HEARING NO. Z2017000150 -- DISTRICT(S) 07 -- MINI-WAREHOUSE OF KENDALL, LTD. -- REQUEST(S): THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING NON-USE VARIANCES OF ZONING REGULATIONS AND TO DELETE PAST AGREEMENTS IN ORDER TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH A MIXED-USE BUILDING IN THE DOWNTOWN KENDALL URBAN CENTER DISTRICT (DKUCD). -- LOCATION: 11111, 11119, 11121 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD AND 1580 NE 111 STREET, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. WITHIN THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY (UDB)
Indexes:
NONE
Sponsors:
NONE
Sunset Provision:
No
Effective Date:
Expiration Date:
Registered Lobbyist:
None Listed
Legislative History
Acting Body
Date
Agenda Item
Action
Sent To
Due Date
Returned
Pass/Fail
Zoning Board
12/6/2018
C.
Approved as amended
P
REPORT:
Mr. Nathan Kogon, Assistant Director, Regulatory and Economic Resources Department, read the foregoing proposed item into the record and noted there were two protests and no waivers filed.
Mr. Simon Ferro, 600 Brickell Avenue, Miami, FL, counsel for Mini-Warehouse of Kendall, LTD with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation identified the location of the subject parcel and provided a brief review of the foregoing application.
Mr. Rick Ruiz, Partner Associate at Marrero and Associates Architects, noted that the project’s design was consistent with the Downtown Kendall Urban District guidelines and regulations. He reviewed key design elements such as parking, liners and infill.
Mr. Richard Garcia, Richard Garcia & Associates, Inc., (Traffic Engineering Consultants), 8065 NW 98th Street, Miami, FL, provided a brief overview of the traffic analysis performed at the subject site, including the results of the trip generation analysis and comparison of the trips generated by the Lindsley Lumber. He noted access to the subject site was limited to SW 67th Avenue with no traffic travelling westbound on SW 84th Street.
Mr. Ferro stated pursuant to community discussion, the applicant was willing to install a gate limiting access to the subject site along SW 84th Street.
Mr. Tucker Gibbs, 3835 Utopia Court, Coconut Grove, Miami, appeared on behalf of the Red Road/Snapper Creek Homeowners Association and private homeowners Ms. Ariana Narciso (6270 SW 85th Street, Miami, FL) and Mr. John Meltzer (8400 SW 63rd Place, Miami, FL). He advised the Board that his clients objected to the termination of the existing declaration of restrictive covenants which currently governed the entrance and exit of the subject site; and noted the community was concerned about the project’s impact on traffic and the community’s quality of life. Mr. Gibbs argued against the termination of the covenant and requested the Board require the applicant provide a “construction plan” which would prohibit construction vehicles from travelling through the neighborhood as a condition of approval.
Chairman Bovo opened the public hearing and the following speakers appeared before the Board in opposition of the item:
1. City of South Miami Commissioner Bob Welsh, 7437 SW 64th Court, Miami, FL
2. Ms. Ana Palmer, 6160 SW 84th Street, Miami, FL
3. Ms. Emma Mufraggi, 5830 SW 85th Street, Miami, FL
4. Ms. Monica Atkins, address exempt
5. Mr. Richard Mattaway, 6485 SW 84th Street, Miami, FL
6. Ms. Cristina Toffoli, 8400 SW 62nd Place, Miami, FL
7. Ms. Carolina Pellaya-White, 5900 SW 83rd Street, Miami, FL
8. Mr. Ben Olson, 6200 SW 86th Street, Miami, FL
9. Mr. Camilo Rosales, 5710 SW 84th Street, South Miami, FL
10. Ms. Debbie Lang, 5941 SW 86th Street, Miami, FL
11. Ms. Sylvia Gubbins, 6250 SW 84th Street, Miami, FL
12. Mr. Jan Dijs, 6435 SW 85th Street, Miami, FL
13. Ms. Shelby Lash, 8377 SW 62nd Avenue, South Miami, FL
14. Ms. Christiana Serle, 7650 SW 59th Court, South Miami, FL
15. Ms. Kimber Mariani, 5850 SW 84th Street, Miami, FL
16. Ms. Silvia Portuondo, 8325 SW 62nd Place, Miami, FL
17. Ms. Martha Villabona, 6255 SW 85th Street, Miami, FL
18. Ms. Giselle Macias, 8205 SW 63rd Court, Miami, FL
19. Mr. Nick Cockshutt, 6366 SW 85th Street, Miami, FL
20. Ms. Kemelly Figueroa, 8125 SW 62nd Place, South Miami, FL
21. Mr. Henry Bolz III, 6263 Snapper Creek Drive, Miami, FL
22. Mr. Alex Sicilia, 6111 SW 86th Street, Miami, FL
23. Ms. Annette Onorati, 8335 SW 62nd Place, Miami, FL
24. Mr. Kevin Love, 5861 SW 84th Street, Miami, FL
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Bovo closed the public hearing.
Mr. Ferro stated instead of rescinding and revoking Resolution Z-220-87 as previously requested and outlined in Request No. 1 of the item, the applicant was now seeking to modify Resolution Z-220-87. He noted while the applicant was sensitive to the community’s concerns, the project had to comply with the Downtown Kendall Urban District guidelines and regulations and stressed the project did not violate the Comprehensive Master Development Plan (CDMP).
Mr. Ferro reiterated the applicant’s request for limited access to SW 84th Street and argued there was legislation in place which would allow full access.
Revisiting the PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Ferro spoke about the traffic protections afforded to the community by the existing road infrastructure and compared the protections to those seen in private communities. He pointed out all roads in question were public and advocated for a balance between the rights of the residential community and the right of the applicant for limited access at SW 84th Street. Mr. Ferro noted there were three residential units which abut SW 84th Street and whose residents currently park inside the applicant’s building.
Mr. Ferro objected to the proposed restriction of construction vehicles usage of SW 84th Street and reiterated the applicant was requesting limited access to SW 84th Street which would allow only tenants and employees of the development access to the street.
Commissioner Suarez requested clarification from Mr. Gibbs as to his clients’ objection to the application.
Mr. Gibbs reiterated his clients objected to the termination of the existing declaration of restrictive covenants which currently governed the entrance and exit of the subject site.
Commissioner Suarez moved to deny Request No. 2 and proposed amending the item to include language which would limit construction vehicle access to the neighborhood.
Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel suggested imposing a separate condition of approval (Condition No. 11) which would limit access of construction vehicles along SW 84th for the initial construction of the townhouses.
Both Mr. Ferro and Mr. Gibbs accepted the proffered amendment.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel clarified the motion before the Board was as follows:
~ A modified approval of Request No. 1 for rescission and revocation of Resolution 4-ZAB-317-93 and CZAB12-18-00 to delete Condition Nos. 1 through 4 of Resolution Z-220-87 while retaining the special exception approval for the self-storage and subject to the new conditions with site plan;
~ A modified approval of Request No. 2 to approve the deletion of all of the terms of the covenant except the provision limiting entry and exit to the subject property to the west side of SW 67th Avenue with no openings along SW 84th Street;
~ Impose Condition No. 11 limiting access of construction vehicles along SW 84th Street for the initial townhouse construction;
~ Require the new site plan to be in compliance with restrictions along SW 84th Street as detailed in Condition No. 2;
~ Amend Condition No. 2 to include language which would allow for approval of the plan, the same be substantially in accordance with that submitted for the hearing entitled “A+ Mini Storage” by Marrero and Associates , Architects and Planners, Inc; except as may be modified to remove openings along SW 84th Street.
Discussion ensued between Commissioner Diaz and Mr. Gibbs regarding the road closures.
Commissioner Diaz inquired about the closing/barricading a road.
Ms. Darlene Fernandez, Assistant Director for Miami-Dade County’s Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW) Traffic Engineering and Traffic Signals Division, reviewed the traffic flow modification procedure utilized by the County for closing/opening roads. She noted that the Board’s approval was needed only for County roads.
Responding to Commissioner Diaz’s question as to whether SW 84th Street and SW 67th Avenue were County roads, Ms. Fernandez confirmed that SW 67th Avenue was a County road.
Commissioner Diaz noted the subject property was located in a commercial area and asked whether staff recommended approval of the application.
Mr. Kogon reviewed staff’s recommendation for approval with conditions including the deletion of the covenant.
Discussion ensued between Commissioner Diaz and Mr. Kogon regarding the existing covenant restrictions as it pertained to SW 84th Street.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel explained the timeframe and noted access limitation was at the Board’s discretion. .
Commissioner Diaz questioned the community’s objection to allowing access to construction vehicles for the duration of the construction period.
Mr. Gibbs clarified the residents opposed construction vehicles such as cranes utilizing SW 84th Street for the construction of the seven story structure.
Mr. Ferro spoke about the challenges in monitoring and enforcing construction traffic restrictions along SW 84th Street and argued the literal translation of the covenant as it pertained to openings to SW 84th Street.
Commissioner Diaz recognized the concerns of the residents regarding the potential for increased traffic along SW 84th Street if access was allowed and questioned whether the current covenant would prohibit the construction of the townhomes along SW 84th Street.
Mr. Kogon clarified staff’s interpretation of the covenant limited openings for vehicular traffic and confirmed the homes located across the street from the subject property currently had vehicular access to SW 84th Street.
Discussion ensued between Commissioner Diaz and Mr. Gibbs regarding the residents’ opposition to providing the applicant access to SW 84th Street when the residents themselves benefited from this access.
Mr. Kogon stated staff had no issues with the residential units fronting SW 84th Street.
Mr. Ferro pointed out the parking designated for the townhomes would be located inside the development and commented on the importance of allowing residents access to SW 84th Street. He reiterated the access to SW 84th Street would be limited to tenants and employees.
Responding to Commissioner Diaz’ question as to whether the roadways in question were public roads, Mr. Kogon confirmed that SW 67th Avenue was a County road, while SW 84th Street was a local road.
Ms. Fernandez clarified that both SW 67th Avenue and SW 84th Street were County roads and reviewed the road closure process.
Commissioner Sosa inquired whether there was any noise restrictions imposed on the development, particularly the open aired rooftop area.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel noted the development would be subject to the noise regulations enforced by the police.
Commissioner Sosa commented on the need to maintain the quality of life for area residents. She said she did not believe it was fair to close streets and commented on limited street access issues.
In response to Commissioner Sosa’s question about prohibiting construction vehicles in the residential R-1 Zoning district, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel reported it was a policy call. He said the policy could be written either to not limit construction trucks relating to the townhouses or to not limit construction trucks at any time.
Commissioner Sosa stated there should be designated hours of operation for construction work. She said that on-street parking was not private parking and should be available to the public.
Commissioner Sosa commented on parking issues near her District office where tenants parked in the residential areas because of insufficient parking. She said she preferred to review the amount of parking requested for the townhouses to ensure they could enter the private parking facilities and did not park in the middle of the streets.
Commissioner Sosa said she wanted limited access for residents with private parking as well as a total review of the improper barricades on County roads. She noted there should also be a traffic study.
Commissioner Levine Cava indicated she was familiar with the area and would travel on SW 84th Street if there was no barrier. She said there was a bottleneck which took an additional 15 minutes to travel four blocks from Kendall Drive to US1. Commissioner Levine Cava stated the barrier made the neighborhood viable for a number of years, noting cars should not rule development decisions. She said the County should look at transit oriented development alternatives to deal with congestion and the only traffic solution was fewer cars on the road, not making more pathways and ruining more neighborhoods.
Commissioner Levine Cava reported the District was created to be part of the Downtown Kendall Urban District standard. She said it was not safe to walk from this neighborhood to the Dadeland North Metrorail Station, noting there were no safe crosswalks across SW 67th Avenue, US1 and the Turnpike access road. Commissioner Levine Cava noted looking at the Downtown Kendall Urban District; there were no other area of residents in the immediate proximity to that district. She recognized the efforts made by Downtown Kendall to create a transit oriented development including ensuring appropriate density and creating a transit hub.
In response to Commissioner Levine Cava’s question whether the barrier could become part of the covenant, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel noted the developer was responsible to ensure the public streets remained open. He pointed out while covenants about access or site configuration usually addressed what was on the applicant’s property; in this case since the barricade was on public property, the applicant could apply for the street closure through the public works process.
Commissioner Levine Cava commented while the CDMP was designed to protect the integrity of neighborhoods she was concerned about vehicular traffic impeding safe neighborhood efforts and future density increase applications.
Commissioner Edmonson questioned whether the row houses would be on SW 84th Street and what types of properties surrounded the site.
Mr. Kogon confirmed the row houses would be on SW 84th Street. He informed the Board that there were duplexes (RU-2 Zoning) across the street; commercial property to the West and North; multi-family to the East; and single family homes about one block to the East.
Commissioner Edmonson inquired about property access and resident parking to which Mr. Kogon stated the current street closure prevented connection between SW 84th Street and SW 67th Avenue. Mr. Kogon pointed out the front units could be accessed on SW 84th Street by an internal ingress and egress.
Commissioner Diaz spoke about the road closure process and argued residents did not want additional traffic on SW 84th Street. He pointed out cars were currently parked in house driveways across the street of the subject property as well as the existence of street parking.
Mr. Ferro stated the area mentioned by Commissioner Diaz was private property which did not allow other access and clarified the main entrance was located on SW 67th Avenue with an ancillary access at SW 84th Street.
Mr. Gibbs pointed out the applicant never requested the SW 84th Street access point to be opened in the twenty years of property ownership.
Commissioner Diaz stated one entrance/exit was insufficient for the proposed development and making the barricades legal could maintain the autonomy of the neighborhood in the future.
Commissioner Sosa commented on the benefits of opening access on SW 84th Street to the development. She pointed out cars currently drove illegally on SW 84th Street even though it was closed to traffic and expressed concern that the situation could worsen upon completion of the development.
Commissioner Sosa asked Assistant County Attorney Kerbel to prepare legislation directing the Administration to determine whether closed roads throughout the County were done with proper permits and processes.
Commissioner Levine Cava suggested a separate motion requesting the barrier removal along SW 84th Street be brought back to the Board for consideration.
Commissioner Suarez stated Commissioner Sosa’s request applied to a review of all barriers that did not go through the correct process. He noted this legislation exempted the project from the requirements; prohibiting such closures.
In response to Commissioner Diaz’ concern, Commissioner Suarez questioned whether a driveway opening into a garage along SW 64th Avenue would be precluded.
Mr. Kogon advised a driveway or access drive into the site was precluded and noted there were townhomes fronting onto the road with on-street parking but no driveways.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel clarified the motion before the Board was as follows:
~ Modified approval of Request No. 1 to preserve the initial special exception in Z-220-87, but to delete all other conditions and to delete the subsequent modifications;
~ Modified approval of Request No. 2 to eliminate all terms of the covenants except for the prohibition on access and openings on SW 84th Street;
~ Modified Proposed Condition No. 2 to specify the site plan may be modified to remove openings along SW 84th Street; and
~ Add new Condition No. 11 to only permit construction vehicles necessary for initial townhouse construction along SW 84th Street.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel clarified the motion approved the application except for property access restrictions and construction vehicle restrictions on SW 84th Street.
It was moved by Commissioner Suarez that the foregoing proposed motion be approved as amended. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Jordan.
In response to Commissioner Martinez’ request, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel clarified the barrier remained in its current configuration and the applicant would not be required to open the barrier.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel pointed out the Public Works Department or the Board could still take different action as to SW 87th Street access.
Mr. Kogon further clarified the motion, providing a visual overview of proposed property entrances, parking and access to the four residential units.
Commissioner Jordan withdrew her second to the motion.
The foregoing proposed motion presented by Commissioner Suarez failed due to the lack of a second.
It was subsequently moved by Commissioner Diaz to approve the application as presented with the modified approval of Request No. 1 to preserve the initial special exception in Resolution Z-220-87, but to delete all other conditions and to delete the subsequent modifications.
The foregoing proposed motion presented by Commissioner Diaz failed due to the lack of a second.
Commissioner Levine Cava stated she would offer a second to Commissioner Suarez’s initial motion if re-introduced.
It was then moved by Commissioner Suarez that his original motion be re-introduced and approved as amended. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Levine Cava.
Commissioner Martinez mentioned there was no way to enforce construction trucks not using SW 84th Street.
Mr. Gibbs stated Commissioner Suarez’ proposed motion was acceptable while Mr. Ferro voiced his objection to the motion.
Mr. Ferro noted the applicant was requesting a gate on SW 84th Street with exclusive access to only eight percent of the people living and working in the development. He explained the applicant proposed providing limited access to residents and employees of the development’s offices and commercial space but would not grant access to customers renting storage space. Mr. Ferro concurred with Commissioner Martinez that there was no way to effectively monitor and prohibit construction vehicles from using SW 84th Street.
Mr. Gibbs commented on emergency vehicle access, noting he accepted the proposed inclusion of SW 84th Street access to employees and individuals owning townhouses.
It was moved by Commissioner Suarez that the foregoing proposed motion be approved with the following amendments:
~ Modified approval of Request No. 1 to preserve the initial special exception in Z-220-87, but to delete all other conditions and to delete the subsequent
modifications;
~ Modified approval of Request No. 2 to eliminate all terms of the covenants except for the prohibition on access and openings on SW 84th Street;
~ Modified Proposed Condition No. 2 to specify the site plan may be modified to remove openings along SW 84th Street;
~ Add new Condition No. 11 to only permit construction vehicles necessary for initial townhouse construction along SW 84th Street; and
~ Allow SW 84th Street limited access to emergency vehicles as well as development employees and individuals owning townhouses, excluding storage space tenants.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Levine Cava.
Commissioner Monestime stated although he arrived late, he listened to the beginning of the discussion of this item from his office.
Commissioner Sosa expressed concern regarding the inability to monitor and enforce the condition restricting construction equipment along SW 84th Street and suggested omitting Condition No. 11.
Assistant County Attorney Kerbel clarified the motion, noting a new covenant would need to be provided showing the access changes to SW 84th Street.
There being no further questions or comments, the Board, by motion duly made, seconded and carried, approved the application, as amended.
Zoning Board
11/15/2018
A.
Deferred
12/16/2018
P
REPORT:
Mr. Nathan Kogon, Assistant Director, Department of Regulatory & Economic Resources (RER), read the item into the record; noting there was one protest and no waivers. Mr. Kogon apprised the Board that there was a section in the Zoning Code in the addendum that was listed incorrectly; however, the staff report did not rely on that section.
With regards to Mr. Kogan’s comment regarding the addendum, Mr. Tucker Gibbs, 3835 Utopia Court, Coconut Grove, Florida representative of the Red Road Snapper Creek Neighbors Association, requested a deferral on this item because the staff report specifically cited a section regarding the modification of a restrictive covenant. Mr. Gibbs stated this was the incorrect section of the Code and he had relied on this incorrect information as it was printed in the staff report. He noted that nowhere else in the staff report did it indicate staff was relying on a different section, and requested the deferral to allow staff to correct their error.
Commissioner Suarez made a motion to defer the foregoing application. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Heyman.
Mr. Simon Ferro, 600 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida representing the applicant, noted he objected to the deferral. He pointed out that staff delineated their reasons for supporting deletion of the covenant in the body of the recommendation and did not cite this section, and whatever section it would be based on was in the Zoning Code and all of the Zoning Code was public record. Mr. Ferro said he did not believe this warranted a deferral and explained the arguments for deletion of the covenant were clearly stated. He opined this did not place Mr. Gibbs at a disadvantage.
Mr. Gibbs explained that the staff report which was the official statement reviewed by the legal department said specifically applicable Code sections, not the entire Code, and cites specifically to the Code which was not applicable. He noted he believed this was an unintentional bait and switch, but it placed those who relied on RER staff at a disadvantage. This warranted correcting the problem, and bringing the item back for a debate on an even playing field, Mr. Gibbs said.
Commissioner Diaz asked the county attorneys for guidance on this matter.
Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel advised the staff report did not rely on the erroneous citation. He said the fact that there was an erroneous citation was something that while the County may ultimately prevail on an appeal based on the substance, would result in the item coming back to the Board even if they won, based on a failure to apply the essential requirements of the law because it relied on the wrong standard. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel further advised the Board to defer the item to avoid an appellate issue because it did not resolve the application itself, and to allow staff to correct the report.
Commissioner Suarez noted he would maintain his motion to defer; and requested Mr. Ferro place on the record that the street closure issue would no longer be a part of the application.
Mr. Ferro explained that Commissioner Suarez was correct, noting initially when this application was filed because it is in the Downtown Kendall Urban Center District, that District required connectivity of all streets. He noted since there was a barricade on 67th Avenue and 84th Street which the property abuts, the applicant was initially asked by staff to incorporate removing the guard rail and barricade from 67th Avenue because that was the only way they would be in compliance with the District regulations. Mr. Ferro said when the applicant found out the neighbors were upset about this, he went to staff and subsequently the applicant amended the request. He noted staff advised the applicant had to request a variance in the application to move forward when there was a street that had no connectivity and the application was deferred in May. Mr. Ferro explained the applicant revised the plan and requested the variance to allow the barricade to remain in place. He pointed out that removal of the barricade was never a part of the application and if the application was approved the barricade would remain in place.
Board of County Commissioners
5/3/2018
3
Deferred
P
REPORT:
Mr. Jerry Proctor, attorney representing the applicant, requested the Board defer the foregoing application to no date certain. He explained the reason for his request was to allow additional time to meet with area residents to address concerns their concerns and to work out an amenable solution.
There being no objections, the Board deferred this application to no date certain with leave to amend.
Legislative Text
There is no text currently available online for this item.
