HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Presentation-Wal-Mart Projection in MidtownWal-Mart Project in Midtown
ftf-
SubrTlitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Table of Contents
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 3
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES ON APPEAL 10
ISSUES NO. 1 & 2-SOUTH ELEVATION:
SCALING ELEMENTS AND BUILDING CONTINUITY 11
ISSUE No. 3-REQUIREMENT FOR SECOND (AND THIRD)
STORY PARKING LOT SETBACKS OR LINER USE 34
ISSUE No. 4-BUILDING TOPS AND PARKING
GARAGE ROOF 48
ISSUE NO. 5-STREET TYPES FOR NE 31 ST AND
34TH STREETS, 10-FOOT SECOND FLOOR SETBACK 66
ISSUE NO. 6-VARIANCE FROM MAXIMUM NUMBER
OF LOADING BERTHS ... 71
ISSUE NO. 7-VARIANCES FROM STREETSCAPE
DESIGN STANDARDS... 78
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
2
Background and Introduction
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11 21 13
Todd B. Hannon
Background
The Application Process
• WaI-Mart (the "Applicant") began the process of studying this
project (the "Project") and participated in preliminary meetings
with City of Miami ("City") officials as early as March 2011. The
Applicant filed its application (the "Application") for a Class II
Permit (the "Permit") in September 2012.
• The Application has undergone a thorough review by the City's
professional staff, its pertinent committees, and by area
residents during various public meetings.
The Project has the full support of the City's professional staff,
and meets or exceeds all City requirements without the need for
a variance or exception.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
4
Background
About the Application
The Property subject to Permit is located at 3055 North Miami Avenue and is known as Midtown South
Block (the "Property" or the "Retail Parcel").
• The Application includes: (i) the Retail Parcel; (ii) the liner space located adjacent to the Retail Parcel
on Midtown Boulevard (the "Liner Parcel"); and the air rights parcel (the "Air Rights Parcel"). The
owners of the Liner Parcel and Air Rights Parcel are related entities. The Liner Parcel, the Air Rights
Parcel and the owner of the Retail Parcel have provided sworn to consents to the Applicant and the
City, which consents were filed with the Application and confirm their ownership and consent to the
Application. Further, Ordinance 11000, Section 1301.2, vests exclusively with the City's Planning
Director the authority to review and determine compliance of the Application with Ordinance 11000. The
Planning Director has determined that the Application complies with all City requirements and that the
Permit shall issue.
• CDD Tract. The Application includes improvements on a portion of a strip of land (the "CDD Parcel")
facing North Miami Avenue adjacent to the Retail Parcel. The CDD Parcel is owned by Midtown Miami
Community Development District (the "CDD"). The CDD is controlled by Developers Diversified Realty
("DDR") and Midtown Opportunities ("Midtown Opportunities"). Collectively, DDR, Midtown
Opportunities and the CDD own all of the land subject to the Application. The Retail Parcel, the CDD
Parcel, and the Liner Parcel are unified by a Construction, Operation and Reciprocal Easement
Agreement (the "COREA"). Section 3.5 of the COREA specifically allows for the proposed Project
improvements in the CDD Parcel.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Background
Other General Considerations
• The Project has been specifically designed for Midtown. The Applicant has worked tirelessly
with City staff, and has participated in numerous meetings. The Applicant has also participated
in numerous public meetings with area residents. The Application and the Project design have
incorporated the various comments and suggestions made during these meetings.
• Midtown Opportunities, owner of the land opposite the Property on Midtown Boulevard, has
provided its consent. Recognizing the fact that, as the neighboring land owner, Midtown
Opportunities is the most affected party by the Project, Applicant has collaborated with it on an
acceptable design for the liner space along Midtown Boulevard on the Liner Parcel. Midtown
Opportunities fully supports the issuance of the Permit.
e On February 13, 2008, the City approved a 178,132 square foot big box retail facility for JC
Penney (the "JC Penney Project") for the Property. The Project substantially exceeds and
improves upon the design features of the JC Penney Project previously approved by the City.
• The Project consists of a 203,277 square foot building, which includes a 158,322 sq. ft. Wal-
Mart store containing general retail, full service grocery and vision center and liner rental space
located on the Liner Parcel and North Miami Avenue. The Project, unlike the previously
approved JC Penney Project, will not require the use of the parking spaces in the public
parking garage across the street on NE 31st Street. Instead, the Project will provide 577 new
off-street parking spaces in the second and third floors above the ground floor retail. This
represents a significant benefit to Midtown, inasmuch as it will preserve the public parking
spaces in the NE 31st Street parking garage for use by neighbors and visitors of Midtown. The
entire cost of the Project's parking structure will be paid by Applicant.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Background
Support for Issuance of Class II Permit
► Staff. The City staff, a neutral and professional group of experts, supports the issuance
of the Permit and the Applicant urges the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board (the
"Board") to support the City staff. The City staff agrees that the Permit could be issued
as filed without the requirement for any variance and that the Application meets all
requirements for issuance of the Permit. A copy of the Permit is part of the record.
• Master Plan. The Property is designated as Restricted Commercial in the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. This designation allows for high
intensity commercial retail and residential development of the type authorized and
approved by the Permit.
• Zoning. Significantly, the Property was master planned and zoned separately from
Miami 21 and is subject to all of the applicable requirements of the provisions of
Ordinance 11000, except for appeal procedures. See Section 2.2.1.1 of Miami 21.
The Property is zoned SD-27.2 and subject to Appendix C of Miami 21. This district is
known as Midtown Miami West. Section 627.2.1 establishes that the intent of the district
is to provide unique innovative development with flexible design. Section 627.2.4
specifically allows for a big box retail facility. As the City staff has correctly concluded,
the Project meets all of the requirements of the applicable City code sections as well as
all applicable Design Standards, including intensity, density, height and uses. The Permit
was properly issued and the appeal should be denied.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Background
General Principles Applicable
i City staff is exclusively authorized to determine if a variance is
required for the Project. See Section 1301.2 and 1512. After
extensive review of the Application, City staff has determined that no
variances are necessary.
The Design Standards are supplementary to the Code and are
subject to requirements of the Code. In the event of conflict, Code
requirements prevail. City staff agrees that Appellants have failed to
cite any requirement of the Code or Design Standards that is not
met by the Project.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Background
Other Considerations
► The Urban Development Review Board (the "UDRB")
withheld its recommendation for approval based on only two
grounds:
1. Failure to comply with Miami 21 with respect to the liner
uses on both North Miami Avenue and Midtown Boulevard
on the second and third level; and
2. Failure to address the rooftop parking, screening
consistent with Miami 21.
Although City staff found that WaI-Mart did in fact meet both
of these conditions, subsequent to the UDRB hearing, it
voluntarily revised the plans to address these concerns. See
pages, 45, 51 below.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Analysis of Issues on Appeal
Submitted into the public
tia
recora in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issues No. 1 & 2
South Elevation: Scaling Elements and
Building Continuity
(SD 27.2 Design Standard Article III, §§ 2.3, 2.4)
Submitted into the public
rarrsrrl "sr",
Cl.
11
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issues No. 1 & 2: Scaling Elements and Building Continuity
(SD 27.2 Design Standard Article 111, §§ 2.3, 2.4)
Allegations
• Issue 1: The Appellants allege that the South Elevation for
"[t]he proposed Wal-Mart Project has a featureless precast
concrete multi -story wall along the South Elevation (which will
be viewed upon approach from the South on North Miami
Avenue)," in violation of Design Standards, Article III, § 2.3
• Issue 2: The Appellants allege that "[t]he proposed WaI-Mart
Project has a concrete facade with moderate glazing and awnings
fronting North Miami Avenue [primary street] and NE 31 st Street
(North Miami Avenue Elevation) [secondary street]; and a
featureless precast multi -story concrete wall along the South
Elevation (which will be viewed upon approach from the South on
North Miami Avenue). These disparate architectural styles are in
direct violation of the Design Standard's requirement for
continuity," in violation of Design Standards, Article III, § 2.4.
Submitted into the public
I Cwru in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issues No. 1 & 2: Response
Summary of the Response
A.
The Design Standards do not apply to the face of a zero lot line (like the South Elevation at issue) because, as
expanded in the following pages:
1. Design Standards 2.3 and 2.4 govern "building facades," which, as defined in Section 2502 of Ordinance
11000 is the "exterior face(s) or wall(s) of a building, usually the front, distinguished from other faces by
architectural embellishments." See page 14 below. The South Elevation is not a facade under that definition,
but is a wall in an interior, zero lot line. See pages 17-19 below,
2. In fact, in their structure, the Design Standards first categorize streets into "primary streets" and "secondary
streets," and then set out specific requirements for facades on those streets. The Standards say nothing as to
the face of a wall on a zero lot line. Interpreting the Standards to apply to building fronts on an interior, zero lot
line would produce absurd results. See page 16 below.
B. Even if Design Standard 2.3 applied, the Standard by its own terms is not mandatory but merely discretionary, and as
such can be waived by the Planning Director in his discretion. See page 20 below.
C. Even though the Design Standards don't apply, Wal-Mart has taken into account comments from the public and UDRB,
and has voluntarily made the following accommodations:
1. It has voluntarily added scoring (one of the scaling elements encouraged in Design Standard 2.3) to the South
Elevation. See page 21 below.
2. It has voluntarily made improvements to the South Elevation at the southeast and southwest corners of the
Project, such that the Project reflects reasonable continuity from the Miami Avenue and Midtown Boulevard
Elevations to the South Elevation.
D. Finally, consider also that:
1. the views offered by Pyke Brothers & Son Paint & Body Shop will generally obstruct the view of the South Elevation;
2. future development of the lot currently occupied by Pyke Brothers & Son Paint & Body Shop, as well as the two
vacant lots on the southeast and southwest corners of the South Elevation will likely cover the entirety of the height
of the South Elevation; and
3. the South Elevation is also consistent with the East Elevation (facing Midtown Blvd.) of the building immediately
north of the Project.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issues No. 1 & 2
Definition of Facade Interior Lot Face
Brief Analysis and Response
fe Design Standards 2.3 and 2.4 are contained within the section
governing (and titled) "Building Facades."
*4 Section 2502 of Ordinance 11000 (which outlines the definitions
applicable to 627. - SD-27) defines "facade" as follows:
Facade. Any exterior face(s) or wall(s) of a
building, usually the front, distinguished
from other faces by architectural
embellishments.
�► The South Elevation is not a facade but a wall on a zero lot line.
Therefore, Design Standards 2.3 and 2.4 do not apply to the
South Elevation of the Project.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issues No. 1 & 2
Design Standards are not Intended to Regulate
a Wall on a Zero Lot Line
Brief Analysis and Response
The purpose of the Design Standards, consistent with the intent
expressed in Section 627.2.1, is to provide guidance as to
features of building walls at street -level to promote interaction
with pedestrian traffic.
• To that end, the Standards first establish "[e]ach street [as] part
of a greater street hierarchy developed to organize land uses
and activities" —categorizing them into "primary streets" and
"secondary streets." (Page 6, II. Street Types, Intent) and then
set out specific requirements for lots abutting such streets.
• The Design Standards say nothing as to the face of a wall on a
zero lot line. Therefore, the requirements setout in the Design
Standards do not apply to an interior, zero lot line wall.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issues No. 1 & 2
Design Standards are not Intended to Regulate
Zero Lot Line Elevations
Brief Analysis and Response
Interpreting the Standards to apply to building fronts on an interior, zero
lot line would produce absurd results.
For example, Design Standard 2.6 requires that, "Awnings or arcades
shall be used to enhance building facades and storefronts with color and
dimension and to provide shade for browsing and cafe seating."
Imposing this requirement on building fronts on an interior, zero lot line
that abut another structure (such as Pyke Brothers & Son Paint & Body
Shop) would be nonsensical, as the zero lot line wall does not
contemplate the uses that Design Standard 2.6 seeks to enhance.
The same would be true of requiring such a wall to comply with the
requirements for: active ground floor active uses and significant open
space for pedestrian usage (pg. 6), active pedestrian uses such as
retail, office, educational, and/or restaurant uses with 9' arcade or an
awning with a 9' setback (pg. 18), single and double height windows or
general access entrance ordoorways of transparent glass (pg. 26), etc.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issues No. 1 & 2
Area at Issue: The South Elevation
0 The South Elevation of the Project is not a facade. Rather, it is the wall of an
interior, zero lot line. It does not abut any street. Rather, it abuts the existing structure
of Pyke Brothers & Son Paint & Body Shop.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issues No. 1 & 2
Area at Issue: The South Elevation
Note the Pyke property south of the Project
rea of subject Project
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issues No. 1 & 2
Area at Issue: The South Elevation
Note the zero lot line with the Pyke property south of the Project
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
141
Regarding Issue No. 1: Scaling Elements
(SD 27.2 Design Standard Article III, § 2.3)
Brief Analysis and Response
Even if it applied, Design Standard 2.3 is not a mandatory but discretionary
guideline. It specifically provides:
Encourage using varied architectural elements on the
lower levels of building facades for visual interest.
Avoid undifferentiated blank walls. . . . Large, blank
surfaces and non -modular panels, such as concrete
panels and stucco, are discouraged unless they have
a compelling design purpose. This is especially true at
the ground floor level which requires additional detail
and visual amenities.
Thus, this recommendation can be waived by the Planning Director in his
discretion.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 21 13
Todd B. Hannon
Regarding Issue No. 1 (Scaling Elements)
WaI-Mart's Voluntary Accommodations
Although the Design Standard does not apply, Wa!-Mart has voluntarily added
scoring (one of the scaling elements encouraged in Design Standard 2.3) to the
South Elevation.
B
i
D
F
Cs
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
21
Regarding Issue No. 2 (Building Continuity)
Wal-Marys Voluntary Accommodations
Brief Analysis and Response
• Although the Design Standard does not apply, and
therefore, this is not required, Wal-Mart has voluntarily
made improvements to the South Elevation at the
southeast and southwest corners of the Project, such that
the Project reflects reasonable continuity from the Miami
Avenue and Midtown Boulevard Elevations to the South
Elevation.
• There is vertical and horizontal banding on the elevations.
Rooflines and parapets do continue around all sides of the
project. There is also height continuity.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
22
Regarding Issue No, 2
Wa1-Mart's Voluntary Accommodations
Area at Issue (South Elevation)
Notice treatment at both ends of the South Elevation.
Walmart:;:
c
SOUTH PROPERTY LINE
SOUTH BLOCK SOUTH AT MIDTOWN MIAMI
Gensler I C=r1.'°d'_r.,.,.,
March 14, 2013 SOUTH ELEVATION srLLE: 1"= H -0'
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on it 21 13
Todd B. Hannon
Specifically as to Issue No. 2 (§ 2.4)
Wal-Mart's Voluntary Accommodations
East side of the South Elevation
0
d'
8
SCALE: 1 r8" = 1'-0"
Liner Shops at Mtdtowrt nMtart . Florida UDRB Submitta
..,�......_.. ..,......_
,n_ Pomp -n—.IMF i Y ...mae.
..e,...
.....�,......•••••me. Uwe Pun. .--..aw...
Structural Steel Frame
Color. Rust Orange
Spandrel Storefront System
Impact resistant
Color' Light green Of 0881
Aluminum Lettering
Painted MI skies
Finish Kynar, 0r similar
Color- Chocolate
Storefront System Mullions
Impact resistant
finish; Kyrw, or slender
Color: Anodized Aluminum
Storefront System Vision Mass
impact resistant
Color Lgtit gnash or deer
Corrugated Steel Panels
Prohhle to match typical slipping container
Color. Chocolate
tin.' Steal Bay Wrd1 tt. 20s3
ZYSCOVICH
V l 11 l 7
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Specifically as to Issue No. 2 (§ 2.4)
WaI-Mart's Voluntary Accommodations
East side of the South Elevation
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Consider also the views currently offered by Pyke Brothers & Son Paint &
Body Shop, which will generally obstruct the view of the South Elevation.
View Midtown
& 29th Street
View Midtown Blvd
View 29th Street
View N. Miami Ave.
& 29 th Street
View N. Miami Ave.
& 29 th Street
East View
North Miami Ave.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Photographs of Pyke Brothers & Son
Paint and Body Shop
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
27
Photographs of Pyke Brothers & Son
Paint and Body Shop
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
28
Photographs of Pyke Brothers & Son
Paint and Body Shop
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
211
Photographs of Pyke Brothers & Son
Paint and Body Shop
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
30
Photographs of Pyke Brothers & Son
Paint and Body Shop
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Photographs of Pyke Brothers & Son
Paint and Body Shop
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Consider also that the South Elevation is also consistent with
the east elevation (facing Midtown Blvd.) of the building
immediately north of the Project
Brief Analysis and Response
East Elevation (facing Midtown Blvd.) of the building immediately north
of the Project:
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
3i 3
Issue No. 3
Requirement for Second (and Third) Story
Parking Lot Setbacks or Liner Uses
(SD 27.2, § 627.2.12(3))
Submitted into the public
rPrnrrl in r_
�iection with
item PZ.18 on 11 21 13
Todd B. Hannon
34
Issue No. 3: Requirement for Second (and Third) Story Parking Lot
Setbacks or Liner Uses (§ 627.2.12(3), SD 27.2)
Allegation
� The Wal-Mart plans do not have either liner
uses or the required setback for the second
and third floor parking structure.
Submitted into the public
11112
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
No. 3: Requirement for Second Story Parking Lot Setbacks or Liner Uses
(§ 627.2.12(3), SD 27.2)
Zoning Ordinance (Miami 21 Appendix C)
tI► Section 627.2.12 distinguishes "active uses" required in ground
level parking from "liner uses" required in upper level parking:
627.2.12. Surface Parking and Parking
Garages.
3. As provided in Section 627.2.7, liner uses
are generally required on parking garages
that front primary streets. When required,
ground level parking facilities must be lined
with active uses. Upper Level parking facilities
that do not incorporate liner uses shall be
setback no Tess than 85' and shall not exceed a
height of 50'. All other requirements provided
herein shall apply.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issue No. 3
Liner Uses Active Uses
Brief Analysis and Response
® "Active Uses" is defined in the definitional section of Section 627
as :
Active Uses: The principle component of the
SD-27 district is ground floor active uses
which promote pedestrian activity. An active
use is any use that provides a public
entrance from the street with an interior use
that serves the general public. This may
include retail, office, educational facilities,
entertainment, and live -work.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
:� r
Issue No. 3
Correct Definition of Liner Uses
Brief Analysis and Response
0 Appellants complain that the liner uses depicted in the plan are a
mere facade, when the "spirit" of the Midtown Overlay District is
to feature "visible building uses on the first and upper floors." This
claim is unfounded.
0 Liner uses are not "active uses" or habitable space. The
Definitional Section of the Design Standards (page 40) defines
"Liner Uses" as follows:
Liner Uses: Storefronts and building fronts
that conceal a larger use from view such as a
parking garage.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
3tt
Issue No. 3
Brief Response
9 The Project complies with Section 627.2.12(3), which
requires liner uses or setbacks for upper level
parking facing Midtown Boulevard and North Miami
Avenue:
• The second floor provides for liner uses on both
the East Elevation (Midtown Boulevard) and the
West Elevation (North Miami Avenue).
• The third has the required 85' setback on both the
East Elevation (Midtown Boulevard) and the West
Elevation (North Miami Avenue).
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issue No. 3
Liner Uses in the Second Floor
Exterior Wall of Second Floor
EMWGED EIIVANON
I;
EMlARMED SECTION B
I. ,x- .
a
EP&ARGIO PEWECTPVE
N I S
it ii ii ii ii is im
ICS■. ■
u■EYY � 1� ! U it i� tunaii :ii I;ss11 II liONN
■Y a =e rr�.--»-•• ■■ w
Ile 1111111111 • • : is ii all 1 E
Walmart ; SOUTH BLOCK SOUTH AT II,10TOWS
!Aux* Id. )011
10
11
Giuii—
Y■EY■Etr■ 11 I�u■■.■.■a■
if iii it s■■�
12
rJ
7x
NORTH MIAMI k&
lANDSCAPIHG
NISI QEVA01014 Vol r..-. ^� •,
2
13
Gensler I CCn?.".
ACT/IP.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issue No. 3
Liner Uses in the Second Floor
Exterior Wall of Second Floor
Liner uses on North Miami Avenue:
Walmart SOUTH BLOCK SOUTH A' M •' _V.ra MIA4i1
M tSW( IM[ Ya-ROCc — ♦W
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
41
Issue No. 3
Liner Uses in the Second Floor
Exterior Wall of Second Floor
0 Liner uses on Midtown Boulevard:
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issue No. 3
Liner Uses in the Second Floor
Exterior Wall of Second Floor
Liner uses on Midtown Boulevard:
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
43
Issue No. 3
Liner Uses
Brief Analysis and Response
0 Appellants rely on the definition of "Liner Uses" in the definitional section
of Section 627:
Building uses that serve to conceal uses such as
parking garages and service areas. When liner uses
contain ground floor space, such space shall be designed to
accommodate retail and/or other uses that promote
pedestrian traffic and shall have entrances directly
accessible from a public sidewalk or open space.
M This definition even singles out liner uses that contain ground floor
space, requiring (only) them to be designed to accommodate retail
and/or other uses that promote pedestrian traffic. No such requirement
exists for upper level liner uses.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
A4
Issue No. 3
Wal-Mart's Voluntary Accommodations
Pre-UDRB vs. Post-UDRB Second Floor Plans
• Although not required, after the UDRB hearings in February 2013, Wal-
Mart voluntarily incorporated leasable space along North Miami Avenue
and Midtown Boulevard for use as office, storage or other retail support,
some of which will be used by WaI-Mart.
wiy
a
M . or, .. y
•Maur:0U
,-..« rr
'Thar+-..
N`aknk; SAUT14II00L SWfM L •�
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
4 Fi
Issue No. 3
Second Floor Plan
Brief Analysis and Response
*Mr WM/14V
Walm.rt-Ic SOUTH BLOCK SOUTH Ai EM1bT.7WN lAigMi
Womb !�21I1i
■ RETAIi
iiru MO +. .MUM M.
RfTrla6 i�JFF 3kT
our/ MP/MI w
VERTICA6 CIRCULAI ION
L MECHANICAL
S[{ONCI FWOOR PLAN urt s' . n
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
PARKING COUNT
Ind leas - xU SWIM
(14 Accessible SUM)
XO Level - 114 Sisk
(12 Accessible Subs)
TOTAL- 577 Subs
Ml CO
46
Issue No. 3
Third Floor Plan
The third floor parking provides the required 85' setback
LIGHT BEIGE STAINED CONCRETE
PLANTER BOX, TYP
241(24 GRID STAMPED &
STAINED CONCRETE
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
14
MOO
Issue No. 4
Building Tops and Parking Garage Roof
(SD 27.2, Design Standard Article III, § 7.1-7.3)
Submitted into the public
4fi
rewru in connection wan
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issue No. 4: Building Tops and Parking Garage Roof
(SD 27.2, Design Standard Article III, § 7.1-7.3)
Allegation
The proposed Project's uncovered parking and
stained concrete around the edges of the
parking lot surface falls far short of the express
provisions and stated Intent of the Code.
Submitted into the public
4 E1
recora in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
No. 4: Building Tops and Parking Garage Roof
(SD 27.2, Design Standard Article III, § 7)
Design Standard
III. Design Standards, 7: Building Tops & Roof Tops
Intent
Roof tops and building tops shall be attractive from the
street level and from residential tower heights.
7.2 Garage Roof:
Conceal roof top parking.
Standards
7.2 Parking Garage Roof
Uncovered parking garage roofs shall be
creative, colored surfaces and landscaping.
concealed with 1
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issue No. 4
Response
Brief Analysis and Response
• The only requirement is that an uncovered parking be concealed with
creative color surfacing and landscaping.
0 The third floor parking of the Project complies with the Design Standard.
The roof is attractive from the street level and from residential tower
heights, and it reasonably conceals the uncovered parking roof with
colored surfaces and landscaping. See pages 53-59.
0 The extent of the concealment is within the discretion of the Planning
Director. The Planning Director, in his discretion, and consistent with
approved and existing surrounding parking structures, has properly
deemed the Project's third floor plan compliant with the Design
Standards.
• Even after the UDRB hearings in February 2013, Wal-Mart voluntarily
updated the third floor plan to provide additional landscaping, colored
surfaces and covering used in the Project and described below.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
JI
Issue No. 4
UDRB Submittal - Third Floor Plan
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
pi RETAIL
. RETAIL SUPPORT
C 1 VERTIC LCIRCULATION
MECHANICAL
PARKING COUNT
2nl Lere1. 26? Stills
(1.6 Accessible Stalks)
3rd I.e tl - 353 Stalk
(9 Accessible Stalls)
TOTAL.- 620Stalks
-SOUTH DLC,Ca';}9tr, et •.l r+: I,+ :•• :o
Issue No. 4
Revised Post-UDRB — Third Floor Plan
▪ RE►All
. RETAIL SupPoRT
VERTICAL CIRCULATioN
• MECHANICAL
PARKING COUNT
2nd Levet 263 Sul%
(16 Auesslble Sulk)
3rd Level - 314 Stalls
(L2 Accesslbie Stalls)
TOTAL- S77Stall%
RPRE Tqp E4NCTIOM6 (ITTPJ
YEMCULAR PARKING • 123,2V0 SF
STAINED CONCRETE • 46 IS) 5►
• PULLOMKi ENCT.OSURI, r Ion OF
• TREWS STRUCTURES • &SAO OF
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
53
Issue No. 4
Rooftop View of Third Floor
LANDSCAPING SKETCH @ 3RD FL STORE ENTRY
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issue No. 4
Example of a Trellis
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issue No. 4
Third Floor to Include 46 Thatch Palms
• 46 Small palms
(Thatch Palms) are
located in the interior
parking field to break
up the parking field
and provide some
shade
• The height of the
small palms installed
will be approximately
10' with an estimated
6' spread
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issue No. 4
Third Floor to Include Podocarpus Hedges
• Small scrubs will
be placed in key
locations around
the roof (Eugenia
Podocarpus)
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
:, i
Issue No. 4
Third Floor to Include 54 Montgomery Palm Trees
• 54 Montgomery
Palms are in clusters
around the perimeter
of the roof and
integrated with the
trellis/seating areas
• The height of the
trees installed will be
approximately 16'
with an estimated 10'
spread
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issue No. 4
Shady Lady
• 14 Medium shade
trees (Shady Lady)
are located in end
islands to define
parking fields
• The height of the
trees installed will be
approximately 14'
with a an estimated
8'-10' spread
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
5J
Issue No. 4
The third floor is far more attractive than other buildings governed
by the same or stricter standards
Brief Analysis and Response
• Rooftop of public parking building on NE 31 st Street (across the street
from the Project):
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issue No, 4
Comparison to Other Rooftops
Brief Analysis and Response
• Rooftop deck of Target in Midtown:
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issue No. 4
Rooftop View of Target From Adjoining Residences
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
r;2
Issue No. 4
Rooftop View of Target From Adjoining Residences
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issue No. 4
Rooftop View of Target From Adjoining Residences
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
■
uouueH '8 ppoi
�t/tZ/tt uo 8t'Zd wa4!
44!M uoipauuoD u! p'o3aa
3i!gnd ay} ow! pau!wgns
:Jaluao 6uiddogs auAaos!B el,Ta mgnd jo soap dollooH c
asuodsaj pue s!si Ieuvjape
sdoijooN Jeupo o uospedwo3
.17 •oN enssI
Issue No. 5
Street Types for NE 3lst and 34th Streets,
lO-Foot Second Floor Setback
(SD 27.2 - Design Standard Article II)
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issue No. 5: Street Types for NE 31st and 34th Streets,
1 o-Foot Second Floor Setback (SD 27.2 - Design Standard Article II)
Allegation
• The Wal-Mart plans have no second floor setback,
with the second and third floor coinciding with the
frontage of the first floor.
Submitted into the public
t)/
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issue No. 5
Mid -Level Setback Requirement is Not Applicable
Section 627.2.7: Mid -Level Setback Requirement Not Applicable
627.2.7. Maximum Height, Build -To, Minimum Setback and Use Requirements.
TABLE INSET;
SD 27.2 Maximum height, Buirrd-To,. Minimum Setback and Use Requirements
$1reetfCtassif cation
He light
Ground Floor Building
To
Wild -level Setback'
Upper -level Setback"
Uses
NE 34th Sheet
Primary
60' tar commercial
single -use 1'20' tor
mixed- use
0" £5u* -To+
15' setback above 20'
elevation
NIA
It SD 272 uses per --
milted Liner uses on
all parking structures
except as otherwise
provided in Section
627/ 12
NE 32 d Street Spec--
orx 4rtr
60' kx commercial
sir 1' 20 lice
muted -use
0' j -1
10' setback above 20'
elevation
hifA
30% active ground
floor uses Ali SD 27.2
uses permitted
NE Slat Street Sec-
°ndlary
60' for commercial sin-.
Ole -use 120 tor rebtex-
use
it Im
NlI
MA
3056 active ground floor
uses felt SD 27.2 uses
permitted
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
fib
Issue No. 5
The Area at Issue: Second Floor
INLA.W D [LtvNnew
I, 1
1i!01
a
1i11
0
Human lin 8 Hannay mum noun: MUM 1sI Naa.fiieiii,
j
rrs Iw di H fa. N Ul U �iN 1SI I l'i ?�
0 G
N.E.3151 STREET
MI II
fl1/1l ,L11
��
�f/Mw !�i1 11 manna MOMaani Maui 11: ia.taywanuloaaa.i
Mai 'I .. bpi-R►i HA r 01. - 114; I naysq ✓ �.��� i
wil111it- SOUTH BLOCK SOUT►1.1 MIri1C]WN rvunsat
Mach td 1U13
LAWDSCJIMG
1
1
Gamier I Cilr1=L
Nat TN ELEVAflON KKK - - - 411-00
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
No. 5: Street Types for NE 31 st and 34th Streets,
1 o-Foot Second Floor Setback (SD 27.2 - Design Standard Article II)
Brief Analysis and Response
Section 627.2.7 of the Miami Code determines the height and
ground floor, mid -level, and upper level setback requirements, as
shown in the table inset depicted above. Section 627.2.7 does not
require mid -level setback for NE 31 st Street.
• To the extent Appellants rely on the Design Standards that appear to
contradict Section 627.2.7, the Code governs over the Design
Standards. The Design Standards (SD 27.2: Design Standards, I.
Introduction, page 4.) contain a conflict provision that specifically
establishes that:
The Urban Design Standards for the SD 27.2 District
expand on the requirements identified in Section 627.2.
These standards are minimum requirements unless
otherwise specified in Section 627.2.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
iu
Issue No. 6
Variance From Maximum
Number of Loading Berths
(§ 627.2.15 SD 27.2)
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
/1
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issue No. 6: Variance From Maximum Number of Loading Berths
(§ 627.1.115 SD 27.2)
Allegation
[A] three berth maximum applies. Yet the Class II Permit approves
four (4) adjacent loading bays with no mention or condition
addressing this deviation which amounts to nothing less than a
variance. And there is yet another, fifth (5th) loading bay for the
East side of the Project fronting Midtown Boulevard.
Submitted into the public
72
r wru in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issue No. 6
Section 627.2.15 Establishes a Minimum Requirement
Brief Analysis and Defense
• The design of the plan meets the requirements of Section 627.2.15 in
regards to off-street loading. The requirements for loading berths is set
out in Section 627.2.15 and is adequately read as including the
minimum required loading berths depending on square feet of
construction.
627.2.15. Off-street Loading.
The off-street loading requirements shall be as follows:
2. For non-residential uses:
***
c) For non-residential floor area up to two hundred fifty
thousand (250,000) square feet, three (3) berths
total;
• There is absolutely no prohibition against more than three berths.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
.41111111111
r:a
Issue No. 6
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
The Area at Issue (Loading Berths)
• For this Project, a minimum of three (3) berths are required. The Project
includes five (5) berths, which complies with the requirement of the
Code. A modified fifth berth is provided to service the liner space on
Midtown Blvd. and prevent delivery trucks from parking on Midtown Blvd.
to effectuate deliveries. This is not only consistent with the text of the
Code but in line with its expressed intent of "promot[ing] the most
efficient use of land." (§ 627.2.15)
1!
—1 r
rm:w 'aaliraa�_ar m.— —' ...woe •amalnv +ia
if* 10.....4111:. 111TIliNalkl t's NIT,
If MY + r .11;jr
fk MY1 1 ,r
Loading Berths in ground floor.
w••.• a.••=w
Fifth loading berth in 2nd floor
14
Issue No. 6
Brief Analysis and Defense
! The purpose of this section is to regulate traffic; specifically, to
allow maneuvering of trucks within the public right of way for the
purposes of off-street loading and avoid these trucks from
backing up traffic. To that end, it seeks to ensure a sufficient
minimum number of berths are in place.
• Consistent with this interpretation, the City has previously
approved plans with more than three (3) berths for similar sized
properties.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
l!,
Issue No. 6
Comparison to Other Permits Approved
• The JC Penney approval of a Class II on this site had five (5)
loading berths.
S( Lm—i RLOCK SCOUT I l
At M..M..... b... Am
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11 21 13
Todd B. Hannon
7t3
Issue No. 6
Comparison to Other Permits Approved
i The Class II that encompasses Target and other users (serving
retail area of 324,881 sq. ft.) within the block (located at 3401 N
Miami Ave #100, Miami, FL) contemplates eleven (11) loading
berths.
4 ..- 1 * ++
The Shops at Midtown Mina
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
1
//
Issue No. 7
Variances From Streetscape
Design Standards
(§ 627.2.9 SD 27.2)
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
in
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issue No. 7: Variances From Streetscape Design Standards
(§ 627.2.9 SD 27.2)
Allegation
• The Design Standards require two lanes of traffic with two
lanes of on -street parking. The Wal-Mart Project, however,
has three lanes of traffic and no on -street parking on N.E.
31 st Street. There is no precedent or Code authorization for
the re -alignment of N.E. 31 st Street to be authorized
(without variance or Major Use Special Permit proceedings)
under the guise of a Class II Special Permit, when such
realignment is in direct contradiction with the Design
Standards. Also lacking are required setbacks, overhead
side walk treatments, trees, and planter bulb outs.
Submitted into the public
79
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Issue No. 7
Brief Analysis and Response
• This point of the appeal is premised on the incorrect
assumption that "the Design Standards require two lanes of
traffic with two lanes of on -street parking" on NE 31 st Street.
This is accurate.
At the outset, it should be noted that this is a public right of
way. While the Design Standards provide recommendations
regarding the public right of way, the ultimate authority over
the public right of way is the Department of Public
Works. The Department of Public Works has reviewed
and approved the plan for this streetscape.
• Nonetheless, the Plan complies with the Design Standards.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.18 on 11/21/13
Todd B. Hannon
Mani
BU