2002-24878 Reso
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-24878
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND
OFFICIALLY ADOPTING THE BASIS OF
DESIGN REPORT DEFINING AND
DESCRIBING WATER AND SEWER BOND
AND 1999 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND
FUNDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO BE
IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE
OCEANFRONT RIGHT OF WAY
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the City has issued General Obligation (GO) Bonds and Water and
Wastewater Revenue Bonds, to provide funding for a number of needed capital projects to be
constructed in various areas ofthe City to upgrade and improve the infrastructure for the purpose
of providing better service to residents and visitors; and
WHEREAS, funding allocated for these improvements for the Oceanfront Neighborhood
includes $984,209 in Series 2000 Water and Sewer Bond funds; and $4.3 million in 1999 GO
Bond funds; and
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2000, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution
No. 2000-24065, approving the issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for architectural
and engineering firms to provide professional services for the planning, design, permitting,
bid/award, and construction administration, for the improvements to the. Oceanfront
neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, on May 16th 2001, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No.
2000-24384, executing a Professional Services Agreement with EOAW, Inc., pursuantto Request
for Qualifications (RFQ) 134-99/00, for a fee not to exceed $307,690; and
WHEREAS, EOAW and City staff have undertaken a professional and comprehensive
planning effort to identify and describe improvements in the Basis of Design Report (BOOR); and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2001, and on January 17, 2002, community design
workshops were held to obtain input from residents with regard to the proposed improvements,
and general consensus in support of the proposed improvements was obtained; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2002, the BOOR was approved by the G.O. Bond Oversight
Committee; and
WHEREAS, upon City Commission adoption of the BOOR, EDAW will produce
construction documents based on the improvements recommended in the BOOR;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission
approve and adopt the Basis of Design Report defining and describing Water and Sewer Bond,
and G.O. Bond funded capital improvements to be implemented through the Oceanfront Right of
Way Improvement Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 29th day of May 2002.
ATTEST:
~cu~
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGI!
& FOR EXECUTION
T:IAGENDA\2002\MA't'2902\REGULAR\Oceanfront BOOR reso.doc
~~
~
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
~
-
Condensed Title:
A resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach approving and officially adopting
the Basis of Design Report (BODR) defining and describing Water and Sewer Bond, G.O. Bond, and
Stormwater Bond funded capital improvements to be implemented through the Oceanfront Right-of-Way
Improvement Project.
,
Issue:
Should the City adopt the Basis of Design Report prepared by EDAW and City staff as the officially
approved description of capital improvements to be designed and constructed through the Oceanfront
Right-of-Way Improveme'nt Project?
Item Summary/Recommendation:
On May 16'" 2001, the City entered into an agreement with EDAW to provide urban design, landscape
architecture, and engineering services for the planning, design, preparation of construction documents,
assistance with bidding, and construction administration for the Oceanfront Right-of-Way Improvement
Project. EDAW and City staff then initiated a comprehensive planning process that included a review of
historic information, neighborhood site visits, and inter-departmental staff and consultant visioning
sessions. EDAW developed an initial program of recommended improvements which was presented at a
Community Design Workshop on November 13, 2001. Public comment and feedback from this forum was
analyzed and incorporated where appropriate in a revised plan which was presented at a second
Community Design Workshop on January 17, 2002. At the second workshop, a substantial consensus
among residents on the proposed program of improvements was achieved. EDAW then finalized the
program of improvements in a Basis of Design Report, which was carefully reviewed by all applicable City
Departments and refined as necessary. The next step is for the City Commission to review and approve
the BODR, which will then serve as a basis for the preparation of construction drawings for all
recommended improvements.
Financial Information:
Amount to be expended:
D
Finance Dept.
Source of
Funds:
AGENDA ITEM
DATE
R7~
S-~9-0~
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
WNW.ci .miami-beach.fl.us
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Mayor David Dermer and
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez \. ~
City Manager U tI" a
Date: May 29, 2002
Subject:
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND OFFICIALLY ADOPTING
THE BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT DEFINING AND DESCRIBING WATER
AND SEWER BOND AND 1999 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUNDED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO BE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE
OCEANFRONT RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
ANALYSIS
On May 16th 2001, the City entered into an agreement with EDAWto provide urban design,
landscape architecture, and engineering services for the planning, design, preparation of
construction documents, assistance with bidding, and construction administration for the
Oceanfront Right of Way Improvement Project. EDAW and City staff then initiated a
comprehensive planning process that included a review of historic information,
neighborhood site visits, and inter-departmental staff and consultant visioning sessions.
EDAW developed an initial program of recommended improvements, which was presented
at a Community Design Workshop on November 13, 2001. Public comment and feedback
from this forum was analyzed and incorporated where appropriate in a revised plan, which
was presented at a second Community Design Workshop on January 17, 2002. At the
second workshop, a substantial consensus among residents on the proposed program of
improvements was achieved. EDAW then finalized the program of improvements in a
Basis of Design Report, which was carefully reviewed by all applicable City Departments
and refined as necessary. Upon approval by the City Commission, the BODR will serve as
a basis for the preparation of construction drawings for all recommended improvements.
BODR HIGHLIGHTS
The Oceanfront Neighborhood consists of the area east of Indian Creek between 23rd
Street and 63rd Street, which is located within the John S. Collins Waterfront Historic
District. The character of the neighborhood is urban with multi-family residential and
commercial uses dominating the building stock.
Oceanfront BOOR Commission Memorandum
May 29, 2002
Page 2
The majority of the proposed improvements are above ground enhancements and will
occur south of 43rd Street, as there are not any City ROWs to the North. Below ground
work will include an extension of the Collins Avenue water main from 43rd Street to 51st
Street, which has been allocated $984,209 in Series 2000 Water and Sewer Bond funds.
Additional waterline improvements will be negotiated separately as add alternatives to the
scope of services of the Agreement with EDAW.
The funding for the above ground enhancements are from 1999 G.O. Bond funds. The
total G.O. Bond funding is $4,300,000.
- --.---
OCEANFRONT ROW IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BUDGET
Item Description Amount
Architecture & Engineering EOAW, Inc. $307,690
Program Management Hazen and Sawyer, Inc. $154,888
Construction Budget $3,622,922 - $362,292 $3,260,630
Total construction funds minus 10%
contingency.
Construction Contingency 10% $362,292
of total construction dollars to be
held by City and which is included
within the contractor's budget.
Restroom Facility Location to be determined. $175,000
(At beach street end)
Trash Receptacles $38,000
Signage $1,500
Collins Main Extension Total allocation including all costs $984,209
G.O. TOTAL $4,300,000
TOTAL WI COLLINS MAIN $5,284,209
Streets in the Oceanfront Neighborhood were delineated into three categories: Connector,
Local and Linkage. Each treatment includes repair and replacement of sidewalks,
landscaping elements, and resurfacing of the road. Many include decorative street-end
treatments and pedestrian level lighting.
Oceanfront BOOR Commission Memorandum
May 29, 2002
Page 3
OCEANFRONT NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT BY STREET
TYPE Landscape Hardscape Other
Connector Shrubs, ground cover, Curbs, new or improved Pedestrian light poles.
Liberty Ave, specimen palms, palms, sidewalk, special paving, special lighting. site
24th 29th, 41st two types of shade trees, stone walls, plinths, road furniture, bike racks
irrigation milling/resurfacing
Linkage Shrubs, ground cover, Curbs, new or improved Pedestrian light poles.
23rd, 2ih, 30th, specimen palms, palms, sidewalk, special paving, special lighting, site
34th 35th 39th 43rd two types of shade stone walls, plinths, road furniture, bike racks
, , , trees, irrigation milling/resurfacing
Local Shrubs, ground cover, Curbs, new or
25th, 26th 28th specimen palms, palms, improved sidewalk,
31 st 32nc{ 33rd two types of shade special paving, stone
, , , trees, irrigation walls, plinths, road
36th 3ih 40th 42nd
, , , milling/resurfacing
The proposed improvements have taken into account other planned City projects including,
the Indian Creek Greenway, Indian Creek Bridge at 41st Street, the Beachwalk and the
Collins Park Streetscape. Included in this project are five overlooks treatments for the
Indian Creek Greenway to serve as a beginning for this project. Street end treatments are
being designed in tandem with t:'e City's Public Works Environmental Resource Division's
Beachwalk project. Motifs and colors on the Indian Creek Bridge, mirror EDAW's street
end pedestal design. Liberty Avenue will be designed to complement the Robert A. M.
Stern Collins Park Cultural Center Streetscape to the south.
The City's Program Manager has estimated a two-year schedule for this project. Upon
approval of the BODR, the remaining sequence includes, consecutively, nine months of
design and permitting, four months of bidding and award, and twelve months of
construction. The estimated design start date is July 2002 and the projected finish of
construction is July 2004. This schedule is, however, preliminary and delays may occur as
the project progresses due to unforeseen issues that arise.
CONCLUSION
City staff and the project consultant have successfully responded to the challenge of
developing a program of improvements that maximizes the limited funding available,
achieves basic infrastructure improvement goals, and enjoys the support of a majority of
residents. The process of planning these improvements included extensive input from
residents and the subsequent modification of initial plans to respond to that input. In
addition, the process of identifying and prioritizing improvement needs has created a
valuable record, which can be used to program further improvements if additional funding
becomes available in the future.
Oceanfront BOOR Commission Memorandum
May 29, 2002
Page 4
By approving the BOOR, the Commission will officially end the planning process for this
neighborhood and finalize the design concept. Formal construction drawings will
commence. An important feature of the BOOR approval is that no added input on the
concept will be solicited nor changes made unless formal construction design efforts
uncover flaws or errors in concept.
JMG:RCM:TH:SEK
T:\AGENDA\2002\MA'I'2902\REGULAR\Oceanfront BOOR memo.doc
- ~ - - ---- - - - - -.-
r:l "
.,. -' '-. '"
J
o
~
~
~
11
I .
~
J
. j
mill
City of Miami Beach Infrastructure
Improvement Program
Basis of Design Report
Neighborhood: NO.6 - Oceanfront
Subject: Right-of-W~y Infrastructure
Improvements Program
I
I
I
,--1
1
L I
~J ~ ~
I
I J r"
I
IU
~J
J
I It
'0
\
~~.:~ ;i!! \\. ~ \ .~
.....
.~
~
City of Miami Beach,
Florida
May 6, 2002
1
I Agenda Item P. 7 G-
Date s-aCJ-o~
r1
]
]
l
J
]
:]
J
J
J
J
Neighborhood No.6 - Oceanfront
Basis of Design Report (BODR)
Table of Contents
Tab:
1 Executive Summary
. Project Objective
. Summary of Activities
. Proposed Streetscape Improvements (Funded)
. Recommendations Drawings
. Proposed Streetscape Improvements (Un-funded)
. Proposed Implementation Schedule
. Tabulation of Estimated Construction Cost
. Water and Stormwater Discussion
2 Purpose and Scope
Site Analysis and Inventory
. Existing Conditions
. Photo Analysis Drawings
3 Proposed Capital Improvements (Funded)
. Recommendations Plan
. Connector Streets
. Linkage Streets
. Local Streets
. Tabulation of Estimated Construction Cost
'~l
LJ
J
J
J
~.1
J
J
J
J
4 Community Involvement
Proiect Implementation
· Implementation Plan
. Existing Right-of-Way Encroachments
. Implementation Schedule
· Permitting Issues
Future Capital Improvements (Not Funded)
5 Appendix A (Meetine: Minutes)
6 Appendix B (Communitv Workshop Presentation)
Page:
pp. 1ES to 5ES
2ES
2ES
2ES - 4ES
(Fig. ES-5 to ES-8)
4ES
4ES
4ES - 5ES
4ES - 5ES
pp 1 to 2
pp 3 to 4
3 t04
(Fig. 2-3 & 2-4)
pp 5 to 13
5 to 7
8
9
10
lOB to 13
pg14
pp 15 to 16
15
15
16
16 to 17
pp 18 to 19
-
:l
I ~
!
EDAW
I I !
City of Miami Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program
Basis of Design Report (DRAFT)
1
, I
rl
I j
Neighborhood: No.6 - Oceanfront
ro
1
I I
Subject: Right-of-Way Improvements Project
--
In
I
Executive Summary
i
i.... _'
- I
I
J
The purpose of this Executive Summary is to highlight the information contained within the body
of this Basis of Design Report (BOOR). In this section, key topics are introduced and briefly
described. Detailed descriptions and information are available in the subsequent sections as
listed in the Table of Contents.
The City of Miami Beach (CMB) has developed
various programs to improve the quality of life of
its residents. On November 2, 1999, voters
approved the issuance of approximately $92
million in General Obligation Bonds (G.O. Bond)
for Neighborhood, Parks, Beach and Fire Safety
Improvements, of which $57 million is allocated
for capital right-of-way infrastructure projects.
In addition to this allocation, the City
administration proposed that a portion of the
recent Water and Wastewater Bond and
Stormwater Bond issues be allocated to the
capital right-of-way infrastructure projects.
These estimated $187 million of public right-of- Figure ES-1: Aerial Photo, Oceanfront Neighborhood
way infrastructure improvement projects are to
be implemented over the next six years. Program elements include citywide water, wastewater
and stormwater improvements, as well as a variety of streetscape enhancement projects.
1
I
J
I
, J
, 1
I
u
,.:-...;f'..
...."..
,
-
. '
. J#'~ ,
,,-..,~ .
~E~.~_",.!<-" '~. ".~ ~
- '-' ~~.--~,
.-. ~_ 'f__ - "';'::. :-:-' . "~~,,~'-
-- - '_-r,_", ~'::'._ "c.... ~ "
;::'~~: l.~~ ~ "~' "-'i;::~~~>:
. ,/ - -. .....-~.A
l' . - ~ ( ,- ,_ M=
j '". "" .' ;..'!j:
/?
'1. :
- ;,';' ~\u1t-:1_ _.
~-
?--
..,~
'i ,
': . J
~ '"/
/
/
Of the above-mentioned Bond issues, this Oceanfront neighborhood right-of-way improvement
project received $3,622,922 in G.O. Bond funds, there were not any water or storm water bond
funds allocated for this neighborhood at this time. However, to provide a more complete picture
of the improvements in this neighborhood, a brief discussion of proposed future water and
stormwater improvements is provided in a separate section at the end of the Executive
Summary.
The scope of this project is limited to improvements within CMB public right-of-ways of the
project area. The project area for this neighborhood is roughly between Indian Creek & the
Boardwalk and 23rd & 43rd Street (43rd Street has been designated the northern boundary of this
neighborhood since there are no CMB right-of-ways to the north - Collins Avenue & Indian
Creek Drive are not CMB right-of-ways). However, the area north of 43rd street will be receiving
G.O. Bond benefits by way of other CMB improvement projects that are not part of this project's
scope.
1
I
L.J
. I
LJ
1"1
Ll
, 1
I
.. J
r I
IU
I
IU
\
Page 1 ES of 5 ES
May 6,2002
J
fJ
J
]:.
l..__.
J
l
1'-
10
0',
I',
J
J
J
J
U
I
10
o
I
1~
J
J
o
BODR: Executive Summary
Project Objective
Oceanfront Neighborhood No.6
The goals for the Neighborhood No. 6 - Oceanfront project, as envisioned by the consultant
team, with direction and guidance from the City of Miami Beach, are:
. Enhance the Oceanfront Neighborhood, by developing streetscape and urban design
improvements in the project area of scope, outlined below. (See "Purpose and Scope")
. Provide planning recommendations for greenway area connections, future projects outside
of the project budget / funding, and future connections to adjacent neighborhoods.
. Improve pedestrian connections to the beach.
. Accomplish these goals through a series of city and public involvement workshops, which
address the concerns of the neighborhood residents.
Summary of Activities
The following is a list of activities undertaken by the City and Consultant team to develop the
Basis of Design. meeting minutes can be found in Appendix "A" and supporting graphics found
in Appendix "B".
. Project Kick-Off Meeting - July 16, 2001
. Project Site Reconnaissance Visit -
July 26, 2001 (Figure ES-2)
. "Visioning" Session - October 8, 2001
. Community Design Workshop No.1 -
November 13, 2001.
. Community Design Workshop NO.2 -
January 17, 2002
. Basis of Design Report (DRAFT) -
February 19, 2002
. Basis of Design Report (FINAL) -
May 6,2002
. Review with City and Regulatory Boards -
I n process
Figure ES-2: Photo of Street Condition Taken at
Site Reconnaissance Visit
Proposed Streetscape Improvements (Funded)
This Report includes proposed "Funded" and "Un-funded" improvements to be used by the CMB
Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Office to track and implement right-of-way improvements in
the Oceanfront neighborhood. The "Funded" improvements described in this section are for
current implementation and are within the allocated G.O. Bond construction cost budget
assigned to this neighborhood.
The Oceanfront Streetscape Project is a compilation of streets runnin~ east / west between the
Miami Beach boardwalk and the Indian Creek Greenway from 23r to 43rd Streets. These
streets were analyzed and categorized into the following three improvement des ignations:
"Connector Streets", "Linkage Streets" and "Local Streets". Other proposed improvements are
located in the CMB right-ot-ways along the Indian Creek Greenway and designated as
"Overlooks". These designations identify a proposed level ot improvement as described in the
Page 2 ES of 5 ES
May 6, 2002
J
n
n
J
J
J
J
]
J
J
J
J'
, ,
J
n,-',
u
o
J
J
J
,U
~
BOOR: Executive Summary
Oceanfront Neighborhood No.6
following paragraphs (see Figure ES-5 for the Recommendations Plan of funded
improvements).
"Connector Streets" provide major connections between the surrounding neighborhoods, the
Collins District and the beach. There are four "Connectors" - Liberty Ave., 24th, 29th and 41 st
Streets - that include or are close to a pedestrian or vehicular bridge. These streets are
important pedestrian and vehicular connections between Indian Creek and the beach and
therefore demand a high level of improvements. The enhancements consist of new planting
(such as native grasses, dune vegetation, specimen palms and shade trees), a promenade with
new sidewalks, a bikeway, bike racks, new curbs, bollards and benches; a pedestrian plaza with
specialty paving, coral stone feature walls, showers, foot washers, drinking fountains, milled and
resurfaced street pavement and pedestrian scale lighting. Traffic calming measures such as
planted 'bump-outs' at street corners and specialty crosswalks at intersections will also be
implemented to enhance these streets. As an identity marker, a directional plinth, designed in
deco style, is located at designated street end locations. These plinths indicate a back lighted,
stainless steel, enlarged street number that tops a terrazzo or mosaic tile base (see Figure ES-6
for Connector Street Treatments). '
"Linkage Streets" provide a link between the
neighborhood, the beach and proposed Indian Creek
Greenway overlooks. There are seven "Linkages" - 23rd,
2ih, 30th, 34th, 35th, 39th, and 43rd Streets. The
enhancements consist of new plantings (such as native
grasses, dune vegetation, specimen palms and shade,
trees), new sidewalks, bike racks, new curbs, a
pedestrian plaza with specialty paving, coral stone
feature walls, showers, foot washers, milled and
resurfaced street pavement and pedestrian scale
lighting. These streets would also include 'bump-outs' at
street corners and two directional plinths as described
above (see Figure ES-7 for Linkage Street Treatments).
"Local Streets" are streets without any major inter-
neighborhood connections. These streets are typically
more private in nature with existing character or, are
located a greater distance away from pedestrian and
vehicular bridge crossin~s. There are eleven "Locals"-
25th, 26th, 28th, 31St, 32n, 33rd, 36th, 37th, 38th, 40th, and Figure ES-3: Existing Street End at
42nd Streets. The enhancements consist of new Boardwalk
plantings (such as native grasses, dune vegetation,
palms, and shade trees), new sidewalks, new curbs, a pedestrian plaza with specialty paving,
milled and resurfaced street pavement and 'bump-outs' at street corners. These streets would
include one directional plinth (see Figure ES-8 for Local Street Treatments).
"Overlooks" provide shaded, landscaped areas along Indian Creek to enhance views to and
from Indian Creek and the surrounding neighborhoods. These overlooks are located in CMS
right-of-ways between Indian Creek and Indian Creek Drive. There are five "Overlooks"
proposed at the following street end locations - 2ih, 29th, 34th, 39th and 43rd Streets. The
enhancements consist of new plantings (such as native grasses, dune vegetation, palms, and
shade trees) and new sidewalks with some specialty paving.
Page 3 ES of 5 ES
May 6, 2002
n
~ i ~
f,
I
I
, J
r 1
1
"
I
, '1
o
c
E
A
N
F
R
o
N
T
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS & GREENWAY AREA
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD CA.PITAL IMPROVEMENT$. PROGRAM
I ,--n__'____
II
I I
I
I
!
--------...-------.
-------- ._-~--- ---.------
Ii
i:
I ~-----
11---;
,
"____1 I
-----
L- ' ;
~_._--_.:
; ,
.I l
i i
, '
----,'
I -----~
I
I
!
i
,
! i
'j
, 1
.J
I
I
, ,
I
Ii
i
III STREET C~CTOR
! I
I
I
I
.. J
, 1
I
'-.J
J
~~----_._.-
I
J
.. COHNEC10fl SmuT
I!I Ulf(AGE STREET
[j lOCAl srnm
.. EJIiAHCE).ENT OPPOfITtHTY
1M SPECIAL TFEAn.EHTS
~ OUTSIlE OF SCOPE
. ~~i~ET:ATt.ENT1 OYEPLOOK
. ~r:t},g"~lt.Nly
J
I
..J
.......... ,toUllVoll 1.*
....:J~:=:.:-J IICIWItJIIi...tifU/f'Il~Y~
~lI!OmlD ~ 1tON'ilJIIII/IUl
_____ I'flO,.I(CT!GOI'Ito.JGNIy
J
I
liliiii
~ ~~,:'~ 8!&CH
~_......._.-
~
;Q"j
RfCOI1HfHOATIONS PLAN
1'-
Figure ES-5:
'Recommdatlons
,Plan
---..--. ---_._----._------~_.._- --...---------
1
c \
J
o
c
E
A
N
F
R
o
N
T
~
I
I
I
"-1
J
!
, i
11
\
1
I
, I
.~ I
,! \
II
1 '
I \
r-j
l~
r.i \
LJI
I I
I I
I
t~l
I
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS &: GREENWAY AREA
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
"
0000 Style DWectional
r P'ittths. 121 Total
I
/
Double Row
r S/Iade Tree. ·
P,........de
New Sidewak
\~ttrsJ:b
:.:,'..,;
\
\ Trees and Grooodcover
... n Proposed Bump-outs
_Existing
Drive Apfomsl
, .
\ 16) Spec:iraen palmS~
\.. lMed, Re~SU'1aced,
. R...lripod Pawilg
__ Connector Street Treatment (24th Street)
BlOOET PLAN
\
j
I
'il
~
r II \
~II
II
I U11
BO FT. RIW
__ Connector Street Treatment (24th Street)
CROSS SECTIONAL VEW
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
-
IIIImI
~ CONNECTOR
17Mt_.........CI....,.,..
.....~..u"'.,._!.),"
i
I
I Ii
d
""'fICO
~~~E~?t)'
.......
Figure ES-6: Connector Street Treatm
I
IIU'
I .
J
WJ,I BEACH OIlIVE,
OPPORlUfTY FOR
,~S
( OUTSIlE SCOPE.
'~ Pedo,rrian P1azal
II rr-ptblicAr10W0rt 'I
.. -'1' t.. ! I IJll , Native Grasse.
I Bik R k · Dooe Vegela,.. l
.- e Ie 5
i ~ _ : I Shower. Foolwasher
. &. Otinkng FOU'Itain 1
, I
I, ~^l'>-
, )
~~'l:
- rt
1 c
ft
"'-/
STUCCO OR
PRECAST CAPI STAH.ESS STEEL BAAl)
-. \ At() BACK'llGHTED REVEAL -,
~\ ' 1
j?m. i
~j1fj)Jt\\ ~~~~~~~ER i
~~;. -1~'i~~1:1) t::;j" I
;{;.:-'}-' Ill'
l,j') \ ,~
'I.J 1/1 j
W~ tl,
,', ,.
L TERRAZO OR MOSAIC
TLE BASE
Deco style Plnth
Scaleo r -, Ft.
STREET
T R~~::--'-'-- t ,-
I
.
I \
~
r1
l I
I
;
ri
IJ
!
d,
II
~I
I I
'11
I i
I \
, j i
L'
! I
qi
I \
01
I I
I !
[1\
~ 'i I
, I i
II
~Ji I
JII
r 11 I
wi !
I j I
u11 IBlID
~'tltlC
i ~:_";;.~:".': 'lilt
[ji ...,.., .~~,,:..
I II
L,
10
l
E
A
N
F
R
o
N
T
c
o
$TREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS & GREENWAY AREA
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
I Pama l Gloondcover
r-- i1 Proposed Ilulrjlo<Its
, I
Pedestrian Plaza---.
Natrve Gruses ..
[)me Vegetatkx1 -,
i
I
I
,- Bump-oulS
/ II Street Comers
3
pedestrian 8
Pole LigI1lS
161 Tolal
L _Deco Style P'inths
& 5peciaI PaYing Imert.
in Sidowalt 121 Total
. linkage Street Treatment (30th Street)
, ,BlJlGET PlAN
14) Specrnen Pam. -'
L_ Coral Stone
Waas with Cap
-'i I
'~ft I.
\ .
,11,
I CORAL STIllE WAlL
G IT WITH CAP
I L~wC\.IlB
/' r- CONTHJOUS
/ : BOTH SIlES
STUCCO O!l
PRECAST CM''''
\
NEW 5 FT,I
SDEWALK 1--1
I
L TERllAZO O!l MOSAIC
TLE BASE
Deco Style Plnth
Scale- 1'. 1 Fl
__ linkage Street Treatment (30th Street)
CROSS seCTIONAl. VIEW
!
i-
.'~;. .
~:
- ,
-~. .
\
,-/:
,
I'
~-
, i i
~' ,,r
I
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
liNKAGE
STREET
T R~~:: T-- '------t --
Figure ES-7: Linkage Street Treatmen
..
~
'1C~(..........C","'~1
.._ItK<l.._..JII'.
"llIiIiIJl'"
'I
...
~ \
J
n 0 c E A
1 N F R 0 N
T
1
i '
11
I '
I !
rj'
,II
II
r-I I
I i
I I
..~ I
. :
I
l 0 j
I I!
, I
01
J\
I
I
,~, I
I !
1\ I
JI
J\ I
I !
Ji I
! ull
I
u'
\ ~'
lu
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 8. GREENWAY AREA
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
_.- ---.------ -.-.--" ---.. -.------
".
New ClJ'bs
,-- Cont....ous
I Both Sides
Deco Slyle Di:.ctional
Pinths, I~ Tot~ '--;
~x of Native Grasses
3. Natll'al Dooe Vegetation --~
-i,; '"
t I
ri ~
~l:
-, ,
, <>
,- Pedestrian plaza
!
illR
~ t:3
'-'
i
L New 5'
Sidewelk
Both Sides
i
I
Existing Lights -~
!
I
L. Shade Trees 1
'- Palm Gfove :
fO~~~~
. I
...
..z7
Mil Resurface I
& Re-striped Pavng .-
t1 Local Street Treatment (37th Street)
I BUlGET PLAN
'I'
\
\
EXISWG
, , LIGHT
-.L PALM
I GROVE
~ NATIVE GRASSESI
, ',~", " GROUNOCOVEAS
rt NEW Cl.IlIl
; ,CONmJOUS
:' ,/ e: BOTH SIDES
..-...
~I
...~~tJ."7'\
i. ..~.....\ ~ ;<j ,
/"'\! L,,vl \
"i"'c,' ^',
, '/1.-
~_ i--j,hY j
~,:~~ '1,'1/"", :1"1
'~.-I" ,\ I
;;;::\r l::V\l" 1,1,1' I
~'U ok 0
~ I' l~ t!
\J \ I l!C
\:!,.'l'l. V -
STUCCO OR
PRECAST CAP-:
\
\
\, _ STAINlESS STm
, ! RAISED STREET tlJIIBER
i ""'r"--'j
\ (..r\ F7 /
i r:: YI
~0J
,-
ST AIlUSS STEEL BAND
Af() BACK-uGHTED REVEAL --\
i
\
)
'I
I
DECO 1
STYLE~
I'UiTH
-"
'tI:>......
,
, .r
,~~
I ~,
]!l
" Ii
'I,; ,:
I
L TEARAZO OR MOSAIC
TLE BASE
50 FT, RIW
q' Local Street Treatment (37th Street)
CROSS SECTlONAL VIEW
Deco Style Plnth
Sea"" r.1FI.
l;; l 0 '::-'~T::~'-~ - ..=~ ---l-
~ ,====
Figure ES-8: Local Street Treatmel
s~,~ lCO
''''''4:''''''
..... tEa;.. '. :~')'
...JClo.:L"'"
...~tc.~leo.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
IBJID
~~:C:;:~'=~-;;-;I
l
l
1
,]
l
l
J
J
o
J
J
J
J
]
J
F"..-., ,1,
U
J
J
J
BOOR: Executive Summary
Oceanfront Neighborhood No.6
Proposed Streetscape Improvements (Un-funded)
The "Un-funded" improvements identified in this section were identified during the planning
phase of this project but are not fundable under the current G.O. Bond funding source and are
proposed for prioritization and future implementation by the CMB CIP Office.
I n addition to the proposed funded improvements, which encompass some level of
enhancement for each street, recommendations beyond the available funding are included as
potential future enhancements for each street and the neighborhood. These are included for
planning purposes only and should enable the CMB to earmark funds as they become available.
The proposed un-funded improvements include the following street enhancements: increase the
amount and/or size of planting, increase the quality and/or amount of specialty paving, street
furniture, signage and pedestrian scale lighting. Other neighborhood improvements include
increasing the number and/or quality of the Indian Creek overlooks, restoration of Miami Beach
Drive Promenade and an overlook at Lake Pancoast.
Several of the proposed "un-funded" improvements identify possible locations for future "Public
Art Opportunities".
Proposed Implementation Schedule
The identified timelines are subject to adjustment based on the impact of the internal City Board
review Process. All proposed improvements covered herein are subject to approval by the
Historic Preservation Board, G.O. Bond Oversight Committee, and City Commission approval.
Task 1: Planning Phase
Task 2: Design Phase
Task 3: Bid & Award
Task 4: Construction Phase
July, 2001 - June, 2002
July, 2002 - February, 2003
March, 2003 - April, 2003
May, 2003 - May, 2004
Tabulation of Estimated Construction Cost
A "Budget' level construction cost estimate, (Table ES-1, next page) as defined by the American
Association of Cost Engineers (+ 30% to - 15%) was prepared as prescribed in Task 1.6 of the
Scope of Services. A cost estimate for each street (Liberty Ave. - 43rd Street) was established
by multiplying the anticipated per linear foot cost for the proposed level of improvement - either
"Connector", "Linkage" or "Local" - by the total length of the street. The cost estimate also
includes an allotment for each of the five proposed Indian Creek Greenway Overlooks. A
conceptual level cost estimate has also been provided for the "Un-Funded" Propose
Improvements in Table ES-2 below. More detailed cost estimates are included in the body of
this Report (Refer to the "Tabulation of Estimated Construction Cosf' under the Proposed
Capital Improvements Section of this BOOR.)
Page 4 ES of 5 ES
May 6, 2002
'I
~
)
BOOR: Executive Summary
Oceanfront Neighborhood No.6
l
1
J
l
. Table ES-1
Cost Summary for All Streets In Scope
Oceanfront Neiahborhood Budaet Level items and cost (Funded):
.)
· Connector Street Treatments
. Linkage Street Treatments
· Local Street Treatments
. Indian Creek Greenway Overlooks at Streetends
· 3% Cost I ndex and Construction Continaencv
TOTAL (Funded as part of scope)
$ 887,981.15
$1,122,652.50
$ 998,810.55
$ 156,250.00
$ 457,262.83
$3,622,957.03
l
J
J
J
]
J
]
J
J
J
J
J
J
J'
I '
I
Table ES-2
Cost Summary for Proposed "Un-Funded" Improvements
Oceanfront Neiahborhood Future Improvements (Currentlv Not Funded):
. Lake Pancoast Overlook at 25th Street $50,000
· Indian Creek Greenway (Additional 11 Overlooks @ Street Ends) $550,000
· Miami Beach Drive Promenade Restoration $400,000
· General Upgrade of Street Treatments:
Connector Street Upgrades
Linkage Street Upgrades
Local Street Upqrades
Total Future Improvements Not Funded (Approx.)
(Approx. future cost)
(Approx. future cost)
(Approx. future cost)
$170,000
$325,000
$430,000
$1 ,925,000
(Upgrade to $450 / LF)
(Upgrade to $350 / LF)
(Uoarade to $250 / LF)
Water and Stormwater Discussion
There are no Water and Wastewater Bond or Stormwater Bond funds allocated to this
Oceanfront Neighborhood Right-of-Way Improvement Project. However, to provide a more
complete picture of the improvements in this neighborhood, a brief discussion is provided on
this issue. The City's Water Consultant identified watermains within the neighborhood that need
to be replaced. These mandatory replacements consist of Priority 1 watermains, that are
necessary for fire flow issues, and Priority 2 lines, that are constructed of galvanized iron, and
are both undersized and deteriorating. In addition, various Priority 3 (discretionary replacement)
lines have been identified by the City's Water Consultant. These lines consist of "old" 6 and 8-
inch diameter cast iron mains that have reached the end of their useful life. The City is currently
in the process of adding the P1 and P2 (and perhaps P3) lines into the Oceanfront project
scope. Once the contract amendment is executed, these items will be addressed as necessary.
Page 5 ES of 5 ES
May 6, 2002
r-.
I
t
II
EDAW
1
Basis of Design Report
Purpose & Scope
1
I
I
.-!
On November 2, 1999, voters approved the issuance of approximately $92 million in
General Obligation Bonds for Neighborhood, Parks, Beach and Fire Safety
Improvements, of which $57 million is allocated for capital right-of way infrastructure
projects. In addition to this allocation, the City administration proposes that a portion of
the recent Water and Wastewater Bond and Stormwater Bond issues also are allocated
for capital right-of-way infrastructure projects. These estimated $187 million of public
right-of-way infrastructure improvement projects are to be implemented over the next six
years. Program elements include citywide water, wastewater and stormwater
improvements, as well as a variety of streetscape enhancement projects.
fl
)
~
The total construction cost budgeted for this neighborhood is $3,622,922.00. The total
construction costs associated with the neighborhood are funded from the General
Obligation Bond Series.
J
J
The Oceanfront neighborhood scope
includes all East-West Street Right-of-
ways, from Liberty Ave. and 23rd Street to
43rd Street, from the Atlantic Ocean on
the east to the Indian Creek Waterway
on the west. The scope of this project is
limited to improvements within CMB
public right-of-ways. (Even though the
northern boundary of the Oceanfront
Neighborhood is 63rd Street, there are no
CMB public right-of-ways north of 43rd
Street, therefore all improvements
proposed fall within the public right-of- Figure 1-1: Aerial Photo, Oceanfront Neighborhood
ways between 23rd and 43rd Streets.)
The remaining corridors (Collins Avenue, Indian Creek Drive, etc.) are either County or
State maintained roadways. However, the entire area from Lincoln Road to 63rd Street
was included in the broader analysis to identify strong linkages and historical
connections such as the Indian Creek Greenway (Figure 1-2) and the Fountainbleau
Hotel (Figure 1-3). The area north of 43rd street will be receiving G.O. Bond benefits by
..-'., .:\"
;.1
"<--.,:..
'..
-,t-:--!<-,. ~~,
- u.", _ =
. > ,: ~ ~~.:.'~ '~.....: '><:, ~ ':--",
1__ ......__...... )..
," ",-',:' - :-n,_ ~__,~~,
/,~,~' ~'-JL~',_',_"-r,, :- '" ,""'.....'i~;-.-~_,x>
- ~. - _r ~..::_ "c... _'~.-'.'_""'_ -;.
",; ,-. -':t;",*,j}, _ . _
\. '-. --' ""d
. --':, ~ ".- -- ,- i/
. .;' - - .. ";. ::- 'f4?
.':'2.:~~;:
/
" I
',- :
';'~'iIDY-, ,l,~ ,.
ffZk
~,
0/--
, ',..
~'
,,( j
j "/
,
/
1
i
. .J
]
.J
IU
\>.
'II \..
=:~
3,--
.') I
~1i.
l
t,.
~1
---~':l .
:~"-.,, ,.'~'"
' ';', 'of;. .'.: .iII.
. ~.&- ~:-":i .'
,-' .....""'" ~':"...,.
l"~. 'i"..~" ,', ~.-, .., -i ":' .... . ,', "
l.' .,";i..' .;.... "~~f :~'):"'l;"~\'~t'#_'"'~:''' .: 1;' .
.. ,
.~; I
Figure 1-2: Indian Creek
Figure 1-3: Fountainebleau Hotel
Page 1 of 19
May 6, 2002
1 "
1
l
l
1
J
J
]
J
J
J
J
J
U
J
0
J
J
0
Basis of Design Report
Oceanfront Neighborhood No.6
way of other CMB improvement projects that are not part of this project's scope.
The Oceanfront Neighborhood is generally comprised of high-density, multi-family
structures, high-density hotels and commercial uses along the street level (See Figure
1-1). The City has held community workshop meetings with residents and business
owners of the Oceanfront community to determine their needs.
As a result of these meetings, held prior to the beginning of this project, priorities were
developed as reflected in the following project scope:
· Repair, extension, or widening of sidewalks to comply with ADA - Title 11\
· Street resurfacing, pavement markings, and improvement of beachfront street-ends
for pedestrian use.
· Street lighting upgrades consistent with community preferences, enhanced
landscaping, irrigation, site furnishings, seating areas, and street identification
signage.
. Additional parking spaces, where appropriate.
· Bicycle paths and pedestrian access ways.
· Shoreline enhancements along Indian Creek Waterway in coordination with the
Indian Creek Greenway plans.
Water and Stormwater:
There are no Water and Wastewater Bond or Stormwater Bond funds allocated to this
Oceanfront Neighborhood Right-of-Way Improvement Project. However, to provide a
more complete picture of the improvements in this neighborhood, a brief discussion is
provided on this issue. The City's Water Consultant identified watermains within the
neighborhood that need to be replaced. These mandatory replacements consist of
Priority 1 watermains, that are necessary for fire flow issues, and Priority 2 lines, that are
constructed of galvanized iron, and are both undersized and deteriorating. In addition,
various Priority 3 (discretionary replacement) lines have been identified by the City's
Water Consultant. These lines consist of "old" 6 and 8-inch diameter cast iron mains that
have reached the end of their useful life. The City is currently in the process of adding
the P1 and P2 (and perhaps P3) lines into the Oceanfront project scope. Once the
contract amendment is executed, these items will be addressed as necessary.
The following pages of this report will provide a detailed summary of the planning phase
for the Oceanfront Neighborhood Streetscape Improvements & Greenway Project. It will
review collection of data and analysis information, recommendations, and final design
issues. The last section will discuss construction scheduling, permitting, critical issues of
concern and the steps remaining to implement this scope of services.
Page 2 of 19
May 6, 2002
'l
'1
~
fl
l
'1
i
'1
1
L I
I
I
J
I
J
:J
J
, I
w
IJ
I
IU
I
"
Basis of Design Report
Site Analysis and Inventory
The Analysis phase began with a
broader contextual study that
encompassed the entire Oceanfront
Neighborhood from Lincoln Road to
63rd Street. As part of this contextual
analysis phase, the consultant team
looked at the many factors that shape
the Oceanfront Neighborhood: historic
places and structures as part of the
Collins Historic District; trends in
development of adjacent areas and
neighborhoods; existing open space
patterns and parks; existing landmarks;
major North-South connections, such
as the boardwalk, beachwalk, and the
Indian Creek Greenway; and important
physical and visual links, such as the
bridges which cross Indian Creek. (See
Figure 2-1 for a graphic of the Context
Analysis)
Existing Conditions
After researching the history and
overall context, the design team began
to take a closer look and assess
existing conditions of each specific
street in the project scope. A site
reconnaissance meeting was held on
July 26, 2001 with the City to review
the project site. The design team spent
days in the field recording data, taking
measurements and photographs of
each street. When analyzing the
existing street conditions, the design
consultant observed the following
physical characteristics:
. Right-of-Way Width
. Existing Encroachments
. Sidewalk Width and Condition
. Existing Lighting Fixtures /
Quantity and Approximate
Locations
. Parking Totals and Arrangement
. Land Uses and Ownership along
each Street
Page 3 of 19
Oceanfront Neighborhood No, 6
o C E A N FRO N
---
T
STRfETSC~PE IHPPOVEHENTS a GRfENWA1
':'H Q"I1IM''l.t![LCHf>JI:f'l;>,;;[vtlt.:..s ~"."D (...r'l~ IW.':'V!.ot[llt:;Plltl."AM
ARE A
.'
1[.IQo1M~ ..",........,~
'....MO_...T!"~.!Cr..
.C(lOH:;TtM5'~SIFe'!
!ti'AM0.5IRlCN:ATr)lil,AKA.t
tri~$ll.ttl!N;iDCS
altl$lQlloC~ElS/STJUCr..fe
""'...--........-...-.
-.....---
..~..:I"'o<1l_-.....>
..-~_....._..
...._.._.....-___Il'_
J.Aa..-_~ ,-".-....-
=~~.... .-~.-..,........
L ~:....~:;:...., : =:
. ~":.'':'~ : ---
~...._ 9-- .- ..
~:=....--- ::::':;.,....
t.--"'-- ~...-
"~~~. ;~~.==
II
.~ r
/."
j! f
I
>
-r~ ,',~~.
"_. i-
:' .
. _.. "8ftCOMt Perk
~.
~,-
1CU :CUIS
. _ '._. 28tn '.....1
f.
~ H =.;;:;::::-_ ~
" cn~~~' ~
-a~I~~- ---
/
.~
I
\
" ......":...~
! -;,...:"-.r I
"
t" l'
"_____._tq eonv.nUon Cent_
, r ;,-.,............._
,---' .-" , "-I
_ _ '~';t"l...t!~;,.
.,.'
_ L
.Dj":":":";"':":"'_'...l,\.1
Figure 2-1: Context Analysis
May 1, 2002
I]
J
n
l
J
J
J
J
IJ
J
]
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
I
IJ
,
Basis of Design Report
Oceanfront Neighborhood No.6
. Conditions at Indian Creek
. Condition at Boardwalk / Streetend at Beach
. Handicap Accessibility Issues
. Vegetation and Sun / Shade Characteristics
. Opportunities and Constraints
The following general observations and site constraints are reflected in Figure 2-2, Existing
Conditions. These conditions are fairly typical to many streets in the project scope, and helped
the consultant establish project objectives for the necessary street enhancements and priorities.
. Narrow Right-of Way conditions on many streets
. Insufficient Lighting on many streets
. Dead End street condition
. Poor connectivity to beach
. Hot sidewalk zone with lack of Shade / Vegetation
. Parking totals and arrangements vary per street, and should be maximized
All of the existing physical charecteristics and constraints for each specific street were
categorized in two photo analysis boards. See Figures 2-3 thru 2-4 for the Photo Analysis
Graphics. '
Figure 2-2: Existing Conditions
Page 4 of 19
, May 6, 2002
l
N
F
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS e. GREENWAY
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
R
o
E
o
c
A
l
West of
Collins Ave.
East of
Collins Ave.
@Indlan
Creek
@ Boardwalk
Street
l
l
l
'l
w.,',..",.""'-
~~' . <,
30th '
SOFl .
Ri;~-d..wly
N
T
AREA
Inventory I Comments
OJ
, ."""",~J
SCWJTHWALLNEEOIIUFHkUI
OTH-tfOl'EL/COIlO(lEnER
EOGf.W/ITREETTREfS)
'lZ! C08AA HE..o $TREET UGHT$
Cllf<<)ITION. BOU:DW.l.UlO
oN05lOEWlrlI. TOIlWlDWAu;
.$'lAlll.IllXE!STOIOJfUliIlJtIl.
.IItO.TER'~
'NUDTMU/[X,SKlNE'fIIIU
fUTDfCoulNll.l'fNU[O
.50".1l0"".
.$ F1.S1OEWAUttanl!lDES
,"NW.ln.p..-.woIOntSll!$
t15~
.....
5WnI . YXED. Vtl'OSED Woli.I.
ItORTH.RUORT(l'RIYATEj
oS'nIE'fTt1lEnJIEB:IED
0121 COBRA l€.lD mtEET UCJfTS
CCll'ClfTIOM.8CW1111l"LI\.'
'110 SltIEl'IAlI\ TO I(WlDWAUI:
.ITAIIl.A0:ES5TOIOIrImlM.K
-1RlN[MU,sa.f;TRaS
12J
....,
~
Loeal
'$
Unk..g.
CDfoIDlTlONe'_ANCf!!U' oUSlEJ;
olUS$lOf',$tti1'Ell.GUAAORAl. !DJf'II.calHEllflET....ON
~nDGE WOltTAHT CClLlt4,~Itl*PSTiR
. ~~E!::O=7:$ E~E=l~
.mAFFICSIGItAl.ATIlCINICRW .TUfINl,flO\.I(I.ZtlOTELS1PIIG ..
WEST Of' COUlNl AY!N\IE . .~:'="":'G.IC= r:IJ.
,. ,_,~/:,: ',... ::'~~S1~N..IlIO'fIlSOES :~-=~~~lELS Connector
~~~.st:'t-iih1. .=~~:t'lOfljSlOf.S COMOITION.6oAIIO....LIl.:
.1RAIfIC$lOH.t.l.AlCOl.lIM$AVE. .NOImlooa....UN:ltllfl.1
oCWERtENJIIT.lIfEI.MORTHSIDE P"lHWAY, NaIlNEWIATHAClCIolS
.l2)COIILf.HEADmtntllOHn '~CI'l"ORT\NTO'_
]
J
J
(No
Access)
(No
Access)
J
J
J
26th
SlIFl
Rii~-d-Wl'/
(Not in
Scope)
(Not in
Scope)
I
.J
J
J
]
(No
Access)
J
J
@ Indian
Creek
West of
Collins Ave.
East of
Collins Ave.
@ Boardwalk
J
~ CITY ~ J1A.... BeACH
~ =-=-..:-..::-
IlIIBI
~ PHOTO ANALYSIS
C_TlONeINDI&NCIIFf'Il"
.COMTltIJCIUIlIG~
.AOEa.>>.TtSPo\CE.FOll.ClIl~
GMEHWAYIWAUl.
.(IICOIlU.HEADmtEETUGtll
.tAU SHRlJIs, NO ~ T1rUS
WUTD,CDl.LINJA'I!i'IU!-
.!I5n.lIlo.1I.
.sn.SIO(wAl.l.llOntSlOU
.P.oltALW.PARlUtIG 10TH SIOU
I to SPACU TtlTIIL
'(l)lAHU. EAST.flUT I
"".fAQl
'Ll5E$:~1OfH1US
PAAUlG lOT, MOItlWWUT CORNE
'I1JC08R.lHlAO-JOIJTllII\lE
'l2ICXl8RAlEAO.MCRTttSU
.~UT.Ute.SOl1tHSIO(
.1!~SE~::i~E'
l3fltNDSA1CCI.UIISA'o'E..J
COHlllTIOfrI.8o~"L'"
.t<<)~T08EADl
CONOITlON . INIlIA". CIlfEII . !.t.$T Of" CDll_ "'nlill! .
.EMWf(;EeuslTOP'lCAWEDOE ...n.!lo.w.
'5"'.~WAU.:mtUlU
.MW.UL PARKING 11m! SIDES
'Sfl.SIDE\'fIlLKIOlM$lOES illlISl"ACES'lOTN.
.PNVl/..UlPMlUIGSOlJ1HIIOf. .(2)COiIAAHEAOSlllEETl.JICMTS
I 1S6rACDTD't'AI. 'USEll.sam;.alNOOII'!WAtt
.OlMXll'lAL'ARlUHGNOll.TliSlOf. $ERYlCEfl)llY(WATACCUS
I 11 sPACES TOTAl. NOll.nt.HOTELII'f8ll'''TE
'2COBAA ttEAO SmEETUGHt. EXl"OSED WALl. NO 'l.NfTlt(l
.MRltEAOUT.UtES,SOUTl1S1OE CflNDlTlOff.SOAROYlAl....
-US(S:SOJnfIKl(-PNl.OGlOT .U.......WGA<M;WlSTCJ<<1Wll1
.~~"'-MS :~TO~~~~
CONDfnOfl . 'NlIAN CII!:!1l .
-HOT 1M SCOPl
I!:UT Dl' COUlNl A't'fMIIE ~
.511fT.IlQ.W.
.5fT.SlDEWAl.KIOTttSlDU
.PNWUlPARlUNGI01MSlDE.S
I'SSPAa$ror....
. t C08AA HfAD S11l:ED UGtn' U.
SlQ[QfStRu;T,(:ij10T....
oUSES:SOJTIl.OFFlClJalNDO
SOMClfllOClOMGACCESS
.........."'"
IIORTK.WllCEOllftlHOTa
WIUUlIHSURfAa~l.l)T
(_noN. 1loiii1&". CItl!U .
oEXISTM1o.Wl'NOt1 SlDE'fII'"
IfUl)IIlO'AI1l.llWflOY(lWf!S
'canu:OF~'NICO#.ST
I'OSSI&[OrrIf:IllOCllTJlU,lWENT
!UTOfCOLlMI,ht:NtIf.
.5C1fT. R.o.W.
.5n.SIDEW...."tont5lDE8
"NlAU.a'ARKlMGIOTtlSl'tltS
sllSl'AC[STOT....
.IC~HU(lmaTUGHTEA
SlOE (f' STRUT.12) TOT....
.VEltYSHOIlTS11lEEItNO
.YEG6\TJON,s.ud.1IUOEtl
COMIrTION e INDlt.N 1':Jtlr'1l. .
.l'EOUtllWt UlOGE. lAST J WEST
LN<.. RDID9CTW. TO IEN::H
'l'OSSl9LlEIltWlC6IEHT$TO
CRf9(SIOEOInUEr
.1JWflCSlGNALICCWI'IS
f'AIT 01' COl1."'" AV!N\J!'
'IlOn.R,Q,W.
......SUMItICmlSIOU
.1'MAlUl."ARUIO..SOUTMSlOt
fllPACUI
.foEAD.llIIPAAUlG..NClRnlSlOE
(1551'AaS)
.vurfA,TJJNI$lWlf.NEED8)
COND1'llONeINDI.t.NCIl!U'
p1DTIH5COPE)
WfST CP CIlU"'" A.!JCIJl!'
'_JT.lla.W.
'lIJSIOEWotU.I01HSlDES
'WESTIlOI.Ml-2W1UelDn.
!AST ICUIO. 2 lANESe IlIn.
.NOmlUT ISHADIE MU
.1"I\lW.lR"NU(.NG.lIOTHSIOO
s-20 SPACES TC7T...
'fillCOlA,t,tEADSONSOI1THSJOe
.SIGWrlATCQ.LM~
'M\lRfQA.MW.~1iflQ
llll'Wn'MOGTON P/TH1IOt
.lICIIW.ATCD..LIISA'iENJf.
.DIlI't'EWi'.l'IolX:ESSTONCllml
_lDI
''l'EGETATIOM/StWlEt€EtIED.
OJ M.Ioli AT OEN:lOlPalfMRS
CONDITIC*I . 80AROWt.lIl. :
'SiOEw...utrollfAQl,NEEDS
UltWICQIEHT & ltWl( TRElS
.ITAIIlNX6SCIU.~1C
.ACCESSTO......IlEIrOtDltr
""TH,fJOI$IIlE()IIWfCEY[Jrn
.""""'n:PCQ.SI~.
.MlW:OfTPIlI\/ATlUS'Ell
'l.IIES:mml.t.IXED,COIOO
SDI:\IICE~llOlRW
IOmt.MJIIA1E'CXlMOOUSE
D!lM:WAl'/'ARKINGACCUS
WllloVEGETA1IEO
ClI'fOITIOI<l. 80..lIOw&l..'
.SIlE'NlItTOlIfJrOI.NEfD!I
EMWtCEIIIfH1&StlGTP.1ES
.~ACCOSIlMI'&
PIflTlltAlllWDWl1t
.AC:CU!lOMI/lMIEIlCH(Il,1
'ATH. POSSIat PtWICQEMT'S
a
Local
.
Unk.g.
tin
Locol
EJ
Local
'2~.vomtEttUlJflS
1EAOl$lD!0I S1ItEET.l4l 101....
.1'OltIf1W.~Cft
NClmfsu.~'MI'H1lWGf.
.IISD:!lOUltI.....IOTB.QRO!>.
C#f.$EWl'lCEIPlQlAC:CUS '$
. NORTW. PlWAT'E ICCKlO \JS!
Olll'o'UiJ\Y"AAKI!IGACCW
CllI'CIlTlOI\I . 80.t.MWJ,L1t , Conn.-c:tor
'IWIiJCN'RAW'TO~
.SJOEWAIJ(ACCESSTOIO#lRCWAU.
.tEEtI~&P'lNI1'INO
{JIIIPtInAHf S"IkW9D & SWT'II
OIDOI'YMI.uratDR.""""
'~UTlJTD.IQ1TH_
.lJSU: Il:!TM'kEST~1
t<<HClWIIIE5llEtf1'W.(IiDBll
~~JftL~:::Ih:
Elf1In'lORONEY NJTa/TlEINS
mM11'GA1Ul9llR1/V~
CONDITION. 80il1lOWt.U :
ftO-"'CESS10OCE.lHl
CIHCIITION 81e"TWf.!N hcMM .5In.R-o...
CRtU. A~ 23ltO StlI(ET: .r$IDEWAOtIOTH..u
'=:=,~~EIt- :~~::n'~~'=
IUWf.EJtQA.l\AALCAMPU1lt1 .t"$PACE$101A/,.
lIOJI'lI. & f1tSlO[Jrml,L, TQNDln'l1 ...-.rw.a..UIS1IHGmlEETlJIUS
..EmRYlSUAll....NEEDEO. 15PALIoISC)I'MSTSIOf.Olt..'f)
'QilTEWAY'OR~AnCH .t5iCOllRAHEAOSlREUllGWTS
..lJff(kI'\Jrlr/TII'<<lMlCfSSo\R'f .SIO{W.lU(&SlRWllf'OOR
"TS1llEIETUtD.SCREfNAOJACDIT CO<<I1ION.WUI.MECUSARY
USUilNOEXflOSEOPN\IONO .USES; U4T1!Of..MQfIQ.WI.
.POOII.tIRC..lATlOM&SEYERilL UPOSEtIf'k~,'OWNol,.""FPtCl
0fl~TSTOIoDJ.'AOPER1"I' lIIUTSlDf:.OFfICtI.1S[
Inventory I Comments
.
Unug.
Hi
Connector
.'
,f"
...~.
Figure 2-3:
Photo
Analysis
l 0 C E A N F R 0 N T
, _I STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS e. GREENWAY AREA
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
J C!llndlan West of Ea.t of "-~/
Street Creek Collin. Ave. Collin. Ave. C!l Boardwalk Inventory I Comments
EASfOl' CILUNSAftHUI!.
'50fY.flO.W.
'''SlOEWN.K.~''111'SlDEW.lUIICJ
'lWWJ..B.~ICml8lDE'
(.I:nsPACESJOT~
J '(I)COIIJIAtEADITlIEETUGKT
.llOJ'1W-1'IOTEl. -
"""","""'"
'NEmSTM[t'lllEES
'1lW"flCSlGfW,ATCo.UI9AVE. Linkage
COMDlTlOl<leBOAItllW"U11 .
.STAIfl;ACC(SS(N.y
.GOCDIICJEWAU(/P\NfTI'lG
.GOODITRfETDI)COIOIfOIl
J COHOIflON elNalAN CJll!I!:K'
.\<ERYWUCOltOlTlCHIUSSTOP
.PAUl$ISKIUoSI('.ACIUS
.SlDEYrAUtIWOOOOVEll.OOlt
.Ntf:OSiMWCBIEMrII'Wlf:
wnfrwCou.lNSAy!NUl! : 'e
'50fT.flO.W.
.5 FT. IOEWUIOOIIIlES
.P~lHJarJNGI01MSU5 Loc.ol
t;15S1'ACUT01JIl.
J '<21 al8PAKOOSTJlEET UGKTS
.!lOV'nt.RESll:lEK1\.Il.IIOTB.
MQAhl-AESIlEJIllW,
'NEtOSTll:E!T'~T1tEES
(Arthur . II
'I Godfrey ..
I Bridge) Connector
:,)
J 1m
Locol
0 EAIT rw Call1ttS A'tfHVl!'
'5lII'T,IlO.W.
.I'SlIEWAUtIOTHIIDU
.DlABCI'W.,~ta'tHII)f.S
It 1ISI'-.cDlOT*J
'I2)COIRA~lmlEETUQt1'S
.llOJ'1W.WClM5I1l .
J I<<lR'fM.HOfELl.NDtItlllEl'AM.
'HEEDSttNJEISTllEtTl'llEtS
COHDl1lON eS00UID'II'41Jl' Linkage
. S'WR ACCUS ON. ,.
.IEEO YORE,wa; TllUS
.SOIolEYEOElATIOH
fAst oP CllUlMS AYENUl!:
.~FT.flO,W.
J . S'SlDEWIllJI(S)I IG'SlOE'ICAUt(NI
.QUGOKIlLPtIG.NOIl1K.I15J
PNW.LQPIlG.SOVfM(Il
'{2ICOIIRAtEAD STREET UGIf'lS
'SOJ1'W.tI)TD. ~
lXPOSEUWl!U.NEmBUffEJI. ,~
NOfI.hl.'1Itr.N(rPltOPOlT1fSITl: Loc.o'
COHlllTK* . BI.I""c/I"'.UI :
.~IWM'ACCE$$
.NU'l)IDlt.SIWlETRaS
'!Hl.TVtIPN..YtuSTVlS
J ATlQUlJ'NN.lC
f.an Of" Cou...s Avt!HUt.
'50n1ll0.W.
'5'~1OTl1~
.QIAGOIrUILn.G_NORT1t.IMJ
f'AlUUB,P\lQ.SOlITM(IJ
'(1lCXl8RA.HEADSTREtTIJGI(JS 1m
'SOl/'N-MOTB./WUlED
"""""""-'TU
NOIl1W.FlNCEOIl(~ATtI
J COHIIITlOl't. 80a,.."aL,-.: Local
'WO$tlAOfIVEGE'I"~JI)H
.tlOSlOatAUl.ACCESS
. n.-AC:UJ OtI.Y
Ean 01' COI.ua AYErtJ! :
.son.llo.w.
'S'SIlE'lWUtIOTHSClES
.HJWJ.alWtlUMCiIOTHMES
J ~1ISl"ACDlOTAl.1
'(21 COIAAlEAD S1'Rf;ETUGHTS 1m
'SOJTII..AHCQ.I.ST,."""
1OIl'W. ..xED \/!IE wrJloI GOOO
El.1ftEATltrEN'T/1'l.MTJ<IG
CONOlTIOl't. BO&llowaL,-.: Loc:.1
.GOODVEGETATIDN1GllM
'Z".\IEMClANIIUMPAC~
. SlEI..TEltllT.oNll7M.1l.
..ormt~NXUSCIIVE
. .......
J
'USU' '4
$WTM.HOTEl.IEXPOSalWIrU
(8IE1~SEIMCf.EOGE'lSSl.IE5)
NORTH_'AtCOAST""""'" Link_V.
J COHOlTIOH.Bol._I.LA:
.SiRJ8S/'Al.r.lSCUDE1oO
.1IO~ACCE.SSTO
IOHl:\lIWIl.I(Mf)(SHflTVl
_OOOOPlll,.MTflEE.GRM
eUTOI'COL~"''ttMUe:
':~~,~~
l'II:G'I'1UU\U.B.f'lLG/5'II5UrfIOI
45'",Vwttlo\GCMllLl'ltGl.1.1
J 1I'SCJeW.lll.K.tliS SPACESTOTALj !!J
.~lXlllRIItVDSTFIEElUGm'5
.UfEMClPEMPROPEATY.SOJI"rl
.RET.lII'ttoIGWAlLICHMLHl.F.
-GOClOl'Omn~STlW.mtO Unk_ge
J CtlMOIT1QH.'flII!1I.NCItfU'
_GUMDllAl..CCINC.~
.StW.alNEEO~S
.(11CC*AHUOITREfTUGHT
WIST 01' Cou.INS A'(!NUI! . CONOlTIOIt. BOAft...u:.
(No (No 'SOfT.JUl.W. . (NOACttSS TOtEA01 12i
.5FT.SlCfW-ur.IaI"rlKlES
Access) Access) .'AAAt.ULPA.IlKINGICmlSllES
tUSPACDlOT.IiL Local
'131 C08AA HCAll STRUllGH1S
."",
: 1 SOlJTH.CONOOfMO'm.WllOW
RfTAMtGWAUCCIM)IlIOlt
I 1iIOIUl\.1IAAKIItG101ft<<DG!.
STREE11RUIItiDED
.....J Street C!llndlan We.t of East of C!l Boardwalk Inventory I Comments ,,'
~~
Creek Collins Ave. Collins Ave. "-,, Figure 2-4:
J Photo
II1IID ~ ~~~~'.EACH ~ PH 0 T 0 A N A L 'S IS Analysis
..~ '" ._1'. ----.
---
l
l
J
]
l
l
Basis of Design Report
Proposed Capital Improvements
(Funded)
Based on initial site visits and observations,
the consultant team prepared and presented
a conceptual plan and sketch for preferred
streetscape enhancements and minimal
improvements. Please see Figures 3-1 thru
3-3. These preliminary concepts provided a
design for an ideal preferred street with
increased planting and specialty paving, new
lighting and a gateway entrance to the
boardwalk. The minimal plan provided
streets with patchwork of existing
pavements, new palm trees along sidewalks
and a new sidewalk to the boardwalk.
IJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
[J
J
IJ
[J
Feedback from the eMB indicated the need
for a more consistent level of treatment for all
streets within the project scope. At this point,
the consultant team pared down the
preferred plan. For example, the fountain
was eliminated, and substituted with a
'Public Art Opportunity', the minimal
improvements were further enhanced, and a
middle level treatment was established to
allow for a more even distribution of available
funds. All the streets were analyzed and
categorized into 3 levels for improvement
purposes based upon the contextual analysis
and detailed inventory of each street. These
levels are "Connector Streets': "Linkage
Streets" and "Local Streets". Other proposed
improvements are located in the CMB right-
of-way along the Indian Creek Greenway
and are designated as "Overlooks". An
overall Recommendations Plan was
developed to outline all of these designated
improvements (See Figure 3-4). There were
also areas identified for future capital
improvement opportunities or projects, which
are also indicated on the Recommendations
Plan and will be discussed in further detail
later in this report.
'The design team presented their revised
recommendations and street level treatment
plans at the Visioning Session held on
October 8, 2001 and were required to
provide minimal changes to drawings for the
Page 5 of 19
Oceanfront Neighborhood No.6
~~~~~ROVE.MENBLf'LA!'!.. ~p~
TYPical Street End 60 Ft ROW I ~~~o~,WO:;~uT.:'~~d'ng I
Figure 3-1: Minimal Concept Plan
MIIB~_R.:.aurfaclng,
"R.-abiPl~ ofp."lnp
f'f!EFERR~~Lj\~ ~ _ _ _, ~~
TYPical Street End, 60 Ft ROW ~:,~~~ tu'i;iJ,~~lng I
Figure 3-2: Preliminary Concept Plan
Bird s Eye .\Ilew
PREFERRED PLAN
Figure 3-3: Preliminary Concept Sketch
May 6, 2002
Community Design Workshop one and two (COW I & CDWII). The workshops were held on
November 13, 2001 and January 17, 2002 respectively. For details on these meetings please
refer to the minutes attached in Appendix A. In general, the project recommendations were well
received and accepted by the ,-:::
public. The final, approved pl~ns - , '_ ~~, I
are presented In the following _.. _.. _ ' .~ ,~~
..-..-...........--";.. '.'/~
pages. :_..:l,IL:
,~ ,..-r :.Ji ..
n
I
, I
Basis of Design Report
n
l
, 1
I
The recommended funded
streetscape improvements are
described below: (Finalization of
recommended concepts is
based on upcoming permitting
reviews as discussed under
"Permitting Issues.")
r 1
j
"Overlooks" provide shaded,
landscaped areas along Indian
Creek to enhance views to and
from Indian Creek and the
surrounding neighborhoods.
These overlooks are located in
CMS right-of-ways between
Indian Creek and Indian Creek
Drive. There are five
"Overlooks" proposed at the
following street end locations -
27'h 29th 34th 39th and 43rd
, , ,
Streets. The enhancements
consist of new plantings (such
as native grasses, dune
vegetation, palms, and shade
trees) and new sidewalks with
some specialty paving.
, 1
~ j
, I
.1
I
, I
,
~l
I
I
'- j
J
J
"Connector Streets" provide a
major connection between the
surrounding neighborhoods, the
Collins District and the beach.
There are four Connector
Streets, Liberty, 24th, 29th and
41st, which are all located in
close proximity to or include a
pedestrian or vehicular bridge.
These streets are important
pedestrian and vehicular
connections from Indian Creek
to the beach and therefore
, I
u
i
i
'-'
'J
o
I
Page 6 of 19
Oceanfront Neighborhood No, 6
J
. CCMiECTOR SllE'
tJUfl{.(<<.SmE..~
.J lOCA.L 5Ti=&t
.E."fiAI,(fJ,tJ;TOPI"OAT\.Nr~
.. ~~ ~~~s
. r;:rJ::-rJ:"TLQi! OVm.OOl
. ~~~flNTY
..~_~_I--
-. -~...--.--
---~..-.-......
Fiaure 3-4: Recommendations Plan
May 6, 2002
Note: 1) Benches and bicycle racks have been known to be an issue of contention in other neighborhoods.
The design consultant will take appropriate steps with the City to ensure that it is not an issue, 2) Trees
shown on illustration below reflect about 3 to 5 years of growth. 3) Existing street lighting to remain, and to
be augmented with proposed pedestrian pole lighting. 4) See section entitled "Permitting Issues" for County
Ordinance requirements for irrigation, and for anticipated maintenance requirements with City, 5) See
section entitled "Community Involvement" for issues addressed as part of these recommendations, parking
issues, and related projects, such as Shore Plantings,
il
l I
Basis of Design Report
J
1
Connector Streets
Demolition
Pavement Removal
Sidewalk Removal
Curb & Gutter Removal
Hardscape
Curbs (Average)
New Sidewalk (Standard
Color)
Special Paving
Stone Walls
Plinth! Pedestals
Public Art (Opportunity)
Milling, Re-surfacing & Re-
stripi ng
l
PlantinQ
Shrubs! Groundcover
Specimen Palms (Coconut)
Palms (Coconut)
Shade Tree 'B\ 12 to 14 Ft.
Hgt., (23 @ 241 street)
Irrigation
Impacts to parkinq space total
- none. (Parking space totals
to remain the same)
~l
~l
o
,"1-.
:'//1 A">"
.'''' ...
..<>:;/ ",
"/.l /:"'-...
". , ,f ( ,
//j[.j I /,',
t. ~~ ;..~=~~-,~=-j., },
, I.,
--..
._en
....-
-.....-
.......117'tftI
..... ...
ShdlIf,_L
-
.....
1
U
I rl
:, ,j
/, '
"
ii'FI~:I~U:
,LL--..- -
.,C_"" BIr..t TrM_ \24.. Blr..1l
, tuXET I'lAIo
..~....
-
---
..:T....
~
r,.ftt"'~
.--
-.....
.._c....-.
-......-
'''11f~ ~
u
10 F1 "'W
1V;"l\f QAA!<<!.
~
.' C-Io< SIr..t Tr_' 124t1o SlrMIl
. CllOM lfC1'O/o'ol .....
[J
Figure 3-5: Connector Street Graphics
J
I
I
!~
I
ju
Page 8 of 19
Oceanfront Neighborhood No, 6
Liqhtinq! Other
Enhancements
Pedestrian Pole Lights
(Average)
Special Lighting
Site Furniture! Bike Racks
Drinking Fountain, Shower
and Footwasher
Storm Drainaqe
Improvements
Stormwater (Catch basin
re-Iocation or pipe
Extensions,Average)
WM.~DIlIIft;.
"""""""'....
t:~J
WlSfll :IC<X
<~'-"::--' ........-.:
'11""'J'i-"'- _t>o_
',"'~ i ....~ .t.Olol'II',h.gMlOI
[":1:-' : .,.......1M<W.....
. ~.J ~ r l~l'---
l.... ....
c.lfSl(rlt
lI....O'c.
,.,..~,..,
--..
1.1ko/If....
. I
! 1-
--
: ,
-' -
IIT\.CCO tA
~'!TCN'
al.u.LUtiS1tLl-IJCI
1HJ v.cx-LGHTallE'lEJrli..
.,~r:
.' \(;<
~J, "
...,',,'" \ \
II
!,rUl.mSttl\.
P.WB:l 1t:e1 ~
lEJILl.2D OA K6A.(
TU ....
0.00 SlyIe -
5<-:t'" '-'IFt
May 6, 2002
n
i ~I
Basis of Design Report
Oceanfront Neighborhood No, 6
1
l
Linkage Streets
Demolition
Pavement Removal
Sidewalk Removal
Curb & Gutter Removal
Ordinance requirements)
to remain the same)
l
Plantinq
Shrubs! Groundcover
Specimen Palms (Coconut)
Palms (Coconut)
Shade Tree 'A', 14-16 Ft. Hgt.
Irrigation (See Permitting
Section, reference to County
Hardscape
Curbs (Average)
New Sidewalk (Std Color)
Special Paving
Stone Walls
Plinth! Pedestals
Milling, Re-surfacing & Re-
striping
Liqhtinq! Other
Pedestrian Pole Lights
Special Lighting
Benches! Bike Racks
Drinking Fountain, Shower &
Footwasher
--I
, I
Impacts to parkinq space total
- none. (Parking space totals
Enqineerinq! Utilities
Stormwater (Catch basin
re-Iocation or pipe ext., Avg,)
, -)
,
J\::r'fJ' ""L-~" ',-. -;.JJ
t-_ .' ..~ComIort'
- ~ ' ' l:I
.... .. i I I '. E1 I!
.__ _ :-- ." tJ -t
I' II I I...
< -j' ~:'7-'~ -
--~~r . '~~
, g 8 : ::Or? ~I
t', ,I ___
()wrrlcJck' s.... End ' 1p6oII PI..-.; ~
T.....rnent lSe9ar." .. ........ Itt T...
Uno_
1nav....C~1
..........,.,
--
...-
-.....
MtM ~.... ..
--
~
,... . QI~.
kJ .~-,- r=
~Tl~-
~,_,...'':::- r:n_>>-~....,.__,_
~..re~.L<ld~ju.~' .,_'
~ n
-....
--
L~ 0
u
J\. -
'-
I&l~"'"
",'r...
~,.,.,..ltoPi
.-.........
Cbt_ $,,",
"... ... c.
""1
J
I]
. Ur*_ SIr_I T,..- 130lh SU..1l
IlUXE PLAH
~l
01UX(I '"
;:o;eco\5TCI#'
) CO'W 51l;1'If WJL.:.
_-: lIft1-lW
.
! 09 D.RI
- G<*l~
: !O~!KG
$T1ofUSI )ttJI. 0UCl
. !~L \:~.::
~ II "~~:~";'...:~,.,__.!l
:: ~jr'), ,
.t:: I \ '~~,
}j, II -="''"'"'''' "I
1U ...
~'
EWIFT.
- Sll('O....
JEW HT
Mll'/O.... -
.. n IVW
. ~ SIt..1 T,..-.. 130110 Sir..!)
C~ lIECt()IW.''I'EW
Peco style -
$eJIt. r. In
~
Figure 3-6: Linkage Street Graphics
J
Note: 1) Benches and bicycle racks have been known to be an issue of contention in other neighborhoods,
The design consultant will take appropriate steps with the City to ensure that it is not an issue. 2) Trees
shown on illustration below reflect about 3 to 5 years of growth. 3) Existing street lighting to remain, and to
be augmented with proposed pedestrian pole lighting. 4) See section entitled "Permitting Issues" for
County Ordinance requirements for irrigation, and for anticipated maintenance requirements with City,
5) See section entitled "Community Involvement" for issues addressed as part of these recommendations,
parking issues, and related projects, such as Shore Plantings.
"J'
L.
IJ
iU
IU
I
Page 9 of 19
May 6, 2002
"'l
.
I
\
Basis of Design Report
Oceanfront Neighborhood No.6
1
I
Demolition
Pavement Removal
Sidewalk Removal
Curb & Gutter Removal
Irrigation (See Permitting
Section, reference to County
Ordinance requirements)
Palms (Coconut)
Shade Tree 'B', 14-16 ft. Hgt.
Milling, Re-surfacing & Re-
striping
Local Streets
'l
I
Impacts to parkinq space total
- none. (Parking space totals
to remain the same)
l
Plantinq
Shrubs/ Groundcover
Specimen Palms (Coconut)
Hardscape
Curbs (Average)
New / Repaired Sidewalk
(Standard Color)
Special Paving
Plinth/ Pedestals
Enqineerinq/ Utilities
Stormwater (Catch basin
relocation or pipe extensions,
Average)
~l
I I
-
. .. "/' , '-,' .3"Mt(.QfIlf!1I ~ I
1"\l ~', L
,\ ~. "'.~~
~ :'j " -~=j,t", .~",
~"r,~ ~t
:. ..~, El;i" i . t~ -..::
~ .'t' i : I
._ d ,.fir L r- :
........=' I
I: .....
"
~!~
l~::'V:::: \ !..;
~ ~ ~ -~,,~ -- ~!:
r~:Y~-=~)
! ~ -~ ' '1
e !J : I
! ~ E.... L..... . ,... n... t j
......... ,.::....-;:::;. ,........ _, _!, L
f-MIWMIw
il
I
1
1
I
'J
ID
1 'Local SIr..t T._ (37110 Slreetl
1_~P\...AIll
srucoo ""
-<>>
ST.......US srm. IAJCl
,.t.rol-lJlllTSl"'f(h.
~!! r:'
~ ~
tl"
-,
',.
_/
<. .J
~~,
.~ -j ",
:;:'" J:"~((
'>=>i "
. t..~ ':1 f . i; I,
3":' I;;!:
'- " I ;'1
,[' i."
trAIUII ltEa.
, iIIlA&!itO I1Atf1 .....,.
rtl'IAAlOQ5l~
n.l.....
.~
50 fT.R.'"
-,. Local SW_ T.__ C371tl Str..t!
, I CRCl!l; stCTtJoAl ww '
o.co Style ....110
_'t.,,,,
~I
Figure 3-7: Local Street Treatment
I
~ 1
Note: 1) Benches and bicycle racks have been known to be an issue of contention in other neighborhoods,
The design consultant will take appropriate steps with the City to ensure that it is not an issue, 2) Trees
shown on illustration below reflect about 3 to 5 years of growth, 3)Existing street lighting to remain, There
are no proposed pedestrian pole lights on this plan. 4) See section entitled "Permitting Issues" for
anticipated maintenance requirements with City, 5) See section entitled "Community Involvement" for issues
addressed as part of these recommendations, parking issues, and related projects, such as Shore Plantings,
u
U
I
~U
I
U
Page 10 of 19
May 6, 2002
l
J
J
J
l
]:
"
J
o
J
D
J
11
IJ
J
iO
J
J
J
J
J
Tabulation of Estimated Construction Cost
Each of the treatment levels as shown above fit within the estimated budget provided by the City for the
Oceanfront Project. Included in the overall cost breakdown are the (5) Indian Creek Greenway Overlooks,
and all street treatments. (Connector Streets, Linkage Streets, and Local Streets) The estimated costs
were derived from similar project cost com parables with a 3% cost index for the inflation in construction
costs. Table 1-1 shows the overall summary of costs and tables 1-2 thru 1-4 show the cost breakdown for
each street level treatment. (This construction cost estimate meets the "Budget" level cost estimate
criteria of +30%, -15%, as defined by the American Association of Cost Engineers.)
Oceanfront Neiahborhood Budaet Level items and cost (Funded):
. Connector Street Treatments
. Linkage Street Treatments
. Local Street Treatments
. Indian Creek Greenway Overlooks at Streetends
. 3% Cost Index and Construction Continaencv
TOTAL (Funded as part of scope)
$ 887,981.15
$1,122,652.50
$ 998,810.55
$ 156,250.00
$ 457 ,262.83
$3,622,957.03
Table 1-1
Cost Summary for All Streets in Scope
Street Bud et/LF Len th Total
LIBERTY $378.67 400 $151,468,00
23rd $271.50 300 $81,450.00
24th $378.67 530 $200,695.10
25th $174.n 340 $59,421.80
26th $174.77 450 $78,646.50
27th $271 .50 810 $219,915.00
28th $174.77 360 $62,917.20
29th $378.67 850 $321,869.50
30th $271.50 740 $200,910.00
31st $174.77 680 $118,843.60
32nd $174.n 580 $101,366.60
33rd $174.77 200 $34,954.00
34th $271.50 540 $146,610.00
35th $271.50 560 $152,040.00
36th $174.77 640 $111,852.80
37th $174.77 650 $113,600.50
38th $174.77 680 $118,843.60
39th $271,50 670 $181,905.00
40th $174.77 625 $109,231.25
41st $378.67 565 $213,948.55
42nd $174.77 510 $89,132.70
43rd $271.50 515 $139,822.50
Indian Creek Greenwa S1. ends 31 250.00 5 156 250.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $3, 165,6~4.20
3% COST INDEX (For 2 Years) $94,970.83
Contin enc 362292.00
TOTAL $3,622,957.03
Net Construction Bud et er G.O. Bond Bud etin $3 622 922.00
Page 10B of 19
May 6, 2002
1
n
]
J
J
J
]
J
J
J
J
o
o
o
o
o
o
jJ
I
J
Basis of Design Report
Oceanfront Neighborhood No.6
demand connector level improvements. The enhancements consist of new planting (such as
native grasses, dune vegetation, specimen palms and shade trees); a promenade with new
sidewalks, a bikeway, bike racks, new curbs, bollards and benches; a pedestrian plaza with
specialty paving, coral stone feature walls, showers, foot washers, a drinking fountain, milled
and resurfaced street pavement with striping and pedestrian lighting. Traffic calming measures
such as planted 'bump-outs' at street corners and specialty crosswalks at intersections will also
be implemented to enhance these streets. As an identity marker, a directional plinth, designed
in deco style, is located at both street ends. These plinths indicate a back lighted; stainless steel
enlarged street number that tops a terrazzo or mosaic tile base. (See Figure 3-5 for Connector
Street Treatments)
"Linkage Streets" provide a link between the neighborhood, beach and ~roposed Indian Creek
Greenway overlooks. The seven Linkage Streets are 23rd, 2ih, 30th, 34t ,35th, 39th, and 43rd.
The enhancements consist of new plantings (such as native grasses, dune vegetation,
s'pecimen palms and shade trees), new sidewalks, bike racks, new curbs, a pedestrian plaza
with specialty paving, coral stone feature walls, showers, foot washers, milled and resurfaced
street pavement with striping and pedestrian pole lighting. Linkage Streets would also have
'bump-outs' at street corners and two directional plinths, one at each street end. (See Figure 3-6
for Linkage Street Treatments)
Local Streets are neighborhood streets without any major connections. They are typically more
private in nature, have existing character which lowers priority for, improvements, or in some
instances, are located further away from bridge crossings. The eleven Local Streets are 25th,
26th, 28th, 31st, 32nd, 33rd, 36th, 3ih, 38th, 40th, and 42nd, The enhancements consist of new
plantings (such as native grasses, dune vegetation, palms, and shade trees), new or repaired
sidewalks (repair where in good existing condition), new curbs, a pedestrian plaza with specialty
paving, milled and resurfaced street pavement with striping, and 'bump-outs' at street corners.
Local Streets would have one directional plinth. (See Figure 3-7 for Local Street Treatments)
Page 7 of 19
May 6, 2002
'l
j
Basis of Design Report
Oceanfront Neighborhood NO.6
l
l
J
J
l
J
J
l
~J
Table 1.2
Cost Summary for Connector Streets
Quanti Unit Unit Price Total
DEMOLITION
Pavement Removal 2000 sf 0.45 $900.00
Sidewalk Removal 5500 sf 0.8 $4,400.00
Curb & Gutter Removal 1100 If 3.8 $4,180.00
PLANTS
Shrubs / Groundcover 2,500 sf $2.50 $6,250.00
Palms, Specimen 6 ea $1,000.00 $6,000.00
Palms 23 ea $500.00 $11,500.00
Shade Tree' A' 0 ea $750.00 $0.00
Shade Tree 'B' (23 @ 24th street) 10 ea $500.00 $5,000.00
Irrigation 1 allowance $5,000.00 $5,000.00
HARDSCAPE
Curbs (Average) 900 If $12.00 $10,800.00
New Sidewalk (Standard Color) 10,000 sf $4.50 $45,000.00
Special Paving 1,875 sf $6.50 $12,187.50
Stone Walls 1 allowance $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Plinth / Pedestals 2 allowance $5,000.00 $10,000.00
Public Art (Opportunity) - allowance $0.00 $0.00
STREET SURFACING
Milling, Re-surfacing, and Re-striping 10,000 sf $0.70 $7,000.00
LIGHTING I OTHER ENHANCEMENTS
Pedestrian Pole Lights (average) 5 ea $3,500.00 $17,500.00
Special Lighting 1 allowance $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Site Furniture / Bike Racks 1 allowance $1,500.00 $1,500.00
Drinking Fountain, Shower, and Footwasher 1 allowance $7,500.00 $7,500.00
ENGINEERING I UTILITIES
Stormwater (Catch Basin 1 allowance $4,000.00 $4,000.00
Re-Iocation or Pi e Extensions Avera e
Sub-Total $168,717.50
5% Mobilization Fee / Sequencing Costs $8,500.00
5% Permitting / Bonds / Insurance $8,500.00
10% Contin ency / Overhead / Profit $16,871.00
Total G.O. Bond 2 2 588.50
J
J
'~..]
~
J
J
]
J
J
J
I
I
I 'J~.
l
Page 11 of 19
May 6, 2002
l
; I
Basis of Design Report
Oceanfront Neighborhood No.6
J
n
.J
J
l
]
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
Table 1-4
Cost Summary for Local Streets
, U)
, I
o
Quanti Unit Unit Price Total
DEMOLITION
Pavement Removal 2000 sf 0.45 $900.00
Sidewalk Removal 4750 sf 0.8 $3,800.00
Curb & Gutter Removal 950 If 3.8 $3,610.00
PLANTS
Shrubs I Groundcover 1,500 sf $2.50 $3,750.00
Palms, Specimen 0 ea $1,000.00 $0.00
Palms 20 ea $500.00 $10,000.00
Shade Tree 'A' 0 ea $750.00 $0.00
Shade Tree 'B' 6 ea $500.00 $3,000.00
Irrigation 1 allowance $5,000.00 $5,000.00
HARDSCAPE
Curbs (Average) 1,200 If $12.00 $14,400.00
New / Repaired Sidewalk (Standard Color) 5,000 sf $4.50 $22,500.00
Special Paving 800 sf $6.50 $5,200.00
Plinth I Pedestals 1 allowance $5,000.00 $5,000.00
STREET SURFACING
Milling, Re-surfacing, & Re-striping 19,250 sf $0.70 $13,475.00
ENGINEERING I UTILITIES
Stormwater (Catch Basin allowance $4,000.00 $4,000.00
Re-Iocation or Pi e Extensions Avera e
Sub-Total $94,635.00
5% Mobilization Fee / Sequencing Costs I $5,000.00
5% Permitting / Bonds / Insurance $5,000.00
10% Contin ency I Overhead / Profit $8,963.00
Total G.O. Bond 11 598.00
u
J','.,,'
"
J
J
Page 13 of 19
May 6, 2002
1
J
n
1
1
J
J
J
J
J
]
J
]
[j
J
J
J
.J
ii
ji
lD
Basis of Design Report
Oceanfront Neighborhood No.6
Community Involvement
The City of Miami Beach and the project Program Manager held two public workshops during
the planning phase, Community Design Workshop 1 (CDW1), and Community Design
Workshop 2 (CDW2). Both of these workshops addressed the concerns of the Oceanfront
Neighborhood residents. Comment sheets were handed out and collected by the design
consultant at both workshops. In general, the consultant recommendations were well received
and accepted by the public. See Appendix A for a detailed summary of each of these
workshops and associated comments. See Appendix B for a copy of the PowerPoint
presentation from these meetings.
Comments received at CDW1 were addressed by the consultant team, and reflected in CDW2
drawings as amended alternatives. (In general, the recommendations did not change materially
between CDW1 and CDW2 - see Appendix A for those alternatives discussed as part of CDW2)
A general consensus in favor of the proposed improvements was reached at the end of CDW2.
Any outstanding community comments from CDW2 to be addressed by the consultant are
reflected in the BODR, as follows:
. Any localized ponding, flooding, and drainage concerns within the Oceanfront Neighborhood are
viewed by the City as a maintenance project outside of the project scope and budget. However,
these types of maintenance problems will be addressed by the City as part of other Capital
Improvements Funding. Currently ponding occurs on 24th Street and at side streets along the Indian
Creek Greenway.
. Two comments about the 29th Street public restroom were raised at CDW2. The City is in the
process of scheduling a separate community meeting specifically to discuss the issue of siting public
restrooms in the Oceanfront Neighborhood. The City agreed that the public restroom siting issue
would be handled on a parallel timeline to this project, so as not to impact this project
implementation.
Two prevalent topics addressed during the Community Design Workshop process, and given
consideration by the design consultant when making recommendations, are as follows:
1) Related Shoreline Proiect: During the design phase, EDAW will coordinate efforts with the
related project undertaking dune restoration along the boardwalk. It is anticipated that this
will yield a seamless integration of appropriate planting design, and will result in cost
sharing between projects.
2) On-street Parkina: Given existing Right-of-way widths, alternatives were explored to
increase parking on streets. Because angled parking is not supported by the Historic
Preservation Board guidelines, and because of street right-of-way limitations, no additional
parking spaces are proposed within the streets under this Oceanfront Neighborhood
project. The existing on-street parking spaces, however, will not be reduced in quantity.
As a continuation of Oceanfront community involvement, the City will schedule Design Review
Workshops with residents at the approximate 50% and 90% design completion stages, to give
residents an opportunity to see how the design is proceeding. Those meetings are
informational in purpose, and are not intended as interactive meetings where design direction is
revised.
Page 14 of 19
May 6, 2002
l
J
J
1
l
l
J
J
J
J
J
J:
..
J
J
J
J
J
J
U
Basis of Design Report
Oceanfront Neighborhood No.6
Project Implementation
Implementation Plan
The Traffic Control Plans and details shall be developed in accordance with the Florida
Department of Transportation's (FOOT's) Roadway and Traffic Design Standards, FOOT's
Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) current editions. This will ensure the highest safety for the residents
and construction workers and also minimize impacts such as excessive noise, dust and safety
hazards within the work area.
One of the most important issues to consider prior to construction of any roadway or utility
improvements is to develop a Traffic Control Plan that minimizes impacts to residential areas,
businesses, hotels, and the surrounding environment. Keeping the public informed during the
planning, design, and construction phases is a viable means of ensuring that the residents
needs are being satisfied and impacts to the surrounding environment are being minimized.
The use of flyers, websites, and advance warning message signs can be used effectively to
keep the residents informed of construction activities. The Traffic Control Plan must address
time periods throughout the year that the contractors can effectively perform tasks without
impacting traffic flows on a daily basis and during seasonal returns of residents to the
surrounding neighborhood, and without impacting access to businesses, loading areas, and
parking garage access. Work during weekends should be avoided unless requested by
residents as a means to ensure that the work is completed within the shortest time frame
possible.
The existing roadway within the neighborhoods can be sectioned in half to allow the shifting of
traffic to one side during construction and shifting traffic to the other side when that phase of
construction is complete. Care should also be taken by the contractor to allow for safe ingress
and egress of traffic from residences. Once new curbs, sidewalks, and curb and gutters are
constructed the first layer of pavement can then be placed on the repaired roadway. The
remaining existing pavement should be milled and then resurface the entire roadway.
Streetscape improvements can be started alongside the milling, resurfacing, and signing and
pavement markings operations and should be the final task completed for the new
neighborhood improvements.
Residents of the existing neighborhoods will need to know that during construction there will be
noise, dust, impacts to traffic flow, temporary reduction of the aesthetics within the
neighborhood, and other inconveniences associated with construction. However, when
construction is complete, the neighborhood will benefit tremendously from the new
improvements that will make the temporary inconveniences seem worthwhile.
Existing Right Of Way Encroachments
Based upon on-site observations during the site reconnaissance phase of the project, there
appear to be minimal Right of Way (ROW) encroachments and concerns for the Oceanfront
Project. There are several beach end locations where vegetation is encroaching on the ROW
and may need to be removed during construction. Any encroachments that affect proposed
improvements will be removed as part of the demolition phases in the construction schedule.
Page 15 of 19
May 6, 2002
l
J
]
J
J
l
]
J
J
J
J
;]
J
J
J
J
J,-.
. '
J
J
Basis of Design Report
Oceanfront Neighborhood No.6
During the design phase, when a survey is completed, actual encroachments will be confirmed
in all specific locations.
Implementation Schedule
Task 1: Planning Phase
Task 2: Design Phase
Task 3: Bid & Award
Task 4: Construction Phase
July 16, 2001 - June, 2002
July, 2002 - February, 2003
March, 2003 - April 21 ,2003
May, 2003 - May, 2004
The above Implementation Schedule is a revision of the original schedule created by the project
program manager. Hazen and Sawyer, at the start of the project. This schedule is currently one
month behind for the planning phase due to the postponed Community Design Workshop II from
December 13. 2001 to January 17, 2002. The design phase has an additional month added
based on the potential timeframe needed for permitting the 100% construction documents.
Initially there were 2 months allotted for the permitting process, however, it could take up to 3
months for City permits and 4 months for County permits to be approved. The rest of the
schedule has been updated to reflect the aforementioned changes. The original schedule had a
construction completion date of February 25, 2004 and the current schedule ends on April 25,
2004. The design team has reviewed this schedule based on the proposed improvements and
current timeframe. There are elements within the schedule that are beyond the control of the
design consultant and the city, such as city board reviews and contractor scheduling. It should
be noted that unforeseen circumstances might arise and require a modification to the proposed
schedule.
Permitting Issues
The Oceanfront Neighborhood Project encompasses above ground improvements only with no
stormwater or underground water or sewer improvements. This should help to streamline the
permitting process. The City and County would be required to review and approve the 100%
construction documents. A Traffic Modification Permit would be required from the Miami-Dade
County Public Works Department for modifications of existing roadways for new curbs, traffic
calming devices. signing and markings. This permit could take up to 120 days with an estimated
fee of $1.500. A General Construction Permit would be required from the City of Miami Beach
Public Works Department. This permit would cover issues related to new paving. It could take
up to 90 days for review and has an estimated fee of $1,000. (This fee would be waived.)
There is also an extensive review process that the project would need to go through and acquire
final approval of various City Departments and committees. In-house City reviews for this BODR
consist of: Parks, Public Works, Police, Fire, Concurrency, CIP. and City Planning. The G.O.
Bond portions will be reviewed by the G.O. Bond Oversight Committee. Once approved, the
entire draft will be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Board. Once approved by all of the
above. final BOOR acceptance and enactment will be given by the City Commission. The
Design Phase would have review periods with the City departments at the 30%, 60%. and 90%
completion dates. The final 100% construction drawings would have made all revisions
necessary from previous review periods. The following is a list of the committees and
departments that would take part in the review process:
. City of Miami Beach Public Works
. City of Miami Beach Historic Preservation Board
. City of Miami Beach General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee
Page 16 of 19
May 6, 2002
l
l
J
l
l
l
J
J
]
J
J
]
J
J
J
U
J
J
J
Basis of Design Report
Oceanfront Neighborhood No.6
. City of Miami Beach Planning Board
. City of Miami Beach Neighborhood Committee
. City of Miami Beach Capital Improvements Projects Office
FOOT Involvement:
Bump-outs at both Indian Creek and Collins will require coordination and approvals from FOOT.
