328
2125
575
809
1316
1292
33
1259
3417
842
2575
0.25
C
WS
1328
2125
506
708
1417
1292
52
1240
3417
760
2657
0,22
C
EB
780
1248
290
406
842
195
27
168
1443
433
1010
0.30
C
WB
780
1248
275
386
862
195
18
177
1443
404
1039
0,26
C
EB
1328
2125
493
690
1435
195
27
168
2320
717
1603
0,31
C
C
WB
1328
2125
555
777
1348
195
18
177
2320
795
1525
0.34
EB
1328
2125
493
690
1435
195
27
168
2320
717
1603
0.31
C
C
W8
1328
2125
555
777
1348
195
18
177
2320
795
1525
0.34
Notes:
[1] The Roadway Vehicular Capacity is obtained from Exhibit 4.
(2) Person -Trip capacity is derived by applying a 1,6 vehicle occupancy to the vehicular capacity,
(3]) The Roadway Vehicular Volume is obtained from Exhibit 4.
[4] Person -Trip Volume is derived by applying a 1,4 vehicle occupancy to the vehicutar capacity,
[5] The Total Transit Person -Trip Capacity Is obtained by adding bus, metrorall and rnetromover capacities (see Exhibit 4).
{6) The Total Transit Person -Trip Volume Is obtained by adding bus and metromover volumes (see Exhibit 4).
(7] The Person Trip LOS is provided consistent with the FDOT's Quality/Level of Service Handbook (see Appendix C),
Lima
MUSP Traffic linpall Study
3.0 PLANNED AND PROGRAMMED ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS
The 2005 Miami -Dade County Transportation Improvement Pro am (TIP) and the 2030 Metro -
Dade Transportation Plan Long Range Element, were reviewed to identify any programmed or
planned projects within the limits of the study area established. These documents show no
officially programmed or planned capacity improvement projects within the study area prior to
completion of the proposed project.
Page 12
I arm
MUSP Trafiz
.pardy
40
4.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
4.1 Background Traffic
Consistent with other traffic studies performed in the area, a conservative one (1) percent growth
factor was applied to existing traffic volumes, This growth rate is intended to account for future
growth due to additional developments that have not been identified at this time but occur within
the study period.
4.2 Committed Developments
A list of projects was obtained from city staff, City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department
Report on Private Development From 1996 to Present (Updated through August 2005). These
projects are approved and are either under construction or about to break ground. Other projects
are approved by City Commission but with no building permits, or in the application stage. The
projects in the vicinity of Lima are shown in Exhibit 7. These projects size and trip generation
are included in Appendix E. Traffic generated by these developments was distributed using the
Cardinal Distribution from the appropriate TAZ. For estimating trip distribution from committed
projects, consideration was given to conditions such as the roadway network, roadway available
to travel in the desired direction and attractiveness of traveling on a specific roadway. This
information and a matrix showing segment volumes from the committed developments are also
included in Appendix E. Future traffic volumes were projected for the build -out year 2008.
Exhibit 8 shows the projected turning movement volumes without the project.
4.3 Project Traffic
4.3.1 Protect Trip Generation
Project trip generation is based on the calculation of person -trips consistent with the City of
Miami Comprehensive Plan. Person -trips generated by the project were established using the
-Page13
U
m
PROJECT
SITE
LEGEND
1 - PAC
2 - BAYVIEW MARKET
3 - BISCAYNE PARK
4 - DISTRICT LOFTS
5 - ELLIPSE
6 - SOLEIL
NE 13 ST
1345
03ECT;
LIMA MUSP
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
LE:
COMM! I ED DEVELOPMENT
EXHIBIT Na_
7
Page 14
d
a;
NE 32 ST
NE31 ST
LU
c*i
z
NE 30 ST
110
N
BISCAYNIE BOULEVARD
N. T. S-
16
L-16
38
,---16
0
N
Lit
z
NE 29 ST
14
4 =p-
16
19
38
-62
7
28
5
1
E
r 3
22
65
48 m
53�
NE 28 ST
C hi rn
16) 01
44
21 — —�
NE 27 ST
PROJECT:
LIMA MUSP
MUSP TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
TITLE:
FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT
PM PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
EXHIBIT ND.
8
Page 15
•
P Traffic impact Srudy
following procedures consistent with Increment 11 of the Downtown DRI and the approved
methodology:
The gross vehicular trip generation for each land use was determined using the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 7th Edition rates or formulas_
• Gross vehicular trips were reduced by 16% based upon the use of the ITE trip rates (City of
Miami's 1.4 vs. 11 E's 1.2 pers/veh).
• Gross vehicular trips were reduced by 14.9% to reflect transit usage based on projected
modal splits from Increment 1I of the Downtown DRI.
• Gross vehicular trips were also reduced by 10% for pedestrian/bicycle based on estimates
from Increment IT of the Downtown DRI.
• The net external vehicle trips were converted to person -trips using 1.4 persons per vehicle
pursuant to City standards.
• The vehicular trips assigned to transit were converted back to person -trips using 1.4 persons
per vehicle pursuant to City standards.
▪ The net external person -trips were obtained by adding together the project net external
person -trips for the vehicle and transit modes.
A trip generation summary for the project is provided in Exhibit 9.
4.3.2 Project Trip Assignment
Project traffic was distributed and assigned to the study area using the Cardinal Distribution for
TAZ 504, shown in Exhibit 10. The Cardinal Distribution gives a generalized distribution of
trips from a TAZ to other parts of Miami -Dade County.
For estimating the trip distribution for the project location, consideration was given to conditions
such as the roadway network accessed by the project, roadways available to travel in the desired
direction. and attractiveness of traveling on a specific roadway. Exhibit 11 shows the project
vehicular trip assignment to the impacted roadway segments and intersections.
Page 16
Exhibit 9
Lima MUSP
PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Analysis
USES
High -Rise Condominuim
Specialty Retail
GROSS VEHICLE TRIPS
Vehicle Occupancy Adjustment 0
Transit Trip Reduction 0
Pedestrian / Bicycle Trip Reduction
NET EXTERNAL VEHICLE TRIPS
UNITS
211 DU
8,244 SF
16.00°/a
14,90%
10.00%
Net External Person Trips in Vehicles ® 1.40
Net External Person Trips using Transit 0 1.40
Net External Person Trps (vehicles and transit modes)
Net External Person trips walkinC usinc) bicycle
ITE Land Use Code
232
814
of Gross External Trips (1)
of Gross External Trips (2)
of Gross External Trips (3)
Persons/ Vehicle
Persons/ Vehicle
PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ctio
62%
44%
Trips
51
10
59% 61
59°/a
59%
59%
59%
59%
59%
1.40 Persons/ Vehicle 159"A
10
9
6
36
1
47
12
59
b/®
38%
56%
Trips
30
13
41%. —43
41%
41%
41%
7
6
4
Trips
81
23
104
17
15
16
26 1 57
33
8
80
21
41% ], 42 j 100,_,
13 41% i 9 [ 22
Notes
(1) A 16% reduction to adjust for the difference between ITE auto occupancy and local data (Miami's 1.4 vs. fTE`s 1.2 pers/veh)
(2) Transit trip reduction based on projected modal splits used in the Downtown Miami DRI Increment 11
(3) Pedestrian and bicycle trip reductions based on Downtown characteristics used in the Downtown Miami DRI Increment If
Lima
MUSF Tra
c Sr
Exhibit 10
Cardinal Distribution of Trips
TAZ 504
Cardinal Direction
Distribution
TAZ 504
NNE
ENE
ESE
SSE
SSW
WSW
WNW
NNW
Total
10.76%
4.25%
5.02%
4.48%
21.43%
23.62%
13.62%
16.82%
100%
Page 18
PRO/EC7
LIMA MUSP
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
TIRE:
PROJECT
SITE
PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
EXN3f IT Na
11
Page 19
•
•
Lima
MUSS' 'Traffic Impact Study
4.4 Future Corridor Capacity Analysis
The existing person -trip volumes were combined with the committed development and
background growth person -trips to obtain the total year 2008 person -trip volume without project.
The net external project person -trips were then added to get the future person -trip volumes with
project. These volumes were compared to the future person -trips capacities to determined future
level of service. The future person -trip volume and capacity matrix is shown in Exhibit 12. All
corridors analyzed are projected to operate within the established LOS E threshold.
4.5 Future Intersection Capacity Analysis
Background growth and committed development trips were combined with the adjusted existing
traffic to get the total year 2008 vehicular traffic without project on the study intersections. The
project trips were then added to obtain the future with traffic volumes. Exhibit 13 shows the
project PM peak hour vehicular volumes and Exhibit 14 shows the total (with project) PM peak
hour vehicular traffic volumes at the intersections under study.
Results of the future intersection analysis show that all intersections operate within the LOS E
standard adopted by the city. Exhibit 15 shows the resulting LOS at the intersections under
study. Intersection capacity analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix D.
Exhibit 15
Future Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekday PM Peak Hour Conditions
Intersection
SlCT
LOS
>~ utvre
Without
Project
LOS
Future with
Project
NE 29 Street / Biscayne Boulevard
S
B
B
NE 30 Street / Biscayne Boulevard
U*
B/F
B/F
NE 29 Street / NE 4 Avenue
U*
A/A
A/A
NE 30 Street / NE 4 Avenue
U*
AJA
A/A
Source: IPA
t1— uusignahzed S=signalized *LOS reported fur
ajorl7nirao
approaches at unsignalind iniersectinns_
Page 20
From
Biscayne Blvd
i-395
Corridor
NE 14 Street
NE 14 Street NE 15 Street
NE 15 Street NE 19 Street
NE 19 Street NE 20 Street
NE 20 Street NE 29 Street
NE 29 Street NE 36 Street
NE 36 STREET
Biscayne Blvd N. Miami Avenue
N. Miami Avenue NW 3 Avenue
NW 3 Avenue 1.95
NE 20 STREET
Biscayne Blvd N, Miami Avenue
N. Miami Avenue NW 3 Avenue
NW 3 Avenue 1.95
Exhibit 12
Person -Trip Volume and Capacity
Future Conditions Matrix
Without Project
With Project
(a)
ib)
(c)
(d) E
(e)
(0
(g)-
(h)
€1))
(k)
Existing
Future
Committed
Future
Projected
Future
Future wlout Proj
Project
Total
Future
Future with Proj
Di r
Pers-Trip
Volumes
Bkg.
Pers-Trip
Development
Pers-Trip
Pers-Trap
Volumes
Transit
Capacity
Pers-Trip
Capacity
Pers-Trip
Pers-Trip
Volume
Pore -Trip
Volumes
Pers•Trip
Capacity
Pers-Trip
vie
ul
U E 00 U Ca 00000C o UUo U0 CD CDC CDoo
WC
LCSS
1,0%
3
b+c
dl
d + h
II
ir]
..>. ill€5,.�n.,
IZi
jai
[<t
NB
2949
3038
301
3339
42
6692
0,50
12
3351
6692
0.50
D
SB
2123
2187
45
2232
1494
8924
0.25
8
2241
8924
0.25
0
NB
2591
2670
105
2774
154
4798
0,58
12
2786
4798
0.58
D
SB
2224
2291
66
2357
1606
7030
0.34
6
2365
7030
0,34
C
NB
2355
2426
144.85
2571
81
5166
0,50
12
2583
5166
0.50
D
58
2122
2186
102.7
2289
1533
7398
0,31
8
2297
7398
0.31
C
NB
2392
2464
144.85
2609
78
4206
0.62
12
2621
4206
0.62
D
SB
2102
2165
102.7
2268
1530
6438
0.35
8
2276
6438
0.35
C
NB
2678
2759
183.45
2942
78
4206
0.70
12
2954
4206
0.70
D
SB
1974
2034
196.35
2230
1530
6438
0.35
8
2239
6438
0.35
C
NB
2835
2921
192.2
3113
78
4206
0.74
20
3133
4206
0.74
D
SB
2657'
2737
242.3
2979
1530
6438
0,46
24
3003
6438
0.47
D
EB
778
802
75
677
0
3417
0.26
3
860
3417
0.26
C
WB
735
757
75
832
0
3417
0,24
2
834
3417
0.24
C
EB
842
867
75.2
942
0
2540
0.37
3
945
2540
0.37
D
WB
760
763
74.95
658
0
2540
0.34
2
860
2540
0.34
C
EB
842
867
75
942
0
3417
0.28
3
945
3417
0.28
C
WB
760
783
75
858
0
3417
0.25
2
860
3417
0.25
C
EB
433
446
210
656
-9
1434
0.46
6
662
1434
0.46
0
WB
404
416
213
629
.9
1434
0,44
4
633
1434
0.44
0
EB
717
738
210.15
949
-9
2311
0.41
6
954
2311
0.41
0
WB
795
819
213.3
1032
-9
2311
0.45
4
1036
2311
0.45
0
EB
717
738
210
949
-9
2311
0.41
6
954
2311
0.41
D
WB
795
819
213
1032
45
2365
0.44
4
1036
2365
0.44
0
Notes:
]1] The Existing Person Trip Volume is obtained from Exhibit 5, column (j)
(2] Year 2008 Background Person Trip Volume to derived by applying a 1 Y growth factor to the existing person -trip volume
(3] Projected Transit Capacity was obtained from the Downtown Miami DRI Increment 11
(4) The Total Future Peak Hour Person Trip Capacity it obtained by adding all modes of transportation (Exhibit 5, column (1)) and the projected transit capacity (Exhibit 12, column e)
[51 The Person Trip LOS is provided consistent with the FDOT's Quality/Level of Service Handbook (see Appendix C)
161 Project Person Trip Volumes are derived from Trip Generation Analysis
0 b
F--
0
LU
0
>-
coLU
co
2 —
13 -—
5
N.T.S.
6
J
15_j
20
IN = 36
OUT = 26
PROJECT:
LIMA MUSP
MUSP TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
ITTLE:
PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR
VEHICULAR VOLUMES
E>3 liBIT No.
I 3
Page 22
NE 31 ST
BOULEVARD
w
A
w
w
z
NE 30 ST
j
0
z w
o
cw
z.
53
16
16
38
t 16
0
w
z
NE 29 ST
CO
Of
19
48
67
7
28
21
}
15
0 t-
'Fr
3
NE 28 ST
PROJECT:
67
60
53
LIMA MUSP
MUSP TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
0
r-
M g
64
21 —=—
TITLE:
FUTURE WITH PROJECT
PM PEAK HOUR
VEHICULAR VOLUMES
EXHIBIT No.
14
Page 23
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
An assessment of the PM peak hour traffic associated with the development of Lima was
performed. Analysis of future (2008) traffic conditions with the project during the PM peak hour
shows that the City of Miami's adopted Level of Service standards will not be exceeded.
Adequate capacity during the PM peak hour is available to accommodate the proposed project
trips within the study area at the intersections and on the transportation corridors segments
analyzed.
Da 2005 rnusp repoft_doc
Page 24