Ordinance 84-2403 ORDINANCE NO: 84-2403
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,
ADOPTING THE SOUTH SHORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY AS
AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT ELEMENT OF THE
CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACT OF 1975 AND
AS A MODIFICATION TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR SOUTH SHORE PURSUANT TO THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT ACT REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT THEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA:
WHEREAS, the City is authorized and required by the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 (Fla. Statute § § 163.3161 et.seq) to prepare, adopt,
amend as necessary and implement a Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 (Fla.
Statute §§ 163.3177(7)(h) specifically provides that a redevelopment plan may be an element
of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted the Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan on
August 20, 1980 pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act which
Comprehensive Plan incorporated by reference the South Shore Redevelopment Plan adopted
on March 2, 1977 by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City amended the Redevelopment Plan element of the
Comprehensive Plan on May 5, 1982 with the adoption of an amended and restated
Redevelopment Plan for the South Beach Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, the Agency of the City has initiated the process of amending the
redevelopment element of the Comprehensive Plan emphasizing the goals and objectives as
set forth in City Commission Resolution No. 82-13222, adopted on December 17, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the revised redevelopment element has been prepared pursuant to
the guidelines of and incorporating the elements specified in the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning Act; and
WHEREAS, the Miami Beach Planning Board has held the required public
hearings on the proposed plan element on September 6, 1983 and September 15, 1983, giving
due public notice thereof, and has submitted its recommendations thereon; and
WHEREAS, the Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency has considered and
reviewed the proposed redevelopment plan element on July 18, 1983, October 19, 1983 and
January 18, 1984 and has submitted its recommendations thereon to the City Commission;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed plan element has been transmitted to the State of
Florida, Department of Community Affairs, the Dade County Planning Department, and the
South Florida Regional Planning Council pursuant to the requirements of the Local
Government Comprehensive Planning Act; and
WHEREAS, these agencies have reviewed the proposed plan element and have
determined it to be consistent with the relevant statutes, regulations, plans and policies; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has held the required public hearings on the
proposed plan element on February 1, 1984 and February 15, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission finds: 1) that the proposed plan element
conforms with the City's Comprehensive Plan; 2) that a feasible method for relocation does
exist in order to assist families who may be displaced from the redevelopment area into
decent, safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations within their means without undue
hardship; 3) that the redevelopment plan gives due consideration to the provision of
adequate park and recreation areas and facilities for the neighborhood and its residents and
4) that the plan will afford maximum oportunities consistent with the sound needs of the
City, for the rehabilitation and redevelopment of the area by private enterprise;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED THAT THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
SECTION 1: The City Commission hereby adopts the South Shore Revitalization
Strategy as modified by the attached Planning Board and staff recommendations as an
amendment to the redevelopment element of the City Comprehensive Plan and as a
modification to the Community Redevelopment Plan for South Shore.
SECTION 2: REPEALER. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be
and the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3: SEVERABILITY. If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of
competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and such hold shall not affect validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days after adoption, on February
25th , 1984.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of February, 1984.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY
February 1, 1984 FORMAPPReVai
2nd Reading - February 15, 1984 LEGAL DEPARTME1
RWP/SAY/rg
BY: �, � N
DATE: /---k6
•
vs..
SUPPLEMENTAL RELOCATION STATEMENT
A, Available Relocation Assistance
The Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency shall be responsible for providing
necessary relocation services and assistance to those displaced by redevelop-
ment in the South Shore project area. Such assistance shall include, but shall
not be limited to: maintaining an inventory listing of housing available in the
City of Miami Beach and elsewhere in the metropolitan area; inspections of
potentially available units; provision of relocation social services when
needed; relocation advice and consultation; and others.
13. Relocation Policy
It is the policy of the Agency that persons displaced as a result of
redevelopment projects shall be provided with benefits and services which will
ensure that they are not unduly inconvenienced by their relocation.
In implementing this Plan, the Agency will provide fair and equitable
treatment to those displaced by public or private actions in the redevelopment
project area. Objectives shall be to:
1. Provide residents to be displaced with full opportunity to occupy
comparable replacement housing that is within their ability to pay
and adequate for their needs, and meets all requirements for decent,
safe and sanitary housing;
2. Carry out project activities in a manner that minimizes hardship to
those to be displaced;
3. Provide maximum choices within the available housing supply;
4. Provide relocation assistance in accordance with the needs of those
to be displaced, and through referrals to other agencies, including
the appropriate social services assistance to those who are
chronically ill, homebound, and in need of support services,
counseling and follow-up services;
5. Make diligent effort to provide all residents to be displaced with
the opportunity to remain in the project area, if they so desire.
6. Make diligent effort to assure that those displaced do not encounter
undue financial or other hardship through any action by the Agency in
carrying out the Redevelopment Plan;
7. Provide business concerns and nonprofit organizations with assistance
in establishing at new locations with minimum delay and loss of
earnings.
r COMMISSION
MEETING
-1- rat P 1984
aim OF MIM g
•
The South Shore Revitalization Strategy emphasizes new development on
presently vacant parcels, maintenance of sound structures, rehabilitation of
existing buildings that are presently exhibiting minor or major structural
deficiencies, and redevelopment of substandard structures. These policies tend
to minimize the relocation demand (See "Existing Condition of Structures" Map
= 1) . The relocation demand is further reduced, on an annual basis,
v,alo :nt and redevelopment will be phased =r a period of not less
re, the total relocation c?, nt-i f i ed need
.tely, but, rather, over of time.
nnw or rehabilitated deve` lopment
' elocatees.
udicates that f4-_, esuiting from
, .iopment of subs!' ceent project area
is �u iwelling units.
TABLE NO. 1 SUBSTANDARD t
TOTAL
PERSONS IN
},; bTAND R ,
;rNO
2
i..
113 lul 59 /1
114 168 86 1.95 47 t+ -,
115 108 47 2.29 31
206 126 C6 1.91 47
?C7 96 54 1.77 40
1. 1 2 9 E,
ti
508 4
602 14 'b 3 6.84
603 153 91 1.68 28 47.07
Totals: 3,416 1,857 1.80 ave. 507 917.05
*Note - due to legibility problems this page has been re-typed.
See next page. -2 19
Fig
E
C. Relocation Demand/Resource: South Shore
The South Shore Revitalization Strategy emphasizes new development on
presently vacant parcels, maintenance of sound structures, rehabilitation of
existing buildings that are presently exhibiting minor or major structural
deficiencies, and redevelopment of substandard structures. These policies
tend to minimize the relocation demand (See "Existing Condition of Structures"
Map at p. 28) . The relocation demand is further reduced, on an annual basis,
because development and redevelopment will be phased over a period of not less
than 10 years. Therefore, the total relocation demand that is identified need
not be addressed immediately, but, rather, over a substantial period of time.
Third, in some cases, new or rehabilitated development in the redevelopment
area may accommodate relocatees.
Table No. 1 indicates that the total relocation demand resulting from
ultimate redevelopment of substandard units in the redevelopment project area
is 507 dwelling units.
TABLE NO. 1 SUBSTANDARD UNITS (By Census Block)
TOTAL
TOTAL NO. NUMBER OF NUMBER OF PERSONS IN
CENSUS TOTAL OCCUPIED PERSONS SUBSTANDARD SUBSTANDARD
BLOCK POPULATION UNITS HOUSEHOLDS UNITS HOUSING
TRACT 107 238 140 1.7 16 27.2
45 108 286 124 2.3 26 59.8
109 182 97 1.87 61 114.07
112 56 42 1 .33 0 0
113 101 59 1.71 39 66.76
114 168 86 1.95 47 91.65
115 108 47 2.29 31 70.99
206 126 66 1.91 47 89.72
207 96 54 1.77 40 70.8
TRACT 308 230 161 1.42 96 137.14
44 408 75 49 1.53 24 36.72
411 352 176 2.0 3 6
412 132 65 2.03 12 24.36
501 129 91 1.41 0 0
502 346 165 2.09 8 16.77
503 181 103 1.75 10 17.57
504 97 45 2.15 8 17.24
506 152 104 1.16 1 1.46
508 34 16 2.125 7 14.87
602 174 76 2.28 3 6.86
603 153 91 1.68 28 47.07
TOTALS: 3,416 1,857 1.80 ave. 507 917.05
-2-
*Note - Re-typed due to illegibility.
•
Demographic characteristics are available by census block group only and there-
fore cannot be coorelated precisely with the location of substandard units.
However, data relative to age, race, origin, household size, renter or owner-
occupied, incase, mean contract rent and value of owner-occupied units, does
provide an indication of the type of housing demand that is likely to result from
redevelopment of substandard units in the redevelopment project area.
TABLE NO. 2 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
A. Household Size (By Census Block Group)
Tract/ Size of Household
Block Household One TWo Three Four Five Six
Group Number Person Persons Persons Persons Persons Persons
45/1 1325 753 374 98 63 25 12
45/2 692 421 206 33 16 7 9
44/3 968 604 297 35 18 6 8
44/4 822 478 237 52 21 17 17
44/5 551 295 142 64 32 14 4
44/6 1317 726368 236 56 26 15
totals: 5617 3277 1624 518 206 95 65
B. Renter/Owner Occupied Characteristics (By Census Block)
Tract 45: Total Renter Owner
Census Block Occupied Units Occupied Occupied
107 140 64 76
108 124 70 54
109 97 83 14
112 42 41 1
113 59 55 4
114 86 84 2
115 47 45 2
206 66 61 5
207 54 52 2
Tract 44:
308 161 56 105
408 49 49 0
411 176 137 19
412 65 44 21
501 91 90 1
502 165 123 42
503 103 56 47
504 45 43 2
506 104 98 6
508 16 15 1
602 76 67 9 COMMISSION
603 91 65 26 MEET G
Totals 1757 1318 439
_3_ FEB I 1984
CITY OF Wt:M BLACK
C. Mean Contract Rent (By Census Block Group)
Tract/ Occupied by Renter For Rent
Block Group Number Contract Rent Number Contract Rent
45/1 1014 $164 149 $167
45/2 640 $ 95 48 $102
44/3 726 $169 63 $212
44/4 611 $162 71 $164
44/5 441 $148 32 $116
44/6 1073 $156 48 $167
Total: 4505 411
D. Mean Value of Owner Occupied Units (By Census Block Group)
Tract/ Occupied by Uwner For Sale
Block Group Number Mean Value Number Mean Value
45/1 274 $31,884 11 $36,932
45/2 40 $36,594 3 $22,917
44/3 188 $27,041 2 $29,375
44/4 181 $29,392 10 $25,500
44/5 87 $31,063 1 $21,250
44/6 192 $31,419 4 $36,563
Total: 962 31
E. Estimated Household Incase (By Census Block Group)
Tract/ Household Median Mean
Block Group Number Income Income
45/1 1325 $9,694 $11,729
45/2 692 $6,359 $ 7,424
44/3 • . • 968 • • $7,980 $ 9,018
44/4 822 $9,475 $11,271
44/5 551 $8,145 $ 9,045
44/6 1317 $8,626 $10,000
COMMISSION
• MEET V VG
-4- FEB 1 184
CITY. OF MIAMI BEACH
F. Vacant Year-Round Housing Units (By Census Block Group)
TYact/ Total For For
Block Group Vacant Rent Sale Other
45/1 204 149 13 42
45/2 58 48 4 6
44/3 178 63 2 113
44/4 170 71 10 89
44/5 72 32 2 38
44/6 83 48 5 30
Totals: 765 411 36 318
The data on relocation demand resulting from displacement of persons from
substandard housing units indicates a need for 507 replacement units phased over
a 10-year or longer period of time. The need, therefore, is for approximately 50
replacement units per year. Based on average household size and other character-
istics in the redevelopment area, the principal need will be for units to accom-
modate one and two-person households in rental rather than owner-occupied units.
The affordable rental rate for relocatees can be estimated as follows:
TABLE NO. 3 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Tract/ Median Divided by 12 = X .25 = Monthly
Block Group Annual Monthly Incane Income Available
Household For Housing
Incane
45/1 $9,694 $808 $202
45/2 $6,359 $530 $132
44/3 $7,980 $665 $166
44/4 $9,475 $790 $197
44/5 $8,145 $679 $170
44/6 $8,626 $719 $180
Present contract rents (occupied units) in South Shore range frau $95 - $169 on
the average, while units for rent range frau $102 - $167 on the average. Thus,
existing units in South Shore are affordable to those who may be displaced as a
result of redevelopment. Moreover, there are presently 765 vacant units in South
Shore which is enough to accommodate all potential relocatees over the life of
the redevelopment project. If the vacant units are standard units, then there is
an adequate relocation resource presently available at rents that displacees are
able to afford. If the vacant units are largely substandard units, then there is
really no relocation problem since the units to be redeveloped are not presently
occupied.
Given the approach of the proposed South Shore plan, there will be only a
small, relocation demand which can be readily met by relocation resources
presently available in the South Shore area at rental rates that potential
relocatees can afford without subsidization.
COMMISSION
MEET!",'
-5-
'}1 o 3 4,,A
CITY Or
•
D. Additional Relocation Resources: City-Wide
•
There are approximately 2,503 vacant standard rental units city-wide with a
mean contract rent of $256/month. There is an average vacancy rate city-wide of
13%. Therefore, there are substantial additional relocation resources available
for persons displaced from South Shore. The mean contract rent, city-wide, though,
is higher than that which displacees will likely be able to afford. Thus, dis-
placees will be somewhat limited to those vacant units in the lower rental ranges
unless they are subsidized or they are willing to spend more than 25% of their in-
case for housing. The City's Housing Assistance Plan (1983 - 1985) indicates that
more than 5,000 lower inane households currently pay in excess of 30% of income
for rent.
The City is addressing the need for lower cost housing through participation
in several programs, including the rental rehabilitation program utilizing Commun-
ity Development Block Grant funds, the HUD Demonstration Rental Rehabilitation Pro-
gram, Section 8 and rental subsidy programs.
The three-year Housing Assistance Plan indicates that there will be rehabili-
tation of 300 substandard units, of which 200 are expected to assist lower income
households, and new construction of 100 units, all of which are expected to assist
lower income households. In addition, rental subsidies will be provided to 180
elderly households, 55 small-family households and 5 large family households.
New or substantially rehabilitated assisted housing units in Miami Beach are
shown in the following table.
TABLE NO. 4 - NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED ASSISTED HOUSING UNITS
Name of Type of Sponsor Number and Type
Project Project Of Units
New Rental Units
Goodman Terrace Public Housing M.B. Housing 42 family
Authority 8 large family
Rebecca Towers (S) Public Housing M.B. Housing 200 elderly
Authority
Turnkey Project Public Housing M.B. Housing 42 family
by Emmer Develop- Authority 18 large family
ment Corp. *
Rebecca Towers (N) Section 8-BUD M.B. Housing 200 elderly
Authority
Council Towers (N) Section 8-HUD National Council 126 elderly
(air rights) of Sr. Citizens
Council Towers (S) Section 8-BUD National Council 126 elderly
(air rights) of Sr. Citizens
Federation Section 8-HUD Greater Miami 114 eldetibt M JCtO,�,
Towers Jewish Federation i�I
Mt
-6- F, 21984
cm, Or •
,4u
4..
•
(Table 4, continued)
Name of Type of Sponsor Number and Type
Project Project of Units
Rehabilitation of
Rental Units
LuLav Square Section 8-HUD Harry Foreman 139 elderly
Apartments
•
Edwards Hotel * Section 8-HUD Harry Foreman 119 elderly
Villa Maria * Section 8-HUD . Project Advisors 34 elderly
Corp.
Midtaan Plaza ** Section 8-HUD Related Housing 49 elderly
* Indicates Firm HUD commitment to projects - pending completed construction or
rehabilitation of the project.
** Projects are approvable by HUD pending the availability of HUD funds to the
Area Office for Section 8 substantial rehabilitation projects for the Miami
SMSA (96 total units)
E. Relocation Plan
The data indicates that the extent of relocation anticipated as a result of
the South Shore redevelopment plan will not cause any significant relocation
problems. The anticipated displacement is minimal and will be spread over a
substantial time period. The presently available relocation resources are
adequate to handle the projected relocation demand. In addition, the City is
actively pursuing housing strategies designed to increase the available
relocation housing resources.
Relocation support, therefore, should emphasize services, counseling,
administration and management that will serve to assist relocatees in locating
suitable replacement housing in a timely fashion. Toward that end, the
Redevelopment Agency shall maintain comprehensive data and listings on available
housing units for relocatees and shall provide such support services as are
reasonably necessary to ensure that displacees will be relocated quickly and
efficiently and with minimal disruption.
COMMISSION
MEETING
FEB I 1984
-7-
aT r OF M 44; 3::: L14
•
•
PLANNING BOARD MODIFICATIONS
The following motion was adopted unanimously by the Planning Board on October 17, 1983:
"The Planning Board recommends adoption of the South Shore Revitalization
Strategy Plan as a Community Redevelopment Plan, under Florida State
Statute 163.360, and as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan
pursuant to Florida State Statute 163.3184. The Planning Board further
recommended that the existing plan be modified by including all of the
modifications (items 1-11) listed in the Planning Department's report on the
South Shore Revitalization Plan, dated October 12, 1983, and in addition, the
following modifications adopted by the Planning Board:
*A. The implementation of the South Shore Plan shall be handled by an
independent Redevelopment Authority including an independent
professional staff which will expedite and coordinate South Shore
development activities;
B. The South Shore Plan on p. 56, Parcel E-1, should be revised to indicate
that the acquisition of that portion of the parcel, including the South Shore
Elementary School site (south of 4th Street) is an immediate priority in
order that its development be coordinated with the marina upland area
development;
C. The South Shore Plan, on p. 53, should be revised to indicate that the City
should place a high priority on preparing a Request for Proposal for
development of the Marina Upland area (Parcels E and C);
D. That the section of the South Shore Plan which refers to density guidelines
should contain the following written policy: Under certain circumstances a
project may be allowed to exceed the density ranges listed, if a specific
development utilizes the bonuses, incentives, transfer of development
rights, or other techniques which will be provided in the permanent zoning
for the South Shore area.
''(excluded by Commission on 2/1/84)
COMMISSION
MEET!N
Fa I . I^�)
•
CITY, OF v,1004 -.;
MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FRIELICH AND LEITNER
POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH AND JERNIGAN, INC.
(as modified by Redevelopment Agency)
1. Modification to Proposed Land Use Plan (See Map on p. 49)
a. A portion of Parcel E-1, that area north of Fourth Street between Alton Road
and Michigan Avenue, should be revised to be included in Parcel A, which is the
Fifth Street - Mixed Use Subarea. The description of the alternative land use is
found on p. 56 (Parcel E-1). It does not appear feasible nor necessary for this
area to remain as accessory land area for the marina upland development. The
use of these blocks are clearly related to development on Fifth Street. (Please
see schematic plan for upland development in Appendix A, p. A-47). The western
portion of the parcel is mostly owned by a single property owner who is actively
seeking to build an office building, if he can acquire that portion of the block
owned by the City. The City Administration is in support of his project. The
Zoning District Map already reflects this modification.
b. The parcel designated by the small asterisk as Alternate 1 (the area bounded by
Biscayne Street, Washington Avenue, the U.S. Government Reservation and the
Bay) should be revised and redesignated as part of Parcel F. Although a portion
of this parcel is presently a City-owned park and another portion is owned by the
Miami Beach Housing Authority, the remainder is owned in common with
Parcel F and the long-term proposal is for utilization as part of the existing
Parcel F.
Note: The Parcel Aggregation Map (p. 27) erroneously designates the entire
parcel as government-owned although a portion thereof is privately owned by the
owners of Parcel F.
2. Modification of Proposed Zoning Districts (See Zoning Map, p. 98)
a. A group of parcels located at the northeast corner of Jefferson and First Street
should be removed from the R-PS 1 District and placed in the R-PS2 District.
This boundary line of the R-PS2 which runs along Jefferson Avenue should
connect straight to First Street. The property is adjacent to the City-owned
police-court facility which will be abandoned. The R-PS2 zoning is a more
appropriate zone for the properties.
b. The C-PS3 zoning district should extend west to Biscayne Bay to reflect the
ultimate use of the property despite the fact that a portion of this property is
City-owned. Any development will have to make adequate provision for
continuation of the Baywalk and preservation of public access to the Bay. This
may, in fact, be done by deed in fee simple, easement, lease, or other suitable
legal mechanism.
c. The R-PS3 designation on the Map is misplaced. It should be between
Washington and Collins Avenues rather than between Collins and Ocean Drive.
d. The City presently has pending the adoption of a Dune Overlay District which
will regulate and restrict uses and structures in the area between the established
Bulkhead Line and the Erosion Control Line. If adopted, this designation should
be shown on the proposed Zoning Map.
3. Modification of Height Limit in C-PS2 Zoning District (See p. 105) •
The proposed maximum height of six stories over three stories of parking (75 feet) for
the C-PS2 zone along Fifth Street may be overly restrictive. A major objective of the
Plan is to concentrate commercial activity, specifically, office development along
Miami Beach Boulevard. An increase of two or three stories in building height is
justified based upon the width of the street and to encourage corporate office
development.
COMMISSION
MEETING
1 rEB 15 1984
CITY OF Id 1AM I BEACH
*4. Preservation of Miami Beach Warehouse No. 100
This structure, entitled C.M.B. Warehouse 100, is located at 100 Alton Road within the
Marina South area (Parcel C) (See p. 53). The land use for this area is designated as
hotel use with ancillary activities such as restaurants or specialty shops. The subject
building built in 1925 is one of the few remaining red brick buildings in South Florida.
The structure, which is in good condition, is located adjacent to the bay. The adaptive
re-use of this structure as a unique theme restaurant, or specialty shopping complex
should be actively pursued. A number of major cities (Boston, Baltimore, New York,
Seattle, etc.) have encouraged the re-use of similar structures along their waterfronts
and which are now extremely successful projects. It is recommended that the specific
planning recommendations for Parcel C be modified to reflect the intent of the City
that this building be preserved however in the event that unforeseen circumstances
dictate that this objective is impractible, the City reserves the right to allow removal
or modification of this structure without the necessity of treating said removal as a
substantial modification under the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Act.
5. Designating South Shore as a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Target Area
It is proposed that the South Shore Revitalization Area be designated as a "receiving"
area for density bonuses earned through a transfer of development rights from
renovated locally designated historic properties.
The City's Zoning Ordinance in Section 26 (Historic Preservation District Regulations)
directs the City to prepare a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) ordinance
primarily as an incentive to encourage property owners to seek local designation of
their historic buildings. This legislation is now being drafted jointly by the City
Attorney's office and the Planning Department at the request of the City's Historic
Preservation Board.
The concept, as determined by the Historic Preservation Board, would allow a
property-owner or developer, who substantially renovates a locally designated historic
building, to be "awarded" density bonuses which could be added as a matter of right to
another property. The density bonuses (i.e. number of units, FAR, or square footage)
could be transferred to the same owner's property located elsewhere in the City or
sold to another separate property owner. The location of the transfer property or
"receiving" area must be carefully controlled, and at this stage, it is being
recommended that the South Shore Revitalization area be the primary receiving
target. It is felt that this additional bonus would be helpful in stimulating new
development in the South Shore project area. The product of this concept
accomplishes two objectives:
A. It financially rewards property-owers who rehabilitate historic structures, and;
B. It provides an additional development incentive for properties in the South Shore
area.
The TDR concept to encourage historic preservation has been successfully used in New
York City, Chicago and Denver. The City of San Francisco, is now drafting a similar
ordinance. Miami Beach would be the fourth City in the Country to use this unique
approach to land use development.
It is recommended that Chapter 10, Zoning and Land Use Controls, be modified in the
appropriate sections to incorporate the bonus density factor as a result of a Transfer
of Development Rights Ordinance.
6. Creation of a South Shore Expeditor Position
It is recommended that South Shore Revitalization Plan (Chapter 11, Implementation
Program) be modified to include the creation of a special city government expeditor
for the project area. This suggestion has been made by members of the South Shore
Ad-Hoc Planning Committee and other individuals testifying before the Planning
Board. The implementation of the South Shore Plan will be a complex undertaking
involving responsibilities in seeking developers for City-owned sites; negotiating
development agreements; scheduling capital improvement projects; and responding to
citizen and property-owner inquiries. It would be appropriate to include in Chapter 11,
a specific recommendation to have a staff development expeditor appointed for the
South Shore project.
COM MISSIOtt
MEETING
2
cE13 5 1984
CITY Ofti'+' BEACH
7. Modification of Proposed Transportation Network - (See Map on p. 62)
Consider revising the Proposed Transporation Network to reconfigure the secondary
loop road so that it extends directly from Alton Road to Biscayne Street instead of
jogging on Jefferson Avenue from First Street to Biscayne Street. This would
facilitate traffic flow to the area of South Beach south of First Street, which will
include such major traffic generators/attractions as South Shore Park, Miami Beach
Kennel Club property, the southern marina upland development parcel and the area
proposed for C-PS 1 zoning.
8. Relocation
Expand relocation element (p. 96) to incorporate more detailed information on the
precise scope of potential relocation based upon condition of structures, public
improvements that may necessitate displacement and other factors; identify potential
relocatees by demographic characteristics (age, family size and characteristics,
income, etc.); and quantify the availability of suitable replacement housing elsewhere
in Miami Beach, by location, cost or rental rate, size of unit and other relevant
characteristics.
9. City Parks Improvements
Incorporate reference to necessary improvements to the two City parks along the
Ocean between Biscayne and First Streets and between Second and Third Streets (p.
92) and incorporate cost estimates for such improvements, including demolition of the
City pier, in the Stage I capital improvements program (p. 115).
10. Tax Increment Financing
Revise references to County action on tax increment financing (p. 110) and change
erroneous reference to tax increments resulting from marina development (p. 117)
from $10 million to approximately $100,000 per year.
11. Land Use Intensity Matrices
It is suggested that the Land Use Intensity Matrices and Bonus Matrices (pp.
100,102,105 and 107) be deleted and that all references thereto on pp. 99, 102, 104
and 106 be stricken. In substitution thereof, insert the following Tables which provide
general density/intensity guidelines:
Density Guidelines for R-PS Zoning Districts
Subdistrict Use Dwelling Units
Per Acre
R-PS 1 Medium -Low Density 25 - 60
Residential
R-PS 2 Medium Density 40 - 60
Residential
R-PS 3 Medium-High Density 50 - 80
Residential
R-PS 4 High Density 70 - 100
Residential
Density Guidelines for C-PS Zoning Districts
Subdistrict Use Intensity - FAR
C-PS 1 Limited Mix-Use Commercial 1.0 - 2.0
(residential at R-PS 2 denities)
C-PS 2 General Mixed-Use Commercial 2.0 - 2.5
(residential at R-PS 3 densities)
C-PS 3 Intensive Mixed Use Commercial 2.5 - 3.0
OM C (residential at R-PS 4 densities)
SIC%.f ING
rEg 15 19$4 3
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
The elimination of the Intensity and Bonus matrices will allow for greater flexibility in
development of the permanent zoning, but within the constraints established by the
proposed Density Guidelines, Supra. The City's Consultant has provided a detailed
explanation of the South Shore Plan zoning densities; see attached memorandum dated
October 3, 1983 from Freilich and Leitner. The intensity and bonus matrices are too
detailed for purposes of a comprehensive plan. The density guidelines are
commensurate with the level of detail found in the Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan
(August, 1980) (See p. 23 Land Use Categories and Future Land Use Element, Figure II-
4). In addition, it will be necessary to remove Appendix F from the report. This
appendix (zoning Pro Forma) should be eliminated because the intensity matrices on
which they are based will be deleted in favor of the above recommended density
guidelines.
*12. Florida International University
The City Commission has recently adopted Resolution No. 83-17604 (December 21,
1983) which supported the concept of locating an FIU Conservatory of Fine Arts
campus in the South Shore project area. Although no specific site has been
determined, it would be appropriate to incorporate and reference this concept in the
Plan. Specifically in Chapter 7, the Plan should contain a reference to the Florida
International University campus proposal.
SAY/rg
*Revised in January, 1984
COMMISSION
MEETIN',1
FEB 15
4
art OF M{AMWi6 SSM •
1
eio
4 'e4m dead
Mi ef .,
FLORIDA 3 3 1 3 9
:P� q ,
tiy(414im
6NO *i
..VACATIONLAND U. S. A. "
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL
ROB W.PARKINS 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE
CITY MANAGER TELEPHONE: 673-7010
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. G 'V
DATE: FEB. 15, I9R4
TO: Mayor Malcolm H. Fre .. . - , a •
Members of the • y Com ► ss`• •
wiorpor
FROM: Rob W. Parki s110r: '4fp
City Manager Ai, •'
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEA•ING AND CITY COMMISSION ACTION TO ADOPT THE
SOUTH SHORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY PLAN AS A
MODIFICATION OF THE CITY'S REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AS AN
AMENDMENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
BACKGROUND
The South Shore Revitalization Strategy was prepared by Freilich and Leitner, P.C., Post,
Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., Halcyon Corporation, and the City of Miami Beach
Planning Department. The Plan was prepared with continuing input and guidance of the
Mayor's Ad Hoc Committee on Planned Area Developmoent for South Shore. If adopted by
the City Commission, the Revitalization Strategy will replace the South Shore
Redevelopment Plan adopted March 2, 1977. The Revitalization Strategy will also be
adopted as an amendment to the Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan.
LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
The Plan, initiated in December, 1982, was completed on schedule in mid June, 1983.
During the period July - October, 1983, the Plan was presented to the Redevelopment
Agency, the City Commission, and to the Planning Board. As required by State Statutes the
Planning Board conducted public hearings on the Plan and finalized its recommendations to
the Agency and the City Commission at a special meeting on October 17, 1983. The City
Commission at its meeting on October 19, 1983 was then able to transmit the Plan to the
appropriate State, Regional, and County Planning agencies for official review and comment.
Florida State law mandates that these agencies must be allowed a 60 day review time
period. The City has now received official comments from all three (3) agencies
summarized as follows:
- Florida State Department of Community Affairs; dated December 5, 1983 (Attached):
indicate no objection to the proposed plan amendment
- Metro Dade Department of Planning, dated December 20, 1983 (attached): indicates
consistency of the Plan with the Dade County Comprehensive Development Master
Plan.
- South Florida Regional Planning Council, dated January 11, 1984: indicates that the
Plan is consist with requirements pertaining to comprehensive plans and with other
elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The communication does suggest that the
new plan represents a substantial deviation from the previously adopted redevelopment
plan, and therefore it may be necessary for the City to prepare a new Development of
Regional Impact (DRI) document. The City and its consultants are currently
challenging this determination in communications to the State Department of
Community Affairs.
CCM MIISSI O'N
MEETING
FEB 15 RN AGENDA
ITEM R.. 3_ r
v
C1a OF MIAMI BEACH
•
kDATE �— L - •
COMMISSION MEMO
SOUTH SHORE
FEBRUARY 15, 1984
PAGE TWO
The Redevelopment Agency at its last meeting on January 18, 1984 officially adopted a
resolution recommending approval of the proposed plan and subsequent modifications
proposed by the consultants and the Planning Department. The Redevelopment Agency did
modify the recommendations pertaining to the Miami Beach Warehouse #100 in order to
clarify the City's development position on the structure. This change has been made in the
attached material.
SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTS
Attached to this memo is a summary of the South Shore Revitalization Plan as prepared by
the City's consultants. In addition to the review of the Plan, the City Commission must also
consider a series of technical amendments and modifications suggested jointly by the
Planning Department, the City's consultants and the Planning Board.
The adoption of the South Shore Plan is accomplished via the adoption of an ordinance
(attached) which amends the City's Comprehensive Plan and modifies the existing
Redevelopment Plan.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATIONS
1) It is recommended that, with one exception, all of the modifications suggested by the
Planning Board, Planning Department and consultants be adopted. The Administration
feels that Planning Board modification "A" is not an appropriate revision for inclusion
in the Plan; the issues of an independent Redevelopment Agency may be an item the
City Commission would want to reconsider after the adoption of the Plan.
2) It is recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached ordinance amending
the City's Comprehensive Plan and modifying the City's Redevelopment Plan.
RWP/SAY/rg
COMMISSION
MEETIRG
.CltY OF MIAMI BEACH •
o
0 0 a) H i
v H Cd wo
4J
0 a) 0 H 0 +-1
M N 'a) C) LH CB •r-i
O 9r1 a) ,0 •r-1 H
N cd 3-+ o
.0 ) A. E .0
•> -4-) o cd aa)i c°
a)
CO
a • C.4 0 m a v
Z0
a a, - ro o
H �+ 4J >, a)
L7 o 0 4J > o
H W rC a) H CCI a) 4J
2 'a ul a) d-)
4J aa)) 'C as‘
H r-I 4J
C o o •r•4
ao 0 a
0 o
0 >,r) 6.0 U o
+) a) •r-1 as a)
0. .0 0 .0 ,C D
.0 a) H 0 0 C)
cn P-w ;-J cr) r�
0