The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSubmittal-Echemendia-888 BrickellLJ ci[ = 888 BRICKELL ~ L-1— I. INTRODUCTION a. Tew Cardenas rn UJ L.L.I b. Borges & Associates — Reinaldo Borges c. Richard Garcia- Traffic Expert CITY COMMISSION ® D May 22, 2008 Z O II. REQUEST: 3 Variances 09 a. North setback- Required 15'- proposed 0' CCI b. West setback- Required 7'6", proposed 2' 10" c. South setback- Required 15', proposed 4'4" Cl) a_ d. Loading dock issue addressed i. NOT PROPERLY BEFORE COMMISSION ii. Notice error by City — required Zoning Board to re -hear Loading Dock request iii. Appellants didn't appear at that Zoning Board hearing either iv. possible to withdraw this request 1. Can do 3 loading docks — smaller than required but that is approvable via Class 2. Note: also an option to do one large bay and 1 smaller bay (Section 923.4) 2. Planning has indicated comfort level with this option. III. Application cannot be viewed as variance requests on their own — this is part of a substantial Class II Special Permit application on Brickell that has gone through the MUSP review process a. Supported by Brickell Homeowners Association. Letter in your packet. b. Internal Design Review - Approved c. Large Scale Development - Approved d. Urban Design Review Board — unanimous approval for design e. Historic Environmental and Preservation Board — received approval for archaeological monitoring plan f. Traffic Study (�('� d rr' L } 11Z) '-}ie y' ` w0, i. Have sufficiency letter. Y%L'r 1Cl l,,i - .." �rtC Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.15 on 05-22-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk g. Economic Impact Analysis — in packet — benefits to City i. Fiscal Benefits 1. Recurring: Approximately $450,000 annually in General Fund ad valorem taxes and City Debt Service ad valorem taxes. ii. Economic Benefits 1. Recurring: $3.0 million annually spent by occupants of building with an overall economic impact on the City of $6.3 million annually. h. Environmental Impact Analysis from ES Consultants — in packet i. Conclusion: Project will have favorable impact on the environment. IV. REINALDO BORGES a. BENEFITS OF PROJECT i. Liner use on Brickell - this is consistent with the SD-5 to have open, viewable areas on Brickell (instead of a parking garage facade) ii. Building reads as a single, cohesive building — it doesn't look like a garage pedestal. Presents as a single tower with a single use. iii. Green Building (Silver) iv. Urban Design v. Unanimous UDRB approval for design as well as other MUSP reports and analyses b. Specific challenges by small site i. Lot is at least 30% smaller than similarly situated lots ii. Lot geometry- we are seeking variances on the narrow dimension (10th Street frontage is 50% greater than the Brickell frontage)- since the lot is a narrow rectangle, creates a traffic circulation problem in the garage iii. Not enough room for traffic circulation and parking in the garage iv. 88 Parking spaces possible without setback variance- only allows 46,000 square feet of building v. Can't just provide more levels of parking because that doesn't solve the problem with the site geometry, and parking limited to 35% of total height c. Scenario if no variances Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.15 on 05-22-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk V. SANTIAGO: SETBACK VARIANCES a. All setback variances approved by Zoning Board b. Hardship: 2 part: Satisfying objectives of SD-5 and doing so on a lot size at least 30% smaller than similarly situated lots on Brickell. c. Variance standard i. Approve if not contrary to the public interest ii. Where conditions peculiar to the property, literal application of zoning code would result in unnecessary and undue hardship on the property d. Criteria (Section 1903.2) i. special conditions exist which are peculiar to the land and not applicable to other lands in the same zoning district 1. Lot size — smaller than other SD-5 lots on Brickell — respectfully disagree with Planning's characterization of the lot size- this lot is at least 30% smaller than similarly situated lots in same zoning district a. Packet has summary of lot sizes on Brickell b. Our lot: approximately 22,000 sf c. Other lots for projects on Brickell: Range is from 29,988 sf (1201 Brickell) up to 212,000 sf. 2. Lot dimensions- (124 ft. x 180 ft.) a. Lot is approximately 50% deeper than it is wide- creates turning radius issues for parking because it is a narrower lot (as opposed to a square shaped lot) 3. Side note: 500 Brickell project (42k sf lot) received rear yard variances for required accessory structures in both the north and south street side yards — and their lot is substantially larger than ours. ii. conditions do not result from actions of petitioner 1. Lot was not subdivided or otherwise reduced in size by petitioner iii. literal interpretation of provisions deprives applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and works unnecessary and undue hardship on the petitioner 1. As noted, other similarly situated lots are at least 30% larger than this lot 2. Satisfy City Zoning Code requirements for Zoning District: SD-5: Need to meet intent of zoning district a. 605.1: "This district is of special and substantial public interest because of its prime location on Brickell along the bayfront and the Miami River, close to and visible from the Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.15 on 05-22-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk CBD and Biscayne Bay, and its importance to the economic well-being of the city as a PRESTIGIOUS HIGH-RISE OFFICE DISTRICT HOUSING BANKING, FINANCE, INTERNATIONAL TRADE, AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USES." b. Must build consistent with SD-5 — keep this in mind — high rise office tower. 3. If we met the setback requirements, could only provide 88 parking spaces, which would only permit a building of 46,000 square feet - would NOT be a high rise office tower iv. granting variance requested conveys same treatment to this property as other properties in the same zoning district 1. As noted, other similarly situated lots are at least 30% larger than this property, and the narrow rectangular shape of this property makes the parking configuration difficult if not impossible v. minimum variance that makes possible the reasonable use of the land 1. This is the minimum variance that will allow both parking, and traffic circulation in the parking garage- if this variance is not granted, there will not be enough room to park cars 2. the required turning radii restrict the geometry of the parking garage to provide for safe ingress and egress, so we can't shrink the circulation circle, and we can't meet the requirements without the setback variances 3. Requesting variances on the short dimension to provide safe traffic circulation 4. cannot just make the parking garage taller because a. it doesn't satisfy the turning radii problem and b. code limits parking to 35% of height of building 5. parking in this district is required to be enclosed (Section 605.3.2 (8)) 6. All s/b variances are for the parking pedestal only; the tower itself meets required setbacks a. minimum variance necessary because only requesting variance to meet traffic circulation requirements in the garage- not requesting for tower 7. Ground level on 10`h Street: arcade- protection over retail area a. Section 605.5(2) roofed shelters permitted and exempted from yard and open space requirements vi. variance is in harmony with general intent and purpose of zoning code and not injurious to neighborhood or detrimental to public welfare 1. In SD-5, there is actually a MAXIMLTM setback of 20 feet on SE 10`h Street- (Section 605.8.3)- this means that according to the code, the setback must be 15-20 feet, but NO MORE THAN 20 FEET Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.15 on 05-22-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 2. Thus, the reduction in setback is consistent- the goal is to have a City pedestrian environment, with retail, restaurant, and similar uses inviting to pedestrians 3. SD-5 permits a 10% reduction in parking for proximity to public transportation, but the Commission has expressed concern for parking so we have NOT availed ourselves of this provision a. Right now we are providing 286 spaces- 273 are required b. Additional 10% reduction would be 246 required spaces (40 excess spaces as proposed e. Summary: This lot is 30% smaller than similarly situated lots and is a narrow rectangle (50% longer than it is wide) so not enough room to circulate traffic and park cars in the garage, thus, the requested setback variances are NECESSARY to provide safe traffic circulation and required parking in garage VI. Reserve time for Rebuttal Submitted into the public record in connection with item PZ.15 on 05-22-08 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk