The URL can be used to link to this page

SOUTH SHORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY PLAN CITY OF MIAM ___ '_.o.ACH -4- - :--- ' IIS-t-I I ilti � Y ; + ,_;- I _ 11 11 , II ; , I ; I , , I , . I , 11 ; 1t ; -r-t-47-1-i-1,- ; WI - i I 1 I I I t i i i ; 1 1 1 ` 4I-4- --6-' I , I ; I -t--+--� ;;;--t-->- t ; 1--;;--,-- - f ; ; r- -4-- -T-; ' 1 I +_ 1 , 1 { 1 I I I I I 1 I I I , -I -T-+-t I i _ I f I f I I h h ! { I /i I ' , i I iii l i i t i i 1 i i i , ? H i t i ; itI , ? MOOR /UR RRN 11 r I I I I ► i I , ? , ; I l I I I i I i ? C T 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l i 1 1 it : -L ; 4 i- i 1 I I I 1 I I 1 i , / , I I , 1• ; 1 1 1 i I , l 1 , ; I i l ; I 1 , f 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 I • i l i i : l l +-4-- -t ' . T r ; h II . 1 i+ I ` ? • • • , ; \ , ,, -i11 ; , ! ` j L�. aiiir I 1 I i, ,_4-- -1--I - l 1 ! ',H-4-I 1 i t f 4 1 -�}-� I r I , , , i i ;-" • I t ` -t-'"f_'}"-�--r �__t-+-}_?-;'T_- - i- _ -4.--1--1 -4---4--4-- • --'-Y-I , I I 1 I t ,4TTII.__� i___Ii._.L-'l_ _1._l.i1-4-'-'4---L---Lt-T-'-1__L' I 1 ; : , { j , , 1�1 I , , , I , I , . I • � ; I 1 , .. ; , I , I t til . �• i�..-, ,--4--i-±-+--1--4-- - t---i---4.----1-17-ti I I •1 i ! i i i { 1 -. { ' i \ __,- i _1 Tit__._-•-- _--•�. 1, "--f--1--4 r i I ! , ( I { 1 1 f } ` I 4 1 I I 1 1 1 ! 11 1 -t-{ t, I 4.- r-' I I I 1 +--}---} ; 1 1 , i i , `1 I I _ _-i { i I i i i t ? { ; i t 1 1 1 1 ; 1 1, { I i " ti lit ' itI Iit I Oil l i i l l i l l I i l I i l 3 ! , • I I I 1 i ; 1 1 1 HH ,-•-}- i. i i i i { { i , i ,I l i t 11111111111111M111111111111•1110111111111111111 I , ' if i ; l I . I ii t { I i ► ! jli NNS ) ' I , I 1 I � { j j1 M� I N Ili ; ll ± _ 1 , N I I 1, , 1i } f1 i ; ; 11i I . . 1 . i 1 1 ; i i 1_ i i i Y I } } I 1 1 + h i l t t i I 141 1 IH.f• f• 1 ; { { I ; 1 ' I • 4 ; 1 t I ' i t ; t i { i + I t 11- 1. --t t t- { � } + -f t t -t t th ft : i- + i; , - . . ;..moi I t ! ' 1 i t i , t { { itltjl 1 / 1 . . } i i l , i . . , i 1 1 1 . . . t 1 REVITALIZATION STRATEGY OCTOBER 1983 SOUTH SHORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY PREPARED FOR CITY OF MIAMI BEACH THE MAYOR'S AD HOC COMMITTEE ON PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT FOR SOUTH SHORE PREPARED BY FREILICII & LEITNER, P.C. POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN, INC. HALYCON, LTD. MIAMI BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING JULY 1983 CITY COMMISSION MAYOR NORMAN CIMENT COMMISSIONER ALEX DAOUD COMMISSIONER DR. LEONARD HABER COMMISSIONER SY J. EISENBERG COMMISSIONER BRUCE SINGER COMMISSIONER MALCOM H. FROMBERG COMMISSIONER LEONARD 0. WEINSTEIN ROB W. PARKINS, CITY MANAGER MAYOR'S AD HOC COMMITTEE ON PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT FOR SOUTH SHORE (PAD) ARTHUR COURSHON ROBERT L. TURCHIN BESSIE GALBUT RONALD MOLKO ROBERT REILLEY GEORGE GOLDBLOOM MARK ADAMS CITY OF MIAMI BEACH STAFF SANFORD A. YOUKILIS, AICP, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ROBERT BANKS, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER/PROJECT COORDINATOR FRANK AYMONIN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS iii LIST OF EXHIBITS vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY x 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. PURPOSE 2 3. THE REVITALIZATION PLANNING PROCESS 6 - Introduction 6 - Research and Analysis Phase 6 - Goals, Objectives and Design Concept Phase 6 - Planning and Recommendation Phase 7 4. RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS - Introduction 8 - Marketing Overview 9 - Area Context 10 - Environmental Factors 13 - Utilities 16 - Circulation and Access 19 - Social Aspects 23 - Susceptibility to Change 24 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE 5. PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES 32 - Purpose 32 - Issues 32 6. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 39 - Introduction 39 - Issue: Form/Function/Design 40 - Issue: Circulation and Parking 42 - Issue: Social/Economic 43 7. THE PLAN 44 - The Concept 46 - Land Use Plan 46 - Amenity Plan 58 - Infrastructure Plan 58 8. DESIGN GUIDELINES 69 - Introduction 69 - Urban Design Guidelines 69 - Environmental Guidelines 70 - Renovation Guidelines 72 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE 9. URBAN DESIGN GRAPHICS 75 - Design Principles 76 - Design Plan Framework 77 - Design Plan Implementation 83 10. ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 89 - Public Property: Development Guidelines 89 - Property Acquisition, Property Disposition, Property 94 Demolition, Rehabilitation, and Relocation - Private Property: Development Guidelines 96 11. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 109 - Alternative Funding Sources and Methods 109 - Preferred Financing Strategy 114 - Capital Improvement Program 114 APPENDICES A. MARKETING TRENDS AND FORECASTS/FINANCING STRATEGY A-1 B. 1980 CENSUS PROFILES B-1 v TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDICES Cont. PAGE C. HISTORICAL SITES C-1 D. AGGREGATED PARCELS D-1 E. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SOUTH SHORE REVITALIZATION SITE E-1 F. ZONING PRO FORMAS F-1 G. CONFORMANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT G-1 AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING ACT OF 1975 vi LIST OF EXHIBITS PAGE South Shore PAD Land Use Concept Plan 5 Existing Land Use 11 Existing Zoning District Map 12 Schematic Design South Shore Park 14 Environmental Constraints 15 Existing Water Lines 17 Existing Sanitary Sewer Lines 18 Existing Roads 20 Existing On-Street Parking 21 Existing Traffic Signals 22 Susceptibility to Change Matrix 24 Age of Existing Structures 25 City-Owned Land 26 Parcel Aggregation 27 Existing Condition of Structures 28 Structures of Historical/Architectural Significance 29 Existing Density Units/Acre 30 vii LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued) PAGE Susceptibility to Change 31 Concept Sketch 45 Aerial Perspective 47 Proposed Land Use Map 49 Parcel Acreage 50 Urban Neighborhood 52 Marina Upland Area 54 Retail Core 55 South Shore Park 57 Conceptual Drawing 59 Amenity Plan 60 Proposed Transportation Network 62 Existing Typical Intersection 64 Proposed Water Lines 67 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Lines 68 Site Furnishings 79 Typical Handicap Ramp 80 viii LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued) PAGE Signage 81 Lighting 82 Causeway at South Shore 84 3rd Street and Washington Avenue 85 South Shore Park Promenade 86 5th Street 87 5th Street and Washington Avenue 88 Proposed Zoning District Map 98 ix eXEcu1NE 50tAMisif3 ( functionally diverse urban Office - The Miami Beach Boulevard neighborhood/resort community. (Fifth Street) corridor is to be a mixed-use area with retail o To involve minimum relocation activities required on the ground and condemnation. floor and office and residential uses allowed above the first floor. IsAcK6.F{ooko o To enhance the diversity of form Pedestrian activity will be and activity through the use of encouraged along this corridor. established planning and design South Shore, the earliest area in the principles. Residential - The area located City of Miami Beach to develop, has between First and Fourth Streets and suffered economic and physical o To create a traffic system that extending from Alton Road to the decline since World War II . To adequately serves both through- ocean is a residential neighborhood. reverse this process, the South Shore and local-traffic needs of the The plan envisions low intensity Redevelopment Agency was created in area. residential development adjacent to 1973. The agency prepared a the marina and Alton Road, redevelopment plan, pursuant to the Land Use transitioning to high rise Community Redevelopment Act, which development along the ocean. called for "predominant clearance" of The land use plan is characterized buildings and the selection of a by these primary features: Retail Core - This area, located in master developer. In 1982, after six the southern portion of South Shore years of attempts to select a master o A peripheral waterfront linear between Biscayne Street and First developer, the City abandoned the park system. Street and between Jefferson Avenue 1976 Redevelopment Plan and appointed and Ocean Drive, is planned for an Ad Hoc Committee on Planned Area o A resort area relating to the neighborhood and tourist-oriented Development (PAD) to prepare a new linear park commercial uses. Residential uses revitalization strategy for the area. will be allowed above the first o An urban neighborhood core floor. The I ' V TAUlA1(ON 6-MAT ( flA14o A central retail core serving Marina Upland Area - This area lies both the resort development and between Fifth Street and Biscayne Four major goals of the the urban neighborhood area Street, east of Alton Road. Central revitalization strategy are as marina facilities to service the follows: The generalized land uses of the 400-slip South Shore marina, South Shore Revitalization Strategy including a 300-slip dry storage o To reestablish the area as an are as follows: economically viable and x area, will be constructed on a The Alton Road - First Street - They provide a natural portion of this site. Tourist and Washington Avenue corridor will environment for the residents of marina-oriented retail and hotel uses offer primary circulation through the urban neighborhood, and also will be encouraged in this area. A the South Shore area and offer provide an essential base for triangular parcel east of Alton Road, access to the principal residential the resort development. south of Miami Beach Boulevard and and commercial areas. A second west of Michigan Avenue is proposed loop, utilizing the Jefferson Avenue o Eliminating the existing unsafe for additional marina-related (south of First Street) - Biscayne intersections creates small development if the South Beach Street - Ocean Drive corridors, will right-of-way areas that may be Elementary School can be relocated. supplement the primary loop by developed as pedestrian amenity offering access to the recreational areas. Hotel - The plan envisions and other commercial areas. development of the former Miami Beach O14P5A14 VE1516/4 GUIp6U/4E5 Kennel Club site located south of Amenity Plan Biscayne Street as a resort hotel. The Revitalization Strategy contains An additional hotel site is The Revitalization Strategy contains design guidelines and standards to designated on the ocean between First an Amenity Plan of improvements provide South Shore with a "total and Second Streets. designed to enhance the aesthetic image" environment - a water- character of the neighborhood. oriented community in which to live, Parks and Open Space - Several parks work and play. exist in the area, including three o The arterial loop will provide beachfront parks. South Shore Park, the first view of South Shore ZoNIN6 AND LAMP LICE5 CONTROLS located at the southernmost tip of for many; it will also continue Miami Beach, will include active and to provide the visual experience Eminent Domain - The plan envisions passive recreational facilities, a for visitor and resident alike. the use of eminent domain in limited restaurant, and an ampitheatre. A circumstances only. Appropriate pedestrian walkway system is planned uses of eminent domain include: linking the beachfront parks, South o Four east-west roads - - Third Shore Park, and South Shore Marina. Street, Second Street, First o To acquire small parcels Street, and Biscayne Street - - necessary for public Traffic Circulation System - Loop provide access to two oceanfront improvements. System parks and to the City-owned bayside marina property. o To complete lot assemblage in a The plan proposes a circulation block provided more than 50 system of two interconnected loops. o The linear waterfront parks percent of the lot is in single constitute an important amenity. ownership. xi o To acquire properties that are a General o Use of floor area ratio and lot blighting influence on the coverage requirements to create redevelopment area. o Base-level intensities as of a land use intensity scale. right (but based on compliance Property Disposition - Municipal with applicable performance o Use of an open space ratio. property can be disposed of through standards) and maximum competitive bidding or competitive intensities obtainable only by Residential negotiations. Municipal property acquisition of bonuses and transferred to private use to incentives. o A minimum square footage for implement the plan will be subject to each dwelling unit and a minimum "designation and development o Provision of substantial average dwelling unit square agreements" obligating purchasers or incentives for aggregation of footage for the entire lessees to devote such property to parcels. development. uses specified in the plan. o Incentives for amenities, o Use of occupant and total Regulation of Private Property design,, underground parking, parking ratios. environmental sensitivity, Development Agreements - When scale, height, view o Within the urban neighborhood, development occurs on private preservation, and other varying intensities of property, developers will be features. residential development, the encouraged to obtain a "development lowest near Alton Road and agreement" by which the City will o Requirements for landscaping, gradually increasing to the make a commitment not to alter the open space, and design elements highest east of Collins Avenue. zoning for a specified time in return as part of required site and for commitments by the developer as development plan approval to construction of improvements, processes. Commercial provision of public facilities or amenities, timing and sequencing of o A height limitation overlay o Provision for mixed-use development, etc. zone. developments and for mixed-use structures (i.e. , first floor Zoning o Required underground and retail with offices or structural parking, as opposed residential above). The proposed zoning contained in the to surface parking. Revitalization Strategy Plan has the o Nonresidential development following characteristics: intensities geared to adjacent xii residential uses and intensities, o Tax increment financing to the transportation system, to o Marina lease payments the open space network, and to the size and scale of surrounding o Marina upland development development. o Special assessment districts o Emphasis on retail commercial o Community development block development, including grant restaurants, services and related o Urban development action grant uses. o Sewer and water grant o Residential development as a permitted use in these Capital Improvement Program nonresidential areas, subject to the applicable standards as The 5-year capital improvement specified for R-PS 1-4 program required to implement Phase subdistricts. I of the South Shore Revitalization Strategy totals $7 millon. This o Office development as a permitted capital improvement program includes use. street improvement, creation of an arterial loop system, and water and Nonresidential development sewer improvements. intensities will vary in accordance with the role and location of each of these areas in the overall Revitalization Plan context and strategy. mete MENYA11O t PKOC2RAM Financing The financing of the South Shore Revitalization Strategy will rely on the following funding sources: xiii Wi I. I NT tW D UCI 10M i� 4.0 AN INVEtTMENT NEiV4oRk *" 'f0.- �� ' 'M . �.. , The Revitalization Strategy for o Providing a decision-making ��/ A '� �"�� South Shore is characterized by guide for the Redevelopment '�, ` `. ,� ',' several key features that are Agency to direct uses and a,;i _ f �I reflected in the plan developed for program improvements. the area. This plan is: r ,! �;1.47 .i �mt _ 1'— ��._ o Creating a known base of public ~ R mum- ~ • investments to attract private • funds. bIMPLX AhiD t"i1 AI6HTI1WARD o Establishing long-term 0 o Retaining the existing street stability. 1 --1 pattern. Ail 14-- • -1 o Building on existing land uses. JoR�NIT.ED Al t)?4D l PIS T's MI6" o Providing solutions limited in T. L��'"�"'�' j scope and capable of timely Il . . implementation. o Determining where change should �� "� —ki"� occur. ��,� o Representing public/private • NEAL-ItTIL opportunities. 4\114ii o Developing a strong concept with investment. o Creating an environment for 4,(41 ''I both staff and community .' / representative input. o Including historic preservation C014515TI4T \MIR REMO AGTIVIT1&S a. .41b, ilk..�. and revitalization. o Promoting historical continuity ��= o Providing numerous opportunities with adjacent Miami Beach for private development. Historic District activity. ="■�* o Disrupting existingpatterns to ��.,'V� ♦Np P 9 o approach a no-surprise a minimal extent. approach to solutions. 1 2. ?UK ro3E yVHY THE Re PE VE LOPM est WAVEGT? The numerous problems currently into effect for the entire South conditions on South Shore had besetting the South Shore area were Shore area; and, pursuant to the deteriorated socially, structurally, actually born out of actions Community Redevelopment Act, the and aesthetically. On July 21, occurring in the earliest years of area was declared "blighted." The 1982, the Mayor's Ad Hoc Committee the area's development. The raw land Agency and its consultant team began for Planned Area Development (PAD) was originally laid out in a simple preparation of the South Shore Plan for South Shore was officially grid pattern of streets for in 1976, emphasizing "predominant created by the City Commission to residential development with single clearance" of buildings and develop a new zoning and land use 50- by 100-foot lots the norm. structures in the area. It also plan for South Shore (see Page 5). Development occured primarily in the employed the concept of a "master On January 5, 1983, the City south at first with small hotels and developer": one developer to be Commission lifted the building rooming houses constructed to responsible for developing the moratorium on South Shore and accommodate the tourist market. entire site. adopted the Interim Development (ID) Following World War II, growth on Ordinance. The PAD Committee then Miami Beach turned more to the north Of primary importance to the plan adopted a series of development to find sites large enough for the was the extensive internal canal policy decisions recommended by the hotel/resort complexes demanded by system, which generated strong City's Planning Department. It also the new tourism boom. Not able to opposition. Another controversial endorsed a Land Use Concept Plan for compete with the large luxury hotels, issue was the required relocation of South Shore. the small South Shore hotels began the area's over 6,000 residents. converting to residential hotels or After six years of debate and with The following are the Adopted PAD lowering their rates. As a result, no "master developer" who was Development Policies as stated in the elderly, fixed-income population willing to satisfy all of the City's the PAD Committee's Phase I Report: and the poor began to move into the requirements, the City abandoned the area. plan in 1982. The Redevelopment "1) Selective clearance of Agency was disbanded and the City deteriorated and unsafe Commission took over its functions. structures; 2) New construction on cleared parcels; Responding to both the specific decline of South Shore and the 3) In-fill development of existing general loss of tourism throughout After nine years, during which the vacant parcels; all Miami Beach, the South Shore ban on building renovation or even Redevelopment Agency was created in major repairs was in effect, 4) Repairs and rehabilitation of 1973; a building moratorium was put existing structures; and 2 5) Preservation of structures of from Phase I to fund m. reconfirm the policy historic or architectural necessary redevelopment statement in the ordinance significance; more specifically activities in Phase II; itself." delineated as follows: h. consideration of Phase II of The PAD Concept Plan proposes a a. retention of existing Redevelopment Plan for tourist-oriented neighborhood along structures through repair and specific, definable projects the ocean and bay with a residential rehabilitation, when feasible, that could be bid and neighborhood in the interior area. and with compliance of City implemented independently of Public access to the bay and ocean standards; other projects, if is encouraged 9 by provision of a 50- determined as feasible by foot pedestrian and bicycle path b. demolition of deteriorated and the Mayor's Ad Hoc Committee along the shoreline. Fifth Street unsafe structures; for Planned Area Development is proposed as a high density mixed- for South Shore (PAD); use corridor with commercial c. new construction on presently activity encouraged at grade level . vacant or cleared parcels, i . minimization of relocation; Density in the PAD Concept Plan including land currently in varies from residential low to public ownership; j. maximization of elderly, low medium (24 - 60 units per acre) to and moderate income housing residential high (125 units per d., preservation of structures of within the overall acre). historic and architectural implementation plan for significance; project; In January 1983, the City hired consultants for planning and legal e. development of South Shore k. individual private issues related to the South Shore Park; developers for specific redevelopment p program; in March parcels and projects rather 1983, subconsultants were engaged to f. City investment in needed than a master developer for conduct engineering research public facilities and the entire area; studies, marketing and feasibility utilities; studies, and urban design studies. 1 . use of tax increments for The Draft Redevelopment Plan, now g. phasing of new private specific projects and for known as the Revitalization Strategy development in the area planning/legal work Plan, and accompanying zoning consistent with tax increment necessary in conjunction ordinances were completed in June financing requirements and with this plan revision; 1983. The entire approval process utilization of tax increments 3 for the Revitalization Strategy Plan, including that required for the amendment to the adopted Comprehensive Plan as per Florida Statute 163.3187, and for the revised Redevelopment Plan and Implementation Strategy, in conformance with Florida Statute 163.361, is to be completed by December 31, 1983. 4 '1 11 ll , 1__ W I Y > W_-\'�_\'.1\ i� _�-11= 14 �111- taw n/ T1[iT?JjP M mom! ■■ & J! tic" .. ., . ni,.. 16. - , Odd/I! _____ 4 1........•S y MI FM IMO T .... IAN I07/0Z� •-- a : :I. / / i�`, f 1 [s'J c ,o W / ‘N j rr r il uP s Pyil �, . ___-e____ ill e) niESO r ( 4flfl/71hf r I� I, I ` `,�MEA7-7„, ,,,L___:_,,,,, li , ►ao2TH ♦" SM..-1•14 •ISCAYNEr--.ST —.. il I it H I i /ii .i LEGEND i L I i r A - RESIDENTIAL - LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY 24 to 60 U/A. rel E -RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY 60 U/A. C - RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY 125 U/A. .4...a D - RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY 125 U/A. ` E - RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY 125 U/A. 1� F - MIXED USE - HOTEL/RES. G - MIXED USE - HOTEL/RES. \\ H - MIXED USE - HOTEL/RES. I - MIXED USE - HOTEL/RES. _ GROUND LEVEL PARXING J - COMMERCIAL - OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL. K - RETAIL COMPLEX L - SOUTH SHORE PARK M -'CITY MARINA/UTILITIES P - PARK SOUTH SHORE PAD LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN 5 Y , N\ O • SOUTH SHORE , >,/, #*, \ • REVITALIZATION LEGEND 'l j ,l •4 \ STRATEGY H SIGNIFICANT •� `s ` , #\ EXISTING HISTORICAL ;.,,* , �f \1 # # s SITES/STRUCTURES OK MOST SIGNIFICANT � , , o \\. ,0 / h FVc/• I ' cam a , / •••\ N '•. #147, , ,/, 4.1 \,may, m , ...\. . ./.• Fra , �Q� s ' s N- ',.‘ *- , .`9 '� tip , :Ai..n' ''.4'\'''''' v .01:3 'e\e, 4 . �� y VIII ♦ �I \s,„(414114.1.4sAll 41,/,00- . . . . 44 iiii/ 4,40.4 I 1/49,;7„...*..t-4 6 .z.,,, "4 ip - 4 4 +\,, iti i . 4 <t A. i - 414,,,, ..f.t" i # t& ‘*4* l'j 14 i el 414. .... 146 / j' ell.4 b,,., h0/ 440# 4. Q j4 *4 ii* �, I f/ ..4w . ) ' ''''. ' ' K. 4 j �� /� 1 4, cg 4 os. ,* a • I? A° � 4w 44. : ,Z ,e2 . / Z9 i . (") `g a�Pa / -, ,�' ALTON RD. 0 0° ® 0'3 • THE R' NITALIiATIDM PLANNI t\l Lp FISOC 55 . 4c Alfa,Ot EGTI VEs,AJ4D De51(on I'Ow)DUCT lovi CONCE PT l }ASE Any effective plan is constructed issues, and directions were The goals, objectives, and design around a process that is a logical identified. South Shore has certain concept phase gave direction to series of activities, with each strengths upon which improvements development of the preliminary plan activity building on the previous can be built. It also has numerous and produced the foundation upon one. The diagram below shows the problems which must be recognized so which the final plan is built. The process and program used in that the actions formulated will goals, objectives, and design developing the South Shore eliminate or at least lessen their principles for the South Shore Revitalization Strategy. The final impact. In addition to physical Revitalization Strategy were based South Shore Revitalization Strategy changes, changes in attitude have upon original revitalization Plan represents the culmination of occurred during the past several policies adopted by the PAD the collection, evaluation, and years which affect the physical, Committee and further expanded after projection of the major physical, social and economic structure of the definition and analysis of the urban design, social, and economic area. These changes have been problems, opportunities, and issues. factors which influence and impact gradual; thus their magnitude is the area. often concealed. As a result, clear Several alternative land use articulation of the problems, patterns were developed for the opportunities and conditions has planning area and each was tested RE�EARG�A,titD� �'� RtQ+� been of utmost importance in against the affirmed goals, �( reaching the next phase of the objectives, and design principles. planning process - - defining the In the research and analysis phase of goals and objectives for the the process, problems, opportunities, project. --- -— --- - - - vzrA mr-rlrxr IL M.vxrnrY, r rnw-. I— I I l urmw MAW I __ I --� ,�urt�ncrwr. �� I �rr►FFe nxv+ l�wnn 11— r tm 4 I 4o►is �;uev I _r+etulnVer .- F I tI A L_ T IMU-Tits `- a A'tra�rl,rt1Srt14S — vsfircnvrs kTeicriw►vt- rtavi r LAN I_ BMr crICHTAL FACIVOIS I I u I-1 rpccsAri Ire To � I I ‹r- rArGH 4 tir-1.tLI- 51} .O rt LG P7"UAL! rLAHr11r-i',/r-efccr1neript-'(nti r. H A .C. r H A - r H A 1= ' 6 PLANNING AND F{ecOMMEJ4PAT101u PHASE The plan that has emerged and is involve not land use or zoning described in Section 7 is the result issues but rather possible changes of the logical and effective in the infrastructure of the area. progression of the planning process. It also reflects the high degree of interaction between the City's planning staff, the PAD Committee, and the consultant team. The urban design elements included have been developed to give a three- dimensional quality to the plan by t- t' illustrating scale and character, space and mass, graphics and +11111111111 1111110 furnishings. They are an integral part of the Revitalization Strategy - 1--1 and, as such, communicate urban 12:211::::1)=1 design, architectural , and environmental principles important to the physical , economic, and WI I illll 111011 li environmental success of the revitalization of South Shore. The preliminary South Shore Revitalization Strategy Plan was presented to the PAD Committee on May 2, 1983 and, after careful review, was approved in principle by the Committee. Alternative planning issues yet to be resolved generally depend upon the outcome of the school relocation problem. Other alternatives to be considered 7 4. PM C t AND AKIAL�5I5 A; ' I. I! I ,ii. tlllil ISI III I I'. Bounded on the north by Sixth Utilities - A review of the primary . ' Street, on the east by the Atlantic support systems - - water, sewer and Ocean, on the west by Biscayne Bay, drainage - - for planning strategy. o and on the south by Government Cut, L the 246-acre area known as South Circulation and Access - A Shore includes the entire southern preliminary analysis of the critical . • tip of Miami Beach. Although circulation patterns, access, and possessing a magnificent natural parking and transit systems. Nelip setting edged on three sides by water, South Shore contains a Social Aspects - A profile of the , , fmixture of incompatible uses residents who will be affected by I II'combined with residential and any plan for redevelopment and �'I�I II IIIIIIl°) commercial structures which are revitalization. among the oldest, the most crowded and the most deteriorated on Miami Susceptibility to Change - A �r'� ! • \' Beach. synthesis of the site analysis with ��s _ ti focus on positive change within the : . W 3� I The following description and existing context. I ` (:Lanalysis of existing conditions onILI I South Shore consider the major factors affecting the development of 1 (i "--'' a viable plan for revitalization: ' Marketing Overview - An assessment JLJ1i'1►L1UILL of the marketing potentials of South Shore. 6 trTG►l� 11 -1- Area Area Context - An overview of SII lilliii,,: . „ x' tin land usesandpatterns. existing , ilhi Environmental Factors - A discussion tLUi 10111111.,if. thiJ(�of the environmental issues and - primary implications related to any new plan. - _1,I+il;,«f` ;;I lir,' I ' 1, II 1111 i ,� , ,I 8 MIat2KEYiwo ovERVi w. w tAT i -fHE R rraWriAL MARKET? I-etai I hate I The development potentials for South o An excellent potential o There is a strong potential Shore which emerged from the analysis exists for a marina-oriented for a new large-scale (600 of appropriate data and the review of specialty center, with to 1,000 room) destination/ previous land use concepts are emphasis on restaurants and resort hotel at the former summarized below. The complete food service appealing to Kennel Club site. Market Analysis and Development conventioneers, other Potentials report is found in visitors, and area o One or two additional Appendix A. residents. The speciality smaller new hotels can be . center should be part of a built in conjunction with mixed-use center with hotel the marina/specialty center. and office uses. re iderittaI o As new hotel facilities are o As housing develops, a developed, there will be o The luxury condominium market market will exist for good potential for is overbuilt at present, but a community-oriented retail in renovating existing strong long-term potential the South Shore area, facilities to capture exists. Increased amenities particularly along Fifth overflow and lower-priced and interim mixed-use Street and Washington demands. development can set the stage Avenue. for the timely development of luxury condominiums. o Middle income condominiums OrrIGG ($60,000 to $100,000) can be supported by the market at a o Professional offices in the density of 60 units per acre marina-oriented mixed-use (and higher) and with existing development exhibit a market land prices. Given current potential . land prices, lower density development (24 units per o As the area develops and acre) is not feasible. after the above initial development is fully leased, IP °o Moderate income/rental units additional professional I can be provided only through office space could be I the rehabilitation of existing supported along Fifth �!buildings. Street. ' 9 AREA GO 1,11 )(1" W RtAT ARE;TItE PRe E.1-T U5E5 AND AGTIYIYIE15 IN WUTtt*HDFZE? South Shore is a mixture of uses, residences in the southern part of appropriate uses for the site are structures, and activities reflecting the site is still another example of now contemplated. the waves of development which have incompatible land uses placed occurred over the years (see Existing together. In addition, since few The core district - - which lies Land Use Map, page 11, and Zoning personal services and commercial between Washington Avenue and Alton District Map, page 12. ) Over 46 uses are located in South Shore, Road - - is predominantly percent of the area is in public residents must travel out of the residential in character and ownership (streets, parks, public area for necessary goods and contains some of the oldest service, etc. ), 29 percent is in services. structures in South Shore; but the residential or transient use, and the southern portion contains a mixture remainder in commercial and parking South Shore's basic land-use of warehouses, residences and uses (see City-Owned Land Map, page districts are delineated by the apartment buildings, many of which 26). existing major circulation are in a state of deterioration. corridors. Fifth Street, the major The Miami Beach Police Station, The existing types of development do east-west corridor, contains mostly which is located in this district, not foster an attractive urban residential and commercial will be relocated as soon as a new neighborhood resort community activities, with numerous automotive building is completed on the old environment. For example, the prime uses, several small hotels, and some City Hall site. area lying between Biscayne Bay and residential structures. Alton Road contains a plethora of Also located in this area is the development including government The district east of Washington South Beach Elementary School . buildings and facilities (police Avenue running south to Biscayne Closed in 1978 because of the small records, marine patrol, maintenance Street contains a mixture of old and number of students attending it, the areas, etc. ), the Miami Beach Marina, new, small and large apartment school building was leased to the and two subsidized housing buildings; nursing homes; hotels; City of Miami Beach, first for South developments. Most of these uses do city parks; a branch library; and Shore Redevelopment Agency not take advantage of their location synagogues. The majority of the headquarters and more recently for which is one of the most positive structures in this area are in CETA-funded city programs. The features of the South Shore area. relatively good condition with only lease has now been cancelled, minor deficiencies (see Existing however, and the School Board plans Before it was recently demolished, Condition of Structures Map, page to repair and reopen the facility as the Kennel Club and its attendant 28, and Age of Existing Structures an Adult Education Center. parking along the oceanfront was Map, page 25). As noted, the Miami another example of failure to utilize Beach Kennel Club was formerly -- South Shore's potential . The located in this area, but more ,", intermingling of warehouses and ? 7> ; 10 _= ----- 11111114 ' \\` SOUTH SHORE 4/• 4"4/�j°�/ , •\ .• REVITALIZATION �� . � '�� STRATEGY LEGEND % / • \ . . . . Mg SINGLE FAMILY ,'`�t.. s /�\ EXISTING LAND USE IIIIIII� MULTI-FAMILY ..4/) V �q�y/ ,��i,%�'�R:,,/'�•� /�/ //j/ ON COMMERCIAL \ . . ��A'.41titiy' '''�� Oj ///. ti, g INTENSIVE ��G� :!�� b PSA COMMERCIAL C4 i ......' V/4 PUBLIC/INSTITUTI /�/ Q° N.:';' /� k . A• PARK �,.:ify,;�''//��;` pJv / / �////i i �� VACANT r: / N i // �� ; -• Op4, ..,,,:v• 0,;,- , "Acp...., 0 .',:: / ,,,, '..a.:::,* / �� / e% ....:1P � /7. , ii '/// TJ °' J. / .0 , e/ 4 .;;t1 N... ct, ,/ -iiiiiiifr__. . .... „ , „:„.„.„,,,.. .... 40 iii , _ , 44. Co ' ‘ .6 00)49 OP 4, / :•j, �/ �,� /fes: ., , kik! �/..:+04.E%A& r7�Ij��l�fi rlj} 'i �// 41�•e : : / '4,.. :174 4„ :./../ i 'J'jlr=:,'t,• •�f' 4000 �� /b.. 'f AY U,;phi i .,, y / ,. . . r{:,fr .f ;:+�1 ALTON RD. ' ./ , ...,• ... `'S" 0 FP//f ' / '- - (.........9 • 1\1- \� SOUTH SHORE /. / \ REVITALIZATION LEGEND , A \ • STRATEGY s� ,, ,, EXISTING C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS ,\ • ZONING DISTRICT MAP C-5 GENERAL BUSINESS *,� 4 / C-6 INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL ; Q) / /., 1 A 4.• ', ,\ . M-U MUNICIPAL USE N ��; \ MR MARINE RECREATION �,4 / ' / ,, C-`5 M s + , `0, �t RM-60 MULTIPLE FAMILY f e.,/ ,• MEDIUM DENSITY 4%. / fit, �, ,RM-100 MULTIPLE FAMILY J ; ,MEDIUM HIGH , / �' � , DENSITY , A/F ♦♦ �9 \- , /, • R I./ coq ♦� l M '% /' ' ' •\7•%% ' 001 ‘1PIC'Q*-. 1 ..41 . / /4pqk *)\ < %S% 4.Slop%%‘ ) : . . . .• 4-Abb* o4, 4/ c° i 9► ' v 0/ 4*, . ty,1/44-,(,:), /; , 4./ 1 I /, '4,/0 ' 44.4.4 / . (1 \11 • •2/ ' , /i; I Q .P 1')1•`'<-4', , 4- 4 '' .1, qr la 4 /7::: .%• 0/ •• ' " `c% . " •/iiph 4 4 r/4I4 l - (., . , \\7?\\*."---.. *------4-0/4. il'i.0:000 t . 4 4 I/1 ,f.0 ' 6 .9 - , / , 77-..---• — -- , 10- 7,,,,,, ZA ' WilikwW14, :4-7>,• /i/ " . ':i .'.1 ':- . -e ,# e.Afise ♦ • 6 . )\ 4.__._._ .:/L j M-U 7.7." 10 Y 0 1 As previously described, the fourth Beach Kennel Club and the U.S. Army Because of the possibility of major land use district lies between Corps of Engineers District flooding associated with hurricanes Alton Road and Biscayne Bay and Headquarters along Government Cut. along the coastline, coastal extends south along Government Cut. Revitalization of South Shore must regulations have been formulated Most of the land is owned by the City respond to the site's unique based on the 100-year flood of Miami Beach. The site,formerly location and the proximity of the criterion (see Environmental used by the U.S. Army Corps of ocean and bay. Constraints Map, page 15) . South Engineers, is now being planned for Shore falls into one of the the South Shore Park (see Schematic The subtropical marine climate of flood-prone zones designated on the Design Map, page 14) . The central Miami Beach, with its persistent Federal Administration Rate Map. marina facilities located in this flow of air, offers the potential The required elevation for this zone district will shortly be under for site plans and architectural is +9.0 feet NGVD. New regulations construction and will feature designs that utilize this natural are being promulgated by the Federal landscaped entry interim parking and cooling process. The climate is Emergency Management Agency; but the central marina-related activities, characterized by long, warm, wet proposed elevation for South Shore including dock master's house, ship summers and short, mild, dry remains at +9.0 NGVD, except for one supplies, etc. winters. The generally warm small portion of South Shore Park. temperatures average around 76 All habitable first floor levels •►JVIKbMENI'atL PAG1"DEZS degrees, with an annual range of 15 must be constructed at or above the degrees. A southeasterly flow of +9.0 NGVD elevation. The Dade HAT �� THE ERVIROMEI11ALGZ -}r? air, averaging about 8 miles per County flood criterion (for a • hour, mitigates the warmer 10-year flood) is +5.0 feet NGVD. temperatures and higher humidity of the summer months. New construction must be set back Location and climate are South 50-feet from the shoreline (mean Shore's most important assets. The Another significant although high water) . Construction between presence of water on three sides infrequent environmental influence the 50-foot setback line and the allows the site to make a strong, on South Shore is the potential for coastal construction line must cohesive statement and to benefit hurricanes passing over or near conform to special requirements set from a potentially superb visual Miami Beach. While the possibility by the State. amenity. In the past, this potential of a hurricane occurring in any has been mostly unrealized, largely specific year is almost impossible ) because of the partial wall of to forecast, experience indicates 4 buildings blocking access and view of that hurricane winds will affect the the ocean, the presence of the Miami Miami Beach area on the average of ''�' ''•'"' � I once every seven years. 4-11:i U(IIII1I u ([ 'E. 13 SOUTH SHORE REVITALIZATION • STRATEGY SCHEMATIC DESIGN SOUTH SHORE PARK . 0 . ..A.1:-_-24\---.,...s . aps .... 'Illosy-wir 111011.11.11011r~40.14r _ #.---, \,,,, tit '4: r• ! il , ••• AL " .14 ",41 •'.0% '4'. -1..m.. ''- `.• 4i 7— t'S"' ' ' • • .- " f . ' IP* r.- 5E___ 1r_-- % 'ff 'i si‘ ...... _ /‘ :-. cl tra.' •'' ti _ r' 0 tts;k 44: A. :1045-9._._-0--11- 04.1.74,-vp 6, .., II, ,., , 1-777-1 -. --"..I 11,.. 4:-. • \V. ', ti-- :- riT I - 1.----i- ir1 MI 4:= '`- . 1* *7' 1 :7.- -_ : F__ t_._ [1_: , 1 1 ..,....___ ik II Iti ., . . - - . - i.,„„,,,,.,-- ,- W.. .,_,-*..-1., ' s- .-• , -•:f.4',. d ' ' , ,„ ..! „ ,, - -„,„ iii lila I 1 11-1 i I I r i fi I inlIM) 'N'iW41% •-...." _ _ ... _ .`-- _.1 011,. 1);_ii a.iff~•,,.......,.......,,..z,.:: •_.,,.=7"------__i\ . souTH SHORE PARK _ SOURCE:CITY OF MIAMI BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING .................. ......_..,...........,.. -- ---- . • . 14 �f\ SOUTH SHORE � �OCC'' `\ � SUMMER EET ..... .. y r • REVITALIZATION N`� ��` EN STRATEGY LEGEND °"(4 \,. MIA qty , j, �� \ `'\\ v �7,)) ENVIRONMENTAL --- FE.M.A.ZONE BOUNDARY � �, s � , iI� � �C.\A-1:../�� CONSTRAINTS ' INTEN 1� COASTAL CONSTRUCTIO • CONTROL LINE / / 1�py'y',r ,/ , �� \ SUN b. GRAM WIND FIRM.FLOOD 'V C504, , ' \ N‹ • . , ELEV t9.0 ELEVATION Oy,/ ', o, ,, ‘N 1 ____ SW SETBACK / / ' ,, ♦ �. . s,�►.� . a LINE (FLA) IO , I. ♦ P G,)' Aii.4//r rrr Q ,,, ,, • aJ ,,, ♦ �\ FALL' INTER EVRINO t lUuuER 4 ie v ,//ifk-4.,04 ,„,s, 4( , , 1 W I •s* ......4s. 4p,_64, 4,_ „..... A. __, � �rii, k +9. ,,a �� yip .� �� ,,� .. x ..-r-,. , -_..zify:- .0 ✓F�F� �Q� /fir s , ti �� . ♦♦ �y I -0,,1/4.fr ./r y, �,�Ir �� /I rrI �rrr �i i� V1I j y-g.44, �,� .rr�� yy/ #i r Irj ��Ij� 11j �� o rr i �� 0 IFNOo* . II 1/ II/ \ 4.4-; 4 ••• - • • • 1 y - �r 1� �jr . Ili.•. y �� ,� o. . , 14„ yi�r �rj rrrp77r 44? �.Q stc �, y, .1,,%---'5 ,6 , w �� t4 4,,04. i P� eZ7 .. �, ALTON RD. ,04°' V�/ / wF , / sT °, 2: — XPi / 1 •. 15 There are few areas of significant drainage (see Existing Water Lines Most other utilities consist of vegetation throughout the South Shore Map, page 17, and Existing Sanitary smaller size underground runs except area. Generally, most parcels are Sewer Lines Map, page 18). Gas, for some overhead electrical lines. overcrowded and lack minimal electric power, telephone, western standards of open space. In many union, and cable television Information regarding the condition instances, a shortage of off-street infrastructure are also present and of existing utilities is not parking exists. All of these factors should be considered before any available in detail ; but most of the contribute to the lack of visual specific project is recommended. existing utilities in the South focus or interest in the area. Shore area are old and their Water supply is provided from a condition is questionable, The architecture in South Shore has, major pipeline from the mainland particularly the individual services with few exceptions, not responded to along MacArthur Causeway. This and smaller collector systems. The its unique natural environment. Few pipeline extends along Fifth Street capacity of these services and of the structures listed by the to Ocean Drive and then south to smaller lines to serve new Metro-Dade Historic Preservation about Third Street. A branch from development in the area would have District (see Existing Historical that line goes south along Alton to be examined on a case-by-case Sites/Structures Map, page 29, for Road to the elevated storage tank. basis. Additional upgrading may be location and Appendix C for complete required for other utility systems list) have major architectural Wastewater collection is provided by in the area. significance. Contributing to the a system of collector lines that area's overall appearance of neglect consolidate into a main gravity line Specific opportunities exist for is the impact of the moratorium, running north along Meridian Avenue upgrading the water supply and sewer which often resulted in minimum to a pumping station outside the systems in the event of new repairs and improvements being made area. A major force main is used to development. These opportunities during the past ten years. transfer wastewater flow from Miami are reflected in the Revitalization Beach to the Virginia Key Plant Strategy Plan. . along Michigan Avenue to Alton Road U1%U1IEand across the bay to Fisher Island \ANWsif U71LI11E5 AHE f'FZEEN7' IM and Virginia Key. i, wUTN ?5iic4isStorm drainage for this part of the AEI ..\•, ..„t island ti._:k,' island is positive to the Bayside. 1 0 ,, 0 Major drainage lines are in Fifth � ' _ ; .. 1 Street, BiscayneMajor utilities in the South ShoreThird Street and J _� if ,,) area include water, sewer, and storm Street. 16 N\ SOUTH SHORE \ REVITALIZATION \ STRATEGY LEGEND , 14*.s4, y, \ LOCATION OF �� \ EXISTING WATER LINES ' t WATER LINES ��' '1' � � � ' by �# *" '0 *66Z? ' ' • i***Pab. Q9 /.":W% MFq ,/ ib+ , 4%, IF, 4) # ,,N : • glitgf 1 41111° , �,, \`i &7 .' 4t‘ r4 //4 *# '. - - . ./44 / * 74:Pk'.94/12- '' &4,07,4° �� ' �r SIe . . 4'ig wir i % /2 ' i \ . •,/ -.4% 4i',4.4tt /1/ , ' ' ' • \ • .0'. • • :-.,.- .: . ,„, -------,,,, - it 0 ASIV -1- 4 irty04,* / • .i' -•-:4-\ \ ,,,,, -,„ • aim. , 4*/ //„I'zi .. _,-• ,). . ,.. , 4c-) ,4 4, 14, /* '' 1, $(, iN i iaa.' 7,. * ApAlihr iha 14'.' a 44. --' :.04 i \ 4,,,,t.4 t's ,' ' -' co`.. .7- , )14:/' , wW.; 4116MW t.vim... sae ortm • ._ 1411.1110 / E 04 , _ilf —. i 1 i I ,,, ..::,-'., 17 oc N\ • SOUTH SHORE �'ti . REVITALIZATION LEGEND ft..< STRATEGY <LOCATION OF �ti ,� \\ EXISTING • ~- SANITARY SEWER LINES 44# � + # ' SANITARY SEWER ..(/) +" � ' \\ LINES \ \N.- "N i> ' i'll/j......li; 4, N:,' ',,. N\ . 1147. 1) \tf yam' 41100 ,1 . IlJ ► Q 4 ; k. 4•4.\- ,:\,, -:•.,. ..s... .. v . / . , , ,„.„ Ak-- ..- , . ••• *404rtit,,, ,., .. . . is • 7. ' „ „ ..,,,, , • ' / 4- iit . ./4,444; 7 .. . 1% ' . Pii-'. ' 'I', : / (4:4;C:4''' ' ' ' • / i . , ��NO • �4 . 0 i...; " • i . 118,/ N.: • • • . 44 1* 4.' 4o.4. c. iiii.7.a , 0,- 61 .1/1.:- -"X 'N. -47 A ir 1 •. 1 .#/Y I(.; ' '''' ' s. .. 0 '; /" ' I7* IS . ''., : ::: ' .% -: '.' (.,4'i * '-.- J . /:(9 - 444, ,, P.A.. iiAl ..!.'i 0 / H1 v EPa AL TON - I. % o° / i_i,4,x„ 14 2.2__:_ -__ l_ _ i °, 18 GlRGULAc11014 ANd ACG63 • VIHA1 i't 114E GAPAciTY c4 LP CONDITION O1 THe EKISTINfo 1 I4? o Alton Road, Michigan Avenue, p&rkin9 and Second Street J c7CGes5 o Alton Road, Jefferson The majority of parking in the South Avenue, and Commerce Street Shore area is located on street; The peninsular location of the study o Washington Avenue and First little off-street parking is area dictates the orientation of Street available (see Existing On-Street access patterns to and from the north o Washington Avenue, Euclid Parking Map, page 21) . While and west. Fifth Street (MacArthur Avenue, and Third Street on-street parallel parking is Causeway) is the only east-west acceptable, the head-in parking corridor and provides the o Biscayne Street and Ocean currently in place along Jefferson southernmost connection across Drive Avenue is highly undesirable. -- Biscayne Bay. North-south access is On-street parking stalls are poorly provided by three principal A number of streets in the study defined as evidenced by the general corridors: Alton Road, Washington area are significantly wider than lack of striping or maintenance of Avenue, and Collins Avenue. The necessitated by existing traffic existing striping. provision of additional corridors, volumes. This excess capacity is particularly in an east-west not, however, readily available, direction, is unrealistic due to the since it is consumed by on-street rpa5b11130sit geographic constraints. parallel and head-in parking throughout the various districts. The Metropolitan Dade County Transit While confirming data are not Authority currently operates four clrcutalior) readily available, on-site bus routes that serve South Shore. observation indicates that vehicular Planning for Stage II of Metrorail The existing combination of a congestion in the area south of is scheduled to begin in the near grid-like street layout and Fifth Street is minimal . Only the future with a line to Miami Beach superimposed diagonal corridors intersection of Fifth Street and one of the options that will be contributes to an awkward Alton Road appears afflicted with considered. A water taxi service to transportation network and congestion during peak periods of be based at the South Shore Marina potentially hazardous intersection traffic flow. is also being studied and tested. geometrics (see Existing Roads Map, rimilill page 20, and Existing Traffic Signals I) 711". IIMa a e 22 . Of reatest concern fIP� P 9 ) 9I from a safety standpoint are thePG�� q'�following intersections: 6CU� 1 111, 111 19 • • oc \\ • � SOUTH SHORE r9ti . \ • REVITALIZATION LEGEND ��J y \ STRATEGY oli ♦mayyy • �I DIRECTION . sem/ �I EXISTING ROADS \ OF TRAFFIC �yqs * . , .V \ 2 NUMBER OF LANES .0 i �r0 • . ,, ,r� ` y-0/AILIIC'1./../I' \, / ,i '''' : .. . .\.,. • .... • O '4/bh-w4WIlig :-. 411110 . %3 ' ', j 4744Y7 44;14) ' ,N/ ib /\ 4 ' .. .:' ' _ )4'. -. I .• i 1/441 ''' ,• ) ,v11> z/ 64166_ ' • ‘‘''' '‘ - • • . . • i , & *a vvvv .4•Aso / s y U 1 p . 0 4f, • ,,,,z- • : - .0 . 1//.4'. 441 / 4'. .. M ' L. No ,c2,;/ 4 (�-� \ %444 # ) • /,,,,,./••.-2 % • ---: J . '''-...°4%1\az 1/41 Q 3 / :3' -.. --N a 4 , Apt ilifibibli. *,„,/ / -0p P d� PE • ., /'\ ` 4 ALTON RD. 0 00�� .: A �� : i .• .-- •• .. ti -may. . 20 o441+ �� • SOUTH SHORE •f REVITALIZATION LEGEND 4peo(e/440, �� STRATEGY . $j # METER PARKING .t, ,, �, . EXISTING , 1'41tii �$ ��!•� ANGLE PARKING 4. `rb, �� 4;1P ON-STREET PARKING REGULAR PARKING .47 / �0;�/ ��/e. ', �;, ' N.N\ • *co. p (:i le. . 11Piowits, .% •.0' ;C; 49 ik&NIIII i ic..% *It.1"‘t.' N • . .Q ?1 , .. 0 . 4.0. ,: , vie 4 ii-. '9foi c: 1 tii: .. \'' 6\bb%\ .18/ •°% Jcig.." (12 (ih:•••• •• •/. •••._ jet". \, N • . . •• •._ 4 ire'0,&+:•.,IN'':' , • . . -04Z7 7ic'.4,91/ I/ : ..• ...1 •• 4•• 4. ‘•0•:.t. . • Jam' i /, iP b407. . ••% ••' �, ,417... • 'Q¢ . •• .-0 473,44 4,1/44' .. . **pi.. . ' ' \ .../ •••••• 8 . 4, ..'4‘,C, 1,; A _461'... ea % ,7,:a. // . , ..•%. 134k;WO. \\\It A. :07. .;.... • :::: ('-•. ,fe --.....:< - f '?) 4. • .... :1.4* 4.... Alk l'... ,VI 40 f ' - 14- 0 •I 0 // ' 4— / • 4f# %so, •Al .0 ,.,:::, i •••• :V . .-- r if .:". aLlitt eie/ ...- SI" ',.-.. ititip4p/ . A ...1 ' . •• 4 11r.. At . Ay; ....---- 4t, 4p,„0. . ,-* ,- AY • / :• :• -� • =•. #'�''. .SEP ---.. MMipe AD. •.• el, o°• _1121 AP - ' . ,4. 1.) 21 4+ \. - SOUTH SHORE f �'� \ REVITALIZATION LEGEND c!/7 / 4 STRATEGY • LOCATION OF `r �,\ EXISTING TRAFFIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL 11-1' 4 SIGNALS ,„/ 0+ / ep# # .. \ . . ;.. . : . Ilk 4iiiii‘, : ..•-0/AL'e'L.. .0 % 4 . -°411Y1//° IQ 411(\*** * Nk 41' 4 si 404, , 44PN s •::. ,9,0,4 4,0 , c',/ iv ..,, , , . / .- • 49 . -1Kc. % • • . . .._.• • i-P : • •••• - . .. .. . : . •:: u ;„,.... , - _ , ,.Tx ,. . ,,... s .04 / - / r. .• 1:‘,44 )i 4._____ WO 1 22 Social. N5FWt5 441-10A t Z1tE REN5RAEWR5OF VAYVR 614Or ? hoOdoeholcis South Shore's unique social is much lower than the County characteristics have created average of 55 percent and reflects o Much older than average significant human and physical the higher density, multi-family o Lower income problems which must be addressed as character of the area. Twenty-five part of the Revitalization Strategy. percent of the occupied units are South Shore is inhabited primarily by condominiums as compared with the County average of 14 percent. retired persons, a majority of whom o Much smaller than County were early twentieth century Rental units in the area are much average immigrants. In recent years, a smaller than the Countywide average significant number of Cubano One-person household in six (2.0 rooms as compared with 4.3 of ten cases immigrants have chosen to live in the rooms) and approximately 15 percent area, including many of the recent are overcrowded. The residential o Primarily nonfamily Mariel refugees. The median age of vacancy rate in South Shore (13 households with no children the approximately 6,100 persons living south of Fifth Streetis close percent) is higher than the County average (8.4 percent). to 70 years, and the average income • is well below average Dade County The distribution and density of Fio05inil omit income. residents are shown on the Existing Density - Units/Acre Map (see page o Primarily small and renter- The dominant feature of family status 30) . occupied has been the large proportion of households without children. Of the o Average rent a little less total population, only 238 persons than average County rent are children under five, and 511 are o Valued less than between five and seventeen. CA AI 1 County MM average Approximately 30 percent of the , L. Characterized by a level of f97,0511.011occupied housing units in South Shore 7,0511otl overcrowding above County are owner-occupied. This percentage average o Growing _ 1.14.,fli o Primarily Hispanic and white r'Ili:'1111Source: 1980 Census Profiles 23 450PTI B I L ITT TO 6HAW,0E o Age of existing structure The results of the foregoing '- lj Ali I o City-owned land "' analysis were synthesized to !' ti • ` .! 4 determine significant site o Parcel aggregationI jErr J ►hatF j'L'. 4j development opportunities. Using a III system of graphic overlays, the o Condition of existing structures II .s= ,= rt� :i:� Susceptibility to Change Matrix o Existing historical sites and below was developed to show the structures relationships and degrees of o Existing density - units per development potential among five acre issues and six existing conditions. This information was then translated onto one map of South Shore (see Susceptibility to Change Map, page 31). The conditions in the Susceptibility to Change Map and in the maps on the following pages are: MATRIX c i1Y ed rot-Icy (a��kamed Drotied Availably remmain For development Ki_IxLca A signiFicani" j11-ier AApvgaied �dreel� (p cr more) V154-11 Hope-rower 1-112loRical hi51"orzI if no ilh r bld�d/moi � bago �ite� ; ilarainfb • I iVrary �(gniF�arrY c..ornmuni,fy �dIlir(et cenTer in in K.0.14. • K�t,G�Perior1 cortilod • mo k=rat's-1 �ONDITION nein bulldina� ola l�,ilaingT 0 4 buil�;n 1� �oo�l oovidilic� fair oondifilon root- 6.onA fi.,1 24 N\ SOUTH SHORE �• Fi4, REVITALIZATION LEGEND �. .,�,` `,i�.4\4y . STRATEGY • '`f 1960-PRESENTis. • s<rn, � AGE OF EXISTING 'z) s 40. jl STRUCTURES ,;\ . \ ♦. 1940- 1959 ` ti� `1.•`' BEFOREvi 1939 ,0 �� 1%� 4/,,.l \ j ;;`�� \ '110v.v), e-4:r: ..0"..il,V$ \ -I. 71,,',,v..‘11.\1,40:,,, 1 11 11i1 y� ,�1Iii -lIfr l .�s ' •/".. • +�t /4..- 4N ::� \ 17':x'74 !AI"- •s 1)4%W' '7 4 2 ,,, I14 +V''' , .-%.4!' , ' --,; %, litA\ 44/ 4t �,, L {� It,�� ,Io , ' , \�Y '�{t1` �I ' k-,9 */ k irlft / II% - k 7-04' • 4/ 4, .0 " / 's \ +.4 • #44tri,V , /,(-1' ' :994, 6t. :ifit, ki '‘. Al jib. ' 0 46 \\ 4t004 .1‘c5.1!1 - ''. ' r' V` 4 /, T A ,co 0 - 1 ��1 a �s� `Y, �y y /* C SC �0 ' c . ' at�1- ; :l1 4 4�•4,,•j!` ,0, �` •`4 I (t �/ , y�cgP *1. i�'' 1 ' is . kSA\T /7 I' V., 4'0 � t' , ��1 .�7 ,_ 4�Q ��\. �Q IN �P4' 0,,,i, • ': .., i'. ic ),/i f; '' ' s�i�' 'io n: :. +`�� ( ` ;q , �`� •I°'''' "pi j t.. '�`:) ACTON RO. y o° 6,4 _ - 1 25 •�!��N� • SOUTH SHORE �.1 ti� \ REVITALIZATION 4v411 • TRATEGY LEGEND ` l ,�� S int CITY OWNED \ii? jkS .0• ,♦� , \ . • CITY - OWNED LAND °f PUBLIC HOUSING ,� N ' yt 44, �, ,, # N, .x . : . . 17 44' o /2wfv,A. k. &_ '''.-, >-' Q, 4,"„, x -4. '4m, \* ' ., . - . --. .i..."'%4 u 44p17 + sb,&_ ir N,„ , . . . .. . `°/, Sv : *mit, 4 N, . - • • ' - .. . DP k-pp. ♦ `�' i`<44*,, c % rye.,...4g.,�ii . . •.. . ,,,‘(://:2zo • 4 ,,,,A‘ ji4i ,,,� �� ♦ \40,,vi 4 , , w*A. 441.,. s...-ist, .) \\. ,,e, \ , \ - - „ \ , ,,.\, 0 440110 i 4 4 ,,,?/, , 0 4pAt 4 /I* 4I iiift / ., .-..:' I 1 7 ,s - , ,. ,\,. . , \, . .- A I- -1 gir* pp[''..'l'Aok 6„lb 4Al 4, 4( .1%; li 4,4 '' -., ,i''' , ' ALTO N RD.J74:. IV /\ °1/41 0 t \\ \ / Vld ,Ir , i , 26 �� \ SOUTH SHORE 444; REVITALIZATION l STRATEGY LEGEND 1 1'•�� Int 7 LOTS OR MORE L,,,. , 0 ,•\ • PARCEL AGGREGATION . , ,. s UNDER SAME OWNERSHIP �4 , 1111111 GOVERNMENT OWNED C'T '''`;ii \\ SOUTH SHORE N'00,- �ij\ " REVITALIZATION LEGEND f /� �, j\ • STRATEGY tat SOUND el��/ y ��\ EXISTING CONDITION 11'5:4% tili�`�'' , //// '1tj. Oji,, OF STRUCTURES 121 MINOR DEFICIENCIES p 11, I� �Iti ////j► �� 04 MAJOR DEFICIENCIES . 7 i, t\ t‘l 0 ' 0 11�� `:ri j , /N\N. X 0 SUBSTANDARD VCS' \li, IV /\# # ' /� ///�/�.40 / 4 - r / .11 ,,`111:1:/%° /* " ' /t 44 ,,(0, 1,k( / ' ' j,, , ,,,o.,„..,4,,,, .2 , to / ,„,,,. , %.,./ / ,:,.‘„>,.,-, . ./' ‘v.'f, v, (ft / v 0 .41, ,, , - / . k.o, A-: 4 t ,, 0 N -, /. . /// ti%.441 /0 %tv t� .,' .4\\* ,;= # , v.): .k‘k .'' . Iv, < , c,t. "iii\ • p 42 �,�y1��/j hr 's`}Vii,+, ��1�1 �� It� ��/� A///0 r1 .0 AV* W' Q-,ha% . At0,, , .,t6 , Ar A„,',e 't- ilk . • • • .�/ ; ,Fro W S "�� ,. 0 .,, „.,///�i��,,�,. ///i ott �\ ``�`,, `+,,��1.. /%, , Y ��, I:�i` / ��rrr� o�,,, +`4<<,a to lj.�I� t �, ��AL /�0 , � AN, �% ��j++iii ��/%�a� °\af �� ;��. �`�� ,,,�L=(�; 66�P4 l' /, %�//// // i it 4,// �,, ro ,� 4 o , " %��%// �� hitt 04. qtr cyF - WO '". .4,V 1 — 11 28 . \ • - SOUTH SHORE '' 's/A,.te . \ .•• REVITALIZATION LEGEND ,x'e??)Xiiiiitt I \ •\. STRATEGY * N, I\ .•- • HISTORICAL/ARCHITECTURAL ../) tlf. / SIGNIFICANCE )121 MOST SIGNIFICANT ..&? ''41'4710+ / • 4 4. , \ (SEE APPENDIX FOR LISTINGS) .40*iie<, /I V ''' " "V4#& . -40,Wli° ° . \2 0-, -vciik- wip - 4/.. z 44-- Nat, .• 4 f k-47**- s' ,Qiii, . . ,,, n 4:e 4 6 I ,4 rIo '\\\ ' . . .. .)&4 ?2,41 w *.k. . * \‘ 'N - . • A,—%44, 410,- , 4Z4t c).4(•# $ ' : . ' - AIPAp i 44.9 ,- l21/ PI- '9'904, -2- 4'41-.Q ‘1471 * i I ,11# VA _ 0 .4. ,... ...$4, / c;c*S" .° N* -'-e A, • . • •••• . . .0 4, 7 'A/ft* 41-4.4 (* 4 .- i V 4 k w 4 i' : / 44, 4-,./),, ,Q,2010)4f s.. • S .0 4 cji& 4,0, *At iiii ) ,,,. :;7,,,‘ . , _„,,, ./7414fpf4 1 .Q2 ' 4.1fidt, I so- -... • '' - 4 A .., ' 411 . ;W, � **/* -iv -.)84- 41 w.Rw4tr , R 41110 _, :- 4 ' ALTON no v . 7, / E , 7 ) | � / ^� „.. ,,,,,,,..„,,,,,t.: (L � , 1 ,� - ___ ' , _ . / /' SOURCE: METRO—DADE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION . ^ 29 . N\ SOUTH SHORE ,, 00 \ . • •. 174 Si Nk, . .... . REVITALIZATION STRATEGY o°<( \ ' .\ ' '.\ •• DENSITY UNITS/ACRE c3 < V;4114 • . . N N N -0 t/cs' .//' o,4 x's• ,t• 0.. Ne 4, -.0 4 i° (49 e\ AI* • 44 . • - .. .. ... /*Ii4f11 *42/4 i ./ 4 k• 414)*N. ' \ . • . 0 ... : iftii de Igk Nc/1•% /444 iit. / •N 1 / .41* /XIV. ti t 4 IF A lb* i 4 4 I I 4 Ate /9.44 0 4w41, .... . , • ,,_- , .0 -4-40., * •...,„A, * Wit.4' .1 0 1' t , , ---V • 88 ALTON RD. c,— wor,77 Ai .. .. 1 st .. . ., , : - - i ; ' • 30 \ 1;, , SOUTH SHORE � ,ll r IIZ ttitit, rx REVITALIZATION sill \ - STRATEGY LEGEND Vc:iiiillIditt,r1litiL,l 's��' .N' VIV *11141.11011II. SEE MATRIX / '111 ' '• 1 rll\ SUSCEPTIBILITY �i ,.i !r s .;I� I 1114 y lliii�� '11, i , .;I i' 1 1111411''I>I1111 TO CHANGE II„ ! 111-°IIB, :. •s) v tl�ll Vii!' �� ,:\ d! ,I ' . �II I,1 iii *,111111,01,1111, � . ,1ll < ��II Ili SII► IiLI1a -. /y1,111111 I: h ,11111 11.-;11,. . ,".41.01,11r,, ,_4:,,._,..., ,, ,: . ;I \, . _ . i 11 Il ,,! I IIIII 1;;pI' 11 'lLu : ,� . N-I?II� , ii:1 i .,• I1i11 IIIP Il` 1 >I gip, SII Ir.'1I . Vh. R��ii� It: �Ili' �(IIII I��1' '•(/ l ( •:f' f�) �II I\ • - il iN. " 11 *OIL I 1 �„ 1 1 :11. �I I !1 I I y ( �I (p , Ill �t I) (l ty O1 ;1,1111 J�I 11. , \ii III 11i1!, l1 SIIIrI - II' : ," �a �I , ,.4 ►' . 111141441K. x,11► II 4i4A3 : .\`.1:11,11#1/,11111P011111 i ' 'III��I �1• li :1 1110/1 1111 gi /d'.' .11 11111 W:'"':'4101'11, � w , 41181 y,i,IhI 10,1011�. 11 i` .: e1 ,)1 R 1,, ' 41 rp, 1 1,Is1.i111 p ' •I1f•.,.., 1 I hi,-,0 lt, 111Q) l Niii ° ,i it 11111- 1111 ��1' 1 t, Oil �l 6�1 I .il, +iiiist1 I11 111 1 1411 ,1 I 1111 , .l i 111 , I :litr ;14 • I 1,0111 ll,. II 'I..� i,I! • IRI ,lll,��1+�s�1 I. � 11 ilk .y��'i:, r ��l I1 � �� 11= � �'loco 111.I 'µ", 1,1 �l111 II1`�m ,1t d ill Ott' ' 11 '' i�I • . . . .1I ,ill �I � j ,. I,' 1,, Hyl. •,,• , II' mil 4'R �,II1ivr 0 I 4 T<F .dl , m ► �ig1 '1 111.0 pp: I :,ls,=iv i; it„... ! 4 bI ;�41, "°-�� 1��;1 ,/011itlipAthI .�� •rl,'�l1' �I ,Il��p �. ,,� � hl. � �` .�.� � �: l�II� it 4Il! II o!111u I If /Jr..' J ► i <1 4 1 I=t 11` 1111��,1 1 I I, li ,2 l JAI' q`ill Q V¢ „ r '� '"Ili �1/ 1 ,,,- II , II Dill �4�II II., ,•o I! ; . }y.... , � - � ,1 y I v Il 1 It ,r✓ ° Il�.� .NA.�.-�: .:��-�:��:: r�. ,,.,. { 11 I I�) I�II�I /�1I►. t i' ill � �illhn.I ��.' ,, .,.+ ..r'r ,,..1. 11�1R��i1 4. nous I!r r ' I of 1IIIII ' ' I ' 4 �, - 4 R f¢ % +11• • I � 1 Y •,at:uiuuull II IIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIII IIII I IhIIIIIO[i1�lilll►1�MI�., -��III�IL,II IIII �� - 11III11��IIttr u'd ,w,14 s". i? s O 31 S. Pio 1e7M MI5 AMP orPoKW l'4 IIIEZ Fuu WOS5 cAv____________::____IIT f In the followin pages, each issue The following presentation o 9problems and opportunities area is identified and specific 9essentially summarizes the analysis problems and opportunities listed. and evaluation of the planning data The six central , driving issues = o;,�and the issues affecting the addressed are: "`` ......_.....,.--r... revitalization of South Shore. The summarization process consolidated Overall form - definition of the _ ~•��f�R the focus, identified the key issues, planning area including general - and set forth development constraints shape, limits, and structure. i and stimulants. This summary wasIIIIthen used to establish direction for Land use relationships - the ,1 IIllll11J' ` 1111 plan development, especially in the internal arrangement of uses, the generation of goals and objectives. definition and reorganization of the diverse use areas, and the links to South Shore is a unique and complex blending or separating them. fi- Oj� �, ' blend of many forces - - social , Li ' t „ economic, physical - - that have been Circulation and parking - the ;: -, �� for relationships and needs of through- f `➢ allowed to remain mostly staticP +i��f l � ��M �G �T(�many years to the detriment of the traffic and local traffic, with 1 !� f� 11 entire area. The new Revitalization emphasis on traffic separation, Strategy will allow for important parking, and pedestrian movement. , IT--TA r changes and for creative development on a realistic, obtainable scale. Urban design - third dimension1 ' k characteristics of the area ;��;�: , including mass, scale, activity, and Iy/ • design quality. 1111 l�LI lL ��. �r) ISSUES � Economic prospects - the potentials fiTL➢IITIlT • ---- The basis for the problem and for the plan based on sound economic f,� r opportunity analysis constituted assumptions. issues central to the revitalization L � ,�Q of South Shore - - issues that have Social considerations - the unique 1111 been filtered and sifted out during demographic composition, trends and '1j1[1111111& 1 the analysis and evaluation process. needs of the area. 32 155UE: OVERALL PORtii confer pr0bIcrn5 oreo►-tun tries o The overall form and structure of o Fifth Street is a major barrier o Fifth Street provides a boundary the area are poorly defined. and edge for this area. o Entry areas are not well defined o The revitalization area is a o Change potential exists for legally defined district and a o There is no true focus or strengthening the built form of "mental image." central activity node the area. o Physically, South Shore is not a o There are no unifying design o The Causeway and Fifth Street coherent, readily identifiable, themes. area and the intersections of functional place. Fifth Street with Washington Avenue and Ocean Drive are potentially powerful and positive entry areas. o Historic resources can be used to develop thematic/design areas o Maritime restaurants (bayside, oceanfront and Government Cut areas) can contribute design theme and focus. o Several opportunities exist for uniting major districts: - Visual pedestrian links - Physical/structural connections - New land use arrangements • - Roadway improvements. 33 I55UE: a -iD Uo- I?RA-not-16Et m context" PrcAlerng oPingcrton itie s o There is a need to organize, o Pedestrian ways are ill defined. o A positive communitywide blend and, when necessary, sep- attitude exists relative to the arate uses. o Distances between Convention revitalization of area. Center, hotel districts, etc. , o Uses must be aligned to support, discourage any spin-off uses. o Distinct land uses can be complement, and define a diverse defined. urban neighborhood/resort o Existing "intensive commercial" community. uses are not compatible with o Land and structures are urban neighborhood/resort available for redevelopment, o Use areas with specific community. restoration, and reuse. identities must be recognized. o No retail core or focus exists. o A hotel/resort project at the o Linkages must be developed to old Kennel Club site should connect various districts. o Many marginal businesses are stimulate development of area. located within the area. o Marina and upland marina area o The school site is not centrally projects should stimulate located and acreage is very development of area. limited. o Fixed locational resources give a sound base for new construction. o An effective parking/pedestrian system can overcome most of the negative land use relationships. 34 • i5oE: ciRGuL.A11oN AUP PAKI46. contexT problernn opFx,rtun iTies o Functional separation of through- o There is a limited number of o Improvements have been contem- traffic and the traffic with an linkage points to the external plated by the Department of internal destination is system. Transportation. desirable. o The transit system is o Traffic with internal des- o Provision of a workable, inadequate. tinations can be intercepted by practical internal automobile the locations of public parking circulation pattern is needed. o Sidewalks meet neither minimal resources. objective standards nor any o A complementary yet protected qualitative standards. o Alleys and street rights-of-way pedestrian environment must be can be used creatively for included. o Numerous intersections along pedestrian movement. Fifth Street add to potential o A parking system satisfying the conflicts. o Effective signage and traffic multiple demands for employee signal control systems can be shopping and resident/visitor o The area contains a number of part of the program. requirements must be provided. poorly designed intersections. o Improved and increased bus/tran- o An areawide parking system which o The locations and numbers of sit operations can be provided. is usable by everyone must be public parking spaces are provided. limited. o A strong arterial loop is possible. o Assistance in cutting down on o On-street parking decreases road street circulation through capacities. o Water taxis have potential . convenient and proper location of parking resources must be o There should be a bikeway link addressed up with City system. o A "scenic corridor" link-up along the oceanfront can be encouraged. o New development will encourage a more accessible parking system. o Parking and buildings can be jointly developed. 35 I�gUE: Ut e7A 1 1:;61 614 conte4 froblernn orporfunAie5 o There is a lack of cohesive o Existing spaces are of poor o A number of historic buildings structure. quality. offer potential for continuity and style. o Open spaces are poorly defined. o Utilization of landscape materials and features is o Utilization of alleys for o The texture of existing inadequate. pedestrian circulation is development varies. possible. o Distribution of activities is o Present structures fail to fully poor. o Accessible activity nodes can be address and recognize the natural organized. assets of sun, wind, views, o Many historical buildings are ocean, bay, and Government Cut. used and treated in an o Areas are available for insensitive manner. introducing complementary urban uses. o There are no design themes. o South Shore Park can provide a o There is a lack of spatial visual design link between the sequences which would create bay and oceanfront development. visual design unity. o The massing of South Shore development is uniform, providing for little visual interest. 36 i SSU.: PFZ0319 ('S context rroblerng cpor1"Urirncs o South Shore's growth and success o Competition from other sectors o A large-scale destination resort are linked with the health and is uncertain. can be developed at the old vitality of region. Kennel Club site. o There is no clear definition of o Investor confidence and special development projects o There is a potential market for participation are necessary, so (somewhat a "wait and see" an office with marina/retail it is critical that the plan be attitude). complex. based on sound economic assump- tions. o Financing sources and methods o A small hotel related to the for specific projects are not marina complex should help identified. create image. o The luxury condominium market is o The specialty currently saturated. retail/entertainment market related to the marina should be o Little demand for offices on investigated. Fifth Street is projected. o A community-related retail o Land for a theme park is not market along Fifth Street may readily available. exist. o Available land for marina- o Integration of oceanfront parks related development is limited. with adjacent parcels is possible. o Moderate income/rental market is possible through rehabilitation of existing units. o The potential exists to maximize elderly, low, and moderate income housing and to minimize relocation within overall plan. o Community facilities such as schools, community center, etc. can be provided. 37 i u .: 0314tI DEi .11oN6 corrre'ct probIcrr) po141) ie5 o The demographic composition of o There has been a major influx of o A working task force could be the area presents special Mariel refugees into the project created to formulate overall problems and opportunities. area. social programs. o Many existing residents need o Commitment to obtain additional food, housing, transportation, State/federal funding for health care, jobs, and language programs can be encouraged. assistance. o The State and County can be o The influx of Mariel refugees encouraged to establish a "work has significantly affected fare" program. schools at the elementary school level . o Estimates of Haitian refugees vary from 260 to 700. o Over one-half of the city's population is over 65. o Rent in the area is $137 per month (compared with the City's average of $275 per month) . o The health problems of the elderly and poor are a serious consideration. o The median income of the area is $8,589 (compared with the City's average of $12,857). o Out-patient clinics are often inaccessible. o Health services are expensive and insufficient. 38 6. 60AL6 AI'1.1) DtoFcTIVeS . • At its January 11, 1983 meeting, the PAD Committee for South Shore endorsed a series of revitalization ,/7 ' . policies to guide the development of ;,mac *,f • the South Shore Revitalization �. et'7./.1 f �. Strategy. Additional PAD Committee ; ,p�i '"�'' y�''�, .. �` meetings and workshops e PAD reinforceds and .R,' '� iiw�s�• fMy��"�• U� '� _ "`�o emphasfid• r of providinga viable, flexible ��- 411.1.:S• MI N , ~� framework for revitalizing South . k' „ � y m Shore, a framework that will employ �,;� 1 4 I strict development control mechanisms : "Ve? .and involve minimum property Nw ./. ) condemnation and acquisition. ,'` ; , -. Fro 6.04u ; :\ Using the PAD policies as a guide for �. ,�; ... .._ \ � ��llg• .. further definition and refinement, r. ` ", �'� the following goals and objectives '� F ' am'�'��: were developed as the guiding ,' principles for the South Shore 4, �: Revitalization Strategy. These goals j�t•it,;ap0" and objectives relate to the �1 comprehensive issues of overall form, JOE fet"Nel • function, and design; circulation and parking; and social and economic factors. -4 ''..,,A1 39 • (btue: rOR M/rUNGT101t/P6616 N • goal rincarle objeclii i& Fl icT Enhance the diversity of form and Overall Recognize locational Createcompactsimilar use areas activity through the use of Form needs of diverse where compatible. established planning and design economic activities. principles. Separate incompatibile or non- Create urban neighbor- supporting activities. hood/resort destination Provide for maximum flexibility with control . Internal Relate use districts to Provide major activity focal points Structure create pedestrian defining districts. movement between districts. Link compatible and supportive use areas. Mass Develop continuous Encourage fill-in of vacant lots. street fronts and define public spaces. Use structures to create variety, form, focal points; to terminate views; and to define space. Reserve and reuse existing structures, especially historic ones. Scale Provide proper scale Maintain existing scale reference for various relationships. activities. Define important nodes. Provide comfortable pedestrian spaces. 40 • • rnr6irk ob_je&t"i‘le roliel Open Space Provide system of open Enhance water interfaces with spaces bringing natural proper planting and maintenance. amenities into area. Tie spaces and nodes together through pedestrian circulation system. Activity Support variety of Create activity centers at nodes activities to enliven and in open spaces. area and create desirable atmosphere. Provide opportunities for entertainment activities. Encourage night-time activities. Create and follow design themes within the defined districts. Design Enhance the area's Capitalize on existing historical Quality attractiveness to structures through reuse and businesses and resi- restoration. dents through visual amenities. Provide public amenities. Ensure strict incentive Develop a clear, consistent signage and control mechanisms. system throughout the area. Protect and enhance significant existing vegetation, particularly in coastal areas, and encourage use of native materials throughout the site. 41 • 155u6; CIKGULA1.014 AMD PA :INt goal principle ob�li'ie �Iic Create a traffic system that Through Separate and provide Minimize through-traffic adequately serves both the through- Traffic for improved through- intersections with local roads. and local-traffic needs of the traffic. area. Encourage implementation of DOT-planned improvements. Local Provide adequate and Encourage the elimination of Traffic safe circulation within contact situations. area. Access Provide sense of Create gateway to the area. arrival and entry. Parking Provide adequate Increase public parking spaces. numbers, types, and locations of parking Consolidate parking in visible, facilities. accessible locations. Require developers to provide parking. Pedestrian Provide quality, Encourage street beautification. Circulation barrier-free pedestrian linkages. Encourage pedestrian use of alleys. Transit Provide adequate Encourage developers to integrate transit service. bus stop facilities with project. Other Modes Provide choice of Encourage water-taxi provision. available transportation modes. Implement bikeway. Encourage bike facilities. Encourage tram service. 42 • i55VE : .50(504 /;CONOMIL goal rinciple. objeo-hve cl«`c Reestablish area as an economically Economic Establish framework of Encourage new construction on viable and functional diverse urban urban-serving uses as vacant or cleared parcels, neighborhood/resort community. generators of basic including land currently in public economic activity. ownership. Phase new private development in the area consistent with tax increment financing requirements and utilize tax increments from Phase I to fund necessary redevelopment in Phase II. Use tax increment financing for specific parcels and for planning/legal work. Use individual private developers for specific parcels and projects (rather than a master developer for entire area). Encourage city investment in needed public facilities and utilities. Involve minimum relocation and con- Social Minimize social Maximize elderly and low and demnation. upheaval while max- moderate income housing within imizing social overall plan and minimize benefits. relocation of residents. Provide community facilities such as schools, community center etc. 43 7 ITIE. f1JR o To create a traffic system that o Developers/Investors 0 In adequately serves both through- and local-traffic needs of the - Knowledge of locations and area. relative timing of A i:::. . , MI ' improvements. Before the plan is described, its `i use must be understood. The plan is - Determination of proper r � a decision-making tool for both product mix based on ! t ::. public and private interests. It marketing overview. 15*�"''�' - k1.4 provides the following benefits for: - Advance indication of what The plan that has emerged for the o Public Agencies might be expected of the revitalization of South Shore is City and the Redevelopment built upon a strong foundation of - Advance programming of Agency. careful research and analysis with capital improvements. definition of the opportunities and The plan is designed to provide a issues involved. This solid base of - Basis for directing new land framework for public and private understanding and the clear uses to specific areas. investment, to establish investor articulation of direction have confidence in the South Shore resulted in the identification of - Format for developing and Revitalization Area, to minimize four major goals that helped focus implementing ordinances and "surprises," to give flexibility on and crystallize the physical programs. a project-by-project basis, and to Revitalization Strategy: maximize opportunities. o To reestablish the area as an o Owners and Merchants economically viable and functionally diverse urban - Determination of the highest neighborhood/resort community. and best use based on location, parking and other o To involve minimum relocation and improvements. condemnation. - Knowledge concerning o To enhance the diversity of form locations of potential and activity through the use of activity and employment established planning and design centers. principles. 44 LOOP -.� 1� ('. SOUTH SHORE \i !' J \ I • . ,r REVITALIZATION LEGEND0.1441,11/4 , I I I. \,. ` stir STRATEGY (1 ' \ � ►1r9�'IPy� c PM ID RETAIL BOUNDARY \ Iltp 1 E��, �7q CONCEPT \ ,, !\ t ,i=.11 salt " , 1i ittO URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD I \ 4tQIP,; =��!�� . ,\,110,4\_ SKETCH 1A16. � . DC ii.,,, RETAIL CORE \ i *1\\I�c,• i l'\\,r�‹ ', \ /,�`�� min RESORT AREA 1I., I NrAit-- �y -:::-------.....„......,,,....4 I 1 ,' .\ ..... , .+ .,r11,ll�:�, I�� PARK . . �'ii ir f 1�''I �� \� ' , 4 ^I ' • N 1'. I� I rd MARINA G� LINKAGES1I4 1111Mrr,• ! Id ' Co. *, 1 III �'11��/ ''':<? '\I 'I i\ i , ./.' ' litill IP. ,it ! ''� . '1 ♦,. '�sa , IIID i4 qVIA\Viiii•I4".11 •Ia',lyli.t 'r_ diiq •' r� f � 4 ,fJ . _ ��ptir,I,.,, I�r I r,.�1... - yr IIr111111r „lit! I, ,LOOP \ I_ili \ ,\,,1III .; I b” { 7'-'---4 \ t ii_,_. :,,,_,, ,i ,tk\l1111' �`it 1t tiiii II1111 11gyp ,1\ 1 I f. ,„ i1u' : I Alli- "41111ilt leit, +VIII I �p ' \ etil �,rI ,I �?t „.,%v •; vl n �. I I I � �� 1,1 � 1 1 . �P ;IAn IILII,i lillilli”itillIgiv,Illov11111,111Vel:01!,illii I� . a I�� p�l� IIIIIIIS 'SIIM�H� III` �� rla x1111 +i �. Il . /1ti ,��.' I � ,.,,, �Is ..4:1111!;1111111,1111101:1 (/ �' � Ii��r��' Illi��I , �irt.I Ir I�; �'��` III 910 offinishi , , r ?.�„,11111111111 ti '111111111hQ11111411!1 ( !Iyy�� 11MIl01u,111UIf11iiI11r11,IIIBl61 ♦. terlwI►��a! 1t 1a1�;11111 IiIIlU1111 . '+, �I�jf11111111�r>f'rllnnmlW11111111111111llILL_WIIIIIIIILII, 2, 4 .14,44-... "-:,. , a , n G d • I O p o II o p �' 0 b u O 6 0 ! ca •�. II a e :.4 ae e a I a e p n 0 ,� o i �0 I• .. O o ..' MARINA • 11 1 � e Y� a 111111; v o u CAUSEWAY 1'11'!�`�1 . 1> i�-1 Ill Ilia III 1Tl Ili Ili.11l llll.C(l�[ III I I ,IIIIINII 111 .7 NII IIININI 11INII L'I'I 45 • o Creates a viable positive urban o Maximizes the site's full neighborhood/resort community potential by recognizing the , identity for the South Shore value of views to the water, area, allows for safe and easy regional climate, historic access, and instills the heritage, human scale, native //\N' . 111/4.., perception of stability andvegetation, and quality site revitalization of the area, by details and furnishings. 11 X providing a strong, high quality , I. arterial loo . o Induces change in areas critical p to revitalization success. o Minimizes the visual and 14411W ... physical barrier of Fifth . 9P4P I Street. To better describe the plan, three components have been separated and �� t o Creates a sense of entry andArr identified: " `" "" '� arrival at the Causeway and '�� `' Alton Road. o Land uses o Improves and creates o Amenity areas well-defined pedestrian links IRE GO(t1GGF1 from the ocean to the bay. o Infrastructure, which includes: Goals and objectives for South Shore o Creates a strong central - Roads were translated into alternatives. retail/commercial area to serve Parking The selected and approved set of the residents and the resort - Water/sewers. alternatives became the preliminary component. plan and gave direction to the design guidelines and the implementation o Provides public access to the LAND U5E PLA4 program. bayside and oceanfront. After careful review, the preliminary o Utilizes City-owned parcels to The land use structure performs plan evolved into the final South provide amenities and to three main functions: Shore Revitalization Strategy Plan. stimulate private sector This final plan: participation in plan o Defines Revitalization Area implementation. districts by: 46 SOUTH SHORE LEGEND REVITALIZATION STRATEGY 1 COMMERCIAL BOUNDARY �y� , 2 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD r✓"'F'_ IIIII311� - '. ., g�/t v AERIAL �Iluull , , I :. PERSPECTIVE pii, •3 RETAIL CORE 1. ..l ',u , . 1�IIia• i. I a. h +� iiw1N1y�yaa1 ,11 I.'.?1. .� �• •IP1�Ipt4 . F �• Jy K _ ` i .i 4 ::::T AREA ! 4y4 1 i/ 4111api` 1 �i ► > ♦ate. '3'r • — _ d / r 1 ,mlopct: �l VIII' . u. " +~Il � �rs�..� 5 / �p n4., ,: g MARINA i r' �1bp. 11" t '" IA t i a:::::";♦ •rte ,:. 7 LOOP ROAD *116 --3.*Ill' virgt!„ib, >44. • -, .43e•--- -- 1 II 41 Il ri -P' I'• '4$ •� ',� a n' ` ' 'ilf ii ` 6vy%� 'r },1t' I • �i!tit w �ii,tis, / - III ,7 i,'/,.: "`1„; . t " l'' �; +_, Qt / t�.� ;lc.14 k- 1� "�,�-YK el *-. �C-( .r ly}G it r .�ilill)'•t. * row' y 111111( ► sl �� 4 .� '�1ii: .. � .��i / PI 4 s y.• exp' - ./ _ F T .. , /1��•"Y „y-f 7Nee- !y .,a. .:'�' 1..,x?i.�lit ln•�•s'" ► S� r r1'r.-- ip sir - 1li r�►40114E +l,I^ I .xr..r; nil: r..• r.'- 'by r,,,,:..1.., . 1 t� .jV' .;/ / "�-°R'I�&• w". ':' 4 . y�I ice' , r"'' "+ '.-4. f —,, " ` . + r v' (I -.44X1 t'''',"="1 ' ri 11 t r ♦, J NOTE: ' �{ / /, -CO ••s II I' AI L. 1 ' ' THIS le AN ARTIST'S SKETCH FOR L 1 i♦ P. 1, I f• M r./� 3,�, ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES �;,': IIF'' # • r.jtI1J , pJ- y E . ' -— ii, C 47 - Clarifying spatial arrangement URE N �gNotzccop N of uses. (Ef�I=rONr FAf�K • KE'SD(c'� pp�/'r o A Fifth Street retail area with •.•, �� I 'p�JL- 44. � office/residential uses serving - Grouping similar uses. '4.1:4,1,4" •�� •4� ) •••i n both South Shore and the area to o Reduces land use conflicts by: s;I 41.,"i• v ., the north. 41 Grouping retail and shopper t••4;$1 r i •'' o A high quality arterial loop activities. PP �`� .045440 •:'•: •:��;�i' !:`��` system. _ `�'.�/:,��1�� . +�•,;•�.:;,� ��>F,��"" The land nd Centralizing support ' iimv.n uses proposed for South 1 �� Shore and shown on the activities. a, �. � Proposed Land ,. �� 1401.141114/7011/Mi 411( 4/7 1 `}! Use Map are described below. Parcel • acreages are shown on page 50. - Minimizing traffic conflicts ��w Developing well-defined rMrtKY F-PtTyRE Fifth Street Area (Parcel �A) pedestrian linkages. , kgit-KAI- LOOP' 29.3 Acres o Allows for effective - 5t'5T tr COMME•KCIAL- interconnection by: The accepted set of land use Located between Fourth and Sixth Providing a vehicular system alternatives is illustrated in the Streets., this parcel extends east to Proposed Land Use Map (see page 49). Ocean Drive. On the north side of that gives adequate access. The land use plan is characterized Fifth Street, it runs west to the Creating a pedestrian system by these primary features: bay; on the south side, it extends that links land use areas. to Alton Road. It is recommended o A peripheral waterfront linear that this parcel be a mixed-use area park system. with residential, retail and '� /qI�,�, o A resort area relating to the commgercial development. Specific /,a�' linear park. design recommendations include: �1 ' • �!� o Requiring retail activity at ' r"�;141/, 0.1,, .„ _ 1 o An urban neighborhood core . ground level along Fifth Street. • / •. `% �, ` , o A central retail core serving o Discouraging use of blank walls both the resort development along Fifth larf !� •® 44, P and Street. � .�� the urban �-. « neighborhood area . A. lit -.V.$1:V. SOUTH SHORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY PARCEL ACREAGE ARBA PARCEL 5TN �iTREET A 29.3 URBAN NEIGI-II3ORWvP 13 47.6 R- 1951 12.4 R- P2 15.G R-1953 5.9 R-P94 13.9 MARINA 5ouT1-1 C 5.G RETAIL COR (2 11.4 MARINA URI.-ANI7* G ALTERNAT1V1r I 7.2 RErSORT NOTEL 14.1 RE9oRT 1-10m1.- G 3 5 - VARKy CG) N 35.4 MARINA I 2.8 ' 1Rlr>:T9/ ALLEY9 rev 1 2‘.c TOTAL Acca: z4G 50 o Utilizing appropriate street o Investigating in more detail the o Providing the appropriate scale furnishings to attract retail feasibility of closing some of and transition between the urban activity: the alleys and streets neighborhood core and existing intersecting Fifth Street. oceanfront high-rise - Benches with trash receptacles development. - Street tree plantings o Investigating in more detail the feasibility of one-way traffic o Further pursuing the numerous - Telephone/information kiosks patterns on certain streets. opportunities for parcel aggregation including the - Drinking fountains o Encouraging redevelopment in possibility of creating "super- - Bus shelters. those areas where existing blocks" - - all of which would structures are substantial . be designed to: o Utilizing appropriate measures to minimize perception of Fifth - Provide screened and Street as a barrier for Urban Neighborhood Area (Parcel B) adequate parking pedestrian crossing: 47.8 Acres - Include pedestrian parking - Strongly designed crosswalks amenities - Pedestrian-sensitive timing In general , this is the core area, - Be developed in a controls for crosswalks lying between First and Fourth comprehensive, unified Streets and extending from Alton manner. - Possible overpasses over Fifth Road to the ocean with the exception Street. of the existing parks. This area is o Relating to the retail core, proposed for residential development Fifth Street development and o Requiring visual barriers between (60 to 100 dwelling units per acre). numerous parks. parking and residential Specific planning recommendations development along Fourth and include: o Providing visual corridors Sixth Streets. through the site which would o Rehabilitating buildings when link the marina and bay on the o Pursuing numerous existing possible. west to the parks and ocean on opportunities for parcel the east. aggregation. o Preserving and restoring ( if necessary) existing historical sites. 51 SOUTH SHORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY • LIKEN N IkkH %HcW 0 ,.,:%. vy!,,,:y.,tii,..,.;,,c,,.. ..,,,.,:,?‘....,..:..,.:„....,:,,,„.,-. ,:,1,..44.„;!!:.4.:44. . -, 0 .„.. ,.. 4] --_i_• • -lir Q 4Y),›. t °, 11.1"."..."1.wagailmrag""1".11.wium.""wmalaTi e 41 1 . ' 1. e , P= — :--- 1 TP 0. 1 *. 1 • . +:10+ IV i l• o . 3Tr E.T sID sFi-OikA7 FSS 5Er4l-i 1-1-UMAtI SoAIZt9, qup►NTy E5.It7E011A1- 6I-AVAGT WI-0 V AL t, PA42K I nr.6 (542FA .E /1\1‘9/612- STRtL :P PARK I N6) s6 i2�cry ke LaN t AFI N Arq' OR t$1 P6t`ITt Al, AN PN 4:eJoI9M T • SU135fIAV ANN1 " 4TtA PptG- 5 Noce t7 E36 FP4V 117n9 -To E5-CABL.1511• ANO tM I NIAIN gUALv-fy 12 u'SI t2t-NTlAL C1E . • 52 Marina South Area (Parcel C) Retail Core (Parcel D) o Strongly relate to the activity 5.6 Acres 11.4 Acres generators on the hotel sites. Located along the bay between The retail core is located in the Marina Upland Area (Parcel E) Biscayne Street and Rebecca Towers, southern part of South Shore between 6.8 Acres this site is proposed for hotel use Biscayne and First Streets and with all ancillary activities such as between Jefferson Avenue and Ocean restaurants, specialty shops, etc. Drive. Commercial use is proposed The marina upland area lies between permitted. Specific recommendations for this area. More specifically, Alton Road and Biscayne Bay and include: a shopping center or mall is extends south from Fifth Street to proposed for the ground-level the South Shore marina site. o Providing strong visual and development, with mixed uses such as Proposed land use for this site is physical interconnection with hotel , residential , and parking to marina-related mixed use South Shore Park. be allowed on the succeeding floor (hotel/commercial ) to include such levels. Additionally, development development as restaurants, o Closing Alton Road between in the retail core should be specialty retail , office and Commerce and First Streets and designed to: lodgings. Specific planning including the vacated right-of- recommendations include: way and water tower site as part o Strongly relate to pedestrian of this parcel . areas. o Placing a building height restriction of 35 feet above o Providing strong surface o Provide human scale at grade parking level throughout the connection to the retail core. level. site. o Providing adequate and visually o Consider the possibility of o Screening parking by planting screened parking. creating a "superblock" to and/or retail activities. provide a mall-like shopping o Providing public access to the complex. o Providing public access to the baywalk. bay. o Demolish structures that are substandard or have major o Possibly providing parking for deficiencies. marina and upland activities on ground level of structures and 53 SOUTH SHORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY • MAIKINA LIFLAND AMA • SPE E r, _ _- 7 E DAY VIA-LK • MAV11JA4 PAR KI .1G VET ASL A o I = 111111111011'111'0U ..• ./ • VA�l6 I��TAI� Pk kVA 1 I ard- MIA 4 • 54 SOUTH SHORE • REVITALIZATION STRATEGY • I� .TAI L- COR . mil lawn_ ( • #41 1�,gRIPPIA: 3: iMsINIMIA 1 :1 ' e U 11 maim/// gitggisoikiinint •/ 1 ►•� ' .,_ 11111111- {l'. 721,5. 4i.e. .iiiii, • ,,,,,t• • ......4.- 1 1 ...-- . ' ft, INII___IWitallilleilliiiiii'''Al ILLIA$1111-ji 13111:1 . I I to ... i., ., --.....i... ,,,,..„...,._,4,..... .,-_,....,15:. ,„, . ►-\'WcN At,I # TPoL al tWNn LEVEL WI-Cl-t , roor \L'NbIN6, Vo6w1Lv its KruT r�tw- zrAiNM�Nr, pcor6-rZI/t1 AMEN\11e5 . r61A1L �a�C 540)(42STS L a k-rE Y sum s -v e Vki y5IGA r-L 1 TO U(2 c1 '1 O&M IVR4 toot2 Gc A, � At�b oAy cc 1 QA�14�, 111 Avt)Ili C I Th r e L- 606-- �5 UUQ �<i NAEP lN-:rr� - MA-635 ��f-�51-t '1' 1-0,A , ��P�'� ��-- D� T WDU�b ,��-o�N U�b��t��Nib ��' MAIL- A�-C�tT� N6• ��-� 6w/ow-cm vtio n AM�,�r1�� II �rR t3LIGK p6V'1PMt•N�' Milt pm 55 locating activities on next level o Creating a "superblock" of the o Requiring unified design to meet Federal flood entire site by eliminating elements for this site and the requirements. internal roads and alleys. adjacent parks. o Requiring development to relate o Utilizing a pedestrian overpass visually to the bay by providing over Alton Road. Resort Hotel Area (Parcel G) "view corridors." 3.5 Acres If the school is not relocated, the o Providing a strong visual feature portion of the site between Fourth near the Causeway and Alton Road. and Fifth Streets will be the same This site is located on the ocean as in Parcel A. The remainder of between two municipal parks and o Using a unifying theme throughout the triangle will be the same as in should have the same land use as all development on the site. Parcel B. Parcel F. Resort Hotel Area (Parcel F) Existing City Parks (Parcels H) Alternative Marina Upland Area 14.1 Acres 35.4 Acres (Parcel E-1) 7.2 Acres This site is the former Miami Beach Of the six City parks, three are Kennel Club site and is adjacent to beach-front parks. It is both South Shore Park and the ocean. recommended that the three parks be Use of this parcel will depend upon Hotel use with all ancillary connected by a linear waterfront resolution of the school relocation activities (specialty retail , walk system and that they utilize problem. If the school is relocated, restaurants, etc. ) and associated their unique locations and vistas to land use and development regulations mixed-use (residential , commercial ) the fullest extent. For all of the on this site will be the same as in development are proposed. parks, the following is recommended: Parcel E, with an emphasis on Additional recommendations include: specialty retail uses, thus providing o Utilizing lush tropical a strong upland marina development o Relating design and development vegetation. stimulus. If this relocation occurs, both to South Shore Park and the other planning recommendations ocean. o Allowing and encouraging include: controlled food vendor activity. o Providing either an overpass or strong surface connection to retail area. 56 SOUTH SHORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY • 301-11H -/OM FMK VpISLI '' 12-Apo II F.--r - ap p �1`. -- vL NMt N ' yr ... .. .e'I . , �+ i '4, o f \, Ill 'IIIIISIMAtialaiiiniguilati. linsme,:?' jari .._ , .....- 11* ?Q'';` \ \-- , • ' ' -'-'- -. - 11....°°.41'41411444111teg' # r,.4.:4' . t :i .1" -741-16111.1, 7 „,ja. Isiditi‘asimasseaktilt .'iliii.ienli liii 1111111itiittia 1 '. MEW 1 ,,74, e4 •' 4. ti, \ 1* r-- ` ACcit S • 'VriL sUVAN- j� 15 :i C-t-11)( 146 • 6,C)vMMA-r CjT MU 6o0ah� Alff• naKIN6 Mm p I "�t-DPEn Arlo I� �1q,oP�l>�Ifi o� PA-a. � ►�5oaf ri �� MA &Ep I / noR1 v€Vewr z oil 1K WWI wo r c ntrty', AlggC � re IS oR5 t6 �-. I Lri1 vt1 1,12E hut, -n- coli r►v 4try t G�l Wa.L a5 fl� COW M� AvI9POVIAity For_ Aia catl�t" / t3 uu ��1)6 ��WD ��n �naKIh16 �aF�MM�D -�1I�1Kl�� IH1 &I b fe-p �I 6111\t) 1i i lA., �21Y E MU.t o rIE6-r, � AS. ?��I�I . Nn rwl`Io c �✓�vrcl - Arra �f P Mf;IN��i caali KVIN� 4JEt MW i 57 o Providing passive recreation visitor and resident alike. developed as small pedestrian activities. Thus it is important that the amenity areas. maximum amenity value be o Encouraging private sector to provided. Of special importance All areas will benefit from the allow for an easement to continue is the portion of the arterial incorporation of amenities; the baywalk/ocean walk in an loop where the Causeway delivers therefore, it is proposed that, uninterrupted fashion north from visitors to the Fifth Street and through incentives built into the South Shore Park on the ocean Alton Road intersection. An land use controls, the private side of the South Beach area. entry feature would be desirable sector be encouraged to provide at this location. amenities in the retail , commercial • and residential areas - - providing Central Marina Facility (Parcel I) o Four east-west roads - - Third screen-buffered parking, pedestrian Street, Second Street, First overpasses, and access to rapid 2.8 Acres Street, and Biscayne Street - - transit stations among many other provide access to the two possibilities. This facility will shortly be under oceanfront parks and to the construction and will be a support City-owned bayside marina Views are another amenity which are facility of the existing marina. property. Providing pedestrian extremely important in the South amenities on these streets Shore area. Through incentive distributes the value of the zoning and height restrictions, ocean and bay frontage into the "view corridors" may be created and AME-FIiT`f FLAN urban neighborhood area and the maintained for the benefit of the central retail area. entire South Shore community. The amenity areas are illustrated in the Amenity Plan (see page 60) and o The linear waterfront parks further articulated in Section 8. constitute an important amenity. 114rM6 TRUGTURE Fl l The proposed amenities are They provide a natural characterized by the following environment for the residents of The proposed infrastructure features: the urban neighborhood, and also p p provide an essential base for improvements are illustrated on the o The arterial loop will provide the resort development. Proposed Transportation Network Map and the Proposed Sewer and Water the first view of South Shore for many; it will also continue to o Eliminating the existing unsafe Lines Maps (see pages 62, 67 and • provide the visual experience for intersections creates small 68) . right-of-way areas that may be 58 ; ..i'•1 , ‘,Am? „.0 _.. of•,• '-..t.ii," . ! . • 't i Iiii,''' 1., ,•.- 411, 1- ,1 li f:• A44 11 yz. . 4,. ,117)40 ., , -,(-, • lytrr,...liki, . ;., . _,,..• ,-, :/,.xi• , ,. , ,...,_./ , . , A li,if , ,r•1 ..,1 0, ., ..•-• 4,, , ‘ 1;.• 1 it!, le ...4i i ii .•, 1 ...- • .\,:'.• /i;kr '''N. I . ''' 1 • - , 1 .$ N 6 ' Air'. ,,i.":;.iffrFrV; ' . '''', • 1, ' • 1.' .', • .., . (i0'.,i ''':4:- ' -' 1 I .1. .- #f Ati ,(1 r I k -•, -;/'ut;t- ,,' • ;.. •- , ., ; alTWE . V)/ 1" IA _._ '‘ r \N • ?..,. _ '.•, . ' • , 4 ''1 --: - . , 1 r :.: .• , -: 1-......_.. .\...,. \ •• ,, 1 . ,....• . --' • : iv, - '1!- : ,1 . !I ' ‘• • --•..2. . ,; 7 1,1 al) il 1.1111 .-. ---: - ,.. . _ , ! ro . 1. .1,11 illil tl :...,,i. 1 -. :) f I ilic ........r1-1 / •0°' . •'k j ,11--) .,„ lii_--41 ,,' -; • 1 t":-' :‘/../ __.. „ . ,. _. . bWilli-,Ii• .11 -fj il 1110i 1. 1 1 i,1 swat 0, ill4 r!' .-' , ;... , - •,..,4 • .11..,---7,11: cmII JAI', , ,/ A,,J',i• I' 1 . : 1 II P , lili 1 T11, . g. v r . i aliii,-.--..,.!..•-• mpg -•-:-•r- ' , . . • 1' • _ --• . .- __ .: , , 12:.__ ..:., 1,1,i.. ,o.. . ; , 7.; i, _...4 7.:_. ..._..,- . -..-- ...0/4/1//), .,M3 • - - • „/ , --...-, '''';.-.1 • .. •- .. "-,,,'7'-',--:"'' 4!7,-...-.Aar:iti..7.-aier”......-....a., ••• i.',i ------7.---;,_7:. ..e.6" . i • - . 1 f ., - .....1- ....- ,... ,,,,.......-:.:. I 1 ,...,, . ' 11111011111111S--- r °` .' .-4 . _.,_ . •:_••-••••,...--...,,,..,..„,...„-•,-._:_____. _ ,) 7. . .-. . •,• ' .1---_-_----- 4, --- - - --- __._ , _._ _ r._...._, _ . r -_.- - 4-• SA ,,u.,.----"It";.,0-,-.(7,- ---7,-',,.....,r-c,i-,.." p.f.",X:',...,..,..:.;-,,,-,N,.. " ..;•;',.1:: .:,;-_,.1..1,i.,:,_,e'• e- ,7'3_.,7_'• ..._ -.,_ --- :..-- - 1 lin ;; ; 1 ; ; - • -1-1• I --.._4;. !•1_2. : ' : Tr• 4 N'--r• 1 ,... ‘ r:`,..t.. ,..„".. 11111111* : I tili '''.)..,Xe:te,.,,%."1111311411:1I,A0.. '. .‘I ' '. „._....:.......... c .. • • , ;• ,.. - ..... ift511110/r • ; - cc; . , „ . ; ; .0 I e.' ..1- •r-,' ullimiiii ,.... „ ..,,... ,_ -_ - ,..., , „46.,„,, .2...,...,,4._ r.„.,,, ..; .„,.,,,,,, , 1 4" 'S 1 ! ; .. - . .. ,......„., .,,,,,-„,...,77..„Ait,_;A _•:-... . „owr-J... 7 ----. - /..)i . ,...1 i ,i -, -:..--:-. ..... ' lia-i - • -t.--gir,a: • t -, ,----. , 1 1'4 ;•,.A" • . (Ls, ..j, .., ••- ' ' -,--1;!,n_ --t".:-..- -7 =Ail - 1,.-...,-::: 34. .. ee , , '. ' -.1 i 4,• ; 1-; 4' . i..;•. .e',,,,,-1- ' ..,,,,, . — _ .. ., • ..d I ' ralmlim",...009- -- TATI:----'--• ' . . •- .....i _____ ,....•-•' ,- ..--- -"'' . . '-' - • •- . - '.75 ,.--i -----'7,- - --- ENTRANCE VIEW FROM BAY . r-D _ _ SOUTH SHORE MARINA CONCEPTUAL DRAWING 59... _____ \ / :..N\ • . . - •c /44:;.+V \ _ . SOUTH SHORE . •. REVITALIZATION LEGEND 4 \• . . . STRATEGY \., eltip e0(e<1.0 ' , • ' • •. ,„iii PARKS/WALKS 4 S' ?,&4 #\ \ AMENITY PLAN IIIMI VEHICULAR LOOP .. (9 el, VRI ISUAL/PEDESTAN LD /I I. • ENTRANCEN 4FEATU NN: . • ‘' N, .•. . 0 PUBLIC PEDESTR.41/"16, * N. 411wo: AMENITIES .t. "" **/- ' ' II\\ / 'h. ' \' . • .:- PRIVATE AMENITI S idipjp, di > 411.46_ 410)N,v,, ‘,,,,,‘,,, ,... ... •-. :. . .. _ i ,.... : .144 1,••••••••..... - ' - NEIGHBOb• • k * ' ® -2• . 471,4 4111 Vp % 4 111 %:::::.%.*::.:1 .. • • HOTE0c* -4' k . 4 CO, .„, 14) - • . . . . . _ . a,.. 04,1044' (1C7k0° O4/A3AtP441, #* i 0 % 4 91 40i,44 s // 0, V,N. •. 4,44ip fo • • • • • • • • •• •• •• . .•...•••••...•• •• •• •• •• •• • ..•..•..•..•...•...•••.•.•.•... •..• . . . . . •. •. •. •. • •• 4411,44 4 li*h ' ri& a44,% ii r II 4._ „,1 4/4"t A rri4 P Vtaiiiii*A1116.7''''''' . All.... 4 s% (4 • ...:.:...:....-.:::::::.::::::::::.::•:.:v7::.::::.::::.::::.::::;!..,y, i .• • 0 ar.‘ iiiii,s 4, . .::::.:::::::::::::::::::::.;e::::::::::::::::::•.:**- ..-, /- qv*/ t.--;111911131111111111111111111111111111111111111111M111111311illIVII1111111111111111111111111111111111 rit„,,_,,llll ‘0,.. ...::::::.:.:::::::•::::::•::::••••••:-.......---:...-:-• ...- - ' •L ,,,,,*„. . • tutztustatunstattstiMilifiettnfitemarife :•:•.*:.::-LI.:1•-:-•••:•• .- - I "4 60 o Designation of parking services (Metrobus, Metrorail , water 1EH4ICUI.AR ''t'STMA improvements taxis) would provide additional mobility for people frequenting the The vehicular system is carefully o Public transportation. area. Under the proposed plan, correlated to the land use structure. primary access to the area will A hierarchy of roadways is created by still be provided from Fifth Street. utilizing the four 100-foot-wide North-south access has been limited rights-of-way that exist in the area: entry area to Alton Road, Washington Avenue, Collins Avenue, and Ocean Drive. o Fifth Street The Causeway deposits vehicles at Existing access via Lenox, the Fifth Street and Alton Road Jefferson, Meridian, and Euclid o Alton Road intersection. This entry point Avenues has been eliminated or needs special treatment to give a altered, as addressed in later o First Street strong, positive first impression to sections of this report. visitors and a welcoming experience o Washington Avenue. to residents. The availability of The principal reasons for limiting City-owned land allows the entry the number of access points to the These roadways help structure the treatment to be implemented quickly, South Shore area include: land use districts. perhaps as a part of the marina specialty area development. o Providing well-defined and The vehicular system is composed of physically attractive area six related elements: Parking for the marina specialty entrances. area can, to a large extent, be o Definition of entry area accessed close to this entry point, o Coordinating access and thus reducing unnecessary traffic circulation to promote the o Designation of access points through the area. smooth and efficient flow of traffic into and out of the o Creation of internal circulation area. and movement cdCGe55 o Segregating commerical and o Elimination of undesirable residential traffic to the intersection situations The automobile will provide the extent possible to create a more primary means of access to -the pleasant environment. Revitalization Area, although increased public transportation 61 N\ • SOUTH SHORE .\/4744111' � oe�� ` • - REVITALIZATION �� 4 � - STRATEGY LEGEND 4.teo(lT ' * \,. Ws, ,, ��\ \ ' PROPOSED PRIMARY LOOP ROAD + , }� 44 TRANSPORTATION r�1 SECONDARY LOOP ROAD J 4411 , CIF# '4 0-• \ NETWORK TO BE CLOSED r tiQ POSSIBLE CLOSURE ,V/ J O,� ,si. It TO REMAIN c ' •' ' ;' 44:A. N,N�'s• \. RC2/O` :::.♦Q '?t © NUMBER OF LANES ,�• i D DIVIDED ROADWAI�#675* r '`':'•'`iS 4;1 4 . 1?,0,7* , ..6,ii?,:':'ill„... -CRIAbv,i, "k\.\s . i . • . ': . . , 4 . k 42 azelloAtti:,liil:,...04 , • •,,,, " • f 4# ,,,,*0 4.4"::„,.,,,,„,:. egvw."< .- . #ii47 % �y ..:91,:iiiii;iilei* A / "\ s • r 114.11 © N'/ h, 44' is 4fc' #0API *ha i's'iii;:qii:. * , 4" 16:4 / vii , diiiichli,,.vAp_ .. 0/iff* e4IIiI -ww, drili11.11.:T. ,1%. -we • - j'a/ Wk• s '1Q???4,* 16* • ie.: ,,,.,..:7111.1404 00. , ,, , - � 1 04 V J :..?*kofr, II, 4* I. :•4::y 'sit 3 -z04iir 1141.4'044 4 � qi, :17* ::$ZItii, ♦ •i P ..e. 7 ' ... i / ‘:./ 119 " .. .............. ,12.. w r. ••••$§41,1114J.:.... „.." /I/Alb , UV Ail •,.:,,--- st -.--`",7".,•-----' 4,0 62 While it is difficult to project o Washington Avenue, Euclid anticipated traffic volumes in the Avenue, and Third Street area, limitingaccess elim'nafikon O tnter�Gtlot s points is not F expected to adversely impact traffic This intersection is improved by flows. Alterations to the existing network the closure of Euclid Avenue have been incorporated so as to between Fifth and Third Streets eliminate the hazardous geometric or by the provision of a conditions at five intersections. cul-de-sac on Euclid Avenue just Girtuiatloh The improvements include: north of its intersection with Third Street. The principal elements of the o Alton Road, Michigan Avenue, and proposed circulation plan are two Second Street o Biscayne Street and Ocean Drive interconnected loops. The Alton Road - First Street - Washington Avenue Access to Alton Road via either The problems at this corridor will offer primary Michigan Avenue or Second Street intersection arise from the circulation through the South Shore is eliminated by means of a parking layout to the east of area and offer access to the mandatory turn from Michigan to Ocean Drive. Redevelopment of principal residential and commercial Second and vice versa. that property should be areas. A second loop, utilizing the accompanied by a more efficient Jefferson Avenue (south of First o Alton Road, Jefferson Avenue, parking layout that would either Street) - Biscayne Street - Ocean and Commerce Street create a T-intersection or Drive corridors, will not only eliminate parking access from supplement the primary loop by This intersection is improved by this intersection. offering access to the recreational closing Alton Road between First and other commercial areas, but will Street and Jefferson Avenue. Several other possible street also offer a scenic drive along the closures have been indicated. southern and eastern coastal o Washington Avenue and First First, consolidation of the property perimeter of the area. Street bounded by First Street, Biscayne Street, Jefferson Avenue, and If consolidating properties on the To eliminate the skewed Collins Avenue can be achieved by east and west sides of Alton Road is alignment of Washington Avenue closing Commerce Street and deemed desirable, Michigan Avenue north and south of First Street, Washington Avenue (south of First between Fifth Street and Second it is proposed that Washington Street) . Neither closure should Street could be substituted for Alton Avenue operate as a one-way, have a detrimental impact on traffic Road as an element of the primary northbound roadway between circulation. Second, closure of loop. Biscayne and First Streets. 63 SOUTH SHORE • REVITALIZATION . STRATEGY . --\. , ,. } �kr i \-11 • Ill iii.,e.: � • 5 TRV-' 1114 ! 1110 Li.I Ml l v-wh i off" .4A.. .' cIEr/si M � N�T l�t. ' Ie�1 . af IrI-(bc110h{; 11511 -r M Ml��lr Farr 4 lb __. 1111 /'� Y��`/ NoUE t Lun 1A11.1, Ill, PArvIrie LAME cP -rltiG IlsopMMinsmigt. kl...14--)1'-_-___ OLD. , C�1 I>; 1NA`1 Stet; 1. ,r. ;.• 4--- • :kit c EAT1 S 5Pr'f" ! :I: E{B ci iS WALK $ ifItigi - 4 PA 1? -IMG L,IIItEIL oW012 ii L Y , # . ° hi\ r .. .. . poi . • ,, , , ).. . . t Rf4 ,; x 15T I NC- Au-rE WATE "A" .A LIE LTTE b" TYMIGAL IN-rGTI 'I . go-n-t AGtFr1 1A-rivt-c WavLI) PG- ,Cc c61 w=t.' -,. GIirUATm I _' ALnt (l J-HI c riA L I; 64 Euclid and Lenox Avenues between for wider sidewalks and amenity Fifth and Fourth Streets will allow development, but also allows for the UTILITIES increased spacing between adjacent development of parking spaces along intersections and, thereby, improve and off the main entry point. traffic flow. Third, the closure of Completion of major water system Meridian and Jefferson Avenues loops and the provision of between Fifth and Fourth Streets will additional storage and pumping allow for the consolidation of those F0blf0frafSrorlelon capacity would serve to enhance the parcels along Fifth Street designated system. The 20-inch diameter line for commercial development and limit Increased public transportation along Fifth Street and Ocean Drive. the quantity of traffic from Fifth service is an essential element of could be extended along Ocean Drive Street through the residential areas the revitalization effort. While and tied back into the storage tank to the south of Fourth Street. the Metropolitan Dade County Transit at the south end of Alton Road. Another alternative to closing these Authority has the responsibility for Completing the loop would strengthen streets is the provision of head-in establishing routes, it appears that the overall supply system and allow curb parking within that right-of-way bus service along the two loop the system to be fed from opposing to serve the retail areas. corridors would sufficiently serve directions. The elevated storage the area. Defined bus stops and tank could be replaced by a ground adequate weather protection level storage tank and repumping structures should be incorporated as station. A capacity increase could r1rW15 part of the transportation element be coupled with the conversion to in South Shore. Also, Miami Beach provide additional storage for the To achieve the most efficient use of is being considered as one of the beach to help satisfy additional the existing public right-of-way, the links on an expanded Metrorail storage, peak flow and fire flow City should encourage private system. demands created by new development. developers to provide an adequate A new repumping facility would supply of off-street parking to Another possibility is the provision likewise help satisfy new fire flow accommodate their projects. of tram or jitney service to areas requirements. On-street parking should be such as the convention center. In minimized. addition, a water taxi to the South In the event of new development, Shore Marina offers an exciting wastewater collection could be Eliminating many of the intersections transit alternative. segregated into a system which along Fifth Street or making them handled just the South Shore area. into one-way facilities not only A new pumping station would have to reduces vehicular conflicts, allowing be built and should be located as centrally as possible. New 65 collection lines would be required to direct flow to the station. A force main would have to connect this • station to transmission facilities to carry flow to the Virginia Key plant. Additional facility updating would be available during any new development. This updating could include street lighting, storm drainage and other utilities in the South Shore area on an as-needed basis or to serve individual new developments. 66 N\ . N. SOUTH SHORE * REVITALIZATION LEGEND \ ' ?(it/IA' STRATEGY I\ tvsw VA\ • \ PROPOSED LI - -- PROPOSED WATER NO: I% . IIIIIk% \ . WATER LINES */* .0 -1,c4,,y,i , . ) ;Iri, ,. , _ -., -. • •04,4 411,, * 29 4111 \/ , /\ A, -, \.\\,, - c;caek s , .00i- / / /74,44 4>,.46 iiiff4r ** 4 Nts4tris:\V ' . / g . & # • 0 . 44-71. 1 . , wAy • i. ,) ,, .0 , „- . 71t% : 4 I/6' / 0 #soof . 41- . . 4t, /4, ft ALTON RD. o°4" i I 7142 1 ". 67 / N\ - , 0 SOUTH SHORE .V. e27.8+ \\ . .. . REVITALIZATION LEGEND 1*clo(•(1.A, Aiklkpea\ • , \ • STRATEGY / 404r -ve46ve\\ . • _______ PROPOSED SANITARY s44%4 4117. # \ PROPOSED . 7 ,,"" °164, tic * NNN. N • SANITARY SEWER -0 4-4'ci 1• 'll N• . - s,ipa74t c, _ -NV 4Ps• \ ' /fts,AP ec‹z7 , ., ., . \ ,,,,.. . • -aillit, 47411 47* wwlii#N40 :4*,'- . - , • j444144.4, *if/141/ 1172 . L9/1/. `5) 1, . . . , . , . .ic ALTON RD. Illif Li , • ° I % 68 8. r7V51cpt 11UIDELIN-5 i urrioduo-noiJ environment, one which will preserve o Develop guidelines and Realizing the goals and objectives and enhance South Shore's positive standards that establish for the revitalization of South Shore resources while eliminating or South Shore as a "total requires design and economic minimizing its negative aspects. image" environment - - a strategies responsive to the issues The strategy will address the rights water-oriented community in and problems facing South Shore of those already living in the South which to live, work and today. Shore as well as those who will be play. attracted to the community and thus will involve the following actions: o Create more effective pedestrian and vehicular VIVA I4 t)55t(oI-1 IoVID6UNE•5 o Maximize South Shore's land circulation to allow people use, natural environment and to move into, not only The urban design strategy is to existing resource through, South Shore. create a new urban neighborhood/ potentials. Driving around the loop road resort community identity for South should be experienced as a Shore and to strengthen the economic drive through a linear park. well-being of the area by providing an attractive and functional , y�I -,- It7:11:* t' ME • - . ' ' e . iWit, 1111 Tr II- - . 1 , • ", /L .4f ► iga ..... . • '� ISI: + - _ ,. OU1.4, •0 SCA"F U 121 N t•I E 16 LeWOo -11ZtS.1J9T1014L AREA t..)C(Sl-1NG (`1- 1S IM1bIZTAL r CO(zE w5 LIPPRDP( iii BET'&iFEt1 OEM ii p2our 4.1161-I OSE C_CMR30EUr OF SCALE N EIGL(I32e.LIG V,CO Fr t7EvE.1-oPl-l1=u 1- SAYS(CE rSAYS(UE tEvE tO1 N� -r AO0 EX(517 06 O' Ali!SIU ITv vArte 15 n200-1 u(GuQJSE /V.60( it 2E0-"W.W-Or- COO MuliDiOLI r- COOMU/DiOU 5"IS ,QlbIcW 69 Implementing the South Shore considering building massing, the effectively utilized as oasis Revitalization Strategy through these shadow created should be plotted areas for people to congregate actions will foster the desired urban to anticipate the seasonal during the daytime heat. Street neighborhood/ resort community quantities of shade and its furniture such as umbrellas, identity and make the site an effect on adjacent buildings, canopies, and tents are effective exciting area in which to live, shop, open space, and activity areas. for both shade and visual work, and be entertained. Sun-oriented amenities such as interest. Shading devices also swimming pools should not be may serve as protection from rain placed in areas of mid-day summer and, therefore, will relate to shade. pedestrian circulation and epvitKoMEN1AL wiDEUNES congregation areas. o Use shading "devices" to The special qualities of Miami Beach encourage outdoor activity during o Express the potential of Miami should be manifested in a design the summer months. Relief from Beach's southeasterly breezes far philosophy sympathetic to the the summer heat should be summer cooling in architectural regional environment The following provided for storefronts and and landscape design. Large are some of the actions that will be arcades that face the south by building masses should be set involved: using architectural overhangs, sufficiently apart to encourage awnings, or adjacent dense moderate velocity air currents vegetation. The generous use of between them. Continuous indigenous, low maintenance openings in buildings may act as Gllrnate vegetation would be appropriate breezeways and become pleasantly as both a shade-producer and an cooled even during the warmest o Consider the angle of the sun at aesthetic element. The shade days. Dense canopy trees in its highest and lowest points, produced by buildings can be groupings could be introduced in large open areas to create a particularly in the design of favorable "bosque" effect below. southern elevations. Balcony and "'` �� arcade depths should recognize the („-t o Acknowledge the cooling effect of positive effect of winter solar „} 1 1 ti. . water elements, particularly in radiation, while screens and ( Y,.- light of the project's location. shading elements can mitigate the �- _.---u Reflective pools, fountains, or intensity of the summer heat. ^�.r'• ., I I � i i i i s i l i i• waterfalls can be designed to Large glass areas facing south II IIImaximize the cooling effect of should be recessed or screened �'0I ` % % \, / water, particularly water set in from the summer sun. In Q I motion. Air currents passing {� Wit—• , ;L fill�!I.�f�'llu ii / . •, 70 through fountains and waterf,-Ireel-5ca G5 area its own special identity and elements would have a refreshing �' image. The new "total image" effect on adjacent open spaces. should be emphasized throughout o Use the upper level of parking the site through the imaginative structures as amenity space for use of graphics and signage. adjacent residential/office and Restaurants and commercial uses retail buildings. The parkng should also relate to the theme. structures should have commercial Df. frontages to minimize their o Emphasize tropical and indigenous ti 0. visual impacts and to buffer vegetation throughout the site as OSQ adjacent residential buildings. part of the South Shore "total • 0 0° .1 image." This emphasis could be e 0 d .: o Provide a strong sense of entry - accomplished by the use of trees l0 � - possibly a large water to define pedestrian street edges 05p1 feature - - to emphasize the and pedestrian walkways. Outdoor I � water-oriented community. spaces should also be reinforced by trees and other vegetation. :....!. .4ii ollow hesreetscapeo� .i: Seinfocete conceptfhuman o Define walkwayedges and• p:11 scale. Landscaping and paving directions of pedestrian movement should be designed in small by creative lighting standards. increments or elements to This definition would not only • - mitigate the impact of large continue the "total image" . • • i ;'• i; blank walls or unbroken surfaces. concept, but would also be a safety feature. o .c..•. •• o Use high quality street furniture • 14u throughout the project. • • S�� aofiiqi11e5 �o . ;.: . ;; irna• jc o Provide areas of passive . • `4 ' �"` ways relaXand olocate n �special seating n the n o Develop an urban/resort theme for places along the visual South Shore which would give the corridors. Opportunities for 71 both organized and unstructured o Place pedestrian crossways and o Design development along the activities should be provided in signal lights with timers in key ocean and bay to provide a the City facilities. locations. Wherever possible, variety of functional and visual paving articulation should be relationships between the land o Employ signage and entrance used at pedestrian intersections and the water. features to encourage circulation to define the crossing area. via the planned loop system. • Specific access points from thef{gh10YAYIDPI 6UlbS1.I1,1ES loop roads onto the individual parcels should be designated to vlevI5 control vehicular activity. The following guidelines are Intersection conflicts and intended to help individual owners hazardous intersections should be and merchants formulate plans for eliminated wherever possible. the rehabilitation of their tui+ - buildings. The guidelines do 'not pu o Provide parking on site to extent imply that there is one correct � possible. All new development style to follow. Rather, their should be required to provide the 4 �` purpose is to offer a framework necessary parking on site. 11.” within which individual decisions J . •_`\ can be made. I I; 9:� - - a n 611147- I , ,. o It is most effective to develop I \ P• r ' is-•• =� ' l building treatment designs based 1' I %�� i.' " �;�:' : . i on entire block frontage. This ,. _= •� I � .. approach allows easier and better ( Air coordination of color, design 0. 0till mil 1 r{ 1!s'sR" . '�'�� anir =` ` i NI theme, materials and scale. _)1 :�1� =R! 4_ :: . •° _ — - I. _ ,. .�I no• + I LI • n, :R. • , ,_. L.- L.9 1 �� o All original architectural elements, including cornices, o Screen open parking lots from lintels, sills, plasters, columns adjacent streets, pedestrian and ornamental detailing should areas, buildings, etc. Parking o Establish visual corridors from be respected in any renovation structures should be covered and Biscayne Bay to the ocean and work. To accomplish this their tops allocated to human provide pedestrian amenities activities and landscaping. along these corridors. 72 goal , these elements often must problem is a visual one and the impression of habitation and be re-exposed if they have been consistency with the original activity. Windows must be covered by subsequent layers of spirit of the building is more preserved and protected against building material . valuable ultimately than needless alteration, boarding-up structural gymnastics. or elimination. If the original o New first floor work should be windows cannot be saved and it treated as infill work below the o Just as a building must have a is necessary to replace them, building lintel and between way of reaching the ground, it the new windows should reflect plasters or columns that carry must have a way of stopping at the same size, proportion and, the apparent weight of the the top. Many older buildings if possible, detailing as the building. achieve this with ornate, heavy original windows. cornices or strongly articulated o It is important not to ignore the eaves. Removing this cornice or o Too often signs overpower vertical continuity of the parts of the detail work weakens buildings. The context' and facade. Usually the visual the composition of the facade placement of signs are important result of remodeling is that the and diminishes the image of the in determining proper size. upper floors appear to be building. Unless a cornice or With proper treatment, the unconnected to the ground floor. eave is structurally unsound, it building itself can serve as a In extreme cases, the upper should not be removed for the larger, more impressive sign. floors seem to float if the new sake of modernization. If it Individual signs must reinforce work in the ground does not must be removed, it should be a building's character, not relate to the rhythmic patterns replaced with elements that obscure it. Most older originally expressed by the duplicate the original intent, structures have comfortable alternating of window and wall . if not appearance. places along their facades in which signage can be The mass of the building must o When viewed from across the accommodated. What is desired appear to rest on solid support. street or from down the block, are excellence of lettering, Usually the horizontal and the image of a building is careful color coordination with vertical elements that offer such likely to depend on its upper- the building, creative lighting support are strongly expressed on story facade. For this reason, and the use of plaques, logos the facades of old buldings and careful attention must be paid and decorative devices. Signs new work should not eliminate or to upper-story windows, must identify and instruct, obscure them on the ground-floor particularly their shapes, striving to have the impact of level . While it is acknowledged placement and decorative trim. art, and an aesthetic, that there are many ways to These windows give a building ornamental use. support a structural load, the 73 o Awnings and window shades serve a The color chart contained in the tropical environment of the dual purpose when attached along Facade Review Regulations, Section community. Owners are required to a building facade. They offer 24, of the Miami Beach Zoning select colors from this chart when the inhabitant an immediate means Ordinance, lists shadings of color painting their buildings. of environmental control while that the City feels will enhance the serving as a strong source of identification for property owners, merchants, and passing {- — r �' pedestrians. Their identifying 41 _ statement, however, may be one of i � x.0 `, t �confusion when scale and colorIi L1�L4are not coordinated. When ar --1 collection of shades or awnings g punctuates the upper levels of a fi facade and when a series of 41 ‘-- • storefronts is aligned along the .4W TiZ , 0 street, care must be taken to I t express common design ._r"_- -- 101011611111.01111. 1 ._ 1 — —. characteristics while allowing for individual expression. XIS1IN6 PA A7 ; -ryvicAt- o One of the most important decisions building owners make is the choice of exterior color. Choosing colors is a personal thing, but it has an enormous . effect on the general character - of the street. A good color 9 ` t 11D-a in . mil "tel scheme should be neighborly as 9 ytill �1__ �_{_ L1�N�� " well as effective in itself, so • . /' that both the building and the ' ' 6I�NY� ' �6 streetscape benefit. In general — - � ' 1P11 , ' little or nothing is gained by • • • • • •. • ; k , ;•..,>. ' the use of loud colors, AWN N� 6,5 • P,AIc�� Ili 49 especially those with no - • tradition of local usage. 74 PO ftb F O , '1. URIAN D IG,N KAPI-1 (6 u(- o This section clarifies, develops and expresses the characteristics of the plan in three-dimensional terms. The .. or ak following categories are discussed: dr "' + ��,,�-y�� Wilik i 'X�Design principles - Consideration of �� 4.. clII - l.f % • ' , 0 I-- basic principles as guidelines for void at ,>i�.,..I s, . - South Shore revitalization, in terms ow '1` ,(1t5 .,._4? y - of visual quality, circulation, elements of form, and organization. Design plan framework - Application of principles to the Revitalization Area as a whole, diagramatically illustrating human scale, massing, and visual/spatial organization concerns. Design plan vocabulary - Method of NI N' �' achieving identifiable unity and ,;i �^ I appropriate imagery through * 4►��4,, i' W�11 f application of consistent design elements. ` .d qri-ig lil Design plan implementation - . Prototypical examples and renovation guidelines. • /164 (.1171017; 1 t:s ; , Ft1�f t f 04100400110 . ,� 1 lwArric- 75 PGt 16 P1 PR I IJG I PLE The following design principles have o New construction and block quality and stimulating been extrapolated from many sources, infill projects should maintain additional revitalization. . including development guidelines the scale of the immediate site. prepared for the South Shore The balance and unity of a block Revitalization Area's original plan. are disturbed when scale is The principles illustrate basic ignored. -:0 --- concepts related to revitalization, 114'Aand may be applied to decisions ? 41!:: concerning scale, mass, circulation ---/ and open space. t ; -.....111 J .....( " Ali Llj r---11ir , —7 tV ,,,y �i/�Il./ �i�/hI/viii//i�iia.•. ��//�Iieei 4 ///�� W------------11W------------11V 'li i o Existing significant structures and architectural resources should be integrated into revitalization efforts. This integration would provide scale o Public open spaces should be references and maintain the scattered, and varied in terms of 0 New construction should endeavor South Shore identity and sense size, shape, and activity. to restore the continuous of place. streetscape through infill o Diversity of building types and projects. o Public structures, architectural uses should be encouraged. resources, and natural features Preserving significant structures o Vehicular circulation should such as water vistas provide while attracting new construction occur externally of the block. focal points and should be results in such diversity. Unity Encouraging land aggregration consciously integrated into the and harmony may be achieved could allow the development of pedestrian and vehicular through sensitivity to scale, "superblock" projects, network. mass, and use of materials. potentially contributing significantly to the area's 76 P'ESi64 RAM. FRAMEWORK The design plan framework establishes o Provide surface parking and o Establish "view corridors" to the pattern of relationships between parking structures with create and maintain views and functionally diverse districts. The substantial landscape buffers to vistas of the bay, the ocean, following massing scheme builds on screen them from the street and and Government Cut. The the existing massing in the area and adjoining land uses in the east-west streets that relate to recognizes the environmental context, retail/commercial area. Parking the two oceanfront parks already principles of human scale, and the in the commercial districts have the beginning of a "view importance of views and vistas: could be screened by commercial corridor" because of the frontage. Similarly, in the existence of the parks. urban residential district, a Incentive zoning could encourage o Reinforce the concept of human residential street frontage the establishment of such scale with streetscape could screen or mitigate the corridors toward the bay. Alton. treatments. Whenever possible visual impact of parking. Road and Washington Avenue low-rise buildings should be suggest that a "view corridor" located at street side to lessen be established at their the impact of higher structures convergence towards Government behind. Architectural facade Cut east on Fifth Street. A treatments with doors and vista of the ocean already windows, site furnishings, and exists and should be maintained. plantings should all recognize and contribute to a sense of L /7— human scale. c at 41* amen.••=.. ill 111TH 1111, �I l' tl T CP ei 77 Presented in this section is a sample can be utilized to achieve urban design vocabulary illustrating how design harmony, by balancing urban design elements such as: diversity through the orderly use of uniform, related design elements. o Lighting The initial choice of design o Signage elements relates to the area's o Benches environmental context (climate and native materials), social/cultural o Trash receptacles heritage, availability, costs, o Public telephones vandal resistance, and desired image. o Planters o Kiosks o Bollards o Walls ] ri.-_-___—_-_____It- L-lipli '7S� o Paving -, •1. � o Bus shelters no n ■ num 1 imp .■■_■_■ ■ o Crosswalks ....p... ■■ ' . ! ■■■9' i 'ii= i ,U Cifl5 • iii iii i ire �.• I MUM ■ o Parking area _ 1 ::;lui': NMI Eln . 01 1 111r ' 1 Wi_li , Mir lit • . .. • ....,Oili _fig, ab, mks, r Vis, 78 6L 11 VM -2N 11NI lV_Ili Vi O ..;° ,. '441' 11111 0. - ,gill kI�� 1111) . . _ GhHINSINNr14 - .LP • AO31VHIS NOI1VZI1V1IA3a 31OHS H1fOS SOUTH SHORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY ' ' ili ''.. ' W1-;i:•4, - • TYrICAI, RANI par %t4lt\i'N(th,\ \ l'A \,,,,. :-.,-,:k,•ctre2,; A1/4 MOVtp. C INmA011756- ` .4' ore. -ri4 AY �, • , i1, , G+,ig iib rc WArtg.MAR-• ,•~y r '1, . . i.. , 0 ' 4 , . 1. ‘.. ! 10 4., , :01, isf ', II It'':;‘.. 1' l'il ._.0 Al 6) .zio IV ? 044,11 . . ' l' ii..V.i.It 1 • ' ' c--q‘. 11;,-ril: II'- ' e/ - L - JVql6f);A ‘` ''.0.. t ., . ,0,:. --- � o� key a�.. 1 alilit ; . . __ '\.'''.". • y3—I . ' ' • 4.'N\\\7Na. 4/„•4 _I:, Pi-- )A4$ 0,:. IlftVtil..)iN ' — . '' . • „I, I I A....,V.1:,(1 if ,r v 1 I Pi-./..,V ' { ( ' ("VA PrOME-• I.A00.-.. ._i p ^,.ip A A. .. N WWM 6ADI4 .n- = 17% f 80 SOUTH SHORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY • IGMPCIE Ilii-, 1-11L. INc 'n I sin 1 011 ELI Re651?-r,A.1.6 I ,crt _____Th-c,I. trii .6MAt L•51N G(,E POST LAK6E.--rWo. Posr I t1 FAM p SI 6'NAoE 5[G NASI l« 81 SOUTH SHORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY LIGHTING-� anitil 1N� WUftc P `Lr,&NT1N& . NNW IS , Illi, ...._lil tri--11 I: MIII 5----,--. , � � 1. -,,,...,________„.ieb vii6 . =O a 1 i tilt.;; * Willitil . I iitP 1.0 ei.c=t =or 1 '1"."Wullmaw'mon.....ii-r: tilt I MR rVAoWA"( S EcO N PA Y RoAU WA L WAY t-i,6,NT11\1& of PARKIN& la-t" LI4NTINL i&NTIN& LI&NTIN6 82 pEs1(,44 PEAL! I M PLE MPti1TAY101-1 This section illustrates potential development scenarios of selected portions of the Revitalization Area: all MU o Entry area :J,.. . .,;;.. .� 4. „„„,,,, . .. .... . . . • o Fifth Street '9%01, .:•,� :, • •, , . a. o Arterial loop - Washington Avenue ��' ;il;;;i�';/..alt. ; at Third Street ;)�;;iSL'��4- J- . o South Shore Park Promenade }�`'��i�� i '��\' •• ••• c:. o Washington Avenue/Fifth Street rt ;•• 111.111111111 ;• intersection . • I • • • • 83 • , ,,v•Itli,,.. + , kg ,„.. 'a' •• ,A.. Ar0 ••* ''',,''''.0 ,.',W; ''''i.„0 •• ' Al. .._' y'p.oht 1.4 fei,,,:...,„2.ef,,,4 .c.f.tai.t.itirt,,,lit,7_ -,c','.,c,,,41,•*-,,..4-,tr,,X"': 1: ...fr;S: -••'. ,V*16, - • ,ri,'''' ' ,..N.-- t -At7'-'s`S4...'" `I'''' 1 , - '''..•"",4 '-`" '''-• ',7.: V. .T 0 --,,., :,...,..1extce-,- ,. ..,..,-)1, ,; ..-f..:,..,,, .1i-,,t''' f._- .t.1.-'2, 4-- '' .'" ''. ''"-*•4"...1•41,. 444--' -e- ` c.4. ....7 , ••il- ... , -, 4.,..;„.- 1,1,e.leic'g -4 ....,‘,‘•"sh-r-",• --r'-V-.4,-Xiii-._ „.. k-...-. ef444,11 .,itr- T.Ii•..^' - -t . 4 . ... ''' '3'' •F ii,i'4.4r '..",'. i,e ..ixt,..0-.I ••• '4_, „" ..-"f„.2'1" i,,,,Z "-' . ..:*-0'.".% Z..‘-,„ hvt,I..0,,,,,i'' ft,'01`,*•.k.'4it 1VO.,...,-Va''',,)'''''.2s4"..A° ' ,A0,,,,,,,k,1,,,g10'.A.t.ti:Wit.-,i„_„' '',f,e,'%:"4,.-- , ''.„'"...'' ...-3 €_.....,4, L., ,,,,,,,,.„ ,,---: -.• ‘ ,-71-.., ,, * ' 4:.!?" .4',...,-,:flIT4'-N4W. VS.,'-V.' '.'''''... 45fir-4. ' ' ' LT li• 1+. 4.t•-,',.! 11,,,,,, 't `,,,..-,,,•'• 4 f.'!" .4.• ':... ,,..4.fie. .... , ..„4„.0.,„,•;,...1. • ... .. ._ _, .... , ... _ ...,,,,.....,.....• „, ., •, :t.....1...4.,,t,..., _. .. . ,.... ...,( i ,- ,,,.. . ,‘ _..,.• .6,,wz:,-6. - —-,•,c, /, ''.,- -. — ' 4-- I;i•-• ‘.1;--1:-.p,.=-.1=4.:•$t„., .,' . ''',.. 4:1,-- -• • , r7, ..,. .„4._,..., Al's,,c,„„_ V*,_,112 .11; ..... ,,,-„,..... ^-,,,,.,`" _.,.. I .-44. „,•• • _7,1 1.1, ...t. -."... 4:147,1"‘ - -,.,, 44.-?".....",-:., 'I-. ...-•- ,•••-•' . -. -4..... ......tt-k,..•. ' .., . ‘.1.., '";,c t. . .4 ....,g . , ,,,,,,,o,,,„ low .,,,,.., ,.„• .r.— . ,,„. 44,.., , ...",.. 4---. V• .4,,a.RILA ..-,,,,, s ,..i.,,,,„ ,.., .4, ..., . ... , ti,"'„„4. ,,, . . ,,,-. ..t...,-. -. ,'4'0% 6"'17 ''.'11: ,,., "it','•7.•••-•-, " '- -,. .,''''. - 4,-,X-rs;;%.". •"• 4. . •-•;,.,•,..gt•••,-,,--1„,. . ,..r OP - - .,,,, _ ... . lit ... .0„„..... ...... ...,... , _, 4-24.,,,k•N-,.• .-4'.3.4‘., •.'...';',-.f,. .:1:243411-...1.1.:-.1.,',,e4W. • '.i.; r;, --...... -,-- .../ -,60.--7,-^•„-._ - ,-....?4**''''' IC4:,, 't.:W.1,,,... 4;i- :,.... .c.,1,;. .,s'i„, , -,r';-;,,t.:1:`..,•7:, V',,f,a -.-/ , ', .,- -,!!'-';'...., '.1-,..-',-...,-' k ,.- - Li ,.. '-.-g. -- ... .,-..„-=.--:;:w-t,,, . - ., ..,-- .4,,,,1,4,;. 74•-:.:, „ - :-. -1%I. , - '''.: ,T. • ..,, q ,....'.‘e,., •'. 4•••...., ":- ,..... . ,%• ,:t. -•. 4, .t..., "...i , ...,,r, ...,v,t,, . .., . . ; .• s ,. .- mew• ... ^ 1 t- --' - s`t-..4:17,',-.4,',' —lie 14 , V4,fx,.., z es•—• • I' •.."•-t.'_..4-'' Izt'''S" -- .'- 7,•'?•I'' ' --ALI'"'" ,j: • I f ,.• _ . .,,, i,. : q, "' ,z-* ' :• ' 4• ' W.' ', ''*. fr. -- 1'- . , ,• 4if 4 .•-• t -13, • 1 ‘*'.."- r .... , ''A,---9,,,V 1 • ..i,..i i 1• .;•,....,..xot•.; -.4..........s,v7.,-.,._. " ct•mithit, -.2.,...- , '',t°,1•••••;',.t•''.'''';4"-•"'' '. ,"--14" kg : ii_Iii" : "i• . ,,. ..-t.'"'-‘0•••;_41 "i',-'''''" - ,. , -,-, , - .., , .,.. P4, - . - . .IC T?7:.-.- : p i IMF- _ CC 11 ,,_.-,',.,,p..14" ._.',...;# ' ' .,,,,--F,01.' - ...,71. , . ,...,---_, ,:.....;• , - , ..,'" ''4.- V.477'e . ' '-'.'''''' i •2 4•;m4. '' - e'-"".!'s i Z". / , •'''''-: se. ,`-•t 1 ...-iti,,P e,,*;.'1 .,- • ..4,-e, • .14,1".••7114 ."',,,O.'•''N '." . ' ' ' i '...,• .• . ' .104/ jr.o...,......7.. 1 ii ... . 1,'"'•74, it.,,.* r„:"..,',-, .-../ ,• _- '''' - 'j. r ilit.s .)'' +17 --, .Or ,, .,...• • 1.1„,,,,,,,.•f -,...... ' ••.-4'T .?-4t' 4--f:•#.4- 'e•i*.,,'•• UPF -s==t.....ii.....:9 - , •Nilk t' "P3 ' I ,,..-,... , t ' --; --.:--.t. 4 •-' '-' it Z.t •' . . . -`,„___....x... ',. '-, .• 0:4- *•*# -. • . *'...''',-t'''.'"_.4 l''''''kt*", 17: ..,...--•" - '"- '',II.• ..• ..t. 74, 1r 44- r•ii —a- , L'-;, ,..-.4..; i --fa% ,'•- '' °,.4"--' •• 442` ' N, , - -,,,,r4.• f', ..i.t.t. i ., 1• ' -' Anh,,- •.41-e -a..:•.`' •‘ V.,,.,', c' ''' ? tairr. •,l'i,'' 4. 1 , ' ,, ,• ..t y •.•1-4.• ; 4-'1-, 7-'4,-• 41.44, • 4*---21- .- 1 1.:1',At',0,11,,' .1?1. "`":;fick'Ita:fr .. ' k , dr'..L' 4 t' c".,.'*:''''2*. • - ''' ',....- "-k: ' 7 4.-.'T•',- ....''-'!-::1: .7r4. : i , 1'' !-,1';'it •4, ,..,„ „. , ... ,i,_ ----...5, „t..--o,.•' i.t.• gi- , - . • '', ••• '. ' "."-••''-',.- '., __ ',• ,,,,-.,,,,,,...,4*-.. -',s,, ,_ , . '• ,'.,.• ,.''"• ,•••"C .--•-'. "`' _ ., ..-. t•' - '"'-'"4 ,.., --.''.4., ;, ?; 1,4'..i,, ' ,-.i.p :, N.1-;,.4:1,e1,14-.:.""-• -3,z 41: ;, ' ... „.1 ..*,... 144* , ,, 4.1,:7/13,,. ....41•11,5, ,,,, {', ,:.. . • lir* : ,N„,..,..,, 1 . - , • ' 14' ' mit-,. .... ,.. .. . . , ."” - v— - itilli=0E44•11.• - .... .. , -:,,,, ,,,,,,,,,...,,..„..;?:,..st_,,,,,....pry,,..,4-,„_, ---- • . _ ,,,,, •-•t-on ' wei• , - _ 'r ''' ..'4-4 •4c'014-s-,1F0L','''.-, „" , ..-... • iMakra.,..• leAliPL...-. • ,,,--7C".11"./kk... •`.`''}1/4,'..- . . , . ..1.0 • '.4rVk 4:' ''''' '-.44Ve- ,-x- ., _. ., .- . — –• ,,,.7.,. . ,...i.,.„..;,. ..., - .c.,.._. .„ .. . ,_ . - - , . , , .,,,, ,. .. ,,-...,„).„.• r`,•-..fr. - ... r . - 14:.441.14:- , • - ...-e` '-• • -41,- ..s ;?.&: ....,„'t-„?. '",-.,*•%.,„ -11,-,-.--ir.. ..---at---'-', " • .., r 1 t I f, r .t., -I , , . :-•'.I'1;;,' ^';.' "Vri.jnkrOVVV+1.....141.1P40 . " '..'' ''''''.'.. .'-'. ' • ,-,,,-4,-. ,r,,,.7,-;r4 4 ,• , .,t ‘,••'...•-1..sttr---,* 7.Is'. , *• ' * ';','''''''t‘r. 7fiN tr,e4.,•-kw".. '''',V .' '''' ,..'''''''' Y. i'''''' il?...0,440.'k ' ''''.'ii."., '4.1 .,..4:5'.../..' '''' '..i.e.'X,c.X.04,40 4-,Vi''4.: ' '.+". . . - '',",'', r. .' ...• 01.1.7.L.W.A., . :4,'',t.,,',e' '' '.f.-e. 4--.':,. .."'''''''' 44"•,,,..' "0.!;,d''' '' ''.'“'' , f •AM'',0% i,.4,..„,_-,r .',A:V.' .444(p"t';;:!:A,„.,,-..,- --,. ''.. .---- ii,....:fo',. . )(Col.mfff-rf..,,;..,,,r , .. ,,,--f, • 4sr,;,,N%.4...).,&. ,0,- - . ; -, ,,- .4.,r '':1,4,1.- ' • . '.„:. --..--,:''.....•-1/4-=' '.1,g' ":.,,r A ''•''-;'". 4474.,•-• ''. ••% '7•-.4-1AU.I.';'43..t.-4%' ' •-'"'N.' g?"..*4-:-- .4 .%.4. ( ...40.1.tte.,) •,,....•, Z'',,"..‘,- •.". c•.:,'.. ,•ft -...-4.. • 1-,4.1p.T-..?, :--, , ,,' Of.,,. '*,if,x,.; tik4,11 ff't.**,..tVIC.-4;.., .' 4A---.Cittle'' '-', * f.,,,e,I , , 1 If.--,;.. 41.. • ACc.,---' -,':.«." .:*4 t.1..Y.': ''''.ar:-..,.. .''':'le c - ': -A-41'.',N-e,--'-- "•,' %I.:lc • "f ''''-'4.-td, '.- '"T T'4'.' •' 7410',3'.. .4.11•%."'<ar, ,-.4,•.•-, . • . - - *.i,%,•;,, A.„'".-'4,;.?.rtf-- '-' "!,..e'' -:" .i..:. ',' , *-:,.. ' ft':1..11,4 I* -,, i ,,• .-4;•Z - .4'.......n,-/..-'''.;,-J...alii.k),... ...,,,,, 1 irt ,.,..,,,,, ... .„1„2,_ ,.4„........„., ..„. ..,... .,.,.,,... .474''.`... '`,.... ''.e.... . 'n'..,'".i.1.41‘',(4"..--f.,,,,fr -'''''''' '..,,,i'-, *qv %...,..... : ... ...,,,..:,•.,..4....1,‘.. '.'P,- , ),, -,:- . •'''':-r;;+•:,,A, ,_.•,... ---- .4 - .- , • .- ;t.-•• -..•,....!`f.•. f ..:,•11•1041-_-"...‘„ ;_..- •'..,li;- - ' ,r-r• • % ,-''''' do; -4„41<kr * .3....,,,et4s,*-4..-kj.,'-..,,,.... ''9'''' . ' '' ' ''''4'. 31:. k•- ',-..4*. - ' .v6. ,.,34. - t‘1,43b-.Sf.•,r-7.?.>, -..;_., 1 /9, ,,- -.. 7.:'..te..r,.......174---"(,•-p:_;,..' . .1.4411,.,...... . 'V. -!.:.4 ' - ,' 1 , 7,..i,r. 't Ne,-1' -,X• 4,''. -' ....% •,,. t.i < j i - ,,t,_,-,0-0: -.,:-.4-----.r,‘, ' - , . Ft!:,..litp,„„_„. ,44 -, , ••-4.94*.vg,i4it.::`. ,,:..,. ,„4.-4;r"ffi V.) -t'-',Y-.<....-,---;'4. ".4. 1-7. -, ...04••••-'esi.,„114 ; . . ' ' - . v 1 ' f ' .. • ' - ''''''• - -' t .--"" ..:AW. , ^` .^ Aiii...."0- .:',„ 1.41-...-"': ...." '''' ,.- ' ... - '' ''.•., ' 44. ..7. '. . ..s/ • .. ..C. lb` ., ,.. ' • '; '' '-'4,‘P'44,44'.•to .,<7.'*".4% f ''••""'-' t.-- t.'ri,•1', , '''",. ' :..:tit4S#''',. • -,e.\1.lt;U ,.. cv•-,- `,-. *%.".4.t.:14. . - , '44`.io'A'.144,1$7,..","'-'-:"' --C,-•- i.c7.;-".**' -'' Vt4 At- • / .;;,1,-'''-u-„`'.... , • 7. . ..r.4,11; -.71,--,:34,-ty,,:-X.,•,-._,..-_,-7::,.•-. '''' ..,-*.lric-..----:-..r•-fr: „4.-.,- - . .4.--„..„,,,,, •,-.4,.., -. , • or:- i'. ....4. t,- -.. •- • .,•,--..T. ,..'i ,,....-+-T=0:-+t--•.?.--,- ;-•,• ••. - ,q_'.-..;..,10.-1.1.*.t- .•-•',V,i5.4s-:--77.11;;„ ,zk%,-- i • .-"*"'4" .:5Sn'"'t ;". ,i,..,"- ,4-='";r117:4-1, -',' '• Z--"-7.,..,,'-.c.le ,r, -----ei *.pg,,, : -4....4-.•••0•-•'",- , ° -- ./ , *- -,*.vs",-leti,n,_44. ... tii•••••,A-A‘y•-,,'-' '''?--• ••,•:": . •,s.s.,....,____ .4 7...'`'li,,C...' ..,., . Pf.'",._ n''..-', ./.,r1 -....r.m.;t.' e'iv" -- 4e.,.....e...- •,.-.4.'-',. f,..v-- ' '''',),t ' ' Ve;:;, ,..., •......•.r;--:. .,-:al,., _,.., • ,„, • .4.^....-1.A.,,,t 4, ..,„;'.4 .4 ''` k • Str. ;. e .. 'WI" ' 11t'' ' ';':441,4'g 4Skee‘e4".. `,.1'....k.4.4. • l' • alc .11.., - '---'kz‘,-••.+!,. k.--14,„ly --0-'-.•4.i.,!,,e- ',11.<4 . ....„ _,...t, / - ,... • ..<•,, ..••••,:,.... ' --'"4 ri ' ',•'-i'Cilzi:-'''',.V1-1$;:v4.--.., '"'- •---lit-t- '1'.-- '...', I ', s --...-.• - '. • 7-.745:•:.'"W # , ' -' ' ' '' . ' - ...,... ..: iw.M.. '• i ,itinl.-- • _ 9 --0.h70-•:1 0,, ,- -....,.* .......i,. ':4'. .4-21,4.t•i- 41,',.'; ,.1,4 A • ‘..... -.•'' •" '' .- '4,rql' •••‘1"? ,-'• 1 .-1•,:. •.- • % r -- '.. 49,-;.,<.t•-•••:,. "o-to. . , --• it' c ?„. -,, , .t. .... ,,,... ' . . .,,,4,,,,--,,,--- ...c‘'...-1,-.11- . ...--,W4VP:' •-• ' .. - w . ,,.... '4,s,-..• ..*•:,._vii,--.- •,,,,,;„ •• .:‘,..:=‹?; . ,.-:::' ''''-t . \ - ''' .,„.‘i' ' ' 4. - • 1F-.... --,-,•••,„_,_.....0 ..,-;. , - - . ';-•,-•_,..„,.-*,... •• - .-..- •,!.... --7-. ----'44"41W--•;'•- -''- / \ •----:- - - ....4.-4,..; -• . - -•,.- •-'•-----'... Ar , ...,,,ANSon,A,•,,,,,,,,........ • .4, , -=''' ' •V:"."‘r -Pit‘ -• ...„. id , - -...-............... ,,, , •(...-..:s-•i . -... ..... , .. :...„... ..-• 1Cgt,,..),..?lit• • - 1 . ‘.. .;":::„...:J , ...,4,.. . - ''' • --44: : Ln .%,W ....... ,. .............-.••:a.,-,.,...-......--...• , I' ' . ".-` '''' ;AZ': ' co li. ' r ...'4 V •,,"V-.' '.t.', , - ' ,7,--. , • „r„, Wirv-,- ..::'-!,••=.1. - 't..1"7',':.:' • i '`..lti,- < t. •1...... ..-41;7n; ,,-, ' 1.. Vei:%;•-'4" 1 ' . 1 ' •--' • . r - . . . • - --.... . t f 47,, . -. •-,-._:-.7-ib ‘ irp_ . , . .. ..'.4.. : .• .'„ ... .,:. - :‘,. -- - -, 0 „..- , • .- - • „.-...,., •.-..- '- - "" -I ':.;C:-.--. ‘„'l ../.:' • '12...---, -!' ••• k. ow ---- •-..,• - •.:;.....it•t-444. 4 --,(.!=.;',,.. :--... . .-.4eAjt, ..,..1%. 4...,, or f • -,:- ....: „.....,....-......71-. ,; ,,_,,,..,,...,_ -....:-,,e.., , ,..!....,.. . -4,-,V' I ilk 7...,,.,,sf,?.5;_•.-::„.....,.'t.,.-'4,::::' 1 f.C.,,,t4 3;_.41:- kt!A.'''A• ...;r:.,1,1r Vt., .i .. 1-447"...,;::?,„V7 .-- '14 • -. '4'.1; , - - 4... ..'*.4 '''.y, . Z , . . A• . '-'....7• r•it r1.--'<:"'W./30,..::',2- ) 1 •1.:*`- .- . - - - ...e'd--_•, -, --t,... - 2g• •••.• . ink ..-:..-; "t .7.-1S•1_-.."._,„;•,..,, :', . - .leg- -, "I's4".. "''' -''-' -1 ,.....rt_i_d_;:::,•- -, ,,... a . r .2.7,,,......,...7716....'..7."......,..,:,,,,,--4.7'..,,....t..,..,,_...4,1,.....',."'..,s1„, :::., ,7:...e.i2....-...1,..-11 _.."...',".r..*„...ilis:,...i.tf...,.:.. ri ,...L;x..::: ,::c,Il...,_4';::;',.:<,-.',,:._:,4:..''!„a..:';..,:i,„~s : ,,,-i-ar7'' '..'4,.., IMIIMI 5 v 1,...4......:4),..„, ...,„.., .....z.„,.., _.. ,4.. .. , ..., ,.....taliiii ..., ,,,,. t., ..„-....-41. 50.,..--1.'''':-'''' -.• • )0 .„,77:/„...„.........._ _........:.,... .!;„.-,.....-1,-,:, ..„,,,........... m,,,,,, "..1 .;, , • • ' #‘r 4- -.', - - i - . - +.„,„ ?, fa, .- ,.:f.,., uy.f .• `7!"..` r ._ •. , ...... 7.„t,.._, ,i,.. .... ,1 1 , • .......... .,.. .,.... , ..r> ‘,., _44: .•,t• . 1 7 4-.Ektl-,,4,,&_-.''44,.,-...';-,711.0;N-Z, ' ':. f,.. 1, • ' ' . - ow..-.'.1.0•uv:8V.P;Ir-..7,71z. ti 47... ..:„,-- . .._-„..:_u....,.;7_„.r.,...;,.,.. -.a,,.ter..: :: : „...•,,4,1,),,,,re..4.,,,,,,,t,i,„ ... ‘& c_ - ,_ -__,,,... .44....:4,....-•,I,r.„.. ,,, _,.1.,,--,,.r,„1, „la., ,::*.--.P...,"A.V.-;=:-,--`1",..-?(•.... . 4' "'- '''''' '% `ri. ''''. ''"' •-••0•;..""r• ..- io. - :'•-•i;ct "r;-• ,".-.1,• =-, .71.4k-- j.,,,,:q14:..i,,,-..,,E.r.- . .. ., . ,. ..1`f.--ilitt:",, - .,''' 4-N. -.- .x-ti •!.1 1.,-; .'..4,,,,4't...".•'*.ssmA-sr licf k , , 0 ,..:2144 "t:',..n.• , , . • e.; •• ..; - Ini.. -w.-,--,:ry,,, .... .i,,',..„...74 4 .fri.....-..,,..0,4.:,s,..,•....... . ....,, g 1 4,447Y-4.,4,,.......,".o. •i N.I.k..,41,.'..-d' .-...4 - . . **ob.'.* .4. it. ,t.'• *' toki.'". ..41`477- -..,:i ... NI - - . -- .t. ..-- - ,,i, ,-4,7.; .• • •... --,-..)- .-1-..•z.,- n„... .........„... -- • -.,,,..-lizz.,4,..- *,.........---.- - .. ,--,c,•-•,.: i.• .,-,", •r'0,!.-Ir--• - -.. -- e.--6.7-1 ,.. . . _ ,. ..,.t.,,,. , ......., ,.4._.....4' 4.r.f.,, .„4. N 4.......7i4 , . • 41...., . 41, ',Z.,. ....4111e , ...7,,,j.•,,, • : ...-'.....r'711. '''. 44.,.. 1.%li,''..*S - 4" . .... ' '''' .'' ..Walf44.r4 '''' • i 111 1 I IP $''''' *...2•-•;- .1%..-07..------..--ttc.,..-- -.1...-*,. 4,- •4n; 2 ---<;...,:: - ..,-, .;,... .r.r.„.=4.-...,--... ..,:: -,--..- --- r• r-'6 z . ",` ''•-• -" ' - . - .,. A • - '. .... . 1 • ;N WNW il.' 4)111&,, \... .(1111111."01FINPV, ' • • 1 1 ip7. A..,1/4......_1111111611111p-- I' ‘, . - -01.1. ...- . • , gel* -.6,1._ 10 v ...... ok • , ffIr._..... _ ?...-- ' . . . 1..,... -.45•11,1' 4.,,iftilli!4...A .-.. ...- 1;alissi4P-'1 , 111 . J. N t: b•ji:i j•‘i; • VaRrip AO it 4., ,••''.#R7:- ..."_-.A.N. .......-.7••••‘nioltrek . 197411.1k: 111111111 rip7e 1 I GP. --4-"-"".r.,.- •••• .4.« _ I s'.... . . - 4001 goiZt_41.41,c. N.• t 1111111r1J1'16-"t-let..7:414tIlh.....,,, . • . 1"11 • . . : • 11111 Vilkith 4000442"r 11111.1414ett --• • ;Iry . ,,,.....---- ,„.„ _......, ,„„,.....„. , . • \ilkiN„, 774- 0 -... , / ..., tr- .., • 4161\ 11\ti -...... • . .0,#: 'f,a1„.'‘`, i • •._ 1 ai• . -'. •••;.- x ,:ff •,, • NWizIll 1> ,:lwrIfi..,:. \ 1, , ig . ...0 , . -.., • • . A ...... v....L..-- N . -. ... . & •.1 . P ,,, . •‘ 14 '.4:k."... .... .• . t . 11.1")".'""."".".".. --........-.'''' '.. .....i...tti.. ' l& • 'se,4.4,75.7 .., ....L4e gt a \ -...‘ ;•ii.:''Vr't r'f' -.-i'N \ 1 1 bibs. -N\ ., vi_ , ..- ...8 ir •,.. - 1.1 °--4;-: , Ili . .1 •.T.I"-•" . 1/1/11X. ti.177 -' .; 11111"11..%010 1 . i. . . ? ar• 11 s ) .' : ;. 1. -'` . ; ' ' '4.-0.• -t .„,' ;i1 .01 tiffilpft > .. . ilig•A .. 1'St., IP: ... ,...„..- 4 r 1 r ,‘". {-, r ' •-•- ri, C.- I ;:r: -..1___ V-_.......* • It •• , • • - ........... 10- .- 6 L, ' ' • •'t . g•. le P.4 4,;:2 161 .,•''' ..y.r a', ..• :.: .•t t • . I 1( t. S. :• , .il • y 1 14. . ..,•? /re . ;11' -s. .„ , ,.:, .- \ r- 1 iiir a 1:#..! 4 :i • i tiftr, ci• .r r. 4 - • C , ,' ' .. . • e f L. , . ,. . • . . '4! s'* 'at.-1 • ., r ' A y fir . I < fir i • , gi? • I .r..411.1111111110111.- . / . re• ' .' : ' / I. ' : 1 • A ' ' • -;..--..,• •••• 1 i 1 I i 1 'i b. •w, Fl.,it:.4" 7,_ ; S,'! .•' ,‘,.- .ti..!. . i ! A, .•V 'i SI, ,1,... •71. , • sti„ -.aide• :' r....lar '.I' ' • 1 — -••- iII IC1I1 ,•,',• ...,... ..-,"t':.w:-,..Nrr•(',.--,,- III a ,0'.i,.ift-..,"-.•'r...'..'':.-.-i.0'-.l-1-.i-,w,—.-.'.,.1,.s-,-o' .....,-v...:.:44:..-:,7..:1,,.,44!1..,,..-.4.W::•..e,L',.'4,i-171e,4.-4'-•.•W,.,i14,A. ;;.."-,--4'.-,.1,.i•.,..,'-4....". ;.,.•Z:--,•-:-e.—':--;--. ---,-4•:-.-,,:-*:..'.1 ..,-.,.,.: ,-,..-..,---.-".,-.'•'_„- •.4”--:i ..".-L,.•'-i'.,.f..i1.'• .v4:.. .*..,1-.F!•-.1- 0,. .•.. .04- AAj•- _,4 1 . iI / ! 0 0 0o * - ..„•,'.,.- ..,, ,•. , wisi.. .‘ .... r t ' t f:•. ._ ••• . k1/4 t,,,;(1. ,...., ,-.----,• .%. * _..........., - . , ‘.7,..,.:,.. :14.6.0"...... .,.,.. ,...„......._.-• _ _.- ,-;•, .., • i • 1 . 4-1-1---411.4.1 It .....i. ' 1 _.. • -.) aomlt.-----..C..t.i.,: • - ' .......... ...... -dit• '... ..-`1" ..:-....,.4-•-•,-,„ ..- - ,...v.„. ,.. i•-'•., et • %.:* a litt--: . ...,0111111,.,...,...............-0.1,....7.-,..--,...-•..- _ ,,,..,,,,.... ...,„,..,.........., ..c.- '''''''3".„,"t•-.-.-,_.11....lik whilP1440 -- I - •,1 6-iimarimiThib.1 =:.7,..---,,..• ,, I ';'' '-'....::::::Tv`••• .-":".•44.614'1 i ' IL - r %11••• -'11;"Ir• . , ..A i. -' low ,a , -.....-. co 1 ..,,, 4iplit jemil1141111-7-1-": 4-11.•. ,..ei ,g -,,----z...--aiwi .•,...,,r, ...6 ... ,,.'. .., ......., t ‘1 • - -,. - i ..,. :, Ad.:4 1 ......,-;e0, IF.-_-_,..,.......,. .004.-4---'- ........-10. . ,„,....,..:::..-....,. 0 tt....,....,,.....,..„..„ dr- ......,.._ q . • ,„,....1% :- .- •1 air- ,•,.. •% , ‘411111111161Zit4k, _,.,,S .14k,'Vi" IL' '.. .s.. 1...._.._. .. _—----‘,..„--, ...14...-,•• ‘ • .......-'.....`' trip. 1P31-k:417 .40‘11P:A.7 'Ilk.:... ? • . • - '•••-.1r 6'400 ::Z:7r,--• ,1,,,, , ....ergunill- h'kr....•:. -.'7.4 -,,,..- • E t\ • • •,- ...i,. ... ...._ -.4,,,i1:7:::::.is il ilifirk\liQw .11k.='. ..:..1.,-1 ,17...,....p.,:.":.,is......1..iti.--1-..... . GI! wo.•• .... . . i . ILL IL 6,114t. — T,Imm.....sia-vs-.......t ........a \ ,I:••s*.V4S.--.....%-Z..--- ,.......1 ........ • • oho 0., 0. — 1..•$.4.,.....te,...r.;0 4,, 4'A ...... ....ft._ .... (1 (s. 14. ' . P 016#-Aso •-• .... _ • .....-0„,...._-„,w...,..., mot' giA. .. . I'AIII*0117010 401C—,,WA:-.; at • • - _sr- ,'-•-'-r.s.--.,.."''''-'"1.4:'.4•".'*.-. ,- -•• - 4,..' . 1 .3t,''-' - .- , .7.' -,.•". .....i.., '1,.- , --'"'''.. - -3341-1#4*Wlir 44; 7 f.. .g•: --,„. ..c, ..„;,'. i- .....?-'., iti-n..-'-'-: ;-:`., :• ..*.%z;-.,'",.':%:.',,,l-- 1 ,• _--17-,-: - 1. _,i,,zz.,..7,.* ,..?-.4 ,, .. --._-:',*-. e, - - 7-45*, *1--R>t-,..ci..,T,,,.''. :',_ . . •,_-_14%. 1 t ,: -...- 1.,-, -C.,.' , 4-.:".14,'"1 - • . ''-. '.7, i ....4e, -'''`-, .,-,,, ,,,...4!.117- ).•?:: IP - , - ,...,L-r4-- '*.,:a.,•4t-i4,7_,„:-.-r*I.-0-24'.,4"• '''-'1,..,' ''',.- ..:':$4."--4 ' 1 ! """:"._1...:' - '• '- il:4 ' ,:- r_4.-i0.7.:„. :..,--,,,.-4,w4ltp--,,,-.7_-,i.r. ,. ‘• ,.-.41,..,_ .., -.:.1,,r-- .;:,-:-. . ,,-...?.•- ,...,,. - .• - - - ---...,..i7,71 -.-t4_ t ''''•''''• ,4... Zft4zo 4 ie ;-. 7,. t -, .. _____ _44,:vei,,, ...,',......1.1 --,.......,' . , •, , - ?:.Q...15,7,:g_77,,_..,,,, ,_" ne:,...Y41,!`.. - •- .-4,7' 'c',i' = '•A ' ,•'-'',4-.'-...;•`''' '"ci,'-i:‘c^-1. -t•-C..,..-....,-- - ":;, 4't7 "-•'-' -i.:-',/:i . -:' ;i: -.. 3 • .,:,.2,-,t,-•::_i-,.;.3" ,,..".:,;-141‘11:44,149.7.1 ..-,,,.-;..,.-4.!- 1.'i -;-,,,,, ,i - ., :,.i ... . liras"- sit. . 1 7 "... 0:*ro`I.,..e.- ...'""t'.'.41ii.er'elikf'1.t.':.... ::.- ' -IL • fi. '...;!-`''''`'. -' ' ,-.,,.,,,.... 3...t-..-1.-7.=„;;;!-----,i1, 4-.-.,....-..,.•--. -:: ,.--, I,. ' • ,,4, • /- -,,..--,...-•:, • ,:v.4 - ,4',.N,-,7,,,..,• ' .-, I. 1 k.;•-, ,,-„-,•.,. gm ' .ei,"•.''',".-,1,,..z"'.-‘k4,,.,.,,,'p"a.N•-'.1b.4.1.11,4.,.6,.•.I-''Y..-;4'.',4-'.-,...,,''•7"-4‘',-.-.4"9.4.-""••.••.:--',,'-',-.- : -...•' •.-..., Z..,,-;IA' ---'-''''-" 1 ,,,,,S.V4 SS,", *.*•1411...., MIL IIIP" am. ON I „,1 s'''n'iAlit''-f4.7V% 1.4.41..•Aloar4/-e r 0 ,.s . . .."3, ,,, ... k--1',..,---,,,e..-0,2r 5,.. i,--.-=‘,/„.„.- ,tr,.1....:,"..,„ ,4t-•4 tl ; ":7:''''' ' • .4.4 -. kl4) co 0 4 - ,... c,...•r 0 :. _ • ' 1.1 ,'•'!•.,..;!.,,...!,. ,,„..... . y . . , - . - ...,..., .... ., rt7..•,--;,- - . .,' r, ........., 10*PIS . '. -.." ....ft/4V°.'.A.'*',14. °' • ,, .... ,* ,ti, 4 1... loweimilir -,,•.-, - ., . ., ‘.0....„,:.-,. •.•, . . . 7.- -. v:••• - • w.. .. It -.-..• .• -_, adit.= ....e t 2, .... ,.. • . , .....,... ,,.... , .. ,, . • .. .....,..,:„:„,„,- • %i. e.,:' - -'-dialli'lalw -4,5, -5. • . - -,.*-.. • ':.% c'.....---;- 4. '.1.,4a0 71. - ' A a 1 I I 1 IC `.•th! '•1;4'4,\ •... ........ '..." ., ..: k•,.,--.1.r,..'‘" . "•.'1.4.""L'' II 'v.". ." '...,..., .% ).1 ...' • ' ,), 4' ••-• . ::is: ..„._ ., r, ,,k . . ....„, ..„..„ ...,,... ...„...... i ...... ,..- , ,... ,,---...•-„,. . ., ,4 ,,,,.&- ,,, 7 ,, I 7.• '• ,,_ liV •-liNet.". .V. : 1110 ' L•......„,,,....,.„ 4 , t , .4„..„...,.._ ,,, ___.„....., . ..',...;•;.' a 1r*...- Awr,, .-•,o, J '4.s ' ' •;.1q.. 1., •-• ••.'l,,,....,:-.:e- ' q a' , :.-: • 4 V - '7,,.• ' j Pt Z..: 4 4. i 1 . ' -•"4.7-4.l'W1147 ' ' 's ') - e. -, ./,-:•-•,.,,,I,./.., ..v.--v.„- ...„-: ‘...,., . .., 'in't'-... .4.'...." a g11^".'44.1111111161; ' '''''!,„.,..... .. _ -::.:?:::'--..-- r---_. ''''.— .sz., •ditz...f-.4. 11.1e...,...1_ iL------"' I c,. :1%,-.1.-W.- .7,.......,.. ' --- • ,....i... L 777 = V'gee '...." .i... ,...Z.17 4 4„.., : ,.... ,;.... ...,,• ,,,, , ,...,. .. •.,. Ii• . , —r elliki,_"41°,'" ''' .., ..4 ,.,;7. '-_';'W. Ito • -r:st.,AvlF.• -' ....0. ., A:';' '.: -:;...,.t-.1-7:::.;::.. ;: 1- ' Li .... . - .. i -4. , .. .....,v - -..,-.. .,t ._ .„,...,.....:. „„...,...,„.„., .. ,. .01/04 0.1,c „” • MI. „. , , ... ,,,r.".4*- '• 40 • . .4-m.r. -..r. ........ ,-..- .p... '-‘,... 7."::S as Y. .'•"%'. '.......117.7"-'''' ;,":?: 31C1^- • 1. '..."'";` * ''''''' ' :--, ' ,,-...-=' ,...','"0.,„.....„. .-- .4.4. • * , . '• *'4.'111111115 . ;'t,' 't,','.4'1,..'2`"..i.'"i22,.'$4.--.4.--4.•N,-Awl--00-•-•'.. -- • ....- ark, •,::4' - ‘-1"1.' • ' - .. .., - ' : sge,e4,--;,..•,7-4'e• • ---‘;--41'..;),-,--.(0--Ir.m• t. , .........— °,- -- ,,,s .- -:::, -..:4- -• -- -,z..,..:44e.:;-;;-'-:1 .IL ,it -. • -..1--f4e-A-v,,..-- -• mom . a , . ,4%,,,-,_ .• . _ ,, --..„,0,.-,,,.,,,3 ,,,, - ivn-,r, ,7 5 ,,,;....,..,.....4,,....... .;„. .. Ig. ...„, ,rw t.---..... .4_, .... ..0.,0,140-ss..-_,. .-4_,.• .t,x,___ ...... . ,3,.... ...- .._ ,:„, .......4,- .,..„,.. - .... - -,. _ -i4fe:44,5-.24:4 = • ,'StriVa*:*.i.,14 ** - .: . ....e• .."' '.. . ., . . ' '•'''7''''' '',"*.r.'*'W,‘",,ci.T. .." • ' " .1 '-"',., ',,,,,,,,..,, ..:.* . . „awn, pe,.r..., ' 1.4fil<4Ar.* . 4t3 ' *fi A 4.44111c.lvd ,- 7,,,,,,441,,,-.....,, , - • . ..-.•..?„4-,g,: • 4,.. •- ,*..,..,A.„ , ..,•„•,Av...„..„,„?..or, . • ,W.T.,.1;.q-.7,- - - • ., ,,,...,...-„,''4','-^V.L.K.r3Fitt 'k.-A"-,,`76''''.:47,14.*e-,.0-4-, ;t..6.tc; . - ...'1 (T .,,r-„ ^",',;',,, • - - . - ' ''',T;' _ree,4''q4.,:41",, ,',,„._,,,-',-,,rt, - _*-,''.4.4413t,'t-,,, --`",....'f,f;-"4:01,4,- „ ,, - ,•_:.T..,;,`" .:'• - ,, - ' „,,,V''',,-eotf?..7f-42015.--,7•'?'4 :"'',. 2041444'.=''''V7..?-,-,'Vrist," '""' 1\.. •- 4,;•. , •. , . --..07.44,...,,,,,,r1F,K..t.., _,,,.. ,, ,...,,_ .- ..--.... 4'ri,',,t,'•,„,,' „ ... 4'''.:* , ,... .t. 68 •6utlaed aoj pasn /'tjuaaanx aae pue kjt3 ayj cq paeog loops .said uotjezttejtnag ayj 04 uant6 aaaM anuand xoual eta jo aptsjno pajexot jo jsaM taxied padegs-aetn6uetaj Loops e puajie �tjuaaanx eaae hews ayj pue ,feM-jo-j46ta anuany a ut uaa x Loops tae uawa xoual ayj •jueuewaad kttaessaxeu yi ode l o l3 jou st jeyj asn e `swea6oad •uotjetnd0d a6e-Loops ayj anaas uotjexnpa itnpe aoj pauuetd 6utaq •�'jtaoyjny 6utsnoH yxeag twetw of Loops �'aequawata ue aoj paau st �� `aayieg • tooyxs ,faejuawata ayj cq pauMo aae yxtyM `sjuawdotanap ayj ut jtnsaa kttenjuana 'aanaMoy 6utsnoy xttgnd saaMoj exxagag ptnox uetd ,'6eieajs UotjeZtteitnag ue se pasn 6utaq jou st 6utPltnq ayj pue saxeaaal uewpoog ayj pue `kq unog a o not e uawa dw •sasodand eaae yxeag yjnos ayj ut juawttoaua a e ue odoa a o aeo loops a y j j � � t I P a m j w j P 8 l y S 4 j Loops �'aejuawata ueyj aayjo 6ututtxap jo asnexag •sjaaais kg pauMo st yxtyM ` tooyxs kaejuawat3 aoj asn sit ajejxtp mom ails ayj yjano3 pue patyj uae e q peog aaoys twos ayj ale staxaed JO sts�'teue asn jseq pue jsay6ty vUojtd jo aPes jsea ayj uo ails aaxe asayl •kjtg ayj kg pauMo jou aae -re Atajewtxoadde ue uo st 6utpttnq staxaed jue3tjtu6ts aaayj `JeAeMoy •pelueaaeM eq jou Kew atedaa Loops �Caejuawa13 aaoys yjnos ayj `dtgsaauMo Alto ut st X'jaadoad pue uotieititgeyaa aoj saanitpuedxe pauMo Rtxttgnd eqq Jo jsow •eaad ktjsox `aaojaaayj •peod uojty uotjezttejtnag tejoj ayj jo juaxaad Jo apts jsaM ayj uo juawdotanap gb Xtajewtxoadde JO saaxe L'£TT tepaeww03 pesodoad pue eutaew A'tajewtxoadde st dtysaauMo xttgnd ayj yjLM uOljxunruOD UL juawdotanap ut pue jo junowe au •kQM-40-54116ta JO asn 101 pa4e30t ttaM 1Ctawaajxe L'£TT 1V101 jeaajs 6utpntxut `eaay uotjezttejtnag st inq `seas axtnaas tetiueiod 6•9 Ajaadoad c t3 aayjo aaoys yjnos eqj utyjtM kjaadoad sit jo swaaj ut peiexot [ Lam b'ZT yjnos pue pauMo Atxttgnd LEP satjtjuept (gZ kLae[nxtjaed jou st ajts Loops ayj yjaou puetdn eutaew abed aas) pue] pauMo-1jt3 jo dew ayj b'S£ :sued Ajt3 6utjstx] 'spaepuejs 2•9S A'eM-jo-sjg6ta jaaajs eiejs Motaq st ajts loops 8•Z eu[aew �`3r11'1 1C1� • 6utjstxe ayj Jo ezts ayj `uotitPPe I1`1ZV13011\ :,1,1.113c1G04,1 91'lg(1J LIE •sesodand tooy3s kaejuewata a6eaaxd kjaadoad aoj atgesn jt anew ute6e 01 spun] ajewtxoaddd jo aanjtpuedxe tetjuejsgns e aatnbaa ppm pue atedaastp jo ajejs e ut :Jo st loops 1'aejuewe[] aaoys yjnos ayj jstsuox satjaadoad pauMo-km ayj 5io_1174o7 .9gn CON\7 1 d Ned 9 N 11' OZ 01 The School Board may be receptive to by a more centrally located and Goodman Terraces is an existing low- the idea of constructing a new larger site that more closely rise development of 50 units of elementary school on a different site conforms with State standards; and family public housing on an to replace the existing South Shore (3) development of a facility better approximately 1.2-acre site just Elementary School . This would able to meet the needs resulting south of Biscayne Street between necessarily require City from the South Shore revitalization. Jefferson and Washington Streets. identification, and School Board The units are in a deteriorated approval , of an appropriate The City and the School Board have condition and are not susceptible to alternative site within the initiated discussions designed to rehabilitation without expenditure Revitalization Area. The City would lead to a site selection process and of inordinate sums of money. The then acquire the site and transfer ultimately to negotiations necessary site is not well suited for public the title to the School Board in to achieve the specified objective. housing, particularly with respect exchange for title to the South Shore If the South Shore Elementary School to the proposed Revitalization Plan, Elementary School site. site is transferred to the City, it but is critical to the continuity of will be made available for use and development along the Such an approach would have a great redevelopment pursuant to the perimeter of the South Shore deal of merit since it would process suggested by the development Revitalization Area, lying just west accomplish a number of important City guidelines for public property and of the Miami Beach Kennel Club objectives: (1) release of a in accordance with the land use property and between South Shore principal site for redevelopment in standards contained in the Park and the south marina upland conjunction with the marina and development guidelines for private development area. The site was adjacent upland development; (2) more property. formerly City-owned, but was coordinated and integrated transferred to the Miami Beach development opportunities between Housing Authority. areas east and west of Alton Road; - ,� / ��, - Ej and (3) introduction of a new In 1979, the Housing Authority elementary school which would be a applied for and received physically positive and emotionally Rebecca Towers is an existing high- approximately $170,000 from the beneficial asset in the rise development of 400 units of Department of Housing and Urban Revitalization Area. This approach elderly housing on a 2.2-acre site Development (HUD) for renovation would also accomplish several between Alton Road and Biscayne Bay. (merely to correct existing health important School Board objectives The two towers were built in 1975 and safety problems) , but the funds such as: (1) elimination of an old, and 1978 and are in sound condition. were never expended and were dilapidated school ; (2) replacement The Revitalization Plan indicates recaptured by HUD. Complete retention of this development. rehabilitation would cost 90 considerably more. In 1980, the Whereas renovation of Goodman The City has initiated discussions Housing Authority sought approval for Terraces requires only an with the Housing Authority for the a 60-unit family housing project on application for funding to HUD, purpose of actively pursuing the land situated on Normandy Isle, but "acquisition and demolition" option of "acquisition and the site was ultimately rejected by triggers the need for replacement demolition" of Goodman Terraces with the City. More recently, the Housing housing. Fulfilling this need is provision of appropriate replacement Authority submitted an application to problematic because (1) HUD funds housing. The City additionally is HUD for approval of and funds for for replacement housing are committed to the identification of "acquisition and demolition" of unavailable this year and are very suitable replacement housing sites, Goodman Terraces; but HUD rejected limited generally; (2) it is if existing housing resources cannot the application. difficult to locate a suitable site be utilized. for replacement housing; and (3) HUD Two alternatives exist: complete policy discourages the use of renovation of the project or existing housing resources, even if "acquisition and demolition" of vacant, to satisfy replacement 5T1TFmT 1416,I T9'Of'•VlP'' Goodman Terraces and provision of housing needs. An application for replacement housing elsewhere in "acquisition and demolition," The Existing Roads Map (see page 20) Miami Beach, either within or outside therefore, would not be favorably specifies the existing rights-of-way of the Revitalization Area. In terms viewed by HUD unless it could be of City-owned streets in the of conformity with the Revitalization persuasively shown that it is Revitalization Area. As indicated Plan, the latter is vastly critical to the Revitalization Plan in the plan, there is an opportunity preferable, though it may well be the and that suitable replacement for (1) redesign of the major more difficult to achieve. housing was or would be available. traffic flow pattern through the "Acquisition and demolition" of the area, utilizing a primary arterial project and transfer of the land back The ability to use existing housing loop consisting of Alton Road, First to the City would allow for its resources as replacement housing Street and Washington Street, and a utilization in accordance with the would significantly ease the burden secondary arterial loop consisting plan: (1) as a continuation of the of locating an appropriate of Jefferson Street, Biscayne open space link between South Shore alternative site. The City Planning Street, and Ocean Drive; and (2) Park and the marina-related Department has preliminarily elimination of local streets. These development, (2) in conjunction with investigated the utilization of proposals are described in Sections the development of the Miami Beach certain City-owned lands outside the 7 and 8, The Plan and Design Kennel Club property, or (3) in Revitalization Area as alternative Guidelines. conjunction with the development of sites for replacement housing. the south marina upland development area. 91 approval ; construction and park Upon initiation of marina development are on an accelerated construction, the City will make schedule to commence in February, available the two remaining upland ✓XISTIN G CITY EPRW5 1984 and to be completed by development parcels: a 6.8-acre September 1984. parcel north of the central marina There are several City parks in the facilities which is intended for Revitalization Area, as indicated on marina-oriented commercial the Existing Land Use Map. These • development, emphasizing restaurant will all remain. The principal MAK1NA AND MARINA Uf1.,ANt7 facilities and retail commercial expansion of available park NORTH AND X2OT+1 operations that can take maximum facilities will come about by virtue advantage of the marina locale and of the South Shore Park development The City owns approximately 15 acres the bay views; and a 5.6-acre parcel on approximately 17 acres at the along Biscayne Bay extending south south of Rebecca Towers which is southern tip of the City of Miami between the bay and Alton Road from intended for marina-related hotel Beach and of the Revitalization Area, Fifth Street to Biscayne Street, development. formerly the U.S. Government excepting the site of the Rebecca Reservation. This property was Towers elderly housing development. The marina project itself is being deeded by the U.S. Government to the This site is only 300 feet wide, but accomplished through use of a long- City with a restriction that it be is approximately one-half mile in term lease in the nature of a used for park purposes only and length, has continuous bay proximity "development agreement," which subject to a 50-foot easement in and views, and has excellent specifies in detail the permissible perpetuity for channel maintenance. vehicular access both from Miami land use, intensity, urban design, Beach and from Miami along the bulk, height, and operational and In 1980, the City received a $1.5 MacArthur Causeway. The water side financial standards for the marina. million grant from the U.S. Departent portion of this site and While the marina and the marina of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor approximately 2.8 acres of the land upland areas are zoned for "MU- Recreation, Land & Water Conservation side will be utilized for the South Municipal Use" because they are Fund, for development of the property Shore Marina. Lease negotiations City-owned (upon ownership of any as a public park. This amount was have been completed fo'r construction property by the City, said property required to be, and has been, matched of the 400-wet-slip marina, dry dock automatically converts to the MU- by an equal amount of City funds. facilities, and accessory land side Municipal Use district) , and while Thus, a $3 million park planning and facilities, all pursuant to private they will remain in City ownership, development project is now under way. sector financing. The marina design their ultimate use, in accordance Park design has been submitted to the and facilities are shown in Section with the Revitalization Plan, is for Bureau of Outdoor Recreation for 7. 92 private development, as specified of or a supplement to a long-term several parcels between First and above. The underlying MU zoning is, lease is useful to specify the terms Second Streets and between Jefferson therefore, somewhat inappropriate and and conditions of development. and Meridian, the principal one of should not be held to restrict the These may include, but are not which is currently used as a police ultimate development potential of necessarily limited to, specific station. This use, however, is this property so long as the City restrictions on use, density, temporary and the property will be owns the property and maintains height, bulk; required reservation, available for redevelopment and control over its development and use. easements and dedications; required reuse when a new police facility is Such control can be accomplished improvements; required public completed at the old City Hall site. through a long-term lease and facilities and services; amenities; When relocation of the police "development agreement." development mix; parking; signage; facility occurs, the City will be in landscaping; urban design features; a position to negotiate for the The existing MU zoning of this timing and phasing of the proposed disposition or lease of the property may be retained; but the development; required sequence of approximately 1.4-acre property. text of the MU district zoning development; required coordination ordinance should be amended to permit with adjacent uses and developments; Since the City owns the majority of greater flexibility in the permitted use of air rights; possibilities and property in the block where the uses and to allow for a broader events which may trigger changes in police station is now located and definition of "public" use if such the agreement; compliance reviews; since most of the structures are old use will occur pursuant to a etc. Many of these factors are not and have major structural "development agreement." The concept typically incorporated in standard deficiencies, acquisition of the of the "development agreement" should leases and are not covered by entire block by the City may be also be added to the zoning underlying zoning. appropriate to assemble a single ordinance. parcel of sufficient size to enable a major development to occur. A "development agreement" is a Subsequent to City acquisition, the legally binding contractual document OYtfER GIT`{ PROPERTY "development agreement" mechanism entered into between a local would be utilized in conjunction government unit and a private party In addition to the properties with the lease or sale of the for the development and use of previously identified, there are a property to ensure its use and publicly owned property in accordance number of scattered parcels in the development in accordance with the with the terms and conditions of the Revitalization Area in City Revitalization Plan and City "agreement." Where a development is ownership. These include a small objectives. to occur on publicly owned property, vacant parcel at the intersection of the development agreement as a part Fourth Street and Alton Road and 93 prjorERT' AGcWItITION, Of'ErK1'i exercise of the eminent domain o To acquire properties suitable 015F061T1O►J, f' OPER1`' DEMOLITION, power, that the principal for an elementary school site, REHAP?iuTaTION AVID 'ELoCATION property owner make a good faith if needed, or for replacement of effort to negotiate a purchase public housing upon the with the other owners and that "acquisition and demolition" of the principal owner negotiate a Goodman Terraces. "designation and development agreement," pursuant to the All eminent domain activity shall be e rn n ent domain Community Redevelopment Act (see undertaken and accomplished pursuant Property Disposition section to Fla. Stats. 163.375 and this below and Appendix G), with the plan. The City and the Agency have The Revitalization Plan anticipates, City for the development of the the right to acquire by condemnation and can be implemented with, only total property, including a any interest in real property which selective and judicious use of City commitment as to the timing and it may deem necessary for, or in eminent domain power. This power financing of the development. connection with, a community should be utilized primarily in the redevelopment project and related following circumstances: o To acquire properties that are activities. substandard or that exhibit o To acquire small parcels or major deficiencies that render portions of parcels as may be them unfit for human habitation, pry � ' (1I It1M necessary to implement the public that are unsafe or present I I-t improvements plan. This would health hazards, or that have a include, for example, acquisition sufficiently blighting influence Any City-owned property, including of a small portion of Block 80, on surrounding properties as to that acquired by exercise of eminent Lot 13 to accommodate the inhibit the redevelopment of domain power, may be disposed of in necessary turning radius for the such properties. accordance with the terms and major transportation loop along conditions of Fla. Stats. 163.380. Alton Road and First Street. o To acquire properties that are The City and the Agency may transfer being used for purposes that are ownership to a private party, retain o To acquire the remaining parcels inconsistent with the proposed such property for public use, enter in a block in which sufficient Revitalization Plan and which into contracts for its use and/or land assembly has already continued use has a blighting development for residential , occurred so that more than 50 influence or inhibits the commercial , industrial , percent is in a single ownership. achievement of the plan in that recreational , educational or other In such cases, the City would area. require, as a condition of the 94 uses in accordance with the Prior to such disposition, the City free to negotiate with any proposer. Revitalization Plan, and subject to or Agency must give public notice by The City and the Agency anticipate such covenants, conditions and publication 30 days prior to the utilization of both procedures restrictions as it may deem necessary execution of a contract to sell , in furtherance and implementation of to carry out the purposes and lease, or otherwise transfer real this plan. objectives of the plan. Thus, property; and, prior to the delivery "designation and development of the instrument of conveyance, the After acquisition, but prior to agreements" may be required for all City or Agency must invite proposals disposition, the City or Agency is such property; however, such sale, from, and make all pertinent permitted to operate and maintain, lease, other transfer or retention, information available to, private on a temporary basis, any real and any agreement relating thereto, redevelopers or any persons property in a community may be made only after approval of interested in undertaking to redevelopment area for such uses and the plan by the City Commission. The redevelop or rehabilitate a purposes as it may deem desirable, purchasers, lessees or their community redevelopment area or even though they are not in successors and assigns are obligated portion thereof. The City or Agency conformity with the plan (Fla. to devote such property to the uses shall consider all such proposals Stats. 163.380(4) ) . specified in the plan and may be and the financial and legal ability subject to such other requirements as of the persons making such proposals Property currently in City ownership may be imposed by the City or the to carry them out, and may negotiate which is anticipated to be disposed Agency, including the obligation to with any persons for proposals for of, by lease or sale, is described begin any required improvements the transfer and development of such above. Other public property that within a reasonable time (Fla. Stats. property. may in the future be available for 163.380(1) ) . disposition includes the sites of The City or the Agency may accept the Goodman Terraces housing project Property may be disposed of at not such proposal as it deems to be in and of the South Shore Elementary less than its fair market value and the public interest and in School , if first acquired by the in accordance with such reasonable furtherance of the plan (Fla. Stats. City or the Agency. Other City- competitive bidding procedures as the 163.380(3)) . The statute thus owned property that will likely be City or the Agency may prescribe. provides for alternative procedures available for future disposition The instrument of conveyance may for property dispositions: (1) includes the site of the current provide that no further transaction competitive bidding pursuant to police facility. Other properties, may occur without the prior written established City or Agency acquired pursuant to exercise of consent of the City or the Agency or procedures; and (2) competitive City eminent domain power, may also until certain improvements are negotiations whereby the City or be available for disposition. completed (Fla. Stats. 163.380(2) ) . Agency solicits proposals and is Disposition by sale will be 95 contingent upon a "designation and anticipated to occur primarily on targeted and where City acquisition development agreement"; disposition the City-owned north and south and/or demolition may be warranted. by long-term lease will be contingent marina upland development areas, on Those structures identified as upon such lease and a "development the vacant Miami Beach Kennel Club having only minor deficiencies may agreement." property, and, possibly, on the be suitable for rehabilitation and vacant site in the northwest corner will be eligible for rehabilitation of the Revitalization Area, north of loans and grants pursuant to the tnloGatloh Fifth Street, along Biscayne Bay. City Community Development Programs. If Goodman Terraces is "acquired and The Community Redevelopment Act demolished," the City or the Agency specifies that the plan "provides is committed, and in fact is assurances that there will be required by HUD, to provide suitable PRIVAZE F OF 1Y:PEVE.l-OPrnefT replacement housing for the replacement housing. Since this 6,UIPG U N 643 relocation of persons temporarily or plan minimizes demolition and permanently displaced from housing clearance activities and maximizes facilities within the "redevelopment rehabilitation opportunities, the Privately owned property within the area" (Fla. Stats. 163.362(7)) and relocation and replacement housing Revitalization Area comprises that "a feasible method exists for problem will be minimal and can be approximately 102.6 acres or 47 the location of families who will be accomplished via existing identified percent of the total land in the displaced from the community City housing resources, as set forth area. The significant "redevelopment area" in decent, safe in the City's Housing Assistance characteristics of this property are and sanitary dwelling accommodations Plan. Public demolition activity that it is largely developed, not within their means and without undue will be limited to those cases where vacant (see Existing Land Use Map) hardship to such families" (Fla. a health or safety problem is and in multiple ownerships (see Stats. 163.360(6)(a)) . present which has not been Parcel Aggregation Map, page 27, and susceptible to resolution via code Appendix A), which makes land The City of Miami Beach has a 13 enforcement activity. assembly for large-scale percent residential vacancy rate, redevelopment difficult. Therefore, which provides an ample relocation The Existing Condition of if City eminent domain power is not housing resource for persons Structures Map (see page 28) , which utilized extensively, other means displaced from housing in the South identifies substandard structures need to be applied to encourage the Shore Revitalization Area. Little and those with major structural land assembly necessary for large- relocation is anticipated in the deficiencies, suggests where City scale development and to encourage first five-year time frame of the code enforcement activity will be the rehabilitation of deteriorated, plan since new development is but usable structures. 96 According to The Plan (see Section One of the principal uses of a 7) , the Revitalization Area is "development agreement, " is to divided into nine land use components ensure that the developer obtains urban nnh bor including both publicly and privately vested rights to existing zoning and 9 (�6�d e alai) held property. Publicly held parcels development regulations. The include Parcel C - Marina Upland commitment by the Citynot to alter The existingeunderlyingMM-ni0g in South; Parcel E - Marina Uplandzoning this area is RM-60 and RM-100, or other regulations for a North; Parcel H - City Parks; and specified time period is generally pursuantic to the(OrdinanceMNo.Beach 1891,Zoning Parcel I - Marina. made in return for commitments byOrdinance ri as the private developer as to mamended) . These districts permit Privately held parcels include the construction of improvements, development,ly residential following: provision of public facilities or development, hotels (RM-100 only), and associated uses at a density not amenities, and timing and sequencin Parcel A Fifth Steet Area of development. g to exceed 60 and 100 dwelling units Parcel B Urban Neighborhood to the acre, respectively. Both Parcel D Retail Core A "development agreement" serves to districts require minimum lot widths of 50 Parcels F and G Resort Hotel allay the developer's fears of quat mie t; lotareas to s potential changes in zoning, 5,000 square feet; a minimum floor All private development shall be development regulations, or area per unit of 400 square feet; subject to new permanent zoningand development review and no areaairat building height. development procedures, thus Floor ratios are 3.0 in RM-100 p guidelines (see the enabling developers to proceed with and 2.0 in RM-60 if the site Proposed Zoning District Map, page confidence on projects that may 98) . The new zoning system shall require substantial commitments of comprises two or more platted lots incorporate a land use intensity time and money. The "development and if the site comprises one guide, performance standards and agreement" aids the City by Plattteded lot. urban design criteria, and shall providing a legally enforceable require site and development plan vehicle for ensuring that The ID - Interim Development approval, including landscaping, development is consistent with the 1 )districte leaves underlying January 1z design, and architectural review plan and meets the subjective urban in pl le, bu thisp mnts zoning components. In addition, designin place, but supplements and private and qualitative criteria set modifies it by requiring a 100-foot developers of major projects will be forth therein. It also allows the minimum lot width and a 10,000- encouraged to utilize "development City to coordinate the timing and square foot minimum lot area, by agreements." sequencing of development with the imposing a 30 percent open space phasing of public improvements in requirement in RM-60 and a 40 the redevelopment area. percent requirement in RM-100, and by imposing additional standards and 97 4 1r trp- jp if lirlY I requirements for development o A height limitation overlay criteria, approval , including a site and zone. _ . . development plan. To achieve o A minimum square footage for the desired development intensities, Based on the Revitalization Plan, it each dwelling unit and a minimum the new permanent zoning system, as is apparent that additional and more average dwelling unit square shown on the Proposed Zoning extensive permanent zoning changes footage for the entire District Map for South Shore and are necessary to properly and fully development. referred to as (R-PS) "Residential- implement plan objectives. The Performance Standards," will be characteristics of the new permanent o Required underground and divided into four subdistricts: zoning for this area should emphasize . structural parking, as opposed the following: to surface parking. Subdistrict Location o Base-level intensities as of o Use of floor area ratio and lot R-PS 1 Alton Road to right (but based on compliance coverage requirements to create Jefferson Avenue with applicable performance a land use intensity scale. standards) and maximum R-PS 2 Jefferson Avenue to intensities obtainable only by o Use of an open space ratio. Washington Avenue acquisition of bonuses and R-PS 3 Washington Avenue to incentives. o Use of occupant and total Collins Avenue parking ratios. o Provision of substantial R-PS 4 Collins Avenue to the incentives for aggregation of o Availability of "development Beach parcels. agreement" concept. The delineation of the subdistricts o Incentives for amenities, design, Within the urban neighborhood, the is based upon the land use concept underground parking, plan suggests varying residential described in Section 7, the location environmental sensitivity, scale, intensities of development, the of the major transportation loop height, view preservation, and lowest near Alton Road and gradually system, the locations of major parks other features (see Section 8) . increasing to the highest east of and amenities, and the existing Collins Avenue. These development density of development, by block, in o Requirements for landscaping, intensities will also be reflected each of the subdistricts. The open space, and design elements in the height limitations, floor staggered intensities and heights as part of required site and area ratios, and other intensity will allow for a principal development plan approval orientation towards Biscayne Bay, processes. 99 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE INTENSITY MATRIX Intensity Factors R-PS1 R-PS2 R-PS3 R-PS4 Maximum Height 3 stories over 4 stories over 6 stories over No height 1 story parking 2 stories parking 3 stories parking limit or 35 feet or 50 feet or 75 feet Maximum Lot 50% 40% 30% 20%, if Coverage over 6 stories (w/o bonus) Maximum Lot 60% 50% 40% 30%, if Coverage over 6 stories (w/ bonus) Maximum FAR .8 1.0 1.25 1.5 (w/o bonus) Maximum FAR 1.3E.) 1.75 2.0 (w/ bonus) Required Minimum 750600 500 400 Dwelling Unit Size (square feet) Required Minimum 1000 900 800 750 Average Dwelling Unit Size (square feet) Minimum Open Space 30% 40% 50% 60% Occupant Parking 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 Space Ratio (spaces per dwelling unit) Total Parking 2.0 1.75 1.5 1.25 Space Ratio (spaces per dwelling unit) Density Range 26-42 40-60 54-76 70-92 (in units/acre) 100 Sit• u"/1r Sit Or-1" the marina and, the major hotel and development so that the system does (Parcels F and G) . The existing commercial developments on the marina not effect a "taking" of private underlying zoning in these districts upland parcels, without sacrificing property. More intensive and more is as follows: views and open space corridors to the flexible development opportunities ocean. The existing densities and will , however, be afforded to those Fifth Street C-1 and C-5 north of types of development on the ocean who aggregate parcels, by permitting Area Fifth Street; RM-60, side preclude an immediate increases in permissible lot C-5 and RM-100 south orientation to the beach. coverage and permissible floor area of Fifth Street ratios for corresponding increases ' While the intensity criteria and in parcel size, up to a maximum that Retail Core C-6 and C-5 design standards may vary by reflects the highest permissible Area subdistrict, the procedures, intensity of development consistent including site and development plan with the plan. Resort Hotels C-5 (former Kennel approval and the use of "development Re demi-a-1 1 a.act Club site) agreements," shall be uniformly i le--(s-ee-- RM-100 (site between applicable and available in all -Rage---1-024,----64,4, .. 84., First and Second subdistricts. Pro formas, which demonstate the operation of the Land Bonuses and incentives may also be Streets) Use Intensity Matrix as applied to utilized to a more limited and specific development parcels of restricted degree to accomplish The RM-60 and RM-100 zoning district certain urban design objectives. requirements and characteristics varying sizes and locations, are g � ly. C-1 u ev discussed been previously.have r presented in Appendix F. These objectives will be described Neighborhood Business io sDlCt in the new permanent zoning, i .e. , is a The most important factor for the the R-PS Residential-Performance which permits RM-60 permitted uses Standard zoningdistrict application of bonuses and incentives . as well as all manner of localretail , commercial , and personal will be the ability to aggregate service uses. There is no minimum parcels of sufficient size to enable lot area or lot width for large-scale redevelopment. The zoning system, therefore, will nonreSidenlial clstrict5 nonresidential uses; there is a maximum building height of 40 feet; provide base-level 'development there is a maximum floor ratio of intensities to owners of small There are three distinct parcels and maximum intensities to nonresidential development districts 2.0; and the maximum density for residential development is 60 units in South Shore: the Fifth Street developers of large parcels. The base-level intensities will allow for area (Parcel A) , the retail core per acre. The ID ordinance a "reasonable" level of (Parcel D), and the resort hotels supplements the underlying zoning by requiring a minimum lot area of 101 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE INTENSITY BONUSES 4 Percent Increase in Increase inniFFll or Parcel Size Maximum Lot Coverage Up to 10,000 square feet noneF0/// none For each additional 10,000 square 2 .1 feet up to 40,000 square feet. A/. For each additional 20,000 square 2 .1 feet up to 80,000 square feet IMIT FOR R-PS1 For each a itional 4000 square 2 .1 feet up t 200,000 squ e feet but in no event to exceed but in no event to exceed a maximum lot coverage of a maximum FAR of .5 10% above the base-level above the base-level FAR maximum lot coverage 102 jqf4 10,000 square feet and a minimum lot The underlying zoning, even as o Use of an open space ratio. width of 100 feet. It also imposes modified by the ID district, is an open space ratio of 30 percent. incapable of implementing and o Availability of "development achieving all of the plan objectives agreements" for additional C-5 is a General Business District for new development. The • flexibility. which permits mixed uses including characteristics of new permanent high-density residential , retail , and zoning for these areas should o Use of floor area ratios and lot light and heavy service commercial emphasize the following: coverage requirements to create development. There is no minimum lot a land use intensity scale. width for nonresidential development; o Base-level intensities as of no maximum building height; and a right (but subject to compliance 0 Provision for mixed-use maximum floor area ratio of 3.00. with applicable urban design and developments and for mixed-use The maximum density for residential site development performance structures (i .e. , first floor development is 100 dwelling units per standards) and maximum retail with offices or acre. The ID ordinance superimposes intensities obtainable only by residential above) . the 100-foot minimum lot width and bonuses and incentives. 10,000-square foot minimum lot area o Nonresidential development requirements as well as a 40 percent o Provision of significant intensities geared to adjacent open space requirement. incentives for aggregation of residential uses and parcels, but also for provision intensities, to the The C-6 zoning district is an of design amenities, such as transportation system, to the intensive commercial district which ground-level plazas and arcades, open space network, and to the allows all uses permitted in C-5 as view preservation, underground size and scale of surrounding well as various sales, storage, parking, environmental development. repair, processing, wholesaling and preservation, sensitivity to trucking activities. It does not scale, relationship to street o Emphasis on retail commercial permit residential uses. There are and streetscape features, etc. development, including no minimum lot area or minimum lot (see Section 8) . restaurants, services and width requirements. The maximum • related uses. building height is 40 feet; the o Requirements for urban design, maximum floor area ratio is 1.0. The landscaping, architectural , site o Residential development as a ID district imposes a 50-foot minimum and development, and public permitted use in these lot width and a 5,000-square foot utility plans as part of a nonresidential areas, subject to minimum lot area requirement, but required development review the applicable standards as does not alter the floor area ratio procedure. specified for R-PS 1-4 or impose an open space requirement. subdistricts. 103 o Office development as a permitted pedestrian environment will be use. created along Fifth Street; rEtail core (Parcel li) incentives will be given for outdoor Nonresidential development cafes and other pedestrian-oriented intensities will vary in accordance use and design. Maximum lot The retail core district is bounded with the role and location of each of coverages and floor area ratios will by First Street, Jefferson Avenue, these areas in the overall be relatively high. Biscayne Street, and Ocean Drive. Revitalization Plan context and Proposed land use is retail ' strategy. On the north side of Fifth Street, commercial , restaurant and service uses will be similar, but, because commercial at a pedestrian-scale the depth of property to Sixth with low-rise shopping center or Street is much greater, there is an mall-type structures, but relatively rIrT 6trect ama (Parcel A) opportunity for a transitional high lot coverages. residential use on the Sixth Street Residential/hotel use will be This corridor includes the property side. The intensity of this allowed above the ground-level between Fourth and Sixth Streets from residential use should be in development. Incentives will be Alton Road to Ocean Drive, whose use relative scale with residential provided for aggregation of parcels and development are influenced by development north of Sixth Street. so that a larger-scale, more uniform Miami Beach Boulevard (Fifth Street), To the extent that residential use design and development will result. and particularly by the is permitted on the Sixth Street Bonuses will also be given for transportation improvements to be side, the intensities should be design features and amenities, provided. The proposed land use and those of the R-PS2 district which including plazas, arcades and open development pattern along the will allow for an adequate space; nonsurface parking; elevated boulevard anticipates first floor transition from the intensities walkways connecting second-level retail use, including restaurants, along Fifth Street to those of shops; and outdoor cafes. Proposed cafes, banking, movie theaters and residential development north of zoning for this area will be other similar uses, topped by office Sixth Street. Commercial-Performance Standard 1 or residential development. On the south side of Fifth Street, parkingThe basic zoning (C-PS1) , as shown on the Proposed proposed for the Zoning District Map mrd-- k would be provided in the rear of the Fifth Street Corridor is C-PS2, as property with a requirement for a shown on the Proposed Zoning f14t .ix__ heavily landscaped buffer along District Map Fourth Street to protect the adjacent •. residential area to the south. A S.A•...... a VVV-tv‘&'11 -4-14‘1.--3 104 COMMERCIAL LAND USE INTENSITY MATRIX Intensity Factors C-PS11 C-PS22 C-PS33 Maximum Height 4 stories over 6 stories over No height 2 stories parking 3 stories parking limit or 50 feet or 75 feet Maximum Lot 60% 40% 20%, if Coverage over 6 stories (w/o bonus) Maximum Lot 70% 50 30%, if Coverage ` over 6 stories (w/ bonus) Maximum FAR 1.0 2.0 2.5 (w/o bonus) Maximum FAR0 2.5 3.0 (w/ bonus) ii. Minimum Open Spa 30% 11/?.....) 50% 60% Required Par ng space per 400 1 space per 400 1 space per 400 Space Ratio uare feet square feet square feet (commercial/office)4 Required Parking 1 space per 4 seats 1 space per 4 seats 1 space per 4 seats Space Ratio (restaurants)4 Density Ranges for 26-42 40-60 70-92 Permitted Residential Uses (R-PS1) (R-PS2) (R-PS4) (in units/acre) or 54-76 (R-PS3) �� Notes appear on following page - n 105 .?) � � " NOTES: COMMERCIAL LAND USE INTENSITY MATRIX 1. C-PS1 is a mixed-use district other similar features as emphasizing commercial and described in the urban design related uses, but with office and portion of the plan. residential use also permitted. Residential use is permitted 5. - he commercial land 0 - pursuant to R-PS1 zoning ' en ty bonus-. enrfoi standards. ,-aggregd •f•arcelri ' 14-;;� - 3 - ' . . " i 2. C-PS2 is a mixed-use district - - - • -- permitting commercial and related page- i . :o , also uses as well as office, . . ' :11 - . . -s-4gn residential , and hotel use. ' 'e . - -tain amens Residential use is permitted _. pursuant to R-PS2 and R-PS3 land use intensity standards, depending on its location. 3. C-PS3 is a mixed-use district GorivitiftVeNsaAKT-S permitting commercial and related use as well as office, residential , and hotel use, at higher intensities than those permitted in C-PS2. Residential use is permitted pursuant to R-PS4 land use intensity standards. 4. Required parking may be reduced through use of "development agreements" which may require the public parking to be provided by the City in exchange for developer provision of certain design, amenity, open space or 106 COMMERCIAL LAND USE INTENSITY BONUSES Percent Increase in crease in Floor Parcel Size Maximum Lot Coverage Ratio Up to 10,000 square feet None None For each additional 10,000 square 2 .1 feet up to 40,000 square feet For each additional 20,000 square 2 )L,, .1 feet up to 100,000 square feet For each additional 25,000 square 2 .1 feet up to 200,000 square feet .. t in 1 event to exceed but in no event to exceed a 1 . mum lot coverage of//000"""'"*%0:::) a maximum FAR of 1.0 above 1: , above the base-level the base-level FAR for C-PS1 lot coverage requirement and .5 for C-PS2 and C-PS3 Bonuses and incentives may also be utilized to a more limited degree to accomplish certain urban design objectives. Such additional bonuses will allow for further increases in maximum lot coverages, but not in floor area ratios. These bonuses and incentives will be set forth in %, 74) the new permanent zoning, i .e. , the C-PS Commercial- Performance Standard zoning district. )1j2 fte I 107 re5orI hotel t es(Pa melt r and CD) The only privately held parcel of vacant land of significant size is the Miami Beach Kennel Club site. This parcel is proposed for a major destination-resort hotel and associated mixed-use (residential , specialty, commercial and restaurant) development. Its development should occur pursuant to a "designation and development agreement" based, however, upon the zoning, land use, and urban design guidelines presented in the plan. Parcel G is proposed for ultimate resort hotel use, but, due to the existing land use, the susceptibility to immediate change is very low. It is anticipated that the present uses will remain for a significant period of time. Therefore, it is suggested that the proposed zoning be R-PS4, reflecting current use, but that, upon aggregation of parcels, the C- PS3 zoning be available for a major, unified development proposal . C-PS3 zoning is proposed currently for Parcel F. 108 I I. Intl PLE MEM TATIoN r1oAM ALTERNATIVE rugijiN(a eaURCts AND MET1{oDS Financing of the major public All improvements scheduled in -I-dx Incl-rnenit r'tnanc1n9 improvements proposed in the the Stage I capital improvements Revitalization Strategy will rely program must be irrevocably upon a variety of funding sources and committed by the City, with The Community Redevelopment Act methods available to the City and specific funding sources (Fla. Stats. 163.387(1) ) authorized the Redevelopment Agency. The identified. If such the establishment of a community objectives in developing the improvements are speculative, redevelopment trust fund which may financing package will be to: the private sector may suffer a be utilized to finance any loss of confidence in the development project or improvement o Demonstrate a strong financing Revitalization Strategy. undertaken by the community. The commitment to the project's annual funding of this trust fund success on the part of the local o Create incentives for private may include, but is not limited to, government. Public commitments investments. Redevelopment tax increments from the will indicate to potential potentials are limited if redevelopment area. Such increments private investors that the local development costs and risks are are determined annually and are the government believes the area's disproportionately high. amount equal to the difference problems can be solved and that Funding approaches should be between (1) the amount of ad valorem development potentials will be designed to reduce these risks taxes levied by all taxing enhanced through their solution. to make redevelopment area authorities except school districts The Redevelopment Agency must projects competitive for private on taxable real property in the play a key role, particularly in investment. The City must be entire redevelopment area; and (2) the first stage, by funding the committed to working with the amount of ad valorem taxes which necessary capital improvements private developers and would have been produced by the rate and by leasing City-owned land supporting their development upon which the tax is levied by all for development to give momentum proposals, when appropriate, taxing authorities except school to the revitalization effort. with financial incentives in the districts upon the total of the City intervention in the form of supportive public assessed value of the taxable real redevelopment process, through improvements, utilities and property of the entire redevelopment funding, land use and zoning services, and, even land cost area as shown upon the most recent controls, and development on write-downs, when feasible and assessment roll used in connection public land, is essential to a necessary. with the taxation of such property successful redevelopment effort. prior to the effective date of the ordinance approving the community o Establish a reliable funding base redevelopment plan. for all scheduled improvements. 109 Charter, the City is empowered to 1975 $ 564,000 In particular, City code create a special assessment fund for 1976 1,276,800 enforcement, residential (multi- the following local improvements: 1977 2,079,000 family) rehabilitation, and streets and highways; sidewalks, 1978 2,024,600 relocation programs should be sanitary sewers, storm sewers, 1979 1,849,200 extended to the South Shore waterfront improvements, boardwalk 1980 2,113,700 Revitalization Area. The multi- improvements, and lighting 1981 2,249,000 family residential rehabilitation improvements. The use of special 1982 3,090,500 program provides private property assessment district financing, owners of multi-unit buildings, however, imposes improvement costs on TOTAL YEARS 1-8 $15,246,800 primarily renting to low-moderate the private sector in contravention income persons, with the financial of City policy to assist private The City's ninth year application, resources necessary to rehabilitate developers. Further, special as tentatively approved by the City their structures. assessment district bonds have little Commission, is for $1,947,000 in market appeal at the present time. Year 9 entitlement funds and The City's ninth year CDBG $537,000 in emergency job act funds application specifically refers to plus the use of $776,830 in the South Shore Revitalization Area • reprogrammed funds and $98,322 in and to the consideration of projects comunity de'ielomeni WO: Tarte prior year funds. designed to achieve one of the national objectives for CDBG funds: The Community Development Block Grant The South Beach area is an eligible prevention or elimination of slums (CDBG) program was established area for use of CDBG funds. and blight. pursuant to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and provides Projects to be funded in the ninth federal funds to cities for a wide year include parks, recreation and -+i variety of eligible local projects in neighborhood facilities, fire 1)d deve�rnefitccion, sr-antS the general areas of housing, protection facilities and equipment economic development, community (jobs bill ), street improvements, The Urban Development Action Grant planning, and public facilities and pedestrian malls, public services, (UDAG) program is designed to assist improvements. Since 1975, the City relocation payments and assistance, distressed cities in revitalization has had CDBG funds available in the multi-family code enforcement, and redevelopment projects. The following amounts: historic preservation, program seeks unique opportunities rehabilitation, planning, and where qualifying communities can use community development activities. public UDAG funds to stimulate new or increased private investment. 111 Thus, as redevelopment activity December 15, 1982, the County raises the area's total assessed portion expired and the County valuation, the tax revenues that Commission would have to take formal would be generated by the incremental legal action to reinstate it. The 00d-hand ocifih manna upland cis increase are placed in a City will request such action, with redevelopment trust fund for use in the promise that such funds will be The City anticipates the leasing of financing specified redevelopment used solely for specific the City-owned north and south activities. Local governments redevelopment project activities. marina upland area to private continue to receive those revenues The City share alone is, however, developers for development constituting the base year level . sufficient to support bonding of the consistent with the plan. This land The Redevelopment Agency may issue necessary capital improvements, has been valued at approximately $20 tax increment bonds backed by the given the anticipated new million. Long-term leases to be anticipated tax increment revenues development in the redevelopment negotiated by the City with private (Fla. Stats. 163.385 and 163.381) . area (i .e. , non-speculative developers, pursuant to competitive development) . bids or competitive negotiations The Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency with "designation and development has established a redevelopment trust agreements," should yield fund supported, in part, by tax man na lea,S' substantial annual lease revenues increments. The base year for for the City, which may be used in calculating tax increments is 1976. support of the proposed capital Since that time, the City and County The lease that has been negotiated improvement program. (See case shares of tax increments (even between the City and Carner-Mason study of "A Mixed-Use Marina- without any redevelopment activity) Ltd. for construction and operation Oriented Attraction" in Appendix A. ) have been as follows: of the South Shore Marina provides for a minimum annual guaranteed Year City Share County Share rental of $160,000,escalating to $600,000. If the designated Special aroSessrnerit diihicf� 1977 $ 14,662 $ 13,074 percentages of gross receipts yield 1978 $ 29,231 $ 23,606 greater amounts, the City is The City may establish special 1979 $ 92,250 $ 72,781 entitled to such greater amounts. assessment districts and fund 1980 $190,771 $130,917 Monies derived from the marina lease certain local improvements through 1981 $188,385 $143,409 are available in support of proposed special assessments where such capital improvements. improvements are of direct benefit Both the City and the County shares to particular properties. Pursuant have, to date, gone into the Agency's to Sections 29 and 30 of the City Redevelopment Trust Fund. On 110 UDAG can serve as a strategic infrastructure rehabilitation; o One-time funding only - No complement to the CDBG program. and public, commercial , additional funding will be While the CDBG program provides a industrial , and residential provided in subsequent years for basic level of assured on-going an earlier approved project. support for community redevelopment construction. and economic development activities, o Financing actions - Equity o Projects should be related - The the UDAG program can be used to: funding, loans, loan guarantees, Revitalization Strategy, as part lease guarantees, or other of an overall , comprehensive o Provide "front-end" financing approprate mechanisms for joint redevelopment plan for the ( immediately available start-upentire South Beach area, public-private development. money) that allows communities to strongly meets this criterion. capture and leverage significant Priority is given to proposals in • private investments. which the community will be in a o Res and to uni ue position to recapture or recycle its oeWe— ar�f v "et- 9ran1'� p q , perhaps one- UDAG funds if the project is time, opportunities while they successful . are current. Several debt-incurring methods may Many of the potential development be used to raise capital for water o Make substantial resources opportunities referenced in the and sewer projects: available, when needed, to Revitalization Strategy may be complement funds from othero Miami Dade Water and Sewer considered for UDAG funding because federal departments in meeting they are part of an effort to Authority (WASA) may issue the reinvestment needs of improve the local economic base. revenue bonds or subordinated distressed cities. Project selection should consider notes payable from user fees in the UDAG eligibility requirements the area or other revenues of UDAG funds are available to carry out and application process: the Redevelopment Agency such as projects in support of a wide variety tax increment revenues, ground of economic revitalization activities o Private commitment required - leases and/or concession income. that involve partnerships with the Evidence has to be provided of private sector. Possible activitieso WASA may pay for the specified include: substantial financial participation (rule of thumb is water and sewer improvements six private dollars to each with its own capital o Development actions - Land grant dollar) . clearance; site improvements; 112 construction funds and then be that some parking will be provided never actually be used to pay back repaid over several years by the directly on site by the private the principal and interest on the Agency from the available sector, with the remainder provided bonds; rather, the bonds would be revenues identified above. by the public sector. repaid from Redevelopment Agency revenues (tax increments, ground o If the City owns any portion of The Metered Parking Division of the leases, concession income, etc. ) The the water or sewer system for Finance Department may issue revenue interest rate differential between a which it would receive user fees bonds to fund the necessary public City special obligation bond and a directly, it may utilize the parking facilities and structures tax increment or special assessment State of Florida Pollution with the debt repaid through parking bond could be as high as 3 to 4 Control Program for funding such revenues derived from such percent annually, thereby providing water and sewer projects. facilities. To provide development an incentive to utilize the special incentives, the public sector could obligation bond mechanism. issue bonds for parking facilities, Parking thus reducing private development J costs. Pay a5-r0—cjo The Revitalization Strategy envisions Additionally, public metered parking J the need for approximately 1,500 should be provided in support of the Should the City choose not to incur parking spaces to service the Fifth Street corridor developments debt for the public improvements anticipated development ( i .e. , and, perhaps, in association with scheduled in the capital marina, north and south upland improvements in the area. improvements program for the South development areas) at or near the Shore Revitalization Area, the City entry to the proposed major arterial may evaluate its annual expenditure loop on Alton Road south of Miami • for capital improvements with the Beach Boulevard. The necessary 6ecial obligation bonder objective of paying for such parking facilities may be integrated improvements as costs are incurred. with the proposed development or be The City may issue special Several elements of the capital provided, in part, on a separate site obligation bonds based upon a pledge improvements program could be with sufficient proximity to the of specific non ad valorem revenue scheduled over multiple years to private development. If the parking sources such as the new incremental allow funding on a cash basis is publicly provided and operated, sales tax, guaranteed entitlements, without incurring debt. Because the this will be taken into account in franchise fees, and others. It is total improvements costs in Stage I lease negotiations. It is likely anticipated that such revenues would are quite limited relative to the 113 size and scale of the redevelopment in Stage I . Because the "funds reflect various improvements that program and the City budget, pay as- derived" represent the most will be made by the private sector you-go financing is a distinct conservative estimates possible, it in the development process. The possibility. The disadvantage of is likely that tax increments, projects listed in the capital this type of financing is that it particularly, will be substantially improvement program are the basic, does not establish a continuing, greater than estimated. The public facilities and infrastucture irrevocable funding commitment by the preferred financing strategy does improvements necessary to stimulate City and is, therefore, subject to not depend on utilization of the and accommodate development changes and modifications from year County share of tax increments for anticipated in Stage I . Refinements to year. implementation of the capital of these estimates must occur when improvement program although the City determines the final design commitment of the County share to of improvements that will be specific projects would be of great undertaken. PREPERRED FINANCING 617iAlr161 benefit. Public improvements have been Public improvements to be provided scheduled for Stage I only. Stage by, and public improvement costs to II and Stage III capital be borne by, the City and the Agency CAATAL- 111019nigh4Wr trc6RAVI improvements are not readily as well as the timing and scheduling identifiable at this time. The of such improvements are shown in the The development costs attached to Stage I improvements will provide Stage I, Capital Improvement Program the capital improvement program the necessary framework for and (see page 115) . The preferred method represent estimates of order of stimulus to redevelopment by the for financing the specified magnitude costs for the specific private sector. Stage II and III improvements, given the objectives of capital improvements scheduled to be improvements are, therefore, public commitment, funding source undertaken by the City of Miami anticipated to be of a smaller reliability and continuity, and Beach in the next five years, based magnitude and related more closely public-private interaction, is to upon the current build-out to individual private development utilize the techniques shown in the projections for South Shore proposals, rather than to the Financing Strategy chart on page 117. revitalization. These projects do Revitalization Strategy as a whole. not represent a full listing of the The funding sources identified are costs that may be incurred in the more than adequate to finance the Revitalization Strategy, and do not limited public improvements scheduled 114 STAGE I. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ITEM 1983-84 1985-86 1987-88 1989-90 Major Arterial Loop' $100,000 $ 600,000 $ 300,000 - Secondary Arterial Loop2 50,000 450,000 - Miami Beach Boulevard3 Improvement 150,000 1,000,000 350,000 - Third Street and Biscayne 100,000 600,000 300,000 - Greenways4 Waters 200,000 1,200,000 600,000 - Wastewaters 100,000 600,000 300,000 - TOTAL6 $700,000 $4,450,000 $1,850,000 - TOTAL STAGE I COSTS: $7 Million Notes appear on next page 115 NOTES: STAGE I . CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1. Major arterial loop improvements lighting, signage, landscaping include design and development of and paving; design integration a boulevard system with with existing City parks; and distinctive lighting, signage, street redesign where necessary landscaping, street furniture, to maintain continuity of and paving materials at key , systems. intersections. 5. Water and wastewater 2. Secondary loop improvements are improvements as necessary to for design and development of similar boulevard improvements support the levels of private development anticipated. that will complement the major arterial loop system. 6. A 1,500-car parking facility has been proposed for the marina 3. Miami Beach Boulevard upland area. The cost range is improvements are for design and $7 to 12 thousand per space, development of a boulevard system with various implementation comparable with the major arterial loop, as well as for possibilites. The City may design and development of on- arrange for the selected parking, developer of the marina upland street pedestrian areas area to build the parking or may and street redesign on the south undertake to build the parking side of Fifth Street where using one of the many available intersections occur. financing techniques. Beyond the six-year projection of 4. Third Street and Biscayne Street possible capital improvements, greenway improvements are for specific parking needs might be design and development of identifiede. pedestrian-scale minor street a• � Fifth Street area or at oceanfront parks) systems, including distinctive and, to continue to stimulate redevelopment, the City may elect to formulate plans for additional parking facilities. 116 FINANCING STRATEGY Financing Technique Funds Derived o Tax Increment Financing in City share at present is approximately $200,000 annually Support of Tax Increment Bonds with no new development. Tax increments from the marina development will increase this by $10 million annually. Additional development will increase the tax increments at the rate of $9.65 (current millage) for every $1,000 of new assessed valuation. o Marina Lease Minimum of $160,000 annually escalating to $600,000 annually. o Marina Upland Development Parcels Pro formas have been prepared based on anticipated development of the two City-owned marina upland development parcels only (see Appendix F) . The pro formas indicate that this development and the lease on the marina development would be adequate to pay the debt service (principal and interest) on bonds in the amount necessary to fund all of the proposed Stage I improvements, absent any other private development, private property improvements or tax increments resulting from inflation. Since the City is in a position to dispose of the marina upland parcels (by sale or long-term lease) in the near term, the use of tax increment financing and bonding is realistic. Given the value of the parcels and the development proposed thereon, lease payments are anticipated to be substantial . o Community Development Block Grant Funds The City has withheld CDBG funds from the Revitalization Area for improvements because the previous plan suggested complete clearance. These funds, however, would be appropriately used in the South Beach area, which is now an eligible area. o Urban Development Action Grant UDAG funds may be utilized as part of a joint public- private project in the Revitalization Area. 117 MARKET ANALYSIS AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALS SOUTH SHORE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA NIIIIMINIMIIIIIIIIINOr Niiimosimiommr HALCYON LTD. Development Consunants 55 Hgh SUeat %Lir Hartford.Connecticut 06103 APRIL 983 '��'40 52C HALCYON LTD. Development Consultants SOUTH SHORE REDEVELOPf NT PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number INTRODUCTION A-1 SECTION 1 POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS A- 4 SECTION 2 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS A-5 SECTION 3 HCUSING h4ARKET ANALYSIS A-6 SECTION 4 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS A- 9 SECTION 5 OFFICE MARKET ANALYSIS A-1 1 SECTION 6 HC7TEL MARKET ANALYSIS A-13 SECTION 7 DEVEIAPMENNT STRATEGY ISSUES A-15 -" APPENDIX: DEMOGRAPHIC AND MARKET TREKS . - - AND FORECASTS INI'f CDUCTICN As input to the planning and zoning process being undertaken by the Mayor's Pd Hoc Committee on Planned Area Development for South Shore, Halcyon Ltd. has been retained to assess overall market potentials and evalute the financial feasibility of key development projects in the South Shore Redevelopment Area. This report presents Halcyon's findings relating to the marketing potential overview. A subsequent report will assess the financial feasibility of key projects as well as identify public and private funding mechanisms. As part of the marketing potential overview, Halcyon has been asked to undertake the following tasks: o Analyze existing marketing data, trend line information, census data, and other materials as available to determine market potentials for uses appropriate to the project area; o Review previous land use concept for their applicability in current and projected competitive market conditions; o Define potential development uses as to constraints, . density sizes and mix for appropriate market segments. In addition to these defined tasks, Halcyon has met with developers, realtors, businessmen, city officials and other appropriate individuals in order to rrore accurately define market conditions and development opportunities in the South Shore Area. Halcyon believes that this "hands-on input" will result in a more realistic assessment of development potentials, which should result in development projects which are both feasible and fundable. This report is organized in the following way. After an overview of site considerations, conditions for development, and a sumnaryu of development potentials, Halcyon presents the market support for the following land uses: residential, retail, office, and hotel. The first part of the report provides Halcyon's assessment of trends, conditions and projections for Dade County and Miami Beach, as well as development potentials in the South Shore area. Finally, Halcyon has identified development strategy issues, such as public actions and implementation issues which need to be addressed to formulate an achieveable development program. This analysis is followed by back-up data and other relevant information included in the appendix to this report. Site Considerations and Conditions for Development The South Shore Redevelopment Area is one of the best locations in South Florida. In addition to ocean and bay frontage, the area is only two miles from downtown Miami via the MacArthur Causeway. The Redevelopment area encompasses all of the land area to the south of Sixth Street, which consists of approximately 210 acres and 46 city blocks. The history of the area's redevelopment plans are well }mown and do not need to be repeated here. The important point relating to future development is that many of the area's structures have been allowed to deteriorate and a major clean-up effort will be needed to improve the area's visual appearance. In addition, the area is generally perceived as being unsafe, a reality and perception that will have to be changed. Given the area's existing conditions and negative image, as well as the adopted development policies, Halcyon believes the City will have to take all available actions which will initiate the private redevelopment process. These actions/conditions are as follows: o Acquisition of strategically located parcels due to extremely blighted conditions, or difficult land assembly. o Enforcement of building codes, in order to spur clean-up and investment in the area. • o Use of all available city resources to clean-up area, such as sanitation and police service. o Infrastructure improvements to utilities, roads, sidewalks, parks, etc. o Community Development funds for residential rehabilitation, possibly targeted to designated areas or to rental units. o Streamline the Development Process, (e.g. one-stop permitting, ombudsman in charge of South Shore development) . o Integrate Park design with adjacent development parcels. In addition, Halcyon believes that the overall development of the area would be greatly enhanced by retaining access to the Bay, and avoiding the wall effect that high-rise condominiums create. Halcyon recognizes that most of these steps require money. However, it should be recognized that funding sources (e.g. Urban Development Action Grants, Tax Increment Financing, Section 108 loans) are potentially available, and will be discussed in Halcyon's Phase II Report - South Shore Financing Alternatives. Summary - South Shore Development Potentials Halcyon's assessment of the long-term market potentials for residential, retail, office and hotel development in the South Shore area is as follows: Residential o Luxury condominium market is overbuilt at present but strong long-term potential exists. Increased amenities and interim mixed-use development can set the stage for the timely development of luxury condominiums. o Middle Income Condominiums ($60,000 - $100,000) can be supported by the market at a density of 60 units per acre (and higher) and with existing land prices. Given current land prices, lower density development (24 units per acre) is not feasible. o Moderate Income/Rental Units can only be provided through the rehabilitation of existing buildings. Retail o Excellent potential for a marina-oriented specialty center, with emphasis on restaurants and food service appealing to conventioneers, other visitors, and area residents. Specialty center should be part of a mixed-use center with hotel and office uses. o As housing develops, market will exist for community-oriented retail in the South Shore area, particularly along 5th Street and Washington Avenue. Office o Market potential for professional offices in the marina-oriented mixed-use development. o As area develops and after above initial development is leased up, additional professional office space could be supported along 5th Street. Hotel o There is a strong potential for a new large-scale (600 - 1 ,000 room) destination/resort hotel at the Kennel Club site. o One or two additional smaller new hotels can be built in conjunction with the marina/specialty center. o As new hotel facilities are developed, good potential for renovation of existing facilities to capture overflow and lower-priced demand. Section 1 : Population and Demographic Analysis The Miami Metropolitan Area is a fast-growing dynamic area that should continue to grow over the next ten to twenty years. As a result, there will be a strong demand for additional housing units and retail facilities in Dade County, although recent trends indicate that most of them will ofbuilt n��the County's below: unincorporated areas. A summary o Dade County's population increased by 357,989 between 1970 and 1980, an increase of 28.2%. However, some 73% of this growth took place in the County's unincorporated areas, and not the Miami/Miami Beach area. o Consistent with national trends, the numberof households ds in Dade County grew faster than the pope grew by 181 ,804, or 42.5% between 1970 and 1980. o Miami Beach's population grew by 9,226 persons, or 10.6% between 1970 and 1980. This compared favorably with Miami's 3.6% growth over the same period. The number of households increased by 22.2%, as average household size fell to 1 .7 persons per households, compared to 2.63 for Dade County as a whole. 31. o Population in Dade County is pLojected to increase from A 1 ,625,800 in 1980 to 2,039,000 in 1990, an increase of 413,200 persons or 25.4%. Households are projected to increase from 609,800 in 1980 to 724,000 in 1985 and 801 ,000 in 1990. o After accounting for non-resident demand, the average annual number of new housing units required to accommodate this ytuwt.h is projected to be 25,000 per year between 1980 and 1985 and 16,800 per year between 1985 and 1990. o Miami Beach's population is predominantly elderly, with a median age in 1980 of 65.3 years, compared to 34.8 years for Dade County as a whole. There was, however, an influx of some younger residents between 1970 and 1980. The number of persons in the 25-34 age group increased by 3,400 or 89.5% over that period. Section 2: Economic Analysis The Miami area is rapidly becoming an international finance and trade center. Both domestic and foreign banks have selected Miami as a place for their Latin American operations. In addition, the Port of Miami has experienced enormous growth in recent years. Although the national and world recession has affected Miami's economic growth in the last t4o years, Dade County experienced considerable growth tbetnext deca5 de ndorlso0 Telfollo ing d sumo marizes strong growth over economic trends and projections: o 'Ibtal employment in Dade County increased from 590,400 in 1975 to 737,900 in 1982, an .increase of 25.0%. Most of this increase occurred between 1975 and 1980, as the national and world-wide recession has slowed down Miami's growth. Sectors showing the largest increase between 1975 and 1982 were services, which grew by 38,600 employees and retail trade, which grew by 23,300 employees. o The employment structure of Miami Beaach residents is consistent with the fact that the city is a tourist-based economy. In 1980, over 64% of the residents were employed in two sectors: services and retail trade. Over the 1970-1980 period, Miami Beath residents experienced moderate growth, increasing by 3,482 jobs or 14.2%. a o Total employment in Dade County is projected to increase from 737,900 employees in 1980 to 909,300 in 1985 and 975,900 in 1990. On an annualized basis, net employment growth is expected to be 57, 100 jobs per year between 1982 and 1985 and 13,300 jobs per year between 1985 and 1990. o Most of Dade County's employment growth will occur in the services sector, which includes hotels and lodging, as well as business, health and medical services. A total of 95,400 new jobs are expected in this category between 1982 and 1990. Other large growth sectors are expected to be retail trade, government, and the finance insurance and real estate sector. o Incomes of Dade County residents should increase substantially over the next decade. Per capita income (expressed in constant 1980 dollars) is projected to increase from $9,598 in 1980 to $13,761 in 1985 and to $15,752 in 1990, representing increases of 7.5% and 2.7% per year between 1980-1985 and 1985-1990, respectively. Section 3: Housing Market Analysis Dade County's housing market has been characterized by wide swings in new construction and inventory, particularly in the luxury condominium market. Currently, Dade County has a large supply of unsold luxury condominiums, which should take several years to sell off. However, population and household growth will result in a continued need for new housing - particularly middle-priced units. The following summarize Halcyon's analysis of the Dade County and Miami, Beach housing markets. Dade County Trends o Between 1970 and 1980, the total number of year-round housing units in Dade County increased by 212,000, or 47.2%. Multi-family units increased by 119,300 units, or 56.3% of total new units. Total housing units increased faster than households due to vacation homes and vacancies, which increased from 4.8% of total housing stock in 1970 to 7.9% in 1980. o In Dade County as a whole, an average of 16,400 housing units per year were completed between 1973 and 1981 , including an annual average of 5,900 single family units and 10,500 multi-family units. 0 o The peak years for housing construction were 1973 and 1974, when approximately 27,000 units, including many luxury condominiums, were constructed each year. Those years were followed by a collapse in the second home market. o As of 1980, Dade County had an inventory of 6,400 unsold condominiums, which was the highest amount since 1976. o Prices for condominiums and single family homes have increased rapidly in the last few years. In 1982, the average price paid in Dade County was $125,373 for a new condominium and $103,166 for a new single family home. Miami Beach Trends o Miami Beach's housing stock increased by 13,000 units or 25.5% between 1970 and 1980. This represents a net addition of 1 ,300 units per year. o After allowing for vacancies, which increased by 2,900 or 54%, Miami absorbed 1 ,010 housing units per year between 1970 and 1980. o Some 37% of the new editions were single family homes, while the remaining 63% were multi-family units. o Although building permits for ten apartment buildings/condominiums were authorized in Miami Beach in 1982, only one building is under construction. By contrast, 29 buildings containing 1 ,902 residential units were authorized in 1980. Residential Development Potentials - South Shore Given historical trends in new housing units constructed in Dade County and Miami Beach (21 ,220 and 1 ,300 per year, respectively, between 1970 and 1980) and the County's forecast that 209,000 additional housing units will be required in Dade County between 1980 and 1990, there is clearly a market which the South Shore area can draw upon. The South Shore area will be able to capitalize on its proximity to downtown Miami, ocean beaches, the marina, and shopping and entertainment facilities. The South Shore area's potential to attract this demand will depend on two key factors: the provision of the appropriate amenities to attract particular market segments, and secondly, land prices. The following presents Halcyon's assessment of three key market segments. Luxury Condominiums/Residential Units. This segment of the market is extremely overbuilt at present, with thousands of unsold units in Dade County and Miami Beach, and nine major projects on hold in Miami Beach. The luxury residential market in Miami Beach undergoes even more pronounced swings in supply and demand than Dade County as a whole, which has resulted in a greater relative oversupply than the rest of the County. Although the current supply could take up to three to five years to be absorbed, the longer-term (six years and beyond) potentials for luxury condominiums on the South Shore area are excellent, assuming that some of the other project components and amenities are provided first. Market Rate/Middle Incccme. Of the 209,000 additional housing units required in Dade County between 1980 and 1990, this type of housing will account for the bulk of the demand. In relation to the competition, the South Shore area will eventually be able to provide a range of amenities (ocean beaches, marina, retail/specialty center, restaurants) required to effectively compete with Dade County's growth areas, such as the Kendall area, where smaller (850 square feet) condominiums with pool and tennis courts are selling in the $40,000 - $50,000 range. Although the South Shore area should eventually attract new housing and command higher prices than other parts of Dade County, land prices will to a large extent dictate future housing construction. With land prices in the South Shore area reportedly approaching $20 per square foot, law density development of 24 units per acre would result in per unit land costs of almost $36,000, which makes middle income housing infeasible. Even medium density. development, or 60 units per acre, would require over $14,000 per units. As development activity in the area intensifies, land prices are likely to increase, which will make housing development oriented to the middle income market harder to justify. Moderate Income/Rental. Given the difficulty of building new for-sale residential units for the middle income market, it will be even more difficult to construct new units, either for-sale or rental, for the moderate income marekt. The exception in government-assisted housing, which is still available to a limited degree for elderly housing. Aside from government-assisted housing, the most feasible way of providing moderate income rental units is through the rehabilita- tion of existing units, which can generally be accomplished at significantly lower cost than new construction. The South Shore area contains a large supply of older apartment buildings and hotels. Many of these have apartments and rooms which are too small to appeal to a broader market, although building layouts can be changed. As discussed above, the City should consider providing- a low-interest loan pool for moderate income rental properties. 0 Section 4: Retail Market Analysis Fueled by population growth and Latin American tourists, the Dade County retail market has been growing considerably in recent years, although the Latin market has declined in the last year or so. Much of the recent growth has occurred in the County's outlying areas, in response to population growth. The following points summarize recent retail trends: Dade County Trends o New construction of retail space in Dade County has been accelerating through 1981 . An average of 753,000 square feet was constructed during 1980 and 1981 , compared to an average of 537,545 square feet between 1971 and 1981 . o Most of the existing inventory of retail facilities are located in Southwest Dade and in Miami. For regional shopping centers, some 2.9 million square feet is located in Southwest Dade and 1 .6 million is located in the City of Miami. Miami Beach Trends o Only 870,000 square feet of retail space of all kinds is located in Miami Beach and Key Biscayne. In large part, this is because of the low incomes of Miami Beach residents. In addition, the Lincoln Road Mall has been experiencing increasing vacancies. o One reason for Miami Beach's retail decline is low incomes of residents. In 1981 , the average income in Miami Beach was $12,028 compared to $19,779 in the County as a whole. Average retail sales per household in 1981 were $6,274 in Miami Beach and $14,407 for the county as a whole. Retail Develocment Potentials - South Shore Future new retail development in the South Shore area will serve two market segments: new residents.of the area; and visitors to Miami Beach, including those staying in existing and newly developed area hotels as well as existing hotels elsewhere in the city. New residents of the area who are likely to have higher incomes will require additional convenience retail facilities, such as grocery and drug stores. The most strategic areas to locate convenience retail would be along 5th Street and on Washington Avenue, so that the stores can draw from the market to the north and the project area. • Section 5: Office Market Analysis Downtown Miami is undergoing an unprecendented office construction boom, with millions of square feet of space either recently completed or under construction. Much of this recent construction is due to the employment growth discussed above, especially in finance and services. However, as major projects come on line in 1983 and 1984, is likely a temporary oversupply of office space in downtown Miami. Recent office market trends are summarized below: Dade County Trends o An average of 1 ,350,000 square feet of office space was absorbed in Dade County during 1980 and 1981 , compared to an annual average of 787,000 between 1970 and 1981 and 668,000 between 1970 and 1979. o By far, the largest concentration of office space is in the Downtown/Brickell Avenue area. As of 1982, some 2.1 million square feet of space was under construction in that area, with an additional 3.4 million square feet proposed. o Other important concentrations of office space include the Airport area and downtown Coral Gables. Miami Beach Trends •o Miami Beach does not contain any significant amount of Class A office space. o Recent construction of office space has been along Arthur Godfrey Road (41st Street) although lease-up problems have been reported. o Lincoln Road, which has historically served as Miami Beach's main office area, is experiencing high vacancies. Office Development Potentials - South Shore Halcyon believes that the office development potentials in the South Shore are limited mainly to professional and resident-related office space. Additional demand for office space would be contingent upon securing tenant commitments, which will be difficult because: o Downtown Miami/Brickell Avenue is the premier office location in Dade County. Although office rents in downtown Miami are high, the area has become a major international finance center and will soon be served by Metrorail. o Tenants move to suburban office locations for several reasons: cheaper land and rents; free parking; and, access to employees. o The South Shore area will have a difficult time competing with suburban locations because free parking will probably not be available and because most of Dade County's population growth is occurring in southwest Dade. Although the South Shore area is not likely to develop as a major corporate office center, there is a strong potential for professional offices catering to attorneys, accountants and other smaller office users which need good access to downtown Miami but do not need to locate there. A water-oriented mixed use center should appeal greatly to these tenants. After that developnent is leased up and the rest of the area improves, additional professorial office space could be supported along 5th Street in low-rise buildings. • • Section 6: Hotel Market Analysis Downtown Miami and Dade County are experiencing a coon in hotel construction, while at the same time Miami Beach resort hotels are facing declining occupancies. Factors contributing to this include Miami's emergence as an international finance and trade center, while at the same time Miami Beach has become less popular as a convention and vacation center. In spite of this, two luxury hotels have been proposed for Miami Beach, and a 1 ,600 room convention hotel is being discussed as part of an enlarged and improved convention center. Should these latter two projects materialize, it could lead to a major increase in Miami Beach's convention and vacation business. Dade County Visitor Trends o Total visitors to Miami from the U.S. and Canada have shown little growth over the last four years. However, the number of foreign visitors increased by 58.3% between 1979 and 1982. o Miami has become one of the world's busiest ports for cruise ships. Some 1 .9 million people used the Port of Miami, in 1982, an increase of 40.4% over 1979. Miami Beach Trends w o Attendance at the Miami Beach Convention Center has been declining recently. For example, the number of people attending entertainment events declined from 915,242 in 1976/77 to 645,735 in 1980/81 . Recently, there has been a large number of cancelled conventions. o Miami Beach still has the largest concentration of hotels in Dade County. In 1981 , there were 314 hotels with 28,566 • rooms in Miami Beach, compared to 436 hotels and 41 ,893 rooms in all of Dade County. However, many of these facilities have not been adequately maintained and are not suitable for convention/tourist business. o There are a significant number of quality hotels in Miami Beach and downtown Miami. The four main hotels in Miami Beach (Fountainbleau Hilton, Konnover, Doral Beach, and Eden Roc) contain 2,420 rooms and are reported to be doing a good business. In addition, there are 2,394 recently built Class A hotels in downtown Miami with another 605 rooms under construction. o NO new hotels have been constructed in Miami in over 15 years, although the Fountainbleau Hilton was recently renovated. ...111111 o However, two new hotels have been proposed for Miami Beach, both catering to the luxury market. The Two Worlds project will feature a 300 room Hotel Meridien in the first phase. In addition, the Alexander will involve the conversion of an apartment building into a 285 room luxury hotel. Hotel Development Potentials - South Shore Although the hotel business in Miami Beach is currently on a downward trend, the potential exists for a large-scale destination resort hotel in the South Shore area because the area contains one of the best hotel sites in all of Dade County. The Kennel Club site contains approximately 14 acres fronting on both the Ocean and the Bay and bordered by an existing and a future park. The hotel should provide a full package of amenities and would benefit with a- national-chain affiliation. There is a strong need for a new modern hotel facility in Miami Beach and the Kennel Club site is unquestionably suited for this use. In addition to a major destination hotel, there is the potential for one or two smaller (250-400 roan) hotels oriented to the new marina. While the marina will generate some demand and an attractive facility will capture some of the large commercial market in downtown Miami, new hotel facilities in the South Shore area would benefit greatly frau expanded convention facilities in Miami Beach. A In addition to the market potential for new hotels, the potential exists for the rehabilitation of some of the smaller older hotels in' the area, conditioned upon new facilities being built and a general improvement of the area. New facilities would have to charge top-of-the-market room rates, while renovated facilities could compete by charging considerably less and by capturing overflow. Theme Park Potentials Halcyon has also reviewed the potential for a theme/park visitor attraction. Without a large-scale clearance and relocation effort, there are no sites in the South Beach area which are large enough for a theme park. However, a specialty center with a well conceived food component (discussed above) would serve as a major visitor attraction, drawing conventioneers and other visitors, as well as residents of Miami Beach and Dade County. Section 7: Development Strategy Issues A successful development program in South Shore can capitalize on the underlying strength of the Miami Beach, Dade County and South Florida market. Given the underlying market strength and the emerging presence of particular market segments, but recognizing the sensitive history of the area, the recommended development program should address the following issues: o The project should recognize Miami Beach's presence and image in the national market place and respond to national demographics and market trends. o The project should capitalize on the major development surge in downtown Miami by offering attractive, affordable and accessible housing opportunities while offering a lower- cost/higher amenity office opportunity. o The project can market Miami Beach's expanded beach front, new marina, new park area and accessibility to Miami, the airport and the Convention Center to attract hotel, office retail and residential development. o The project can incorporate moderate income rental housing within the interior of the project area through rehabilitation of existing structures and in-fill development. o The entire redevelopment of the South Shore Redevelopment area will benefit greatly from: - a concerted public improvements effort, - a major entryway statement, - landscaped boulevards and rethought traffic flow, - landscaped corners, entryways and interior parks, and - creative solutions to parking needs. - 15 - City Participation The City of Miami Beach needs to be actively involved in the development process, including land acquisition and assembly, for several reasons: o Control over design and scale, of new development projects. o Existing ownership patterns will make' it difficult to assemble strategic development sites. o For moderate income housing, land write-downs and other public participation will be required to make projects feasible. Fortunately, the city controls a key development parcel adjacent to the marina, where an opportunity exists to create an exciting mixed-use environment. However, other parcels in the South Shore Redevelopment Project Area will need similar public control to ensure that high-quality development occurs. Other benefits from public participation will include greater overall tax revenues due to higher values, and the ability to ensure that moderate income housing is developed. Other Development Issues o A bus/transit connection should be provided between area hotels and convention center and between existing Miami Beach hotels and the new specialty center. o The city needs to decide between receiving , the highest price/lease rate from city-owned property through high-density zoning, or allowing low-rise lower density, particularly along the Marina. o As the area is developed, and as a younger wealthier population moves into the South Shore area, parking will become a major problem/issue. o High land prices and/or the willingness of existing property owners to hold out for the highest price could stall development in the area. Reportedly, sales activity have already started to increase and land prices are escalating. HALCYON LTD. Development Consultants . MARKET ANALYSIS AND DEVELOPME<VT POTE*TI'IALS SOUTH SHORE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA • Prepared by: Halcyon Ltd. Hartford, Connecticut April 1983 APPENDIX DEMCGRAHIC AND MARKET 20 TRENDS AMID FORECASTS v SECTION 1 - POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS a TABLE 1 .1 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD TRENDS, MIAMI BEACH, MIAMI AND DADE COUNTY 1970-1980 Change 1970-1980 1970 1980 Number Percent Population Miami Beach 87,072 96,298 9,226 10.6% Miami 334,859 346,865 12,006 3.6% Dade County 1,267,792 1,625,781 357,989 28.2% Population in Households Miami Beach 85,817 95,031 9,214 10.7% Miami 328,418 341 ,072 12,654 3.9% Dade County 1,244,337 1 ,602,690 358,353 28.8% Households • Miami Beach 45,577 55,685 10,108 22.2% O Miami 120,393 134,046 13,653 11 .3% Dade County 428,026 609,830 181 ,804 42.5% Average Household Size • Miami Beach 1 .88 1 .71 Miami 2.73 2.59 Dade County 2.91 2.63 • • Source: U.S. Bureau of .the Census, Census of Population 1970 and 1980. TABLE 1 .2 PRLJEC;1'r:U POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS, DADE COUNTY 1980-1995 (In Thousands) Actual _ Projected 1980 19851990 1995 Population 1 ,625.8 1 ,874.0 2,039.0 2,181 .0 Population in Households 1 ,603.8 1 ,854.0 2,019.0 2,161 .0 Households 609.8 724.0 801 .0 864.0 Average Household Size 2.63 2.56 2.52 2.50- Resident Occupancy (%) 91 .7 91 .7 91 .7 91 .7 Required Housing Units 665.0 790.0 874.0 942.0 Source: Metro-Dade Planning Department • a 0 TABLE 1 .3 PR1 JEL1U) INCREASE IN POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS DADE (DUNI'Y 1980-1995 (In Thousands) Total Change Annual Change 1980-85 1985-90 1990-2000 1980-85 1985-90 1990-2000 Population 248.2 165 142 49.6 33.0 28.4 Households 114.2 77 63 22.8 15.4 12.6 Required Units 125.0 84 68 25.0 16.8 13.6 Source: Metro-Dade County Planning Department TABLE 1 .4 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF MIAMI BEACH AND DADE COUNTY RESIDENTS 1970 AND 1980 (In Thousands) Miami Beach Dade County 1970 1980 % Change 1970 1980 % Change Age Group 0- 5 1 .8 2.3 27.8% 107.2 113.6 5.9% 6-17 6.3 6.0 - 4.8 264.4 276.5 4.6 18-24 4.0 5.0 25.0 128.2 187.8 46.4 25-34 3.8 7.2 89.5 146.8 240.8 64.0 35-44 5.5 6.2 12.7 156.6 192.8 23.2 45-64 23.3 19.8 -15.0 292.8 359.1 22.6 65+ 42.4 49.8 17.5 172.7 255.3 47.8 Total 87.1 96.3 10.6% 1 ,267.8 1 ,625.8 28.2% Median Age 63.9 65.3 34.2 34.8 v. a Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, 1970 and 1980. SECTION 2 EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS - TRENDS AND PROTECTIONS ca-v Cj N __, g (D H (D § () a G �" N CDDD 1 [i a I-. Ul O troll N ►i U.a. vC G ci ! N. H. H- r H q Di ro II 2a n a ro N rcr (D M ri O '1l ? 0 2 �i _ o LID co . .P O .r Ui tJ J h O NtJ WtD .p. LO 4tO tO F.- J CLP W CO k.0U1 kD --.1 LLD P U1 a a O V I--, rt 01 w VI 0 _ �I• "3N •yDi - J -J (t' O .P Ut -- O1 QA .A 0 H m O a • • • • • • fi ((D J In 01 --. tDtoO\ OOIDo 'D rh a ° i E CT to F-. ° ;J r- Wto CO U I.J m- tD LD N 2 c J 0n J N tJ ON OO co r• J J .POOCoVDUIOOo t✓ r• to r-F. ' (D to to .P tJ 4=4 W W .A l.) OO U1 J Ul G Ooty — OVD --I .1. W I IL dP dP co I--. O C (D h (D I I I VD -. — O\ PJUi OJ tJ co O -1- Ni rtJ tJ On 44. I.) -4 -. hi O I + dP dP co N (D TABLE 2.2 NON-FARM EMPLOYMENT TRENDS BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE MIAMI BEACH 1970-1980 Change 1970-80 % Distribution 1970 1980 Number Percent 1970 1980 Manufacturing 2,164 2,139 - 25 -1 .2% 8.8% 7.6% Construction 644 979 335 5.0 2.6 3.5 TCU ( 1 ) 1 ,149 1 ,524 375 32.6 4.7 5.4 Wholesale Trends 1 ,088 1 ,562 474 43.6 4.4 5.6 Retail Trade 6,119 6,577 458 7.5 25.0 23.5 FIRE (2) 2,985 2,877 - 108 -3.6 12.2 10.3 Services & Other 9,708 11 ,471 1 ,763 18.2 39.6 41 .0 Government 638 848 210 32.9 2.6 3.0 Total 24,495 27,977 3,482 14.2% 100.0% 100.0% ( 1 ) Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities (2) Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 30f N A Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 and 1980 TABLE 2.3 NON-FARM EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS, DADE 02UNTY, FLORIDA 1982-2000 (In Thousands) Actual Projected 1982 1985 1990 2000 Manufacturing 98.8 111 .2 125.6 147.8 Construction 36.0 44.6 45.1 45.9 TCU ( 1 ) 71 .5 81 .0 83.0 85.2 Wholesale Trade 62.9 71 .0 75.4 83.2 Retail Trade 132.8 154.5 167.2 192.3 FIRE (2) 57.8 71 .6 78.7 93. 1 Services and Other 181 .4 260.9 276.8 316.0 Government 96.7 114.5 123.0 133.5 Total 737.9 909.3 975.9 1 ,097.0 (1 ) Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities (2) Finance, Insurance and Real Estate Source: Metro-Dade County Planning Department D a a TABLE 2.4 PROJECTPROJECTtO CHANGE IN NON-FARM EMPLOYMENT DADE COUNTY 1982-2000 (In Thousands) Total Change Average Annual Change 1982-85 1985-90 1990-2000 1982-85 1985-90 1990-2000 Manufacturing 12.4 14.4 22.0 4. 1 2.9 2.2 Construction 8.6 0.5 0.8 2.9 0.1 0.1 TCU ( 1 ) 9.5 2.0 2.2 3.2 0.4 0.2 Wholesale Trends 8.1 4.4 7.8 2.7 0.9 0.8 Retail Trade 21 .7 12.7 25.1 7.2 2.5 2.5 FIRE (2) 13.8 7.1 12.4 4.6 1 .4 1 .4 Services & Other 79.5 15.9 39.2 26.5 3.2 3.9 Government 17.8 8.5 10.5 5.9 1 .71 .1 Total 171 .4 66.6 121 . 1 57. 1 13.3 12. 1 ( 1 ) Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities (2) Finance Insurance and Real Estate Source: Metro-Dade County Planning Department TABLE 2.5 PFI JECalD PER CAPITA AND TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME DADE COUNTY 1980-1995 (In Constant 1980 Dollars) 1980 1985 1990 2000 Amount Per Capita Income ($) 9,598 13,761 15,752 17,790 Total Personal Income ($ million) 16,529 23,780 29,167 35,204 1980-85 1985-90 1990-95 Average Annual Change Per Capita Income ($) 832.6 398.2 407.6 Total Personal Income ($ million) 1 ,450.2 1 ,077.4 1 ,207.4 > % Change a Per Capita Income 7.5%. 5� 2.7% 2 2.5% Total Personal Income 4.2% Source: Metro-Dade County Planning Department P. N SaNall a'dw DRISfai £ I30ISJ2S TABLE 3.1 HOUSING OCCUPANCY AND TENURE TRENDS MIAMI BEACH AND DADE COUNTY 1970-1980 (Thousands of Units) Dade County Miami Beach 1970 1980 Change 1970 1980 Chance Year Round Housing 449.8 662.0 47.2% 51 .0 64.0 25.5% Single Family 253.8 373.1 47.0 6.3 11 .1 76.2 Multi-Family 186.5 273.9 47.4 44.5 52.8 18.7 Mobile Homes 9.5 14.0 47.4 0.1 0.2 100.0 Total Occupied 428.0 609.8 42.5% 45.6 55.7 22.1% Owner Occupied 231 .5 332.5 43.6 9.4 14.4 53.2 Occupied 196.5 277.3 41 .4 36.2 41 .3 14. 1 Renter % Owner 54.1% 54.5% 20.6% 25.9% Total Vacant 21 .8 52.2 139.4% 5.4 8.3 53.7% % Vacant 4.8% 7.9% 10.6% 13.0% m m Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 and 1980. TABLE 3.2 COMPLETION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS DADE COUNTY 1973-1981 Unsold Single Family Multi-Family Total Condominiums 1973 6,600 20,200 26,800 2,373 1974 6,400 20,800 27,200 5,647 1975 3,400 13,200 16,600 9,845 1976 4,400 6,100 10,500 8,557 1977 5,200 5,700 10,900 5,585 1978 6,600 3,500 10,100 3,540 1979 7,500 6,100 13,600 4,686 1980 7,400 8,400 15,800 6,405 1981 6,000 10,400 16,400 NA Average 1973-1978 5,400 11 ,600 17,000 Average 1979-1981 7,000 8,300 15,300 N Average 1973-1981 5,900 10,500 16,400 Co Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census; "Construction Reports; New Residential Construction". TABLE 3.3 AVERAGE PRICE PAID FOR HOUSING UNITS IN THE MIAMI 3.1SA 1973-1982 (Current Dollars) Condominium Fee Simple Homes New Used New Used 1973 $35,344 $ 38,870 $37,227 1974 37,530 45,399 41 ,369 1975 38,773 49,721 43,356 1976 39,601 50,182 45,283 1977 41 ,486 53,967 46,320 1978 $ 51 ,685 45,633 56,948 50,993 1979 64,032 55,098 67,395 59,030 1980 72,622 77,502 81 ,144 74,418 1981 89,180 86,392 100,531 78,666 1982* 125,373 85,871 103, 166 85,840 s *Through April 1 0 Source:. The Area Report for South Florida, Appraisal and Real Estate Economics Associates, Inc. TABLE 3.4 MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 1980-1982 1980 1981 1982 Apartment Buildings 29 7 10* Units 1 ,902 480 N/A Value ($000) 125,430 34,400 121 ,085 *Only one building under construction - $2,000,000. Source: City of Miami Beach SECTION 4 RETAIL MARKET TRENDS o Ca J TABLE 4.1 ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION TRENDS DADE COUNTY SHOPPING CENTER MARKET 1971-1981 Average Annual New Construction Construction (Square Feet) (Square Feet) 1971-1973 2,108,000 702,670 1974-1976 373,000 124,330 1977-1979 1 ,926,000 642,000 1980-1981 1 ,506,000 753,000 TOTAL (1971-1981 ) 5,913,000 537,545 Source: The REIS Reports: Miami, Florida, First Half 1982. N TABLE 4.2 DISTRIBUTION OF SHOPPING CENTERS SY SIZE DADE ODUN 'Y Neighborhood Community Regional Sub-market Sq.Ft. Distrib. Sq.Ft. Distrib. Sa.Ft. Distrib. Southwest Dade 927,000 24.1% 2,083,000 39.7% 2993,000 28 .0% City of Miami 995,000 25.8 625,000 11 .9 1 ,554,000 6 Hialeah/ Opa Locka 371 ,000 9.6 210,000 4.0 1 ,788,000 16.7 West of Miami 179,000 4.7 896,000 17.1 1 ,265,000 11 .9 N. Miami Beach 309,000 8.0 430,000 8.2 1 ,460,000 13.7 S. Miami/ Coral Gables 265,000 6.9 113,000 2,2 1 ,000,000 9.4 Key Biscayne/ 288,000 5.5 300,000 2.8 Miami Beach 282,000 7.3 383,000 7.3 308,000 2.9 North Dade 131 ,000 3.4 North Miami 394,000 10.2 213,000 4.1 0.0 TOTAL Dade County 3,853,000 100.0% 5,241 ,000 100.0% 10,668,000 100.0% 0 w Source: The REIS Reports: Miami, Florida, First Half, 1982. TABLE 4.3 EFFECTIVE BUYING INCOME MIAMI BEACH AND DADE ODUNTY, 1981 Effective Buying Incrome Miami Beach Dade County Under $10,000 42.7% 24.3% 13.2 15.1 24.9 $10,000 - 14,999 15.1 $15,000 - 24,999 15.47 29.9 $25,000 - 49,999 9.3 7.7 $50,000 and over Median Household EBI $12,028 $19,779 Retail Sales Per Household $6,274 $14,407 Source: Sales and Marketing Management. SECTION 5 — OFFICE MARKET TRENDS Yee d a TABLE 5.1 OFFICE ABSORBTICN TRENDS DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1970-1981 Total Average Years Absorbtion Annual (Sq.Ft. ) (Sq.Ft. ) 1970-1973 3,360,000 840,000 1974-1975 840,000 420,000 1976-1977 1 ,320,000 660,000 1978-1979 1 ,160,000 580,000 1980-1981 2,700,000 1 ,350,000 Source: The REIS Reports: Miami, Florida, First Half, 1982. TABLE 5.2 w a DISTRIBUTION OF NEW OFFICE CONSTRUCTION DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1982 • Under Location Construction Proposed Total (Sq.Ft.) (Sq.Ft. ) (Sq.Ft. ) Do wntown/Brickell 2,100,000 3,400,000 5,500,000 Coral Gables 290,000 450,000 740,000 Coral Way 112,000 100,000 212,000 Coconut Grove 108,000 100,000 208,000 Kendall/S. Miami 500,000 540,000 1 ,040,000 West Dade 619,000 900,000 1 ,519,000 Northeast Dade 338,000 292,000 830,000 TOTAL 4,067,000 5,782,000 9,849,000 Source: The REIS Reports: Miami, Florida, First Half, 1982. • SECTION 6 - TOURISM, CONVENTION TION AND I-MEL TRE`*1DS v TABLE 6. 1 TOURIST AND VISITOR TRENDS DADE COUNTY, 1979-1982 (In Thousands) % Change Total Visitors 1979 1980 1981 1982 1979-1982 U.S. and Canada 10,000 10,322 10,013 10,363 3.6% Other Countries European 247 489 500 575 132.8 Carribbean 550 642 753 828 50.5 Latin American 830 1 ,007 1 , 100 1 ,177 41 .8 Other 175 202 250 273 6.0 (Sub Total) (1 ,802) (2,340) (2,603) (2,853) 58.3% Total 11 ,802 12,662 12,616 13,216 12.0% Port of Miami Passengers 1 ,350 1 ,546 1 ,547 1 ,896 40.4% a ca Passengers-Miami Airport Domestic 12, 144 12,067 10,605 . 11 ,778 -3.0% International 7,484 8,438 7,488 7,578 1 .3 Total 19,628 20,505 18,093 19,356 -1 .4% Source: Metro-Dade Department of Tourism, Research Division. TABLE 6.2 ENTERTAINMENT, SPORTING EVENTS, COMMUNITY FUNCTIONS MIAMI BEACH CONVENTION CENTER Typical Year Entertainment 1974* 1976-1977 1980-1981 Number of events 96 113 99 Total attendance 550,500 915,242 645,735 Average attendance 5,734 8,099 6,523 Sporting Events Number of events 95 41 42 Total attendance 262,550 103,986 150,376 Average attendance 2,764 2,536 3,580 Community Functions W Number of events 31 30 22 Total attendance 101 ,760 115,504 79,510 Average attendance 3,283 3,850 3,614 *1973 data partially estimated. Source: Laventhol & Horwath. TABLE 6.3 HOTEL ANALYSIS DADE COUNTY TOURIST ACCOlODATION FACILITIES BY AREA AND TYPE OF FACILITY, 1981 Hotels hotels Total Number Units Number Units Number Units Miami Beach 314 28,566 23 1 ,497 337 30,063 Surfside/Bal Harbour 14 2,008 23 1 ,091 37 3,099 Sunny Isles 6 1,036 53 6,224 59 7,260 North Dade 18 1 ,377 107 4,514 125 5,891 Airport 10 2,150 11 1 ,523 21 3,673 Downtown 51 4,996 7 542 58 5,538 Key Biscayne 3 604 5 256 8 860 South Dade 20 1 ,156 95 2,681 115 3,837 TOTAL 436 41 ,893 324 18,328 760 60,221 I c Source: Metro Dade Department of Tourism, Research Division TABLE 6.4 QUALITY HOTEL FACILITIES IN TEE MIAMI BEACH AREA Number of Rooms PRIMARY FACILITIES Miami Beach Fountainbleau Hilton 1 ,150 Konnover Hotel 500 Doral Beach 420 Eden Roc 350 Subtotal 2,420 Miami Hyatt Regency 608 Holiday Inn-Brickell Pt. 600 The Pavillion 630 Omni International 556 Subtotal 2,394 Total Primary Facilities 4,814 SECONDARY FACILITIES Miami Beach Diplomat 1 ,050 Carillon Beach 600 Deauville Hotel 550 Sheraton Bal Harbour 684 Subtotal 2,884 Miami Everglades 370 Dupont Plaza 325 Columbus 300 Marina Park 201 Subtotal 1 ,196 Total Secondary Facilities 4,080 , UNDER CONSTRUCTION/PROPOSED Miami Beach Two Worlds 760 The Alexander 285 Subtotal 1 ,045 Miami Downtown Marriott 605 Source: Laventhol and Horvath FINANCING STRATEGY SOUTH SHORE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 1. HALCYON LTD. Development Consultants 55 High Street _ Hartford.Connecticut 06103 JUNE 1983 `��• CaWe,HALCYON INTRODUCTION Halcyon is confident there are feasible development opportunities for the western parcels'of the South Shore project area surrounding the marina. The marina development, quality location and controlled land availability strengthen the development potential of the site. Water exposure and accessibility to downtown Miami and the hotels of Miami Beach make the South Shore area ripe for development. The project's success requires more than location in Dade County's thriving marketplace. With an integrated mixed-use concept, the project area can support the development of hotel, recreational, office, retail and residential facilities with quality amenities, public space and public improvements. The South Shore development can become a destination whirl can attract people by offering quality and a unique setting. However, the project must be coordinated and built together to create sufficient critical mass to change perceptions about the area and to support the significant public improvement and parking costs required. The larger and more integrated the project, the better dance of success. Mixed-use and good design attracts customers, tenants and households, with each of the project components supporting each other. PROJECT ANALYSIS OVERVIEW On the three marina-related sites (see attached site plan) , Halcyon's recommended development program includes a 250 room hotel with 250 parking spaces, a 120,000 square foot specialty retail center feeding off the marina image, 80,000 square feet of waterview office space above the retail, 200 housing units along the shoreline and fifty units on Parcel E-1 , and parking to support the specialty retail, office, housing and marina development. Total project costs are estimated at $86.2 million. In addition, there are $3.3 million in public improvements (streets, water and sewer lines) that need to be financed through these developments. The remaining scheduled public improvements should be financed through land lease payments and other development in the South Shore project area. Development Issues o Development should be coordinated to increase aesthetics, and market feasibility and to change people's perception of the area. o Development rust serve to leverage funding for public improvements and required parking. o The project mist interact with the marina and preclude the possibility that the marina operator will stall development to preserve the cheaper surface parking. o The entranceway from Miami should be an ardzitectural statement, aided by quality development on either side of Fifth Street. In addition, the project should be linked to the convention center, major hotels, Lincoln Street Mall • .and the art deco district to establish a network of destinational locations to attract and entertain the visiting residential and employee populations. o Redevelopment in the interior will/should occur gradually with cash flow redirected fram the recommended projects to accommodate existing residents and assist in the rehabilitation of the deteriorated housing stock. A SUMMARY SHEET A Mixed-Use Marina-Oriented Attraction Project Components: o 250 roan hotel with 250 car garage o 120,000 s.f. marina-oriented retail specialty center o 80,000 s.f. of ocean view, decked office space o 250 units of housing (plus air rights potential) o 1 ,625 parking spaces in varied structures ( includes 400 spaces for marina) o $2.1 million contribution for $7 million in public improvements, an additional $1 .2 million in public_ improvements, with projected $2.4 million in land acquisition costs. Project Costs 250 Roan Hotel $25,000,000 ($100,000/roan) 80,000 s.f. Office 8,000,000 ($100/s.f. ) 120,000 s.f. Retail 14,400,000 ($120/s.f. ) 200 Condominiums 18,000,000 ($90,000/unit) 50 Condominiums 4,250,000 ($85,000/unit) Parking (1 ,625 spaces) 14,150,000 ($7,000-$12,000/space) a Land Acquisition 2,370,000 ($20/s.f. ) Public Improvements (A) 3,300,000 (project area's share) TOTAL COSTS $89,470,000 Sources of Funds Bond Debt $31 ,000,000 Market Rate Debt 30,250,000 Equity 7,050,000 UDAG (B) 15,870,000 Parking Bonds 5,300,000 TOTAL FUNDS $89,470,000 (A) Public improvement costs are 30% of schedule of South Shore public improvements plus an additional $1 .2 million project-specific public improvements. (B) CDBG, TIF or recycled land payments must be relied on instead of UDAG if upfront public improvements are needed or the total project cannot be coordinated to leverage the federal funding. PROJECT COMPONENTS: COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES Presented on the following pages are estimated development costs and potential sources of financing for each of the South Shore marina project components. Alternative levels of debt, equity, and second-mortgage Urban Development Action Grant (UIlAG) loans are calculated for each component, showing haw financing terms and the levels of equity investment affects project feasibility and the potential for funding public improvements. METHODOLOGY Halcyon projected development budgets for several project components. Different project components can support certain levels of private- financing based on project economics and private financing techniques. Combining supportable private financing with potential UDAG financing allows Halcyon to evaluate the financial feasibility of each project component and to project the ability of the project component to cover public improvements, acquisition and parking development costs. Any shortfall in funding must be secured through CDBG grants/loans, tax increment financing or state and federal financing. The project costs must be covered through raising debt and equity A to leverage significant UDPG financing support. yr'e present alternative financing strategies based on our belief that using lower interest financing/bond financing and pre-pooling prospective equity investment will significantly fill any projected funding shortfalls. Comparing the development costs with the funding potential indicates the amount of "excess funding" that can be used to meet funding shortfalls of other components. Securing maximum private investment leverages more UDAG financing, resulting in funds available to pay for land assembly and public improvements. It is assumed the city will retain land ownership and lease land to the private developers, thereby creating a source of funds for ongoing programs and operations. Land lease payments in conjunction with UDAG paybacks could/should be 10-25% of net cash flow. PROPOSED SPECIALTY CENTER, PARKING & RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX / / SOUTH BEACH / MIAMI BEACH , FLORIDA 44, F0 SIB S EET_1. L • TAIL i q Scale: 0 60 100 200 300 4't. LL•NO lit-MPO \` T �` tv �/ Ov '-- qt i...* o'er , // 4-.4 -ng''Vfa e4z > // 44C 41 `'t t,c)/ . , 5..:N;I'g' ''' .-<-, ,,,.:1 -' / ,/,. / f 41 M P O .. - 0 • / • �'1 eS ritl . • o� /4t:f. .4. ,............____„ t TS --- DROP OFF I -- ALTON ROAD DROP OFF DELIVERY ENTRY DELIVERY ENTRY 7. 4I►I� (IT:;' 1::• '• 1"j-- rur � a — -- r b�MPONR 1 Jf `� Residentia r ''. '' WEST + . _ P . ! ffices - h 1' • j .'• , C MPONENT 3 ,.COMPONE II T AVENUE 200 U 'r S _ N 1 Proposed Marina ��— ' 275 C P ?I .w (�( % + T( ( cc (•( ( I Boat Storage I, �' ,5'CAR of KiNC-i R-...1. Tall; 1_, ./_ \� .:: LOW Dt c i i - ��:_,_:�;_ • ! C� �1_:,Y:_ 'yam A =i �..: Specialty tai a - - -__ _- _ __ (, t COMPONENT 2 '" � 1 —_ _ Walkway �� ; �� 1 J � � a ; 1 j� 1 o� QI Gi • G �� \)u— iMa a d ' I I A ►� ! - � i I ' . , f�o • o 0 re Biscayne Bay A-41- A ------ w.,.., ; T i / / / k'' / / // / Al At_ / / If/ \4,'` tNU� V q/ / ' / . (it 4. / •4/ . : e/ ' /, t/ / // i •0 Existing COMPONENT 1 ,mow Proposed Marina Elderly Housing Proposed Hotel goy 250 ROOMS 260 CAR PARKING �~ 1 i j -- . G 1.,_,, r-..:-,> PROPOSED SPECIALTY CENTER, PARKING & RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX o � �Ma SOUTH BEACH f�� r MIAMI BEACH , FLORIDA y D +- Scale: 0 60 100 200 300 A-41-- 8 COMPONENT 1#: 250 room hotel Development Costs: $25,000,000 hotel ($100,000/room) Room Rates $80 in 1986 Occupancy Schedule 58%, 64%, 68%, 72% Inflation Assumptions 7% per year Cash Flow in 1st Stabilized Year $2,466,338 Coverage Ratio 125% Available for Debt Service $1 ,973,070 Conventional Tax-Exempt Supportable Debt (terms) (A) $13,000,000 $18,000,000 ( 14%, 20 years) ( 10%, 30 years) Supportable Equity $ 2,500,000( 10%) $ 3,750,000( 15%) GAP (hotel only) (B) ($9,500,000) ($3,250,000) UDAG appropriate (C) $ 4,500,000 $ 6,500,000 A Excess Funds to apply to parking and public improvements ($4,000,000) $ 3,250,000 (A) Supportable debt is function of cash flow available for debt service and interest rate. The lower the interest rate, the more debt can be secured. (B) The GAP is the difference between direct project costs and the amount of private debt and equity that can be reasonably raised. (C) The UDAG money can be used to pay for the associated parking, public improvements or land acquisition costs from the city. UDAG financing can range from 10% - 40% of privately financed 15 year capital investment, if the project development and scheduled public improvements and parking construction are coordinated. COMPONENT #2: 120,000 square foot marina-related specialty retail complex Devel pment Costs: $14,400,000 ($120/s.f. ) Rental Rates: Tenant Type Base Rent Fast Food $40 Restaurants and Cafes $20 Gifts $25 Fashion $18 Jr. Department Store $16 Food Retail $20 Occupancy Schedule 50%, 70%, 90%. . . Annual Occupancy Costs $4.50 (passed through) Inflation Assumptions 7% per year with pass through of expenses Cash Flow in 1st Stabilized Year $1 ,933,500 Coverage Ratio 125% 4. Available for Debt Service $1 ,545,000 Conventional Tax-Exempt Supportable Debt $10,000,000 $13,000,000 ( 12%, 20 yrs. ) ( 10%, 30 yrs. ) Projected Equity $ 1 ,500,000( 10%) $ 2,000,000( 14%) Total Funds $11 ,500,000 $15,000,000 GAP ($2,900,000) +$600,000 Appropriate UDAG $ 2,900,000 $ 3,750,000 Excess Fund to Reallocate -0- $ 4,350,000 COMPONENT #3: 80,000 square feet of decked, waterview office space • above specialty retail center Development Costs: $8,000,000 ($100/s.f. ) Rental Rate $22/s.f. (gross) in 1986 Occupancy Schedule 60%, 80%, 90%, 95%. . . Annual Occupancy Cost $4.50/s.f. (passed through) Inflation Assumption Costs increase at 7%/year passed through to office tenants. Rents for lease-up increase 7%/year. Base rents remain stable for five years and then roll over with a 40% rent increase (7% annual increase compounded) . Cash Flow in 1st Stabilized Year $1 ,250,000 Coverage Ratio 125% Available for Debt Service $1 ,006,000 Participation Conventional Financing Supportable Debt $6,600,000 $8,000,000 ( 14%,20 year) ( 12%,25% of CF) (30 yr. term) Projected Equity $1 ,200,000 $1 ,300,000 GAP $ (200,000) $1 ,300,000 Appropriate UDAG $2,000,000 $2,300,000 Excess Funds to Reallocate $1 ,800,000 $3,600,000 COMPONENT #6: 200 Residential Condominiums (Average Size-1 ,200 s.f. ) Development Costs: $18,000,000 ($90,000/unit) Carrying Costs: $ 1 ,350,000 (Year 1 ; 15% interest rate) $ 450,000 (Year 2) Selling Costs: $ 1 ,700,000 ( 10%) Sale Prices: $ 125,000/unit ( 13-15% permanent mortgages) Absorption: 33% during construction, 33% in the first year and 33% in second year. Profit Potential: $3,250,000 (developer) Construction Occupancy/ Period Year 1 Year 2 Revenues: Deposits 750,000 Sale Proceeds 8,250,000 8,250,000 Outstanding Balance 7,500,000 A Costs: Selling Costs 750,000 750,000 200,000 Construction Loan Repayment -0- 12,000,000 6,000,000 Net Revenue -0- 3,000,000 2,050,000 Carrying Cost Interest 1 ,350,000 450,000 Return to Developer/Equity 1 ,650,000 1 ,600,000 GAP -0- -0- -0- 3,300,000 for paring garage Note: Development cost could increase to $100,000 with sales prices increasing to $135,000. Associated parking garage will cost $3,300,000 (275 spaces @ $12,000/space) . ANENT *7: 50 Residential Condominiums (Average Size-1 ,000 s.f. ) Development Costs: $4,250,000 ($85,000/unit) Carrying Costs: $ 200,000 Selling Costs: $ 300,000 Sale Prices: $ 110,000/unit Absorption: 50% during construction, 33% in the first year. Profit Potential: $ 750,000 (developer) (without land- and parking) Construction Occupancy/ Period Year 1 Revenues: Deposits 250,000 Sale Proceeds 2,750,000 Outstanding Balance 2,475,000 Costs: Selling Costs 200,000 100,000 Construction Loan Repayment 4,250,000 Net Revenue 75,000 875,000 Carrying Cost Interest -0- 200,000 Return to Developer/Equity 75,000 675,000 GAP -0- COMPONENT #8: 275 Car Parking Garage (residential) Development Costs: $3,300,000 ($12,000/space) Carrying Costs: $60/space for residential 90% occupancy Operating Costs: $.50/space (350 s.f./space) Coverage Ratio: 133% Available for Debt Service: $ 106,911 Supportable Debt: $ 900,000 (10%, 20 years) GAP: $2,390,000 Appropriate UDAG: $3,320,000 (leveraging residential investment) Excess Funding: $ 930,000 COMPONENT #9: 250 Car Parking Garage (with hotel) Development Costs: $1 ,750,000 ($7,000/space) a Supportable Debt: Garage generates limited revenue and costs are included in hotel operations. COMPONENT #10: Land Acquisition of School Property Costs: 118,500 s.f. x $20/s.f. = $2,370,000 This will vary according to School Board demands and costs of relocation. COMPONENT #11 : Public Improvements South Shore Costs: $3,000,000 Sewer and Water 4,000,000 Roads $7,000,000 TOTAL Project Burden: $ 900,000 Sewer and Water 1 ,200,000 Roads $2,100,000 Project's share of South Shore public improvements 1 ,200,000 Project-related public improvements $3,300,000 'LOYAL FINANCING STRATEGY The development components presented above must cover the individual component's development costs and the associated land acquisition, public improvement and parking garage costs. Halcyon projects that through private sector financing, creative private sector financing, WAG and either CDBG or tax-increment financing, the project must cover: Building Costs $69,650,000 Parking Garages ( 1 ,625 spaces) 14,150,000 Public Improvements 3,300,000 Land Acquisition Costs 2,370,000 s ° The review of the financing capacity of each component is presented a below: EXCESS FUND COMPONENT COST DEBT'* EQUITY UDAG** (shortfall) 250 Room Hotel $25,000,000 $18,000,000 $3,750,000 $ 6,500,000 $3,250,000 120,000 s.f. Retail 14,400,000 13,000,000 2,000,000 3,750,000 4,350,000 80,000 s.f. Office 8,000,000 8,000,000* 1 ,300,000 2,300,000 3,600,000 275 Car Garage 3,300,000 1 ,500,000 — — ( 1 ,800,000)* 875 Car Garage 5,800,000 2,900,000 -- --- (2,900,000)* 200 Condominiums 18,000,000 18,000,000* — 2,700,000 2,700,000 50 Condominium 4,250,000 4,250,000* — 620,000 620,000 250 Car Garage 1 ,750,000 — — — ( 1 ,750,000)* 275 Car Garage 3,300,000 900,000 -- — (2,400,000)* Land 2,370,000 -- — — (2,370,000) * Public Improvements 3,300,000 _ — — — (3,300,000) '141'AL $89,470,000 $66,550,000 $7,050,000 $15,870,000 -0- *Debt based on 10%, 30-year term bonds except for office building which is financed 100% with a 12%, 25% of cash flow participation loan. **Appropriate UDAG leveraged by private investment. Ratio base on a 3: 1 private investment/UDAG ratio. By using the UDAG program to its full potential, and by generating maximum private investment as discussed above, the various project components can fund the parking shortfalls, lard acquisition, and part 9f the public improvement costs. The table below shows how excess funds can be dhannelled to parking and land acquisition. These excess funds became a source of financing for public improvements because they will be created by the use of the UDAG program, which requires city involvement in the development process. SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR PARKING, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND LAND ACQUISITION Office Retail Housing Hotel Total Excess Funds 3,600 4,350 3,320 3,250 14,520 Parking Shortfall 1 ,800 2,900* 2,400 1 ,750 8,850 Available for Public Cost 1 ,800 1 ,450 920 1 ,500 5,670 Public Costs: 2,370 a Land Acquisition 3,300 a Public Improvements Shortfall -0- *Part of this shortfall may be covered by the marina operator. The proposed financing strategy demonstrates project feasibility and stresses the need for coordination between the development components to increase market feasibility and to leverage the significant public financing. Coordination of and pre-packaging of the private financing source will also significantly increase project feasibility and generate scarce funding to cover project costs. Halcyon's analysis is based on the assumption that the City of Miami Beach is extending long-teen leases to the private developers, which, when combined with the UDAG payback, could equal 25% of net cash flow. If the project requires immediate capital for public improvements, land acquisition and development planning before private developer interest is secured, these costs cculd/should be covered through Section 108 financing, tax increment financing and Community Development Block Grant funds. To increase the funds the project can generate to cover additional public improvement and acquisition costs, the City can utilize "CDBG" floats, sale/leaseback of the public improvements, tax increment financing and purchase Honey mortgages for city controlled sites. Upfront funding, such as Section 108, CDBG and tax-increment financing allows the City to undertake initial acquisition, public improvements and parking construction to help attract developers or a reduce the upfront carrying costs and risk of the project. _4 SUMMARY The project financials are conservative, but reflect a realistic projection of what it will take to make a project work in South Shore given the development economics and current image of South Shore. The project requires a concerted financial commitment from Miami Beach's political and private financial communities arra a coordinated, well conceived development program. A high quality project complementing the marina development will improve the image of South Shore, generate gradual redevelopment of the interior housing, interact favorably with the proposed expansion of the convention center and construction of a major hotel and help capitalize on a unique development opportunity in a prime location in Dade County's thriving real estate market. As project development approaches more definitive land costs and development costs should be projected. A transportation linkage should be made with the Lincoln Street Mall, the convention center and the major hotels. A more ambitious public improvement program could be considered with particular emphasis on the entranceway at Fifth Street. Finally, housing development on the air rights of the 875 car parking garage could be considered to help cover land acquisition and relocation costs. The payback frau any land lease or UDPG loan could be used to establish a revolving loan pool to help rehabilitating the abutting housing neighborhood. co The project's financing strategy must coordinate maximum WAG financing; Section 108 interim financing for land acquisition; lower interest, longer term debt financing, maximum equity financing and additional for the remainder of South Shore financing to help cover the public improvements. By combining these funding mechanisms with other potential sources mentioned above, and by using Community Development Block Grant funds to cover any remaining shortfalls, this unique marina-related development can became a reality, and will serve as a catalyst for further development in the South Shore area. IS - APPENDIX B 1980 CENSUS PROFILES METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA _._ — PLANNING DEPARTMENT • i SUITE 900, BRICKELL PLAZA 909 S.E. 1ST AVENUE METRO DADE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 (305)579-2800 L �::�...: • •-- --" October 6, 1982 Ms. Gladys Kane, Director Community Development r e City of Miami Beach .- , F • 1700 Convention Center Drive kw:'' C t Miami Beach, Florida 33119 `' OCT Q �.jW 81982 Dear Ms. Kane: COMMUNITY AFFA!P.S Subject: Neighborhood Strategy Areas HUMAN SFR��OES DEPARTMENT g g, e , Y . .. 1980 Census Profiles Enclosed are 1980 Census Profiles for the Neighborhood Strategy Areas within the City of Miami Beach. They were prepared by the Research Division of the Planning Department for the Metro-Dade County Office of Community and Economic Development (OCED) as part of a continuing effort by the Division to provide OCED with the most up-to-date data in a form most useful to their mission. The profiles presently contain demographic and housing data pertinent to assessing the needs and formulating the programs necessary to assist these neighborhoods. The profiles will be expanded shortly to include income and employment data. These will be sent to you as they become available. If you have any questions or suggestions concerning the data please do not hesitate to call me at 579-2827. Sincerely, George J. Demas, AICP Senior Planner GJD:gs cc: Ernest Martin, Office of Community and Economic Development Enclosure SOUTH SHORE NEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGY AREA 1980 CENSUS NEIGHBORHOOD PROFILE POPULATION HOUSEHOLDS HOUSING This mini—profile presents 1980 census data on population, households , and housing in the Area. These data are from complete count items reported in Summary Tape File 1—B , a Census computer file released in the Spring of 1982. More detailed complete count data will be released in Summary Tape File 2 in the Summer of 1982, with social and economic data to follow in the Fall of 1982. This profile will be expanded to incorporate these data when they are released by the Census. RESEARCH DIVISION METRO—DADE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 1982 SUMMARY FINDINGS SOUTH SHORE NSA The population is * growing; * primarily Hispanic and White; * much older than average. The households are * much smaller than the County average; * one-person households in six of ten cases; * primarily nonfamily households with no children. The housing units are * primarily small and renter-occupied; * rented on average for a little less than the County average; * valued less than the County average; * characterized by a level of overcrowding above the County average. LOCATION The South Shore NSA includes that part of the City of Miami Beach south of 5 Street. The area is a densely developed residential and commercial area where a large number of retired elderly persons reside. In recent times a significant number of Cuban refugees have chosen to live in South Beach. POPULATION The 1980 population of the South Shore NSA is 6,139 , an 11 percent in- crease over the 5,534 reported in 1970. Table 1 A POPULATION BY AGE, RACE, AND HISPANIC ORIGIN, 1980 SOUTH SHORE NSA Age Total Black Hispanic Origin Total 6,139 241 2,577 Under 5 238 7 148 5 to 17 511 7 365 18 to 64 2,792 69 1,494 65 and Over 2,597 8 518 Source: Metro-Dade County Planning Department, Research Division tabulations from 1980 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 1-B. Note: Individual cells may not add to total because of suppres- sion of age-specific data. The 1980 population of the South Shore NSA is 4 percent Black and 42 percent Hispanic origin. The comparable percentages for the entire County are 17 percent Black and 36 percent Hispanic origin. A low 12 percent of the population is under 18 years of age; a high 42 percent is 65 years and older. Again, the comparable percentages for the County are 24 percent and 16 percent respectively. 5 ti.e•-e In summary, the population of South Beach is * growing; * primarily Hispanic and White; * much older than average. HOUSEHOLD AND FAMILY STATUS Most Dade County residents live in households , i.e . they occupy separate housing units. Only about 20,000 persons live in group quarters. Households are of two types: family households , where the householder lives with one or more persons related to him or her by birth or mar- riage; and nonfamily households , where the householder lives alone or only with unrelated persons. Table 2 HOUSEHOLD STATUS OF RESIDENTS, 1980 SOUTH SHORE NSA Total Persons in Persons In Persons in Population Family Households Nonfamily Households Group Ouarters 6 ,139 3,473 2,247 418 Source: Metro-Dade County Planning Department, Research Division, tabulations from 1980 Census of Population and Housing , Summary Tape File 1-B. Approximately 57 percent of the South Shore residents live in family households which is much lower than the countywide average (85 percent) . A high 37 percent of South Shore residents live in nonfamily households , compared with the County average of 14 percent. This reflects the high proportion of elderly persons living alone or with nonrelatives. Table 3 HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE, 1980 SOUTH SHORE NSA Families with Own All Households Children Under 18 Years 1 Person Household 1 ,946 2+ Person Household 1 ,442 418 Married Couple 935 234 Other Family Male Householder 170 35 Female Householder 337 149 Source: Metro-Dade County Planning Department, Research Division , tabulations from 1980 Census of Population and Housing , Summary Tape File 1-B. Note: Individual cells may not add to total because of suppres- m sion. Relatively few South Shore households ( about 7 percent) are married couple families with children. Countywide, 25 percent of all households are married-couple families with children. A higher than average per- centage of South Shore families with children (about 36 percent) are single-parent families with a female householder. The corresponding County figure is 22 percent. There are also some 35 single-parent families with a male householder. However, the dominant feature of family status in the South Shore NSA is the large proportion of households without children -- about 88 percent of all households , or 71 percent of all households with two or more persons. The corresponding countywide figures are 66 percent and 46 percent respectively. The majority of South Shore households (57 percent) are one-person households . Countywide, one-person households account for only 26 percent of all households . Thus , it is not sur- prising that the average household size (1.7 persons) is significantly lower than the County average (2.6 persons) . In summary, South Shore households * are much smaller than the County average; * almost 60 percent are one-person households * are primarily non-family households with no children; * exhibit a higher than average proportion of the families with children which are single-parent, primarily female, families. HOUSING Approximately 30 percent of the occupied housing units in South Shore are owner-occupied. This is much lower than the County average of 55 percent and reflects the higher density multifamily character of the area. There are many condominium units -- 25 percent of the occupied units compared with a County average of 14 percent. Table 4 HOUSING UNITS BY TENURE, 1980 SOUTH SHORE NSA Total Owner- Renter- Year Round Occupied Occupied Vacant 3,893 . 1,159 2,734 504 0 Source: Metro-Dade County Planning Department , Research Division tabulations from 1980 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape File 1-B. Table 5 VALUE OF SPECIFIED OWNER—OCCUPIED NONCONDOMINIUM HOUSING UNITS, 1980 SOUTH SHORE NSA Housing Value Units Total 19 Less than $25,000 6 $25,000 to $39,999 5 $40,000 to $49,999 0 $50,000 to $79 ,999 4 $80,000 to $99 ,999 1 $100,000 and Over 3 Mean Value $57 ,434 Source: Metro—Dade County Planning Department, Research Division tabulations from 1980 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape File 1—B. 0 The average value of an owner—occupied noncondominium unit in South Shore is S57 ,434 , lower than the countywide average value of a corre— sponding unit ($68,108) . The average contract rent for rental units is $145, or about 60 percent of the countywide average rent ($241) . Table 6 CONTRACT RENT OF SPECIFIED RENTER OCCUPIED UNITS, 1980 SOUTH SHORE NSA Rent Units Percent Total with Contract Rent 2,705 100% Less than $150 1 ,452 54 $150 to S199 833 31 $200 to $249 272 10 • $250 to $299 110 4 $300 to S399 31 1 $400 to $499 4 More than S500 3 Average Rent $145 Units without Contract Rent 22 Source • Metro-Dade County Plannning Department, Research Division tabulations from 1980 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape File 1-B. Virtually all of the rental units with a contract rent are low-cost units renting for less than $200. Countywide, less than 38 percent of the rental units rent for less than $200. The average size of a year-round unit (2 .0 rooms) is much smaller than the countywide average (4 .3) , and reflects the predominance of small , rental units. Approximately 15 percent of the housing units in South Shore are over- crowded units ( i.e . units with more than one person per room) . This is slightly above the County average (9 percent) . The residential vacancy rate in South Shore (13.0 percent) is higher than the County average (8 .4 percent) . The 2 vacant units which are boarded up constitute a lower than average proportion (3 percent) . The countywide average is 5 percent. Note that the counts of vacant and boarded up housing units are not subject to suppression. In summary, South Shore housing units * are primarily small and renter-occupied; * rent for a little less than the County average; * are valued less than the County average; * show a level of overcrowding above the County average. APPENDIX C HISTORICAL SITES SURVEY FINDINGS IN SOUTH SHORE C, Excerpted from: SURVEY FINDINGS IN MIAMI BEACH Prepared by: Metro-Dade Office of Community and Economic Development Historic Preservation Division June 1981 THE DADE COUNTY HISTORIC SURVEY / HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION The Dade County Historic Survey is a project of the Metro-Dade Office 'o.f Community and Economic Development, Historic Preservation Division. The Survey has been done with the sanction of the State Historic Preservation Office, under the guidelines from the Division of Archives, History and Records Management in Tallahassee. The data gathered by the Survey is accepted for evaluation purposes in the preparation of Development and 'Regional Impact and Environmental Impact Statements and National Register of Historic Places nominations. Funding for the project is largely through a Community Development Block Grant and a Survey Grant from the U.S. Department of the Interior, allocated through the State Historic Preservation Office. The Historic Preservation Division is the official staff to the Historic Preservation Board, as created by the Metro-Dade Historic Preservation Ordinance 181-13, approved by the Board of County Commissioners February 17, ' 1981 . DEFINITION A . " The Dade County Historic Survey is the first step in the development of a historic preservation program for the South Florida area of Dade County. The Survey identifies, catalogues, documents and evaluates sites of major architectural , historical and archeological significance in the county. The findings of the survey then become part of a permanent file on the area's cultural resources. These files are the information base for designation and review of sites by the Dade County Historic Preservation Board. They may also be used, along with the Division, as source for information and assistance to municipal bodies preparing their own ordiT nances and plans, pursuant to the Metro Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Survey points out areas of urgent need and singles out sites of major significance. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES The history of any community must be viewed within its own context. A building from the turn of the twentieth century in the metropolitan area of Dade County is as significant locally as a building from the Colonial period is in the northeastern United States to that particular geographical area. The all-important era of local settlement and early growth, still within the memory of many people, just happens to be more recent in this our case. The lure of South Florida 's climate is a continuing stimulus for, active development and building activity. Because of this, many of the most important historic sites in Dade County have already been demolished or are dewith destruction, despite their seemingly recent dates of construction. we in Dade County do not have the opportunity of waiting until our sites are centuries old to assess their value -- they will by then no longer exist. The growing consciousness throughout the country of the importance of maintaining physical roots in a community as a source of pride and a continuing identification for its citizens is equally valid in a young community. The economic gains and intensive use of labor in restoration and rehabilitation projects are tangible benefits of preserving older structures which are becoming more and more widely recognized. DETERMINING CRITERIA • Criteria for determining significance of sites is based ncriteria aeused een n by the National Register of Historic Places. Locally these determinants broken down into categories of architectural , historical , contextual and archeological significance. The specific set of factors upon which a site's evaluation is based appears on that site's Statement of Significance, on file at the Dade County Historic Survey office. This detailed information will be made available on request. The uncovering of further historical facts may alter a site's determination in the future. Architectural Significance of sites is determined by: * Style typical or unique to its time or place. * Sites being representative of South Florida' s typical architecture, by their use of native materials and climatic responses. * The type of construction or materials employed for their quality and/or local value. * The quality of design and craftsmanship. • The architect's or builder's prominence or contribution to the development of the area. Historical Significance is determined by: • Construction dates of individual buildings or structures . = Previous and 'ongoing functions associated with the site. * People associated with the site who have made significant contributions towards the enrichment of the area 's cultural heritage. Events associated with the property that may have been instrumental factors in the growth and development of an area and that would represent key links in the local historical continuum. Contextual Significance is determined by: Cohesiveness within context. The unity or visual continuity of sites within their immediate surroundings , when forming part of a larger historical urban context. This may indicate building groups , linear or square blocks , or could be at a neighborhood scale. * Contributions to context. This refers to a site's contribution to the physical enhancement of its immediate environment such as a fountain or a park. Prominence within its context. These might include bayfront or riverfrcnP n locations, or locations at significant intersections, or at the center or an early focus of commerce. • Dates of settlement or development of neighborhoods or subdivisions. • Historical factors and development schemes that contributed to the creation and growth of neighborhoods or subdivisions. Archeological Significance There have been no recorded archeological sites within the district's boundaries. However, due to the nature of the construction of the city (dredge and fill) , it is conceivable that there may be both historic and prehistoric sites, as well as shipwrecks, beneath the fill deposition. Projects involving deep level excavation should be alerted to the possibi- lity of encountering archeological material , particularly, sites located near the ocean. EVALUATION SYSTEM Sites' architectural , historical and contextual significance have been rated on a "1" to "3" scale, from the most significant ones to those with minor significance in that order. "1" rating implies major significance in that particular area and indicates that all efforts should be made to preserve the site. "2" rating implies that the site has secondary significance and its preserva- tion should still be considered after that of the first priority sites. "3" rating indicates minor significance and a low priority in terms of pre- servation efforts. A construction cut-off date of 1940 has been determined for structures to be studied. This date may be flexible to include specific sites whose significance may over-ride their more recent age. Present use or condition of a site will not be used as criterion in determining whether said site is or is not to be included in the survey. ? Alterations to the original exterior fabric of a structure will not be used in most cases as criterion in determining a structure's inclusion in the survey. Where major alterations have so severely affected a structure as to render it un- recognizable from its original appearance, these changes, along with other signifi- cance-determining criteria, will be used to decide the site's eligibility for survey consideration. Developmental History of Miami Beach Less than one hundred years ago what is today Miami Beach, was a swampy, mosquito ridden wasteland. The first structure known to have been erected there was the Refuge House /5 at Indian Creek in 1876. It was a desolate outpost for workmen charged with looking out for shipwrecks, and lost or injured crew. A few years later, in 1882, Henry Lum, his son, Charles Ezra Osborn and Elnathan T. Field attempted to start a coconut plantation on the island. The Lums had visited the beach in 1870, and in the interim before their return purchased a considerable tract of land for thirty-five cents an acre from the federal government. Field and Osborn, who were brought in by the Lums to provide capital , bought a major portion of a sixty five mile strip of land including all of what is now Miami Beach. The additional property was purchased for seventy-five cents to $1 .25 per acre. A camp was set up in what is now Lummus Park and the work of planting 100,000 coconuts was begun. The venture was not successful , however. The planting and clearing was a much more ar- o 01duous and expensive task than was anticipated. Few workers were willing to return • a second time to the densely, overgrown, rat, insect and snake infested jungle. Field raised some more capital by bringing in his friend John S. Collins who invested $5,0.00. . Further problems with the growth and productivity of the trees eventually overcame the operation. Charles Lum and his young bride remained on the island for a while afterwards, but loneliness and the diffilcuty of the life there eventually forced them to move away. John S. Collins , a successful and knowledgeable New Jersey farmer, was deeply bothered by the failure of the project. In 1896 he visited Miami Beach, sampled the soil and knew immediately that it could be made quite productive with the proper attention. By 1907 he had wrangled his share of the property from Field and Osborn. Collins decided to plant avocado and spent a great deal of money and effort to clear 160 acres for planting. The first planting was not too successful because of the constant wind comingin from the ocean. As windbreaks, Collins planted the fast-growing Australian pines. A large section of Collins ' original pine barri- cade remains today along Pine Tree Drive. By 1912 Collins' son-in-law, Thomas J. Pancoast, joined him on Miami Beach. They decided it was necessary to build a bridge connecting the island to the main- land in order to get their produce more quickly to market. It was a very ambitious project. Once completed, at two and one half miles, it would be the longest wooden bridge in the world. Unfortunately, the contractor underestimated the cost of the project and just short of completion Collins ran out of money. A new winter resi- dent in Miami , Carl Fisher of Indiana, came to Collins' rescue by lending him n $50,000, in return he received 200 acres of oceanfront property. -4 Also at this time John Collins, his son Arthur and son-in-law Thomas Pancoast formed the Miami Beach Improvement Company and subdivided and offered for sale a portion of his land in order to raise more money for his project. The first public auction of Collins' lots was held on February 19, 1913 with auctioneer "Doc" Darner officiating. They sold $66,000 worth of property that day. In May of 1913 the Collins bridge was completed. Surprisingly enough Collins' subdivision was not the first. Brothers J.N. and J.E. Lummus had been buying up the remainder of the Lum property and controlled a major portion of the island. J.N. founded the Ocean Beach Realty Company in 1912 and was probably the first man to envision a city fronting the ocean. It was Carl Fisher, however, John Collins' benefactor, who was most responsible for Miami Beach's evolution into the twentieth century tourist mecca that became a national phenomenon in the 1920's. Although he was born in the 1870's, Carl Fisher epitomized the twentieth century man. As a young man in Indianapolis he parlayed a bicycle shop into an auto dealership. His fascination with the automobile grew just ahead of the rest of the nation's so when the citizens of Indiana were ready for the latest in auto- mobiles, Carl was ready for them. He was also a genius at promotional gimmickry and attracted a lot of attention and publicity in his hometown. In addition to his dealership he started the Indianapolis Speedway and the Prest-o-Lite Corporation which manufactured the first auto headlights. He was also responsible for the con- struction of the famed Lincoln Highway. At the age of thirty-five Fisher had be- come a multi-millionaire and was still looking for empires to build. He originally came to Miami in 1912 with his new fifteen year old bride Jane, at the urging of a 01 friend, John Levi . After seeing what Collins had done with Miami Beach and knowing that the Lummus brothers were willing to invest capital , Fisher decided Miami Beach had the real potential for becoming and Eden for the new wealthy generation of in- dustrialists who needed a playground along the order of Palm Beach. Fisher became the bank for the Lummuses as well as Collins. He lent J.N. the necessary funds to clear the southern end of the island and fill the swampy areas. Fisher acquired more land with every transaction. He also established Miami Beach' s third real estate company, the Alton Beach Realty Company. While the Lummuses planned a middle class resort and tourist district, Carl set about with his grander schemes. In March of 1915 the three land sales companies consolidated their efforts to pass a charter incorporating the Town of Miami Beach. At this time there were thirty-three registered voters in the community; most of them lived on the southern end of the island, on the tracts subdivided by Lummus. It was J .N. Lummus who became the first mayor of Miami Beach. During this period Carl Fisher began his massive development schemes on Miami Beach. He cleared the way for Lincoln Road, a shopping boulevard that in its hey- day was to rival New York's Fifth Avenue. In 1916 Fisher built his first hotel , the Lincoln Hotel at Collins Avenue and Lincoln Road , and his active publicity campaign was beginning to pay off. To attract a sporting crowd, Fisher established an annual regatta and speedboat race, and with associate Glenn Curtis , an aviation field on the south end bay side of the island, where an array of spectacular aerial shows were put on. Before he was finished, Carl Fisher had built five major hotels n on Miami Beach. Besides the Lincoln, he erected the Flamingo in 1920, the Nautilus in 1925, the King Cole in 1925, and the Fleetwood in 1924. Through World War I , it remained the Lummus development, rather than Fisher or Collins' that sold the most. Fisher was not a man to give up. In 1917 he formed another realty company, the Miami Ocean View Company and began dredging and building the islands in Biscayne Bay. Star Island was the first. It was several more years before it was accessible by car, but once it was it became a very exclusive residen- tial enclave. Probably the most prominent of the original inhabitants was Colonel E.H.R. Green. Green, the son of Hetty Green who was reputed to be "the richest womar in the world," purchased the structure that was built as the Star Island Yacht Club (46 East Star Island Drive) and converted it into a very lavish home. Green was a Gatsbyesque character who became a well-known figure in Miami Beach. Although Carl Fisher's plan to turn Biscayne Bay into a new Venice began with Star Island, others soon followed; Palm, Hibiscus, and the Venetian Islands were all constructed in the early 1920's, from dredged up bay bottom. Fisher Island, where William K. Vanderbilt later built his estate, was created in 1905 when the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the U.S. Congress ordered the construction of Government Cut which severed the southernmost tip of Miami Beach. Many flamboyant, wealthy young businessmen built their winter homes on Miami Beach (North Bay Road, Pine Tree Drive and the islands were most popular with this crowd) . The list of names is a who's who of modern industry (particularly the auto industry) and commerce. Champion, Firestone, Allison, Kresge, Snowden, Cox, Vander- bilt and so on. Fisher himself who had already built a lavish home, "The Shadows," on the oceanfront, built another in 1925 at 5020 North Bay Road which is still n standing. The popular building styles for these early mansions were the romantic Mediterranean and Classical forms. He had also continued in the late teens and early twenties to expand his development with more hotels, golf links, bathing casinos , and polo fields. The publicity mounted until not only Miami Beach, but all of South Florida was involved in the disastrous real estate boom of the 1920' s.' A fierce hurricane struck the Miami area in September of 1925 and brought an abrupt halt to the frenzy of real estate speculation that was going on here. It was followed by the stock market crash a few years later which put a temporary lid on large-scale development. Surprisingly, for Miami Beach, the effects of the de- pression were minimal . The 1930's witnessed more construction on Miami Beach than ever before. The new hotels were catering to a different kind of tourist than Carl Fisher's wealthy playboy types. to fact, expenses of repairing hurricane dam- age, an overextension of resources in another development in Long Island, and "the Crash of '29," had dealt a deathblow to Carl Fisher's enterprises. He was to spend his final years on Miami Beach, an ailing and broken man, unable to gather the strength or investor confidence to get any new projects off the ground. It was a tragic end for a man credited with building a city. The south end of Miami Beach, formerly the Lummus turf, was more densely developed in the 1930's for the middle class tourist. Those families who were not personally stricken by the depression, more than ever needed a place where they could "get away from it all ." A large number of small , modest hotels went up . during this time. The majority of these structures were designed in the Art Deco or streamline styles with localized, resort adaptations that catered to the fanta- sies and imagination of a population trying to cope with a new mechanized world. Relatively few architects were responsible for a large number of hotels and apart- ' ment buildings in what is currently recognized by the National Register of Historic Places as the Art Deco District. Among them are: Henry Hohauser (the Cardozo Hotel , the Shepley, the Commodore, the Warsaw Ballroom. . .) , Murray L. Dixon (the Tudor Hotel , Haddon Hall , the Tides. . .) , and Roy F. France (the Delano Apartments , St. Morit: the Sovereign, the Sands. . .) . Miami Beach continued to be a popular resort through World War II and into the 1950's and 1960's. Building has continued at a phenomenal rate, experiencing only temporary lapses throughout Miami Beach's existence. Of the early, lavish hotels, only one remains today, Fisher's King Cole. It bears little resemblance, however, to its original state because it has been incorporated into the Miami Heart Institute (4701 North Meridian Avenue) . Additional structures of historic interest still standing on Miami Beach, that were not previously mentioned include: the home of James Cox, a former governor of Ohio and newspaper magnate at 4385 North Bay Road; the home of Dan Hardie, an early sheriff of Dade County, at 10 Palm Avenue; the home of Al Capone, the notorious mobster, at 93 Palm Avenue; and the home of John Levi , the man who first brought Carl Fisher to Miami Beach and a former mayor of the city, at 44 East Star Island Drive. Although the history of Miami Beach is relatively brief, it is one of national significance. Carl Fisher was a visionary man whose dream of creating a winter playground so swept the country that in a few short years , the remote island with a population of one became the hottest real estate anywhere in the world. The early development of Miami Beach is inextricably connected with the new American ideals that evolved after World War I . Ideals that grew from a fascination with n modern industry, wealth and leisure. The natural environment was no longer some- N - thing that could stand in man' s way, but an entity to be conquered and molded. Collins, Lummus, and mostly Carl Fisher were the men that molded Miami Beach. Some people objected and warned of the hazards of such rapid and reckless development, others were caught up in the glamour and fun, but all came to see America's new playground. LISTING OF SITES OF MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE 701-745 - 5th Street - Hotel McArthur 227 Michigan Avenue - Ambassador Hotel 551-557-559 Michigan Avenue 140 Ocean Drive - Century Hotel 425 Ocean Drive - Savoy Plaza Hotel 540 West Avenue - Biscaya Hotel 805 Miami Beach Boulevard (5th Street) - Ynda's 1131 - 5th Street 1137 - 5th Street 1200 - 5th Street 218, 220 - 11th Street 135 Biscayne Street - Biscayne Collins Apartment Hotel 227 Biscayne Street - Joe's Stone Crabs 45 Collins Court 845 Commerce Street w 846 Commerce Street 302 Euclid Avenue - Garden Hotel 311-313 Meridian Avenue 112 Ocean Drive - Star Hotel 150 Ocean Drive - Calvert Hotel 458 Ocean Drive 28 Washington Avenue 34 Washington Avenue 56 Washington Avenue - David Court 202 Washington Avenue 206 Washington Avenue 301 Washington Avenue - Beth Jacob Congregation Hall 311 Washington Avenue - Beth Jacob Social Hall APPENDIX A-2 MASTER LIST OF SURVEYED SITES IN THE SOUTH SHORE AREA OF MIAMI BEACH A RATING ADDRESS SITE NAME/REMARKS ARCHITECT DATE A H C 227 - 1st Street W.F. Brown 1923 3 2 2 230 - 1st Street Crystal H. Hohauser 1938 2 2 2 1 J. Cooper 1924 821 - 1st Street Ocean Breeze Hotel J.E. Camasa 1925 3 2 2 720-726 - 2nd Street 1928 2 2 2 723, 727, 735 - 2nd Street W.F. Brown 1925 2 2 2 739 - 2nd Street W.F. Brown 1925 2 2 2 740 - 2nd Street 1928 2 2 2 729-735 - 3rd Street 1922 2 2 2 743 - 3rd Street 1923 3 2 2 701-745 - 5th Street Hotel McArthur Henderson 1930 1 3 2 805 Miami Beach Blvd. (5th Street) Ynda's De Gar mo 1925 2 1 2 1045 - 5th Street Mobil Gas Station 1930 DEMOLISHED 1131 - 5th Street (1125-1131) 1920 3 1 3 1137 - 5th Street LaPointe 1923 2 1 2 1200 - 5th Street 1923 3 1 3 135 Biscayne Street Biscayne Collins Apt. Hotel W.F. Brown 1925 2 1 2 227 Biscayne Street Joe's Stone Crabs 1921 2 1 2 116 Collins Avenue Nemo Hotel Pancoast 1929 2 2 2 321 Collins Avenue York Hotel Hohauser 1937 2 2 3 336 Collins Avenue Silverstein Resident Pavillion Avery 1932 3 3 2 C-15 RATING ADDRESS SITE NAME/REMARKS ARCHITECT DATE A H C 410 Collins Avenue Sunny Haven Gault 1923 2 2 2 427 Collins Avenue Madrid Hotel Taylor 1923 2 2 2 501 Collins Avenue Dade Linen and Furniture/Jacks 1929 2 2 2 . 39 Collins Court 1920 2 2 2 45 Collins Court 1918c 3 1 2 53 Collins Court 1921 3 2 2 811 Commerce Street F. Fielder 1923 3 2 2 817 Commerce Street F. Fielder 1923 2 2 2 826 Commerce Street 1923 2 2 2 1917- 845 Commerce Street 1918c 2 1 2 846 Commerce Street 1920 2 1 2 260 Euclid Avenue Hohauser 1937 2 2 2 1920- 302 Euclid Avenue Garden Hotel 1921 2 1 2 320 Euclid Avenue Euclid Hotel Hall 1937 2 3 2 334 Euclid Avenue Fountain Apts. 1924 2 2 2 426 Euclid Avenue 1923 2 2 2 361 Jefferson Avenue 1922 3 2 2 426 Jefferson Avenue 1923 2 2 2 311-313 Meridian Avenue 1918 2 1 2 c-ie RATING ADDRESS SITE NAME/REMARKS ARCHITECT DATE A H C 335 Meridian Avenue Hellenbogen 1930 2 2 1 345 Meridian Avenue Knight 1938 2 3 1 359 Meridian Avenue Hall 1937 2 3 1 227 Michigan Avenue Ambassador Hotel Brown 1925 1 2 2 327 Michigan Avenue Anis 1941 2 3 2 330 Michigan Avenue Cambridge Hotel Bonreau 1925 DOMOLISHED 551-557-559 Michigan Avenue Nolan 1940 1 2 1 54 Ocean Drive Hotel Leonard Pfeiffer & O'Reilly 1920 2 2 1 112 Ocean Drive Star Hotel 1914 3 1 2 126 Ocean Drive Horwyn Apartments Hohauser 1939 2 2 1 140 Ocean Drive Century Hotel Hohauser 1939 1 2 1 1916- 150 Ocean Drive Calvert Hotel 1918 3 1 2 200-202 Ocean Drive Marevista 1921 2 2 1 Schoeppl 1932 226-232 Ocean Drive Par-Mell Apartments Ungaro 1949 2 3 1 321 Ocean Drive Hotel Simone Norren & Nadel 1937 2 2 1 335 Ocean Drive Sand & Sun (Sorrento Hotel) Debrita 1939 2 3 1 425 Ocean Drive Savoy Plaza Hotel Nelienbogen 1935 1 2 1 436 Ocean Drive Olympic Apartment Hotel Anis 1936 2 2 1 444 Ocean Drive Surf Hohauser 1936 2 2 1 C- 17 RATING ADDRESS SITE NAME/REMARKS ARCHITECT DATE A H C 458 Ocean Drive 1916 3 1 2 524 Ocean Drive Mare Grande Hotel Wank 1925 2 2 1 Collins Avenue at south end of Government Cut U.S. Army Corp of Engineers 1933 2 2 2 28 Washington Avenue 1919 2 1 2 1918- 34 Washington Avenue 1921 2 1 2 53 Washington Avenue 1921 2 2 2 56 Washington Avenue David Court 1925 2 1 2 1920- 119 Washington Avenue 1921 2 2 2 137 Washington Avenue 1922 2 2 2 202 Washington Avenue 1918 3 1 2 1913- 206 Washington Avenue 1921 2 1 2 301 Washington Avenue Beth Jacobs Congregation Hall Hohauser 1936 2 1 2 311 Washington Avenue Beth Jacob Social Hall Rose 1928 , 2 1 2 347 Washington Avenue Everbloom Apts. Hotel Nordin & Nadel 1937 2 3 1 404 Washington Avenue Crown Hotel 1921 2 2 1 411 Washington Avenue Hotel Harrison Hohauser 1935 2 2 1 419 Washington Avenue 1923 2 2 1 540 West Avenue Biscaya Hotel S.D. Butterworth 1925 1 2 1 C.—I$ APPENDIX D AGGREGATED PARCELS SOUTH SHORE PROPERTY OWNERS THREE LOTS OR MORE 1. W. FLAGLER ASSOCIATES LTD., ET AL. CIO ROBERT KUHN -848 BRICKELL AVENUE MIAMI,FL 33131 AREA PER HOUSE BILL 985-49 FORMERLY SOUTH BEACH PK PB 6-77 do NORTH 132 FT OF NORTH PORTION LYING EAST OF COLLINS AVENUE AND FILLED AREA EXTENDING TO BULKHEAD LINE LYING EASTERLY AND ADJACENT TO ALL OF ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY LOT SIZE: IRREGULAR THAT PART NORTH 132 FT.OF NW K LYING EASTERLY OF WASHINGTON AVENUE AND WESTERLY OF COLLINS AVENUE IN PB 6-77 LOT SIZE: 37,884 SQUARE FEET OCEAN BEACH FLORIDA SUBDIVISION PB 2-38 LOT 7 BLOCK 10 LOT SIZE: 50 x 130 LOT 8 BLOCK 10 LOT SIZE: 50 x 130 LOTS 9 do 10 do EAST 100 FT. BLOCK 10 LOT SIZE: IRREGULAR OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 PB 2-81 LOTS 21 do 22 d:WEST 15 FT OF LOT 23 BLOCK 51 LOT SIZE: 75 x 111 LOT 23 LESS WEST 15 FT dc LOT 24 do WEST 14 OF LOT 25 do 10 FT.STRIP SOUTH OF SAME BLOCK 51 LOT SIZE: 60 x 111 2. JOE'S STONE CRABS INC. 227 BISCAYNE STREET MIAMI BEACH,FLORIDA 33139 OCEAN BEACH FLORIDA SUBDIVISION PB 2-38 LOT 11 BLOCK 1 LOT SIZE: 50 x 130 LOT 12 BLOCK 1 LOT SIZE: 50 x 130 OCEAN BEACH FLORIDA SUBDIVISION LOTS 11 do 12 do EAST 40 FT. LOT 13 BLOCK 10 LOT SIZE: IRREGULAR OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 PB 2-81 LOT 26 do WEST 10 FT.LOT 27 BLOCK 52 LOT SIZE: 40 x 100 EAST 10 FT.LOT 28 do LOT 29 BLOCK 52 LOT SIZE: 40 x 100 LOT 30 BLOCK 52 LOT SIZE: 30 x 100 2. JOE'S STONE CRABS INC.(CONTINUED) LOT 31 BLOCK 52 LOT SIZE: 30 x 100 3. MIAMI BEACH NURSING FACILITIES, INC. 1674 MERIDIAN AVENUE MIAMI BEACH,FLORIDA 33139 OCEAN BEACH FLORIDA SUBDIVISION PB 2-38 LOTS 14& 15 BLOCK 1 LOT SIZE: 100 X 130 LOTS 1-2-3-4-S BLOCK 10 LOT SIZE: 250 X 130 4. JOSEPH SWARTZ • 150 SW 27 RD. MIAMI, FLORIDA 33139 OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 PB 2-81 LOT 29 & 10 FT.STRIPWALK SOUTH OF SAME k LOT 30 BLOCK 51 LOT SIZE: 60 X 110 LOT 31 BLOCK 51 LOT SIZE: 35.660 X 110 5. SEYMOUR FRIEND 3804 MONSERRATE STREET CORAL GABLES,FLORIDA OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 PB 2-81 N LOT 5 BLOCK 51 LOT SIZE: 30 X 100 LOTS 6 &7 BLOCK 51 LOT SIZE: 60 X 100 LOT 8 LESS WEST 4 FT. BLOCK 51 LOT SIZE: 26 X 100 LOT 11 BLOCK 51 LOT SIZE: 30 X 100 LOT 12 BLOCK 51 LOT SIZE: 30 X 100 LOT 19& 10 FT.STRIPWALKS BLOCK 51 LOT SIZE: 30 X 112 LOT 20 BLOCK 51 LOT SIZE: 30 X 112 LOT 26 EAST 15 LOT 25 &LOT 27 & 10 FT.STRIP SOUTH OF SAME BLOCK 51 LOT SIZE: 75 X 111 LOT 28 & 10 FT.STRIP LYING SOUTH AND ADJACENT BLOCK 51 LOT SIZE: 30 X 110 LOT 9 BLOCK 52 LOT SIZE: 30 X 100 5. SEYMOUR FRIEND(CONTINUED) OCEAN BEACH ADDITION 1)3 PB 2-81 LOTS 10 do 11 BLOCK 52 LOT SIZE: 60 X 100 LOT 25 BLOCK 52 LOT SIZE: 30 X 100 LOT 32 do 33 BLOCK 52 LOT SIZE: 60 x 100 LOT 34 do 35 BLOCK 52 LOT SIZE: IRREGULAR OCEAN BEACH ADDITION SUBDIVISION PB 2-38 LOT 1 BLOCK 1 LOT SIZE: 50 x 115 6. IRVING AND RUTH KARP 3401 N.W. 31 STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 PB 2-81 LOT 16 BLOCK 51 LOT SIZE: 30 x 100 LOTS 17 do 18 do 10 FT.STRIPWALK SOUTH OF SAME BLOCK 51 LOT SIZE: 60 x.112 7. AMERICAN FRUIT PURVEYORS, INC. 730- 1ST STREET MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 PB 2-81 LOTS 4-5-6 do EAST 22 FT.OF LOT 7 BLOCK 52 LOT SIZE: 112 x 100 8. JO-ANN SAWITZ do GRACE WEISS(JOE'S STONE CRAB) 11 ISLAND AVENUE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 PB 2-81 LOT 19 BLOCK 52 LOT SIZE: 30 x 100 LOTS 20-21 do LOT 22 LESS EAST 1 FT. BLOCK 52 LOT SIZE: 89 x 100 9. FAIRHOPE INVESTMENTS, NV 420 LINCOLN ROAD SUITE 335 MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 PB 2-81 LOTS 13-14-15-16 BLOCK 52 LOT SIZE: 120 X 100 10. ALFREDO SANTISI do R.SOSA & ARCALA INV., INC. 1762 N.W. 6 STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33125 OCEAN BEACH FLORIDA SUBDIVISION PB 2-38 LOTS 3-4-5 BLOCK 9 LOT SIZE: 150 X 130 LOT 12 BLOCK 2 LOT SIZE: SITE VALUE SOUTH K LOT 13 BLOCK 2 LOT SIZE: SITE VALUE LOT 14 BLOCK 2 LOT SIZE: SITE VALUE NORTH 35 OF LOT 15 BLOCK 2 LOT SIZE: SITE VALUE 11. SAMUEL AND DOROTHY PICCIOLO 137 WASHINGTON AVENUE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 OCEAN BEACH FLORIDA SUBDIVISION PB 2-38 LOT 11 BLOCK 9 LOT SIZE: 50 X 130 LOT 12 BLOCK 9 LOT SIZE: 50 X 130 LOT 13 BLOCK 9 LOT SIZE: 50 X 130 NORTH 14 LOT 13 BLOCK 2 LOT SIZE: SITE VALUE SOUTH 14 LOT 15 BLOCK 2 LOT SIZE: SITE VALUE 12. SHIRLEY ROSS &G. & LAWRENCE TAYLOR 5577 LA GORCE DRIVE :MIAMI BEACH,FLORIDA 33140 OCEAN BEACH FLORIDA SUBDIVISION PB 2-38 LOTS 6-7-8 BLOCK 9 LOT SIZE: 150 X 130 13. MELVIN AND ESTELLE MENDELSON C/O ENGLANDER & BURNETT ONE LINCOLN ROAD MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 PB 2-31 LOTS 16-17 BLOCK 78 LOT SIZE: 60 X 100 LOT 18 BLOCK 78 LOT SIZE: 30 X 100 13. MELVIN AND ESTELLE MENDELSON (CONTINUED) OCEAN BEACH ADDITION 113 PB 2-81 LOT 19 BLOCK 78 LOT SIZE: 30 X 100 14. SYLVIA O. FOX,TRUSTEE 1800 SW 85 COURT MIAMI, FLORIDA 33155 OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 PB 2-81 LOT 5 LESS EAST 129 FT. BLOCK 80 LOT SIZE: 50 X 110 EAST 129 FT.OF LOT 5 BLOCK 80 LOT SIZE: 50 X 129 LOT 9 BLOCK 80 LOT SIZE: 30 X 100 LOT 10-11-12-13 BLOCK 80 LOT SIZE: IRREGULAR 15. M. do L.GLIKSMAN AND SAMUEL AND I. ROSE 950-2ND STREET MIAMI BEACH,FLORIDA 33139 OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 PB 2-81 LOTS 1-2-3 BLOCK 80 LOT SIZE: 150 X 150 p LOT 6 BLOCK 80 LOT SIZE: IRREGULAR LOT 8 &EAST 50 FT.OF LOT 7 BLOCK 80 LOT SIZE: IRREGULAR 16. EVELYN FARNESS 226 OCEAN DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 OCEAN BEACH FLORIDA SUBDIVISION PB 2-38 LOTS 3-4-5 BLOCK 3 LOT SIZE: 150 X 115 17. E.COHEN, B. BLOOM, R. WAPNICK,V.KONVISER do G. RUSSO 21410 NE 19 AVENUE NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33179 OCEAN BEACH FLORIDA SUBIDIVSION PB 2-38 LOTS 14-15 BLOCK 3 LOT SIZE: SITE VALUE LOT 16 BLOCK 3 LOT SIZE: SITE VALUE 18. H L & L CONSTRUCTION, INC. 881 N.VENETIAN DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 PB 2-81 LOT 6 &THE NORTH 5 FT.OF LOT 7 BLOCK 31 LOT SIZE: 55 X 140 LOT 8 &LOT 7 LESS NORTH 5 FT. BLOCK 81 LOT SIZE: 95 X 140 19. ABRAHAM AND DOROTHY SHEFFMAN C/O 3OEL P. NEV/MAN 420 LINCOLN ROAD MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 PB 2-81 LOT 14-15-16 BLOCK 77 LOT SIZE: 150 X 140 20. THE HEBREW HOME FOR THE AGED OF MIAMI BEACH 320 COLLINS AVENUE MIAMI BEACH,FLORIDA 33139 OCEAN BEACH FLORIDA SUBDIVISION PB 2-38 LOT 4 BLOCK 7 LOT SIZE: SITE VALUE LOTS 5-6 BLOCK 7 LOTS SIZE: SITE VALUE LOT 7 BLOCK 7 LOT SIZE: SITE VALUE LOT 8 BLOCK 7 LOT SIZE: SITE VALUE LOT 13 BLOCK 7 LOT SIZE: 50 X 130 21. CONGREGATION BETH JACOB 311 WASHINGTON AVENUE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 OCEAN BEACH FLORIDA SUBDIVISION PB 2-38 LOTS 9-10 BLOCK 7 LOT SIZE: 100 X 130 LOT 11 BLOCK 7 LOT SIZE: 50 X 130 22. DREYER ASSOCIATION,INC. 1878 W. 79TH STREET HIALEAH, FLORIDA 33014 OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 PB 2-31 LOTS 4-5 BLOCK 100 LOT SIZE: 100 X 150 EAST 30 FT.OF LOT 6 BLOCK 100 LOT SIZE: 4000 SQUARE FEET 23. LOUIS A. & RUTH T.GIDNEY 1420 W. 23 STREET MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33140 OCEAN BEACH FLORIDA SUBDIVISION PB 2-38 LOT 6 BLOCK 5 LOT SIZE: 50 X 115 LOT 7 BLOCK 5 LOT SIZE: 50 X 115 LOT 8 BLOCK 5 LOT SIZE: 50 X 115 24. HARRY HOLTZMAN 7821 NOREMAC AVENUE MIAMI BEACH,FLORIDA 33141 OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 PB 2-81 EAST 100 FT.OF LOT 3 BLOCK 103 LOT SIZE: 100 X 50 LOT 3 LESS EAST 100 FT. AND LESS EXTENSION OF CURVE IN NORTHWEST CORNER IN RIGHT OF WAY do LOT 4 LESS EAST 142 FT. BLOCK 103 LOT SIZE: 12,350 SQ. FT. EAST 145.6 FT.OF LOT 4 BLOCK 103 LOT SIZE: 50 X 146 LOTS 5-6-7-8-9 WHITE& WOODWARDS RESUB OF LOTS 5-6 BLOCK 103 BOOK 26 PAGE 62 25. THE FOURTH FAIRLAND, INC. r 6500 NO.ANDREWS AVENUE FT.LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33309 FRIEDMAN & COPES SUBDIVISION PB 4-83 • LOTS 1-2-3-4-5-6 LESS PART FOR STREET BLOCK 3 LOT SIZE: 272.1 X 140 26. LOUIS MINTZ do R.O.BIALOR C/O TRAGER AND KLEIN 301 ARTHUR GODFREY ROAD MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33140 THAT PORTION OF LOTS 7-8-9-10 BLOCK 3 FRIEDMAN do COPES SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PB 443 FRIEDMAN do COPES SUBDIVISION PB 4-83 BEGINNING 21.96 FT. NORTHEAST OF SOUTHWEST CORNER LOT 10, SOUTHEAST 130 FT., SOUTHWEST 113.79 FT., WEST 133.49 FT., NORTHEAST 145.18 FT.TO POINT OF BEGINNING BLOCK 3 LOT SIZE: IRREGULAR BEGINNING AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 11, SOUTHEAST 130 FT., SOUTHWEST 81.78 FT.,NORTHWEST 130 FT.,NORTHEAST 30.72 FT.TO POINT OF BEGINNING BLOCK 3 LOT SIZE: 81.25 X 130 LOT 12 & BEGINNING AT SOUTHWEST CORNER LOT 12, SCUTHEAST 130 FT., NORTHEAST 30.33 FT., WEST TO POINT OF BEGINNING BLOCK 3 LOT SIZE: IRREGULAR 27. GUILLERMO SOSTCHIN, TR. C/O STONE 101 N.W. 12 AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33138 OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 RE SUB PB 21-26 LOTS 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11 BLOCK 'A' LOT SIZE: IRREGULAR 28. STARLITE GARDENS, INC. 350 LINCOLN ROAD MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 PB 2-81 LOTS 7-8-9-10 BLOCK 57 LOT SIZE: 280 X 90 29. FRYD FAMILY ASSOCIATES, LTD. 523 MICHIGAN AVENUE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 PB 2-81 LOTS 9-10&SOUTH 15 FT.OF LOT 11,LESS SOUTH 10 FT.OF LOT 9 BLOCK 74 LOT SIZE: 140 X 105 LOT 11 LESS SOUTH 15 FT. THEREOF do ALL OF LOTS 12-13-14 BLOCK 74 LOT SIZE: 185 X 140 LOT 12 BLOCK 84 LOT SIZE: m 30. JOHN C. DANENNOWER, EST. C/O VANN CLEANERS 8c LAUNDRY, INC.CORP.. ATTENTION: E.FRINK 1700 JEFFERSON AVENUE MIAMI BEACH,FLORIDA 33139 OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 PB 2-81 LOTS 6.7-8 BLOCK 84 LOT SIZE: 19,600 SQUARE FEET 31. AMERICAN OIL COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 5077 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30302 OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO.3 PB 2-81 LOTS 9-10-11 BLOCK 84 LOT SIZE: 19,600 SQUARE FEET 32. VINCENT 3. FESTA & S.3.VENEZIA 4401 MONROE STREET HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33021 OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO.3 PB 2-31 LOT 12 BLOCK 98 LOT SIZE: 50 X 150 LOTS 13-14 BLOCK 98 LOT SIZE: 100 x 150 33. BISHOP COLEMAN F.CARROLL 6301 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD MIAMI,FLORIDA 33138 OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 PB 2-81 LOTS.1-2 BLOCK 104 LOT SIZE: 100 X 150 LOT 3 BLOCK 104 LOT SIZE: 50 X 150 34. VIC POTAMKIN CHEVROLET,INC. 540 ALTON ROAD MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 PB 2-31 LOT 4 BLOCK 104 LOT SIZE: 50 X 150 LOT 5 BLOCK 104 LOT SIZE: 50 X 150 • EAST 50 FT.OF NORTH Si OF LOT 6 BLOCK 104 LOT SIZE: 25 X 50 EAST 50 FT.OF SOUTH S4 LOT 6 LOT SIZE: 25 X 50 NORTH 40 FT.OF WEST 50 FT.OF LOT 6 BLOCK 104 LOT SIZE: 2000 SQUARE FEET EAST 30 FT.11 INCHES OF SOUTH 10 FT.OF WEST 50 FT.LOT 6&EAST 30 FT.11 INCHES OF WEST 50 FT.LOT 7 AND EAST 29 FT.9 INCHES OF W EST 50 FT.LOT 8 LESS SOUTH 10 FT. BLOCK 104 LOT SIZE: 30 X 100 WEST 19 FT. 11 INCHES OF SOUTH 10 FT.LOT 6&WEST 19 FT.11 INCHES LOT 7 & WEST 20 FT.3 INCHES LOT 8 LESS SOUTH 10 FT. BLOCK 104 LOT SIZE: 20 X 100 WEST 50 FT.OF EAST 100 FT.OF LOTS 6-7-8 BLOCK 104 LOT SIZE: 50 X 140 BEGINNING 82 FT. EAST OF SOUTHWEST CORNER BLOCK 104, EAST 25 FT., NORTH 50 FT.,WEST 25 FT.,SOUTH 50 FT.TO POINT OF BEGINNING BLOCK 104 LOT SIZE: 25 X 50 LOT 12 BLOCK 104 LOT SIZE: 50 X 150 • LOTS 13-14-15-16 BLOCK 104 LOT SIZE: 200 X 150 • 34. VIC POTAMKIN CHEVROLET, INC. (CONTINUED) AQUARIUM SITE AMENDED PB 21-83 LOT 1 AND LOT 19, LESS OFF STREET ROAD 5 FT. LOT SIZE: 6,410 SQUARE FEET LOT 2 LOT SIZE: 25 X 100 LOT 3 LOT SIZE: 25 X 110 LOTS 4-5 LOT SIZE: 50 X 110 LOTS 6-7-8 LOT SIZE: 75 X 110 LOTS 9-10 LOT SIZE: 11,000 SQUARE FEET LOT 15 LOT SIZE: 50 X 125 LOTS 16-17 do 18 LESS OFF STREET ROAD 5 FT. LOT SIZE: 13,230 SQUARE FEET 35. NEW FLORIDIAN HOTEL, INC. C/O HARVEY GOODMAN 800 WEST AVENUE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 AQUARIUM SITE AMENDED PB 21-83 O LOTS 26-27 BLOCK 1 LOTS 1-2 & OUT LOT OF FLEETWOOD SUBDIVISION PB-23-34 AND O PROPERTIES INTERSECTING IN AND TO COMMON ELEMENTS NOT DEDICATED TO PUBLIC LOT SIZE: IRREGULAR • 3G:bss 4/25/83 APPENDIX E LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SOUTH SHORE REVITALIZATION SITE BOUNDARY DESCRIPTICN The South Beach Redevelopment Project Area , hereinafter called the "project ,arca" , is delineated on the Project Boundary and Land Use Plan Map designated as Exhibit A, and is more par- ticularly described as follows : All that real property in the City of Miami Beach, County of Dade, State of Florida, within the following-described boundaries : Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of LOT 2 , BLOCK 1 , FLEETWOOD SUBDIVISION according to THE AMENDED PLAT thereof as recorded in Plat Book 28, Page 34 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; Thence run Easterly along the Northerly line of said LOT 2 for a dis- tance of 150 . 7 feet more or less to a point, said point being the Northeasterly corner of said LOT 2 ; Thence continue along above mentioned course for a distance of 50 feet more or less, across West Avenue, to the intersection with Westerly line of BLOCK 2, FLEETWOOD SUBDIVISION, according to the AMENDED PLAT thereof as recorded in Plat Book 28 , Page 34 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; Thence run Southerly along the Westerly line of said BLOCK 2 for a m distance of 160 . 3 feet more or less to a point , said point being a Point of Curvature (P.C. ) of a circular curve concave to the Northeast an8 having for its elements a radius of 15 feet and a central angle of 90 ; Thence run along said circular curve an arc distance of 23 . 6 feet more or less to the Point of Tangency (P.T. ) ; Thence Easterly along the Northerly line of Sixth Street for a distance of 2679 . 4 feet more or less to the Point of Intersection with the Easterly line of Washington Avenue; Thence run Southeasterly along said Easterly line of Washington Avenue for a distance of 164 . 3 feet more or less to the point of Intersection with the Northerly line of a 20 foot alley known presently as Sixth Street ; Thence run Easterly along the Northerly line of said Sixth Street for a distance of 713 . 7 feet more or less to the Point of Intersection with the Easterly line of Ocean Drive; Thence continue along above described course (Northerly line of Sixth Street projected Easterly) for a distance of 1400 feet more or less to a point; Thence run Southwesterly along the line parallel to and 1680 feet more or less Easterly of the 1-Fast line of Collins Avenue for a di.star.,w of 2800 feet more or less to a point : Thence run Southeasterly at an angle of 900 with the previous course at a distance of 650 feet more or less to a point; Thence run Southwesterly at an angle of 900 with the previous course a distance of 2100 feet more or less to a point; Thence run Westerly along the line parallel to and 300 feet more or less South of the Northerly limits of Government Cut for a distance of 3900 feet more or less to a point; Thence run Northwesterly along the line parallel to and 620 feet more or less Southwest of existing bulkhead line (M.H .W. Line) for a dis- tance of 1000 feet more or less to a point; Thence run Southwesterly at an angle of 900 with the previous course a distance of 95 feet more or less to a point; Thence run Northwesterly at an angle of 90° with the previous course a distance of 500 feet more or less to a point; Thence run Northeasterly at an angle of 900 with the previous course for a distance of 95 feet more or less to a point; Thence run Northwesterly along the line parallel to and 620 feet more or less Southwest of existing bulkhead line (M.H.W. Line) for a dis- tance of 2500 feet more or less to a point; 9' Thence Easterly along the line parallel to and 175 feet more or less " North of the North line of Sixth Street produced Westerly for a dis- tance of 930 feet more or less to the Point of Beginning. APPENDIX F ZONING PRO FORMAS ZONING PRO FORMA A. Data Sheet: 1 . Zoning District R-PS 1 2. Proposed Use Residential - apartments/townhouses (Type of dwelling unit) 3. Parcel Size 10,000 square feet. 4. Height 2 stories over 1 story parking (It of stories) . 5. Floor Area Ratio •8 6. Maximum Permissible Gross Floor Area 8,000 square feet. 7. Lot Coverage 40% 8. Average Dwelling Unit Size 1,000 square feet. 9. Estimated Number of dwelling units 6 10. Open Space Ratio 60% %. 11, Occupant Parking Space Ratio: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit. 12. Total Parking Space Ratio: 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit. B. Commentary: 1. Calculations assume that 20% of gross floor area will be used for common spaces; therefore 8,000 square feet yields only 6 units. If developed as townhouses, however, with no common spaces, 8 units would be possible. 2. Eight dwelling units on a 10,000 square foot lot results in an equivalent density of 35 units per acre; 6 dwelling units results in an equivalent density of 26 units/acre. 3. Underground or first level parking does not utilize permissible gross floor area. ZONING PRO FORMA A. Data Sheet: 1 . Zoning District R-PS 1 2. Proposed Use Residential - apartments/townhouses (Type of dwelling unit) 3. Parcel Size 40,000 square feet. 4. Height 2 stories over 1 story parking (00 of stories) . 5. Floor Area Ratio 1 . 1 6. Maximum Permissible Gross Floor Area 44,000 square feet. 7. Lot Coverage 55% 8. Average Dwelling Unit Size 1,000 square feet. 9. Estimated Number of dwelling units 35 10. Open Space Ratio 45% 7.. 11, Occupant Parking Space Ratio: 1 .5 spaces per dwelling unit. 12. Total Parking Space Ratio: 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit. B. Commentary: 1 . Calculations assume that 20% of gross floor area will be for common building space; therefore 44,000 square feet yields only 35 units. If developed as townhouses, 44 units would be possible. 2. Lot coverage of 557 is permissible with 67. bonus; FAR of 1 . 1 results from .3 bonus for aggregation of parcels. 3. Eauivalent densities are 48 units per acre for townhouses and 38 units/acre for apartments. 4. Developer may opt to develop townhouses with average dwelling unit size of, for example, 1,300 square feet resulting in 34 units. 5. It is assumed that maximum density for townhouse development is 35 units/acre. ZONING PRO FORMA A. Data Sheet: 1 . Zoning District R-PS I 2. Proposed Use Residential - apartments (Type of dwelling unit) 3. Parcel Size 80,000 square feet. 4. Height 2 stories over I story parking (!i of stories) . 5. Floor Area Ratio 1 .3 6. Maximum Permissible Gross Floor Area 96,000 square feet. 7. Lot Coverage 60% 8. Average Dwelling Unit Size 1 ,000 square feet. 9. Estimated Number of dwelling units 76 10. Open Space Ratio 40% %. 11, Occupant Parking Space Ratio: 1 .5 spaces per dwelling unit. 12. Total Parking Space Ratio: 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit. 0 B. Commentary: 1 . ntiP rn 1nr covPrag limitation_ maximum permissible gross floor area is 96,000 square feet rather than 104,000 square feet. 2. Calculation assumes that 20% of gross floor area is used for common building space. 3. Equivalent density is 42 units/acre. 4. R-PS I zoning, therefore, permits a range of densities from 26 to 42 units per acre depending upon the size of parcel. 5. Townhouse development is encouraged by its more efficient utilization of gross floor area. 6. Underground or first floor parking is encouraged by its exemption from gross floor area. ZONING PRO FORMA A. Data Sheet: 1 . Zoning District R-PS 2 2. Proposed Use $esidential - apartment • (Type of dwelling unit) 3. Parcel Size 10.000 square feet. 4. Height 3 ttories_ over parking (1) of stories) . 5. Floor Area Ratio 1.0 • 6. Maximum Permissible Gross Floor Area 10.000 square feet. 7. Lot Coverage 33.3% 8. Average Dwelling Unit Size 900 square feet. 9. Estimated Number of dwelling units 9 10. Open Space Ratio 66.7% %. 11 , Occupant Parking Space Ratio: 1 .3 spaces per dwelling unit. 12. Total Parking Space Ratio: 1 .75 spaces per dwelling unit. B. Commentary: 1 . Calculation assumes 20% of gross floor area will be used for common spaces. 2. Equivalent density is 40 units/acre. 3. Sixteen parking spaces will be required. 4. Assumes development at minimum required average dwelling unit size. ZONING PRO FORMA A. Data Sheet: 1 . Zoning District R-PS 2 2. Proposed Use Residential - apartment (Type of dwelling unit) 3. Parcel Size 40,000 square feet. 4. Height 4 stories over parking (// of stories) . 5. Floor Area Ratio 1 .3 6. Maximum Permissible Gross Floor Area 52,000 square feet. 7. Lot Coverage 32.5% 8. Average Dwelling Unit Size 900 square feet. 9. Estimated Number of dwelling units 46 10. Open Space Ratio 67.5% %. 11, Occupant Parking Space Ratio: 1 .3 spaces per dwelling unit. a 12. Total Parking Space Ratio: 1 .75 spaces per dwelling unit. B. Commentary: 1 . Calculation assumes that 20% of gross floor area will be used for common building space. 2. Equivalent density is 50 dwelling units per acre; an 80,000 square foot parcel will yield an equivalent density of 58 units/acre (at FAR of 1 .5) . Thus, density range for R-PS 2 is approximately 40 - 60 units/acre. ZONING PRO FORMA A. Data Sheet: 1. Zoning District R-PS 3 2. Proposed Use Residential - apartment (Type of dwelling unit) 3. Parcel Size 20,000 square feet. 4. Height 5 stories over parking (# of stories). 5. Floor Area Ratio - 1.35 6. Maximum Permissible Gross Floor Area 27,000 square feet. 7. Lot Coverage 27% 8. Average Dwelling Unit Size $00 square feet. 9. Estimated Number of dwelling units 27 10. Open Space Ratio 73% %. 1' 11, Occupant Parking Space Ratio: 1 .2 spaces per dwelling unit. 12. Total Parking Space Ratio: 1 .5 spaces per dwelling unit. B. Commentary: • 1 . Assumes 20Z of gross floor area for common building spaces. 2. Equivalent density is 59 dwelling units/acre. 3. Lot coverage of 27% is permissible with 2% bonus for additional 10,000 square feet. 4. FAR of 1.35reflects . 1 bonus for additional 10,000 square feet. 5. Base equivalent density on a 10,000 square foot lot is 54 units/acre. ZONING PRO FORMA A. Data Sheet: 1. Zoning District R-PS 3 2. Proposed Use Residential - apartment (Type of dwelling unit) 3. Parcel Size 60,000 square feet. 4. Height 6 stories over parking (U of stories). 5. Floor Area Ratio 1.65 6. Maximum Permissible Gross Floor Area 99;000 square feet. 7. Lot Coverage 27.5% 8. Average Dwelling Unit Size 1.000 square feet. 9. Estimated Number of dwelling units 80 10. Open Space Ratio 62.5 Z. 11, Occupant Parking Space Ratio: 1 .2 spaces per dwelling unit. 12. Total Parking Space Ratio: 1 .5 spaces per dwelling unit. V B. Commentary: 1. Assumes 20% of gross floor area for common building spaces. 2. Assumes average dwelling unit size of 1 ,000 square feet (above minimum requirement for this subdistrict) . 3. Equivalent density is 58 units/acre. 4. If required minimum average dwelling unit size of 800 square feet is used, equivalent density is 72 dwelling units/acre. 5. If 80,000 square foot parcel is aggregated, equivalent density may be as high as 76 units/acre. 6. Tne density range for R-PS 3, therefore, is 54-76 units per acre. ZONING PRO FORMA A. Data Sheet: 1 . Zoning District R-PS 4 2. Proposed Use Residential - apartment (Type of dwelling unit) 3. Parcel Size 20,000 square feet. 4. Height 8 stories (1/ of stories) . 5. Floor Area Ratio 1.6 6. Maximum Permissible Gross Floor Area 32,000 square feet. 7. Lot Coverage 20% 8. Average Dwelling Unit Size 750 square feet. 9. Estimated Number of dwelling units 34 10. Open Space Ratio 80% %. 11 , Occupant Parking Space Ratio: 1 .0 spaces per dwelling unit. m 12. Total Parking Space Ratio: 1 .25 spaces per dwelling unit. B. Commentary: 1. Assumes 20% of gross floor area for common building space. 2. Equivalent density is 74 dwelling units per acre. 3. Base density ( 10,000 square foot lot) is 70 units/acre. ZONING PRO FORMA A. Data Sheet: 1 . Zoning District R-PS 4 2. Proposed Use Residential - apartment (Type of dwelling unit) 3. Parcel Size 40,000 square feet. 4. Height 10 stories over parking (40 of stories) . 5. Floor Area Ratio 1 .8 6. Maximum Permissible Gross Floor Area 72,000 square feet. 7. Lot Coverage 187 8. Average Dwelling Unit Size 750 square feet. 9. Estimated Number of dwelling units 77 10. Open Space Ratio 82% 7. 11 , Occupant Parking Space Ratio: 1 .0 spaces per dwelling unit. 12. Total Parking Space Ratio: 1 .25 spaces per dwelling unit. m B. Commentary: 1. Assumes. 20% of gross floor area for common building space. 2. Equivalent density is 84 dwelling units per acre. 3. If an 80,000 square foot parcel is aggregated, equivalent density can rise to 92 units per acre. 4. Thus, density range for R-PS 4 is 70-92 units/acre. ZONING PRO FORMA Notes re Residential-Performance Standard (R-PS) Zoning Districts. 1 . R-PS zoning districts result in overall density ranges as follows: R-PS 1 26-42 units/acre R-PS 2 40-60 units/acre R-PS 3 65-87 units/acre R-PS 4 70-92 units/acre 2. The maximum densities in the above ranges are achievable only through aggregation of parcels. The maximums are consistent with the density ranges as specified in the Plan. 3. Additional bonuses and incentives will be possible to reward consistency with plan objectives other than aggregation of parcels, for example, urban design, view preservation, pedestrian- level activities, etc. 4. The R-PS zoning system will encourage integration of parking (underground or structured) by excluding floor area devoted to such parking from the maximum permissible gross floor area. Surface parking will adversely affect achievement of the open space ratio. 5. The R-PS zoning system will encourage a mix of housing unit sizes by providing for a larger minimum dwelling unit size than otherwise required and by specifying a minimum average dwelling unit size per development. 6. The R-PS 1 zoning will allow for townhouse, rather than apartment development, thus introducing a type and scale of residential development that is more appropriate for the subdistrict closest to Alton Road. If land costs militate against the densities necessary to accommodate townhouse developments, the City shall consider a write-down of land costs to make such developments economically feasible or the utilization of other financial and non-financial incentives. These can be accomplished through the utilization of "designation" and/or "development agreements." ZONING PRO FORMA A. Data Sheet: 1. Zoning District C-PS 1 2. Proposed Use Commercial 3. Parcel Size 40,000 square feet. 4. Height 4 stories over parking (?l of stories) . 5. Floor Area Ratio 1 .3 6. Maximum Permissible Gross Floor Area 52,000 square feet. 7. Lot Coverage 32.5% 8. Open Space Ratio 67.5% 7. 9. Required Parking Space Ratio: 1 space per 400 sq. ft. 10. Required Parking Sqace Ratio: 1 space per 4 seats. B. Commentary: 1. FAR of 1 .3 reflects .3 bonus for aggregation. 2. At 4 stories, lot coverage is well below maximum allowable and open space ratio is well above minimum requirement. A 3-story structure would still satisfy the requirements. 3. An 80,000 square foot parcel ( 1 square block) would yield a maximum permissible floor area of 120,000 square feet (at FAR of 1 .5) . 4. A 200,000 square foot parcel (e.g. , blocks bounded by First Street, Jefferson Avenue, Biscayne Street and Washington Avenue, with vacation of Commerce Street by the City) would yield a maximum permissible floor area of 400,000 square feet at an FAR of 2.0. ZONING PRO FORMA A. Data Sheet: 1 . Zoning District C-PS 1 2. Proposed Use Commercial 3. Parcel Size 10,000 square feet. 4. Height 2 stories over parking (00 of stories) . 5. Floor Area Ratio 1 .0 6. Maximum Permissible Gross Floor Area 10,000 square feet. 7. Lot Coverage 50% 8. Open Space Ratio 50% 7.. 9. Required Parking Space Ratio: 1 space per 400 sq. ft. 10. Required Parking Sqace Ratio: 1 space per 4 seats. I B. Commentary: 1. Base level FAR of 1 .0 is applicable for 10,000 square foot lot or smaller parcel. 2. Assumes two-story structure although height regulations would permit 4 stories. ZONING PRO FORMA A. Data Sheet: 1 . Zoning District C-PS 2 2. Proposed Use 1st floor commercial with office above • 3. Parcel Size 60,000 square feet. 4. Height 6 stories over parking 0 of stories) . 5. Floor Area Ratio 2.4 6. Maximum Permissible Gross Floor Area 144.000 square feet. 7. Lot Coverage 40% 8. Open Space Ratio 60% 7. 9. Required Parking Space Ratio: 1 space per 400 sq. ft. 10. Required Parking Sqace Ratio: 1 space per 4 seats. w B. Commentary: 1. Assumes aggregation of 1 block on south side of Fifth Street, e.g. , block bounded by Fifth Street, Michigan Avenue, Fourth Street and Jefferson Avenue. 2. Maximum permissible lot coverage with bonus would be 48%. 3. FAR of 2.4 results from aggregation of parcel. 4. If 30,000 square foot parcel ('I block) FAR of 2.2 would yield a maximum permissible gross floor area of 66,000 square feet. ZONING PRO FORMA A. Data Sheet: 1. Zoning District C-PS 2 • 2. Proposed Use 1st floor commercial with residential above • 3. Parcel Size 60,000 square feet. 4. Height 6 stories over parking (# of stories) . 5. Floor Area Ratio 2.4 for commercial; 1 .9 for residential. • 6. Maximum Permissible Gross Floor Area 24.000 square feet commercial; 95,000 square feet residential. 7. Lot Coverage 40% at ground level 8. Open Space Ratio 60% 7. 9. Required Parking Space Ratio: 60 spaces (commer'ial) . 10. Required Parking Sqace Ratio: 143 spaces (residential) . B. Commentary: 1 . At average dwelling unit size of 800 square feet and assuming that 20% of gross floor area is for common building space. 95 dwelling units are permissible in addition to the 24.000 square feet of commercial space. 2. FAR of 2.4 commercial and 1 .9 residential results from aggregation of parcel. 3. Residential is governed by R-PS 3 standards and criteria. ZONING PRO FORMA A. Data Sheet: 1. Zoning District C-PS 3 2. Proposed Use Mixed Use (hotel, residential, commercial) . 3. Parcel Size greater than 200,000 square feet. 4. Height No height limit (li of stories) . 5. Floor Area Ratio 3.0 for commercial & hotel; 2.0 for residential. 6. Maximum Permissible Gross Floor Area square feet. 7. Lot Coverage 307. (Maximum) 8. Open Space Ratio 607 minimum 7.. 9. Required Parking Space Ratio: 1 space per 400 sq. ft. 10. Required Parking Sqace Ratio: 1 space per 4 seats. B. Commentary: a 1. Assuming development of former Miami Beach Kennel Club property ( 18 acres) - 784,080 square feet, the following combination of uses would be possible: --approximately 1,000 dwelling units --a 750-room hotel with all accessory facilities and meeting rooms --100,000 square feet of commercial and/or office space. ZONING PRO FORMA Notes re Commercial-Performance Standards (C-PS) Zoning Districts 1. C-PS zoning districts result in intensity (floor area) ranges comparable with those permissible for commercial and mixed use districts in Miami Beach, generally; however, the maximum floor area ratios are possible only by aggregation of parcels. FAR range is from 1.0 through 3.0. 2. Greatest incentive for aggregation is in C-PS 1 district to overcome present property disaggregation; lesser incentives are provided in C-PS 2 (where it is unlikely that more than 1 block will be aggregated and, moreover, where redevelopment pursuant to the plan can realistically occur without greater aggregations) and C-PS 3 (where major property is already aggregated, i.e. , former Miami Beach Kennel Club site) . 3. Additional bonuses and incentives will be possible to reward consistency with plan objectives other than aggregation of parcels, for example, urban design, view presentation, pedestrian level activities, mix of uses, etc. 4. C-PS 2 and 3 districts allow residential use; however, if such use occurs, it is subject to appropriate R-PS performance standards. 5. C-PS 2 and 3 districts allow office and hotel uses, but with flexibility of first floor commercial usage. a 6. C-PS1 district generally has a lower FAR than C-PS 2 and 3 districts and does not permit mixed use (i.e. , residential, hotel) development. It is restricted to commercial/office usage. The rationale is to encourage intensive shopping center commercial use and not to compete with opportunities in the C-PS 2 and 3 districts. High rise and higher intensity uses in C-PS 1 would restrict views from the residential areas; would tend to block views and access to South Shore Park; would be out of proportion to adjacent uses and developments; and, due to their location, would burden the transportation system. 7: The C-PS 3 district permits high rise, high intensity and mixed use development, in part, because of the size of the parcel in question (18 acres) which allows for high rise development with preservation of views and substantial open space, but, also because of its relationship to South Shore Park and the transportation system. APPENDIX G CONFORMANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING ACT OF 1975 CONFORMANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT (FLA. STATS. 163.330) AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING ACT OF 1975 (FLA. STATS. 163.361) South Shore redevelopment area. The On July 21, 1982, the moratorium, RU district was an overlay zone which had remained in effect INTRODUCTION which did not immediately replace unabated since 1973, was again the existing underlying zoning, but extended by the City at the request In 1973, the City of Miami Beach which depended upon the property of the Agency. This final extension established the Miami Beach owner's and the Agency's negotiating was intended to provide additional Redevelopment Agency or "Agency," an "Owner's Participation Agreement" time for receipt by the Agency of pursuant to the Community whereby the owner would agree to bids in response to a Request for Redevelopment Act of 1969 as amended develop his property according to Bids for a new master project (Fla. Stats. 163.330 et. seq. ) . standards, controls, and limitations developer. No responsive bids were Thereafter, the Agency undertook the prescribed by the Agency. Upon received. preparation, development, and execution of the Agreement, the adoption of the redevelopment plan zoning would automatically convert On January 5, 1983, the City required by the statute as a from the underlying zoning to RU; Commission adopted Ordinance No. 82- condition precedent to any however, no development was 2355, an Interim Development redevelopment actions within the permissible without the RU zoning Ordinance, deleting in its entirety designated redevelopment area. Upon for a period of five years. Thus Section 22 - -the RU Redevelopment the initiation of redevelopment the moratorium was, in effect, Use District, and establishing in planning, however, the Agency extended until August 1982. its place an Interim Development requested that the City impose a ( ID) district as an overlay zone moratorium on development and Between 1977 and 1982, no Owner supplementing, but not replacing, property improvements in the area, Participation Agreements were the existing underlying zoning. The pending the outcome of the executed and the RU zoning did not ID Ordinance remains in effect only redevelopment planning effort. The attach to any property in the until a revised redevelopment plan moratorium was imposed by City redevelopment area. The underlying and new permanent zoning in Resolution 73-14107 on September 5, zoning had, therefore, remained furtherance of such a plan are 1973. operative. During this period, the implemented, but in no event longer Agency prepared and the City than one year. Resolution No. 82- Due to difficulties and delays in the Commission, on April 25, 1979, 17222, adopted in conjunction with planning process, the redevelopment adopted a Revised Redevelopment Plan the ID Ordinance, specifies the work plan was not completed until March for the South Beach Redevelopment program and schedule for preparation 1977. In August 1977, the moratorium Project, followed by the preparation and adoption of a revised was continued by virtue of its and adoption of an Amended and Redevelopment Plan for South Beach. inclusion in a new Section 22 of the Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Zoning Ordinance, RU Redevelopment South Beach Redevelopment Project on Use District, applicable only to the May 5, 1982. o-1 SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS The Community Redevelopment Act (Fla. o Contain a legal description of facilities and services, effect Stats. 163.330 et. seq. ) requires the boundaries of the community on school population, and other that a redevelopment plan be prepared redevelopment project area. matters affecting the physical and adopted as a condition precedent and social quality of the to undertaking any redevelopment o Show by diagram and in general neighborhood. project. The development plan shall terms: conform to the municipality's adopted o Describe generally the proposed comprehensive plan prepared pursuant - The approximate amount of method of financing the to the Local Government Comprehensive open space to be provided redevelopment of the project Planning Act of 1975 (Fla. Stats. and the street layout. area. 163.3161 et. seq. ) and shall indicate the following: - Limitations on the type, o Contain adequate safeguards that size, height, number, and the work of redevelopment will o Property designated for land proposed use of buildings. be carried out pursuant to the acquisition plan. o Buildings to be demolished or - The approximate number of removed dwelling units. o Provide for the retention of controls and the establishment o Property to be redeveloped - Such property as is intended of any restrictions or covenants o Public improvements to be made for use as public parks, running with land sold or leased recreation areas, streets, for private use for such periods o Properties to be rehabilitated public utilities, and public of time and under such o Zoning and proposed land use improvements of any nature. conditions as the governing body deems necessary to effectuate o Maximum densities of developmento If the project area contains low the purposes of this part. o Building requirements or moderate income housing, contain a neighborhood impact o Provide assurances that there o Park and recreational facilities element, which describes in will be replacement housing for to be provided detail the impact of the project the relocation of persons o A relocation plan, if necessary upon the residents of the temporarily or permanently (Fla. Stats. 163.360) . project area and the surrounding displaced from housing areas, in terms of relocation, facilities within the community The required contents of a community traffic circulation, redevelopment project area. redevelopment plan are set forth in environmental quality, Fla. Stats. 163.362, which specifies availability of community that the plan shall : Q-2 PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS o Provide an element of residential Modification of a community Commission shall hold a public use in the project area if such redevelopment plan requires a hearing after publication by notice use exists in the area prior to recommendation by the Agency to the in a newspaper of general the adoption of the plan. City (Fla. Stats. 163.361(1)) ; a circulation. The notice shall public hearing by the City describe the time, date, place, and The legal description of South Shore Commission after public notice by purpose of the hearing; identify the appears in Appendix E; all other publication in a newspaper of area covered by the plan; and required information appears in the general circulation (Fla. Stats. outline the general scope of the various sections of the 163.361(2) ; and adoption of the plan plan (Fla. Stats. 163.360(5) ) . Revitalization Strategy Plan (see the amendment, by ordinance or Following the hearing, the City attached table cross-referencing plan resolution, by the City Commission. Commission may approve the plan if requirements. ) The Community it finds that: Redevelopment Plan, in addition to Prior to the Agency's consideration being required by the Community of a community redevelopment plan, o A feasible method exists for the Redevelopment Act, is an optional the Agency shall submit the plan to location of families who will be element of the City's comprehensive the local planning agency ( i .e. , the displaced from the community plan pursuant to the Local Government Miami Beach Planning Board) for redevelopment area in decent, Comprehensive Planning Act, Fla. review and recommendation as to its safe, and sanitary dwelling Stats. 163.3177(7)(h) . The conformity with the City's accommodations within their comprehensive plan may include "a Comprehensive Plan. The Planning means and without undue hardship general area redevelopment element Board shall submit its written to such families. consisting of plans and programs for recommendations within sixty days the redevelopment of slums and after receipt of the plan for o The community redevelopment plan blighted locations in the area and review. Upon receipt of the conforms to the general plan of for community redevelopment, Planning Board report and the county or municipality as a including housing sites, business and recommendations or, if no whole. industrial sites, public building recommendations are received within sites, recreational facilities, and said sixty days, then without such o The community redevelopment plan other purposes authorized by law." recommendations, the community gives due consideration to the Redevelopment Agency may proceed provision of adequate park and The Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan with its consideration of the plan recreational areas and (adopted August 20, 1980) (Fla. Stats. 163.360(3) . Following facilities that may be desirable incorporates by reference (at p. 25) its consideration, the Agency shall for neighborhood improvement, the South Shore Redevelopment Plan as submit the plan it recommends for with special consideration for the basis for land use and density of approval to the City Commission the health, safety, and welfare development in the South Beach (Fla. Stats. 163.360(4) ) . The City redevelopment area. 0-3 of children residing in the regional planning agency review and agency and to other units of local general vicinity of the site comment in addition to Planning government who have requested copies covered by the plans. Board and City Commission hearings, of the plan. The City Commission but only requires notice by general shall also determine that the o The community redevelopment plan publication. The procedures set Planning Board has held a public will afford maximum opportunity, forth in 163.3184(7)(b) do not hearing on the plan (Fla. Stats. consistent with the sound needs trigger regional and State review, 163.3184(1)) . of the county or municipality as but require notice by mail to all a whole, for the rehabilitation affected property owners. Within sixty days after transmission or redevelopment of the community of the plan by the City to the redevelopment area by private Since the total land area of the State, the State land planning enterprise (Fla. Stats. City is approximately 4,604 acres agency must submit its written 163.360(6)). and the land contained withn the comments and must specify any Redevelopment Plan area is objections to the plan and make any If, as in this case, the approximately 246 acres, the proposed recommendations for redevelopment plan is also an element redevelopment area represents 5.3 modifications. (The State review of the Comprehensive Plan, the percent of the City. The shall be limited to matters that procedural requirements of the Local redevelopment plan would be an affect the lawful responsibilities Government Comprehensive Planning Act amendment of the Future Land Use of State agencies. ) If the State will also apply. The procedure for element of the City Comprehensive submits its objections, the City amendment of an adopted comprehensive Plan (see p. 25 of the Comprehensive must respond in writing within four plan differs depending upon whether Plan) . weeks. The City may take no action the amendment is of (1) the future to adopt the plan amendment until land use plan element or portion Thus, the more extensive procedure two weeks have elapsed following the thereof involving less than five of 163.3184 is operative. That transmittal of the City's reply to percent of the total land area of the procedure requires that, sixty days the State's objections (Fla. Stats. local government unit or (2) any before adoption of the plan by the 163.3184(3)) . other plan amendment. The latter City Commission, the plan must be will be governed by the same transmitted to the State land The City shall consider all comments procedure as for the original plan planning agency for review and received, but may adopt, or adopt adoption, as set forth in Fla. written comment. The State shall with changes, the proposed plan Stats. 163.3184. The former is set and publish the date for a amendment despite any adverse governed by the procedure set forth public hearing on the plan and shall comments received (Fla. Stats. in Fla. Stats. 163.3184(7)(b) . The circulate the plan to appropriate 163.3184(6)) . Adoption shall be by difference is that the procedure set State agencies for review and not less than a majority of the forth in 163.3184 requires State and comment. The plan then must be total membership of the City transmitted to the regional planning 0-4 Commission after two advertised After a comprehensive plan element government having the effect of public hearings, one of which may be or portion thereof has been adopted permitting the development of land by the Planning Board. The second in conformity with the Local (Fla. Stats. 163.3184(6)). hearing shall be held approximately Government Comprehensive Planning two weeks after the first hearing and Act, all development undertaken by, shall be advertised approximately and all actions taken in regard to STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR PLAN five days prior to the public hearing development orders by governmental IMPLEMENTATION (Fla. Stats. 163.3184(7)(c)). (If agencies in regard to land covered the plan amendment is deemed to be, by such plan element shall be or would beneficially be considered, consistent with the plan element as The Local Government Comprehensive a development of regional impact adopted. All land development Planning Act specifies that it is (DRI) pursuant to the Florida regulations enacted or amended shall the intent of the Act that adopted Environmental Land and Water be consistent with the plan element comprehensive plans or elements Management Act, Fla. Stats. 380.012 as adopted (Fla. Stats. thereof be implemented, in part, by et seq. , the City would be required 163.3184(1)). the adoption and enforcement of to comply with the procedure for approphiate local regulations on the regional planning agency review as "Land development regulations" development of lands and waters set forth in Fla. Stats. 380.06. ) A include any zoning, subdivison, within the affected area (Fla. complete schedule and timetable for building and construction, or other Stats. 163.3201), including, but not plan adoption is presented below. regulations controlling the limited to, zoning, subdivison, development of land (Fla. Stats. building, and construction 163.3194(2)(c)). "Development" has regulations. The Act also LEGAL STATUS AND EFFECT OF PLAN the meaning given it in 380.04 and specifically empowers municipalities ADOPTION includes building construction, "to implement adopted or amended subdivision, reconstruction, comprehensive plans by the adoption alteration, change in intensity of of appropriate land development Upon the approval by the City land use, clearing of land, etc. regulations or elements thereof" Commission of the community (Fla. Stats. 163.3164(4)). (Fla. Stats. 163.3167(1)(c)). The redevelopment plan, the plan shall be "Development order" means any order nature and content of required and - deemed to be in full force and effect granting, denying, or granting with optional elements of the for the redevelopment area and the conditions an application for a comprehensive plan (see Fla. Stats. City may then cause and direct the "development permit" (Fla. Stats. 163.3177) implicitly recognize the Agency to implement such plan in 163.3184(5)), including a building use of other implementation accordance with its terms (Fla. permit, zoning permit, subdivison mechanisms, including, but not Stats. 163.3184(8)). approval, rezoning, certification, necessarily limited to, capital special exception, variance, or any improvements programming and other official action of local 0-5 expenditure of public funds for o Dispose of property at its fair Act, the City of Miami Beach is a necessary public facilities and value. home rule charter city pursuant to services; adequate public facilities Article VIII, 1(f), 1(g) and 2(b) of regulations; land use controls; o Establish programs for voluntary the Florida Constitution, the density controls; planned development or compulsory repair and rehabilitation of buildings or Municipal Home Rule Powers Act (Fla. regulations; environmental and Stats. Ch. 166 (1973)) and the conservation regulations; building other improvement. Miami Beach City Charter, and has codes; housing codes; coastal zone o Acquire air rights and construct all "governmental, corporate, and management standards; community foundations for air right proprietary powers to enable it to (urban) design guidelines; safety development. conduct municipal government, regulations; historic and perform municipal functions, and architecturalreservation o Make inspections. p render municipal services, guidelines; and such other o Prepare acquired property for including the authority to adopt and implementation mechanisms as may be redevelopment. enforce comprehensive plans, zoning necessary. o Accept loans and grants. ordinances and other necessary land use control measures (see City of The Community Redevelopment Act o Borrow money. Miami Beach v. Forte Towers, Inc. , intends that slums and blighted areas 305 So.2d 764 (Fla. 1975) and be eliminated through clearance and o Conduct relocation activities. Hillsborough Ass'n for Retarded redevelopment, rehabilitation, o Make exceptions to building Citizens, Inc. v. City of Temple conservation, or a combination regulations. Terrace, 332 So.2d 610 (Fla. thereof (Fla. Stats. 163.335(2) and 1976)) . 163.340(9)) and that the Agency have o Exercise power of eminent certain powers to achieve such domain. objectives, including, but not o Issue revenue bonds and bond JUDICIAL AUTHORITY FOR PLAN limited to, the power to: anticipation notes. IMPLEMENTATION o Acquire property, including o Utilize tax increment financing. acquisition for resale. (Fla. Stats. 163.370 - 163.387) The Florida courts have given great o Demolish and remove buildings and In addition to the powers expressly deference to the legislative intent improvements. granted to the Agency pursuant to expressed in the Community o Construct public improvements, the Community Redevelopment Act and Redevelopment Act and the Local P Government Comprehensive Planning includingstreets, utilities, to the City pursuant to the Local Act and have, in general, broadly parks and playgrounds. Government Comprehensive Planning 0-d interpreted municipal exercises of fee for parks required pursuant both the police power and the eminent to the comprehensive plan. domain power of local governments in the achievement of legitimate o Home Builders and Contractors governmental objectives. This can be Association of Palm Beach County demonstrated by an analysis of recent v. Board of County Florida Supreme Court cases such as Commissioners of Palm Beach State v. Miami Beach Redevelopment County Case No. 79-3281- Agency, 392 So.2d 875 (Fla. 1980) CA(L)01A (Fifteenth Judicial and Graham v. Estuary Properties, Circuit 1983) upholding an Inc. , 399 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 1981) . impact fee for road improvements These cases have followed the pursuant to the capital reasoning of appellate court improvements program contained decisions such as Moviematic in the County comprehensive Industries, Corp. v. Board of County plan. Commissioners, 349 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977) upholding a five-acre The Florida courts are particularly minimum lot size requirement to receptive to regulations and protect a water resource. The broad ordinances that are based upon and view of local government exercise of supported by extensive and careful police power established in Graham v. planning studies and analyses which Estuary Properties (environmental both document the extent of the protection) has now been expanded by problem being addressed and suggest the following two very recent the appropriate solution. This is appellate court decisions and one all the more persuasive when the important trial court decision: planning studies and analyses take the form of an adopted plan that is o Hollywood, Inc. v. City of the result of professional planning Hollywood, Case No. 81-951 (Fla. involvement, citizen participation, 4th DCA April 27, 1983) upholding and ultimate legislative action. the City's transfer of development rights ordinance. o Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward County, Case No. 81-700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) upholding an impact 0-7 PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS, TIMETABLE AND SCHEDULE FOR PLAN ADOPTION 1, 2, 3 DATE ACTION STATUTORY REFERENCE July 18, 1983 Presentation of Plan to Agency and City Fla. Stat. 163.360(3) . Commission; Agency and Commission referral of Fla. Stat. 163.3184(1) plan to Planning Board. July 18, 1983 - Planning Board review of plan and issuance of Fla. Stat. 163.360(3) Sept. 16, 1983 written recommendation to Agency after Fla. Stat. 163.3184(1)(e) holding at least one public hearing. Sept. 17, 1983 Agency consideration of plan and Planning Fla. Stat. 163.360(4) Board recommendations; submission of plan to City Commission. Sept. 21, 1983 City Commission consideration of plan and Fla. Stat. 163.3184(1) referral to State land planning agency, regional planning agency and other units of local government. Sept. 21, 1983 - State and regional review of plan. Fla. Stat. 163.3184(2) and (3) Nov. 20, 1983 Nov. 21, 1983 Receipt by City of State objections, if any Fla. Stat. 163.3184(2) Nov. 24, 1983 City response to State objections, if any Fla. Stat. 163.3184(2) Nov. 29, 1983 City Commission first public hearing on plan, Fla. Stat. 163.3184(7)(c) with required notice. Dec. 21, 1983 City Commission second public hearing on plan Fla. Stat. 163.3184(7)(c) and plan adoption, with required notice. Fla. Stat. 163.3184(6) Fla. Stat. 163.3184(2) Jan. 15, 1984 Latest date for expiration of ID Ordinance See City Ordinance No. 83-2355 Notes appear on following page 0-8 NOTES: PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS, TIMETABLE AND SCHEDULE FOR PLAN ADOPTION 1. This schedule assumes conformity with the requirements of both the Community Redevelopment Act and the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act for a plan amendment involving greater than 5 percent of the total land area of the municipality. It does not assume the necessity for approval of the plan amendment as a Development of Regional Impact. 2. Whenever requirements are in conflict or variations exist, the more restrictive standard has been used to ensure full compliance with all applicable requirements. 3. This schedule assumes plan completion on or before June 20, 1983. G4 0-9 MN NM En NI ® = ® r", CITY OF MIAIMI BEACH r` ,. CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA,33139Lalzmwsia ".4"1. " DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING CITY HALL JUD KURLANCHEEK 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DR IV E DIRECTOR TELEPHONE: 673-7550 SUBJECT: SOUTH SHORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY • THE SOUTH SHORE REVITALIZATON STRATEGY WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED ON FEBRUARY 15, 1984. THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS AMENDMENTS, BACK—UP MATERIAL, AND CITY COMMISSION MINUTES WHICH HAVE BEEN APPENDED TO THIS REPORT. BSS 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§g 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. i f. c. MAYOR ATTEST: 27 r CITY CLERK FORM ApIRII`J 1st Reading - February 1, 1984 2nd Reading - February 15, 1984 RWP/SAY/rg LEGAL DEPARTMEr DATE 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 Cotrmission on 2/1/84) COMMISSION MEETN1 FEB Is ''- CITY OF MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FRIELICH AND LEITNER POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH AND JERNIGAN,INC. (as modified by Redevelopment Agency) I. 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-PS1 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-P52 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 cF8 1 5 1884 CITY OF ,A;.11 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. COMMISSION • MEETING 2 c113 ]5 1994 CITY OF EACH 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-PSI 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 COMMISSION (residential at R-PS 4 densities) FJ; ING rEg 15 1984 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 COMM!SSION MEET';';.i FEB 15 01 4 CITY OF h'I4: , i3El.CN .17 'Tr: yrr:eami i5ecieR Prl c, FLORIDA 3 3 1 3 9 r 1 1*(1"`0"°°'"°is "4'AC4T/O.NL.4NU U. S. A.- OFFICE ."OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL ROB W.PARKINS 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE CITY MANAGER TELEPHONE 6737010 COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. q DATE: FFB_ 15. 1984 TO: Mayor Malcolm H. Fr.••. • a . Members of the • Corn . ss..• FROM: Rob W. Parkins �� City Manager SUBJECT: PUBLIC HE• • I G 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. COVIVI'SSI0\ FEB 15 1964 AGENDA I TEM R- 3_ G CM OF MIAMl BEACH DATE 2- X5- 84 1111111 71M 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 CW..v1SS `N. • Clt'• C= r„lAMI BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL RELCCATICN 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. b. 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. COM ;SION Mc= ING -1- r 1984 1i CF = W 1 C. Relocation Leilaild/Resou'., r, ....,.A.1-1 Shure 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, becajse 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 addresses] immediately, but, rather, over a sub::tintiP1 period of time. Thic•i, in some cases, new or rehabilitated develop.. :u:. n the -edevelopment area ,nay acoammolate relocatees. Table No. 1 indicates that the total rela: itior, demand resulting from ultimate redevelopment of substandard units it 'he redevelopment project area is 507 dwelling units. TABLE NO. 1 SUBSTANDARD UNITS (By Census block) TU TAL meo, NO. ..7MBER OF NUMBER OF PERSONS IN CENSUS 'DOTAL '" 'LED P: cGCNS/ S119STANDARD SUBSTANDARD • 'LUCK 2UPUL\1 :N , i'S MCx,S• : U UN TTS HOUSING TRACI 107 '38 140 1. ] is 27.2 45 .`3 •:6 :24 ' 3 'b 59.8 :o9 182 97 1 .87 b1 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 t'RAL'r 308 230 161 1.42 96 137.14 44 408 75 49 1.53 24 36.72 411 352 176 2.0 3 6 .:2 132 65 2.03 12 '4. ;6 ,;'1 i .:'3 91 1•41 0 0 w2 41146 ',° 5U3 law 504 M% 4, - t- 8 11.24 506 •'moo . I 1.4.- 508 3.. 16 2.125 7 14.8/ 602 174 76 2.28 3 6.86 603 153 911.68 28 47.07 Totals: 3,416 1,857 1.80 ave. 507 917.05 n iv -2- 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, income, 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 DF7iOGRApHIC CHARACTERISTICS A. Household Size (By Census Block Group) Tract/ Size of Household Block Household One Two Three Four Group Nimiber Person Persons PersonsPersons Six Pe_sons Persons Persons 45/1 1325 753 374 98 63 45/2 692 421 20625 12 44/3 968 33 16 7 9 44/4 822 604 297 35 18 6 t) 44/5 551 478 237 52 21 17 17 295 142 64 32 14 4 44/6 1317 726 368 236 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 64 108 124 76 70 54 109 97 83 14 112 42 41 113 591 114 86 5584 4 2 115 47 45 206 662 207 61 5 54 52 2 Tract 44: 308 161 56 105 408 49 49 411 176 0 412 137 19 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 Totals 1757 1318 26 MEE i ! 439 _3_ FEB 1 I9::-: CITY OF Mi: „ 3.8';k C. Mean Contract Rent (By Census Block Group) Tract/ Occupied nter block Grou. Number p Contract Rent For Rent ��F--7ntract Fent 45/1 1014 45/2 640 $164 149 $167 $ 95 44/3 726 $169 43 $212 44/4 611 $162 63 $212 44/5 441 $148 7132 $116 $164 / 1073 $156 44 6 Total: 4� 48 $167 Trr D. Mean Value of Owner Occupied Units (By Census Block Group) Tract/ Occupied by Owner Block Grou. Number Mean ValueFor Sale Number Mean Value 45/1 274 $31,884 1 45/2 40 $36,594 1 $22,937 3 44/3 188 $27,041 3 $22,917 2 $ 44/4 181 $29,392 25,500 44/5 87 $31,063 1 $25,500 44/6 1921 $36,563 Total: 962 $31,419 4 $36,563 31 E. Estimated Household Income (By Census Block Group) Tract/ Household Block Group Number Incise Income Income Insane 45/1 1325 $9,694 9 45/2 692 $6,359 51 ,42 7 4 44/3 � $• 968 9$7,980 ,018 44/4 8229,018 44/5 2 $9,475 $11,271 44/6 5511317 $8,145 $ 9,045 $8,626 $10,000 FEB 1 __Y • an OF MIAMI BLACK F. Vacant Year-Round Housing Units (By Census Block Group) Tract/ 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 8348 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 1U-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: 1 TABLE NO. 3 HOUSING AFFORL1a,BILITY Tract/ Median Divided by 12 = X .25 = Monthly Block Group Annual Monthly Income Incare Available Household For Housing Incase 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. M , , . ,1 COM MEET' -5- RE8^ a CITY r" D. Additional Relocation Resources: City-wide There are approximately 2,503 vacant standard rental units city-wide with a mean contract rent of 5256/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- come for housing. The City's Housing Assistance Plan (1983 - 1985) indicates that more than 5,000 lower income 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 incase 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 Dimmer Develop- Authority 18 large family ment Corp. * Rebecca Towers (N) Section 8-HUD 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-HUD National Council 126 elderly (air rights) of Sr. Citizens Federation Section 8-BUD Greater Miami 114 eldere Towers Jewish Federation -6- EgEPy taro CITY C (Table 4, continued) Name of Type of Sponsor Number and Type Project Project Of Units Rehabilitation of Rental Units LLLav 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. Midtown 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 carrprehensive 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 MEET'.NG FEB 2 1984 -7- 1 V OF 3 Ar;k ITEM R-3G COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. 69-84 PUBLIC HEARING 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. ACTION: Hearing held and concluded. Ordinance 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, as amended to include, 1) Planning Board's recommended modifications B, C, and D; 2) Planning Department's 12 recommended modifications; and 3) Supplemental Relocation Statement, passed on first reading. Hearing and second reading scheduled for 2/15/84 at 5:00 p.m. During discussion, City's legal/planning consultant Robert H. Freilich appeared in support of amended ordinance adoption. MATTHEWS: This is a notice that was published to consider the amending of the City's Comprehensive Development Plan and modifications to the South Shore Redevelopment Plan called in accordance with State law. It was published in the Sun Reporter issue of January 22nd and also in the Miami Herald and sent to 27 civic organizations with no written response. PARKINS: Mr. Mayor ... FROMBERG: Mr. Parkins. PARKINS: ... and members of the City Commission, as a way of background and then Professor Freilich, I think you have a brief presentation -- South Shore Revitalization Strategy was prepared by Freilich and Leitner, P.C., Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., Halcyon Corporation, 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 Development for South Pointe and adopted by the City Commission. The Revitalization Strategy will replace the South Shore Redevelopment Plan that was adopted March 2,1977. The Revitalization Strategy will also be adopted as an amendment to the Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan. The Plan initiated in December 1982 was completed on schedule in mid-June 1983. During the period July to 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 apd 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 agencies to wit: Florida State Department of Community Affairs, dated December 5, 1983, indicate no objections to the proposed Plan amendment, Metro Dade County Department of Planning, dated December 20, 1983, indicates consistency of the Plan with the Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan, South Florida Regional Planning Council., dated January 11, 1984, indicates the Plan is consistent 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 or DRI document. The City and its consultants are currentlyrchallenging this determination in communications to the State Department of Community Affairs. The Redevelopment Agency at its last meeting on Janaury 18, 1984 officially adopted a re0olution recommending approval of the proposed plan and subsequent modifications that were 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 COMMISSION MINUTES, 2/1/84 Page PARKINS (cont'd.): development position on that structure. This change has been made in the material that's included within your agenda. Attached to the memo in your agenda 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 Commisison 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, which you have in your agenda, which amends the City's Comprehensive Plan and modifies the existing Redevelopment Plan. We are, therefore, recommending 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 Commmission would want to reconsider after adoption of the Plan. This apparently is what the Planning Board modification "A' is all about. It is recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached ordinance amending the City's comprehensive Plan and modifying the City's Redevelopment Plan. Professor Freilich. FREILICH: Gentlemen, I know you're under a time constraint and I know we have wonderful movies for you -- (laughter) to show you on the South Shore Redevelopment Plan. Let me suggest to you that this is a moment that you have truly relished for nine years and I don't want you to lose that excitement and anticipation because of the long agenda that you've had today and the wonderful different types of agenda items that you've had. I know you're all exhausted. Let me suggest to you this is the first public hearing. There will be a second public hearing on the 15th of the month. I just will not take as much time as I had anticipated because of the lateness of the hour and I do understand that reality. I would like, if you might, Mr. Parkins, if you would pass out ... there's a supplemental addition to the Plan which is the relocation statement portion. SINGER: Are you speaking first or are you going to do it afterwards? FREILICH: No, I'll first speak and then we'll show the slides. Excuse me. FROMBERG: I think maybe we'll get the public hearing out of the way, Professor, before you speak. Okay? FREILICH: Okay. FROMBERG: Can I have a motion to open the public hearing? Moved by Commissioner Eisenberg, seconded by Commissioner Weisburd. All in favor, signify by saying "aye". COMMISSIONERS: Aye. FROMBERG: Any opposed? (no response) (VOTE: 7-0) Okay. It passes unanimously. The public hearing is open. Does anybody wish to speak on this item? (no reponse) Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? RAY WAHL from the audience: ... say what it's about. FROMBERG: We've announced it, sir. If you weren't listening ... WAHL from audience: i just came in. FROMBERG: Well, sorry. We can't stop everytime somebody comes in. Moved to close by Commissioner Eisenberg, seconded by Commissioner Weisburd. All in favor, signify by saying "aye'. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. FROMBERG: Opposed. Passes unanimously. (VOTE: 7-0) The public hearing is closed. Okay, Professor Freilich, before you do, maybe I can just sneak in two things because I may not be able to stay around for the conclusion of your presentation, and they're very short items. Ccc1ISSION MINUTES, 2/1/84 Page (DISCUSSION RESUMED ON ITEM R-3G) FROMBERG: Okay, with regard to Professor Freilich's presentation. Let me make a suggestion to you gentlemen. This is a first reading of an ordinance. He has to be and will be here at the second reading. We will have a public hearing on the second reading. I would suggest to you that you may want to, this has been through the Planning Board. You may want to adopt the ordinance on first reading and let him make the presentation at the second reading and pass it now rather than have him go through the entire presentation and perhaps have to go through it again. FREILICH: Yes, Mr. Mayor, let me suggest that I'm looking at the Commissioners. I mean it's been an exhausting day. The presentation to be fair, because there's a year and three months of effort in here, it's about an hour or an hour and a quarter for you to really And Iu would antlmply aok fully uyluy grasp, you know, the depth of this thing. indulgence. Could we have a time certain on the public hearing on the 15th in the morning so that, in fact, everybody would be fresh and so forth because I will be very happy to come back. I mean, I think this is tremendously important. We're talking about millions of dollars of general obligation bonds. We're talking about plans, we're talking about the use of tax increment finance and so much, and I can see that it really would be wise that many members of the Commission are not here now. I would like it we could do it on the 15th if that would be -- DOUGHERTY: You'd have to do it after 5:00 o'clock. FROMBERG: You're talking about the second reading or the first? FREILICH: The second reading. FROMBERG: Second reading. FREILICH: Right. DOUGHERTY: It has to be done after 5:00 o'clock. FROMBERG: Okay. FREILICH: Well, can we do it at 5:00? This, you know, this was also scheduled for 5:00. FROMBERG: We can -- the second reading would be what? FREILICH: February 15th. FROMBERG: February 15th. Okay, can we make it at 5:00 o'clock? Okay, this is already set for 5:00 o'clock. It's already been set. FREILICH: Yes, but I mean, this one was set for today at 5:00, and it is now, you know, 8:30. So, what I'm saying is that -- FROMBERG: I'm saying to you that we will get to it at 5:00 if I have to -- FREILICH: Okay, I mean, I just, I mean I feel very, you know, both ed professionally and o you knowthat , fCity has ully presented Band greateffort (presented hto and I do want to havee itiL, you. SHOCKETT: Mayor Fromberg, I think this is probably one of the most important decision we'll make and I have to agree with Dr. Freilich. I would like to have it set at an earlier time. Perhaps we could take some issue that's -- FROMBERG: No, what she's saying is that because it involves zoning, by law, it can't be heard until after 5:00 o'clock. SHOCKETT: Cannot be heard until 5:00? Page COMMISSION MINUTES 2/1/84 FREILICH: Well, may my presentation -- FROMBERG: Is that correct? FREILICH: -- may I make a presentation to the -- SHOCKETT: Wait a second. Hold it. DOUGHERTY: The public hearing has to be held at 5:00 clock. FREILICH: Yes, I agree with that. FROMBERG: What he can do though, is he's suggesting that he can make a presentation to us -- SHOCKETT: Wait, wait, wait. Let him ask his question. SINGER: Open the public hearing and close it. FROMBERG: We did open it. SHOCKETT: Let's not fool around with something like this. FROMBERG: No, we -- SHOCKETT: Let's hear from the City -- you're no longer City Attorney. Let's hear from Lucia. (speaking to Commissioner Singer) (laughter) DOUGHERTY: The purpose of a public hearing is so that everybody at that time can hear the entire debate and the presentation. So everything has to happen then. FREILICH: Okay, all right, so we'll do it at 5:00 o'clock on February 15th. FROMBERG: Okay, let me -- GRENALD: I would like to hear it. It takes a hour, why not do it now? FROMBERG: Gentlemen, I'm at your pleasure. What I would say to you that this is only the first reading. It's been discussed. Everybody has an idea of what it's all about. It was presented before we started this whole process. I would like to hear the full presentation, but if it's your -- if the majority of you want to go forward in listening to it tonight, then that will be it. The other alternative is that we can pass it on first reading and have it heard on the full presentation at the second reading. Professor, somebody want to say something? DAOUD: I just have one question, Mr. Mayor, we have Keith Kovens here, and -- SINGER: I think we should hear a lot of the things that are on our agenda right now, and knock them off. FREILICH• Yes, that's why I'm suggesting that. If you could just do that, we'll step aside and then you can move on. But I mean, my point was that this is going to be, you know, a lengthy presentation and I didn't know if the Commission would like it; we're certainly here, you know. FROMBERG: Okay, how many, by a show of hands, would want to go forward and have Professor Freilich make his presentation now? I have one , two, three. (Commissioners Grenald, Shockett, Singer) Well, okay, e opposed to it. Okay, all opposed? SINGER: It wasn't a question of voting on it. I was saying I'd be more than happy to stay now and listen to his presentation. FROMBERG: Okay, I'm saying how many want to stay or would stay to hear the hour presentation by Professor Freilich tonight. Okay? COMMISSION MINUTES 2/1/84 Page PARKINS: As opposed to hearing it on February 15th. FREILICH: As opposed to the hearing on February 15th. FROMBERG: As opposed to passing on first reading tonight and hearing the presentation on second reading. DAOUD: Mr. Mayor, if I could just -- before go on to vote, because I might -- FROMBERG: Yes, Commissioner Daoud. DAOUD: I just think that I would like to see some more of the citizens get a chance to see your presentation. I think now it's going to be wasted, you know. I really do. SINGER: Not that it's wasted. DAOUD: Well, it's wasted on empty seats, Bruce. I mean the majority of the people have left. That's why I'm saying -- FROMBERG: Okay, so we'll have two votes. GRENALD: (unclear) -- 5:00 o'clock the next time, (unclear) -- DAOUD: No, we're going to have it at 10:00 o'clock in the morning -- (laughter) FROMBERG: Okay, gentlemen, please. Let's bring it to a head here. SINGER: The public hearing -- you opened it? FROMBERG: It was closed already. It was opened and closed. Okay, how many, by a show of hands, how many want to stay and hear the hour presentation tonight as distinguished from passing it on firsst reading tonight and having the presentation made at the second meeting. FREILICH: About 5:00 o'clock on February 15th. FROMBERG: Okay, at 5:00 o'clock on Februaryl5th. All in favor of hearing it tonight, raise your hand. One, two. Two. (Commissioners Grenald and Shockett) Okay. All opposed, raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five. Okay. SHOCKETT: I'd like a roll call vote. I want it reflected that Shockett and Grenald were willing to stay. (laughter) None of this 5-2. FROMBERG: Can I hear a motion on the -- GRENALD: That's because we're the young fellows. FROMBERG: Now, gentlemen, we do -- SHOCKETT: You do have the bump in your gums partner! FROMBERG: Excuse me, fellows. We, the one dispute that we have to iron out in the first reading is that, as I understand it, is that the Administration has adopted the recommendation of the Planning Board except for one particular item. Right? What is the one item that differs? FREILICH: To retain a separate independent Redevelopment Agency which was an issue that you resolved some 12 months ago. DAOUD: And independent professional staff, is that correct, Dr. Freilich? SINGER: Give up this lovely job? FROMBERG: Okay, which was the recommendation of the Planning Board? COMMISSION MINUTES 2/1/84 Page FREILICH: The recommendation of the Planning Board was, I'm quoting now, "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." FROMBERG: Okay, the recommendation of the City Administration is that that -- FREILICH: Not be adopted. FROMBERG: -- that that be deleted. FREILICH: Correct. FROMBERG: Okay. DAOUD: Mr. Mayor -- FROMBERG: What is your recommendation, Professor Frei.lich? FREILICH: I would recommend that you adopt the ordinance on first re ling with the Planning Board recommendations except for number A and the 12 department recommendations that are attached to the documents submitted by the Planning Staff and that in addition, that you incorporate the relocation statement has been passed out to you as an amended part of the plan. DAOUD: Mr. Mayor. FROMBERG: Okay, is this your recommendation also, Mr. Parkins? PARKINS: Yes. DAOUD: Mr. Mayor. You have Keith Kovens who is the chairman of the Planning Board here. This recommendation was passed unanimously, and I'd like to hear from him. FROMBERG: We're going to have to go through this whole thing. DAOUD: Okay, never mind. Go ahead. Call the vote. FROMBERG: Okay, do I hear a motion to adopt the ordinance in accordance with Professor Freilich's recommendation? GRENALD: I'll make the motion on first reading. FROMBERG: Okay, it's been moved by Commissioner Grenald, seconded by Commissioner Weisburd. KEITH KOVENS: That's deleting -- FROMBERG: Yes, deleting your recommendation -- KEITH KOVENS: One quick question, if I may. Is that a substantial change if you put it back in on second reading? FROMBERG: Is that a substantial change if you put it back in? That's the one with the having the Redevelopment Agency as a separate, a totally separate agency. That seems to be procedural rather than substantive. DOUGHERTY: Yes, it's realy not substantive whether or not they are independent or not or -- FROMBERG: Totally separate, you know -- DOUGHERTY: No, that's not a major modification of the plan. FROMBERG: Okay. Miss Matthews. MATTHEWS: This is 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 COMMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES 2/1/84 Page MATTHEWS: (Cont'd) ACT REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Shockett Yes Mr. Singer Yes Mr. Weisburd Yes Mr. Daoud No Mr. Eisenberg Yes Mr. Fromberg Yes Mr. Grenald Yes Six in favor, one opposed. Motion carries. FROMBERG: Okay. MATTHEWS: Second and final reading, 5:00 o'clock on February 15th. FREILICH: Thank you, gentlemen. FROMBERG: Okay, could you outline, Mr. City Manager, I'm going to turn the gavel over to Commissioner Daoud and if you can outline to him what matters you think should be pursued tonight. PARKINS: We have covered all of those that we have felt were absolutely essential. There may be some of special interest to individual Commissioners, Mayor. It would be helpful, I'm sorry, it would be helpful if you wanted to adopt the legislative priorities, but that could be carried over to the next meeting if need be. That's the only one that I have left. (R-8D) DAOUD: Motion to adjourn. FROMBERG: Okay, motion to adjourn has been made by Commissioner Daoud, seconded by Commissioner Eisenberg. All in favor signify by saying, "Aye". UNISON: Aye. (All Commissioners present) FROMBERG: We stand adjourned. The Commission meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. CLERK'S NOTE: Items PA-1D-E, R-3A-B, R-5A, R-8B-D,F-G, R-9A-C,E,G,J not reached - deferred to 2/15/84. s/Malcolm H. Frombe- Mayor Attest: s/Elaine Matthews City Clerk (Copies of all bid tabulations, memorandums, resolutions, ordinances, etc. on file with the records of this meeting.) COMMISSION MINUTES 2/1/84 Page nh ARGOS: (Cont'd) and an expeditor. What I wanted to know is where are the funds for all this going to come from, just as a curiosity. FROMBERG: What page are you on, I'm sorry. ARGOS: Page 31 of the agenda package for the item. FROMBERG: Mr. City Manager, did you hear, R-3G, page -- the question was where is the money going to come from? ARGOS: Yes, it says Planning Board modifications and there's an "A" with an asterisk and it says, "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." I said where is the money going to come from? PARKINS: Good question and that's why the Administration recommends that that particular modification is not appropriate and so we're not recommending that be included. ARGOS: Okay. FROMBERG: You're right on the ball, Benita. Okay, any other -- MATTHEWS: That was eliminated at the last meeting, Mr. Parkins. PARKINS: It was, as a matter of fact. MATTHEWS: Yes, it was eliminated at the last meeting. FROMBERG: Okay, anything else -- PARKINS: That's twice today, Mayor. FROMBERG: That's right. Okay, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Moved by Commissioner Weisburd, seconded by Commissioner Eisenberg. Any further discussion? (No response) All in favor signify by saying, "Aye". UNISON: Aye. (All Commissioners present) FROMBERG: Any opposed? (No response) The public meeting is closed. Professor Freilich. Ladies and gentlemen, let me say that you picked a very opportune moment to join us because you are going to hear an hour or so presentation with regard to the South Shore Redevelopment Plan that is reaching its final stage of implementation. So, I hope you will join with us and listen to this presentation. It's taken a year and a half to get to this point. PROFESSOR FREILICH: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. Let me just state before I begin with the plan, that I'd like to distribute to the Commissioners -- SINGER: Are we going to be talked to for a while or look at slides. FREILICH: Well, we're going to get to the slides very quickly. (handouts distributed) I'm very pleased to announce to you that we have been able through the American Bar Association, we have set up a National Institute on Redevelopment and Growth Management which will be held by the American Bar Association in Miami Beach on April 12th and 13th at the Doral Hotel which will deal with all of the aspects of financing infrastructure, packaging projects and legal implementation of redevelopment programs which will attract an audience of between 300 and 400 leading people, specialists and developers from around the country, and I'm particularly pleased that since I was asked to do this by the American Bar Association, I was particularly pleased that I was able to locate the Conference and the National Institute here in Miami Beach. And in addition, you will note that on Friday, April 13th, which is a very auspicious date, Friday the 13th, that the South Pointe Redevelopment Plan will be presented as a, particularly, as a case COMMISSION MINUTES 2/15/84 Page FREILICH: (Cont'd) study for the national audience and I thought that you would be pleased to see that this is going to get nationwide attention at that point. FROMBERG: First of all, let me -- if I can just interrupt you to express our appreciation for the fact that you were able to get this most significant meeting to be held in Miami Beach. We're very grateful to you. I'd like to see if you can get invitations to the Commission to attend without registration, okay? (laughter) FREILICH: Now you see what you're really asking for is a miracle man instead of an expeditor. (laughter) But we definitely will -- FROMBERG: Just get us waiter's uniforms -- FREILICH: Very good. FROMBERG: -- and we'll walk around with trays. FREILICH: Now, I think that what we're going to do today, and I think the audience will be very pleased about this, we're going to divide the presentation into three parts and try not to make it too extended because we have had a number of opportunities to address the Commission. I want to -- I will preliminarily introduce the concept of the plan and where we're going with the plan and the accomplishments to date, and you have in your packet an executive summary of the plan which we will review with you briefly, and I think that the -- we will also have slides showing you the plan and the problems in the area and the design features of the plan that you can see, and you'll also get the opportunity to hear my partner Martin Leitner who will present the details of the technical aspects of the plan along with Christopher Macey from Post Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, who did the land-use planning element of the plan. Let me indicate again breifly to the Commission that as of December, 1982, the South Shore Redevelopment Project was a dead duck in the water. It had been in existence for approximately 9 years. Prior plans which were attempted to develop this area from 6th Street dowr to the tip of the City were essentially called for a master developer to come in and develop the entire area. Tax increment financing had been suspended. The prior plans had proved to be unrealistic and attempts to get a developer through four years of effort proved to be unfulfilled. A moratorium on all development of property in excess of 50% in the area was in effect. There was substantial physical deterioration in the area, litigation claims of inverse condemnation against the City based upon the existing MU-22 moratorium ordinance, conflicts between a city and an independent redevelopment agency. Permits had lapsed. There was no progress being made on the development of the marina or capital facilities and no city dollars were being expended in the area as distinguished from other areas in the city. When our firm was hired in November of 1982, we were successful in achieving a number of progress points with regard to moving forward an entire new process in the South Pointe area. First of all, we transferred control of the agency to the City Commission which has resulted in savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The prior agency had committed funds in excess of $4,000,000 to administration and overhead on the particular project, and we've been able to cut that down in the 15 months of operation under this plan to something less than 1/10th of that sum. We have removed the moratorium on the property and replaced it with an Interim Development Ordinance which you extended again in January which is in place, which allows for development of particular tracts now to go forward, more than 50% of development as long as they comply with the plan standards. We have a decision now to develop a new plan based on more realistic objectives and your Resolution No. 82-17222 summarizes those plan objectives and is part of the resolution expressing the Commission's intent and policies as to the South Beach Redevelopment area and that particular resolution which was adopted in December of 1982, which we presented to you, indicated that the agency, that the project was initiated in 1973; the agency had engaged in planning and other activities of the area since that time, including an initial plan in '77 and an amended plan in '82; that the City had attempted to exercise its, and has exercised its powers in furtherance of such plans by COMMISSION MINUTES 2/15/8 4 Page FREILICH: (Cont'd) adopting zoning regulations and trying to get tax increment but despite all of those efforts, over 9 years, the project has not advanced even to beyond the planning stage. But the City recognizes that the entire orientation of the project and its planning should be shifted from a concept emphasizing predominant clearance to one recognizing the importance of retaining and rehabilitating structures and to advocate and promote clearance and new development on primarily the perimeter areas and the corridors that you're going to see that are laid out; that the revised plan should be guided by selective clearance of deteriorated structures, new construction on cleared parcels, in fill development of vacant parcels, repair and rehabilitation of existing structures and preservation of structures of historic and architectural significance. The City also sought to minimize the need for relocation and to maximize the production of senior citizen and low and moderate income housing in the area. But the City wanted to develop its own properties in the area, that the City had resources that it wanted to utilize for development and redevelopment. And therefore, the City adopted the goals to specifically call for the development of the property and set forth a timetable which we've prepared for the City. From January, 1983, through to December 31, 1983, was to collect the data, prepare maps for this entire process, to assemble a project team, to develop detailed work programs, to review with the Mayor's Planning Advisory Committee, to conduct all the necessary economic, market, urban design, fiscal, zoning, and land-use and other analyses, to then prepare a revised plan, Redevelopment Plan and implementation strategy and to submit it to the Planning Board and to the City Commission, which has been done. Now all of these efforts have been achieved within the timetables expressed by the City when we began this particular project, that in addition to which, with regard to the -- we have worked with the Mayor's PAD Committee, the Planning Board, the Agency, which is now the City Commission presides over, the City Commission, consultants, we've had State review and County review and they have both approved the plan without reservation and we have the application pending before the STate to exempt it from DRI process review. The accomplishments to date are therefore, we have a new plan now for the South Shore. The moratorium has been lifted. We have a $10,000,000 marina under construction, a $3.4 million South Shore Park which is now committed by the Federal Government for the 17 acre park on the South Shore; a $9.8 million General Obligation Bond Issue is to be placed on the ballot for the Phase I improvements that were indicated in the plan, and you're going to see the slide showing you the details; the County tax increment finance is going to be on the County Finance Committee's agenda together with approval of the plan by the County, the final approval required under State law. We have the availability now of surplus federal property, the Coast Guard property. We now have interest in development of the dog track property by the Cheezem Development Corporation. We have interest in the development and are close to a settlement of litigation that had tied up the agency with regard to the marina uplands property, which will be shown, and we're close to a development proposal and competitive negotiations on that. The Lara project, apartment building has been approved. Joe's Stone Crab expansion has been put into place, and we will have, following the adoption of the plan, new permanent zoning which we're going -- Mr. Leitner's going to explain to you, utilizing major bonuses ant incentives and mandatory' requirements of open space, parking and design review, similar to what you were talking about prior, and transfers of development rights to maximize the opportunity to achieve the plan objectives. In addition, we've also looked at the utilization of a cultural center on the site with regard, adjacent to the marina properties. I pointed out to the Commission earlier today that instantaneous results are not possible but the accomplishments to date have been substantial and I'm asking the City to lay the proper foundation by the adoption of this plan and then our foundation will be in the plan in the permanent zoning which will be adopted protecting the plan and its areas, and the capital improvement program which has now been set in motion by the bond issue and the tax increment finance, which we have pledged to the County, all of the money from the County's share of the tax increment finance would be used for site acquisition and capital improvements in the area; to develop, continue to develop the marina, marina uplands and the dog track site and to be realistic enough to recognize that we're going to build upon this incrementally and achieve these goals. COMMISSION MINUTES 2/15/8 4 Page _/ FREILICH: (Cont'd) This 255 acre area will not be developed overnight. The City's going to have to have the staying power. But as you can see, I think this is a test of the City's ability, and I think it's been met to direct and to maintain a long range project and to move it through to success. Now, I'm suggesting to you that the continuation of the process now will be the City Commission's adoption of the plan, the County's approval of the plan and formal reinstatement of the tax increment finance; the permanent hearings on permanent zoning, including City Commission Planning Board approval; the general obligation bonds on the ballot; the resolution of the development of regional impact issue; the -- we've gotten initial go-ahead now from HUD in Washington to proceed to look at the demolition of the Goodman Terrace's public housing site. We're dealing and negotiating with the School Board on the South Shore Elementary School. Construction of the South Shore Park, as you know, is going to be underway now. The completion of the marina, we're talking about contemplated construction possibly beginning within a year on both the dog track and marina uplands properties, and we're talking about aggregating other sites for development, including the office corridor that you're going to see. I think that if you looked at the executive summary that is attached to your packet, which includes also some of the maps that will be shown on the slides, I think you'll see that all of what we're talking about, Mr. Leitner will go into to detail, the exact actual land use, the traffic circulation, the amenity plan, the zoning and land use controls, the utilization of eminent domain, property disposition, the utilization of development agreements and transfers of development rights which we're initiating here in the community for the first time, the zoning, including the provision of incentives, amenities, overlay zones for height limitations, required parking facilities, the use of floor area ratios, and so forth, that he will go into; the implementation program based on financing, which includes a complete package of tax increment financing, marina lease payments, marina upland development of the City parcels, special assessment districts, Community Development Block Grants, Urban Development Action Grants and sewer and water grants that we have been tying together. There is a five year capital improvement program required to implement Phase I of this plan, totalling -- and the bonds have been put up totalling $9.8 million to achieve those particular goals. So, I think that you can see that the concepts have been delineated at the beginning of the process. The chronology has been followed. We have been able to achieve the basic goals of both the plan and getting the process underway, and I'd like now at this particular point to be able to show you the particular slides on the project and to show you what the -- as well, not just what the existing problems were, but what the proposed plan recommends and the design features of the plan and I'll turn it over to Chris Macey of Post Buckley, Jernigan and Schuh. CHRISTOPHER MACEY: (Giving slide presentation) We started out looking at the existing conditions. This is a slide of existing land use. The existing land use, a very significant first step is to look at what's there, find out what the existing problems are. The existing land use bears little or no resemblance to the underlying zoning which preceded the MU-22 which was the status during the moratorium. Most of the land use came into place before this zoning was implemented, the existing infrastruture, the water lines, many of them in deteriorated condition. The water mains have some problems and, most significantly, the distribution from the mains have some problems. The existing sanitary sewer is very interesting, it has some problems, some old wooden pipes still in existence. Most significantly, the sewage goes by gravity north towards City Hall, a point just south of City Hall, and there it's pumped south down through the site again on the way to Virgina Rey; a very inefficient system. There is some problem with capacity for any future development as far as sanitary sewage is concerned. On-street parking, right now, very little use is made of the on-street parking but for the future development of South Pointe or South Shore --South Pointe as it's now being called, is very important. Adequate parking must be maintained for the revitalization of the area. We looked into the existing situation, we looked at the existing road situation. There is ample capacity on the internal streets to handle future development. In fact, the number of conflict points occur on 5th Street. The number of intersections is unnecessary and reduction, one-way systems and so forth were investigated and we will go into them later, but there is ample capcaity internally. COMMISSION MINUTES 2/15/8 4 Page MACEY: (Cant'd) Externally is another situation. The causeway connection, in the past there have been plans by the Florida Department of Transportation for a nominal 2' widening of the pavement which would increase the safety and capacity of the causeway and that is somewhat of a limiting factor but it won't be realized for some time. The age of structures, again, a lot of the structures were in place before the current zoning which is the basis of the Interim Development Ordinance. Some of them are quite old. We have age of each structure but for mapping it for this particular picture, we've clumped them into three age groups. As you can see, there's very little since 1960 and if we had shown since 1970, of course, because of the moratorium is practically nonexistent (unclear) it is nonexistent. The City-owned land, this is of particular significance for the revitilizaLion of South Pointe. It's a -- this City-owned land presents a great opportunity to immediately without condemnation, without relocation, without any of the legal problems of moving ahead and doing something to get the revitalization of South Pointe underway. They own the land and have title to it and can begin the revitalization process with the City-owned land immediately and that is, as Dr. Freilich has mentioned, is underway. You have the marina area under development. You have the upland marina area. This is to the bottom of the picture, the hatched area, that's under development; South Shore Park and the Government Cut by the north arrow on the picture, that the funding is in place and the schematic plan, the master plan has been prepared and should go out for construction documents preparation very, very quickly; the old police--legal facility, justice facilities, in the center of the site, the interior of South Pointe, they're going to be made available shortly with the construction of the new facilities. The aggregation of land, which is another word for the pulling together of individual lots. Here we have mapped everything -- there's three lots or larger in single ownership. This was prepared in mid--83. We feel it's something that should be continually updated. It's of great significance to prospective developers of South Pointe and it shows there has been considerable change since this was done and there was considerable change when this was prepared from the previous six months. People are interested in South Pointe. Since the moratorium has been lifted, people have been aggregating parcels with a view to renovate, restore, revitalize the area. We recommend very highly that that be updated continually. By the way, I'd like to mention that, as an aside, some people have a concept of a plan as something cast in concrete. I feel that this is really a detriment to the whole concept of planning. Planning is dynamic. Nothing is really permanent. The plan needs constant refinement and update. It should be dynamic. If you're not growing, you're dying. Growing doesn't necessarily mean big. In my particular personal case, it means big around the waistline, but it can mean growth in quality. But we think for South Shore there is an opportunity for growth in its significance and its quality and its size and complexity. Existing historic structures. This is a rather optimistic map. This was prepared by the Dade County historic experts. They will admit freely that there really is only several structures of really serious historic significance, but it is important, it has some continuity to our past, our heritage could be maintained but perhaps more importantly to a lot of people, there's a significant tax advantage to the restoration of historic buildings. The environmental consideration. Some think you only ignore at your own peril, and besides that, a lot of it is mandated by legislation and you would ignore the penalty of legal action if you do ignore them. The new flight elevation is shown here, hurricane considerations were looked into, wind direction, high water line, and there's about 27 lines which relate to the coastal setback, erosion control line, dune line and so forth, and all these have been taken into account. Density. Again, the density shows the -- really, the inappropriateness of the current zoning because the existing density is, in a lot of cases, beyond the current zoning and in a few cases, way below it. This is important. We looked at this. We located all the condominiums, the number of condominium units in any given building, and these were all taken into account and pulled together. We attempted, this is one example of integrating, pulling together, all the different facets of the siting of the existing conditions. They were so numerous but they were all interrelated. In order to simplify this very complex set of data, we developed matrixes COMMISSION MINUTES 2/15/84 Page MACEY: (Cont'd) such as this one. This one looks at policy, social values, costs, relocations, conditions and maps, and this matrix then was used to map what we call susceptibility to change and what you're really looking at is, that the City-owned land is available immediately. So that is susceptible to change and that is shown in this negative as being the black areas. The white areas are those areas where there is outstanding commitments, significant commitments for the -- for example, on the upland marina area, that's on the bottom of the picture, there we have the housing project and the central marina facility with our legal commitments, contracts in effect and any changes would not be very easy. South Shore Park, that again, there has been a grant application made, the money has been approved and moving ahead for a park in that area. Any change in that area will be very difficult. And again, there are restrictions on the existing parks on the oceanfront. The black areas in the other extreme are City-owned land or land that old buildings are on, buildings in deteriorated conditions where they would, we felt it was susceptible to change. We looked at all these factors and came up with a strategy, a plan, a concept, one that has to be continually refined, more detail added and has to be kept up to date. But basically what we wanted to do was to pull the amenity value, the tremendous amenity value of the bay, Government Cut, the Ocean, and pull it in to create value in the interior of the site. We propose to do this by creating greenways, high quality pedestrian/vehicular connections from the Bay to the Ocean, there shown by those sweeping arrows from the Bay to the Ocean. This is to pull value in. If somebody was to develop on the interior of this site, they would be accessible, a very short distance to the greenway connection to either the Bay or the ocean, therefore, increasing the value and potential revitalization of the area would be increased. We looked at the existing land uses. We looked at the goals of a quality environment and we looked at the infrastructure dictates, the susceptibility to change and coming up with this plan. Alton Road in this concept, we see that as a potential for retail office use. The Causeway, as the Causeway hits Miami Beach, we feel that there should be improvement to the sense of arrival, the immediate effect. First impressions are important. The amenity of the Bay which has already been mandated in the RFP and the, excuse me, Request for Proposal, which has been put out for the marina development and contractual agreements have been made that allow public access, high-quality public access along the bayfront, along South Shore Park, along Government Cut and of course along the Atlantic Ocean, connecting the parks. So the -- this amenity is available to all. It won't be walled off by a wall of condominiums of high development and made a, you know, private playground. It will be available to everybody in South Pointe. The central urban neighborhood core Ocean is shown with the rectangular grid on it. To the right of that is the old warehouse district which has potential for a retail commercial center, with offices above. Resort development immediately adjacent to the bayfront and South Shore Park on the Ocean is shown with a single line hatching and the connections from the Causeway and northerly portion of Miami Beach north of 5th Street has shown a loop road, a loop road which allows then, if the development occurs as we think it might, some potential elimination of right-of-ways and streets and the interior could be -- could occur, but maintain this loop road, provide good, safe, high quality, visual quality access through to the interior site to stimulate the revitalization of the interior of South Pointe. This has been refined into a land use map which shows pretty much the same things as in the three dimensional sketch. The office core along Alton, the marina upland development, South Shore Park, the resort development in "F"; the urban commercial retail core in "D"; the urban neighborhood in "B", and the amenity parks along the oceanfront. This shows in more detail, the proposed greenways, the loop road. These are working slides. Nothing is really permanent. As we went through the process, we updated the slides. Since these slides were taken, there have been modifications which you all have in your packets and are in the final report. There is an additional loop road proposed as a minor modification, the loop road. A lot of the existing intersections on that loop road are quite dangerous and unnecessary. You've got some places, we've got five or six intersections come together at one point. They can be eliminated, made safer and give a potential spot for amenity development whether it's a small park-like development or some informational device. COMMISSION MINUTES 2/15/84 Page MACEY: (Cont'd) The infrastructure needs improvement. We've come up with a water main improvement system which allows for greater capacity and allows for the redevelopment, revitalization, of South Pointe. We propose that a central pump station be located already on City-owned land in the center of the development to allow a gravity system to feed it and allow pumping then from South Pointe immediately to the treatment facility on Virginia Key. Road improvements, this shows the major loop, the secondary loop, the potential elimination ity development, the reduction a in rtraffic eand c providingtions,conflictpoints space n5tfor Streetnand the provision for more potential off-street parking. And here just to show -- I think most people are familiar with this, but to just to get back to reality, to the -- to what exists there right now, you've got the first impressions which we think should be improved. A right turn lane, three flow lane at this point would allow more access to stop any backup of traffic from the light on Alton and 5th Street. The development potential of some of the historic buildings, some work underway on that particular one; the elimination of dangerous intersections, the provision of amenity space in their place; the improvements that are available, and this is the secondary loop along the oceanfront if possible, and all these things have been addressed in the bond issue which has gone on the ballot; the elimination of the old pier which has really deteriorated to a point beyond salvage, as you can see. Everything done to see the full potential of this very unique, very unique and exciting spot, South Pointe, which is not realizing its full potential, surrounded on three sides by water with the cruise ships passing by. The interior loop has got plenty of room for streetscape improvements which provide shade, visual amenity improvements. Help revitalize a lot of existing City right-of-ways, small pieces which have not realized their full potential, the interior loop again. This is a slide on Alton Road and some empty lots showing the wide, unncessarily wide intersections which can be made narrow, can eade eossafer, made a shorter distance for people to travel whether they elderly h children or with packages. This is a quick sketch on how that can be accomplished. The road is made narrow, made a one-way situation which can provide parking immediately next to the retail area. The provisions and guidelines for provisions for shade by trees, awnings, a clear identification n itis tion of crosswalks, provision of sitting for the elderly, for people wr the bus. This is an intersection of the main loop with 5th Street. And again, crosswalks can be put in to delineate them, make them safer, encourage crossing the street which is currently six lanes. But there are mechanisms to make the comparison, shopping crossing the street, everything that makes it a more successful shopping street, you know, can occur. South Shore Park used to be the home of district office of the Corps of Army Engineers with several dilapidated structures. They have since left. They left behind some what is known as undesirable exotic invaders, the casuarinas, which can take over a site. These can be eliminated. Native plantings put in. The jetty, the walkway, the promenade putting --connecting the Bay through to the Ocean. This is some of the potential that exist and is being realized at this moment. FREILICH: Thank you very much, Chris. I think we can get the lights on now, and I think that Marty Leitner, I'd just like him to present some of the aspects of strategies with regard to the amenity plans and some of the incentives in terms of zoning and other strategies and then we're certainly open to questions. MARTIN LEITNER: I just have a few additional comments and ask for your indulgence for about three or four minutes to make a couple of points. OOne ne is that as you're probably aware, the ordinance that's up for tonight is both as an amendment to this City's Comprehensive Plan, and as a modification to the Redevelopment Plan. We were guided throughout this process by all of the State statutory requirements that deal both with the Community Redevelopment Act and withthe Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act and those are very substantial and they required us to take considerable amount of time in going through those processes. One of the important players in that process was the Planning Board. We went through a series of four public hearings where the COMMISSION MINUTES 2/15/84 Page LEITNER: (Cont'd) plan was presented before the Planning Board and some of the zoning concepts were presented before the Planning Board, and these were discussed and analyzed in great detail,and the result of those four workshops is that there were a number of modifications that were suggested to the plan and those are incorporated in your packet. There's a set of ten or eleven modifications that are essentially staff recommended in which we and the other consultants and the planning staff proposed a series of modifications. And then the Planning Board recommended four additional modifications, three of which are part of the Administration's recommendation. I'd also like to add that the process required us to submit the plan both to Dade County and to the State Department of Community Affairs, as well as to adjacent units of local government. The adjacent units of local government did not respond, but the State and the County both responded favorably and stated that the plan was consistent with all State and County plans for the area and that they had no objection whatsoever to anything in the plan and that we met all of the statutory requirements that need to be incorporated in a Redevelopment Plan and a Comprehensive Plan. One of the key strategies that we had, I think that was pointed out is that we have tried to take a -- more of an incremental approach to planning in this area than had been done previously. We tried -- we needed, we felt that we needed to accept some of the constraints that were given in the area, but also to build on the strengths that are in the area and we tried to do that and part of the maps that Chris was showing that demonstrate susceptibility to change, you know, indicate that approach, that there are some options that we can take fairly early on in the process and get things moving. The plan is a guide and it's really only a guide at this point. It really is not, I don't think, confining in any way or limiting in very many ways, and it provides opportunities to do a lot of other things and there are some additional things that still need to be done. There are two very important things that we still need to work on in the next several months. One of them is to complete the zoning by which the plan will be implemented. The second one is to deal with some of the financing aspects, and obviously, the bond issue, the $9.8 million bond issue is part of that. We have been working very hard on the zoning part of it. We've had three or four workshops, both with the Planning Boari and with a subcommittee that has now been formed which includes a number of members of the Planning Board, as well as a representative from the Board of Zoning Appeals and some staff people from Code Enforcement and Planning Departments and we're working towards producing a draft of zoning that would be appropriate for this area, which, by the way, will undoubtedly include design review consistent with the ordinance that you passed on first reading tonight, and we will have that design review feature incorporated in the zoning for South Shore so that that will be a requirement in that area. We also have incorporated two other, I think very innovative concepts that we're working on. One of them is a transfer of development rights system for the area to promote some development opportunities there and the other is the utilization of bonuses and incentives to encourage both better quality urban design, as well as parcel aggregation, which we think is very critical to encouraging some larger scale development in the area. The one other thing that I think we need to pursue in the next several months is to do some more detail planning as we've talked about before for some of the interior portions of South Shore and to do it at a much finer level of detail than has been proposed in the plan thus far. But we think that the plan is a very, very sound first step and will provide a good guide for the continuation of this process. GRENALD: A question was brought to me was, you have your high density buildings planned on the perimeter and your low density on the inside. Has there ever been a consideration given to low density, low to medium density around the perimeter and high density on the inside so that you don't recreate another, you know what we have along Collins Avenue now? FREILICH: Yes, let me just suggest to you, if you remember that concept sketch that was up, the key thing is that working from the Bay towards the oceanside, we propose that the development along the marina upland site not be extremely tall condominiums and that they provide for the view level flue and that there moving up, you get three areas of residential, a lower COMMISSION MINUTES 2/15/84 Page I intensity residential, keeping in mind the existing densities of that area; then a medium and then a higher at the Ocean. So that, in fact, what you're going to get is the fact that you will be having the view lines right across all of the property and the access lines, across the beautiful views of the Bay and then Miami skyline. So we definitely built in that concept of gradation of height to match the amenities of the area. GRENALD: (comment inaudible - not using microphone) FREILICH: Marina uplands? Oh, no, along the oceanside. That's correct. Yes. It's already there. There's very little prospect along the oceanside other than from the dog track properties. There is little opportunity for you know, major projects along the ocean. That is the newest development in the area and that was built, if there is any new development there, it is along the ocean, the condominiums. SHOCKETT: I have a question. FROMBERG: Yes, Commissioner Shockett. SHOCKETT: Included in our package is the letter from the South Florida Regional Planning Council which you take exception to their requirement that you would have to go through the whole filing procedure again, but what is the status of your objection to their findings. Are we in jeopardy at this time? Is it resolved? Can we disregard it or is it something that we still have to face? FREILICH: Well, let me just point out that the only thing that the South Florida Regional Agency has jurisdiction over is when the prior agency did its Comprehensive Plan in 1977 and again amended in 1982, they were talking about a single developer building the entire 284 acre tract. Therefore, they submitted the development proposal in 1977 to the South Florida Regional Planning Agency as a development of regional impact and had it approved as such. That was the whole canal model and so forth. Now the, what we are saying is that the development that is now proceeding is not a single development package; It is divided into unique packages, marina uplands, the dog track, the 5th Street office corridor, the retail center and the residential properties, but they are not tied together as single individual development proposals and that therefore these are reductions from the DPI. They do not increase the DPI and they do not need any change. They're exempt from any further DPI application. In fact, the prior DRI is really suspended, and that we have made the application to the State. The State has that. The State has the power to exempt the project from that provision and that is what is pending now with the State. SHOCKETT: So that it still is not determined with finality that we are exempt from it? FREILICH: Yes, and even if the thing were mandated as a DRI, the net result of that would be that it would -- that development would have to be cleared through one extra layer of development review, which is the regional review, but -- and some cost and maybe some time, but it's our belief that that will not happen. SHOCKETT: I have a question regarding some of their comments. Irrespective of whether or not they have jurisdiction, I still think that some of their comments are valid and I would like an explanation. In particular, they say the plan does not contain a neighborhood impact element which describes in detail, the impact of the project upon the residents of the project area and surrounding areas in terms of relocation, traffic circulation, environmental quality, availability of community services, et cetera. What if anything, does the plan provide for relocating residents in the area? LEITNER: One of the modifications that was -- one of the eleven modifications that was proposed by us along with the Planning staff was to amend and supplement the relocation portion of the plan as it appeared in the bound version and we have gone ahead and done that and we have an amended relocation statement that will be incorporated in the plan. COMMISSION MINUTES 2/15/8 4 Page SHOCKETT: Do we have a copy of that? LEITNER: I believe it was -- FREILICH: It was attached. Yes, it was. It was given to you at the first hearing, Commissioners. LEITNER: -- attached and submitted. SHOCKETT: When was it given? FREILICH: It was, you had it at the first hearing on February 1. SHOCKETT: Well. FREILICH: It's in your packet of material. LEITNER: But I might mention, by the way, the County and the State who are actually charged with the responsibility for reviewing the plan in terms of consistency with those requirements, didn't have any comment about that. SHOCKETT: I know that, but apparently they did, and I would like to be satisfied that there is -- the plan does properly provide for relocation of the people that are going to be displaced. LEITNER: Yes, we did a whole additional analysis of relocation. FREILICH: The analysis that we gave you shows that there is in the, both in the existing vacancy ratios of substantial standard buildings, there is more than enough relocation facility. We also have provided for the fact that we are discussing now with HUD, and the County is very approving of this that there would, in fact, be provision made for either acquisition and substantial rehabilitation for the units displaced by the Goodman Terraces and for, you know, on the particular project. But the Relocation Statement, the amended statement that you have provides for all of that and provides for an adequate resource for all relocation. Remember that there is no contemplation here of major condmenation of existing buildings and therefore, that whole change from the existing plan means that there will be no extensive condemnation. If there were to be in the future, then additional, you know, if the units were not available, the additional provision would be made. But that's the major change in the plan from what had previously proposed where every unit on the site was to be torn down, every single building and replaced by the entire single master development concept. SHOCKETT: Well, I understand that, but nonetheless, whether somebody's being displaced or relocated through condemnation or through bonus incentives so that they package a block, and there is a substantial number of people that require relocation as a result of private enterprise purchasing the property, I think that's still a concern because people are still people. I would like to ask you, if you could, as an accommodation to me, make another copy of that relocation plan -- FREILICH: I think you have it right here, and I think that the -- LEITNER: Yes, it has been submitted and we will certainly make it available SHOCKETT: Well, I won't see it -- LEITNER: -- to you. SHOCKETT: There's a lot of documents that come across here. If it's in there, I'm not going to take up our time to go through it I'll read it myself. FREILICH: Okay. But I think that we indicated there was something like 504 units that we anticipated any dislocation from, including rehabilitation of structures and so forth. We made ample provision we provided what buildings and units were available to have that. COMMISSION MINUTES 2/15/84 Page SHOCKETT: I'll accept that. I'd like to see it myself. FREILICH: Okay. Okay. LEITNER: We'll make it available to you right away. SHOCKETT: We don't have to take up our time with it. I think the presentation was excellent. I do commend you on the work that you've done. I think we covered that earlier this morning, and I'm looking forward to adopting the plan and getting this city moving in the correct direction. FREILICH: Thank you. LEITNER: Thank you. SHOCKETT: Mayor Fromberg. FREILICH: Mayor Fromberg. GRENALD: When shall we expect some shovels in the ground in other areas? FREILICH: Okay, now I think that, you know, with regard to the question of shovels in the ground, I think that I want to make very clear to the Commission, as we discussed 'Lwo weeks ago on February 1st, we are really interested when we're dealing with the marina uplands property and the dog track sites, that we want substantial development to occur there; development proposals that meet the minimum requirements of the plan because we don't want these valuable areas to be occupied with low level or low intense structures. So, we are very much concerned about the fact that we get a serious substantial proposal and deal with that, you know, on those open space proposals. Now, for example, there's going to be a question that has been submitted to the city about the dog track site, about the location of a sales facility prior to any development proposal being submitted to the city, and that, I think that we have a concern that the City Commission look very carefully. There's nothing wrong with a sales facility, if it accompanies and is attached to a development proposal with an immediate, you know, groundbreaking requirement and a requirement for a spade in the ground for the actual development to occur. But I think we want to be careful about the question about whether or not specific facilities that are not part of the plan, or do not meet the requirements for FAR, and the kind of intense development that we want there to get the whole project going, go forward first without there being any commitment for the major development, and I just want to caution you to that. FROMBERG: Okay, is there any other questions or discussion? (No response) Professor Frelich, and to you Marty Leitner, on behalf of the City Commission, I want to commend for bringing us to this point. It's been a long and arduous road, as you well know. I think that we're on the way to significant progress. When you took over, it wasn't easy to just move forward. The first thing we had to do was to clear away a lot of the problems that existed so that we could get to the point where we were able to move forward, and I won't retrace the history that you've done so eloquently, but let me just express our appreciation to the professionalism witn which you've conducted yourself in bringing us to this point. Gentlemen, can I have a motion to approve the -- a motion to pass the ordinance which is R-3G. This is the first reading -- this is the second reading. R-3G, which is the approval of this ordinance and final -- and second reading. DAOUD: Mr. Mayor, is Mr. Kovens here from the Planning Board? Could someone get Mr. Kovens because there was several recommen -- SHOCKETT: Let me (unclear) question -- DAOUD: Okay, certainly, tell me what your question is. SHOCKETT: On the attachment, the supporting material -- LEITNER: Yes. COMMISSION MINUTES 2/15/8 4 Page SHOCKETT: Unless I read this wrong. It says here, on January 18th, this is the schedule and this is the supporting material, it says January 18, the Agency consideration of plan and transmittal to City Commission. Then it has February 1st, February 15th, the-public hearings on the plan. Then it says March 1st. You mean there's a separate hearing on the plan and a separate hearing on the zoning -- FREILICH: Yes, absolutely. SHOCKETT: -- is that what the thing is? FREILICH: Correct, right. The zoning is the implementation of the plan, the legal document actually implementing the plan. Correct. So that is not before you today. DAOUD: Pardon, if I can ask Mr. Kovens to come forward. Is this the one that -- Mr. Kovens doesn't want to come forward. KEITH KOVENS: (Unclear - not at microphone) DAOUD: Oh, you want to get the -- the Planning Board passed it. You're looking to look at the backup now? He's got to see what the Planning Board passed. KOVENS: Yes, Mr. Daoud. DAOUD: Keith, what were the recommendations of the Planning Board on this? KOVENS: Where is the actual wording. DAOUD: I think it's on page 31 in the back. PARKINS: Here you go, Keith. KOVENS: Planning Board modifications, number A. DAOUD: Right. Here's the thing, I guess. Keith, do you want to go ahead and start it because -- KOVENS: Alex, what you're really talking about here is modification number A that the Planning Board came up with, correct? DAOUD: What I was talking, really, basically, was the fact that the Planning Board adopted unanimously, four recommendations, as I remember correctly. KOVENS: Right. DAOUD: All right, recommendation A, B, C, and D. The Administration accepted three of the four. The fourth recommendation which had to do with hiring professional staff was the one that was dispensed with and I just wanted to share with you because I know we had chatted before about this and the need of having some professional staff to get this program moving and try to get this project in the stages where we're actually seeing something in the ground. KOVENS: The discussion, Alex, went along the lines that there's exactly what you're saying. The board felt that somebody or some group, be it an agency or from either that realm of an independent agency back to either a person, a staff person, an expeditor, if you will, be permanently assigned to handle South Pointe and be it to help the independent person on lot accumulation, processing questions, very much basically, I don't know -- Ron here? Very much what Ron Lowy is doing today. SHOCKETT: I think, I think, wait a second. Let me explain it as Miss Matthews explained it to me. The first reading on February 1st, we adopted the plan with the recommendations made by the Planning Board except for -- KOVENS: Except for A. COMMISSION MINUTES 2/15/84 Page KOVENS: Well, I believe that's what Rob was just saying, of setting up staff as part of the Redevelopment Agency to expedite the development or redevelopment of South Beach. Is that what you're saying, Rob? PARKINS: Precisely. FROMBERG: How about Benita Argos? EISENBERG: Well, I -- DAOUD: I thought, didn't your recommendation say independent? I mean -- KOVENS: Well, we're saying independent because what we were looking at, okay, if you want to use Ron again is -- was part of the City Manager's staff that was really handling the expediting of whatever was happening down there in that area right now, and we felt that there was a -- with his duties of handling South Beach and his duties normally in the City Manager's office, that it's too much of a burden. We would rather see somebody full-time handling the South Beach area, be that the City Manager's office or as a representative liaison to the Redevelopment Agency itself -- PARKINS: Somebody full-time be assigned to this task, and I agree with you. KOVENS: Correct. EISENBERG: But you're going one step further, Keith, and that is you're saying that an independent authority should replace -- KOVENS: You've got that in effect today, Sy. You've got your agency. EISENBERG: Yes, but independent authority, are you saying to replace Rob Parkins who is the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency now with an independent authority? In other words, I would like for you to be specific. Is that what you're -- the Planning Board is saying? It seems to me that's what it -- KOVENS: Rob Parkins is not the authority. EISENBERG: No, no. KOVENS: The authority is you. EISENBERG: No, no, he's not the authority, but are you saying to -- KOVENS: And Rob, Sy, in all deference, is not the person that handles the day-to-day, the administrative complaints that would help Joe Property Owner accumulate two or three lots or if you've got a developer sitting there that's got six lots and needs to acquire another three to put a block package together, they're not going to go to a Rob Parkins. I don't think Rob is the issue here. There's someone -- EISENBERG: No, I -- KOVENS: -- that can roll up their sleeves and deal with the problems. EISENBERG: -- well, let's not call on Rob Parkins, let's call him the City Manger. The City Manager, are you saying to take it out of the City Manager slot or someone designated by the City Manager, an assistant City Manager and put it into an independent authority apart from the City Manager. Is that what you're saying? KOVENS: I don't believe so. No, Sy. EISENBERG: Well, what are you saying? KOVENS: I think what, you have got your Redevelopment Agency. You are that agency. Rob is the director of that agency. We're looking for another staff, be it secretarial, administrative, et cetera, other than people presently associated in his office today. COMMISSION MINUTES 2/15/84 Page 11111 SHOCKETT: It is, except for A. FROMBERG: Yes, Section six on page 33 provides for the creation of a South Shore expeditor position. SHOCKETT: I'd like to get an expeditor for this meeting. (laughter) FROMBERG: Okay, can we vote on this? If there's no further comments in regard to the plan, then I'd like to entertain a motion to adopt the plan. Okay, it's been moved by Commissioner Shockett, seconded by Commissioner Singer. Any further discussion? DAOUD: Point of information, this excludes part A in the recommendation, everything else is accepted, right, except for part A? Fine. FROMBERG: Yes. Okay, Mr. City Manager, did you want to say anything before we voted? PARKINS: No, no. It was in the issue of having somebody to expedite it. We've already covered it, I think adequately. FROMBERG: Okay, Miss Matthews. MATTHEWS: Mr. Fromberg Yes Mr. Grenald Yes Excuse me, this is 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 ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Shockett Yes Mr. Singer Yes Mr. Weisburd Yes Mr. Daoud No Mr. Eisenberg Yes Six in favor, one opposed. Motion carries. Ordinance No. 84-2403 adopted. FROMBERG: Okay now, is there -- we have a number of people on -- PARKINS: Yes, sir, Mayor, this is the -- on the supplemental agenda. FROMBERG: C-2G? PARKINS: Yes, sir. MEETING CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE COMMISSION MINUTES 2/15/84 Page nh