MINUTES MEETING OF THE SUNRISE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY

MINUTES MEETING OF THE SUNRISE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 4:45 p.m.

1. Call to Order

Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m.

2. Roll Call

BY: City Clerk Felicia Bravo Those found to be present were: Mayor Michael J. Ryan Deputy Mayor Joseph Scuotto Assistant Deputy Mayor Neil Kerch

Commissioner Donald Rosen Commissioner Lawrence Sofield

City Manager Richard Salamon Assistant City Manager Mark Lubelski City Attorney Kimberly Kisslan Assistant City Attorney Tom Moss Community Development Director Shannon Ley Administrative Aide Lourdes Lawrence City Clerk Felicia Bravo

3. Moment of Silence and Pledge of Allegiance

All were in favor of a motion to dispense. LPA December 8, 2015

1

4. Open Discussion

None

5. Public Hearing

A. Agreement - C15344 A Resolution of the City of Sunrise, Florida, denying a Development Agreement between Minto Artesia, LLC and the City of Sunrise, for a portion of Parcel “A-2”, Sawgrass Lakes Plat and a portion of Tract “A”, Greaton Plat No. 2, generally described as approximately 12.6 acres at the Northwest corner of Flamingo Road and NW 136th Avenue; and providing an effective date.

MOTION A motion to recess the Local Planning Agency meeting made by Commissioner Rosen was seconded by Commissioner Sofield. All were in favor. Mayor Ryan recessed the meeting at 5:05 p.m. Mayor Ryan reconvened the meeting at 7:23 p.m.

MOTION A motion to forward Item 5A to the Sunrise City Commission made by Commissioner Rosen was seconded by Assistant Deputy Mayor Kerch. Mayor Ryan explained how the process would move forward. He asked everyone to be mindful of staff and time considerations. He also asked for the public to be respectful. He asked for comments not to be repetitive. Many voices were heard over the past six months. He asked for their consideration. Community Development Director Shannon Ley made a presentation related to the proposed development agreement with Artesia.1 Community Development Director Shannon Ley stated that one amendment to the development agreement increased the density and two amendments lowered the density. The proposed agreement would lower density. She discussed the particulars of the agreement and its amendments. She moved on to discuss the proposed agreement. The new agreement would reduce density, but improve some infrastructure. The agreement also provided some relief from certain code requirements.

1 The presentation is attached following the last page of the minutes. LPA December 8, 2015

2

http://agenda.sunrisefl.gov/Public/Bluesheet.aspx?itemid=5506&meetingid=430







Mayor Ryan explained that the development agreement allowed the developer to not follow code. Mayor Ryan further explained that the developer would have to enter into a development agreement, because the development did not meet code requirements without one. Community Development Director Shannon Ley agreed and continued. The proposed agreement was not uniform with the original agreement with regard to the scale/height, massing, elevations and density. She added that the remaining parcels were crucial to the City’s vision for the property. For this reason, staff was recommending denial. The department received made numerous requests for rental units. Any rental developer would most likely submit a development agreement, because they would not otherwise receive relief and have to comply with all of the City’s Code. The Commission could deny the agreement based upon the agreement itself. She could not guarantee that a rental developer would not come in and build, but it would require significant approvals beforehand. Ron Mastriana, on behalf of Minto Communities, approached the Commission. He stated that reduced units were usually requested. Mayor Ryan corrected Mr. Mastriana and explained that it depended upon the location and development. Many places wanted more density. Mayor Ryan added that the developer has received all of their density-reduction requests to date. Mr. Mastriana explained 70% of Artesia was two story housing. The developer wanted to continue with the townhouses. Mayor Ryan stated it was a significant concession by the Commission to allow for changing market conditions. Mayor Ryan asked for an elevation. Mr. Mastriana explained that on Page 5, it was difficult to tell that the proposed height was 18 feet lower. They would be happy to add additional landscaping. Mayor Ryan asked if there was a way to deal with the façade. He was concerned about the S-pod. Mr. Mastriana explained that they did not think a four story townhome would work in that location. Community Development Director Shannon Ley explained that there was a four story product in 2003. Commissioner Rosen explained why there was an objection to putting in the four story product originally, but asked why there was a problem now.

LPA December 8, 2015 3

Mr. Mastriana replied that the three story villa was what the market wanted and could be sold. The developer knew the market. Mr. Mastriana stated Minto was for sale. Commissioner Rosen asked how they could hold a buyer to a development agreement. Mr. Mastriana advised that it would be a substantial company and would abide by the agreement. Commissioner Rosen stated they have not resolved repair issues on existing buildings. Mr. Mastriana commented that he had all of the signed acknowledgements from each building, except one. The buyer would most likely maintain the agreement. Mayor Ryan said that the agreement may or may not hold up in a sale negotiation. Mr. Mastriana replied if this was approved, the development would move quickly. Deputy Mayor Scuotto thanked all of the residents for coming out to the hearing. The vision for the property was height and that was what was originally proposed. Height was what was envisioned. The density would help the City grow. The City has accommodated Minto many times. Minto changed over the years as to what they were proposing. Sometimes Minto representatives would suggest that the City was proposing rental units, when the City was not. Minto would present two proposals: the one they wanted approved, and the one they knew the residents would oppose. The City wanted the uniformity of the project and to maintain some density. The City worked with Minto many times. Mr. Mastriana stated the detail in the new villa was better than the pod. It was better product. Mayor Ryan said that Sunrise was not pushing for 400 additional rental units, but that was untrue. Also, he asked if Minto had a plan for building rental units, as stated in a business South Florida Business Journal that day. Mr. Mastriana stated that he would let Steve Svopa reply. Steve Svopa replied that he has spoken to people could build rentals on the three pods that were left. It would be high-end, upscale. It was Minto’s proposal. The options that were put forth were Minto’s.


Deputy Mayor Scuotto replied that they would not listen to what the City wanted. He asked him to comment on his statements from yesterday. Mr. Mastriana returned to the podium and said that the City wanted something that looked good along Flamingo Road. What was proposed was a nicer product and 18 feet shorter. He asked for the Commission’s consideration. Mayor Ryan asked about the density difference between the S and N. Mr. Mastriana said for Pod S, we were proposing 40 units. The N would be 38 vs. 83. The difference was 163 units. Mayor Ryan asked if pod is the only way to deal with the façade issue? Was there something else in between or another way to deal with a pod? Mr. Mastriana said he would discuss this with the developer. Jacques Roy said he has lived here for four years. He has been in the building industry over 40 years. They love the development, it is the jewel of Sunrise, and they retired here. They are petrified of rental properties. They love their home and their neighbors. He hoped everyone can get along and come to a common ground. Deputy Mayor Scuotto reiterated that the City never proposed the rentals, Minto did. Stuart Harris, seven-year resident, distributed paperwork to the Commission and staff. He wrote to the elected officials previously. He did not think it should have had four stories in the first place. The Oakland Park exit from the Sawgrass expressway is a major gateway to the City. He did not think people came into the city cared about four story buildings along Sunrise Blvd. He sees a lack of vision. In front of those four story buildings there was Flamingo Road Linear Park. That park was an untapped gold mine for the City. It was the opportunity to say something about Sunrise, and that opportunity has not been taken. If you had that vision, people would be looking at the park, and not the four story buildings. He sees a focus on the park, and something that people want to drive by and look at, like sculptures and flowers. It is something that should be considered and what it could do for the image of Sunrise. Deputy Mayor Scuotto said that Commissioner Kerch proposed that any developer that builds in the City, will provide 1% for art. Please do not say we do not have a vision, the vision was built. A gentleman approached and stated what he learned during his first hour has made him very disappointed in Minto, and feels that they were dishonest. We have lived there for one year and love it. They did not want rentals. He understood both


positions. This has created uncertainty. The price of our properties have not gone up, as have other properties. What are the chances something will be accomplished with Minto? Should we just wait until they sell and work with the next developer? We have everything to lose, but they don’t. We are organized and want to do what is best for our community and get the Commission’s support. Let’s meet half way. Terrence Duffy thanked everyone for going through this arduous process. He is secretary treasurer of Buildings One and Two. As the number of units drop, the amount of money we have to pay to fund the club fees goes up. It has gone up 47% in the last four years, and was scheduled to go up again. This is due to the number of the units going down. He represents a lot of the original owners who were told the density would be at a certain rate. If he bought now, he would have a different perspective. Stilian Morrison said he has been living in Artesia for two years. The concept of adequate assurance. They are trying to make do with the options that are in front of us tonight. He is concerned with the concept of adequate assurance, financial stagnation in the market. There is no certainty going forward. He distributed a handout with resale prices at Artesia per square foot. They have been relatively stagnate over the past five years. The notion of the undeveloped units, if you look at the HOA agreement, there is nothing that precludes the developer from taking a pod of units and making them rentals as a block. We need to ask ourselves whether the switch in developmental ownership, can there be adequate assurances made to the residents of performance. Romi Tarlamis said she has lived in Artesia five years. She loves the community. It is a very unique community. It is unfortunate there is a division in opinion. She encourages the Commission to consider the consequences of leaving the pods undeveloped. Bob Wiesner said he is a new resident, and purchased about four months ago. He enjoys the community and he has learned a lot tonight. When he purchased his interest was finding some place that had a good quality of life. He was not looking to make money, but not looking to lose money. He was concerned about the vacant land, but bought anyway. He is still nervous about it. He does not like high density, because it creates more traffic and wear and tear on the facilities. Mark Douglas thanked staff for having brought some clarity to this development. He has been in Artesia for eight years and contracted ten years ago. This community has evolved as economic conditions have changed. This Commission has allowed Minto to change things, as the economy has changed. Minto now chooses to be inflexible. They are talking about this issue of rentals and it has caused his community to divide. He urged this Commission not to budge. Minto was offering landscape instead of buildings. People do look at Artesia when they come into the City. He is proud of his


community and wants to see it built up, but in an appropriate manner that will be right for the City and everyone who has a vision. He urged the Commission to hold fast to the vision. Mr. Osmond Gutierrez said he moved to Artesia in December 2011. He moved from Mississippi and loves Artesia. He likes the quality and checked Minto on the internet. He is disappointed because he did not know what was going on between Minto and the City. He wished he had known about this situation. One of the things that greatly concerns him is the loss of the property value. Many people are selling and we are getting people renting out units. He would like to keep the density as it is. He wishes to see an agreement between Minto and the City, and he would like to keep Artesia as the nice place that it is. Height does not make a difference to him. Ms. Debbie Leff-Kelapire spoke about the density, she has lived in complexes where the density was promised at one thing and ended up another. When there is too much density, the amenities become crowded. She hoped they would consider Minto’s proposal. Mr. Bruce Schobel , President of the Artesia Club Villas HOA and also on the Artesia Master Association, but said he represents only himself. As long as the total assessed value is the same, why did the city care about the number of homes. He believes density carries with it cost, which we have already heard about. We need to be careful assuming additional density is good. There is also the issue of losing control of the community. The City controls the bricks and mortar of the community, but not whether or not an owner is renting their unit. If a renter controlled 300 votes of renters, that person would control the neighborhood. He enjoys the Artesia community and wants to maintain the community. Deputy Mayor Scuotto said that at the last Minto presentation there was discussion about the rentals and that they would control them. Those were scare tactics and that is not how the City operates. We try to mediate or diffuse the situation. We are not pushing the rentals. That is not what the City wants. Mr. Bert Fowles thanked the Commission and staff. You have always answered questions quickly and dealt with concerns. We chose Sunrise because of the community. The first thing we heard in Artesia was welcome. We have uncompleted land and that is a concern. We are trying to work with the developer. He believes in Minto and they have created an amazing structure there. They have raised certain points, as any business person has. They created Artesia, but we live there and we make it work. He would like to see it completed. Mayor Ryan said there has not been a development that has tried to build out that has drawn as much attention from staff as Artesia has.


Mr. Alex Kokin said in 2004 they fell in love with the vision of Artesia. He is an architect and familiar with high rises. They made a deposit on Building Four which was never built, and they got a refund and bought another. Sunrise is a fantastic community. As an architect, his opinion is that there is not a possibility of doing a four-story building in an economical way. Skylines are a little different. In Florida we have a tree line instead of a skyline. The choice that we have to make tonight is between getting this project done in two years, or several more years if they sell and a new developer comes in. He urged a compromise. Ms. Lisa Eberhart said she has lived in Artesia for five years. They fell in love with the community. Minto is not perfect, there have been changes and changes happen. It is beautiful how they have integrated all the changes. She realizes density and aesthetics are important, and does not understand why the city is so adamant about the density. If the original plan were that dense, the quality of life would not be what it is today. Mayor Ryan said the concern about density is not about tax dollars. It is based on fees and the impact that would have on residents. Joey Vora, had a prepared statement, but at the expense of being redundant he is not going to read it. Deputy Mayor Scuotto made a good point. When we moved in years ago we were sold a certain number of units and that it would cost a certain amount. About 80% of the speakers tonight are not in the podium buildings. Minto has created this issue where people want low density, but when we moved in we wanted high density. The fact that high density is not good, is not accurate. The past three years, he has had to pay three HOA fees. If a unit is rented and managed right, there is nothing wrong with that. If the density is lowered, our rates are going to skyrocket. Sandra Harris, Building 7, said the design of the apartment is what sold them. She did not want to be in a building with closed, musty, dark and dingy hallways. Her apartment now feels like a home. In terms of density, that had nothing to do with it. She bought at the top of the market, and that is her problem, but she does not want to move. She did not want to see apartments. Dorothea Rodriguez, lives in a townhome in Building 7. They did not buy there because of density. They were downsizing, as their children had grown. It fulfilled their needs, it was big enough, without being too big. Density is not the issue. They figured they would come out ahead rather than living in a house. She would just like the community finished as soon as possible. Her previous home was a Minto home and she was happy with the quality.


Commissioner Sofield asked about the two-story and the four-story. He apologized for not answering her email, but he knew the Mayor had responded. Mayor Ryan recessed the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Mayor Ryan reconvened the meeting at 10:21 p.m. Mayor Ryan thanked everyone for attending the meeting. He thought the meeting was productive. He thanked staff as well. Staff wanted the build-out to occur at once. The density would not be what it was initially supposed to be. The two-story off of the Sawgrass Expressway should have been built differently. The situation was suboptimal. He was concerned that the property was delayed and undeveloped. Staff made a proposal to them to build one lot as a four-story. It was denied by Minto. He was worried about indecision. Mr. Mastriana offered along Flamingo Road to increase the height by nine feet for the properties. The corner feature would go up by nine feet as well. They would figure out the details. Deputy Mayor Scuotto asked if the amount of units would remain the same and was told yes. A discussion ensured roofline heights. The units would be three levels and increase by nine feet. Steve Svopa said the four story condominium was too costly to build. Mr. Mastriana reiterated to Assistant Deputy Mayor Kerch that the buildings would be nine feet taller along Flamingo Road and Panther Parkway. Mayor Ryan recessed the meeting at 10:34 p.m. Mayor Ryan reconvened the meeting at 10:37 p.m. Commissioner Sofield asked who developed the list of fees. Mr. Mastriana said Minto did. Commissioner Sofield stated that he was told by a resident that they were not correct. Mr. Duffy came forward and said that the fees were not accurate. The fees he quoted were from 2011.


A representative from Minto said that the fee had two components: the O&M fee and the club fee. The O&M fee was subject to change. It was the only fee that was subject to the amount of people living in Artesia. He said it was $29 and would increase to $31. Assistant Deputy Mayor Kerch asked if Minto was allowed to build out, when would construction begin. Community Development Director Shannon Ley stated they could work with the developer. She explained the process and time line. The time line would be about 9 months. The quality of the consultant’s submittals was crucial. Mayor Ryan stated that a year and a half was lost, because of the delays caused by Minto. Mr. Mastriana stated that they would speed up the work. A representative from Minto stated the N pod and the S pod could go in immediately. The T pod had to be engineered. Assistant Deputy Mayor Kerch commented he did not want the land to sit vacant any longer. He did not see the benefit of the T pod going any higher. He did not want it to sit undeveloped for 18 months. The residents wanted control of their association. The residents did not want rentals. Commissioner Rosen said his concern was the structural difference of 9 feet. They would now have to have a redesign. He was worried about the safety of the buildings. He wanted a product that had structural stability. Deputy Mayor Scuotto commented it was good to hear the community. He wanted to hold out for more units. He wished staff could have worked this out differently. The change in elevation did not make much of a difference to him. He reminded everyone that the City never wanted rentals. He was disappointed that Minto came before them and again received exactly what they wanted. With the signed approvals, they will be able to sell the community. Commissioner Sofield stated he was disappointed with Minto. They tried to make the City Commission look bad. He would support this for the community. Deputy Mayor Scuotto said that they tried to pit the community against each other.


Mayor Ryan added countless hours were wasted because Minto declared war on the City. In the end, he revalidated his faith in the residents and the facts were undisputed. He was now closer to the residents. He asked Minto to be mindful of the timeframes. He would not tolerate any delays. Mayor Ryan asked for a roll call on Item 5A. He reminded the City Commission that a yes vote was a vote to denial approval, where a no vote was not approve of a denial of the agreement. Voting no would be moving forward to approve the agreement. Roll Call: Commissioner Rosen No Commissioner Sofield No Assistant Deputy Mayor Kerch No Deputy Mayor Scuotto No Mayor Ryan No Mayor Ryan asked for a motion and a second to approve the development agreement, subject to the 9 foot elevation change, proceeding expeditiously to construct and the review of the Community Development Director and City Attorney. Deputy Mayor Scuotto asked for the construction to be done concurrently on all of the pods. Community Development Director Shannon Ley said the buildings within a pod were tied together, but not the pods themselves. Deputy Mayor Scuotto asked for the pods to be tied. Mayor Ryan asked for there to be a continuous build. Brian Cale stated it was difficult to tie the pods together because of the certificate of occupation (CO) contingencies. Community Development Director Shannon Ley described the process regarding the pods. The T pod had no restrictions. The N pod independently of the S pod had requirements as to when permits could be pulled and certificates of occupancy could be obtained to ensure that the 3 story product would be constructed. There was nothing that tied the pods together. Only the N pod had contingencies. The City never addressed an issue like this. Deputy Mayor Scuotto asked if all of the units would be the same.


Mr. Mastriana said there were three products, but the only one that was going up by nine feet was the sky villa. Steve Svopa told Deputy Mayor Scuotto that they wanted to begin construction immediately. The T pod would be the best place to start, because it had its approvals. Deputy Mayor Scuotto stated he wanted the buildings on the outside to be built first. Steve Svopa stated the buildings along Flamingo would have to be redesigned and it would be a delay. Commissioner Rosen asked for an assurance that this was the last time they were asking for a change. He wanted the product completed. Assistant Deputy Mayor Kerch replied the most profitable was the T pod. He would rather have the S pod built first and the T pod last. Mayor Ryan stated this was a problem of trust. Mayor Ryan asked how construction could begin, with all of the vacant land becoming developed. Mr. Mastriana said that the T pod was ready to be built. Deputy Mayor Scuotto agreed with Assistant Deputy Mayor Kerch. If they built the T pod, they would not complete the S pod. He wanted them to build on Flamingo Road first. Mr. Mastriana replied that if they wanted the Flamingo Road and 136 Street to be built first, they would. He asked Community Development Director Shannon Ley if it was in the agreement. Community Development Director Shannon Ley replied no. Mayor Ryan the condition needed to be approved by the City Attorney. If there was a condition that the S pod would be completed before the T pod was built had to be defined. Brian Cale replied the reason we brought up the T-Pod was because that was how the project could get done the fastest. If they build the S & N pods, there will be a point where they would be sold out of those. They could not build all of those at the same time. They would build from the bottom of one, the top of another at the same time, and finish all three close to the same time.


Deputy Mayor Scuotto said all he is saying is he will not allow the T pod to be built, then have Minto say that they cannot sell the S and N pods. Assistant City Manager Mark Lubleski suggested requiring the developer to pass roof inspections for the S & N Pod before commencing with the T pod. By going all together it will almost be impossible to meet the request of the Commission. He further suggested that no CO’s should be issued for T-Pod until such time that all roof and framing inspection have been completed on S & N Pods. Mayor Ryan once the roof has been inspected, you’re all in at that point. Mayor Ryan said he needed a motion and a second for the three conditions, which were the additional 9 foot elevation, proceeding expeditiously to construct and the T pod shall not be CO’d until framing on S & N pods’ three story construction has been completed. MOTION A motion made by Assistant Deputy Mayor Kerch stating the development agreement would be approved based on the conditions that additional 9 foot elevation, proceeding expeditiously to construct and the T pod shall not be CO’d until framing on S & N pods’ three story construction has been completed was seconded by Deputy Mayor Scuotto. Roll Call: Commissioner Rosen Yea Commissioner Sofield Yea Assistant Deputy Mayor Kerch Yea Deputy Mayor Scuotto Yea Mayor Ryan Yea The City Commission adjourned the meeting.

B. Amendment - C15330 An Ordinance of the City of Sunrise, Florida amending Chapter 16 “Land Development Code,” Article III “Development Review Procedures;” by amending Section 16-38 “Applications for Land Use Plan, Zoning Map Amendments and Development Orders for Developments of Regional Impact (DRI);” to add supplemental regulations for rezoning; and by amending Section 16-51 “On-Site Sign Posting and Public Notice;” to correct grammar error; providing for conflict; providing for severability; providing for inclusion in the city code; and providing for an effective date.

MOTION A motion to forward Item 5B to the Sunrise City Commission made by Commissioner Rosen was seconded by Deputy Mayor Scuotto.











Mayor Ryan opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak. Mayor Ryan closed the public hearing. Roll Call: Commissioner Rosen Yea Commissioner Sofield Yea Assistant Deputy Mayor Kerch Yea Deputy Mayor Scuotto Yea Mayor Ryan Yea

6) Adjournment

Seeing no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: ______________________ Felicia M. Bravo, City Clerk


Proposed Artesia Development Agreement

December 8, 2015

Community Development Department

Presentation Outline

• Development Agreement History

• Proposed Development Agreement

• Relief from Land Development Code

• Staff’s Analysis

• Additional Information

Community Development Department December 8, 2015

Development Agreement History

• Original Development Agreement - Approved October 28, 2003

• 9 Approved Amendments to Development Agreement

• Expired


Development Agreement History (cont’d)


Development Agreement Total Units

Original 1,394

4th Amendment 1,470

6th Amendment 1,368

8th Amendment 1,222

Proposed 837



Original Development Agreement



4th Amendment Development Agreement









Proposed Development Agreement

Proposed Development Agreement

• New Agreement • Includes Only Artesia Vacant Land

o N-Pod o S-Pod o T-Pod

• 123 Units • 2 & 3-story Products


December 8, 2015

Proposed Development Agreement (cont’d)

• Significant Components o Pedestrian Lighting o Walkway o Tower Feature o Mid-block Crosswalk o Decorative Fence o Timing of Construction


December 8, 2015

Relief from Land Development Code

• Setbacks • Landscaping • Lighting • Parking • Driveway


Staff’s Analysis

• Not Uniform with Original Development Plan for Artesia o Building Scale/Height (25-feet) o Massing o Elevations o Density – Reduction of 577 units


December 8, 2015



Additional Information


• Rentals o City Code o Development Agreement Waivers o Significant Approvals

Questions


Questions


History of Artesia Development (cont’d)


Development Agreement

Total Units

Product Removed Product Added

Original 1,394 N/A

4th Amendment 1,470 5 Podiums 32 Clubhomes

2 9-story 1 High-rise ??? 2 7-story Multi-family

6th Amendment 1,368 2 Podiums 40 Clubhomes

3 Podiums 39 2-story Multi-family

8th Amendment 1,222 4 Podiums 32, 2-story Multi-family

2 Podiums 9 3-story Multi-family

Proposed 837 2 Podiums



POD Name

Proposed Unit Count Proposed Unit Mix

N-Pod 38 23 2-story Terrace Home 15 3-story Sky Villa

S-Pod 40

15 2-story Terrace Home 25 3-story Sky Villa

T-Pod 45 17 2-story Terrace Home 28 2-story Courtyard Villa

Total 123

History of Artesia Development (cont’d)

• Current Status Three (3) Vacant Areas of Land Development Agreement Expired ??714 of the original 1xxx units Last CO received – xxxx 201x-

model?


History

Per Article III of the original Development Agreement: The duration of the Agreement shall be (10) years, unless terminated earlier pursuant

to the provisions of Article XVII, below, and may be extended by mutual consent of SLG and the City, subject to public hearings in accordance with Section 163..3225, Florida

Statutes.

The original approval date of November 5, 2003 means the agreement expired on November 5, 2013.

The total units approved for Artesia have been amended over time. The proposed Development Agreement replaces the tower and podium products shown in Pods T and N with 2 and 3 story townhomes. This has reduced the density of units from the previously approved Development Agreement as shown in the table below.

Total Unit Proposed Changes

Pods Approved Unit

Count Proposed Unit Count Total Units Difference

T Pod 382 45 -337

N Pod 83 38 -45

S Pod 43 40 -3

Total Units 508 123 -385

Maximum Number of Units

Proposed

Actual Number of Units

Built

Proposed Number of

Units Total Number of Units Proposed

Unit Difference

Artesia 1,470 714 123 837 -633

The total dwelling units for Artesia have changed over time because Artesia has amended their Site Plan to replace the condo (podium) buildings with townhomes. This has reduced the overall density for the Artesia site from the highest unit total of 1,470 to the proposed 837. This is a difference of 633 units. Of these units, 714 have received a certificate of occupancy.

Reduction of Units

The applicant was asked by staff to design buildings which are proposed to be adjacent to NW 136th Avenue and Flamingo Road to be consistent and uniform to the existing Podium buildings that they will be adjacent to. The Developer has proposed to construct a total of 8 Sky Villa buildings along NW 136th Avenue and Flamingo Road. These buildings are 3 stories tall and consist of 40 of the 123 total units proposed to be built. Several architectural elements of the rear elevations for the existing Podium buildings which are along NW 136th Avenue and Flamingo Road differ with the proposed rear elevations of the Sky Villas. The following are design elements represented on the existing buildings that staff has found to be inconsistent with the proposed new buildings.

Elevation Differences

Building Scale - The existing buildings are divided into two connected buildings, with architectural variations for each building. Proposed rear building elevations should replicate the location of these architectural changes so that they are in similar locations to the existing rear elevations.

Massing – The proposed building’s roofline height is approximately eighteen (18) feet lower than the roofline of the existing building and the tallest point of the proposed buildings are approximately twenty-three (23) feet lower than the tallest point of the existing building.


Color – A consistent color palette for all proposed rear elevations to match existing building rear elevations should be provided. These colors should be appropriated in the same manner as shown on the existing buildings. Provide a color palette for all colors listed on proposed elevations as the numbers and names of colors do not match plan sets for existing buildings. Styrofoam Hard coat – Existing rear elevations provide a Styrofoam hard coat trim along the portions of the existing rear elevations and at the ends of pop out columns. Patios – First floor patio cut out of the Mediterranean rear elevation is square. These should be arced or rectangular, similar to the existing building elevations.

Windows – Some windows on the existing buildings provide a hard coat trim in the form of an arch. This detail is found on the Santa Barbara elevation for the Sky Villa and should be continued in a similar manner to be consistent with the existing rear elevations. Balconies - The Sky Villa detail shows faux balconies. There does not appear to be any pattern to the location of these balconies. The existing elevations do appear to have a consistent pattern as they are actual balconies. Faux Roof - Existing elevations have tiled eyebrows (dormers) with supporting columns at the midpoint of the building and at pop outs. This element is not found in the proposed elevations between the second and third floors. Shutters – Provide consistent locations for Bahama shutters and Louvered side shutters in locations that are consistent with the existing rear elevations. Railings – First floor railings at the edge of the patio should be included to match existing rear elevations.


Development Agreements for Resort

Villages of Sunrise/Artesia

1st Development Agreement*

8th Development Agreement^

Proposed 10th Development

Agreement


Agreement


Agreement

Proposed Artesia Pods T,N,S

Development Agreement

Commission Action

Approved by CCM on

10/28/2003

Approved by CCM on

7/29/10

Received on 12/19/2011 Denied

by CCM on 7/10/2012

Received on 12/18/13 Expired - Applicant did

not resubmit to staff comments

Transmitted to Director on 12/9/2014 not offically submitted

for DRC review

Received on 5/22/15 Currently

in DRC review Unit Types

T-Pod Products 5 story Podium High Rise High Rise

2 and 3 story townhome

2 story townhome

2 story townhome

Units per Pod 112 382 382 45 45 45

N-Pod Products 5 story Podium

5 story Podium

3 story Sky Villa & 2 story townhome

4 story Sky Villa & 2 story townhome

3 story Sky Villa & 2 story

townhome


townhome Units per Pod 139** 135 52 66 38 38

S-Pod Products 5 story Podium

3 story Sky Villa


townhome


townhome


townhome

3 story Sky Villa & 2

story townhome Units per Pod 186*** 43 46 75 40 40 Total units for T,N,S, Pods 437 560 186 186 123 123

Total units (Artesia) 2,223 1,222 900 900 837^^ 837

Change LDC Development Ag. Difference

Height Section 16-104(e)

Maximum height, 15 stories, 250 feet Section D(e)

Maximum height, 16 stories, 250 feet 1 additional story

Landscaping

Section 16-169(a)(1)(a) A 15 foot landscape strip is required abutting a public rights-of-way

Section 4-9(a)(1)(a) A 10 foot landscape strip is required abutting a public rights-of-way

5 foot smaller landscape strip

Landscaping

Section 16-169(c)(2) A tree shall be planted every 25 feet on average for head to head

rows of parking spaces

Section 4-9(b)(2) A tree shall be planted every 30 feet on average for head to head

rows of parking spaces

1 tree every 30 feet instead of 1 tree every 25 feet

Landscaping

Section 16-169(d) No more than 5 feet of a pedestrian zone can be paved

Section4-9(d)(1) No more than 6 feet of a pedestrian zone can be paved

1 additional paved foot of pedestrian zone

Lighting

Section 16-150(a)(1)(a) Minimum 1.5 footcandles

Section 5-6(a)(1)(a) Minimum .6 footcandles

Decreased lighting requirement by

.9 footcandles

Parking

Section 16-142(b) 10x20 parking spaces

Section5-2(b)(1) 9x18 parking spaces

Reduced size is parking stall from

10x20 to 9x18

Setbacks

Section 16-69(h)(1)(1) & 16-70(j)(2)(2)

25 foot front yard setback from building to drive aisle

Section D (1)(a) 15 foot front yard setback from

building to drive aisle. 10 foot setback for entry areas to Terrace Homes and Sky Villas

Reduced front setback of 10 to 15 feet

Setbacks

Section 16-101(d)(1) 25 foot setback abutting a public road rights-of-way

Section D(1)(b) 15 foot setback abutting public road rights-of-way

Reduced setback to public rights-of-way

by 10 feet

Setbacks

Section 16-70(k)(3) 15 foot side setback between buildings

Section D(2)(b)&(c) 10 foot setback when abutting open space, all other 15 foot side

setback between buildings. For townhomes, 10 foot side and rear setback

Reduced Setback between buildings by 5 feet

Rental Units

Section 16-104 of the Land Development Code provides the development requirements for Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) properties. If the applicant intended to build without a Development Agreement, the project would need to meet the following requirements:

Setbacks 25 feet abutting a public road

Cont. 50 feet abutting a trafficway

Cont. Perimeter Buffers of 15 for public road

and 20 feet for trafficway

Maximum Height 15 stories or 250 feet

Building Coverage Max 250 feet = 21% building coverage

Garage Attached garage required in rental apartment projects

Open Space 35% of the gross area.

Water bodies cannot account for more than 25%

Access Each unit shall have access

to a public street either directly or indirectly

Documents

MINUTES MEETING OF THE SUNRISE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY