Book 1
MODIFICATIONS TO THE
1994 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH YEAR 2000
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PART I: DATA AND ANALYSIS
and
PART II: GOALS, OBJECTIVES and POLICIES
This document contains proposed changes to the 1994 Amendments in response to the State
of Florida, Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Notice ofIntent. Changes are shown in
Strike through and Underscore. The proposed changes were prepared by the City's planners
based on discussions with the DCA staff. They constitute the remedial actions needed for
compliance identified as Exhibit B in the Compliance Agreement between the Petitioner and
the Respondent in DOAH CASE NO.: 94-4509GM.
July, 1996
Prepared by
Robert K. Swarthout, Incorporated
Miami Beach Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division
Dean Grandin, Director
MODIFICATIONS TO THE
1994 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH YEAR 2000
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PART I: DATA AND ANALYSIS
This document contains proposed changes to the 1994 Amendments in response to the State
of Florida, Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Notice oflntent. Changes are shown in
Strike through and Underscore. The proposed changes were prepared by the City's planners
based on discussions with the DCA staff. They constitute a portion of the remedial actions
needed for compliance identified as Exhibit B in the Compliance Agreement between the
Petitioner and the Respondent in DOAR CASE NO.: 94-4509GM.
July, 1996
Prepared by
Robert K. Swarthout, Incorporated
Miami Beach Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division
Dean Grandin, Director
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH COMMISSIONERS
Mayor Seymour Gelber
Commissioner Sy Eisenberg
Commissioner Susan Gottlieb
Commissioner Neisen Kasdin
Commissioner Nancy Liebman
Commissioner David Pearlson
Commissioner Martin Shapiro
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
Joy Alschuler, Chairperson
Roberto Datorre
Diana Grub
Keith Kovens
Clark Reynolds
Craig Robins
Todd Tragash
CONTENTS
Page
I. FUTlJRE LAND USE EI..EMENT ..................................................................................... 1-1
EXISTING I..AND USE INVENTORY .....................................................................................- 1-2
Waterbodies ........................................ ................ ................. ................. ........................ ............... 1-2
Floodplains. ..... ........ .... .... ............ ............. ...... ..... ............ ........ .......... ......... ..... .... ...... .......... ....... - 1-2
Minerals and Soils.................. ...................... ..... ................... ........................ ................ .~............. 1-2
POPu:LATI ON ....................................................... ..................................................... ................. 1-8
1987 Projections.... ...... ................................ .......................... ............ ......................................... - 1-8
The Unique Dynamics. ................................ ........................... ............. ..... ........................ .........- 1-8
Assumptions ..... .................................................. .................. ....... ..................................... ........... 1-8
The Projections.......................... ................... ..................... ............... .............. ............................. 1-9
County Projections .... ...................... .................... ................ .................... ................ ........ .......... - 1-9
Seasonal Population................................... ......... .................... ................................................ - 1-10
LAND USE ANALYSIS ........ .......................................... .............................. .................... ........ 1-10
Facilities and Services......................................................... ..................... ................................. 1-10
Vacant Land .............................. ......................................... .............. .................. ....................... 1-11
Land Needed for Projected Population..................................................................................... 1-11
Redevelopment ............... ....... .............................................. ............ .............. .......................... - 1-11
Incompatible Land Uses ................................................... ..... ...... .... ........ ................................. 1-11
Flood Prone Areas .......... ............. ................. ................ ......... ..... ...... ......................................... 1-13
THE VISIONING PROCESS AND FUTURE LAND USE ANALYSIS .................................1-13
The Visioning Process........................................... .......... ............ ......................... ..................... 1-13
The Future Land Use Map Analysis ........................................................................................ 1-13
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP CHANGES................................... 1-15
Availability of and the Demand on Public Facilities Resultin~ .............................................. 1-15
Information on the Compatibilitv of Proposed Future Land Use Map .................................. 1-15
DfJRsity Mid lBteftSity Pr6J36sed FltttH'e LaRd Use Mal' i\meRemts ..................................1-16
Impact of 1-94 Future Land Use Map Chanies on Residential Density and......................... 1-18
Impact of 1-94 Future Land Use Map Chanies on.................................................................. 1-19
Impact of 1-94 Future Land Use Mall Chan~es on.................................................................. 1-20
Impact of 1-94 Future Land Use Map Chan~es on.................................................................. 1-20
Impact of 1-94 Future Land Use Map Chanies on.................................................................. 1-22
II. TRAFFIC CmCUl.ATION EI...El\IENT .......................................................................- 11-1
EXISTING SYSTEM...................................... ......................................................................... - 11-2
Traffic Circulation Map Series ........................ ...... ............. ......... ............................................. 11-2
Other Transportation Facilities ............................................................................................. - 11-2
ANALySiS................................................................................................................................. 11-2
Level of Service Definitions ................ ............ ...... ............ ...... .............................. ...... ...... ........ 11-2
Existing Volumes and Level of Service .................................................................................... 11-3
Accident Data ............ ........................................................................................... ..................... 11-3
Projected Volumes and Level of Service ................................................................................- 11-3
m. MA.SS TRANSIT ELEl\IENT ....._..............____..._..._................_..........__.......__ m-l
INVENTORy............................................................................................................................ III - 2
Metrobus Routes....................................................................................................................... III - 2
ANALySIS............................................................................................................ .................. - 111-4
Service Frequency .................................................................................................................... 111-4
Ridership................................................................................................................................. _ In-4
Revenues............................................................................................................................... .. _ III - 7
Generators and Attractors.... ...... ............ ............ ....... ........ ........................... ............ ....... ........ 111-7
i
Auto Ownership........ ...... .................... .... ......................... ........... ...... ................. ........ ............._ m-7
Population Characteristics .......... ...... .................. ............ .................. ...... ............. ................. _ III-7
County and State Plans ........ ...............................................................................................~... IIT-7
County Level of Service............ .............. ..... ....... ................. ................... ............................... ...IIT-7
IV. PORTS AND A'VIATlON EI..El\IENT ........................................................................ IV-I
PORTS ........................ .............. ............... ........... ............................ ....... ............... .................... IV -2
Sun Terminal on MacArthur Causeway ................................................................................. IV-2
The Port of Miami ...... ................... ...................... ................... .... ...... .................. ........ .............. IV - 2
.AIRPORTS ................. ..... ......................... ..... ........................................... ..... ..... ...................... IV - 2
v. BOUSIN"G EI..E:MENT .....__............._................_............_.................................... V-I
HOUSIN'G INVENTORy............................................................................................ ............ _ V - 2
Housing Stock Characteristics.................................... ...................................... ........................ V - 2
Financial Characteristics.. ............................................... ............................ ............................. V-5
Housing Conditions..... ............................. ........................ ........................................................ V-6
Subsidized Rental Housing............ .... ......................... .......... ...... ......... ..................................... V-6
Group Homes.......................................... ................................................ .... .......... ..................... V - 7
Mobile Homes............ ............................................................ .........,........................................ _ V-8
Ifistorically Significant Housing .............. ...... ............ ...........:.................................... ............. V-I0
Housing Construction Activity ............ ............ ...... ..... ..........................................................._ V-II
HOUSIN'G ANALYSIS .............................. ........ ............ ....................................... ....... ...... ....... V-12
Household Projections and Needs Assessment....................................................................... V-12
Private Sector Role.................................. ................................................ ................................. V -15
Housing Program Implementation..................... ................. ........ ............................................ V -16
Methodology for Housing Need Projections (Table V-13) ......................................................V-18
'VI. INFRA.STR,UCTlJRE EIEl\IENT ..................__........................................................._ 'VI. I
I. SEWAGE................................................................................................ ............................. _ VI-2
Existing Facilities.. ........ ........ .... ........................................................ ........ ............................... VI - 2
Future Needs.................. .................... .............................................. ...................................... _ VI - 2
II. POTABLE WATER.................................... .................. .......... ............................. ......... ...... _ VI-3
Existing Facilities........................................ ..................... ......................... ............................... VI-3
III. SOLID WASTE.......... .................. ...... .................... ............................ ........................ ........ VI-4
Existing Facilities.............. ........... .............................................................. .............................. VI-4
Future Needs .......................................................................................... .............. .................... VI-4
IV. DRAINAGE ........... ............. __.. .__........... __................__.......................................................... VI-5
Existing Facilities..................................................................................................................... VI-5
Future Needs ...... ....... ................................................................................ ............................. _ VI-5
VU. CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ._.................................... VU-l
INVENTORy............ .............. .............................................. ................................................. _ VII - 2
Water Resources.............:...................................................................................................... _ VII - 2
Soils........................ .... .......................................................... .................................................... VII - 2
Wildlife................................... .................................................................................................. VII - 2
Endangered Species ........... ......................................................... ............................................ VII - 2
Vegetative Cover.................................................................................................................... _ VII - 2
Minerals ................................................................................................................................. _ VII-4
Air Quality............................................................................................................................. _ VII-4
Floodplains............................................................................................................................. _ VII-4
CONSERVATION ANALYSIS ............ ............ .................. ....................... ....... ................. ...._ VII-6
Biscayne Bay............................................................................................................................ VII-6
Other Conservation Issues..................................................... ................................................. VII-6
Water Needs ........ .... ................ ........ .......... ........ ........ .......... ...... ...... ............. ....... ......... ........ ... VII-6
11
BISCAYNE BAY POLLtJTION ... ............................ ..... ...... ........ ............. ............... ........... ..... VII-6
Water Quality .......... ......... ..... ................ ............ ............... ....... .......... ...... ............ ............. .....- VII-6
Storm Water Outfall Mitigation................... ...... ....... ....... ........ ..... .......... .............. ..... ............ VII-7
Land Use and Infrastructure Implications ............................................................................VII-7
Regulatory Programs ............ ....... ............. .................. ................ ..................... ...................... VII-7
COASTA:L ZONE MANAGEMENT................ ........ ............................ ............... ................. _ VII -10
Existing Land Use...... ........... ............................. ............... ......... ......... ............... ........ .......... VII -10
Water-Dependent and Water. Related Uses ............................................ ........................ .... VII-I0
Public Access...... ....... ............ ......................................... ...... .................... ;.....................;..... _ VII -10
Economic Base and Historic Resources........................ ............ ............................................ VII-I0
Infrastructure ........................ ...... ............ ...... ......... .... ..... .................... ..... ........... ....... ........... VII -10
Redevelopment....... ............................. .............. .......................... .......... .............................. _ VII -13
Coastal High Hazard Area........................................................... ........... ......... ................ .... VII -13
Beach and Dune Systems ........................ .................................................. .......................... VII -13
HURRICANE PLANNIN"G ................ ..................................................... ......... ..................... VII -13
Sources of Hurricane Evacuation Analysis .......................................................................... VII -13
Evacuation Status ............................................................................... ................................. VII -13
Hurricane Shelters....... ..................................................................... ............ ........................ VII -14
Number Requiring Evacuation.......................................... ....... ..... ...... ................................. VII -14
Evacuation Routes.... ......................... ............................. ................. ....... ........................ ....._ VII -14
Evacuation Times...................................... ....... ............ ..... ............ ........ ...... ......................... VII -15
Special Needs Population ........................................ ........................................ ............... ..... VII -15
City Residential Density Policy......................... ........ ............... ........................................... VII -16
Post Disaster Redevelopment ...... .............................. .................. ...... ................................. _ VII. 16
APPENDIX A:. FISH AND SHELLFISH SPECIES ........................................................... VII-17
APPENDIX B: BIRDS OF BISCAYNE BAY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA .......... VII-20
APPENDIX C: ENDANGERED, THREATENED, RARE AND WILDLIFE ....................VII-25
VIn. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE EI..El\IENT....._._.___......._._.............._ VIn-l
INVENTORy........................................................... ..................... ...... ................................... VIII - 2
ANALySIS.......... .......................................................................... ...................................... VIII -12
Existing Level of Service.................. .................................................. ................................ VIII -12
Adequacy of Existing Facilities ...... .......................................... .............................. ........ .... VIII-13
Future Needs........................... ........................... ............................. ................................... VIII -13
IX. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION EI..EMENT .._._......._...................lX-l
INVENTORy........ .......... ............................................................. ................ ................... ........_ IX -2
ANALySIS................ ..................................................... ............................ ............................._ IX-2
Future Land Use Element ................ ............ ............ ......... ...................................................... IX-3
Traffic Circulation Element.......................................................... ........................................... IX-4
Mass Transit Element .............................................................................................................. IX-5
Housing Element.. ......... ............................................................... ....... ................................... _ IX-5
Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water, and................................................ IX-7
Conservation/Coastal Zone Element .... ...... ........................ ...... ............................................. _ IX-8
Recreation and Open Space Element ...................................................................................._ IX-9
Historic Preservation Element ............... ............... ................. ...................... ........................ _ IX-I 0
x. . C.APITAL Il\IPROVEl\IENT ELEl\IENT ...._...._........._......................_...................... X-I
INTRODUCTION .. .................................... ....... ............... ........ ...... ......... ... .............. ....... ... ........ X-2
DATA INVENTORy................ .......... .............. ....... ........... ...... .................. ..................... ......... ... X-2
Public Facility Needs ............. ........... ...... ........ .... ....... ....................... ............ ...... ...... ............... _ X-2
Educational and Public Health Facilities ........ ......... ......................... ........................... ............ X-2
Existing Revenue Sources and Funding Mechanisms..............................................................X-2
ANALYSIS ....... ....................... .......... ...... ............. ..... ....... ..... ..... ......................... ............. ....... .... X-7
Current Public Facility Planning Practice........ ........ .......... ..... ......................... ............. ........... X-7
III
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS OF FACILITY NEEDS AND LAND USE PLAN..........................X-8
PUBUC HEALTH AND EDUCATION PLANS.......... ........ ............... ..... .... ............................. X-8
TIMING AND LOCATION OF CAPITAL PROJECTS ............................................................X-8
FIN'ANCIAL PROJECTIONS............ ...... .............. ................. ......................................... ........ _ X-8
XI. HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENT..............................................................._ XI-I
I. INTRODUCTION.. ...................... ............... ............... ............ .................... ~... ............ .......... XI-2
II. NATIONAL REGISTER ARCHITECTURAL DISTRICT ................................................ XI-2
ill. MIAMI BEACH mSTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE ...................................._ XI-3
Designated Local Historic Districts.. .............. ....... ....... .......... ...... ............ .......................... ..... XI-4
Designated Local Historic Sites...... .............................. ........... ....... ....... ..... ..........................._ XI-6
Potential Local Sites and Districts .. ....................................... ................. .... ..... ......... .............. XI-6
IV. SITES OF PUBLIC INTEREST ....................................................................................._ XI-7
V. ANALYSIS .......................................... ...... ............ ...................................................... ......_ XI-7
LIST of TABLES
Page
Table 1-1: Existing Land Use by Neighborhood, 1987..............................................................1-7
Table 1-2: Population Projections.......................................................... ...................... ............. _ 1-9
Table 1-3: Seasonal Population ...................................................... ........................................_ 1-10
Table 1-4: Densities and Intensities of 1-94 Future Land Use Map Chan2'es if ................._ 1-23
Table 1-5: Densities and Intensities of 1-94 Future Land Use Map Chan2'es if ................._ 1-24
Table II-I: Existing Traffic Volumes and Level of Service..................................................... II-4
Table II-2: Highest Accident Intersections, 1991-1992.......................................................... II-5
Table II-3: Projected Traffic Volumes and Level of Service ................................................... II-S
Table ill-I: Transit Routes Serving Miami Beach - 1992..................................................... III-5
Table V-I: Housing Unit Count, 1990..................................................................................... V-2
Table V-2: Type of Housing Units, 1990 ................................................................................. V-3
Table V-3: Age of Housing Stock, 1990........................ ............................................................ V-3
Table V-4: Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units ..........................................................._ V-4
Table V-5: Financial Characteristics of Households in Owner-Occupied Units ................._ V-5
Table V-6: Financial Characteristics of Households in Renter-Occupied Housing, 1990.... V-6
Table V-7: Group Homes and ACLFs...................................................................................._ V-7
Table V-8: Subsidized Rental Housing Inventory City of Miami Beach, 1992..............______. V-8
Table V-9: Housing Stock Changes Since 1990..................................................................._ V-ll
Table V-I0: Household Projections...................... .... ................................ ............................... V -12
Table V-II: Household Size Projections ...... ...... ....... ............................................... ............... V-13
Table V-12: Household Projections by Income Category.......................................................V-14
Table V-13: Anticipated Housing Needs ................................................................................ V-15
Table A: Household by Income Category ............................................................................... V-18
Table B: Extrapolation of Value of Owner-Occupied Units from Census .........................._ V-19
Table C: Housing Affordability by Income Group.................................................................. V-19
Table VII-I: Air Quality Trends ..... ................. ......... __ ....................... ...... ............................_ VII-4
Table VII-2: Water Need Projections .............. .......... ............................................................ VII-6
Table VII-3: Hurricane Evacuation Need ........................................................................... VII-14
Table VII-4: Facilities With Special Evacuation Needs ..................................................... VII-16
Table VIII -1: Recreation Facilities Analysis...................... ......................... ................... ..... VIII - 2
Table X-I: Projects from the Other Elements .......................................................................... X-6
Table X-2: Revenues and Expenditure Projections ..............................................................._X-9
Table X-3: Ad Valorem Tax Projections ..............................~..................................................X-I0
Table X-4: General Obligation Bonds Outstanding ..........................................:.................... X-ll
IV
LIST of FIGURES
Page
Figure I-I Existing land use ...................... ................................................................................. 1-3
Figure 1-2: Historic Districts-SOuth........ ........ ............ .................. ..... ................ ................ ......_ 1-4
Figure 1-3: Historic Districts-North .... ......... ............... .............. .................... ......... ............... .... 1-5
Figure 1-4: Floodplains.............. .... ....... ................................. ........ ........................ ...... .............. 1-6
Figure 1-5: Community Development Locally Designated Target Areas .............................. 1-12
Figure 1-6: Proposed Future Land Use Map Changes ...........................................................1-17
Figure 1-7: Relationship Between Residential Units and Non-Residential Building........... 1-19
Figure 1-8: State and City Owned Sites that will be Sold Pursuant to Implementation of
Future Land Use Map Changes Numbers 14, 16a and 16b................................................... 1-25
Figure II-I: :EIighway Jurisdiction ........ ............................................................................. ...._ 11-6
Figure II-2: Roadway Functional Classifications ................................................................... II-7
Figure II-3: Number of Roadway Lanes................................................................................_ II-8
Figure III-I: Existing Mass Transit Map.............................................................................. ill-3
Figure IV-I: Existing and Future Ports & Aviation.............................................................. IV-3
Figure VII-I: Seagrass of Biscayne Bay and Miami Beach..................................................VII-3
Figure VII-2: Miami Beach Floodplains ................................................................................ VII-5
Figure VII-3A: Storm Water Outfalls .................................................................................. VII-8
Figure VII-3B: Storm Water Outfalls .................................................................................. VII-9
Figure VII-4: Water-Related Uses ...................................................................................... VII -11
Figure VII-5: Public Access Points ...................................................................................._ VII -12
Figure VIII-I: Existing Recreation and Open Space.......................................................... VIII-3
Figure X-I: Elementary School District Boundaries ............................................................... X-3
Figure X-2: Junior :EIigh School District Boundaries ..............................................................X-4
Figure X-3: Senior :EIigh School District Boundaries...............................................................X-5
v
I. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
EXISTING LAND USE INVENTORY
Table 1-1 shows the existing land use acreage by land use category and by neighborhood.
Based on the City's knowledge of the permitting process this pattern has changed very little
since the 1987 survey and therefore a new survey is not justified. With almost 99 percent of
the land developed and no significant redevelopment occurring, the potential for land use
shifts is minimal. Instead, reinvestment in the same land use is the pattern.
The single-family density category ranges from 1 to 7 dwelling units per acre. The
multifamily ranges from 14 to 125 units per acre.
The existing land use map series includes:
.
.
..
.
Figure 1-1
Figure 1-2
Figure 1-3
Figure 1-4
Existing Land Use
Historic Districts (South)
Historic Districts (North)
Floodplains
Waterbodies
Figure I-I also shows the beach, Biscayne Bay estuary and the canal or waterway system.
Government Cut, access to the harbor or Port of Miami, is found on Figure 1-1. There are no
wetlands or lakes on the upland portion of the island. The City is not in a designated "area
of critical State concern."
Floodplains
Figure 1-4 (Floodplains) shows the V zones or high hazard areas. Otherwise, the entire City
is in the 100 year floodplain.
Minerals and Soils
The entire island consists of fill (shell and muck) together with sand.
1-2
5}\
:';1
::1
/,
(/
iir
//,
/V
; IiI
i ,
. :!I
c;'Jl
;I
LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS /':~
:..:}\ Flamingo Neighborhood /1
Q<X(SC Ocean Drlve/Conlns A ve~/
j,
"
t
I
w
w
"'u.
<-'
w<
cr:I:
<:I:
"'....
-cr
:I: 0
....z
cr
o
...
~~-
NA TIONAL
tflSTORIC
DISTRICT
!
!
!
C')
Ol
Ol
--
t
1
z
Q
~
>
o
z
o
~
<(
>
a:
w
CJ)
w
a:
a..
o
~
o
~
~
::z:
ci5
z
Q
CJ)
w
o
"
z
Z
z
<(
..J
a..
~
CD
o
w
a:
<(
a..
w
a:.
a..
Figure 1-2 MIAMI BEACH HISTORIC DISTRICTS
/
j
I
I
J
I
J
f
...
~
..
NORTH HALF
CO)
OJ
OJ
~
Z
0
u;
:;
0
z
Q
~
<(
>
a:
w
CI)
w
a:
ll.
0
: ~
0
~
... CI)
~ I
z 0l1l
c
- Z
~
c "
u;
w
UJ t 0
UJ
'" Iii "
<.... Z
UJ...J Z
0:< Z
< :r N <(
'" :r -J
- .... I ll.
:r ::> >-
.... 0 CO
0: '" 0
0
.... w
a:
<(
ll.
W
a:
ll.
..
.
;r
..
~
...
..
...
..
..
<<,,"..-:.:-"
Figure 1-3
MIAMI BEACH HISTORIC DISTRICTS
Figure 1-4
~,IAMI BEAC'H
: -OODPLAINS
~ AREAS OF
~ HIGH HAZARD
T : REMAINDER OF CITY
CLASSIFIED ZONE AE
INUNDATED BY 100
YEAR FLOOD, BASE
FLOOD ELEVATIONS
OST ERMINED
IACi:: F.E.M.A.. FLOOD INSURANC~
RATE MAPS. 1987
6
N
\
\
ZONE V 21-
r--
. E
JULIA TuTTL
r-
I
I
/
I
J
/
/
---
'.
Z
4:
UJ
o
o
>-
<:
CD
UJ
Z
:>-
4:
o
en
iD
o
i=
z
<:
-J
I-
<:
18
~r'")""':""'I... ,....,.......... ,-." ...... . ........._
--............ ..
...----.- ------
too
c:c
=
"
-c
o
o
-=
..
o
~
-'l
u
-
G
Z
>.
~
i
~
"C
c=
~
....u
":'c=
G:
2.!
CIl M
t-~
Gl.a
~.5
ell 0
uQ..
III
~
.;::. III
~ f
o 0
z';::'
00
. .a
I: I:
ell 0
Bet:
o
. Gl
>.'"
ell 0
!:Q..c
III
.a Gl
III ::I
Gl I:
a: Gl
.(
~.!
::s I:
0'-
en 0
Q..
C
B
'"
Gl
g.,
~~~~~~~~&'::&'::&'::~
.~O~."'IOCQCQCQCl)1O
cOaOc.;e~...;."';"';"';e...i...i
c:-1'" ...
]
o
E-<
r-CO.....~c:-1~r-r-Cl)r-CIO
c:-1Cl)~~Cl)","'Cl)COIOC"lr-
a)cC~ari~...i~aric:r:icCa)c.i
(,Q~."''''COr-r-r-c:-1COr-
~r-" ...CQ
...;
"COOOC:>OOOCC:>OC
CQ~C:>C:>C:>COOO.OOC:>
...ic:.;OOO~OOOOOo
.....,.
"
>.
~
I:
ell
!
o
z
~~COO"'COC:>C:>C:>O""co
CQC"l(,QC:>Cl)Cl).O~c:>r-~
aric.iee...iarieeee...i...i
lOCO" ~
.... ...
OCl)....OOCQ~OCl)OC"l~
~....r-c:>r-.Cl)....IOCCl).
a)e)c:r:ic.i...ir..:c:.;c:r:icCecD~
........ CQ ....
....
Gl
U
'"
o
tlI
~
(,QOC:>CQOCl)eqOOOOC:>
~C:>C:>CQC:>~.C:>cc:>coc:>
aOoooe...iccieeooo
.... ..,
~ ....
CQc:>C"lIOCI')It)OOaoOCl)C
c:-1r-0~101Oc:>c:>r-c:>r-c:>
ec.i~c:r:i"';'aOee...ieu:;c.i
o r-'" ........
....
III
~
::3
::s
ell
Z
OCl).O.COc:-1coC:>~~"" C"l
....co....OCQ.aoCOIOIOIOCD CO
cCe)c.iec:-1~~~...iea)...i c:.;
10........ ..,10.... .... c:-1
C"l ·
c:-1C:>C"lOC:>~O.~(,Q.(,Q 0
r-C:>COoc:>...c:>c:ccor-coco co
ec.i...iee~...ic.;cCcC...i~ ~
~........ r-'" 0
c:-1'" 10
III
~
;
-;;
-
r-COC:>OCQC:>O.OOO
Cl)coC:>C:>CCI')Oococ:>c:>c:>
o...ieee~eoc.i~eo
~ ...
c:-1
Cl)r-Cl)C:>OOCQOOOC:>Cl)
r-ao-OOCl') 10 000"" Cl)
eari...ieec:.;c:-1eoec.;c:>
....r- ....
o
tlI
I:
's
ell
fi:
C"lC"lIOCI')IOCl)Cl)CI')(,QOr-....
CQ_CC':l",CI')r-Cl)t-Ot-ao
cCcC~...;.~r..:"';'aOc.iec:r:io
C':lOCQ Cl')CQ .., C':l....
c:-1
000c:>OCO...c:-100....0
COCOCOCOeqlOc:-1COC':lCOC:>
...ic.;u:;oeeec.;.oc.io...i
r-... CI') .... ....
~
o
o
..c
'"
o
.c
..c
tlI
....
Cl
Z
. I: .
G)Cl.otll
u~~::E
!.=CIS~a;
m:.::: ~~"C
. cG)~ ..
~ G)=~ ;
. ~. Cl... "''0
r&:~ OUUUc".
'. ClSellell_-.a
a:i:E S S_a8~~~~.5 8
lIitlsa~~iiifD=1S
~"oo=~g,.g,.g,.;J~>
&'::~
~ao
~c.;
c:-1
(,Q OCO .
(,Q CQao CO
c.i cCc.; c:-1
co o~ c:-1
. c:-1'" CO
~ ...;..;
(7)
"
c:r:i
10
....
C':l
C':l
o
Cl)
C':l
C':l
.
...i
(,Q
c:-1
C':l
CQ
cC
CQ
.
10
Cl)
~
C':l
C"l
t-
Cl)
...;.
10
eq
o
CO
r..:
o
....
c:-1
.
...i
eq
10
eq
C':l
.0
10
...
s
o
E-4
~
Gl
Z
C >.
o CIS
i~
t'O
Gl~
1Il..c
C tlI
oii
&'::
C
e
C
"
c:r:i
CO
(7)
....
>.
"3
~
'3
~
...
I:
I
ell
Cl.
G)
~
tlI
I:
'S
~
~
tlI
.S
i
s:
-5
as
G)
~
.!
:i
G)
-S
~
"0
f
as
Cl.
Gl
ct
1-7
POPULATION
1987 Projections
The 1989 Comprehensive Plan used the Metro-Dade County Planning Department
projections (including subarea projections) as the basis for the City projections. The results
of the 1990 U.S. Census revealed that the population and housing dynamics of Miami Beach
were so unique and in such transition that this did not prove to be a reliable method. For
example, rather than a 3,640 person 1980-1987 population increase, there was actually a
3,657 person (3.4 percent) decrease.
The Unique Dynamics
Among the factors that set Miami Beach apart from most other South Florida cities are the
following; these are primarily gleaned from the 1990 U.S. Census data:
· An unusually high vacancy rate, 15.4 percent in the case of rental units and this
does not include seasonal units. The recently lifted South Pointe moratorium
plus the elderly out-migration are presumably partial causes.
· A net decline in the total number of housing units as well as households, i.e.
vacancy rates are not the only reason for the decline.
· Demolition plus consolidation of several small units into one larger unit are
outpacing new construction plus conversion of hotels into condos.
· In the face of these downward pressures on total population is the upward swing
in the average household size, i.e. families are replacing elderly single-person
households. There were almost 16,000 fewer people 65 and over in 1990
compared to 1980.
· The U.S. Census data also documents the dichotomy of the economic
characteristics of the residents. The prgspect of continued housing revitalization
is bolstered by the fact that there were some 10,000 more employed residents in
1990 compared to 1980, half of the increase was in the professional-
administrative-technician category. Both median household income and median
rent doubled in the 10 year period. On the other hand, the number of persons
living below the poverty level increased by some 6,000. Most dramatically, one-
fourth of the households in the corridor between 3rd and 10th Streets had
incomes ofless than $5,000.
The complex migration patterns and socio-economic changes in Miami Beach during the past
10 to 20 years have been outlined in many other documents. Fey eX8mf.lle, see the last twe
taBles i:B tfte ~aehea A~~eBdi:x. The above are symptoms of these socia-economic patterns.
Assumptions
The population projections are based upon the following assumptions:
1. Household Size: The average will gradually increase as families continue to
move into the City. However, 10 years hence the average (1.93) will still be far
below most South Florida cities. For example, Miami and Miami Shores are now
both about 2.6 persons per household. This is because young singles (both service
workers and professionals) are increasingly attracted to Miami Beach, in addition
to families.
1-8
2. Housing Units: The total number of housing units will not increase, i.e.
demolition and consolidation will continue to off-set new construction and
commercial to residential conversion. There simply is not enough vacant land for
significant new construction (73 acres in 1986) and the existing high density
development pattern means any demolition takes a high toll of units.
3. Vacant Units: As the revitalization process continues, an increasing number of
vacant units will either be occupied, demolished or consolidated into larger units.
This will result in a net increase of about 100 households per year. This increase
would be even greater except it is assumed that the number of seasonal housing
units (as opposed to hotel units) will continue to moderately increase (the 1980-
1990 increase was 785).
These assumptions are based in part upon the 1990 U.S. Census data but also upon in-depth
interviews with a number of community leaders including many that are involved in the local
development process.
The Projections
The population and housing projection contained in the table below is based upon the
foregoing assumptions. The 1992 estimate is in keeping with the University of Florida
Bureau of Economic and Business Research figure for 1991-92,939. It reflects a modestly
increasing population primarily due to a gradual 20 year return to the 1980 vacancy rate
(12.2 percent). Miami Beach will always have a higher vacancy than most cities due to the
preponderance of small rental units; as shown in the Housine- Element f"p:Pefitftx, 77 percent
of the housing stock are one bedroom or efficiency units.
Table 1.2: Population Projections
1980 1990 1992 1997 2002
Population 96,296 92,639 94,065 96,500 98,965
In households 95,029 91,203 92,565 95,000 97,465
In group quarters 1,276 1,436 1,500 1,500 1,500
Households 55,685 49,305 49,500 50,000 50,500
Population per household 1.71 1.85 1.87 1.90 1.93
Housing units 66,825 62,413 62,400 62,400 62,400
Seasonal units 3,419 4,204 4,400 4,900 5,400
Non-seasonal vacancy rate 12.2% 15.2% 14.6% 13.0% 12.3%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau
Robert K Swarthout, Incorporated
County Projections
The Metro-Dade County Planning Department projected the City's population in March of
1992. The results were a slower growth rate than shown above. Their technique was a
"logistic curve" which involves a subjectively drawn interpolation from the 1990 population to
their calculation of the capacity of the existing housing stock which they calculate to be about
103,000 (this is an approximation after subtracting Surf Side and North Bay Village). This
capacity figure seems low since full occupancy of the City's 58,206 year round units would
yield a population of almost 109,000 at today's average household size. The zoning now in
place would allow an even higher population. Metro-Dade technique does not reflect the high
J-9
vacancy rate or other unique details of Miami Beach. The CQunty.projection for 2005 is
94,183 as opposed to 98,965 shown for 2002 in the Table 1-2 above.
Seasonal Population
Although the number of hotels and hotel rooms has decreased somewhat since 1987 (now
22,000 rooms in 234 hotels) there is no reason to change the 1987 peak seasonal population
estimates and projections since the tourist and "snow bird" market remains strong with the
summer tourist numbers increasing. The County has not updated their 1987 estimate.
Table 1-3: Seasonal Population
1990 1992 1997 2002
Permanent Population (1) 92,639 94,065 96,500 98,965
Seasonal Population(2) 55,000 58,000 65,000 70,000
Total Population 147,639 152,065 161,500 168,965
Sources: (1) See Table 1-2
(2) Robert K Swarthout, Incorporated based on Metro-Dade County Planning
Department estimates; includes hotel guests, non-resident households, and
people staying with family/friends.
LAND USE ANALYSIS
Facilities and Services
Since the City is almost 99 percent developed, the infrastructure system of streets, water
lines, sewer lines and drainage facilities are in place to serve the entire island. As indicated
in the Traffic and Infrastructure Elements, the problems are primarily that of age rather
than capacity or coverage. The one exception is Arterial streets where capacity is a problem
but there is no room to widen these streets. See the Infrastructure Element relative to the
mitigation plans for the drainage outfalls into the estuary, the other infrastructure problem
area.
1-10
Vacant Land
The 73 acres of vacant land in the City falls into four primary categories:
· The scattered sites in the South Pointe Redevelo'pment Area, many of which are
City-owned redevelopment parcels.
· The Purdy Avenue frontage on the Bay.
. Some vacant land between the Intracoastal Waterway and Pine Tree Drive.
. A series of tracts along Collins Avenue near the northern City line.
The characteristics of these cleared sites are as follows.
Soils: All are filled land.
Topography: All are at or close to the 4 feet above sea level average for the City; none are in
high hazard coastal V zones.
Natural Resources: None.
Histonc Resources: None of the four principal areas are located in historic districts. There is
almost no vacant land in the National Register District.
Land Needed for Projected Population
Due to the high vacancy rate, no additional land is needed to accommodate the projected
population. Some of the vacant lots in the South Pointe Redevelopment Area are slated for
townhouse development, an important part of the City's housing strategy but not necessary
quantitatively.
Redevelopment
Figure 1-5 shows Community Development Block Grant target areas which to a large extent
indicate where the "blighted" areas are located. The most substandard area is the area now
known as the South Pointe Redevelopment Area. which is designated the Se1:tth PeiBte,
wltieh Jll'emptea its aesigtlatien as a Chapter 163 FS redevelopment area. Otherwise, the
areas are characterized by scattered deterioration, mostly residential. The reinvestment in
the Flamingo area and the South Beach commercial corridor is gradually eliminating
substandard conditions but a similar pattern of blight is becoming evident in the 71st Street-
Tatum Waterway area.
Incompatible Land Uses
Two principal areas of land use incompatibility exist:
. South Pointe Redevelopment Area: Where the redevelopment process has still not
eliminated or buffered all of the warehouse, light industrial and night club uses
adjacent to housing.
. Purdy Avenue: Where a mix of industrial, heavy commercial and vacant land provides
a problem gateway to the City and to the Sunset Island area.
1-11
r'
'VJ
::Il_
"')>
:J
::Il-
"'llII
0",
Ill)>
-en
'V%
~
Z
z
!i!
P
c
'"
en
i5
z
)>
z
C
:J:
iii
-l
o
::Il
(';
"0
::Il
'"
en
'"
::Il
<
)>
-l
<5
z
c
<
iii
<5
z
,'~
~I
....
CO
CO
W
."
ii
c
it
T
III
cn TAnr.rT AnEAS
Flood Prone Areas
A limited lineal frontage on four islands is in the coastal high hazard area V zone.
Otherwise, the developed area of the City is in the 100 year floodplain. The principal
implication for redevelopment (or use of the limited vacant land) is that first floor elevations
must be 9 to 11 feet above sea level which means 5 to 7 feet above the prevailing grade.
THE VISIONING PROCESS AND FUTURE LAND USE ANALYSIS
The Visioning Process
In addition to the traditional public participation procedures, the 1993 plan revision process
was launched by a mini-visioning process which involved in-depth, one-on-one interviews
with over 40 community leaders. The objective was to determine what these individuals
wanted the future Miami Beach to be. The results of this process are contained in a 1992
supplement to this plan document titled "Community Visions Goal, Objective and Policy
Options Report."
Distilling out the most commonly mentioned basic development policy concerns, the following
list would seem to paint this group's vision for Miami Beach's future:
· The City should be both a residential community and a tourist/entertainment mecca;
where these two interface must be more carefully planned-particularly parking.
· Retention and attraction of middle income families is important, and townhouses,
better schools and better parks are key requirements.
· The City's program of development incentives should concentrate on:
South PointelSouth BeachlFlamingo .
The City Center/Historic Convention Villa~e Redevelo,pment AreaLifieem.
Reatilesft'";eatieB. hetd Mea
North Beach
· Well maintained, litter-free streets and sidewalks are imperative for revitalization.
· A consistency of zoning policy and administration is imperative for revitalization.
The Future Land Use Map Analysis
Although a number of land use, urban design, community development and public facility
issues are addressed in the visions report, the principal subject contained therein are "down
planning" and related "down zoning" issues. This analysis in turn forms the basis for a
series a Future Land Use Plan map changes contained in Part II of this plan document.
Most of the changes are from Mixed Use Entertainment (MUE) to Multifamily, Low
Intensity residential (RM-2) and from RM-2 to Residential Single Family (RM-1).
The following outlines the land use and urban design analysis that formed the basis for the
proposed map changes:
During the early fall of 1992 Robert K Swarthout, Incorporated developed the series of
residential type, density and juxtaposition objective and policy options. The process of
developing the options included the following work:
1-13
· A field survey of all portions of Miami Beach. The survey was conducted in
automobiles and on foot. Observations were recorded in field notes and
photographs. Senior planning professionals and architects discussed
observations on site and in the firm's offices. Field observations were
supplemented with a study of 1991 300 scale aerial photographs obtained
from TRW-REDI. The City's 100 scale parcel/building maps were also
studied.
· A field survey of selected sites outside of Miami Beach. Sites were selected
because of the expectation they would provide as a basis for informative
comparisons with Miami Beach.
· A review of City of Miami Beach planning documents. The most carefully
studied documents were the City of Miami Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive
Plan, dated October 1989, and the City of Miami Beach Zoning Ordinance.
The firm also reviewed the City's zoning ordinance and other planning
documents which have been prepared for the City over the past two
decades. The firm consulted with the City planning staff about the staffs
Progress Towards Goals and Objectives Report and the staff's Obstacles and
Problems Report. The focus of these reports is specified in the Public
Participation provisions included in the City of Miami Beach Year 2000
Comprehensive Plan.
· A review of relevant professional literature. More than a score of books and
articles which are part of the standard professional literature were
consulted. Specific sources were selected for their relevance to Miami
Beach planning issues.
· The findings of community leader vision surveys described in the preceding
chapter of this report.
· Architectural design development analysis of a sample of existing
residential structures in Miami Beach.
The following are the public purposes for the map changes (see the 1992 visions document for
further details):
· To reduce the amount offuture traffic.
· To facilitate hurricane evacuation.
· To conform with Rule 9J-5, FAC hurricane hazard area mandates as presently
interpreted by the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
· To encourage residential reinvestment in Miami Beach.
· To spread residential reinvestments over a broad area.
· To ensure development with an increased access to light, air and views.
· To attract more middle- and upper-income families with children.
1-14
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP CHANGES
Availability of and the Demand on Public Facilities ResuItin.,
from Pronosed Map Amendments
The substantial down plannine- which will be effectuated by the pro'posed land use ma,p
chane-es will lessen the potential demand on public facilities and services. Thus those public
facilities and services which are or will be available will be better able to meet demand. A
detailed analysis of the availability of and the demand on public facilities and services is
presented in the data and analvsis for the Future Land Use Element. the Traffic Circulation
Element. the Infrastructure Element and the Recreation and Open Space Element. The
beneficial impact of down plannine- on public facilities and services is further documented in
the "Community Visions Goal. Objective and Poliey Ontions Report."
Information on the Compatibilitv of Proposed Future Land Use Map
Amend-ments with' .SInd Use Element Obiectives and Policies
The nro1)Osed Future Land Use Map amendments are compatible with Land Use Element
obiectives and policies. The net down plannine- impact of the pro.posed map chane-es are
exnresslv articulated in Future Land Use Element Policy 1.4 which is pro.,posed to read as
follows:
Policy 1.4
The 1994 Future Land Use Map "down plannine-" chan~es which further the data and
analysis findine-s and other amended policies shall be reflected in amendments to the
zonine- map in the land develo.pment reeuIations. These re~ations shall also continue
to contain perfonnance standards which:
a. Address bufferine- and o.!)en snace requirements:
b. Address historically sienificant pro1)erties meritine- protection: and
c. Address auality of desien and aesthetics.
1.15
DeBsity MullBteBsity I?epesed Fu.ture Ltmd Use Map .\meBdmeBts
..\8 sft6"NB if!. the taBle Belew, pl'8I'esea ehlHlges te tfie ~e Lea Use Map tetal 292 gi"ess
aet'es. Nmety pereeM ef tfiese 892 gi"ess aet'es Me prepesea te ehtmge ffoem a lea l:1.se
eategery that permHs a pelatY;ely high aeftSKY eF if!.teEtSity ef aEl";ele~meM te a eategeFY tfiat
permits a l'elatY.'ely lewel' aeftsity eF if!.tee.sity. OMy ft\'e pereeftt eftfiese 898 g'l"ess aef'es Me
pl'epesea te eflege ffoem a lewel' aeftSity eF mteftSity te a h:igliel' mteftSRy.
ExistiBg F1:lt1H'e hepesed Fut'lH'e
Area lAmd Use LaIld Use Cress
N1:lIB.her DesigBatieBs DesigBatieBS ...Aaeres 1 2 3 4
1 RM 1 RM PRD 11 (99) (119)
2* MR CPS3
2 RM1 RM2 1 22 26
4 RM2 RM1 14 (308) (270)
6 RM2 RM 1 9 (198) (238)
6 RM8 RM2 21 9 9
7 RM1 TH 18 (198) (228)
8a MXE CD2 6 (120,880) (166,466)
81:1 MXE RM2 29 (1,276) (1,631)
9 CD8 RM8 46 9 0
10 MXE RM2 89 (1, 716) (2,069)
lla ROS PFE 6 392,940 17Q,448
1113 PFE ROS t (261,369) (212,632)
12 RM2 RM1 20 ( 4-49) 628)
12 RM2 RAIl 62 (1,166) (1,399)
14 ROS RS 11 77 92
16a RM2 RS 6 (294) (863)
1613 RM2 TH 7 (221) (277)
16e RM: 2 RM 1 64 (1,188) (1, 126)
16a P RM 1 11 374 449
1613 PF RM1 2 () 0
16e RM2 RM1 26 (779) (924)
TOTAL 492 (7,411) (8,896) 800 260
*Deletea at 2e.a Reaamg Pl:1.hHe HeariRg
1. Net lRerease er (Deef'ease) i:a Permittea Resiaeati8:1. DeftSity as MeastH'ea hy Base
D'1:elliBg Uftits
2. Net lRerease sr (Deef'eastl) i:a Ptl:rmittea Resiaenti8:1. Dee.sit,- as MeaslH'ea hy Bsftl:1.s
:ov.-dliBg UB::it "ITaetiealaHity Cal""
3. Net lRerease SF (Deerease) i:a Permittea :Nsn Resiaee.ti8:l.lfttt:Mity as MeaslH'ea By Base
4. Net laeFease aF (Deerease) Hi Pef'ftiittea Nen Resiaee.tiallatcnsity as MeastH'ea hy Belllis
Raar Mea "~aetiealaH:ity C8J3" Permittea Fleer ..\rea
1-16
-
tA MO.
1
%
3
4
5
6
7
.
9
10
11
12
U
14
15
16
Figure 1-6: Proposed Future Land Use Map Changes
EXISTING nrrtnlE
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
PIlOPOSEl)
CHANGE
llIC-l..................... ._-PJU)
MIl....................... .CP.S-]
111-1..................... ._-2
111-2 (poZ"C1on ..se ot
Bay Rd.l........_-l
111- 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . "-1
IUI-)...... _.............. .JtII-2
1UI-1......................fB
KXE (vese 1/2 blOCks 2 , %7.
and allot block DJ..CD-2
MXE ( are. reaauti.1IlJ Ut CJle
"'S'Cl . . . . . ........ .. ."-2
CI:I-]..................... .JtII-]
ut. . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... ._-2
ROS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . J'FE
PFE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... e.e.JtGS
IUI-%. . ................... ."-1
1U1-2. .................... ._-1
ReS. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .... .. .JlS
RK-2 (no~.rn .cae
loesl..........JlS
RK-2 (block 12 , loc 2 ot
block 141.......fB
1U1-2 (r...i.n1nq lo~sl....."-l
P , PP'.................. .."-1
RK-2. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. ._-1
r-
CITY OF MIAMI S"EACJf,
I
,
- -... ....
----
--..
,
.....
NonH
KEY TO LANO USE DESIGHAnOHS
1M-PRO
RS
IM-1
RM-2
RK-3
TB
c:t)-2
CJ)- 3
C-PSJ
KXE
ReS
1m
PF ( E)
PF
P
MU~I-FAMILY. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL OEVtLOP~!~T
SINGLE FAMILY. RESIDENTIAL
MULTI -FAMILY. tDW INTENSITY
MULTI-FAMILY. MEDIUM IHTEHSI'I'Y
MULTI-FAMILY. HIGH INTENSITY
TOWNHOME
COHHERC%AL. MEDnnt: IH'l'ENSITY
CCMMERCL\L. HIGH INTENSITY
CCMMERCIAL. IHTEHSIVE ~IXE.o USE
MIXED-USE EHTER'l'AINMEHT
REc:xEATION AHD OPEN SPACE
MARINE REc:xEATIONAL
PUBLIC FACILITY EDUCATIONAL
PUBLIC FACILITY (FIRE. POLICE. OTHER)
PARKING
1-17
Impact of 1-94 Future Land Use Ma~ Chanees on Residential Densitv and
Non-Residential Intensitv in the Coastal Hi~h HAzard Area
As shown in the Tables 1-4 and 1-5 below. proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map
total 402 ~oss acres. Ninetv-two percent of these 402 IrrOSS acres are proposed to chan~e
from a land use category that permits a relatively high density or intensity of development to
a category that permits a relatively lower densitv or intensitv. Only 31 of these 402 iI'oss
acres are pro..posed to chanve from a lower densitv or intensity to a hie-her intensity.
Map chane-e number 8a is to cate~ory CD-2. which permits both residential and non-
residential uses or either to the exclusion of the other. Table 1-4 is based on chane-e 8a beine-
developed exclusivelv with residential uses. Table 1-5 is based on chane-e 8a heine- developed
exclusively with non-residential uses. Under the langua~e in Future Land Use Element
Policy 1.2. catee-orv CD-2 could be developed with both residential and non-residential uses
in inverse nro..portions. ie the more residential the less non-residential and vice-a-versa. The
relevant lan~age reads as follows:
"No lot area which is counted toward meeting the lot area required for the residential
uses on a lot shall also be counted toward meetin~ the lot area required for non-
residential uses on the same lot."
Under this lan~ae-e Future Land Use Map change 8a could be develoned with the following
mixes of uses shown in Fieure 1-5.
1-18
Figure 1-7: Relationship Between Residential Units and Non-Residential Building
Area in a Representative Six Acre CD-2 Site
300
270
250
(f)
~
Z 200
::>
..J
<:
i= 150
z
w
0
U5
w 100
a::
50
0
0
270 Residential Units
o Non-Residential S.F.
200 Residential Units
67,760 Non-Residential S.F.
100 Residential Units
164,560 Non-Residential S.F.
o Residential Units
261,360 Non-Residential S.F.
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,00
300,000
NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FEET
261,360
A similar inverse relationship applies to other land use cateeories that Dermit both residential
and non-residential development. These cateeories include CD-I. CD-2. CD-a. RO. MXE.
R-PSI. R-PS2. R-Psa. RoPS4. CopS!. CopS2. c-psa. C-PS4.
The laneuae-e quoted above also ap.,plies to other land use cate~ories that pennit both
residential and non-residential uses.
Impact of 1-94 Future Land Use Map Chane-es on
Traffic Generation
Tables 1-4 and 1-5 show that the Future Land Use Map chane-es will result in a substantially
reduced potential for residential development and sliehtly increased Dotential for non-
residential develo9rnent. The net effect of a ereatly reduced residential potential and a
sliehtlv increased non-residential potential will be a very substantially reduced peak hour
trip ~eneration ootential. The base density and intensity envisioned in Table 1-4 will result
in 4.397 fewer peak hour trips than would have been possible before the Future Land Use
MaD chane-es: the bonus density and intensity envisioned in Table 1-4 will result in 13.971
fewer peak hour trips. The base density and intensity envisioned in Table 1-5 will result in
4.498 fewer peak hour trips than would have been 90ssible before the Future Land Use Mall
chan~es: the bonus density and intensity envisioned in Table 1-5 will result in 13.434 fewer
1-19
"peak hour trips. These trip reductions are computed based on 0.63 peak hour trips per
residential unit (paee 324 ITE 5th Edition) and 3.4 trills per 1.000 square feet for non-
residential develooment (pW!'e 942 ITE 5th Edition).
linpact of 1-94 Future T .And Use Map Chanves on
Hurricane Evacuation Time
Tables 1-4 and 1-5 show that the Future Land Use M~ chane-es will result in a substantially
reduced potential for residential develollment and slivhtly increased potential for non-
residential development. The net effect of these changes necessarily will be to reduce the
hurricane evacuation time that mie'ht otherwise be req,uired if the Future Land Use Map
changes had not been made. Indeed. the chane-es are made in order to fulfill Conservationl
Coastal Zone Manaeement Policy 4.9 which reads as follows:
Selected Citv pollulation densitv maximums shall be reduced as part of this Plan to
better coordinate with the 1991 Metro..politan Dade Coun~ Emereencv Operations
Plan. which is the local hurricane evacuation "plan for Miami Beach. and the 1991
Lower Southeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Plan. the ~lPonal hurricane
evacuation plan.
The JlOllulation densities of the 1991 Metropolitan Dade Coun~ Emereencv Ooerations Plan
and the Lower Southeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Plan derive from the existine- 1991
populations of Dade Countv traffic analvsis zones. The existine 1991 oo.pulations were
intelpOlated from the Metrooolitan Dade Coun~ Plannine- De.partment's 1986 estimates and
its 2010 projections. This is eJq)lained beeinnine on paee 5 of the Tran8l)Ortation Analysis
Ch~ter (Dade Version) of the Trans,portation Analysis Ap,pendix of the 1991 Lower
Southeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study prepared bv the Army C01"J>S of EnlPneers.
.As a practical matter. it is not possible to req~e that the holdine c~aci~ of the Future
Land Use Map be the same as the existing population used in the Lower Southeast Florida
Hurricane Evacuation Plan. Instead. it is believed that the req~ement that Future Land
Use Map holding c~acitv be coordinated with the reeional hurricane evacuation plan by
adjustine- traffic facilities. trans,portation services and emereencv manaeement techniques to
accommodate any increases in oopulation densi~ permitted bv chanees to the Future Land
Use M~. When the cumulative inwact of Future Land Use M~ chanees is to reduce the
PQPulation densitv that could previouslv have been possible. then the reQ~ement for
coordination is automaticallv met accordine to an Administrative Code intet:Pretations
provided by Mr. Robert Nix of the Florida Department of Communi~ Affairs (9-6-94).
Impact of 1-94 Future T .And Use Map ChanS!es on
Recreation Levels of Service and Beach Access
Tables 1-4 and 1-5 show that one of the Future Land Use Map chanees (change number 14)
will chanee 11 acres from the Recreation and Open Space (ROS) categorv to the Sin vie
Familv Residential categorv. This area contains a total of eieht blocks divided into small
lots. some of which are vacant and some of which contain sine-Ie family homes. Some of these
lots are owned bv the State of Florida and some are owned by private interests. At one time.
the state intended to acauire all of the lots in these blocks for incor:poration into North Shore
Park. The Department of Environmental Protection. Division of State Land has now
determined that they should be sold to Miami Beach or otherwise pursuant to state law rThe
"phrase in italics added pursuant to a 4-20-95 phone conference with the Division of State
Lands and in response to the objection that the Division has not yet made a final
commitment to sell the subject orooerties specifically to the Citvl which will make them
1-20
available for private sinvle family development. It is not ex;pected that the private
develo.pment will chanee the confi~ration oflots in a wav which would materially alter
beach access o'pportunities. It is envisioned that nroceeds from the sale of the lots will be
allocated to a fund for the enhancement of North Shore Park.
The area encompassed by Future Land Use Map chanlre 14 is NOT now used for recreation
pu~oses and it is not counted in the recreation facility inventorY in the Recreation and Open
Space Element. Therefore. removal of the ROS desilmation will not ner se reduce the
recreation level of service. The re desi~ation of site to Sinlrle Familv Residential will create
a small additional residential development "Ootential. thus putting' more demand on existine-
recreation facilities. However. the additional demand will not result in the city failing- to
meet its recreation level of service since it is an inconsequential amount and since it will be
more than balanced by the net reduction in permitted residential develo.pment which will
result from the cumulative effect of all of the proposed Future Land Use Map chanies.
The recreation level of service is established bv Policy 2.1 of the Recreation and Ooen Space
Element at ten (10) acres of recreation and open space per one thousand germanent and
seasonal residents with 20 percent of seasonal residents counted. The recreation space
inventorY shown in Table VIII-1 of the Recreation and Open Space element will still have the
1.156 acres shown therein after the 94-1 Future Land Use Map chanve (inc1udinv chang'e
number 14) is effectuated. The 2002 population projection re.ported in Tables 1-2 and 1-3 of
this element will remain at 98.965 permanent and 70.000 seasonal because it is based on
trend lines not individual development sites. The 98.965 permanent nQPulation plus 20
percent of the 70.000 seasonal population produces a nopulation of 112.965 for puz:poses of
the recreation level of service standard. Then. 1.156 acres of existinlr recreation land /
(112.965 neople/1.000 9eople) equals a level of service of 10.233 acres ner 1.000 population.
Even if it were assumed that the additional 11 acres of Sin~le Family Residential land would
result in additional po.pulation over and above the projection reported in Tables I-I and 1-3.
the nlan would still meet the level of service standard set forth in Recreation and ODen Space
Element Policy 2.1. The 11 acres would accommodate 77 additional residential units which
would accommodate a nopulation of 149 people at a averalre household size of 1.93 persons.
These 149 neQple added to the 112.965 prQjected population will result in a level of service of
10.220 acres per 1.000 po..pulation.
Tables 1-4 and 1-5 show that two of the Future Land Use Map chanlres (chan'1es number 16a
and lab) will chane-e 13 acres from the Public Facilitv (PF) catee-orv and the Parkine- (P)
catelrorv to the Low Density Multi Family Residential (RM-U catevorv. These two chang-es
contain a total of ei~ht blocks devoted to surface parking-. two owned by the City of Miami
Beach and six owned bv the State of Florida. The oarkinv is sparselv used even thoulrh it is
available for the eeneral public. inc1udini visitors to North Shore Park. The Department of
Environmental Protection. Division of State Land has determined that the state-owned
blocks should be sold to Miami Beach which will make them available for a combination of
public parkine- and private residential development. These uses mav be accommodated by
placine- parkinlr at ~ade on some or all of the blocks and constructinlr residential units in air
riehts above or they may be accommodated bv placine- public parkinlr structures on one or
more ofthe blocks and develo9inlr the others for residential use. To the extent necessary. the
public narkinlr will be sized to accommodate beach access via North Shore Park and/or other
functions which mie-ht be appropriate. It is envisioned that proceeds from the sale ofland or
air rillhts will be allocated to a fund for the enhancement of North Shore Park.
1-21
Impact of 1.94 Future Land Use Map Chang-es on
Sewer. Water and Solid Waste Levels of Service
Tables 1-4 and 1-5 show that the Future Land Use Map chane-es will result in a substantially
reduced potential for residential development and sliehtly increased potential for non-
residential development. The net effect of a ereatlv reduced residential potential and a
sliehtly increased non-residential potential will be a very substantially reduced demand for
water and sewer services. The base densitv and intensitv envisioned in Table 1-4 will result
in 1.907.932 fewer g-allons per dav of water demand than would have been possible before
the Future Land Use Map chane-es: the bonus densitv and intensitv envisioned in Table 1-4
will result in 5.740.068 fewer fallons per day of water demand. The base density and
intensitv envisioned in Table 1-5 will result in 1.839.644 fewer eallons per day of water
demand than would have been possible before the Future Land Use Map chane-es: the bonus
density and intensitv envisioned in Table 1-5 will result in 5.652.284 fewer eallons per day
of water demand. These iallon Der davreductions are computed based on a usae-e rate of 250
eallons per day per residential unit and a usa~e rate of 10 ~allons petdav per 100 square
feet of non residential uses. Such rates are eQ~al or close to rates commonlv used in Dade
Countv municipalities for concurrency manae-ement DUl1>OSes. For residential uses. the
gallons per day sewer demand is somewhat lower than the iallons per day water demand
whereas for non-residential uses the e-allons per day water demand is the same as the
iallons l)er day sewer demand: therefore. the net effect of the future land use chanies will be
to reduce the potential demand for sewer services. but bv somewhat smaller amount than the
reduction in demand for water service.
The net effect of a ~eat1v reduced residential potential and a slie-htlv increased non-
residential potential will be a substantially reduced demand for solid waste service. For
example. the base density potential show in Table 1-4 will result in a reduction of solid waste
disposal demand by 47.254 pounds per day. This estimate is based on e-eneration rates of7
pounds per dav "ger residential unit and 5 pounds per day per 100 square feet of non-
residential use.
1-22
Table 1-4: Densities and Intensities of 1.94 Future T .And Use Map Chang'es if
all Land Use Cate~ories which Permit Both Residential and Non-Residential
Uses are Fully Developed for Residential Use Only
Existin~ Proposed
Future Future
Area Land Use Land Use Gross
Number DesilPlations DesilPlations Acres 1 2 3 4
1 RM-1 RM-PRD 11 (99) (264) not tIrP.ftn;t;tM nnt nP1"IIIitbld
2* MR CPS-3 NA NA NA NA NA
3** RM-1 CD-2 1 11 42 0 0
4 RM-2 RM-l 14 (308) (644) not~;tW not nP.n'nittNI
5 RM-2 RM-l 9 (198) (414) ftOt. DfI!I'mit:btrff not nnmitW
6 RM-3 RM-2 21 0 (2.856) not DPml.ittM not nemritud
7 RM-l TH 18 (198) (900) not nwrnittMt not nPnnitbad
8a MXE CD-2 6 (330) (408) 0 0
8b MXE RM-2 29 (1.276) (1.856) not nHmitbad not nPrmittMt
9 CD-3 RM-3 45 0 (5.580) not lV!PI'ftitbtd not nHTnittNI
10 MXE RM-2 39 (1.716) (2.496) not nPPmitbtd not nP.Y'mittNI
11a ROS PFE 6 not ~ittMI not nM'ft'IittMI 392.040 470.448
11b PFE ROS 4 nnt ~ittM not nM'mittMf (261.360) (313.632)
12 RM-2 RM-l 20 (440) (920) not 'NI!PI'I'aittMt Dot nHmittMf
13 RM-2 RM-l 53 (1.166) (2.438) not lWI!nftitW not nP.nftitbtrl
14 ROS RS 11 77 77 not ~ittM not DH'IIIit~
15a RM-2 RS 6 (294) (774) not ~itf:lad not rwannitW
15b RM-2 TH 7 (231) (672) not nP.I"I'I'Iitbtd not nP-rII".litu.d
15c RM-2 RM-l 54 (1.188) (2.480) not ~ittP.d not f'WI'nnittP.d
16a P RM-l 11 374 - 990 not nPnnittM not nnmitblrd
16b PF RM-1 2 68 180 not nPnnitud nnt nPl'mitbad
16c RM-2 RM-l 35 (770) (1.610) not lWftnitf:lttl not nPrm;tt.Pd
TOTAL 402 (7.684) (23.023) 130.680 156.816
r*Deleted at 2nd Readine Public Hearine **Chanved from RM-2 to CD-2 allows hotels. but does not
increase intensity.1
1. Net Increase or (Decrease) in Permitted Residential Densitv as Measured bv Base
Dwelline Units
2. Net Increase or (Decrease) in Permitted Residential Densitv as Measured by Bonus
Dwelline Units
3. Net Increase or (Decrease) in Permitted Non Residential Intensity as Measured by Base
Permitted Floor Area
4. Net Increase or (Decrease) in Permitted Non Residential Intensitv as Measured by Bonus
Permitted Floor Area
1-23
Table 1-5: Densities and Intensities of 1-94 Future Land Use ~ Chan~es if
all Land Use Cate~ories which Permit Both Residential and Non-Residential
Uses are Fully Develoued for Non-Residential Use Only
Existin~ Pro>>osed
Future Future
Area Land Use Land Use Gross
Nnmber Desienations Desienations Acres 1 2 3 4
1 RM-1 RM-PRD 11 (99) (264) ntlt DMmittM not ntlmftittM
2* MR CPS-3 NA NA NA NA NA
3** RM-1 CD-2 1 (11) (42) not 'DflITmitted not nPnnittM
4 RM-2 RM-1 14 (308) (644) not 'Dm'mitt;M nnt ~l'I"ftittHI
5 RM-2 RM-1 9 (98) (414) not IMiPmitUtf not nP.'I"mittM
6 RM-3 RM-2 21 0 (2.856) notNWl"ft'lit.tPtI not f'WIl'I"ftittMf
7 RM-l TH 18 (98) (900) notl)f!1'ftlittPd not nnmittM
8a MXE CD-2 6 0 0 030.680) (261.360)
8b MXE RM-2 29 0.276) (1.856) nnt 'l>>l"mitW not nPTmittM
9 CD-3 RM-3 45 0 (5.580) not nPnnittM not r>>ftnit.tM
10 MXE RM-2 39 0.716) (2.496) not Nl'I'Iftit:tM not nPrmittM
11a ROS PFE 6 not ftM'IIIittM not ~ittMf 392.040 470.448
lIb PFE ROS 4 not nM"IIlittM not~ittJlld (261.360) (313.632)
12 RM-2 RM-1 20 ( 440) (920) nnt. N'nnittMf not rwwrmittMt
13 RM-2 RM-1 53 (1.166) (2.438) not ~it.tHI not. nP'I"mitt.Pd
14 ROS RS 11 77 77 not N>>I'InittMt not l'WInnitt...d
15a RM-2 RS 6 (294) (774) not. nIlnnittP.d nnt ntannittM
15b RM-2 TH 7 (231) (672) not nP.nnitt#tl not nPnnitt.P.d
15c RM-2 RM-1 54 0.188) (2.480) notl1lDrl'ftitblod not nPnnitbad
16a P RM-1 11 374 990 not l>"""itbtod not nP.1"mitUod
16b PF RM-1 2 68 180 "tit. nPl"mitblotl not nH'mittM
16c RM-2 RM-1 35 (770) (1.610) notl1lDrl'ftitt#ott not Nlrmitbatl
TOTAL 402 (7.376) (22.699) 43.560 254.664
r*Deleted at 2nd Readine- Public Hearinl2'. **Chane-ed from RM-2 to CD-2 allows hotels. but does not
increase intensity.l
1. Net Increase or (Decrease) in Permitted Residential Densitv as Measured by Base
Dwellinv Units
2. Net Increase or (Decrease) in Permitted Residential Density as Measured by Bonus
Dwellinl2' Units
3. Net Increase or (Decrease) in Permitted Non Residential Intensity as Measured by Base
Permitted Floor Area
4. Net Increase or (Decrease) in Permitted Non Residential Intensity as Measured by Bonus
Permitted Floor Area
1-24
Figure 1-8: State and City Owned Sites that will be Sold Pursuant to
Implementation of Future Land Use Map Changes Numbers 14, 16a and 1Gb
I; \
.0 STA . dWNED
~ ern WNED
1
2
....
I
a
14
~~11
.
5
1
2
II
I
I ,
j' i
3 '.
~m
~m~
~m~~ ST.
~m~~~
~m~~
11
14
en
Z
.:;
~ .
~.81a
4.
~'I) \ i
I I
I \ I I
'Ii \ i
II;
I ;1
f
: (
I
II :
\MAR 2
, !
FLUM Chane-e 14: Blocks 5-7 and 10-12 south of
79th Street r.nn~in individual lots. some of which
are vacant and some of which contJ'lin sinile
familv homes. Some of these lots are owned bv
the State of Florida and some are owned bv
Drivate interests. At one time. the state intended
to acquire all of the lots in these blocks for
incorporation into North Shore Park. The
Department of Environmental Protection.
Division of State T .and has now determined that
thev should be sold to Miami Beach which will
make them available for -private sinile familv _'
develo..p-ment. It is not expected that the private
develoDment will chan~e the confieuration oflots
in a wav which would materiallv alter beach
access o'9portunities. It is envisioned that
proceeds from the sale oflots will be allocated to a
fund for the p.nhl'lncement of North Shore Park.
FLUM Chan~es IGa & 1Gb: Blocks 12 throu2:h
20 north of 79th Street contain surface parkine-
lots. The lots are available for the e-eneral public.
includine- visitors to North Shore Park. The
Darkin~ is s,parsely used. The blocks are owned bv
the Citv of Miami Beach (blocks 12 and 18) and
the State of Florida (blocks 13-17 and 19-20). The
Department of Environmental Protection.
Division of State Land has determined that the
state-owned blocks should be sold to Miami Beach
which will make them available for a combination
of public parkine- and private residential
development. These uses maV be accommodated
bv placin", parkine- at ~ade on all or most of the
blocks and constructin", residential units in air
rie-hts above or thev mav be accommodated by
placiD'" Dublic '9arkin~ structures on one or more
of the blocks and develo.pin", the others for
residential use. To the extent necessary. the
Dublic parkine- will be sized to accommodate beach
access via North Shore Park and/or other
functions which mieht be ap.propriate. It is
envisioned that Droceeds from the sale or lots of
air ri~hts will be allocated to a fund for the
enhancement of North Shore Park.
1-25
II. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT
EXISTING SYSTEM
Traffic Circulation Map Series
Figure II-I shows the roadways under County and State jurisdiction within the City. Most of
the major roads are the responsibility of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
Only the Venetian Causeway-Dade Boulevard-Pine Tree Road corridor is a County
responsibility.
Figure II-2 provides the functional classification while Figure II-3 shows the number oflanes
for each Arterial and Collector road. The only two City streets included in this system are
47th and 51st Streets, City Collectors.
Other Transportation Facilities
The McArthur Causeway Cargo Terminal is located within the City limits as shown on
Figure II-I. This cargo ship terminal is not part of the larger Port of Miami which is located
just west of the City; see the separate Port and Aviation Element. There are no airports or
rail lines within the City.
ANALYSIS
Level of Service Definitions
The basis for determining the adequacy of a roadway to handle traffic is the level of service
(LOS) measurement. This measure is the basis for setting the level of service standard
which is used in the concurrency management system, the State-mandated system for
assuring that the infrastructure network is adequate to serve additional development.
Levels of service are expressed as letters "A" through "F." The standardized descriptions of
service levels used in transportation planning are as follows:
LOS A: Highest LOS which describes primarily free-flow traffic operations at
average travel speeds. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to
maneuver within the traffic stream. Stopped delay at intersections is minimal.
LOS B: Represents reasonably unimpeded traffic flow operations at average travel
speeds. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted
and stopped delays are not bothersome. Drivers are not generally subjected to
appreciable tensions.
LOS C: Represents stable traffic flow operations. However, ability to maneuver and
change lanes may be more restricted than in LOS B, and longer queues and/or
adverse signal coordination may contribute to lower average travel speeds. Motorists
will experience ail appreciable tension while driving.
LOS D: Borders on a range in which small increases in traffic flow may cause
substantial increases in approach delay and, hence, decreases in speed. This may be
due to adverse signal progression, inappropriate signal timing, high volumes or some
combinations of these.
LOS E: This represents traffic flow characterized by significant delays and lower
operating speeds. Such operations are caused by some combination of adverse
progression, high signal density, extensive queuing at critical intersections and
inappropriate signal timing.
II-2
LOS F: This represents traffic flow characterized at extremely low speeds.
Intersection congestion is likely at critical signalized locations, with high approach
delays resulting. Adverse signal progression is frequently a contributor to this
condition.
Existing Volumes and Level of Service
Table II-I shows the volumes and other characteristics for the State and County
Arterial/Collector system within the City. This data is then used to determine the existing
level of service on each roadway. This indicates that only the Julia Tuttle Causeway and
Arthur Godfrey Road even reach LOS D, i.e., there are no peak hour acute problems. The
City's unique economic base tends to avoid peak hour problems.
Accident Data
Table II-2 shows that three of the four highest accident intersections in the City are along
5th Avenue, the principal visitor entrance to South Beach from the MacArthur Causeway.
The intersection with the second highest rate is Arthur Godfrey Road and Pine Tree Drive;
this is partially due to some awkward geometry combined with high volumes.
Projected Volumes and Level of Service
Table II-3 shows the projected voh~.mes and level of service for the 10 year planning period.
A comparison of the existing and projected volumes show decreases_ in the southern and
central part of the City and increases in the north. This apparently reflects the County
traffic model assumption that the Metrorail extension will be constructed and thereby reduce
auto trips. None of the projects in the FDOT five year transportation plan or the MPO plans
will increase the capacity of any Arterial or Collector. They all involve resurfacing or bridge
reconstruction/replacement. Although some lanes may be widened, there is insufficient right
of way to increase safety or efficiency by adding lanes.
11-3
Table n-l: Existing Traffic Volumes and Level of Service
Latest
Average Classifi-
Daily Trips(1) cation
Location
Southern Locations:*
Collins Ave. at 4th St.
Alton Rd. n. of Dade Blvd.
Collins Ave. s. of Dade Blvd.
Venetian Causeway
5th Street
Central Locations:
Julia Tuttle Causeway
Arthur Godfrey w. of Indian
Creek Dr.
Collins Ave. opp. 51st St.
Alton Rd. n. of 51st St.
Pine Tree Drive
Prairie Avenue
Northern Locations:
71st St. at Indian Creek Dr.
Collins Ave. at 85th St.
Harding Ave. at 85th St.
North Bay Causeway
11,500
23,680
19,164
NA
NA
64,064
26,366
29,708
23,904
NA
NA
10,962
19,132
18,891
30,890
Peak
Number Hour
of Lanes Trips
Art 4
Art 4
Art 4
Art 2
Art 6D
Art 6D
Art 4
Art 6D
Art 4D
Art 4D
Art 2
Art 4D
Art 3 one way
Art 3 one way
Art 4D
319(2)
2 368(3)
,
1,916(3)
1,021(2)
1074(1)
,
6 406(3)
,
2 637(3)
,
2,970(3)
2 390(3)
,
NA
NA
472(2)
2 015(2)
,
2,370(2)
3 089(3)
,
*Note: There are no count stations on or near the MacArthur Causeway.
Existing
Level of
Service(4)
A
C
C
C
A
D
D
C
C
A
C
C
B
Sources: (1) Florida Department of Transportation 1991 counts.
(2) Dade County 1990-1991 counts.
(3) ADT adjusted by 10 percent factor for peak hour.
(4) Level of Service Standards and Guideline Manual, Florida Department of
Transportation, 1992. Group C used except the causeways where Group A was
used.
n-4
Table 11-2: Highest Accident Intersections, 1991-1992
Number of
Accidents
5th Street and Washington Avenue
41st Street and Pine Tree Drive
5th Street and Lennox Avenue
5th Street and Michigan Avenue
41st Street and Sheridan Avenue
5th Street and Collins Avenue
37
26
18
15
11
10
Source: Miami Beach Police Department, 1992
Table IT-3: Projected Traffic Volumes and Level of Service
1997 Average 1997 Level 2002 Average 2002 Level
Location Daily Trips of Service Daily Trips of Service
Southern Locations:
Collins Ave. at 4th St. 8,367 C 8,662 C
Alton Rd. n. of Dade Blvd. 17,385 C 17,774 C
Collins Ave. s. of Dade Blvd. 14,038 C 14,528 C
Venetian Causeway 11,545 B 11,864 B
Central Locations:
Julia Tuttle Causeway 47,319 B 47,526 B
Arthur Godfrey w. of Indian
Creek Dr. 18,204 D 18,864 D
Collins Ave. opp. 51st St. 7,531 A 7,766 A
Alton Rd. n. of 51st St. 12,411 C 12,423 B
Northern Locations:
71st St. at Indian Creek Dr. 20,498 C 21,082 C
Collins Ave. at 85th St. 23,412 C 23,671 C
Harding Ave. at 85th St. 23,852 C 24,037 C
North Bay Causeway 14,923 A 14,899 A
Sources: (1) Traffic volumes: interpolated from Metro-Dade County FSUTMS model output.
(2) LOS: FDOT Level of Service Standards and Guideline Manual, 1992.
11-5
- -
- -
I
I
I.
I
."
(jj
~
CD
;:
...
.--.------ - -
~,
/.
...
.
I
'"
....
1I1
~
m
><
Z'(j;
c: -t
!: -
OJ z
m Cj')
::0 -t
o :0
'TI )>
'TI
:0 "T1
o -
)> n.
o 0
::E -
)> :0
-< n
c:
~ ~
"T1
ili
!;
..
i'
c.>
III. MASS TRANSIT ELE:MENT
INVENTORY
Metrobus Routes
There are 14 Metrobus routes that serve the City of Miami Beach. The routes are illustrated
on the existing mass transit map (Figure III-I).
ROUTE
A
C
F
G
H
J
K
L
M
R
S
T
DESCRIPTION
An east/west route connecting Overtown Metrorail station and Omni
shopping mall to 17th Street and Lincoln Road via the Venetian
Causeway.
A north/south route in Miami Beach that connects South Beach to
Central Beach (41st Street and Mt. Sinai hospital), and connects to
downtown Miami via the MacArthur Causeway.
An east/west route that connects South Beach to Omni snopping mall
and the Miami Civic Center.
A north/south route in Miami Beach that connects 17th Street north
along the beach to Bal Harbor and west to North Miami and Opa
Locka.
A north/south route in Miami Beach that runs from South Beach to
Sunny Isles, and west to North Miami Beach and the 163 Street Mall.
A route that serves central and northern Miami Beach, and connects
to Metrorail north of Downtown Miami, and south to Coral Gables
and Coconut Grove.
A north/south route, running the length of the City, and connecting to
the downtown Miami Government Center and Omni via the
MacArthur Causeway.
A route that serves the Convention Center, the beacbfront between
Lincoln Road and 71st Street, and Normandy Isle, and west across
the 79th Street Causeway to Hialeah and the Amtrak station.
This route connects Mt. Sinai Hospital with the downtown Miami
Government Center, via Collins Avenue, 17th Street, Alton Road, and
the MacArthur Causeway.
A north/south route that serves the North Shore, and runs the length
of the City along Alton Road and Meridian, to the South Pointe
Redevelopment Area.
This route runs the length of the City, and connects with the
downtown Miami Government Center on the south and to Aventura
on the north.
This route runs from the Government Center in downtown Miami,
across Julia Tuttle Causeway and up Collins Avenue to Haulover
Park.
ill-2
W
A loop around the southern end of Miami Beach along 17th Street,
West Avenue, Alton Road, Ocean Drive, and Washington Avenue.
62
This route serves Miami and Hialeah, but connects to Miami Beach
during rush hours only, via the Julia Causeway.
Figure ITI-l shows the existing bus routes and the principal "attractors" or destinations to
which bus passengers are headed upon leaving their home. Due to the residential density
and development pattern in Miami Beach, except for the west central and island single
family areas, the entire City is a "generator" of trips as is Miami.
A special route called the Breeze links Miami Beach (Convention Center and south) with the
Omni and downtown Miami. It operates with 15 minute headways on Friday evening and
weekends. This serves the tourist, convention and entertainment markets.
ANALYSIS
Service Frequency
Table IIT-1 shows that most routes provide service every 20 to 30 minutes except evenings
and Sundays. The two prime Collins Avenue routes (L and S) have even more frequent
service. The special Route 62 provides only peak hour service to Mt. Sinai Hospital and
Arthur Godfrey Road.
Ridership
As shown in Table lIT-I, the two prime north-south routes (L to Normandy Isle and S to
Adventura) have the highest ridership, averaging over 10,000 per weekday even during the
September off-season. Only the Venetian Causeway route (A) and the Alton Road single
family area route (R) had less than 1,200 riders per weekday.
ID-4
..c
Co)
II
~
=
i
II
i
.
1:1
t
c!
.
.!
='
:::~
=~
~ GD
- 1:1
~~
:-a
~ ;
II ~
.. ~
~ .
<-
"1
Q >
"i'..
:sc!
e~
e Co)
., ~
~ 1:1
:s g
o
~ ~
~ i
> ..
~~
-
-
c. ~ ->.
__.11
..cas"O
.....lId
.. ~ ~
~<> ~
- ==
c::::
~ .
1:1 "S
=' ::c
rn
eq
i
-
>.
II
~ =: ..lid
10 II
~ ~
=
...
~
.,
..c
.
Z
-=
~
=-
!
='
~
c:>
-
~-
as
~,:
;
~
~
>
o
Cl':l
to-:
~
t-
~
o
(,Q
c:>
(,Q
c:>
(,Q
c:>
Cl':l
c:>
Cl':l
<
c:>
-
c)
as
t--
Cli
~
Cfi
~-
-0:1
~-
-ILS
0:1 pol
as ~-
roo: pol
-~-
(,Qpol
~- ~-
Cl':l- pol
ci
...
.s
=
cg
o
u
0>
o
-
~
-
...
.s
=
G)
o
~
->
C).
o
t-
c:>
cQ
~
o
~
(,Q
(,Q
-
~-
t-
~
~
-
c:>
~
o
(,Q
c:>
~
c:>
(,Q
c:>
(,Q
Q
~
c:>
~
c:>
~
o
Cl':l
c:>
~
c:>
~
o
C&.
-t-
~~
-ILS
~~
-~-
:2~
-Cfi
:!:~
-ci
~~
---
~~
-c:i
t-N
fIi
<
z
c:>
~
-
10
~
10
~-
c:>
(,Q
c:>
(,Q
<6
~
c:>
(,Q
c:>
~
c:>
~
o
-t-
~~
-ILS
:2~
-~-
:::~
-Cfi
~N
-~-
~~
---
t-_~
(,Q -
c:>
~-N
-roo:
--
<
z
~
co
-
t-
t-
~
~-
c:>
N
c:>
N
c:>
(,Q
Q
~
c:>
~
c:>
~
::r:
t-
~
t-
-
(,Q-
-
ILS
-
~~
~
.. m
as as
Q,-
as bD
- ='
<Q
c:>
0:1
~
N
t-
o
ILS
c:>
(,Q
c:>
~
c:>
(,Q
c:>
~
c:>
N
~
-t-
~N
-ILS
~N
-~
O:I~
as -
N
r-:"N
fIi
~
~-
-
N
-
...
.s
=
cg
o
~
">
C)
o
Cl':l
co
~
-
c:>
-
1Cl-
c:>
~
c:>
N
o
~
o
~
0::>
N
~
-t-
~N
-.
:2N
-~
:!:N
-~-
~N
- pol-
~N
-c:i
~N
-roo:
0:1_
as
roo:
- cg
-;:2
G) m
]~
::r: C)
z
at:)
co
~
Cl':l
t-
(,Q
c:i
-
o
~
o
N
o
~
.
10
pol
c:>
~
10
pol
0::>
pol
..J
10
Cfi
~-
at-
~N
-fIi
:2N
-.
;::N
-cr;
~N
-~-
O:IN
aSai
roo: pol
ILS
-
-
N
.....
.!
=
cg
o
..
">
C)
o
<
Z
C'I:l
C'I:l
~
10
~
N
~
~
..;
-
~
~
~
S
c:
G)
o
~
c:
G)
S
c:
~
G.l
>
C)
o
.s
as
:s
i
3
;
C)
"'0
..
=
C
C)
o~
U
G)
c:
~ C
0:1 C)
0:10
- ~
~ G)
G) >
~ C)
~ ~
.. ~
Q,"
G) G)
m::E
c:>
~
G)
=
C)
Z
c:>
~
G)
c:
C)
Z
c:>
(,Q
c:>
(,Q
c:>
C'I:l
o
(,Q
o
C'I:l
o
(,Q
:s
,....
=::!
=
IU-5
e - - -r- -r- 0 &0
a. ~~~ ~C'Il ~ -
.s e - -.0- -.0 (3)
u ~n::;~ ~C'Il
= =
.. ~ - -~- - <fIS'-
... ~ C)CCN ~C'Il 1:'"'-
... CD -~
< - CO _~ -~- ~
.. ~ r::~N ~N <fIS'-
e ~
> .. -~.. -N-
.;' .. &O<fIS'N ~C'Il ~
:a CI) --
U.) Cl:l _ _- ao- N-
ci~C'Il .... ....-
- .-
N C'Il
- - <
- c::l .. .. ..
.- S .8 Q)
e e Z -5
.- = =
...
e u Q) Q) ='
.. ~ 0 0 ...:l
...
~ c::l ... ~ =
:a c::l -> > :e
e e e
0 0 0 co
:a
~ ~ N C'Il C'Il ~
= - CC &0 .... CC
.- CIi ...i CIi CIi
c::l :E
CI)
> ..
~ CI)
Q".
-
-
-
c. CI) ~ ~ CO <fIS' ....
.- ~ = Q C) 10 It:)
.c=~ r-_ .... C'Il <fIS' ..:
Z...:II - ci Jri Q)
.. ~ ~ - ...
CI) > ~ =
~ < == Q)
== 0
...
=
'"""I . 0 0 0 0 Q)
- a
= e Cl:l ~ c-.> c-.>
:s == to E
U.) - Q)
>
e
0 0 0 0
N ... 0 "s
~ = Cl:l N N c-.>
= CIJ . ...
N CIS
- - :i z
. e
.c ~
u ... Q 0 0 0 ~
= ..c "CD
CI) Cl:l c-.> CQ CC S ~Q,
~ 6
== - ~ = Q)
- Z c-.> Q)Q
a >. e ~~
.! = "'C
~:t: .:II 0 0 .. ~ "S
:s N It:) CD
= - N N .... = ca ;
.-~ =0 l e ;-
'C = CI) 1j ~~
CI)- ==
:s > Q)
c::l .. a Q) U
CIi "'CCD
=cJJ .:II N 0 0 0 CD Q)
= - N N N C) e QCQ
c::l CD ~ 6 C) 0 e "s
e CI) - ..
0... - CI)
..
-:s Q) > ... CD
:::~ .J:J e ~:a
a a
-.. ~ e ;,;
--
CI) Z ~ Q,- 8
-= ... Gl Gl
:s m:2 ..
~~ ~ - - ='
~ N e
rJ'J Eo- cc - ~ rJ'J
--
ID-6
Revenues
The column in Table TIl -1 headed Revenue Per Mile indicates that most of the routes are in
the range of $1.50 to $3.00 in revenue per transit mile. Only Route C (Lincoln Road to
downtown Miami via the MacArthur Causeway) exceeds that. The unique A and R routes
both fall below $1.00 per transit mile. The typical Routes A and R fall below $1.00. The
regular service routes average $2.39 per weekday system-wide.
Generators and Attractors
Figure 111-1 shows that the route system provides good coverage to the "generator" areas of
the City, i.e., the higher density residential areas south of Dade Boulevard, north of 65th
Street and the Collins Avenue corridor. Similarly the major "attractors" or employment,
shopping, entertainment and service destinations are all on existing routes.
Auto Ownership
The 1990 U.S. Census shows that 22,111 households or 45 percent of the total do not own an
automobile. Obviously this underscores the importance of good transit service.
Population Characteristics
Another indicator of the importance of transit is that 25 percent of the population (22,993
people) are in households with an income below the poverty line. Although the percent of the
City's population that is over 65 has dropped, 30 percent or 27,892 people are still in that
category.
County and State Plans
The 1993-1997 Transportation Improvement Program of the Dade County Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) includes FDOT projects and calls for the normal kind of
improvements to the bus system including acquisition of an average of 33 buses per year to
replace existing ones plus bus shelters and other loading facilities. The rail system
improvements do not currently have a direct bearing on Miami Beach. However, the Mass
Transit Element of the Metro-Dade Comprehensive Plan continues to call for a Metrorail
extension into Miami Beach during the 2000-2010 period. The proposed. corridor is
MacArthur Causeway-Washington Avenue to the Lincoln Road-Convention Center area.
A 1988 study commissioned by the City demonstrated the feasibility of a light rail system in
that corridor-possibly extending further north to 63rd Street. However, a City referendum
on such a system was defeated..
County Level of Service
The County's adopted level of service in effect requires that within Miami Beach, public
transit service shall provide:
· bus service frequency of at least once an hour,
· routes no more than one mile apart.
Bus service in Miami Beach now meets that standard.
111-7
IV. PORTS and AVIATION ELEMENT
PORTS
Sun Terminal on MacArthur Causeway
Description: This is the only port facility within the City limits. A privately owned cargo
facility, it has 1,600 linear feet of deep draft dockage and one container crane. From four to
eight ships can be accommodated at one time, depending upon size. Almost all of the cargo is
containerized.
Volume: The annual number of containers handled by the facility has increased from about
10,000 in 1987 to 48,000 in 1991-1992. This recent figure translates into 475,000 tons.
Expectations are that the volume will continue to increase about five percent per year. This
can be accommodated without expansion; the property is surrounded by other uses.
Impacts: The immediately adjacent land uses are an FPL substation, a ferry slip, the City
public works yard and a Coast Guard station so there is no use incompatibility. The nearest
housing (on Star Island) is 1,000 feet away. A port oftbis size generates about 66 trips per
week day so the impact on the six-lane causeway is not significant. The Metro-Dade
Department of Environmental Resources Management monitors water quality throughout
Biscayne Bay including the port area. This small port has no major impact on the economy
of Miami Beach.
The Port of Miami
Across the channel from the above port is the separate Port of Miami which occupies Lumus
Island and Dodge Island. The 1991 passenger total of 2,928,532 was an 11 percent increase
over 1990 and the 1991 cargo tonnage of 3,882,284 was an eight percent increase over 1990.
New terminal facilities are being constructed to meet this demand.
AIRPORTS
The Miami International Airport is located 14 miles west of Miami Beach and provides
passenger and cargo service. The Opa-Locka Airport is the closest general aviation facility.
The Miami facility can accommodate 96 gates and 15,000,000 enplanements per year. The
1991 enplanement figure was 13,228,276 with the capacity expected to be reached during the
planning period. Due to the fact that Hurricane Andrew damage shut down Homestead Air
Force Base, this airport may end up being used as a cargo, commuter and/or general aviation
relief airport.
The distance of the airport from the City means there is no direct land use or natural
resources impact. On the other hand, the airport is critical to the tourist and convention
component of the City's economy. Fortunately, the Julia Tuttle and MacArthur causeways
provide direct expressway access to the airport.
IV.2
TERMINAL
ISLAND
~- --
I
If
II
- r- --
i
I
!
,
I
f r
EXISTING ~
N
AND
FUTURE
PORTS &
rl VIA TION I
Fig. IV- t
PREPARED BY PLANNING. DESIGN & HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION 1993
v. HOUSING
ELEMENT
HOUSING INVENTORY
Housing Stock Characteristics
Table V-I shows the basic housing data for the City in comparison to Dade County (the
Metropolitan Area). The 1990 Miami Beach non-seasonal vacant rate of 15.2 percent is
unusually high-higher than Dade County or the 1980 City figure (12.2 percent). The other
striking change from 1980 to 1990 was the 4,412 decrease in the total number of housing
units. There is reason to believe that this vacancy rate has declined since Hurricane Andrew
due to the displacement of families from South Dade. This rate is likely to increase again as
rebuilding progresses in that part of the County.
Table V.I: Housing Unit Count, 1990
Miami Beach
Total Number of Units
62,413
4,207
58,206
8,901
49,305
Vacant Seasonal
Year Round Housing Units
Vacant Year Round Housing Units
Occupied Housing Units
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census
Dade County
771,288
19,062
752,226
59,871
692,355
V-2
Table V-2 contains the distribution among housing types and shows the predominance of
multifamily (structure with three or more) units. Over 87 percent of the City's units are in
multifamily structures as compared to less than half in the County as a whole. In fact,
23,023 of these multifamily units are in structures with 50 or more units, i.e., high rise.
Another unique aspect of the City's housing stock is that 77 percent of the units are one
bedroom or efficiencies.
Table V-2: Type of Housing Units, 1990
Miami Beach
Dade County
Single Family Detached
Single Family Attached
Duplex
5,427
461
419
311,519
74,453
22,444
333,598
18,543
10.731
771,288
Multifamily
54,405
11
Mobile Home or Trailer
Other
1.690
62,413
Total
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census
Table V-3 shows the age of the City's housing stock. Again, the City is unusual when
compared to other South Florida cities by virtue of the fact that 14 percent of its housing
stock is more than 50 years old.
Table V-3: Age of Housing Stock, 1990
Year Structure Was Built
Miami Beach
1989 to March 1990
1985 to 1988
1980 to 1984
1970 to 1979
1960 to 1969
1950 to 1959
1940 to 1949
1939 or earlier
277
742
3,496
12,038
15,655
12,080
9,539
8,576
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census
Table V-4 shows the value of the City's owner-occupied housing stock. Only about one-third
of the owner-occupied units (14,051) are included in the survey. The median value of Miami
Beach's owner-occupied housing stock is $191,300. In short, this component of the housing
stock is relatively high in value; for example the median value in Miami Shores is only
$104,500. The 1990 U.s. Census reported that 18,923 of the City's units were in
V-3
condominium ownership, but this figure must be used carefully since some of these units are
rented and many are seasonal.
Table V-4: Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units
Number of Units
Percent
Less than $50,000
$50,000 - 99,000
$100,000 - 149,000
$150,000 - 199,000
$200,000 - 299,000
$300,000 or more
Total Reporting
53
579
863
814
883
1,170
4,362
1.2
13.3
19.8
18.7
20.2
26.8
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census
V-4
Financial Characteristics
Table V-5 outlines the monthly housing costs and income characteristics of households living
in the City's owner-occupied units and Table 6 does the same for rental units. The usual
pattern emerges whereby two-thirds of the homeowners pay less than 30 percent of their
income on housing-the generally accepted maximum percentage.
Table V-5: Financial Characteristics of Households in Owner-Occupied Units
Number With a Mortgage
Median Monthly Cost
Number Not Mortgaged
Median Monthly Cost
Miami Beach Dade County
4,459 376,006
2,646 223,902
$1,448 $796
1,813 57,811
$401 $241
Owner-Occupied Housing Units, 1990:(1)
Monthly Owner-Occupied Housing Costs
as a Percentage of Income, 1990:
Less than 20 Percent
20 - 40 Percent
2,170
338
30 34 Percent
341 .
35 Percent or More
1,007
(l)Data not available for all such household.
Source: U.s. Bureau of Census
The cost of owner-occupied housing in the City is significantly higher than the County as a
whole. On the rental side, costs are almost identical with a City median rent of $427 and a
County median of $422.
V-5
The 1990 Census data that cross tabulates percentage of housing costs to income is not yet
available. Not surprisingly, over half of the households in rental units pay more than 30
percent of their income for housing.
Table V-6: Financial Characteristics of Households in Renter-Occupied Housing,
1990
Gross Rent
Miami Beach
Dade County
Renter-Occupied Units
Less than $250 Per Month
$250 - 499
$500 - 749
$750 - 999
$1,000 or More
No Cash Rent
35,238
2,643
20,009
8,069
2,359
1,532
626
305,935
45,729
161,174
79,694
11,757
7,581
NA
Median Rent = $427
Gross Rent as Percent of Income
Renter-Occupied Units
Less than 20 Percent
20 - 24 Percent
25 - 29 Percent
30 - 34 Percent
35 Percent or More
Not Computed
35,238
5,375
3,728
3,744
2,822
17,585
1,984
Source: 1990 Bureau of Census
Housing Conditions
The 1990 U.S. Census reported that 1,621 of the City housing units lacked a complete
kitchen, less than half of the 1980 figure. There were 548 units lacking complete plumbing
and 7,620 units contained more than one person per room, an indication of overcrowding.
The latest survey of structural conditions (1988) indicated that there were 4,944 units (7.9
percent of the total) rated "substandard" which means the unit fails to meet the City
minimum housing code standards which are similar to HUD's Section 8 minimum standards.
However, most of these units (4,396) were deemed suitable for rehabilitation. This means
only 548 or less than one percent of the total units were rated dilapidated and thus in need of
demolition.
Subsidized Rental Housing
Table V-7lists the rental housing developments currently receiving Federal subsidies. The
subsidy program and number of units are included. This list shows that the City has
participated in the full range ofHUD programs.
This does not reflect the following additional City use of State and Federal funds to assist
housing.
V-6
.
.
.
.
.
"Existing Housing" HUD Section 8 Program
CDBG Rental Rehabilitation (scattered sites)
HUD Rental Rehabilitation (scattered sites)
HUD 312 Loan for Deco Plaza
Metro-Dade HFA Financing for Rue Granville
2,173 units
344 units
121 units
44 units
77 units
Group Homes
Table V-7 shows the Adult Congregate Living Facilities (ACLF) located within the City.
There are no other !IRS licensed Chapter 419 group homes.
Table V-7: Group Homes and ACLFs
Name
Grace Hotel
Normandy Manor
Mason Manor
Park Retirement
Hebrew Home Aged
Eastern Sun
Delta Hotel
Continental Hotel
Port O'Call
James Plaza
Normandy Waterway
Plaza South
Golden Palm
New Mason Manor
Normandy
6060 Indian Creek Realty
Total
Address
Number
of Beds
60
16
12
74
122
68
90
154
35
64
86
144
104
72
16
120
445 Espanola Way
7100 Rue Granville
1753 Michigan Avenue
928 Ocean Drive
310-336 Collins Avenue
900 Ocean Drive
2216 Park Avenue
4000 Collins Avenue
6891 Bay Drive
1753 James Avenue
80-90 South Shore Drive
1685 James Avenue
1401 Bay Road
1753 Michigan Avenue
1771 Marseilles Drive
6060 Indian Creek Drive
Source: Miami Beach Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division, 1992.
1,237
V-7
Mobile Homes
There are no mobile home parks or subdivisions in Miami Beach.
Table V.8: Subsidized Rental Housing Inventory City of Miami Beach, 1992
1. COUNCIL TOWERS NORTH
1040 Collins Avenue
Section 8 New Construction - Section 202 Program
Elderly
125 - 1 Bedroom - 125
--1 - 2 Bedroom - ---ll
126- Total Units
- 125 Subsidized Units
2. COUNCIL TOWERS SOUTH
533 Collins Avenue
Section 8 New Construction - Section 202 Program
Elderly
125 - 1 Bedroom - 125
--1 - 2 Bedroom - ---ll
126- Total Units
- 125 Subsidized Units
3. FEDERATION TOWERS
757 West Avenue
Section 8 New Construction - Section 202 Program
76 - Efficiencies - 75
38 - 1 Bedroom - ~
114- Total Units
- 113 Subsidized Units
4. FOUR FREEDOMS HOUSE
3800 Collins Avenue
Section 8 New Construction - Section 202 Program
Loan Management Set Aside
56 - Small Efficiencies
128 - Large Efficiencies
2 - Small 1 Bedroom
2 - Medium 1 Bedroom
20 - Large 1 Bedroom
J - 2 Bedroom
38
55
1
o
o
--<!
210 - Total Units
94 Subsidized Units
V-8
5. LULA V SQUARE
618-644 Lenox Avenue
Section 8 Substantial Rehab - Non-insured Project
Section 8 Subsidy - Project Based
72 - Small Efficiency
20 - Medium Efficiency
~ - Large Efficiency
140 - Total Units
72
20
- ~
139 Subsidized
6. REBECCA TOWERS NORTH
200 Alton Road
Section 8 New Construction - Section 202 Program
Non-insured (HUD does not insure the loan)
120 - Efficiencies
80 1 Bedroom
200 - Total Units
120
~
200 Subsidized Units (Not SRO's)
7. REBECCA TOWERS SOUTH
150 Alton Road
Section 8 New Construction,.. Public Housing for the Elderly
120 - Efficiencies
80 - 1 Bedroom
200 - Total Units
8. STELLA MARIS
8638 Harding Avenue
120
~
200 Subsidized Units (Not SRO's)
Section 8 - New Construction - Section 202 Program
35 - Efficiencies
..lQl - 1 Bedroom
136 - Total Units
9. VILLA MARIA
2800 Collins Avenue
35
..lQl
136 Subsidized Units
Section 8 - Substantial Rehab
(HUD is not the contract administrator)
29 - Efficiencies
~ - 1 Bedroom
34 - Total Units
29
~
34 Subsidized Units
V.9
10. EDWARDS APARTMENTS
953 Collins Avenue
Section 8 - Substantial Rehab
Non-insured (HUD is not the contract administrator)
92 - 1 Bedroom
20 - Efficiencies
91
20
112 - Total Units
111 Subsidized Units
11. SHEP DA VIS/MIDTOWN PLAZA
220 23rd Street
7 - Efficiencies
42 - 1 Bedroom
7
.Jg
49 - Total Units
49 Subsidized Units
12. BLACKSTONE
800 Washington Avenue
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation
108 - 1 Bedroom - 108
~ - 2 Bedroom - 23
131- Total Units
131 Subsidized Units
Source: 1991-1992 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, City of Miami Beach
Community Development Department.
Historically Significant Housing
The majority of the housing in Miami Beach which has been formally designated as
historically significant is located in the Miami Beach Architectural District. This 520 acre
district, commonly referred to as the Art Deco District, is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. As the name denotes, this area contains the largest concentration of Art
Deco style architecture in the United States. The area received formal designation in the
Register in May 1979. The District is shown on the map on the following page.
The Altos Del Mar subdivision was partially designated as a local historic district by the
Miami Beach City Commission in May 1987. Situated east of Collins Avenue from 76th to
79th Streets, Altos Del Mar is the City's last remaining single-family oceanfront
neighborhood.
Within the larger National Register District are several local historic districts which were
designated separately over the last several years; in total, they coincide with the National
Register District.
The City maintains a computerized data base of historically significant properties; it
currently contains some 650 residential structures.
V-10
Housing Construction Activity
Table V-9 shows that over 100 additional units were constructed during the 30 months
following the 1990 U.S. Census. Unfortunately, the Building Department methods of record-
keeping does not record the precise number of units in a multifamily structure nor the
number of demolitions
Table V.9: Housing Stock Changes Since 1990
Units
Single Family Units
Multifamily Units
Hotel Conversion to Condo
18
122(1)
6
Total
146
Cl)Approximation due to City method of record-keeping.
Source: Miami Beach Building Department, 1992.
v-n
HOUSING ANALYSIS
Household Projections and Needs Assessment
The following table (also included in the Future Land Use Element) shows the trends and
projections relative to households.
Table V-I0: Household Projections
1980 1990 1992 1997 2002
Population 96,296 92,639 94,065 96,500 98,965
In households 95,029 91,203 92,565 95,000 97,465
In group quarters 1,276 1,436 1,500 1,500 1,500
Households 55,685 49,305 49,500 50,000 50,500
Population per household 1.71 1.85 1.87 1.90 1.93
Housing units 66,825 62,413 62,400 62,400 62,400
Seasonal units 3,419 4,204 4,400 4,900 5,400
Non-seasonal vacancy rate 12.2% 15.2% 14.6% 13.0% 12.3%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau.
Robert K Swarthout, Incorporated.
V-12
Based upon the above projection of total households, Table V-II breaks down this projection
by household size. Given the fact that 77 percent of the City's housing stock are one bedroom
or efficiency units, it is not surprising that 80 percent of the households still consist of one or
two persons. No major shift in this pattern is expected.
Table V.ll: Household Size Projections
Persons Per
Household 1990 1992 1997 2002
1 24,979 24,963 25,102 25,241
2 14,792 14,907 15,228 15,492
3 4,714 4,736 4,780 4,828
4 2,807 2,817 2,850 2,879
5 or more 2.013 2.020 2.040 2.060
Total 49,305 49,500 50,000 50,500
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau.
Robert K Swarthout, Incorporated.
V-13
Table V-12 then projects these same households by income range.
Table V-12: Household Projections by Income Category
Income Group 1990 1992 1997 2002
Very Low Income:
Less than $5,000 7,928 7,927 8,007 8,087
Low Income:
$5,000 - $9,999 9,292 9,303 9,397 9,491
$10,000 - $14,999 7,023 7,021 7,092 7,163
Medium-High Income:
$15,000 - $$24,999 8,586 8,633 8,730 8,818
$25,000 - $34,999 5,436 5,484 5,539 5,594 -
$35,000 - $49,999 4,276 4,316 4,359 4,403
$50,000 - $74,999 3,112 3,150 3,174 3,206
$75,000 - $99,999 1,110 1,133 1,144 1,155
$100,000 - $149,999 1,254 1,281 1,294 1,307
$150,000 or more 1,226 1,252 1,264 1,276
49,243* 49,500 50,000 50,500
*Some households did not report their income.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau.
Robert K Swarthout, Incorporated.
Tables V-ll and V-12 then serve as the basis for projecting the anticipated housing need over
the next 20 years. Table V-13 provides that projection; the methodology is outlined in the
Appendix. The significance of these projections is as follows:
· There is a deficit of 3,000 units for very low income rental households which
means that the City must continue to utilize the array of housing subsidy
programs, particularly in conjunction with rental rehabilitation.
· Some 2,000 middle and high income households will be paying more than 30
percent of their income for housing, the majority in condo or other owner-
occupied units.
· The principal increase in the number of households occurs in the moderate and
high income ranges which is reflective of the housing dynamics in the Flamingo
area.
V-14
Table V-13: Anticipated Housing Needs
1992 1997 2002
Very Low Income:
Number of Households 7,908 7,931 7,897
Owner-Occupied Units 0 0 0
Renter-Occupied Units 4,730 4,616 4,559
Total Units in Range 4,730 4,616 4,559
Deficit (3,178) (3,315) (3,338)
Low Income:
Number of Households 16,343 16,451 16,559
Owner-Occupied Units 171 171 171
Renter-Occupied Units 21,241 21,184 21,127
Total Units in Range 21,412 21,355 21,298
Surplus 5,069 4,904 4,739
Middle Income:
Number of Households 8,690 8,834 8,978
Owner-Occupied Units 1,864 1,864 1,864
Renter-Occupied Units 6,310 6,367 6,424
Total Units in Range 8,174 8,231 8,288
Deficit (516) (603) (690)
High Income:
Number of Households 16,551 16,774 16,998
Owner-Occupied Units 12,004 12,009 12,009
Renter-Occupied Units 2,968 3,025 3,082
Total Units in Range 14,977 15,034 15,091
Deficit (1,574) (1,740) (1,907)
Source: Robert K Swarthout, Incorporated
This analysis indicates that there will still be a 12 percent non-seasonal vacancy rate in
2002-a more than acceptable rate. There are no rural or farmworker housing needs in
Miami Beach. It is estimated that there are between 200 and 400 homeless individuals. The
City's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy outlines the array of facilities and
services, existing and planned, to meet this special housing need.
Private Sector Role
The private market will continue to be the sole provider of housing except for the one
existing 200 unit public housing project (Rebecca Towers South). The public sector will
assist the private sector in the rehabilitation of nearly 500 units this year. This pattem
must continue in order to both reduce the 4,944 unit inventory of substandard housing units
and the 3,300 low income households paying more than one-third of their income in rent.
In all of the interviews with local leaders, there was no perception of financing or
governmental regulations as a major blockage to housing production. Instead, there were
reported statements about the need to solve the problems created by the South Beach
entertainment uses so that families can be attracted to the area's new or rehabilitated units
which have assured parking and minimal noise.
V-15
Housing Program Implementation
In response to 9J-5.01O (2) (f) FAC, the following outlines the means for accomplishing the
State objectives.
Housing to Meet Anticipated Future Residents: With a non-seasonal housing vacancy rate of
about 15 percent, the challenge is to achieve a higher occupancy of the existing housing stock
more than to provide new housing. The housing stock and limited vacant land are
adequately served by the City's infrastructure system except for the arterial street system
which can not be widened. In summary, the 5,000 increase in households during the next 10
years will largely be accommodated by the existing housing stock with some new
construction infill, particularly townhouses and other low-rise development. The principal
need is to continue the pattern whereby several small units (there are 48,058 in the City) are
converted into one larger unit to accommodate both market rate and low-moderate income
families. A number of programs can help achieve this objective including:
· Selective down-zoning in certain areas to encourage reinvestment in the existing
housing stock.
· City housing rehabilitation assistance programs to upgrade the housing stock for
low- and moderate-income households; see next section on substandard housing.
· Implementation of the South Pointe redevelopment plan for townhouses.
· Enforcement of the City minimum housing standards ordinance.
· Policies that discourage conversion of residential to non-residential uses, e.g., the
land development code, zoning administration/decisions, historic preservation
reviews, etc.
· Floor area ratio (FAR) bonuses related. to affordable housing.
Elimination of Substandard Housing: As outlined in the City's 1991-1992 Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy, the goal is to upgrade 492 housing units for low- and
moderate-income households during 1992. An array of programs are being used including
the following:
.
Moderate rehabilitation
127 units
.
Substantial rehabilitation
275 units
.
CDBG rehabilitation
90 units
In addition to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), the programs that will be
used to achieve this goal are the HUn rental rehabilitation program, the City's privately
financed mortgage/rehabilitation program, the Federal low-income housing tax credit
program, the State Apartment Incentive Loan Program (SAIL), the Dade County Surtax
Program, the new HUn HOME program, etc. These rehab programs will continue to be used
in tandem with housing code enforcement. Inevitably some demolition will have to occur
given the 548 dilapidated units. Aesthetic improvements will be achieved (where applicable)
through the local historic district review process and the City design review process which
covers all multifamily renovations and new construction.
V-16
Sites for New Construction: The primary goals of the City's housing program are retention of
the existing housing stock rather than new construction and to avoid the concentration of low
and moderate income housing. The principal vacant land resource for new construction is in
the South Pointe redevelopment area (11 vacant acres) and adjacent Flamingo area (10
vacant acres); see Figure 1-1. Much of this new construction is expected to be market rate
townhouses and other low-rise development rather than low- and moderate-income housing
since the biggest imbalance in the existing housing stock is lack of owner-occupied units-only
28 percent of the occupied units are owner-occupied. However, during 1992 funds are
earmarked for low- and moderate-income new construction under the new HUn HOME
program, the HUD Section 202 elderly program and the HOD Section 811 program for the
handicapped. There are no realistic opportunities for traditional mobile home sites in Miami
Beach due to both hurricane vulnerability and incompatibility with the design character of
the existing housing stock.
Group Homes: The City's land development code has specific provisions authorizing Adult
Congregate Living Facilities in its multifamily residential districts. It is also bound by the
provisions of Chapter 419 F AC which authorizes group homes in any single-family
residential district and "community residential homes" in any multifamily district, if licensed
by HRS and in conformance with Chapter 419 locational standards.
Rehabilitation, Demolition and Historic Preservation: The above discussion of substandard
housing lists the City's program plans for housing rehabilitation that will rehab 492 units
during the current year. Demolition will occur primarily when the code enforcement
program deems a dilapidated structure unfit for rehab. Again, the City's emphasis is
housing stock conservation. Historic preservation incentives and reviews will continue in the
local and national districts. The City has extended the existing local districts to encompass
the entire National Register District.
V-17
APPENDIX
Methodology for Housing Need Projections (Table V.IS)
1. Households from the 1990 Census data on income levels were grouped into the
following four-tiered categories based on median income; see Table A
Very Low Income
Low Income
Middle and Moderate Income
High Income
below 50% of mean
50 - SO% of mean
SO - 150% of mean
above 150%
less than $5,000
$5,000 - $14,999
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 or more
2. The total numbers of owner-occupied units by value category were determined by an
extrapolation of the 1990 census data on the unit value of owner-occupied units. See
Table B.
3. Table C was prepared to determine affordable rent and house value for the income
groups. Affordable rent was determined by multiplying grass income by 30 percent
(assuming that affordable means that housing costs are not more than 30 percent of
income).
Affordable housing value was determined by multiplying income by 2.5 percent which
is consistent with the HUD methodology.
These figures for affordable rent and house value were then correlated to the 1990
Census data categories as shown in Table C.
4. Projections were then made based on the current dynamics of the Miami Beach
housing market.
Table A: Household by Income Category
Households
Very Low Income - between 50% of median
Low Income - 50 - SO% of median
Moderate Income - SO - 120% of median
Middle Income - 120 - 150% of median
High Income - Above 150%
7,656
12,250
lS,374
22,968
22,968
V-IS
Table B: Extrapolation of Value of Owner-Occupied Units from Census
Number
of Units Percent
Less than $50,000 171 1.22*
$50,000 - $99,000 1,865 13.27
$100,000 - $150,000 2,779 19.78
$150,000 - $199,000 2,622 18.66
$200,000 - $299,000 2,844 20.24
$300,000 or more 3,768 26.82
Total Occupied Units 14,049
*1990 Census Data
Value-Specified Owner-Occupied Units
Number
of Units Percent
Less than $50,000 53 1.22
$50,000 - $99,000 579 13.27
$100,000 - $150,000 863 19.78
$150,000 - $199,000 814 18.66
$200,000 - $299,000 883 20.24
$300,000 or more 1,170 26.82
Table C: Housing Affordability by Income Group
Very Low Income:
Owner-House Value
Renter-Contract Rent
Under $12,500
Under $125
Low Income:
Owner-House Value
Renter-Contract Rent
$12,500 - $37,498
$125 - $375
Middle Income:
Owner-House Value
Renter-Contract Rent
$37,498 - $62,498
$375 - $625
High Income:
Owner-House Value
Renter-Contract Rent
$62,498 and up
$625 and up
. V-19
VI. INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT
I. SEWAGE
Existing Facilities
Operational Responsibility: The Miami Beach Public Works Department is responsible
for the collection system. This system includes:
152 miles of lines
24 pump stations
The Metro-Dade County Water and Sewer Department (W ASD) is responsible for the
treatment of the sewage. Although not specified in the joint user agreement, WASD's
Virginia Key treatment plant allocates 15 percent of its capacity to the City. The
agreement simply assures the City that W ASD will meet its treatment needs.
Service Area: The system serves the entire City so the existing land use data in the
Future Land Use Element applies. All uses must tie into the sanitary sewer system as
a matter of City policy.
Existing County Plant Capacity and Demand: The Virginia Key treatment plant has a
design capacity of 133,000,000 gallons per day. The 1991 average daily flow into the
plant was 128,870,000 gallons per day which is 96.9 percent of capacity. However, a
new transmission line is being constructed that will link some of the current service
area of this. plant to the south plant which is being expanded. All three County plants
are interconnected by the trunk line system. The principal problem with this County
system is that of capacity in several key trunk lines including the one under Biscayne
Bay. This has caused a County-wide moratorium on new service agreements. This
does not have any significant impact on the City.
Existing City Distribution System Capacity and Demand: Currently the City is
generating a peak month (October) average daily flow of 27,315,890 gallons (annual
average daily is 20,518,067). This October 1991 peak is misleading due to a unique
storm and tidal situation causing infiltration.
Existing Level of Service: This works out to an existing level of service of 135 gallons
per person (permanent plus seasonal population) per day.
Current Needs: With the mid-1980's construction of a 54 inch force main from the City
to the Virginia Key plant plus installation of a new pump station in the South Pointe
area, the City collection system has adequate capacity to meet current needs. The 1989
Comprehensive Plan contains a detailed inventory of pump station characteristics.
The principal needs of the system are to replace antiquated components of these pump
stations and the line collection system. The current collection system has no adverse
impact on natural resources; a systematic line monitoring system is used to detect and
correct any line leakage.
Future Needs
With the permanent population projected to increase by less than 2,500 during both
the first five years and the 1997-2002 period, the collection system capacity will
continue to be adequate. In terms of the Virginia Key treatment plant, with the
demand actually decreasing in the short run due to the flow shift to the south plant,
VI-2
there is not a projected capacity problem during the 10 year planning period. The
primary County problem is with collection trunk line capacity.
ll. POTABLE WATER
Existing Facilities
Operational Responsibility: The City Public Works Department is responsible for the
storage and 157 mile distribution system. The Metro-Dade County Water and Sewer
Department is responsible for the water supply and treatment.
Service Area: The entire City is served by the City distribution system so the existing
land use data in the Future Land Use Element applies.
Existing County Plant Capacity and Flow: Two interconnected W ASD treatment
plants (Hialeah and Preston) serve Miami Beach. Their combined rated capacity is
190,000,000 gallons per day. However, the entire W ASD water treatment system is
interconnected. The combined capacity is 403,000,000 gallons per day with a
306,000,000 maximum day flow in 1991. W ASD allocates 10 percent of this capacity to
Miami Beach although this is not specified in the formal user agreement.
Existing City Distribution System Capacity and Flow: The City operates two above-
ground storage reservoirs on 75th Street with a combined storage capacity of 9,160,000
gallons and two on Dade Boulevard with a combined capacity of 7,800,000 gallons.
Two elevated water towers are located in the southern part of the City, each with
1,000,000 gallons of capacity. A booster station is located on each of the four trunk
lines entering the City. In 1989 W ASD began directly servirig four municipalities
previously served by Miami Beach. This left only Surfside in the City's service area
and means a 15 percent increase in excess capacity became available in the storage and
distribution system. The annual average daily flow for 1991-1992 was 20,438,855
gallons with a peak month (December) flow of 24,006,044 gallons. There is no impact
of the distribution system upon natural resources.
Existing Level of Service: Based on the combined permanent and seasonal population,
the current level of service is 134 gallons per person per day based on average flow.
Existing Needs: Of the 157 miles of distribution line, over 100 miles are more than 40
years old including eight miles of 2 to 4 inch pipe which is obsolete for fire fighting
purposes. The minimum modem standard for residential service lines is 6 to 8 inches
in diameter. Therefore, the principal need is to replace obsolete water lines plus
normal refurbishment and line replacement.
VI-3
m. SOLID WASTE
Existing Facilities
Operational Responsibility: The City contracts with a private hauler (IWS) for
collection of solid waste from lower density residential areas. The City also contracts
with private haulers for collection from higher density residential and non-residential
areas. The Metro-Dade County Public Works Department operates the collection of
recyclable solid waste, the transfer stations and disposal facilities.
Service Area: The entire City is served by the above system so the existing land use in
Table 1-1 applies.
Existing County Facility Capacity and Demand: The County's resource recovery
facility on N.W. 58th Street near the Turnpike is the disposal facility for Miami Beach.
The limiting capacity factor is the amount of landfill capacity remaining, even with a
resource recovery plant. The County has projected that there will be adequate landfill
capacity remaining at this facility until the Year 2009. The capacity of the other
landfills will be reached several years earlier. The daily capacity of the Central
transfer station is 4,000 tons with an average daily demand of only 900 tons.
Existing City Demand: The City has been able to reduce its landfill-bound solid waste
or garbage quantity by 20 percent since 1987 due to recycling. The 1991-1992 average
single family garbage generation rate was 623 tons per month. In addition, another
150 tons per month of yard waste is generated by these low density residential areas.
Through an interlocal agreement with Dade County, approximately 60 tons of
recyclable trash is collected per month. There is no way to determine the City's share
of the multifamily and non-residential solid waste picked up by the five private
contractors. There is no adverse impact on the natural resources of the City by this
collection process.
Existing Level of Service: The above numbers indicate that the City is currently
generating 3.2 pounds per capita per day based on the population in the lower density
residential neighborhoods. For total solid waste generation, including the non-
residential uses, the County-wide figure of seven pounds per person per day is
appropriate.
Existing Needs: No significant improvements are currently required relative to either
the County disposal system or the City collection fleet.
Future Needs
The City's projected landfill-destined solid waste volume is expected to decrease by
another 15 percent as recycling becomes fully implemented. The landfill at the
Resource Recovery Facility (which serves Miami Beach) has 17 years of capacity
remaining. The County is about to undertake a solid waste master plan which will
determine future disposal strategies since the other landfills will reach full capacity in
the 2000-2003 period.
VI-4
IV. DRAINAGE
Existing Facilities
Operational Responsibility and Service Area: The City Public Works Department is
responsible for operation of a system of storm sewers that coincides with the curbed
streets throughout Miami Beach. This is supplemented by a combination of swales,
underground trench or seepage disposal and drainage wells.
Design Capacity and Existing Level of Service: The Florida Department of
Environmental Regulations (DER) stormwater rule (Chapter 17-25 F AC) requires the
detention of the first one inch of rainfall. DER has delegated stormwater permit
responsibility to the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) which in
turn delegated it to the County Department of Environmental Resources Management
(DERM). DERM has a more restrictive policy of requiring full retention iffeasible;
otherwise the one inch rule applies. Although new storm sewers with ocean-bay
outfalls are not permitted, the existing system is designed for a 25 year frequency, 24
hour duration storm.
Existing Problems: The City faces two kinds of drainage problems. One is that if
certain high tide patterns coincide with a heavy rain, backup can occur in sections of
the storm sewer system. Secondly, the compacted fill nature of the barrier island's
"soil" means that natural infiltration can be slow - five inches offill are needed to soak
up one inch of rain. Therefore, drainage wells are increasingly being used instead of
the other drainage options.
Future Needs
Storm Sewers: The City &as jtli3t eempletet! a pregt'8fB ef iaeft.ttfymg aH ef the
stiermwater eutfaYs iBte the eea:ls eEl the Bay tegether with a testieg f8i' peHuteRt
leMs. Baset! e:a tliese BBdmgS, the City is prepa:riBg a mitigMieli eapit&l imprerlemeBt
pregrem that is elffJeeteEl tie aHeeate ae8'tH $1,299,999 pet' ,eM fer .,ari.e~ iBa-atieB.
et! EleeJl3-.veR systems. At one time. there were direct sanitary outfalls into the
Atlantic Ocean and interconnections between sanitary and storm sewer SYStems. All
such outfalls and interconnections were eliminated by "9roiects completed in 198!.
Storm water outfalls into surface water are identified in Fimres VII-3A and VII-3B in
the Conservation and Coastal Manae-ement Element. The identifications were
provided bv DERM. Thev have not vet been fullv confirmed bv the Miami Beach Public
Works Dellartment or its consultants. Nor have thev been subject to comprehensive
laboratorv testini of pollutant loads. at least insofar as is known to the actini Director
of Public Works. the Water and Sewer Superintendent and the Citv's storm water
eniineerine- consultants. There has been no use of trap .pine- and filtration devices at
the outfalls to reduce point-source pollution. However. as required by EPA mandate.
the Citv does incorporate with all new storm sewer improvement nrojects devices to
reduce point source pollution. The Citv has created a storm water utilitv which it
e~ will be instrumental in up~dine- stormwater facilities bv nrovidine- a revenue
stream to retire future bonded debt for storm water improvements.
In order to identifv storm water needs. the Citv has a currently Onioine- Storm Water
Svstem Improvements Master Plan study. This studv is beine- carried out in
coordination with DERM's efforts to prepare all required documentation to meet the
NPDES nermittine- requirements of the Environmental Protection ~encv as
articulated in Challter 24 of the Dade Countv Code and Chanter 403. FS. The studv is
VI-5
is in a very early phase: the consultant for the study is in the process of identifvin~
draina~e basins that require detailed modeline- and analysis and no laboratory testine-
is scheduled as of the fall of 1994. It is e~cted that the stuQy will eventually result in
the identification of environmentally detrimental dischaI:e'es. which are herein defined
to be anv dischare-es which contain hazardous pollutants as set bv the Environmental
Protection Aeencv pursuant to the Clean Water Act.
Natural Drainage Features and AiJuifer Recharge Areas: There are no true natural
drainage features within the City; Biscayne Bay and the ocean receive stormwater
runoff. All of the canals are man-made and even the Bay has been drastically altered.
There are no aquifer recharge areas on the barrier island. As noted previously, current
City and DERM policy prevents any additional structural drainage systems with tidal
water outfalls.
VI-6
VII. CONSERVATION and COASTAL
MANAGEMENT
INVENTORY
Water Resources
Figure 1-1, the Existing Land Use map, shows the significant water bodies, i.e., the ocean,
bay and estuarine waterways.
There are no upland wetlands in Miami Beach. The estuarine waters adjacent to the City
are barren of any seagrass due to historic dredging. The only exceptions are the Stillwater
Drive area and adjacent to the peninsula on which Mt. Sinai Hospital is located. Otherwise
the seagrass beds tend to be about 1,000 feet off shore, from Belle Isle north to about 58th
Street. See Figure VII-1. Any development along the western shoreline must be sensitive to
these seagrass beds and their critical importance to the ecosystem of Biscayne Bay. See page
48 of the Metro-Dade County Comprehensive Plan for details on this subject.
Soils
The entire island is essentially "made land" except for the sand along the ocean beach.
Therefore, soil erosion is not a problem.
Wildlife
Table A in the Appendix lists the known or dominant species of fish in Biscayne Bay and
nearby ocean waters. Table B lists the predominant bird species of the Bay and ocean beach
environments.
Endangered Species
Appendix Table C lists those bird, mammal and reptile species that are listed on the Dade
County list of endangered, threatened and rare species and might be found within Miami
Beach.
Vegetative Cover
Between the man-made soil of the island and the full development pattern, there is no
significant natural vegetative cover, e.g., no mangroves. Vegetation is limited to the
landscaping planted in conjunction with development (including parks) and limited ocean
dune vegetation.
VII-2
./ ,
.. , I
. t
.
I
.
\
I
{
t
I
~
1
Fig. VII-1
SEA GRASSES
BARREN (DREDGED)
BARREN (UNDREDGED)
ALGAE/SEAGRASS
SOURCE: METRO-DADE DERM (1983c.)
SEAGRASS OF BISCA YNE SAY
and MIAMI BEACH
Minerals
Again, the man-made nature of most of the island's subsoil means there are no commercially
significant minerals.
Air Quality
There is no air quality measuring station in or near Miami Beach. With the prevailing
easterly winds, the City normally has the cleanest air in central Dade County. Table VII-l
shows the County-wide trends for carbon monoxide, ozone and total suspended particulates.
It shows the extent to which air quality is improving, i.e., the percentage of days with "good"
air quality is increasing while the percentage with "unhealthy" is decreasing.
Table Vll-l: Air Quality Trends
1989 1990 1991
Percent of Days Good 61.09 58.90 73.97
Percent of Days Moderate 37.81 40.83 25.48
Percent of Days Unhealthful 1.10 0.27 0.55
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00
Source: Metro-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management, 1992.
Floodplains
Figure VII-2 shows the so-called V zones which is where the storm surge wave action is
particularly damaging. Other than the ocean beach, the V zones are limited to the north
edge of Hibiscus Island, the Julia Tuttle Causeway and small waterfront segments offour
other islands.
The balance of Miami Beach is in the 100 year flood plain. This means that given the
predominant elevation (4 feet above mean low tide) all new buildings must have their first
floor elevated from 8 to 11 feet above the mean low tide.
VII-4
Figure VII-2
1f ~MI BEACH
L OODPLAINS
COASTAL mGH
HAZARD AREA
'E: REMAINDER OF CITY
CLASSIF1ED ZONE AE
INUNDATED BY 100
YEAR FLOOD, SASE
FLOOD ELEVATIONS
DETERMINED
~c F.E.M.A.. FLOOD INSURANCE
RA TE MAPS. 1987 .
6
N
,.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---
I
I
1
z
'"
UJ
(,)
o
"
ZONE V 21,
r--
>-
<l:
CD
uJ
Z
,..
'"
(,)
ca
CD
JULl p., iUiiLE.
()
j::
Z
<l:
-J
I-
<l:
V 16
M,o,C/fRr
f1tj Ff -c;
A-US~w At'.
OC=::-~Qt::\ QV PI :'NNI~J~ "t:<::I~~J .9. '...1I<::7IiO,r- Oo=::-==.'~-:r'\" ~,..,,...,-..
CONSERVATION ANALYSIS
Biscayne Bay
The Bay and its tributaries are an important recreational asset (particularly boating and
fishing). Commercial boating and fishing playa lesser role in the vicinity of Miami Beach.
The Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan is a blueprint that is intended to
achieve conservation of the Bay and its immediate tributaries. To assure compliance with
this plan, the Biscayne Bay Shoreline Development Review Committee was established to
review all development permits (except single family and duplex houses) for tracts fronting
the Bay, except the area south of 6th Street in the South Pointe Redevelopment Area.
See the Coastal Management section on estuarine pollution.
Other Conservation Issues
Air: The principal means of reducing air pollution is to keep traffic volumes from further
exceeding roadway capacities. The most practical means of doing that is to "down zone"
certain areas of the City that might be redeveloped.
Floodplains: The requirement for new construction to have its first floor elevated is the most
practical means of floodplain conservation.
Wildlife: The most significant conservation concerns are manatees and sea turtles.
Manatees have been sighted in a number of the City's waterways, particularly Indian Creek
Waterway. The Florida Marine Patrol recently placed 57 signs within the City waterways to
remind boaters about manatees and speed restrictions. Otherwise, careful conservation of
the limited dune vegetation is about as much as the City can achieve.
Water Needs
Table VII-2 shows a projection of the City's water consumption based upon the population
projections in the Future Land Use Element and the current level of service.
Table VII-2: Water Need Projections
Average Daily Peak Day
Year Consumption in Gallons Consumption in Gallons
1992 20,438,855 24,006,044
1997 21,641,000 25,517,000
2002 22,641,000 26,696,000
BISCAYNE BAY POLLUTION
Water Quality
The only 1992 water quality measure available from the County Department of
Environmental Resources Management for comparison purposes was fecal coliform bacteria.
VII-6
The 1992 measurement in the Bay was 109 per 100 ML which is on the low side of the scale
of 100 to 4,800 observed in the early 1980's. This low figure near Miami Beach can be
attributed to the prevalence of salt water; higher readings are found in the creeks/canals to
the west of the Bay.
The coprostan samplings track the fecal coliform in that the reading near Miami Beach
(Indian Creek Waterway and the Bay front between the marina and the Julia Tuttle
Causeway) average about 300 nglg which is far lower than areas more remote from
Government Cut. '
The water adjacent to the City is rated average for the Bay with the best in the middle of the
Bay, particularly south of Rick en backer Causeway.
Storm Water Outfall Mitigation
Figures VII-3A and VII-3B shows the ElUality ef storm water outfalls from Miami Beach into
the Bay and Ocean. As noted in the Infrastructure Element, the-Cityis currently studvine-
the storm water system with the intent of identifyine- anv outfalls that mav be
environmentallv damaiinl!' and takinl!' Droper corrective action. has just eeBtflleteEl testi:B.g sf
the pelftleftt lealis at eaeh ef these 8UtfaBS. BaseEl en tliese fiR8iBgs, it is eeRti:B.WBg eEl
mereasmg its mittgaaeB. preg!"am wliereey ti'&I3pHtg &BEl filtraaen Eleviees are aElEleEl ta the
a1:ftfaHs te reEltlee f'eiRt saMee :paRl!tiaR.
Land Use and Infrastructure Implications
Due to the full development pattern of the City, nothing in the other elements of this Plan
will adversely impact the quality, circulation or sedimentation of the Bay.
Regulatory Programs
The single most effective program to combat estuarine pollution is the Biscayne Bay
Shoreline Development Review Committee's role in reviewing almost all waterfront
development permit applications. All other development permits are reviewed by DERM
from the standpoint of stormwater runoff controls.
VII-7
FIG. VII.SA
...r: j!
/
I
/
/
MIAMI BEACH
I
I
lllCIlE"I..CIlEII es."
,
,
,
,
:
.
,
,
,
:
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
:
!
:
.
.
~
lUll CUT
~ NAUTICAL MILE
. I j
0 ~ 1
N I I
0 31 1
STATUTE MILE
STORM WATER OUTFALLS
. ~ 30.
. 24-30.
. 12.23.
IOUIIC&;..n~OAOI 01"11 .". ..
IIn_OAOllO\.A""."O 01"" . _
FIG. vn-3B
\
I
!
z
<
LU
'"
o
sa
I-
Z
<
-
I-
<
8
J
Q
o
;J
j
.
f (J
.
:
.
.
:
:
ii!!
.~
......
~
(3
D
~
'"
."
~
CZ)
E
."
JU~JA l'UTTt.1 es..... ~
.
:
STORM WATER OUTFALLS
. ~30-
. 24-30-
. 12.23-
~ NAUTICAL MILE
I j
0 ~ 1
I I I
N 0 ~ 1
STATUTE MU
SOUIlCI:..nIlO-OAOI 01.... '''' .
IICTIlO-OAOI 'U.......O 01" . I'.
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
Existing Land Use
Since the entire City is within the coastal zone, Figure 1-1 provides the existing land use
picture. There are no significant land use conflicts along the City's extensive shore line in
terms of uses that are incompatible with the waterfront location. Because the hotels and
condos north of 15th Street cut off direct access to the ocean beach, the boardwalk system
and access at the end of the streets becomes critical for public access.
Water-Dependent and Water-Related Uses
Figure VII-4 shows the Miami Beach uses that exist only because they have direct access to
the water. The prime examples of water-dependent uses are the numerous marinas and boat
rental facilities plus the Sun Terminal. Water-related uses include the various boat repair
and marine products and sales firms. Although not considered water-dependent by the
State, clearly the numerous ocean front resort hotels would not exist if they were hot
adjacent to the beach.
Public Access
Figure VII-5 shows the numerous public access points to the ocean. The principal constraint
is not the number of access points but the parking to serve them as well as the nearby
commercial and residential uses. This is one of the principal policy areas to be addressed by
this plan. In other words, the density and popularity of Miami Beach together create this
problem. Public access points to the Bay are more limited.
There are two principal marinas serving the City, a municipal one near MacArthur
Causeway and a private marina near Venetian Causeway. Their combined capacity is 431
wetships. An inventory in December 1991 (the peak season) showed that only 211 of these
were in use indicating adequate capacity. Of course many of the residential and hotel
facilities have their own marina facilities.
Table VIII-l in the Recreation and Open Space Element data and analysis includes a listing
of the numerous waterfront parks including a commentary on problems and opportunities.
Economic Base and Historic Resources
Miami Beach is unique in that the historic areas and the extensive water frontage are the
twin engines that drive the City's economy. The oceanfront resort hotels, waterfront condos
and waterfront restaurants are the backbone of the economy. Many of the hotels and
restaurants, in turn, are in the historic district.
Infrastructure
The Infrastructure and Traffic Elements provide an account of the existing infrastructure, all
of which is in the coastal zone. As indicated, no significant capacity increases are planned
for any of these facilities.
VII-lO
Ire VII-4
v IAMI
FACH
, A TER
~LA TED
J1ES
I
I
.
.
.
N
l
..
.
I
BOAT RENTAL/SCHOOL
MIAMI BEACH ROWING CENTER
t., = r"~.RII4A (PRIMARILY
BOAT STO~AGE)
BOAT REUTAL
RENT ~.L Et/U I P: ~Ei'lT
t-1ARIUE ELECTROtIICS
SOAT REHTAL
MAP.WE EOUI P~EflT
YACHT PRODUCTS
M = MARINA (prI~ARILY
BOAT STOfMGE)
~~RINE INSTRi.)~ErnS
~.ARINE ELECTROtlICS
SAILING/DIVING SCHOOL
BOAT REPAIR
BOAt RENT~.l
TE~~INAl OPERATORS/OFFICEf
I
..........._....... ___ _., "..... . "......,,- .....__,.-.... ;) L...JIC""-.......r""ll.- ....nr--~....,.I .. T.I""""-.. .......,. "C"....... ~.
Redevelopment
Figure 1-5 shows the Community Development Block Grant target areas which include those
areas in need of redevelopment. These include the two established redevelopment areas, ~
known as the South Pointe Redevelo:pment Area and the other known as the Convention
Center Villae-e Redevelo:pment Area. iB Seutft Pemte aBa the ether Hi the CeRVeIlaeR Ceftter
8f'eft:-
Coastal High Hazard Area
The entire City is in the Coastal High Hazard Area because full evacuation is required in the
case of any hurricane. Realistically, none of the infrastructure can be relocated because over
100,000 people are dependent upon that infrastructure. However, other than some sea walls
and beach-related recreational facilities, none is located within the storm surge V zone. The
latter is limited to the ocean beach.
Beach and Dune Systems
A $48,000,000 beach renourishment project was completed in 1981. This was followed by a
$6,000,000 dune vegetation project. The next phase of waterfront stabilization will be
mangrove planting and rip-rap installation along the Julia Tuttle Causeway and adjacent
Mt. Sinai Hospital.
HURRICANE PLANNING
Sources of Hurricane Evacuation Analysis
Four key documents form the basis for this analysis of evacuation planning for the City:
· Metro-Dade County Planning Department, Coastal Management Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, 1989 and 1992.
· Metro-Dade County Office of Emergency Management, Emergency Operations Plan
Section I Hurricane Procedures, 1991.
· U.S. Corps of Engineers, Lower Southeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study,
1991.
· City of Miami Beach, Hurricane Handbook, 1991.
All four of these documents were published prior to Hurricane Andrew and therefore are
certain to be reviewed and revised based upon that experience.
Evacuation Status
The County Coastal Management Element indicates that Miami Beach is subject to total
evacuation in the case of any hurricane. The County Office of Emergency Management
breaks this down into five categories, the first three of which apply to the City:
Level A
All electricity-dependent individuals living at home are to be evacuated.
Level B
All residents east of Collins Avenue are to be evacuated.
Level C
The balance of Miami Beach is to be evacuated.
VII-I3
If even a Category 1 hurricane is expected to land fall in Dade County, Levels A-C are
triggered.
Hurricane Shelters
Under the 1991 policy, the County no longer lists hurricane shelters in their plan and
procedures due to its constant state of flux. Instead, the shelters are announced at the time
of the evacuation order.
Number Requiring Evacuation
Table VII-3 shows the population that must be evacuated from each of the four evacuation
zones covering the City. It also shows the likely destination of these evacuees and therefore
the number of people potentially requiring public shelter.
Table VU-3: Hurricane Evacuation Need
Zone Evacuating Public Friend's Hotell Out of
Number Population Shelter Home Motel County
2 - South of Dade Blvd. 60,266 4,592 17,014 6,025 32,630
3 - Venetian Isles 3,275 231 1,060 326 1,655
4 - Central Miami Beach 26,733 2,101 7,053 2,672 14,903
5 - Northern Miami Beach 39,417 2,911 11,831 3,940 20,730
This pattern is based upon a Category 4 or 5 storm occurring prior to November.
Source: Lower Southeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study, U.S. Corps of Engineers,
1991.
Since the County and U.S. Corps of Engineers no longer publish a list of shelters for Miami
Beach residents, it is not possible to assess the number of spaces available. It should be
added that based upon the Hurricane Andrew experience, experts feel that the percentage
leaving the County as opposed to seeking public shelter may increase over the 1991
assumptions.
Evacuation Routes
Three of the four causeways provide the evacuation routes for Miami Beach. The County
Office of Emergency Management has noted two intersections and one street segment that
are of concern:
· MacArthur Causeway and Alton Road intersection
· Arthur Godfrey Road and Alton Road intersection
· Collins Avenue between Arthur Godfrey Road and 5th Street
VII-14
They recommend special precautions, including:
· Police direct traffic
· Tow problem parked cars
· Redirect flow with barriers
· Modify lane use
Evacuation Times
The County emergency planners estimate that it will take 11 1/2 to 13 hours to evacuate
Miami Beach prior to November and 14-15 3/4 hours after the seasonal population begins to
arrive.
Special Needs Population
Table VII-3lists those facilities that will require special evacuation attention due to the
medical condition or age of the occupants. A detailed evacuation matrix in the 1991 County
operations plan lists the shelters and transportation resources that would be used to
evacuate each of these facilities.
VII-I5
City Residential Density Policy
The most direct way to maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times is to control the
density of residential development. By continuing to "downzone" portions of the City, there
is greater assurance that the permanent population will not increase significantly due to
private redevelopment. Most hurricanes have occurred prior to the influx of seasonal
residents.
Table VU-4: Facilities With Special Evacuation Needs
Bed Capacity
ACLFs:
The Continental
Day Care for Frail Elderly
Delta
Hebrew Home
Hudson Apartments
Nightingale Manor
Normandy's
Park Adult
Plaza James
Plaza South
Pointe Bayside
45
40
75
124
50
12
16
71
64
73
35
Hospitals:
Miami Heart Institution
Mt. Sinai
South Shore
St. Francis
258
699
120
273
Nursing Homes:
Gem Care Center
Hebrew Home
South Pointe Manor
189
102
220
Source: Lower Southeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study, U.S. Corps of Engineers,
1991.
Post Disaster Redevelopment
Since the entire City is within the Coastal High Hazard Area, significant public acquisition
and relocation of structures or infrastructure is not feasible. The City did not sustain major
damage from Hurricane Andrew. Damage to signs, traffic lights, landscaping and beachfron t
cabanas was the most widespread pattern, in addition to minor window and roofing damage.
The County is continuing to improve the beach dune vegetation which should assist in
creating a more stable dune area.
VII-16
APPENDIX A
FISH AND SHELLFISH SPECIES
RECORDED DURING A 21-MO~TH CREEL SURVEY IN BISCAYNE BAY
1982-1983
G . important game or food specjes;
R · reereatlonal species
B · balt species
U . undeslrable speeles
G Tarpon (Megalops atlantlcus)
G Boneflsh (Albula vulpes)
G Snook (Centropomus undecimalls)
G Rock hlnd (Eplnephelus adscen~lonls)
G Red hlnd (Eplnephelus guttatul)
G Jewfish (Eplnephelus itajara)
G Red grouper (Eplnephelus modo)
G Nassau grouper (Epinephelus sertatus)
G Black grouper (Hycteroperea bonaei)
G Gag grouper (Hycteroperca microlepis)
G Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix)
G Cobias (fam. Rachycentridae)
G Cobia (Rachycentron canadum)
G Afrlcan pompano (Aleetrll cl11aris)
G Greater amberjack (Serl01a dumerill)
G Florlda pompano (Trachlnotu8 earollnus)
G Permlt (Traehlnotus falcatus)
G Snappers-(fam. Lut1anldae)
G Hutton snapper (Lutjanus ana11s)
G School master (Lutjanus apodus)
G Gray/mangrove snapper (Lutjanus grlseus)
G Dog snapper (Lutjanus joeu)
G Mahogony snapper (I.utjanus II8hogoni)
G Lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris)
G Yellowtail Snapper (Ocyuru8 chrysurus)
G Spotted seatrout (<:ynosc10n nebulosus)
G Sheepshead (Archosurgus probatocephalus)
G Hogf1sh (Lachnolaimus maxlmu8)
G King mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla)
G Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus macu1atus)
G Cero mackerel (Scolnberomorus ngaUs)
G Gulf flounder (Paralichthys albigutta)
G Spiny lobster (Panulirus argus)
G Penaeid shrimp (Penaeus ap.)
G Blue crab (Cal11nectes sapldus)
R Ladyflsh (Elops saurus)
R Sand perch (Diplectrum form08um)
R Yellow jack (Caranx bantholo...i)
R Blue runner (Caranx crysol)
R Crevalle jack (Caranx hippos)
R Horse-eye jack (Car~nx latus)
R Bar jack (Carana ruber)
R Rainbow runner (Elagatis bipinnulata)
R Lookdown (Selene vomer)
R Black drum (Pogonias cromis)
R Sand drum (Umbrlna coroides)
R Black margate (Anisotremus 8urinamens1s)
R Hargate (Haemulon album)
R Tomtate (Haemulon aurolineatum)
R Caesar grunt (Raemu1on carbonar1um)
R Smallmouch grunt (Haemulon chryaargyreum)
R French grunt (Raemulon flavolineatum)
R Spanish grunt (Raemulon macrostomum)
R Sailor's choice (Haemulon parrai)
R White grunt (Haemulon plumieri)
R Blustriped gruDt (Haemulon sciurus)
R Seabream (Archosargus rhomboidalts)
R Grass porgy (Calamus arctifrons)
R Jolthead porgy (Calamus bajonado)
R Saucereye porgy (Calamus calamus)
R Sheephead porgy (Calamus penna)
R Spot tail pinfish (D1plodus holbrooki)
R Bermuda chub (lyphosus sectatrix)
R Atlantic spadeflsh (Chaetodipterul faber)
R Great barracud. (Sphyraena barracuda)
B Pilchard (Hareagula jaguana)
B Atlantic thread herring (Opisthonema ollgnum)
B Spanish sardine (Sardinella aurita)
B Anchovies (fam. Engrau11dae)
B Bigeye anchovy (Anchoa lamprotaenia)
B Bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli)
B Hardhead halfbeak (Chriodorus atherinoides)
B Ballyhoo (Hemiramphus brasiliensis)
B Pinfish (Lagondon rhomboidee)
B Striped/black mullet (Hugil cephalus)
B White mullet (Mugil curema)
U Southern stingray (Uasyatls americana)
U Atlantic guitarfish (Rhinobatos lentiginosus)
U B1acknose shark (Carcharhlnus acronotus)
U Blacktip shark (Car(:harhinus 11mbatus)-
U J.emon shark (Negapr ton brevirostris)
U Great hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran)
U Bonnethead (Sphyrna tiburo)
U lnshore Lizardfish (Synodus foetens)
U H3rdhead catfish (Arius felis)
U Gulf toadfish (Ariuro felis)
U Nee~lefish (Strongylura sp.)
U Houndfish (Tylosurus crocodilus)
U Sand T1lefish (Halacanthus plumieri)
U Sklpjack/leat~r jacket (Oligoplites saurus)
U Silver jenny (Euc1nostomu8 gula)
U Yellowfin majarra (Gerres cinereus)
U Spotted goatfish CPseudupeneu8 maculatus)
U Porkflsh (Anlsotremus v1rginicus)
U Plgfi8h (Orthoprlstis ehrysoptera)
U Queen angelfish (Holaeanthus cillaris)
U Gray angelfi8h (2~maeanthu. areuatus)
U Sergeant aa10r (A~udefdul 8axatil18)
U Spanish hogfi8h (i.odianu8 rufu8)
U Clown WraS8e (Haliehoeres aaeulivinna)
U ~lue parrot fish (~earus eoeruleus)
U Gauguanche (Sphyraena guaehaneho)
U Doctorf18h (Acanthuru8 ehirurgus)
U ~lue tang (Aeanthurus coerul~us (ol~e tang)
U Scorpionfish (Scorpaena sp.)
U Searobln (Prlnonotus sp.)
U Peacock flounder (Bothum luna~us}
U Lined sole (Achirus llneatue)
U Gray trlggerflsh (Baliste8 capriscus)
U Queen tr1ggerflsh (Ballstes vetulal
U Black durgon (Kelichthys niger)
U P1anehead fllef1sh (Honacanthus hlspidus)
U Scrawled cowfi8h (LaetophrY8 qu.4~1conia)
U Trunkfiah (Lactophrys rigonus)
U Bandtai1 puffer (Sphoeroides spengleri)
U Burrf1~h (Chilomycterus ap.)
U SwilDlll1ng crab (Portunus sp.J
'U Squid (unidentified squid)
U Octopue (unindentlcal octopus)
Source:
Berkeley (1984)
APPENDIX B
Birds of Biscavne Bav aDd the SurrouDdin2 Areas
The following table lists the known species of birds within the Aquatic Preserve Management
Area that includes the western portions of the City of Miami Beach. This list was prepared
by Bruce D. Neville and A. Morton Cooper. Jr.. Board Members of the Tropical Audubon
Society.
Birds oC the Aauatic Preserve MaDI2emeDt Area
Habitat/Use
Open
Waters
Beaches
cl Flats
Mangroves Comments
WADING BIRDS
Herons:
Great Blue
Great White
Green-backed
Little Blue
Tricolored
Yellow-Crowned Night
Black-Crowned Night
F N,R (p,w)
F color phase of Great Blue
F N,F,R (p,w)
F N (P.w)
F N (P.w)
F N.R (p, W)
F F,R (w,r)
Egrets:
Great
Snowy
Cattle
Reddish
F
F
F
F
R
R
R
R-
(P.w)
(P.w)
(p,w)
(p,r)
Ibis:
White
Glossy
Clapper Rail
Roseate Spoonbill
F
F
F
N,R
N,F,R
R
(p, w)
(r)
(p)
(p)uncom
Key: F - Feeding Habitat N - Nesting Habitat R - Roosting Habitat
(r) Rarely seen, but known to be in APM Area
(m) Migrates through the APM Area
(w) Winters in the APM Area
(5) Summers in the APM Area
(p) Permanent residents (Many species that are here year round :He joined by sa me
species for the winter thus enlarging the winter population over the permanent)
IlWlt (Cant.)
Habit::lt/Use
Open Be:lches
Wa ters & Flats Man2roves Comment
ShoreBirds:
Plovers:
Semipalmatcd F.R (m.w)
Wilson's F.N R (p)
Black-bellicd F.R (m,w)
Piping F (m)
Killdeer F.R (m,w)
Sandpipers:
Spotted F.R (m,w)
Solitary F.R (r,m)
Pectoral F.R (m)
Least F.R (m,w)
Stilt F.R (m)
Semipalmated F.R (m)
Western F.R (m)
Yellow-lcgs:
Greater F.R (m.w)
Lesser F.R (m,w)
Ruddy Turnstone F.R (m. w ,s)
Common Snipe (w)
Whimbrel F (r,w)
Willet F.R (p.m,w)
Red Knot F (m.w)
Dunlin F (w)
Dowitchers:
Short-billed F (w)
Long-billed (r, w)
Marbled Godwit F.R (r.m,w)
Sanderling F.R (m.w)
Black-necked Stilt N.F.R (5)
Ractor!
Bald Eagle F N (r)
Il.Wh (Cont.)
H:l bi t:lti Use
Open Beaches
Waters & Fla ts ManlZroves Comment$
Osprey F N,F,R N,R (p, w)
Ha wks:
Red-shouldered F N,F,R
Red-tailed F (r)
Broad-winged F F,R (m,w)
Sharp-shinned F F,R (m,w)
Cooper's F,R (r,m)
Turkey Vulture F R (p,w)
Northern Harrier F (w)
Peregrine Falcon F,R (r ,m)
Merlin F F,R (m,w)
American Kestrel F F,R (m, w)
Eastern Screech-Owl F,N (p,w)
Waterfowl (Ducks, Geese, and Swans only)
Red-breasted Merganser F R (w)
Northern Shoveler R (r,w)
American Coot F,R (m, w)
Blue-winged Teal F F,R (m, w)
SwimminR Birds
Brown Pelican R R N,R (p,w)
Magnificent Frigatebird F R (p,s)
Dou ble-crested Cormorant F R N,R (p,w)
Coomon Loon F,R (w)
Gulls:
Laughing F,R N,F,R (p,w)
Ring-billed F,R F,R (w)
Herring f,R f,R (w)
Great Black-backed F,R F,R (r,w)
Bonaparte's F,R F,R (r,w)
Terns:
Least F N,F,R (s)
Royal F F,R (p,w)
F onter's F F,R (w)
Caspian F F.R (w)
Sandwich F F,R (w)
Gull-billed F F,R (r)
BWIJ (Cont.)
Habitat/Use
Islands
Opcn Bcaches
Wa ten .t Ft ats Manuoves Comments
Terns: (Cant.)
Common F F.R (r)
Black Skimmer F F.R (w)
Picd-billed Grebe F.R (m.w)
Perchinll Bird!. Sonllbirds. and Other!
Warblers:
Prairie N.F.R N.F.R (p.m.s)
(Cuban) Yel10w N.F (5)
Black-and- White F F (w)
Northern Parula F F (w)
Yellow-rumped F F (w)
Y ellow-throa ted F F (w)
Palm F (w)
Common YeUowthroat F
Cape May F (m)
Black-throated Blue F (m)
Blackpoll F (m)
Northern Waterthrush F (m,w)
American Redstart F (m.w)
Black-whiskered Vireo N.F N,F (5)
Belted Kingfisher F F.R F.R (w)
Mangrove Cuckoo N.F.R N.F.R (r .5)
Red-bellied Woodpecker N.F .R F (p)
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker F F.R (w)
Rock Dove F common pigeon
White-crowned Pigeon F (r)
Mourning Dove F
Common Ground-dove F.N
Yellow-billed Cuckoo F F (5)
Smooth-billed Ani F
Common Nighthawk F (s)
Ru by-throated Hummingbird F (r)
Pilcated Woodpecker F (r)
Gray Kinlbird F F (5)
Tree Swallow F F F (w)
Barn Swallow F F F (m)
Fish Crow F
Northern Mockingbird F
J1WlJ (Cont.)
Habitat/Us,
Open
Waters
Islands
Beaches
cl Flats
Manuoves Comments
Perchinll Birds. SonlZbirds. and Others (Cant.)
Thrushes:
Swainson's
Gray-cheeked
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
(m)
(m)
(m)
(w)
Veery
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
European Starling
White-eyed Vireo
House Sparrow
Bobolink
Red-winged Blackbird
Grackles:
(m)
Boat-tailed
Common
F
F
F,N
F
F,N
Northern Cardinal
Sa vannah Sparrow
(w)
Note: This list of representative birds of the Aquatic Preserve Management Area was
prepared by Bruce D. Neville and A. Morton Cooper, Jr., Board Members of the
Tropical Audubon Society. This list of birds includes those species that live and/or
migrate to the islands and waters within the city limits of Miami Beach.
APPENDIX C: ENDANGERED, THREATENED, RARE AND WILDLIFE
SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN
Species Status Habitat Reasons for Concern
Birds:
Brown Pelican Threatened Apparently do not next in Former use ofDDT, human
(N;U.S. Biscayne Bay; commonly disturbance of nest/roost
T; Fl.) seen throughout the Bay; sites have caused decline
roost on sand bars, pilings; elsewhere; fishing and
feed in shallow waters near deliberate harassment are
docks, piers local problems
Bald Eagle Threatened Nests in tall trees in BNP Former pesticide uses,
(E;U.S. and along mainland coast; destruction of coastal habitat
T; Fl.) feed in Biscayne Bay and distur15ance of nests .
throughout year have caused serious
population decline
Osprey Threatened Primarily nest in tree tops or Same as for eagle, local
(N; U.s. on man-made structures numbers have remained
T; Fl.) fairly stable
Roseate Tern Threatened Forages on beaches and mud Rare
(N;U.S. flats; nests in Keys
T; Fl.)
Least Tern Threatened Migrant; nests on open flat Development of beach, off-
(N;U.S. beaches; locally nests on shore islands for recreation,
T; Fl.) Virginia Key, spoil islands residential uses has
and gravelly building roofs eliminated nesting areas
used by this gregarious,
ground-nesting species
Roseate Spoonbill Rare Feed on concentrations of Have lost traditional feeding
(N;U.S. fish, prawns at edge of Bay sites in south Biscayne Bay
N;Fl.) and in mangroves; locally
seen regularly about the
Bay, frequently at Chapman
Field
Piping Plover Species of Outer beaches, extensive Heavy and increasing use of
Special sand fills, large tidal sand habitat by humans
Concern flats, mud flats
(N;U.S.
N;Fl.)
Royal Tern Species of Harbors, estuaries, mouths Disturbance and destruction
Special of rivers, sand shoals along of habitat (no nesting in
Concern coast Dade County)
(N; U.S.
N; Fl.)
VII-25
Sandwich Tern Species of Beaches, sand flats and bars, Formerly shot for plumes
Special spoil islands, usually in and eggs, habitat
Concern company of Royal Terns disturbance (no nesting in
(N;U.S. Dade County
N; Fl.)
Black Skimmer Species of E~ndingn~tingrange Destruction of nesting
Special southward, nests on gravel grounds on open beaches and
Concern roofs and disturbed sites spoil islands
(N;U.S.
N;Fl.)
Florida Burrowing Species of High sandy ground, prairies, Destruction of natural
Special sandhills, pastures, open habitat
Concern expanses (Le., airports,
(N;U.S. campuses, etc.)
N;Fl.)
Mammals:
Manatee Threatened Inhabit all ofBiscayne Bay, Threatened by propellers of
(E;U.S. tends to concentrate near power boats, mutilation and
T; Fl.) Chapman Field, Black Point habitat destruction; maiming
and within the Coral Gables and killing in flood gate
Waterway structures
Reptiles:
Atlantic Hawksbill Endangered Generally associated with Source of tortoise shell used
Turtle (E;U.S. reef communities; seen in in jewelry increasing
E; Fl.) Biscayne Bay demand; exploited for
centuries
Gopher Tortoise Threatened Dry, well-drained soils, Destruction of habitat
(N;U.S. beach scrub, sand pine,
T; Fl.) longleaf pine, turkey oak and
live oak hammock
Atlantic Loggerhead Threatened Nesting occurs on sandy Large numbers of young lost
Turtle (N;U.S. beaches; inhabit temperate to nest destruction by
T; Fl.) and subtropical waters such racoons; former nesting
as Biscayne Bay beaches unsuitable due to
erosion and development
VII-26
en
-4
Z
G>
;Q
m
o
:rJ
m
)>
-of
o
Z
Ao
o
"
m
z
en
"
)>
o
-
.
I
..,
""
01
0.
'Tl
ur
!:i
~
<
'f
-
I
VIII. RECREATION and OPEN SPACE
ELEMENT
INVENTORY
Table VIII-l provides an inventory of the recreation and open space facilities in Miami
Beach. The numbers are keyed to Figure VIII-I.
Table VIll-l: Recreation Facilities Analysis
Bay Shore Golf Course (Map Location 1)*
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Belle Isle Park (Map location 2)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Alton Road and 23rd Street
Special
149 acres (includes city nursery and maintenance
headquarters
18 hole golf course with club house and tennis courts
Moderate to heavy
Added jogging/exercise course on perimeter and Class I
bikeway
Island Avenue on Belle Isle
Neighborhood park
3.30 acres
Landscaped passive park
Light
Maintain as a passive park
Brittany Bay Park (Map Location 2A)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems and Opportunities:
Collins Park (Map location 3)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Indian Creek Drive at 63rd Street
Neighborhood Park
2.8 1
Vitacourse and passive open space
Light
Improve public access
Collins Avenue at 21st and 22nd Streets
Special, serves entire City
11.85 acres (including.46 beach)
Art Museum; library and landscaped area; beach area
Heavy use of beach area
Integrate with new beach park concept and boardwalk
* All map locations refer to Figure VII-2
VIll-2
Crespi Park (Map location 4)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Fairway Park (Map location 5)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Fisher Park (Map location 6)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Flamingo Park (Map location 7)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Crespi Blvd. and Hawthorne Avenue
Mini-park
2.02 acres
Storage and office Building; tot lot; softball field; 1
basketball court
Light to moderate
Re-design tot lot and re-Iandscape
Fairway Drive and North Shore Drive
Neighborhood park
4.48 acres
Activity building- softball field; tot lot- 2 tennis courts; 2
shuffleboard courts; 1 basketball court
Light to moderate
Maintain current adequate functions
West 50th Street and Alton Road
Neighborhood Park
2.01 acres
Tot lot; landscaped open space
Light
Maintain current adequate passive use
From 11th to 15th Streets between Meridian Avenue
and Alton Road
District park
34.5 acres
Activities building; swimming pool; tot lot; 17 tennis
courts w/stadium and pro shop; 4 basketball courts;
1 unmarked field football stadium w/track; baseball
stadium; 7 handball courts; 6 shuffleboard courts
Very heavy use, averaging 2,000 people daily with
peaks of up to 10,000
Extraneous uses in park, including parking and
sheds/storage; the Flamingo Park Master Plan
shows the opportunities
VITI-4
Garden Center/Conservatory (Map location 8A)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
19th Street and Convention Center Drive
Special, serves entire City
4.13 acres
Small Auditorium; offices; 7,000 sq. ft.
greenhouse/conservancy and Holocost Memorial
Light to moderate
Possible link w/expanded 21st St. Community Center
passive area; redesign for better public use
La Gorce Country Club (Map location 8A)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems and Opportunities:
Lummus Park (Map location 9)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Muss Park (Map location 11)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Alton Road at 56th Street
Private Recreation Site
144.28
Golf Course, tennis, club house
Heavy
Private site
Ocean Drive between 5th Street and 14th Place
District Park
26.34 acres (includes 16.36 beach)
10th St. Community Center with auditorium and beach
patrol offices. Ocean front auditorium w/dance
patio serves as a community center
Heavy
1989 improvement program
Chase Avenue and 44th Street
Neighborhood park
3.65 acres
Activities building; tot lot, open play area, 1 tennis
court, 2 basketball courts
Very heavy, year round
Park is in two parcels separated by Chase Avenue;
possible expansion to provide room for fields
Normandy Isle Park and Playground (Map location 12)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Normandy Isle and Trouville Esplanade
Neighborhood park
3.6 acres
Shelter w/25-yard pool; 2 soft ball fields; 1 basketball
court; tot lot
Moderate to heavy
light use of shelter, pool not heated; program more
activities
Normandy Shores Golf Course (Map location 13)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Biarritz Drive
Special
126 acres
VIII -5
Golf course with clubhouse
Moderate to heavy ,44,000 rounds in 1987 with heaviest
use in the fall and spring
Added jogging/exercise course and Class I bikeway on
perimeter
Normandy Shores Tennis Courts (Map location 14)
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
North Shore Drive
Special
2.29 acres
4 tennis courts
Light
Install effective wind screen and! or planting on Bay
side
North Shore State Recreation Area (Map location 15)
Collins Avenue between 79th and 87th Streets
State-owned district park
34.61 acres (includes 7.6 beach)
Deck area with chickees; board walk and walklbike path
through natural vegetation
Moderate
Major vandalism at night; State would like to give park
back to the City
North Shore Park and Community Center (Map location 16)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Dickens Ave to Ocean between 72nd and 73rd Streets
Neighborhood
17.22 acres (includes 1.84 beach)
Activities building with multi-purpose hall, ceramics
room; restrooms; tennis center; shop and locker; tot
lot; lighted softball field with bleachers; 2 basket
ball courts; 8 lighted shufile board courts; 15 lighted
tennis courts; community center with 1 large multi-
purpose room and band shell with stage and
dressing rooms
Very heavy use, year round
Tennis court light poles make one basketball court
unusable; wear and tear from heavy use on field
area; redesign area around baseball field to improve
utility; integrate with new beach concept possible
site for controlled food concession or overnight
camping facility
Palm Island Park (Map location 17)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities
Palm Avenue and Fountain Street
Neighborhood Park
2.13 acres
3 tennis courts; 1 basketball court I handball court;
small
Field area; tot lot
Light
Add handball courts
vm-6
Par 3 Golf Course (Map location 18)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Prairie Avenue and West 28th Street
Special
25 acres
Parking and golf facilities
Moderate to heavy
Parkview Island Park (Map location 18A)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems. and Opportunities:
Pier Park (Map location 19)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Pine Tree Park (Map location 20)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Polo Park (Map location 21)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
South Shore Park (Map location 23)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Parkview Island
Mini-park
0.80
Passive open space
Light
Maintain as passive park
Ocean Drive and Biscayne Street to 1st Street
Neighborhood Park
8.93 (includes 4.65 acres of beach)
Parking with restrooms, restaurant
Heavy to moderate
Integrate into new beach concept with expansion as
part of South Pointe Revevelopment Area Sftetoe.
ReEle-.:dsl3meat
45th Street and Pine Tree Dri:ve
Neighborhood Park
7.75 acres
Water front property with natural vegetation and small
parking lot; vita course
Light
Currently minimally developed with much disturbed
vegetation; develop for low intensity use w/o
disturbing natural vegetation; vita course needs
maintenance. Needs rebuilding as a result of
damage from Hurricane Andrew.
S.W. 42nd Street and N. Meridian Avenue
Neighborhood Park
4.11 acres
Activities building; multi-use field; 3 tennis courts; 3
basketball courts
Heavy
Multipurpose building to be constructed as part of land
swap with the Nautilus Middle School
Biscayne Street and Alton Road
Neighborhood Park
3.43
VIll-7
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems and Opportunities:
Wofford Park (Map location 24)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities-
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Stillwater Park (Map location 25)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Tatum Park (Map location 26)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Basketball courts, open space
Light
Integrate wi Miami Beach Marina
42nd Street and Pine Tree Drive
Special
2.52 acres .
Multi-use 2-story building built in 1941 rehabilitated in
1984; operated by JCC; soft ball field; tennis court
Moderate
Community service organization will expand operations
HawthomeAvermeandS~waterDri~
Neighborhood Park
1.68 acres
Activities building with storage, restrooms and covered
patio; 1 multi-use field; 1 basketball court; tot-lot
Heavy, year-round use
Maintain adequate current functions
80th Street and Waterway Drive
Mini-park
0.78 acres
Activities building; tot-lot; 1 basketball court small field
Light to moderate
Activities building is closed should be opened to utilize
space need more program activities
Washington Park (Map location 27)
(Ross Weiss Friendship Comer, Senior Citizens Vegetable Garden)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Youth Center (Map location 28)
.Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Problems & Opportunities:
2nd Street and Washington Avenue
Mini-park
1.40 acres
Ross Weiss Friendship Comer: 2 shuffieboard courts; 2
bocce ball; tot-lot; small activity building.
Senior Citizens Vegetable Garden: community garden.
Washington Park: tot-lot; small building.
Moderate to heavy
Integrate with South Pointe Redevelopment Area
Pine Tree Drive and W. 28th Street
Special, serves entire City
2.75 acres
Large activities building with basketball court/gym, 6
bowling lanes, arcade, billiards, ice skate rink, rap
room, multi-purpose room, snack bar, lockers, 25-
yard swimming pool; 3 tennis courts
Maintain current activities with possible expansion
VIII-8
21st Street Community Center (Map location 29)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Washington Avenue and 21st Street
Community Center
2.46 acres
Activity building with stage, band shell, ceramics room
classrooms; small landscaped area
Moderate to heavy
Hemmed in by Collins Canal and parking lot; expand
passive space with possible relocation of parking
35th-36th Street Open Space (Map location 30)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
46th Street Park (Map location 31)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
53rd Street Park (Map location 32)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
65th Street Park (Map location 33)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
35th-36th Street and Collins Avenue
Special, serves entire City
1.15 (including 0.14 beach)
Parking and beach area
Moderate to heavy
Integrated with new beach boardwalk
46th Street and Collins Avenue
Special, serves entire City
6.49 acres (including 1.71 beach)
Parking and beach access
Moderate to heavy
Integrated with new beach boardwalk and beach
concept
53rd Street and Collins Avenue
Special, serves entire City
4.33 acres (includes 1.1 beach)
Parking and beach access
Moderate to heavy
Integrate with new beach concept
65th Street and Collins Avenue
Special, serves entire City
3.04 (including 1.05 beach)
Parking, grass and beach areas
Moderate to heavy
Integrate with new beach concept
75th Street Library - Ocean Terrace (Map location 34)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
75th Street and Ocean Terrace
Special
3.64 acres (including 2.49 beach)
Library operated by Dade county; parking; grass and
beach areas
Moderate to heavy
Integrate with new beach concept new beach boardwalk
and chickees
VIll-9
Biscayne Elementary-Community School (Map location 35)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
77th Street and Tatum Waterway Drive
Neighborhood Park
5.47 acres
Multi-use hard courts; play field; artificial 'mountain'
Light to moderate
Redesign artificial 'mountain' and adjacent areas
FisherlFienberg Elementary School (Map location 36)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
14th Street and Washington Avenue
Neighborhood park
5.93 acres
Multi-use court; play field; gymnasium, urban park
Heavy during school year
Possible redesign of outdoor space
Miami Beach Senior High-Community School (Map location 38)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Dade Boulevard and Prairie Avenue
Neighborhood park
4.0 acres
Multi-use courts and play field
Heavy during school year
Possible expansion and joint public use of new fields
Nautilus Middle School (Map location 39)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
N. Michigan Avenue and W. 43rd Street
Neighborhood park
2.7 acres
Multi-use courts
Heavy use during school year
Swapped with a portion of Polo Park
North Beach Elementary School (Map location 40)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Prairie Avenue and W. 41st Street
Neighborhood park
5.0 acres
Multi-use court- play field
Heavy during school year
Integrate with redesigned Muss Park
South Pointe Elementary School (Map location 41)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
3rd Street and Lennox Avenue
Mini-park
1. 7 acres
Multi-use court and open area
Heavy during school year
Vandalism
VIII-IO
Island View Park (Map Location 42)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Purdy Avenue and 18th Street
Neighborhood
3.43 acres
Boat launch ramp with two adjacent fishing piers,
picnic tables, tot lot, parking for cars and boat
trailers
Moderate
Opened in 1987 with convenient boat launch for wide
service area use; Marine Patrol headquarters
South Pointe Park (Map Location 43)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Government Cut and Atlantic Ocean
Special use district park
17 acres
Promenade along jetty, amphitheater restaurant, 2 two-
story observation towers, exerciselvita course, tot
lot, dune boardwalk, stable for police horses,
parking for cars, 3 picnic shelters, 25 picnic tables
10 picnic grills, 3 bike racks, 12 water fountain
Heavy
Amphitheater (damaged by Hurricane Andrew) is used
in conjunction with civic activities, special view of
all types of watercraft in Government Cut; connects
with fishing pier
Miami Beach Sunshine Fishing Pier (Map Location 44)
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Government Cut at north jetty
Special use facility
0.8 acres
1 saltwater fishing pier 4751. ft.
Moderate to heavy
Connects with South Pointe Park via promenade;
ideally boardwalk would connect with Lummus
Park, i.e.. 21st through 46th Streets; see next item
Beach Front Park.. Promenade (Map Location 45)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
Beachfront between 21st and 46th Streets
Special use facility
0.80 acres
1.8 miles of natural wood boardwalk with shade
pavilions along Atlantic Ocean
Heavy use especially on week-ends
Plans to eventually link with Lummus Park and South
Pointe may not be achievable due to State
environmental policies
VIll-ll
Miami Beach Sail Port (Map Location 46)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
6800 Indian Creek Drive
Special use facility
0.54 land acreage, 0.29 water
Sailing Classroom facility with storage areas, sailboats,
and dock
Not surveyed
Built by City, operation by private firm to teach sailing
Miami Beach Marina (Map Location 48)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
300 S. Alton Road
Special use facility
17.7 land acres, 28.5 water
400 slip facility with club house and parking
Heavy especially on week-ends
Ideal location provides access to Biscayne Bay and
Atlantic Ocean
Ocean Beach Park (Map Location 49)
Location:
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization.
Problems & Opportunities:
Ocean Drive between 2nd and 3rd Streets
Neighborhood Park
3.2 acres
Restrooms, landscaped park area with shade trees and
400 linear feet of beachfront
Moderate to heavy especially on week-ends
Possible re-design to accommodate new restrooms.
Integrate with new beach concept. Connect to
Lummus park to the north and integrate with South
Shore Redevelopment ~
Location:
Flagler Memorial Island (Map Location 50)
Park Type:
Acreage:
Facilities:
Utilization:
Problems & Opportunities:
ANALYSIS
Biscayne Bay-between Star Island and Venetian
Causeway
Special use facility
3.33 acres
Landscaping and monument
Not surveyed
Only access is by water, possible site for bird sanctuary
Existing Level of Service
Table VIII-I shows 1,156 acres of recreation and open space. This total includes 224 acres in
ornamental open space and 206 acres of ocean beach conservation area, i.e., an open space
total of 430 acres. Using the recreation and open space figure of 1,156, this indicates there
are 10.6 acres of recreational and open space facilities per 1,000 persons (permanent
population plus 20 percent of the seasonal population).
Pulling out the 430 acres of "open space" from the total, the remaining 726 acres results in
an existing "recreation" level of service acreage of6.9.
VDI-12
Adequacy of Existing Facilities
The above Level of Service figure is considerably higher than the commonly used national
standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000. Therefore, qualitative assessment becomes more significant
than quantitative. The City has identified eight primary recreation user groups:
1. Elderly-single: lower income
2. Young couples: middle income
3. Families with children: higher income
4. Spanish extended families: middle income
5. Tourist families: North American and European origin
6. Tourist families: Latin origin
7. Second home owner: high income
8. Conventioners
A 1988 matrix analysis indicated that all eight groups are served by the existing facilities.
The principal need is adequate facilities and maintenance at the existing parks. For
example, several mini-parks are to be expanded and Pine Tree Park is proposed for
upgrading.
Future Needs
With no significant population increase projected, the existing park acreage will be adequate.
Again, the future need will continue to be primarily that of upgrading existing facilities as
noted in the Problems and Opportunities statements for each park in the facilities inventory
in Table VIII-1.
VIII-I3
IX. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT
INVENTORY
The following provides a list of the entities with which Miami Beach coordinates in
implementing this plan. The Analysis section of this Element outlines the nature of the
intergovernmental relationship and the City office with prime responsibility for the
coordination.
Adjacent Municipalities:
Miami
North Bay Village
Surf Side
Dade County:
Planning Department
DERM
Water and Sewer Department
Office of Community and Economic Development
Visitors and Convention Authority
Office of Emergency Management
Metro-Dade Transit Agency
Public Works Department and MPO
Parks Department
Unsafe Structures Board
Biscayne Bay Shoreline Development Review Committee
Regional:
South Florida Regional Planning Council
South Florida Water Management District
State:
Department of Community Affairs
Department of Transportation
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Environmental Regulation
Division of Historic Resources
Other:
Dade County School Board
Miami Beach Housing Authority
Miami Beach Development Corporation
Miami DeSIgn Preservation League
Florida Trust for Historic Preservation
Dade Heritage Trust
Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
ANALYSIS
The following provides an analysis of the intergovernmental coordination process using
prime issues from the various elements to show the nature of the relationships, the City
IX-2
office with responsibility, the effectiveness of the mechanisms, special coordinating boards
and recommendations.
Future Land Use Element
Issue #1: Redevelopment/Revitalization
Issue Focus: Redevelop South Pointe Redevelopment Area (south of 6th Street).
(1) Description: The City of Miami Beach has adopted a redevelopment plan for the
South Pointe Redevelo.pment Area neighborhood.
(2) Existing Method of Coordination: The City Director of Development, Design and
Historic Preservation Services coordinates with all prospective redevelopers.
(3) Nature of Relationship: The City of Miami Beach has the authority to control
land uses within the South Pointe Redevelopment Area within the confines of the
Redevelopment Statute, the adopted plan for ~ South Pointe Redevelo1>ment
~ and the City's Comprehensive Plan. For example, the Dade County School
Board has constructed a new school in the area.
(4) Office with Primary Responsibility: Miami Beach Department of Development,
Design and Historic Preservation Services.
(5) Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: The State mandated review process
has worked well for the planning phase of the South Pointe Redevelopment Area
project as evidenced by the new school.
(6) Deficiencies and Needs: See above.
(7) Recommendations: The City should initiate periodic jomt meetings with County
and State officials to develop agreements to facilitate the redevelopment of the
South Pointe Redevelo..pment Area. Specifically this would involve (a) improved
relations with the Dade County Unsafe Structures Board to facilitate demolition
of unsafe buildings and (b) transportation, water and sewer assistance.
(8) Outside Coordinating entities: Unsafe Structures Board, DOT, DNR, Dade
County School Board and DCA.
Issue Focus: Revitalize the North Shore and Normandy Isle neighborhoods of Miami
Beach.
(1) Description: The North Shore and Normandy neighborhoods have been declining
both economically and physically. The City has shifted its planning efforts from
the southern portions of Miami Beach to improvements of the northern
neighborhoods, something that has been virtually non-existent.
(2) Existing method of coordination: The City has begun to shift housing and
community development programs to the northern neighborhoods.
(3) Nature of Relationship: Agencies such as the Miami Beach Development
Corporation and the Housing Authority are now focusing on North Shore.
(4) Office with Primary Responsibility: Miami Beach Department of Development,
Design and Historic Preservation Services.
(5) Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Significant improvement since 1987.
IX-3
(6) Deficiencies and needs: Need to maintain attention here as well as South Beach.
(7) Recommendations: Establish a multi-agency North Shore improvement task
force or development corporation.
(8) Outside Coordinating entities: Dade County OCED; State DOT; State DNR
(North Shore Open Space Park).
Issue #2: Convention Center Hotel
Issue Focus: Facilitate the realization of a convention hotel to serve the expanded
Miami Beach Convention Center.
(1) Description: The Miami Beach Convention Center recently underwent a major
expansion. Although owned by the City, marketing has been taken over by a
County-wide entity. However, the Center needs a convention hotel to strengthen
its marketing and the City's economy would benefit from such a hotel.
(2) Existing Method of Coordination: The City has been working with both the
County and developers to put together a hotel development package.
(3) Nature of Relationship: See above.
(4) Office with Primary Responsibility: City Manager's Office.
(5) Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: A hotel development is now pending
before the City.
(6) Deficiencies and Needs: The existing method of coordination is sufficient to meet
the needs of the City.
(7) Recommendations: The City sees no need to change the existing mechanism at
this time.
(8) Outside Coordinating Entities: Greater Miami Convention and Visitors' Bureau.
Traffic Circulation Element
Issue #1: Infrastructure Improvements
Issue Focus: Bridge Repair and Replacement.
(1) Description: Since Miami Beach is an island community, there are many bridges
and causeways and their condition is of critical concern. Many islands have only
one bridge for residents to enter and exit, therefore their maintenance must be
kept up faithfully before problems arise. There are five pedestrian bridges and
forty-five vehicular bridges in Miami Beach.
(2) Existing Method of Coordination: The 1988 Transportation Improvement
Program for Dade County (TIP), specifies proposed transportation improvements
to be implemented in Dade County over the next five years. The Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) is responsible for coordinating local and state
transportation plans and programs and produces the Transportation
Improvement Program. The TIP is periodically evaluated by the MPO and is
updated as necessary.
IX-4
The State DOT is responsible for bridge repair and replacement, and at the
present time, seven bridges are either under construction or are proposed in the
near future (the MacArthur Causeway was just completed).
(3) Nature of Relationship: See above.
(4) Office with Primary Responsibility: State DOT.
(5) Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Improvements are slow as a result of
insufficient State funding for bridge replacement and repair.
(6) Deficiencies and Needs: See #5 above.
(7) Recommendations: The State Legislature should appropriate additional funding
for bridge infrastructure improvements.
(8) Outside Coordinating entities: City of Miami Beach Public Works Department,
Dade County Planning Department (MPO); State DOT; State Legislature.
Mass Transit Element
Issue #1: Create rail mass transit in Miami Beach
Issue focus: Rail mass transit link to mainland Miami.
(1) Description: Dade County is responsible for the operation of the mass transit
system, including Metrobus, Metrorail, and the Metro mover. Miami Beach is
served by Metrobus only, and the City desires a rail transit link between major
hotel areas, the Convention Center, and downtown Miami. The State provided
funding for the preparation of a light rail transit feasibility study while the
County mass transit plan calls for a Metrorail extension into the City.
(2) Existing method of coordination: The City established a technical advisory group
comprised of representatives of the City of Miami Beach and Miami, FDOT, Dade
County Planning Department, Dade County Traffic Operations, law enforcement
officials, and the Metro Dade Transit Agency to study the light rail project. After
defeat of the light rail project by a referendum, the Committee disbanded.
(3) Nature of Relationship: Now simply informal relationship with MPO and Metro
Dade Transit Agency.
(4) Office with Primary Responsibility: City of Miami Beach City Manager's Office.
(5) Effectiveness of Coordinating Mechanisms: Effective for now.
(6) Deficiencies and Needs: If either of the two projects is activated, the formal
committee should be reactivated.
(7) Recommendations: No change for now.
(8) Outside coordinating entities: FDOT, Dade County Planning, MPO and Metro
Dade Transit Agency.
Housing Element
Issue #1: Encourage increased housing opportunities for young professionals and families
IX-5
(1) Description: One of the primary problems facing Miami Beach in regard to its
goal to attract young professionals and families is the lack of suitable housing
opportunities. Rehabilitation of multifamily buildings including increasing the
size of units needs to be encouraged as well as demolition of unsafe and
dilapidated structures which.detract from the positive image the City wishes to
establish. Also, opportunities for townhouse development must be created.
(2) Existing method of coordination: See #3.
(3) Nature of Relationship: Federal Community Development Block Grant monies
have been used to provide incentives for multifamily rehabilitation. Also, the
City-assisted Miami Beach Development Corporation (MBDC) has undertaken
multifamily rehab projects. Joint efforts are planned to achieve townhouse
development in the South Pointe Redevelopment Area.
(4) Office with Primary Responsibility: Miami Beach Department of Design,
Development and Historic Preservation.
(5) Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Increasingly well coordinated
multifamily rehab and townhouse program.
(6) Deficiencies and Needs: The need to implement the latest City housing plan
(CHAS) by achieving townhouse construction plus adaptive reuse of small unit
housing structures.
(7) Recommendations: Aggressive and coordinated City and MBDC programming.
(8) Outside Coordinating entities: HUD, Dade County Unsafe Structures Board,
DCA, MBDC.
Issue #2: Low income housing
(1) Description: As is discussed in the Housing Element, Miami Beach is seriously
lacking (3,000 unit deficit) in adequate low income housing.
(2) Existing method of coordination: The Miami Beach Housing Authority is
responsible for administering the Section 8 program in the City. Although
Authority members are appointed by the City Commission, in the past they have
functioned as an independent authority, often not following recommended
municipal policies. Coordination has involved City attendance at Authority
meetings and some informal coordination between the City housing staff and
Housing Authority staff. This has recently resulted in increased cooperation as
evidenced by a memorandum of agreement for a joint-City Authority program to
provide support services to Section 8 households.
(3) Nature of Relationship: See #2 above.
(4) Office with Primary Responsibility: Miami Beach Housing Authority.
(5) Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Recently improved effectiveness.
(6) Deficiencies and Needs: None at this time.
(7) Recommendations: Implement the new City-Authority agreement.
(8) Outside Coordinating Entities: U.S. Department of Housing ana Urban
Development, Miami Beach City Manager's Office, HRS.
IX-6
Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water, and
Groundwater Recharge Element
Issue #1: Sanitary Sewer
Issue Focus: Continued adequate service
(1) Description: The City of Miami Beach is completely dependent on the Virginia
Key Wastewater Treatment Plant and trunk line for the collection and treatment
of all wastewater; this system currently has major trunk line capacity problems.
(2) Existing Method of Coordination: The Miami Beach Public Works Department
coordinates with the Dade County Water and Sewer Department (W ASD) to
provide sanitary sewer wastewater removal.
(3) Nature of Relationship: The Miami Beach Public Works Department is
responsible for maintenance of sanitary sewer lines and pumping stations within
the City and W ASD is responsible for operation of the Virginia Key Wastewater
Treatment Plant and intervening trunk lines. Ajoint use agreement is the
coordinating mechanism.
(4) Office with Primary Responsibility: Locally, the Miami Beach Public Works
Department.
(5) Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Sanitary sewer lines within the City
are inspected and maintained or replaced as needed by the City. The operation of
the wastewater plant and trunk line must meet state and federal guidelines to
ensure safe and healthy operation; currently the trunk line does not.
(6) Deficiencies and Needs: Currently there are no deficiencies within the City
collection system or County treatment system. The modest projected population
growth for Miami Beach will not overburden the plant; the challenge is to correct
the County trunk line problem and the lift the service agreement moratorium
although it does not have a significant practical impact on the City.
(7) Recommendations: The City should continue to improve and maintain sewer
mains while working closely with W ASD to monitor the trunk line problem.
(8) Outside Coordinating Entities: Dade County Water and Sewer Department
(WASD) Dade County Environmental Resource Management Department
(DERM), State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
Issue #2: Potable Water
Issue Focus: ContiilUed Adequate Service
(1) Description: The City of Miami Beach is completely dependent on the County
supply and treatment plant system for potable water.
(2) Existing Method of Coordination: The Miami Beach Public Works Department
coordinates with the Dade County Water and Sewer Department (W ASD) and
Surfside.
(3) Nature of Relationship: The Miami Beach Public Works Department is
responsible for maintenance of water lines and pumping stations within the City
and WASD is responsible for operation of the water supply and treatment
IX. 7
system. Miami Beach provides potable water to S:urfside through pumping
stations.
(4) Office with Primary Responsibility: Miami Beach Public Works Department.
(5) Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Potable water lines and pumping
stations within the City are inspected and maintained or replaced as needed by
the City. The operation of the water supply and treatment system is conducted
by W ASD in accordance with state and federal guidelines to ensure safe and
healthy operation.
(6) Deficiencies and needs: Currently there are no deficiencies within the system.
The limited projected population growth for Miami Beach will not overburden the
facility .
(7) Recommendations: The City of Miami Beach in conjunction with Surf side, along
with Dade County and other municipalities should continue to monitor conditions
in the west Dade groundwater recharge area to ensure that future potable water
supplies are not threatened by development.
(8) Outside Coordinating Entities: Dade County Water and Sewer Department
(WASD), Dade County Environmental Resource Management Department
(DERM), South Florida Water Management District, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP).
Conservation/Coastal Zone Element
Issue #1: Protection and enhancement of the beachfront conservation area.
(1) Description: Miami Beach is a barrier island with over _7 miles of oceanfront.
The Army Corps of Engineers Beach renourishment program has added 206
acres of sandy beach to the City's shore. The State of Florida actually owns the
beach.
(2) Existing Method of Coordination: The City and State have adopted a
management agreement related to development and maintenance of the beach.
The various State and County agencies deal on an informal basis with the City of
Miami Beach planning staff on matters related to the beach.
(3) Nature of Relationship: Several different agencies are responsible for varying
aspects of the beachfront conservation area. The State Department of
Environmental Protection approves coastal construction, including the boardwalk
and dune walkovers. The Bureau of State Lands owns the beach. The Dade
County Department of Resources Management was the agency primarily
responsible for revegetating the beach and constructing the dune crossovers. The
Dade County.Parks Department maintains the majority of the beach.
(4) Office with Primary Responsibility: State of Florida Bureau of State Lands.
(5) Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: Even with the myriad of agencies
involved in the City's beachfront, the existing mechanisms for coordination have
proven satisfactory.
(6) Deficiencies and Needs: The City of Miami Beach should have more authority
with decisions that affect the beach. For example, one priority has been the
extension of the beachfront promenade north of the Fontainebleau and south of
IX-8
22nd Street. Opposition from the State has stalled any extension of the
promenade and State funding has not been granted.
A second area in which the City's input needs to be addressed is in North Shore
State Recreation Area. The State recently assumed responsibility for this park
but now they want to give it back to the City.
(7) Recommendations: It is recommended that a multi-agency task force be
established comprised of those agencies with responsibilities over the beach to
meet on a regular basis to develop coordinated priorities for the future of the
beach.
(8) Outside Coordinating entities: Dade County DERM, City of Miami Beach, Army
Corps of Engineers, State DEP, Dade County Parks Department.
Issue #2: Hurricane Planning
Issue focus: Ensure safe and coordinated evacuation in the event of a hurricane.
(1) Description: Miami Beach is an island and a Coastal High Hazard Area. In the
event of a Category 1 or greater storm, evacuation to the mainland is required.
(2) Existing method of coordination: The Miami Beach Fire Department coordinates
with the Dade County Office of Emergency Management, Red Cross, National
Hurricane Center and Metro Dade Transit Agency if a hurricane approaches
South Florida.
(3) Nature of Relationship: Formal relationship including annual practice drills run
by Dade County; mutual aid agreements with City of Miami and Metro Dade,
and required evacuation plans for hospitals and nursing homes.
(4) Office with Primary Responsibility: Miami Beach Fire Department.
(5) Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: The existing coordination
mechanisms worked well during Hurricane Andrew.
(6) Deficiencies and Needs: None; there was adequate time to prepare for evacuation
between the order and the time Hurricane Andrew storm actually hit.
(7) Recommendations: The City should, in conjunction with other agencies, continue
to conduct practice evacuation drills and maintain regular communications, both
formal and informal, with the Dade County Office of Emergency Assistance.
(8) Outside coordinating entities: Metro-Dade Office of Emergency Management,
Metrobus, public safety personnel from Miami and Dade County, School Board,
Miami Beach hospitals and nursing homes.
Recreation and Open Space Element
Issue #1: Improvement of Recreational Facilities
Issue Focus: Financing
(1) Description: The City of Miami Beach has adequate land devoted to recreation
and open space. Many of the facilities are old; however, and equipment and
staffing are not sufficient to meet the needs of an increasing number of families
with children. Many of the understaffed and under-equipped playgrounds are
IX-9
currently being used as after-school daycare centers or "baby-sitters" for latchkey
children.
(2) Existing method of coordination: The City has dedicated property to the School
Board in the past for parks adjacent to the various public schools. Any other
methods of coordination between the City and the Dade County School Board
have more or less functioned on an informal basis, with the exception of the new
South Beach Elementary School.
(3) Nature of Relationship: See above.
(4) Office with Primary Responsibility: City of Miami Beach Recreation Division.
(5) Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanism: The lack of coordination to address
the issues of after-school and daycare programs has seriously hindered the City
in providing adequate recreational opportunities for children.
(6) Deficiencies and Needs: As the younger family population continues to increase,
there will be a need for the City to provide additional facilities and staffing for its
playgrounds. Financial assistance is needed to accomplish these objectives.
(7) Recommendation: One possible solution to investigate is the possibility that the
Dade County School Board can provide funding for staffing of playground
programs to be used as cash-matches required for State grants for additional
recreational equipment.
(8) Outside coordinating entities: Dade County School Board, State Department of
Environmental Protection.
Historic Preservation Element
Issue: Historic Preservation
Issue focus: Protect, restore, and promote architecturally significant buildings in
Miami Beach.
(1) Description: The City of Miami Beach contains the largest concentration of
twentieth century resort architecture in the United States. Efforts must
continue to ensure the preservation, restoration, and reuse of these buildings not
only for the sake of preservation itself but for the enhancement of the viability of
the Art Deco District as a major tourist attraction and residential community.
(2) Existing method of coordination: The City of Miami Beach is responsible for
governing the rehabilitation (design review) of historic structures in accordance
with the U.S. Secretary of Interior's guidelines, and is responsible for
recommending approval or denial of demolition permits to the City's Historic
Preservation Board. The Office of the Secretary of State provides funding to the
City to carry out preservation activities. Dade County has also been directly
involved through its initial inventory of the District and through the Dade Office
of Economic and Community Development's funding of facade improvements on
Washington Avenue, Espanola Way, and Lincoln Road.
(3) Nature of Relationship: The funding relationships are generally developed in the
form of contracts and memoranda of agreement. Many informal relationships
also exist via membership in the Miami Design Preservation League (MDPL),
Miami Beach Development Corporation, Florida Trust for Historic Preservation,
etc.
IX-IO
(4) Office with Primary Responsibility: Miami Beach Planning and Zoning
Department of Design, Development and Historic Preservation.
(5) Effectiveness of Coordination Mechanisms: They are generally effective.
(6) Deficiencies and Needs: There are many organizations - public, private, and
quasi-public, with varying goals and objectives regarding the specifics of
preservation in Miami Beach. There should be more attempts to build a
consensus among these groups as to a realistic economic approach to historic
preservation.
(7) Recommendations: The City of Miami Beach has included by ordinance
representatives from the Dade Heritage Trust, MDPL, and an architectural
historian within the Historic Preservation Board. Formal interaction among the
various groups and agencies involved in the District is perhaps less important
than an ongoing informal effort to build a consensus among the various groups.
(8) Outside coordinating entities: City of Miami Beach Historic Preservation Board,
Dade County Office of Economic and Community Development, State Historic
Preservation Office, Dade Heritage Trust, Florida Trust, MBDC, MDPL, Art Deco
Developers, Lincoln Road CDC, Ocean Drive Task Force, City of Miami Beach
Department of Economic and Community Development.
IX-ll
X. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this element is to determine the cost of any major City public facility
improvements recommended in the various elements for implementation during the five
years following adoption of this plan and demonstrate the ability to fund those
improvements. These projects are needed to address existing "deficiencies," achieve facility
"replacement" or contribute to the general "improvement" of Miami Beach; since no
significant growth is expected, no projects are prompted by future "growth needs." Some
other proposed major capital projects are also inventoried to give a full picture offiscal
planning implications.
A capital improvement is defined here as a non-recurring City-financed physical
improvement project at least $25,000 in magnitude.
DATA INVENTORY
Public Facility Needs
Table X-I lists those projects identified in the various elements as desirable for Miami Beach.
It also indicates the nature of the project, i.e., most of them are improvements to the facilities
within the City although a few are replacements of existing facilities. None can be attributed
to deficiencies in the level of service. In all cases, the source of the funding estimate is the
sponsoring department.
Educational and Public Health Facilities
Figures X-I through X-3 show the public schools and their service areas. All of the schools
are adequately served by public water and sewer lines. Although four hospitals are located
within the City, all are private rather than public facilities. The public hospital complex is
located in Miami.
Existing Revenue Sources and Funding Mechanisms
The following is a list of revenue sources which can potentially be used to pay for capital
improvements, i.e., they are not earmarked for specific operating budget items:
General Fund:
. Ad valorem taxes
. Franchise taxes on utilities
. Utility taxes
. Permits and license fees
. Cigarette tax
. Local option gaS tax
. Motor fuel tax
. Liquor licenses
. 1/2 cent sales tax
. Charges for services/user fees
. Fines
. Interest earnings
. Rents and leases
X-2
i _ORTH TO ,~
.
I
.
I
.
I z
. c
I -
. u
I 0
.
I
.
,
I ·
I I
I ·
.
I
.
I
i.V
.
/ Z-
.
I:.
.
/.,-
.
.~, !
~"'- . . I
. -'~-~~~l.
_ ',~ 1
'0 ',I
.
/.
/.
/.
/. ~
/.
--//., ",,' .
....,- !'='I ·
.
--'.
4
~
~5t" S7:O
NAUTILUS
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
Q
CITY OF MIAMI 8 E AC H
tlm_am_ ~~
o '. '2
, I I
"'lESI
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDRIES
Fig. X-2
:~lCRT.. -:'0 'lW
I
.
,
.
I
.
I :
.
, ! I:
.~\ J , 0
\ , I
\ \ ~ ;
.
; ,
I ·
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
/.
/.
/.
/.
/. .~
.
--:-/ ' ~II:~
...--~ II'.
;;:'Ie _ "". -
':'0-.:1.~I~, ',::'
\_':'"'~~
. I I:' I
4
~
.it) · ..
I ,
.J
~ .
':l I
1) .
I
..
. 2
I
~
~
JJ ""'" .
'"
.
-.
iWES.T TO 1.95
r . "'''''AII
~
tlm.urn. ~~
.Oln 5Ti=l
MIAMI BEACH
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
Q
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
0 . I . I :
I I
.
""lE S I
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDRIES
Fig.. X-3
Table X-I: Projects from the Other Elements
Public Facilities:
Bass Museum expansion Improvement $16,200,000
North Shore activity center Replacement 98,000
Community Revitalization:
Cobb project acquisition/demolition Improvement 7,971,000
Sculling facility Improvement 720,000
Beach Wheelway Improvement 150,000
North Shore streetscape project Improvement 5,000,000
Espanola Way extension Improvement 1,680,000
Lincoln Boulevard improvements Improvement 6,000,000
Streetscaping ofbeachfront streetends Improvement 2,160,000
Parking:
75th Street lot expansion Deficiency 150,000
Parks:
Park improvements, misc. Replacement 680,000
Landscaping of 5 streets and 3 parks Improvement 2,057,000
Public Works:
10" sanitary sewer force main, Palm-Star Improvement 137,000
Biscayne Street extension Improvement 3,587,000
10" sanitary sewer force main, subaqueous,
Palm-Star Improvement 140,000
10" sanitary sewer force main, subaqueous,
Star-lOth-West Replacement 240,000
Upgrade mechanical pumps Replacement 2,000,000
8" water main, subaqueous, Sunset Replacement 100,000
Water pump station, Terminal Is. Replacement 910,000
Normandy Isle Barricades Improvement 300,000
20" water main, MacArthur Causeway Improvement 397,000
20" water main, MacArthur Causeway Improvement 1,200,000
16" water main, subaqueous, Biscayne Pt. Replacement 188,000
8" water main, 24th, 24 Terr, 26th Improvement 378,000
12" water main, Star Isle Improvement 235,000
Sewer force main, Alton, etc. Replacement 239,000
Street light master plan implementation Improvement 4,500,000
12" water main, Washington Replacement 383,000
Sanitary sewer replacement, Michigan
and Lenox Replacement 430,000
· Resort tax
· Management fees
Enterprise Funds:
X-6
· Parking fund
· Sewer fund
· Water fund
· Solid waste fund
· Stormwater fund
Bonds:
· General obligation
· Revenue
State and Federal Grants
ANALYSIS
Current Public Facility Planning Practice
Based upon department submittals, a five-year capital program is prepared by the Planning
and Historic Preservation Division in conjunction with the City Manager's office for review
by the Technical Review Committee and the Planning Board (~view and public hearing),
and then City Commission adoption. The capital program includes proposed projects and
revenue sources for five years.
A needs assessment process involves the departments which use the facility or improvement,
the department which manages the construction of the improvement and City Manager's
office. City departments and agencies submit proposed capital projects to the Division for
compilation in the capital program. The program includes project descriptions, justification,
cost estimates and the year the project is needed.
The following criteria are used by the Division and review bodies to select projects for
placement in the five-year capital program:
1. Maintain, repair and replace prior infrastructure investments in order to
maintain level of service standards.
2. Provide infrastructure concurrent with the impact of development.
3. Provide capital improvements to facilitate redevelopment.
4. Undertake projects that improve the economic base and quality of life within the
City.
X-7
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS OF FACILITY NEEDS AND LAND USE PLAN
The needs, deficiencies and replacements identified in each of the plan elements when
examined in the context of the Future Land Use Plan, suggest the following issues and
priorities; the projects themselves are found in the preceding Data section.
1. Water and Sewer Fees:
Water and sewer charges for these enterprise funds are important because of
the need to replace components of the water distribution and sewage collection
system.
2. Property Taz Base
Because the General Fund is the prime source of funds for many of the
community revitalization projects, the Future Land Use Plan rightly
emphasizes the need to protect and expand the tax base since ad valorem taxes
are a large revenue source for this fund.
3. Parking
Because the need for additional parking facilities is so critical to the City's
continued revitalization, the parking enterprise fund is particularly important
and must be used only for parking.
PUBLIC HEALTH AND EDUCATION PLANS
No public health facilities are planned. One new school is planned, the $14,000,000 Nautilus
Middle School; it is served by public water and sewer.
TIMING AND LOCATION OF CAPITAL PROJECTS
The City intends to continue the current practice relative to the timing and location of public
improvement projects. Essentially, these priorities are two-fold and they support the Future
Land Use Element.
1. Replacement
2. Redevelopment
3. Improvement
Examples of replacement include refurbishing utility mains and pumps plus park facility
upgrading.
Redevelopment includes land acquisition and demolition in the South Pointe Redevelopment
Area.
Improvement includes the circle range of streetscape, parking facility and beach
improvements that contribute to the vitality of the City.
FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
X-8
Table X-2 shows a projection of the City's revenues and expenditures. This projection is in
keeping with recent (1981-1992) patterns.
Table X-2: Revenues and Expenditure Projections
Actual Projections
1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97
Revenues:
Taxes &
Franchise Fees $50,685,271 $53,219,535 $55,880,551 $58,674,537 $61,608,264 $64,688,677
Licenses & Permits 5,029,525 5,281,001 5,545,051 5,822,304 6,113,419 6,419,090
Intergovernmental 7,670,111 8,053,617 8,456,297 8,879,112 9,323,068 9,789,221
Enterprise Fund &
Management Fees 5,471,833 5,745,425 6,032,696 6,334,331 6,651,047 6,983,600
Interfund Transfers 7,123,030 7,479,182 7,853,141 8,245,798 8,658,087 9,090,992
TOTAL $75,979,770 $79,778,759 $83,767,696 $87,956,081 $92,353,885 $96,971,580
Expenditures:
Public Safety $43,137,159 $45,294,017 $47,558,718 $49,936,654 $52,433,486 $55,055,161
RecJCulture/Parks 9,096,491 9,551,316 10,028,881 10,530,325 11,056,842 11,609,684
Administration 6,974,032 7,322,734 7,688,870 8,073,314 8,476,979 8,900,828
Public Works 4,334,626 4,51,357 4,778,925 5,017,871 5,268,765 5,532,203
BuildinglDevelopment
Services 4,950,604 5,198,134 5,458,041 5,730,943 6,017,490 6,318,365
Unclassified 8,651,284 9,083,848 9,538,041 10,014,943 10,515,690 11,041,474
TOTAL $77,144,196 $81,001,406 $85,051,476 $89,304,050 $93,769,252 $98,457,715
Source: Robert K Swarthout, Incorporated.
X-9
'l<
The 1992-1993 millage rate is 11.847 consisting of 9.302 mills for the general operating
budget and 2.545 mills for debt service. This reflects almost no change from 1991-1992 and
forms the basis for the ad valorem tax revenue projection in Table X-3.
Table X-3: Ad Valorem Tax Projections
Assessed Ad Valorem
Fiscal Year Property Value Collection
1992(1) $3,969,036,299 $3,730,894,121
1993 4,167,488,113 3,917,438,826
1994 4,375,862,518 4,113,310,766
1995 4,594,677,643 4,318,976,304
1996 4,824,388,425 4,534,925,119
1997 5,065,607,845 4,761,671,375
1998 5,318,888,238 4,999,754,943
(1) Actual valuations and collection.
Source: Robert K Swarthout, Incorporated.
. X-IO
Table X-4: General Obligation Bonds Outstanding
Date of Date of Amount Amount
Purpose of Issue Issue Maturity of Issue Outstanding
1972 So. Ocean Frnt. Pk. Add. Sept.-72 1993 $42,000,000 $195,000
Sewage Collection Treatment Mar.-72 1995 2,000,000 300,000
Sewage Collection Treatment Mar.-72 1995 8,500,000 2,900,000
1972 Reloca. of Pub. Wks. Yd. Sept.-72 1993 500,000 25,000
Relocation of Public Wks. Yd. Mar.-72 1993 4,400,000 445,000
1972 Data Processing Equip. Sept.-72 1993 300,000 20,000
1973 Open Space Land Project Mar.-73 1993 1,900,000 220,000
1973 Park & Recreational Land Mar.-73 1993 2,500,000 275,000
Park-Recreational Land Mar.-73 1993 2,500,000 425,000
1973 Civic-Conv. Ctr. Complex Mar.-73 1993 1,250,000 110,000
1973 Civ.-Conv. Ctr. & City Hall Mar.-73 1993 1,300,000 120,000
1973 Flam. Sub Div. Pks & Rec. Mar.-73 1993 1,100,000 110,000
1973 So. Shore Comm. Center Mar.-73 1993 300,000 25,000
Parks-Recreation-Open Space Mar.-74 1994 3,500,000 560,000
Convention Hall Facilities Mar.-74 1994 900,000 145,000
Convention Hall Bridge Mar.-74 1994 500,000 75,000
North Shore Library Mar.-74 1994 250,000 40,000
Community Facility Mar.-74 1994 250,000 40,000
Park Develop. Comm. Center Mar.-74 1994 300,000 50,000
Tennis Court Lighting Mar.-74 1994 150,000 20,000
1986 T.O.P.A Refunding Aug.-86 1999 25,115,000 20,705,000
1986 Pub. Saf. Equip. & Rehab. June-86 1997 11,500,000 11,100,000
1987 G.O. Refunding Bonds Mar.-87 2002 40,395,000 30,935,000
TOTALS $111,410,000 $68,840,000
X-ll
XI. HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENT
I. INTRODUcnON
HISTORIC PRESERVATION is the purposeful retention, protection, and continued use of land,
buildings, and districts which are associated with important events in our history and exhibit significant
architectural qualities.
Historic Preservation represents the efficient use of existing resources, provides continuity with our past,
gives a clearer understanding of our present, and assures future generations the opportunity to do the
same. Most importantly, historic preservation demonstrates pride in our community, in its
accomplishments, and recognizes the unique heritage and qualities of Miami Beach. Preservation is also
important to the continued growth of the City's tourist economy as studies have shown historic sites and
districts to be very popular tourist attractions.
Although the City of Miami Beach developed during the Twentieth Century, it has a rich legacy of
unique architectural structures. Scattered throughout the City are buildings which incorporate
Mediterranean and Art Deco Architectural styles. The major concentration of these structures is
located in the southern portion of the City. Recognizing the architectural importance of this area, the
National Register of Historic Places, on May 14, 1979, designated a one-square mile of Miami Beach
as the Miami Beach Architectural District. This area is now known and commonly referred to as the
Art Deco District. It comprises numerous Mediterranean and Art Deco structures associated with the
City's early history and is the Nation's rust Twentieth Century historic district.
II. NATIONAL REGISTER ARCHITECTURAL DlSTRIcr
The Miami Beach Architectural District occupies roughly a one (1) square mile area and contains
approximately 800 historically significant buildings out of a total of about 1200. Land use within the
District is well organized with distinct bands consisting of hotel/tourist structures on the east followed
by commercially oriented Washington Avenue, then a section of small scale, multi-family structures
occupying the majority of the District, with the western section bound~d by two blocks of single family.
The District comprises 690 acres and is generally bounded by the Atlantic Ocean on the east; 23rd
Street Area, Dade Boulevard, Washington Avenue and Lincoln Lane on the north; Lenox Court on the
west; and 6th Street on the south (see Fig. XI-I).
The Architectural District exlubits a high level of consistency in building scale and style resulting from
the rapid development (most historic buildings date from 1923 to 1945) under the control of a smaIl
number of developers. Working within a strict grid system, .relatively few architects (25) were
responsible for the design of 75% of the buildings. The District has remained largely intact with some
intrusion of non-compatible contemporary structures.
The significance of the Architectural District lies in its representation of a significant period in the
history of Miami Beach. The architectural detailing of district buildings reinforces the image of an
important sea-side resort of the 1930's. The buildings also represent outstanding examples of the
dominant modern architectural style of that time period.
The National Register listing has encouraged rehabilitation of historic structures within the Architectural
District. Tbe investment tax credits, made available by this Iistiog, were an important incentive, which
has resulted in wide spread rehabilitation. National Register listing, while providing incentives, does not
provide any actual protection for historic buildings. That protection is provided under the City of Miami
Beach's Historic Preservation Ordinance.
XI.2
III MIAMI BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
The Miami Beach Historic Preservation Ordinance provides for the designation of historic sites and
districts throughout Miami Beach. Contained within the Zoning Ordinance, Historic Preservation
designation includes regulations which protect historic propenies from unsympathetic alteration, insuring
that their historic character is maintained. The Ordinance aJso provides regulations restricting the
demolition of designated structures.
The Miami Beach Historic Preservation Board advises the Pll'111ntfl8 Board and the City Commission
as to which properties and districts should be designated as historic. The Board also reviews the
building plans for any designated property before a building permit is issued to determine if the plans
preserve the historic character of the building and surrounding district.
To date, the City of Miami Beach has designated five (5) Historic Preservation Districts and two (2)
Historic Preservation Sites. Four (4) of the locally designated districts as well as the locally designated
sites are located within the larger National Register District. It is the City's policy to locally designate
the individual neighborhoods within the National Register District on a neighborhood by neighborhood
basis after careful analysis and the determination that staff has the capacity to perform subsequent
reviews.
The Designated Local Historic Districts were some of the first areas developed in the early twentieth
century in the southern ponion of Miami Beach. Three (3) distinct forms of architecture, Spanish
Mission/Mediterranean Revival, Art Moderne/ Art Deco and the International Style were prevalent from
the late 1910's through the late 1950's, when the south part of the City was essentially built-out.
The Spanish Mission/Mediterranean Revival style was the design of choice for most buildings in the
Historic Districts constructed in the 1910's and 1920's. The Flamingo and Espanola Way Historic
Districts are reflective of this style, as it was the most popular in Southern Florida during this time
period.
The Mediterranean Revival Style is reminiscent of the Mediterranean coast incorporating building styles
from Spain, Italy and Greece. The style was responsive to local environmental conditions with wide
overhangs, open breezeways and extensive use of tile and stone.
During the 1930's and 1940's, subsequent to the advent of the Machine Age, architecture on Miami
Beach began to embrace new technology in a tropical manner through Art Deco. Locally, Art Deco
became synonymous with the many different architectural styles of. this time period including Modcrne,
Streamline Moderne and Depression Moderne.
The Art Deco Style is prevalent in all of the Historic Districts in the southern portion of Miami Beach.
Common elements of this style include angular forms, stroag venica1ity, ornamentation in relief and
symmetry of fenestration.
During the late 1940's and throughout the 1950's, architecture within the Historic Districts took on a
"less is more" approach by emphasizing the structure. This architectural medium, commonly referred
to as the International Style, incorporated less ornate features and more open space within buildings.
Common elements of this style included raised, box-like buildings, Oat roofs and floor to ceiling
windows.
Xl-3
A. Designated Local Historic Districts
1. Espanola Wa,v (HPD- 1)
Espanola Way's Spanish Village located between Washington Avenue and Drexel
Avenue is considered one of the most colorful and commercially oriented areas in the
Architectural District of Miami Beach. It was designed by R. A Taylor and developed
by one of early Miami Beach's most prolific builders, N.B.T. Roney, who originally
envisioned Espanola Way as an artists colony. Throughout its history, the Spanish
Village has enjoyed a colorful reputation for gambling and other dubious activities.
The buildings, while maintaining distinguishing architec:tural forms, combine to aeate
a cohesive streetscape. Combinations of Mediterranean-inspired features including the
repetition of balconies and courtyards, quoins, columns and the narroWDess of the
right-of-way all contnbute to the impression of a Mediterranean Village.
In 1986, the Miami Beach Historic Preservation Board voted to include all properties
abutting Espanola Way, including those four lots on Jefferson Avenue (private street)
at the western terminus of Espanola Way for Historic Preservation District
Designation. This area is within the Miami Beach Architectural District and is listed
on the National Register of Historic Places. The 13.6 acre area contains 47 buildings,
of which 38 are considered contn"buting or conforming to the district. Facade
restoration of the Clay Hote~ the Grace Hotel and the Cameo Theater have
spearheaded revitalization efforts in the area (See rig. XI-I).
2. Ocean Drive/ Collins Avenue Historic District (HPD-2)
Ocean Drive and Collins Avenue are two (2) touristjhotel oriented streets in the
Architectural District. Oriented to Lummus Park, Ocean Drive buildings exhibit broad
front porches with frequent nautical and other tropical design references. Ocean Drive
is experiencing the highest level of rehabilitation as the district's most visible street.
Nightclub and restaurant development is spearheading the rehabilitation on this street.
Collins A venue, also a hotel street, is progressing slightly slower than Ocean Drive.
Collins A venue has a unique blend of architectural styles including large scale
mediterranean revival and futuristic moderne. Collins Avenue is retaining its
residential character although several new restaurants on this street are planned.
The Ocean Drive/Collins Avenue District is bounded on the East by Lummus Park
along Ocean Drive; the West by Collins Court; the North by 16th Street; and the South
by portions of 6th and 5th Streets (See rig. XI-I).
The zoning classification for this district is Mixed Use Entertainment (MXE) with
permitted uses of hotel, apartment, apartmentjhotel and mixed use buildings having
any combination of retail, office, and dwelliDg units. Accessory uses include restaurant,
outdoor and sidewalk cafes, solarium, sauna and other uses with restrictions by
building type. Offices are permitted ac:cessory uses for properties on Collins Avenue
between 6th and 15th Streets and the west side of Collins Ave between 15th and 16th
Streets.
In 1992, the City Commission adopted an Ordinance which expanded the Ocean
Drive/Collins Avenue Historic District six (6) blocks north to cover the areas bounded
XI-4
by 22nd street on the north, the centerline of Collins Avenue on the West, 16th street,
including the southeast corner of 16th Street and Ocean Drive, on the south and the
erosion control line on the east (See rig. XI-I).
This District has the same mixture of hotel, apartment and commercial uses as that of
the original Ocean Drive/Collins Avenue Historic District and is zoned CD-3,
Commercial High Intensity.
3. Altos Del Mar (HPD-3)
In 1986 Altos Del Mar was submitted for nomination to establish a historic district
between Collins A venue and the Erosion Control Line from 76th to 79th Street. The
Altos Del Mar district lies within the Altos Del Mar Subdivision platted in May, 1919
by brothers Smiley, Bethel and Johnson Tatum, prominent Miami developers, who
established the Tatum Ocean Park Company for the purpose of developing Miami
Beach's North Shore (See rig. XI-2).
Altos Del Mar is zoned single family residential and Consists of 36 lots, 20 of which are
currently vacant. On each of the remaining 16 lots exists one residential structure or
one main structure with an associated structure such as a gate house or garage. Of the
16 existing structures, two date from the 1920's, eight from the 1930's, three from the
1940's, and one from the 1950's. 7710, 771!} and 7737 Collins Avenue and 101 - 78th
Street are listed on the Dade County Significant Historic Sites Master Survey. Each
was rated three (3) (lowest score) on Architectural and Historic Significance and two
(2) (middle rating) on Contextual Significance.
Seven structures front on Collins Avenue with Atlantic Way forming the rear property
boundary. One structure fronts on 78th Street. Eight structures front on Atlantic Way
and the oceanfront.
Much of the property within the District is owned by the State of Florida. Some of the
existing buildings will become residences for the park rangers from the neighboring
North Shore State Rea-eation Area (formerly North Shore Open Space Park). The
State has indicated that it may sell some of its Altos del Mar holdings for new single
family development.
The CWTent historic district is located between 77th and 79th Streets and from Collins
Avenue to the Erosion Control tine. The City.is considering the addition of the
blocks from the 76th to 77th Street of Collins Avenue east to the Erosion Control Line
to the Altos del Mar District.
4. F1amin~o Historic Preservation District (HPD-4)
The Flamingo Historic District is composed of primarily low intensity, multi-family
buildings and mixed-use commercial areas on it's northern and eastern fringes. The
District includes a good portion of Washington Avenue, as well as most of Lincoln
Road Mall (See Fig. XI-I).
Specifically, the area is bounded by the centerline of 6th Street on the south, the
centerline of Lenox Court (including all of Flamingo Park and lots 7 and 8 of Block
46) on the west, the centerline of the alley north of Lincoln Road (Lincoln Lane north
as extended) on the north, and the centerline of Collins Avenue on the east.
XI-5
'!!'!
letian Causewav
~
le r enetian Causeway
IS built by the
scayne Bay
lp rvement Company
.d 'as completed in
26. The Miami Beach
rr-n of the Causeway
gi 3 at the east side of
U,"u Island and ends
the western terminus
D Ie Boulevard. It is
~ I lest causeway in
original form linking
.ami with the island of
a:I i Beach.. The
tU_ causeway is 2.5
les long crossing over
. v letian islands and
15: ting of a total of
!!lve bridges including
J drawbridges. The B.
lU Beach Btrtion
LSi ;s of ten biidges
luding one
....,.l.tidge. Noteworthy
low profile it is
...~red a feat of
LUty and practicality.
is - !S led it to be
or )Tated into the
rids. Department of
LnSnOrtation's
.t.: ltion and
!SE ration Plan.
! Y - netian Causeway
; c aignated a local
I;ob~ site in December
i8 and was listed on
N :ional Register of
to :: Places in July
.9. Recently the
LSt ftuard, which is
pI mit granting
hc..ty, proposed that
West Bedascu1e Bridge c.
nc!as in height
n: 5 feet to 21 feet.
:lis occurs it is likely
t it will result in the
er: ication of the
Let i.D Causeway from
'Tational Register.
The Zoning Oassific:atioDs for this District caasist oC the following: RM.1. Multiple
Family Low Intc:mity, JtS-4, ResideDtia1 SiDgIe Family, RO, Residential OfflCC, GU,
Municipal Use. CD-I. Commc:rcia1 Low lDteDSiry, CD-2. Commercial Medium InteDSity
aDd CD-3, Commercial High lDteDSity.
s. Museum Historic preservation District fHPD-51
The Museum Disuict is composed primarily of low to moderate intensity multi-family
residences as weD as hot~ buildiilgs. There are also education(mstitutioaal uses
including ,he Miami Beach public library aDd the Bass Museum as wen as a mixture
!)( ente.,-!lI.;,nillC!!.t aDd c:ommc:n:ia1 uses on the northern and eastern fringes of the
District (See rsg. XI-I).
Specifically, the area is bounded by LiDcoJA LaDe North. from Washington Avenue
caended through to CoUiDs Avenue on the south. the centerline of WashingtOD
Avenue on the west, CoUiDs CaDal aDd 23rd Street [lDcluding all properties fronting
or having a property liDe on 23rd Street) on the north and the ceDterline of Cob
Avenue on the east.
The Zoning .ClassificatioDS for this District consist of the MXE. Mixed Use
Entenainmenl. CD-3, Commercial High IDtCDSity, aDd GU, Municipal Use District.
Designated Local HIstoric Sites
1. Old City Hall (HPS-ll
Old City Hall is a aiDe-story laDdmark building dating back to 1926 which was
occupied from 1927 unti11!JT1 as the seat of the municipal government. Replacing a
former modest City HaJJ, the ncw suucwrc represented a new era of gro~h and
prosperity following the iaDd bust of 1926.
Old City Hall is situated CD Wlllchi"gfon Avenue within the Miami Beach Architectural
District which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (See Fig. XI-3). As
part of the City's Dew S18 miDiOll Polic::c aDd Court Facility, it has been restored into
a mixed use facility contairliDg municipal court space, private offices and ground floor
retail space.
2.
21st Street Community Center Clubbouse fHPS-2)
The 21st Street Community Center Cubhouse. designed as a clubhouse for Carl
rJSher's exclusive golf course., was completed in 1916. (See Fig. XI-4). Designed by
August Geiger, the COIDJDunity center is of arc:hitec:tural and historical significance.
Notcwonhy for its fmdy executed design and sense of scale, and for its well crafted
details; significant as ODe of the oldest strUClUres still staDding on Miami Beach.
)
Potential Local Sites and Districts
Possible future designation areas include the Pine Trc:c: Drive area from 28th Street to 63rd
Street. This area is almost exclusively siDgie family residential; significant as a district. a
cohesive unit with OutstaDding examples of Meditemmc:an Revival architecture. AmODg the
notewonhy houses are La Solana. the Sleigh House., and the Astor Estate.
XI-6
Two sites for possible historic designation arc the Helen Mar Apanments and the Miami Beach
Women's Club. TIle I1~tsrie PreservatisB Beare is un 5UISyiBg that peftisB sf tlte \'eset;~-
Catt:te.r.ay wit&ia tile limif:! sf Miami B.. fer Wisterie Site "!SigNEtelt.
IV. SITES OF PUBUC INTEREST
Sites of public interest are landmarks to be promoted and enh:n'~d; however, they are not intended for
designation as historic sites. They include:
o The statue of the Polo Player: Standing in Polo Park at No. Michigan Avenue and W.42Dd
Street, it maries the site of the old polo fields, formerly associated with the Nautilus Hotel, now
the site of Mount Sinai Hospital.
o The statue of the Indian: at Pine Tree Drive and 41st Street stands -rile Great Spirit. by Euore
Pellegatta 1924, recently restored.
o The fountains utilized by the City as water pumping stabODS: 1) in North Shore, the Normandy
fountain, the largest of the represented waterworks; 2) on Star Island, the most elaborate
fountain; 3) the obelisk at Pine Tree and 26th Street; 4) and the fountain in the Alton Road
triangle at 19th Street.
o
The Ragler Memorial: Standing in Biscayne Bay off the north end of Star Island, it was built
by Carl FISher in honor of Henry Flagler. Henry Flagler was the man responsible for bringing
. the railroad south. thereby opening South Rorida to the tourist trade. He built the fust hotel
in Miami (now the Dupont Plaza) and was a major iDflueDCC in the future development of all
of South Rorida.
..;...,.
o The FISher Monument: at Alton Road and ?lst Street, built to honor Carl FISher, the major
developer of Miami Beach. -
o The North Shore Community Center site formerly a Coast Guard site, the original House of
Refuge for shipwreck victims.
These landmarks serve to remind the community of some contnbuting factor significant to the process
of development of Miami Beach and should be encouraged as educational tools in the public interest.
v. ~AJL~SIS
Historic Preservation inspired rehabilitation and new development has become a critical element in the
revitalization of Miami Beach. Its benefits and influences are many:
1. aeation of quality housing
2. elimination of blight
3. aeation of jobs
4. aeation of new businesses
5. attraction of new, young residents
6. strengthened local image and sense of place
Even new construction is adapting the design principals of the local significant historic era which has
become synonymous with Miami Beach. This has given the City a more consistent image than the
XI.7
nondescript building of the previous two decades. Greater attention is being paid to architecture and
quality design than ever before.
The threats to the continued success of preservation activities are typical:
1. lack of parking in historic districts, a problem increasing geometrically as the neighborhoods
evolve;
2. increased property values due to rehabilitation encourage new /larger iofill projects;
3. inswing rehabilitation quality to encourage long-term revitalization of the districts.
The Miami Beach Historic Preservation Ordinance has protected the City against the realization of these
threats in the future. The Ordinance gives the City Commission the authority to deny requests for
demolition and contains increased powers to prevent the decay of historic buildings.
XI.8