Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutII. Project DescriptionGrove Estates a Planned Unit Development (PUD) MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PROJECT DESCRIPTION Zoning Ordinance No. 11000 11, Section 1304,2,1 Application forms; supplementary materials (a) of activity. in Article I. Statement of ownership and control of the proposed development The Disclosure of Ownership and Ownership Affidavit are provided (b) Statement describing in detail the character and intended use of the development of activity. The proposed project consists of an eleven (11) single family residential home Planned Unit Development ("PUD") located at 4055 SW 37th Avenue or Douglas Road. Pursuant to the intent of City of Miami Code, Article 5, a PUD should be encouraged to further several criteria, and, in addition to the criteria outlined for Major Use Special Permit in Section 1703.1, and the applicable criteria in Section 1305, the following criteria shall also be considered for PUDs: "(1) Greater flexibility in the pattern of development; (2) Improved level of amenities; (3) Preservation of historic properties and environmental preservation districts." Furthermore, Section 508 of the Code provides that Planned Unit Developments are permissible in R-1 single-family zoning districts only when the property in question has been designated as historic sites, historic districts or archeological zones pursuant to Chapter 23 of the Miami City Code, and/or as environmental preservation districts pursuant to Chapter 17 of the Miami City Code. The subject property qualifies for PUD development by all the above - referenced designations, as it is located within an Environmental Preservation District, on a Scenic Transportation Corridor and within an Archeological Conservation Area. The developer of the project is dedicated to preserving the natural beauty of the property to the greatest extent possible, and has determined that the best way to accomplish this goal is to seek PUD approval, The subject PUD will consist mainly of eleven (11) single family residential homes, where, current density would allow a maximum number of approximately MIAMI 1308755.1 7001426571 (65) units. The average lot size will be approximately 19,000 square feet, well above the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet pursuant to the SD-18 Overlay District. In addition, the single family residential homes shall meet additional and more restrictive zoning and design limitations consistent with Grove Estates Design Guidelines that shall be enforced by the home owners association. The PUD will also consist of a gate and guard house entrance feature, a private drive, a concierge building and a parking area. The parking area will provide fifteen (15) surplus parking spaces that are not required pursuant to the City Code, (c) General location map, showing relation of the site or activity for which special permit is sought to major streets, schools, existing utilities, shopping areas, important physical features in and adjoining the project or activity and the like. The following exhibits are included with the Major Use Special Permit Application and are located under Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents. (i) Location Map: Map of the surrounding street system indicating the project location. (ii) Area Context Map: Map of the project area indicating buildup in the surrounding area. (iii) Aerial: Aerial Photograph of the surrounding area indicating the project site. (d) A site plan containing the title of the project and the names of the project planner and developer, date, and north arrow and, based on an exact survey of the property drawn to a scale of sufficient size to show: The Site plan is located under Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents. i. Boundaries of the project, any existing streets, building, watercourses, easements and section lines; The boundaries of the project and the location of existing streets are shown on the survey located under Tab 5 of the Supporting Documents. ii. Exact location of all buildings and structures; The exact location of all existing buildings located on the Property is shown on the survey located under Tab 5 of the Supporting Documents, The location of the building to be constructed are shown on the Site Plan, under Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents, iii. Access and traffic flow and how vehicular traffic will be separated from pedestrian and other types of traffic; IMAM 11308755.1 7001426571 Off=street parking and off-street loading area; Off-street parking will be provided in the parking lot located adjacent to the concierge building. The spaces provided in the parking lot are not required. (2) Recreational Facilities; Other than the common areas, each individual single family home owner will decide what type of recreational facilities will be available on their particular parcel {such as pools, etc.). (3) Screens and buffers; Landscaping areas indicated in the landscape plans under Tab 6 of the supporting documents. (4) Refuse collections areas; Waste collection will be provided by a containerized garbage container located in the vicinity of the con-cierge building. These facilities are shown on the Site Plan under Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents. Access to utilities and points of utilities hookups. Access and connections to site utilities are discussed in the Site Utility Study located under Tab 3 of the Supporting Documents. (5) (e) Tabulations of total gross acreage in the project and the percentages thereof proposed to be devoted to the permitted uses and ground coverage. Percentage of the allowable total FAR is approximately 93.3% assuming maximum build -out of the individual single family residential units. The various permitted uses. Maximum permitted footprint: 201 ,477.3 square feet allowed. Building Footprint: 186,486 square feet for single family structures; 1,000 square feet for Guard House/Concierge entrance feature, Total proposed gross square feet = 186,486 square feet Proposed FAR = .56 ii. Ground coverage by structures. MIAMI 1308755.1 7001426571 t Proposed building footprint divided by total gross lot area. Building footprint: Proposed: 40% of each parcel 93,243 square feet Plus entry guardhouse/concierge = 1,000 square feet otal: 94,243 square feet Ground coverage by the structures is 28.1% of the total gross lot area, (f) Tabulation showing: i. The derivation of numbers of off-street parking and off-street loading spaces shown in (d) above. There is no loading as the project consists of single family residential homes. Off-street parking — minimum of 2 per home Surplus parking: Five (15) surplus parking spaces included in concierge parking lot ii. Total project density in dwelling units per acre. Allowed: 7.26 net acres x 9 units per acre = 65.34 units Proposed: 11 residential units or 1.52 units per acre (g) If common facilities (such as recreation areas of structures, private streets, common open space, etc.) are to be provided for the development, statements as to how such common facilities are to be provided and permanently maintained. Maintenance will be provided by the Grove Estates Home Owners` Association. (h) Storm drainage and sanitary sewerage plans. Storm drainage, water distribution, wastewater and solid waste generation provisions are discussed in the Site Utility Study located under Tab 3 of the Supporting Documents. (i) Architectural definitions for buildings in the development; The design plans and Grove Estates Design Guidelines are included under Tab H of the Supporting Documents, MIAMI 1308755.1 700 1426571 (j) Landscaping plan, including types, sizes and locations of vegetation and decorative shrubbery, and showing provisions for irrigation and future maintenances The Landscaping Plan located under Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents, specify the plant types, sizes and locations, as well as indications that ail planted areas will be fully irrigated and maintained by the project. (k) Plans for recreation facilities, if any, including location and general description of buildings for such use. (I) Such additional data, maps, plans, or statements as may be required for the particular use or activity involved. The Drawings submitted with this Application are located under Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents, (m) Such additional data as the applicant may believe is pertinent to the proper consideration of the site and development plan. Elevations depicting the architectural character of the project are included under Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents. 12. Section 1702.2.1 General Report. (a) Property ownership or ownerships and beneficial interest within the boundaries of the area proposed for Major Use Special Permit. Statement of Ownership and beneficial interest within the boundaries of the area proposed for Major Use Special Permit are provided in Article I. (b) The nature of the unified interest or control. The nature of unified interest or control is indicated in Article I. (c) Survey of the proposed area showing property lines and ownership. A copy of the survey of the Property is included under Tab 5 of the Supporting Documents. (d) Map of existing features, including streets, alleys, easements, utilities lines, existing land use, general topography and physical features. The existing site features and utility lines are shown on the survey of Property located under Tab 5 and the Site Utility Study located under Tab 3 of the Supporting Documents. In addition, the surrounding street systems are included under Tab 2, Traffic Impact Study. (e) Materials to demonstrate the relationship of the elements listed in (d) preceding to surrounding area characteristics. M IAM 11308755.1 7001426571 The Drawings Submitted with this Application are located under Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents. Materials will be presented to the Urban Design and Review Board for review. (f) Existing Zoning and adopted Land Use Designations for the area on and around the lands proposed for Major Use Special Permit. Land Use Designation and Zoning Designation are consistent with one another, The current Land Use Designation is Single Family Residential and the Zoning District is Single Family Residential, with an SD-18 overlay and NCD-3 overlay. 13. Section 1702.2.2 Major Use Special Permit Concept Plan. (a) Relationships of the concept plan to surrounding, existing and proposed future uses. Activities, systems and facilities (transportation, recreation, view corridors, pedestrian systems, services systems and similar uses). Article 11 contains a written narrative of the Project outlining proposed uses, activities and architectural character. This narrative also contains descriptions of the Project's relationship to traffic, pedestrian movements, and transportation access. Maps located on Tab 6 indicate the Projects relationship to surrounding streets, land uses and functions. Building elevations, sections and perspectives showing the proposed materials, vertical profile and height of the guard house and concierge building, and orientation to streets is included in the Drawings Submitted with this Application. The list of Drawings Submitted is found under Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents. The Grove Estates Design Guidelines are found under Tab H of the Supporting Documents. (b) Existing Zoning and adopted Land Use Principles and Designations. The Project conforms to the current Land Use and Zoning Designations. Set back requirements under the Code are satisfied or superseded for the proposed project. 14. Section 1702.2.3 Developmental Impact Study. (a) A traffic analysis shall be submitted for an area within approximately 1/4 mile of the site, or an area including the major intersections to be impacted by the site, whichever is larger. The Traffic Impact Analysis is included under Tab 2 of the Supporting Documents. (b) Economic impact data shall be provided, including estimates for construction costs, construction employment, and permanent employment. The Economic Impact Study is included under Tab 4 of the Supporting Documents. MIAM 11308755.1 7001426571 • (c) A housing impact assessment. The project introduces housing type consistent with bay front and Coconut Grove housing elements. (d) A description of proposed energy conservation measures shall be provided, including only those measures that are proposed in addition to the minimum requirements in State Energy Code, Architecturally, the building envelope will be comprised of insulated wails and roof. Extensive use of wall shading by means of landscaping and canopies will be implemented. (e) Historic buildings, There is an existing coral rock wall fronting SW 37th Avenue, which shall stay as is. The Property is located within an environmental preservation district, archeological district, and along a scenic transportation corridor. M 1AM 11308755/ 7001426571 • • Architecturally, the building env and roof. Extensive use of wall shading by means of landscaping will be implemented. Electrically, all exterior and landscape lighting will be controlled by means of time clocks and photocell switches. Energy saving lamps, ballasts and fixtures are being considered in all common areas, (e) Historic buildings. There are no historic structures located on the Property. (f) Environmental zone, The Property is not located within an environmental preservation district. P will be comprised of insulated walls M I A M 1 1308882.1 7804424899 5901 Broken Sound Partway, N.W„ Suite 300 Boca Raton, Florida 33487 PH 56! .995.0900 FAX 561.995,0925 www.geosyrkteczoirk 30 November 2007 Ms. Suzanne Perez EFC Holdings, Inc 5960 Southwest 57th Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Subject: Environmental Impact Analysis Grove Estates 4055 South Douglas Road Coconut Grove, Miami -Dade County, Florida 33133 Dear Ms. Perez: In accordance with your authorization of Geosyntec Consultant Inc.'s (Geosyntec's) proposal dated 7 November 2007, please find enclosed the "Major Use Special Permit Environmental Impact Analysis" (EIA) that Geosyntec Consultants recently completed for the above -referenced Site. Geosyntec notes that despite making inquiries to the City of Miami regarding its new EIA requirements, Geosyntec was unable to locate definitive City guidance for what the City would want to have addressed in the EIA for this Site. Should you have questions regarding this submittal, please contact the undersigned. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to EFC Holdings, Inc. Sincerely, An 'ette Dietz, Ph.D. Project Environmental Engineer Chris Herin Principal Attachment Copy to: Carlos J. Gimenez, Esq, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP FE I 396/Grove Estates EIA.doc engineers 1 scientists 1 innovators • • Prepared for: EFC Holdings, Inc. 5960 Southwest 57th Avenue Miami, Honda 33131 Submitted to: Planning Department 411 Southwest 2nd Avenue, 3i Floor Miami, Florida 33130 MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS GROVE ESTATES (4055 SOUTH DOUGLAS ROAD) COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA Prepared by: Geosyntec consultants engineers 1 scientists 1 innovators 5901 Broken Sound Parkway, N.W., Suite 300 Boca Raton, Florida 33487 Geosyntec Consultants Project Number FE1396 November 2007 Ge©syntee D' consultants TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.INTRODUCTION ...................>.,.,.............m...,,..,......,.,>.....,..,.....,..m..,.................,......,...®.......a.I 2. CURRENT SITE LOCATION AND CONDITION ...a ..................m•• ... BBei 1 PLANNEDUSE....................a.......,..,.......,,.....,....,..>.,.,........,........,..ea.e..............,,.a. 4. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT ......................a....a.a2 4.1 Land Resources3 4.2 Loss of Plant Species and Communities......,...a................ ,..,............. ....,................ .....<.3 4.3 Loss of Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat__________ _........... ....... ..•< ................ 4.4 Loss of Other Natural Resources5 4.5 Soil Erosion ..... ................ ......... m....,.......... ...,...... ............ ...... .......... ,...............,,..........5 4.6 Water Resources 5 4.7 Surface and Groundwater Hydrology 6 4.8 Water Quality .............>,.,,..,..... ........ ........................... ........ .................... .............. ....... 7 4.9 Aquatic Species and Communities8 4.10 Air Resources 9 4.11 Wildlife and Consequent Habitat 9 5. CONCLUSIONS 9 6. REFERENCES 10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Figure 2. Site Location Site Layout LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Selected Site Photographs Appendix B Environmental Database Search Report FE 13961Grove Estates EIA.doc i 2007.11,30 engineers scientists { innovators OSYnteC consultants INTRODUCTION Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) of Boca Raton, Florida was authorized by EFC Holdings, Inc. to complete an evaluation of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Grove Estates project as outlined in Site Plan drawings prepared by RE Chisholm Architects, Inc. (Chisholm) dated 18 May 2007 that EFC Holdings provided to Geosyntec. Accordingly, Geosyntec prepared this Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) in an effort to address certain City of Miami requirements for a Major Use Special Permit (MUSP) as specified in Section 1703.2 of Zoning Ordinance 11000. The City -required EIA for a MUSP involves the following being addressed: • Land resources; • Loss of plant species and communities; • Loss of wildlife and wildlife habitat; • Loss of other natural resources; • Soil erosion; • Water resources; • Surface and groundwater hydrology; 9 Water quality; • Aquatic species and communities; • Air resources; and • Wildlife and consequent habitat. As requested, Geosyntec will prepare a MUSP-required EIA for the site subject to the scope detailed below. 2. CURRENT SITE LOCATION AND CONDITION The Grove Estates site (Site) is an approximate 7.34-acre parcel located at 4055 South Douglas Road in Coconut Grove, Miami -Dade County, Florida. The Site is included in within Section 28, Township 54 South, Range 41 East of the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS's) 7.5-minute South Miami, Florida topographic quadrangle map (Figure 1). The layout of the Site is shown in Figure 2. FEI396/Grove Estates EIA.doc 1 2007.11.30 engineers scientists innovators Geosyntec consultants The Site was accessible through a gated driveway off of Douglas Road (Southwest 37 Avenue), which borders the site to the northwest. The Site was, during this evaluation, a vacant grassy parcel with multiple trees throughout. To the northeast and southwest, the Site was bounded by residential properties. To the southeast, the Site was bounded by a seawall on Biscayne Bay. The general vicinity of the Subject Site consisted of residential and commercial land uses, According to Ms. Suzanne Perez of EFC Holdings, Inc,, the Site was previously a single family home with a boathouse. 3. PLANNED FUTURE USE EFC Holdings, Inc. has provided Geosyntec with Site Plan drawings (mostly architectural) prepared by Chisholm dated 18 May 2007, a Tree Survey prepared by Avind and Associates dated 19 April 2007, and a Site Utility Study prepared by Chisholm (undated) which indicate the proposed project for the Site (summarized herein in this section). The Site is to be subdivided into eleven residential parcels. The development plans include a concierge/office pavilion and guardhouse at the entrance from Douglas Road, a small maintenance/storage building, a driveway and utility easement along the southern edge of the Site, and a single-family home to be built within each parcel (according to EFC Holdings, Inc., these homes will each be built by the individual parcel owner). The two proposed parcels which front Biscayne Bay will include the current seawall with the existing water access point (if alterations to the seawall are desired, then EFC Holdings, Inc. advised that the owners of these lots will need to obtain a separate Class II permit and no such permit is being sought at this time). Further, it is noted that Geosyntec has not been provided with detailed engineering plans and permits for parcel -specific development that is associated with this proposed project; these will be developed on a parcel -by -parcel basis as the Site is developed. 4. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT Geosyntec conducted a site walk-through of the Site on 8 November 2007 to observe and document current site conditions and evaluate potential impacts of the planned development to environmental resources. A Geosyntec project team member (retained to be responsible for the ecological aspects of this EIA), E Sciences, Inc., additionally visited the Site on 15 November 2007 to evaluate ecologically sensitive areas as well as potential impacts to wildlife and plant species and associated habitat. The findings presented in this report are based on Geosyntec's project team observations during the Site visits, as well as information provided by and EFC Holdings, Inc. Selected photographs recorded by the Geosyntec project team during site visits are included as Appendix A. FE1396/Grove Estates EIA.doc engineers i scientists f innovators 2007. l 1.30 Geosyntec consultants Geosyntec also searched and reviewed selected federal, state, and local environmental. databases as part of this EIA. The environmental database search was performed by EDR, in an attempt to learn more about the Site and nearby areas to help address aspects of this EIA. For example, the database search report was used to: help identify chemical impacts to soil and/or groundwater in the area; and obtain information about wetlands, groundwater quality, water withdrawals, and local groundwater flow in the area. Specific records and search distances are discussed in the EDR Report (dated 19 November 2007); this report is presented as Appendix B. 4®1 Land Resources The Site was reportedly most recently previously developed for residential use and is considered by Geosyntec to be relatively small in size (for a residential development). The proposed project is residential and, though the density of homes will increase, the general type of development (residential) is not proposed to change from the most recent previous landuse. This area of the City is mostly developed and much of this development is residential. Further, the proposed project does not include modifications to the existing development where the Site abuts Biscayne Bay. Based on the above observations, Geosyntec concludes that the proposed project should not result in adverse impacts to existing land resources at the Site or in close proximity to the Site. 4.2 Loss of Plant Species and Communities The Site was observed by the Geosyntec project team to be covered with a maintained lawn predominantly consisting of St. Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum) with scattered areas of Southern sida (Sida acuta), frog fruit (Phyla nodiflora) and dollar weed (Hydrocotyle spp.). Landscaping around the edges of the property contain plants typically used in landscaping including bougainvillea (Bougainvillea spp.), sunflower (Helianthus spp.) liriope (Liriope spicata), sansevieria spp and Xanadu philodendron (Philodendron x 'Xanadu'). The Geosyntec project team reviewed documents provided by EFC Holdings regarding onsite tree species sizes and plans for their protection. A tree survey was performed (by Avifio and Associates, as referenced above) on the Site. There were 280 trees listed on the tree survey including native and non-native species. The mitigation plan developed by Raymond Jungles Landscape Architect for the proposed project will preserve 253 trees. The 27 trees that will be removed will be replaced with 170 new trees, most of which will be native species including Virginia live oak (Quercus virginiana), pigeon plum (Cocoluba diversifolia), orange geiger (Codia sebestena), Jamaican caper (Capparis cynaphallophara) and crabwood (Gymnanthes lucida). The landscape plan also includes a number of native plants including American beautyberry (Callicarpa FE 396/Grove Estates EIA.doc engineers I scientists I innovators 3 2007, 11.30 arnericana), firebush (Harnelia patens), Fakahatchee grass (Tripsacurn dactyloides), and dwarf wild coffee (Psychotria ligustrif©lia). One State -listed endangered species of plant, the Florida thatch palm (Thrinax radiata), was observed on the Site. Due to the surrounding vegetation (and availability of the species at local nurseries), it appears that this Florida thatch palm may have been a landscape plant that was purchased and installed on the Site. The tree mitigation plan includes preserving this palm in its current location. 4.3 Loss of Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat The Site was observed by the Geosyntec project team to consist of a maintained lawn and landscaping, surrounded by residential development. No significant occurrence of what the Geosyntec project team would consider to be "naturally occurring vegetation" was observed, nor was State or federally protected .(listed) wildlife using the project Site. During the Site visit performed on November 15, 2007, staff biologists observed a grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and butterflies on Site. These are typical in lawns or disturbed areas. Three cormorants (Phalacrocorax spp.) were observed on three pilings in Biscayne Bay approximately 40 to 50 feet (ft) east of the seawall. These birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. The proposed project is not considered by the Geosyntec project team to have the potential to significantly impact their foraging habitat within Biscayne Bay. The proposed project will result in an overall increase of trees to provide foraging and resting habitat to numerous bird species. The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) databases were consulted by the Geosyntec project team in November 2007 regarding State and federally listed species that have the potential to occur within or adjacent to the proposed project limits, These databases did not indicate records of previously listed species observations within the proposed project limits. As of November 19 2007, the FWC bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nesting database did not indicate active or inactive eagle nests within the Site or within a 660 foot radius of the Site, corresponding to the eagle nest management zone. The FWC wading bird colony locator was not found to indicate active or inactive wading bird rookeries on the Site. During the Geosyntec project team ecological Site visit, no indicators of listed wildlife species (e.g. burrows, scat, or direct observation) were observed at the Site. The FNAI database identified one species, the Rim Rock Crowned Snake (Tantilla oolitica) as. occurring in or having habitat that includes the Site and adjacent properties. The snake is listed as a State threatened species, but is not federally listed as threatened or endangered. Known habitats include sandy or rocky soils in slash pine flatwoods, tropical hardwood hammocks, FE 1396/Grove Estates EIA.doc engineers i scientists # innovators 4 2007.11.3E Geosyntec consultants vacant lots, and pastures with shrubby growth and scattered slash pine. No Rim Rock Snakes were observed during the Geosyntec project team ecological Site visit on November 15, 2007. 4.4 Loss of Other Natural Resources Through the Site visit and review of documents referenced herein, the Site is not known by the Geosyntec project team to be of specific importance for its natural resources (such as for wildlife, protected habitats, groundwater withdrawal, minerals, etc.) which likely would be adversely affected by the proposed project. Further, the proposed project does not include modifications to the existing development where the Site contacts Biscayne Bay. Based on the above observations, Geosyntec concludes that the proposed project should not result in adverse impacts to existing observed natural resources at the Site or in close proximity to the Site. 4.5 Soil Erosion Geosyntec reviewed plans for proposed project (site development plans) provided by EFC Holdings. In Geosyntec's opinion, no significant regrading or change to surface cover of the Site (that would significantly change the current surface topography and the potential for erosion) is planned. Some soil erosion could occur during development (no erosion prevention plan was provided for review). However, it is anticipated that developer's use of silt fencing and a development approach wherein the Site will be developed in stages that will not leave large areas unvegetated/uncovered for long periods (several months) and will protect against significant soil erosion during development. The planned single-family homes and associated regularly maintained landscaping should minimize soil erosion once construction is completed. 4.6 Water Resources Geosyntec identified no onsite surface water bodies providing associated water resources, and no onsite surface water bodies are planned to be created for the proposed project. Other potential impacts to water resources are discussed in the following sections on Surface and Groundwater Hydrology and Water Quality. In summary and based on Geosyntec's observations, the proposed project aspects which have been reviewed by Geosyntec are not considered to offer a significant potential to adversely affect existing water resources at the Site. ,FE1396IGrove Estates EIA1doc engineers i scientists i innovators 5 2007. i 1.30 Gear ec consnts 4.7 Surface and Groundwater Hydrology As mentioned earlier, Geosyntec searched/reviewed selected federal, State, and local databases as part of this evaluation (see the EDr Report in Appendix B). This was done in part in an attempt to better understand surface and groundwater hydrology at the Site, which could be adversely affected by the proposed project. The Site address of 4055 South Douglas Road was listed in the EDR report as having a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater construction permit issued 26 October 2003 and expiring 25 October 2008. Ms. Perez indicated this permit was likely related to prior development plans for the Site and indicated she did not have a copy of this perrriit or the permit -related documentation to provide to Geosyntec. Based on conversations with Ms. Perez, Geosyntec assumes this permit will not be used for development of this Site and, if required by regulation, a new permit or permits will be obtained. Based on review of the Site topography shown on the USGS quadrangle map (Figure 1), location of area surface -water bodies (such as Biscayne Bay located off the southeast border of the Site), infosination in the EDR Report, and Geosyntec's Site visit observations, the dominant shallow local groundwater flow direction in this area is projected to be southeast with a potential tidal influence (that could periodically reverse groundwater flow directions). The EDR database search identified 28 wells within a 1-mile radius of the Site, including a public water supply well located approximately 1/4-mile southwest of the Site. Nearby groundwater pumping such as this could also affect groundwater flow directions at the Site. Geosyntec reviewed an undated Site Utility Study provided by EFC Holdings and prepared by Chisolm regarding potable water supply, sewage, and stormwater plans for the proposed project. Potable water and irrigation water will be provided via connections .to a water main on Douglas Road operated by the Miami Dade Water and Sewer Department. The proposed project does not anticipate the installation of supply wells. Domestic sewage is proposed to be managed by individual septic systems associated with each new home as there is no reported gravity sewer main in this area. The gatehouse and concierge/office pavilion will be serviced by a septic tank and drainfield located near the entryway. According to Chisholm's undated Site Utility Study, stormwater management plans include collection of stormwater from onsite locations and the use of exfiltration trenches and/or infiltration wells to avoid offsite discharge or runoff (specific details were not provided for Geosyntec to review), Specific stormwater infiltration plans may change with construction of residential -site -specific impervious driveways and runoff from house roofs (such plans have not been provided for review), But, more than 54% of the Site is anticipated to remain as pervious areas which should help minimize impacts to surface and groundwater hydrology. 1-E1396/Grove Estates EIA.doc engineers I scientists 4 innovators 6 2007,11.30 Geosyntec consultants Geosyntec has not been provided with development plans for the proposed project as these relate to dewatering and associated discharge. It is assumed these will be created on parcel -by -parcel basis as homes are developed and will be reviewed with the appropriate permitting authorities by the developer. Thus, Geosyntec offers no comment on how such plans may affect the environment 4.8 Water Quality Geosyntec reviewed the EDR Report for evidence of identified onsite or nearby water quality contamination. EDR's report identified two underground storage tank (UST) listings at properties approximately 1/4-mile away from the Site. Based on the findings in the EDR Report, no listings were identified by Geosyntec to have a significant potential to indicate that contamination exists which may have adversely impacted soil and/or groundwater quality at the Site. Geosyntec reviewed historical aerial photographs to evaluate historical land use and the potential for historical groundwater quality problems at or near the Site. Aerial photographs from 1968, 1973, 1985, 1998, and 2006 were provided by the Florida Department of Transportation. Based on review of these photographs, it appears that the Site and the surrounding area have historically been used for residential purposes since at least the late 1960s. No obvious indications of onsite or adjacent potential waste management or chemical usage were observed in Geosyntec's review of these historical aerial photographs. Further, during Geosyntec's Site visit, Geosyntec looked for current onsite evidence of water quality contamination (no testing was performed; Geosyntec's work involved only a limited cursory visual review of the surface conditions at the Site). No evidence of onsite water quality contamination was noted by Geosyntec. However, it is noted that the Site is adjacent to Biscayne Bay which contains saline water. Thus, it is likely that naturally -caused saline groundwater conditions exist beneath the Site and some or all of the groundwater at the Site may not be potable. Based on review of the above -referenced Chisholm information, it is anticipated that stormwater will be collected onsite through a system of catch basin inlets and piped to a runoff disposal system consisting of exfiltration trenches and/or infiltration wells, with pre-treatment provided for runoff from driving surfaces which should help limit the potential for impacts to groundwater quality resulting stormwater runoff (specific details were not provided for Geosyntec to review). As mentioned above, a stormwater permit was issued for the Site in 2003 and expires in 2008. FE1396/Grove Estates EIA.doe engineers 1 scientists 1 innovators 2007.1 1.30 Geosyntec consultants Based on conversations with Ms. Perez, Geosyntec assumes this 't will not be used for development of this Site and, if required by regulation, a new permit or perrnits will be obtained, As mentioned above, domestic waste water is to be disposed onsite through septic systems. Specific details of these systems were not provided for Geosyntec to review and it is anticipated that these will be designed and permitted en a parcel -by -parcel basis. Use of septic systems can adversely affect groundwater quality. However, a well designed, installed and maintained septic system which is used only for domestic wastewater (and not for chemical disposal) should limit the potential for impacts to area water quality. Stormwater collection and pre-treatment prior to onsite disposal (mentioned above) should also minimize water quality impacts. According to the information reviewed by Geosyntec, no discharges into Biscayne Bay are anticipated. As mentioned above, Geosyntee has not been provided with development plans for the proposed project as these relate to dewatering and associated discharge. It is assumed these will be created on parcel -by -parcel basis as homes are developed and will be reviewed with the appropriate permitting authorities by the developer. Thus, Geosyntec offers no comment on how such plans may affect the environment. It should be noted however that dewatering can exacerbate saline groundwater conditions and groundwater contamination (if this existed nearby; though evidence of groundwater contamination has been identified to exist nearby in this ETA), 4.9 Aquatic Species and Communities The Geosyntec project team identified no wetlands/surface water to currently exist on the Site. The U.S. Departrnent of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of Dade County, Florida was used to help identify the on -site soil units. According to the survey and Site visit, the Site is predominantly composed of Udorthents, limestone substratum - urban land complex (10), which is land that is covered by concrete and buildings. The southeastern edge of the Site is located on Biscayne Bay and this area is classified as water (99). According to the Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook, Third Edition (Carlisle 2000), Udorthents, limestone substratum -urban land complex is not a hydric (i,e. wetland) soil. The USFWS's National Wetland Inventory classifies the Site as uplands. The relatively small water front portion of the Site along Biscayne Bay is not to be modified by the proposed project. As mentioned above, according to the information reviewed by Geosyntec, no discharges into Biscayne Bay are anticipated. FE1396/Grove Estates EIA.doc engineers I scientists I innovators 2007.11.30 4.10 Air Resources The proposed project is residential and, as such, Geosyntec assumes the new homes should have limited impacts to air quality since no incineration or industrial/commercial scale chemical handling is anticipated to occur with this type of development. Geosyntec's review of the proposed project does not indicate that air emission sources will be created (such as chimneys, etc.). 4.11 Wildlife and Consequent Habitat Based on the information provided above (to include Site visits and database searches), the Site has not been found to contain wetlands, native plant communities or listed wildlife species. As such, the proposed project is not anticipated to have an adverse onsite impact to these types of features (since these were not noted onsite). The proposed project should result in an increase in native trees to be planted on the project Site, which would provide foraging and resting habitat for numerous bird species. CONCLUSIONS Section 1703.2 of the Zoning Ordinance 11000 requires a determination whether the development will have a favorable impact on the environment and natural resources of the City based on an environmental impact analysis to be provided by the applicant. On the basis of the information reviewed and discussed in this EIA, the Geosyntec project team has not found that the proposed project will result in an overall significant adverse impact to the environment and natural resources at the Site. Conversely, Geosyntec finds that the proposed project should provide some favorable impact on the environment and natural resources at the Site (and thereby, some favorable impact on the City of Miami within which this Site is located). Geosyntec has not conducted an analysis of the potential impact of the proposed project to the economy, public services, and housing supply; however, simply on a practical basis, the proposed project is likely to have a favorable impact on these aspects (elaboration is supplied in the following sentences). The project is predicted to have a favorable impact on the City of Miami's economy on the basis that development should increase the overall value of the property, and thus, warrant an increase in ad valorem tax revenue realized by the City. It is believed that the project will have a favorable impact on the City's public services since the above -mentioned predicted increase in the ad valorem tax revenue which should be realized by the City likely will supersede negative impacts of public service use because the density of the project is relatively small. Also, the project is predicted to have a favorable impact on the City's FE 1396/Grove Estates EIA.doc engineers i scientists { innovators 9 2007,1 1.30 Geosyntec cousultarns housing supply by creating up to eleven (I I) new single family homes (where previously there was one house). 6. REFERENCES AvitI6 and Associates, 19 April 2007, "Specific Purpose Survey — Grove Palace." Carlisle, V.W. and G.W. Hurt (eds.), 2 ill, Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook, 3rd ed. Florida Assoc. Environ, Soil Scientists, Gainesville, FL. E Sciences, Inc., 20 November 2007, "Environmental Impact Analysis (EJA) — Ecological Components Grove Estates." Environmental Data Resources, Inc, 19 November 2007, "EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck — Grove Estates, 4055 S Douglas Rd, Coconut Grove, FL 33133". RE Chisholm Architects and Raymond Jungles Landscape Architect, 18 May 2007, Grove Estates MUSP Submittal Drawings (including site plans, entry feature details, tree mitigation and planting plans). RE Chisholm Architects, undated, "Grove Estates Site Utility Study." FE1396/Grove Estates EIA.doc engineers 1 scientists innovators 10 2007.1130 • FIGURES • "w,u) egerid -_ Approximate Site Location tis amerzeissismargia vamp 717 KEY 5 SCAYNE. FL& 25080-F2-TF-024 1988 DMA 4935 H NW -SERIES V847 SOUTH MIAMI, FLA. 26080-F3.TF-024 1988 DMA 4935 ttl NE-SEF:tES V847 Notes Source of Key Biscayne and South Miami USGS 7.5" Quadrange: =. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Land Boundary Information System (LABJNS) Grove Estates 4055 Douglas Road Coconut Groves FL Geosyntec Promo_, figure consultants 1 Boca Raton: FL November 2807 egend Approximate Site Boundary Notes Source of 2006 Aerial Image: Florida Department of Transportation, Surveying and Mapping Office Boca Raton, FL Grove Estates 4055 Douglas Road Coconut Grove, FL November 2007 figure 2