Additionally, because bump-outs extend into the state owned Right-of-way, funding allocated for
this project will need to be spent on completing those elements.
FDEP Coastal Construction Permittina:
Any improvements to be built east of the Coastal Construction Control Line (450 ft. west of the
boardwalk) will require an FDEP Coastal Construction Permit. Funding allocated for this project
will need to include the cost of this permit.
Miami-Dade County Landscape Ordinance:
(B) Irrigation
(1) All newly planted and relocated plant material shall be watered by temporary or
permanent irrigation systems until such time as they are established.
(2) Irrigation shall be prohibited within native plant communities and natural forest
communities, except for temporary systems needed to establish newly planted
material. Temporary irrigation systems shall be disconnected immediately after
establishment of plant communities.
(C) Irrigation plans
An irrigation plan shall be submitted if a sprinkler system is required by Chapter
33, or as required in the individual municipalities, or where an irrigation system is
to be provided regardless of code requirements. Where a landscape plan is
required, an irrigation plan shall be submitted concurrently.
Irrigation for this Oceanfront project is only proposed for groundcover areas at street bump-outs
on Connector, Linkage, and Local streets. All other areas will be plant establishment watering
only.
Anticipated / Estimated Maintenance Reauirements:
An inventory of improvements (ie. Square feet of sod, quantity of trees, catch basins, etc.) will
be provided to the city (Public Works / Parks / etc.) at the completion of the design phase. It is
intended that these tabulations be used by the requisite city divisions to establish maintenance
requirements and budgets for their respective areas of responsibiliN.
Page 17 of 19
May 6, 2002
,......-,
-I
1
Basis of Design Report
Oceanfront Neighborhood No, 6
u
1
)
Future Capital Improvements (Not Funded)
The Oceanfront Recommendations Plan (Figure 4-1) shows both budget level treatments and
'special treatments' outside of the budget level scope. The areas highlighted in Purple
(delineated as "Special Treatments Outside of Scope") are future projects for CIP or private
development, not funded by this Oceanfront project. Ultimately, these funded and un-funded
treatments, as part of the City's CIP program, will provide lasting enhancements for the
Oceanfront Neighborhood improved image. The following list is a breakdown of un-funded items
to be considered as part of the City's CIP program:
'I
I
;l
t I
Oceanfront Neiqhborhood Future Improvements (Currentlv Not Funded):
I II
I
!
1
I
. Lake Pancoast Overlook at 25th Street
. Indian Creek Greenway (Additional 11 Overlooks @ Street Ends)
. Miami Beach Drive Promenade Restoration
. General Upgrade of Street Treatments:
Connector Street Upgrades
Linkage Street Upgrades
Local Street Upqrades
Total Future Improvements Not Funded (Approx.)
$50,000
$550,000
$400,000
$170,000
$325,000
$430,000
$1,925,000
(Approx. future cost)
(Approx. future cost)
(Approx. future cost)
I ]
I
l J
(Upgrade to $450 I LF)
(Upgrade to $350 I LF)
(Upqrade to $250 I LF)
I
_J
Figure 4-1: +
CIP Future
Opportunities
. cmH'croo STAff'
t!1lNlAGE STREET
,...1 lOCAl mEET
II ~T OPf'04TlHTV
Ii ~~~~s
. ~~~Er:An.eNT! OVEfI,OOK
. ~~~""fY
.J
~~..~_~_Jf<
-c..'~ . _~~',...,o!"~
~_~liJg.:;uK>M/IU
_..__..._ ~t~~....
J
U
The Lake Pancoast Overlook at 25th Street (shown on Figure 4-1) would be a similar treatment
to the (5) budgeted Indian Creek Greenway Overlooks, and is designated as a future special
treatment outside of this project scope.
I
U
~
Page 18 of 19
May 6, 2002
I
I]
11
l
J
J
~l
J
Basis of Design Report
Miami Beach Drive (Figure 4-4) was historically an
active street, but has since been converted for
pedestrian traffic with limited vehicular use. (police /
patrol/restricted vehicular access) The future
improvements would include enhancement of this
corridor into a more active Miami Beach Drive
Promenade, and bikeway, connecting two Connector
Streets, 24th and 29th Street.
The Indian Creek Greenway Master Plan was
developed through EDAW's Summer Student
Program (SSP) in 1999. (See Figures 4-2 and 4-3)
This Master Plan includes a portion of the Oceanfront
Neighborhood. There are plans to implement this
master plan in the near future. Additional Indian
Creek overlooks, to the ones budgeted in this BODR,
are also considered a special treatment consideration
outside the Oceanfront project scope.
J
]
J
J
J
:J
One last special treatment illustrated on the
Recommendations Plan, which is outside of the
scope, is the "Putting Green Park" at 29th Street.
(See Figure 4-5) This proposal will not be under the
City CIP program, as this is an area of private
ownership. This is reflected on the drawings as a
"Private Development Opportunity" only, and is
recognized by the design consultant as an important
historical component of the Oceanfront
Neighborhood.
, I
....J
J
,- 1
J
:'1
.J
Figure 4-4: Miami Beach Drive
J
J
I
,J
Figure 4-3: Indian Creek Greenway
Page 19 of 19
Oceanfront Neighborhood No.6
I
Figure 4-2: Indian Creek Greenway Master
Plan (EDAW SSP, 1999)
May 6,2002
.
.
1
, 1
l
J
l
J
]
J
J
]
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
Neighborhood No.6 - Oceanfront
Basis of Design Report (BODR)
Appendix 'A'
Meeting Minutes
l
n
J
J
J
J
J
]
]
J
J
]',"
"
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
RIGHT-OF-WA Y INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
NEIGHBORHOOD NO.6: OCEANFRONT
ATTENDEES:
CMB
Reuben Cauldwell
Fred Beckmann
Donald Shockey
Bruce Henderson
Lynn Bernstein
Jorge Chartrand
Tim Hemstreet
Kevin Smith
SUMMARY OF KICKOFF MEETING MINUTES
EDAW (Consultant)
Glen Deal
Leonardo Alvarez
DA TE:
SUBJECT:
JOB NO.:
FILE NO.:
July 16, 2001
Kickoff Meeting
4006
2.0
BURNS & McDONNELL
Cesar Garcia-Pons
H&S
Suresh Mistry
Bert Vidal
The project kickoff meeting was held to provide information relating to the projects background,
schedule, funding, design standards and program management procedures. The following
represents the major items discussed:
1. Introduction - The lines of communication were defined. The City has
established a new Capital Improvements Project (CIP) office. The planning
representative from this project will be Donald Shockey. The construction
management representative will be Jorge Chartrand. The Program Manager
serves as the primary point of contact for the execution of all Program related
work activities. The Consultant is to work through the Program Manager on all
program related activities. The Program Manager will work with the Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) Department.
2. Project Boundaries - During contract negotiations, the limits of this neighborhood
were revised to include only the area from 23rd Street north to 43rd Street from the
Atlantic Ocean on the east to the Indian Creek Waterway on the west. North of
43rd Street there are no dead-end streets. The only other road is Collins Avenue,
which is a state road. Thus, due to budget limitations, a decision was made to
focus only on streetscape improvements in the revised area.
Exhibit A from the scope of services defines the project boundaries (see
attached).
3. Planning Documents - A Stormwater Master Plan and Water I Sewer Master
Plan were prepared by other City of Miami Beach (CITY) consultants. The
Page 1 0'3
MB:APPENDIX_010716_Kick off.DOC
1
J
l
l
l
~]
~)
]
J
J--
. ,
J
J~,.,
. ,
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
Meeting Minutes
July 16,2001
conceptual designs and costs presented in these documents were used as the
basis of the Stormwater and Water / Sewer Bond programs. No master plan was
prepared for General Obligation Bond purposes. In lieu, City staff held numerous
meetings with the various citywide neighborhoods, and general needs listings
were prepared accordingly. It was noted no stormwater upgrades have been
identified for this area. Also, no water and sewer bond funding was provided in
the bond issues, although the city's consultant has now made recommendations
for water line improvements and replacements. Copies of the applicable water
and G.O. Bond materials were distributed (see attached). Consultant agreed to
prepare a construction cost estimate of the waterline upgrades proposed by the
City's Water/Sewer Consultant for this area. Subsequent to the meeting,
Consultant provided construction cost estimate on August 7,2001.
4. Funding - Construction and contingency budgets were reviewed (See attached).
All design documents shall be based on the noted construction budget. The
contingency budget is not to be included in the design scope, since it will likely be
expended on addressing unforeseen conditions. It was noted that no bond
funding has been allocated for water and stormwater upgrades. Once the
waterline construction cost estimate has been prepared by Consultant, a decision
will be made by the CITY with regard to the design of the waterline improvements
within the scope of this project. If the CITY should decide to include the extra
work, then the CITY will work with the Program Manager in trying to identify
additional funding sources for the unfunded work. In addition, the CITY will
require some negotiation once the initial proposal was requested. It was also
noted that AlE Consultants should defer all questions regarding funding to the
Program Manager and/or City.
5. Encroachments - Encroachments will be dealt with on a case-by- case basis, as
needed. The Consultant will include a review of potential encroachments in the
Basis of Design Report.
6. Basis of Design Report - It was emphasized that this report should address
critical issues such as encroachments, permitting issues and constructability
concerns. It should also include a project implementation plan, a "budgef' level
cost estimate for both current phases and future (unfunded) improvements and a
schedule for implementing the project itemized phase by phase.
7. Project Schedule - A preliminary project schedule, as currently included in the
scope of services, was presented. All parties agreed that the current schedule
required review and updating. Consultant agreed to review the conceptual project
schedule and provide comments to the Program Manager by July 27, 2001.
Subsequent to the meeting, Consultant's proposed revised schedule was
received by the Program Manager on July 30, 2001. The revised schedule will
be incorporated into the master program schedule.
Page 2 of 3
MB:APPENDIX_010716_Kick off.DOC
1
J
n
l
J
l
J
J
J
J
n
LJ
Meeting Minutes
July 16,2001
8. Program Management Procedures, Invoicing, CAD Standards, Front-End
Documents and Division 1 General Requirements, encroachments and Field
Verification of Existing Utilities were covered in detail during the kickoff meeting
for neighborhood No. 13 for Star/Palm/Hibiscus Island on July 5, 2001. Please
reference accordingly.
9. Schedule Reporting - As noted in the Scope of Services, Consultant will track project
progress and provide monthly updates to the Program Manager. The Program
Manager will update the master schedule accordingly. A separate meeting can
be scheduled to discuss reporting requirements, upon request.
10. Notice-to-Proceed (NTP) - The City issued a NTP to Consultant for Tasks 1 and
6. .
11 . Site Reconnaissance Visit - Consultant will coordinate the Project Site
Reconnaissance visit. Subsequent to the meeting, this was conducted on
Thursday, July 26, 2001.
12. Meeting Handouts -Copies of select materials distributed during the meeting are
attached. Complete set of meeting handouts is on file at the Program Manager's
office.
Prepared by: Suresh Mistry
fl,',"'.
U
J
o
J
J
J
J
J
c: Attendees
Charlie Carreno
File No. 4006/2.0
Page 3 of 3
MB:APPENDIX_010716_Kick off. DOC
1
EI)AW
l
J
EDAW INC
THE BILTMORE
l
817 WEST PEACHTREE
STREET, NW
SUITE 770
l
ATLANTA GEORGIA
30308
1
TEL 404 870 5339
]
J
FAX 404 870 6590
www.edaw.com
J
J
'1
j~.'
"
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
MEMORANDUM
TO
Bert Vidal
FROM
Leo Alvarez
DATE
August 21, 2001
CC
Glen Deal
SUBJECT
Meeting Minutes - Oceanfront Site Reconnaissance, July 26, 2001
On July 26, 2001, the Oceanfront Project Consultant Team met with City of Miami Beach
officials for the first task of the Oceanfront project, Site Reconnaissance. The group drove
through the project scope area to discuss existing site conditions, planning and design ideas, and
overall observations for each of the streets in the project scope.
The following is the list of attendees:
Bert Vidal, Hazen and Sawyer
Suresh Mistry, Hazen and Sawyer
William Cary, City of Miami Beach, Planning
Jorge Chartrand, City of Miami Beach, Public Works
Donald Shockey, City of Miami Beach, Planning
Leo Alvarez, EDA W
Glen Deal, EDA W
1. The main topic discussed during this reconnaissance was definition of the overall project
scope. The following is a summary of those comments and conclusions for project scope:
a) It was clarified by the City that Liberty A venue and 23rd Street are the southern
limits of the project scope. (The intersection of Liberty and 23rd is the southwest
corner of the project scope)
b) Bert Vidal stressed that the scope does not go outside of the street right-of-way
lines. (Outside edge of sidewalks only, and does not include private property
planting areas)
c) Extent of scope to Collins: (Up to extent ofFDOT right-of-way)
d) Encroachments (all private plantings or other) can be removed, if within scope.
e) Scope is East -West between R/W lines, from Indian Creek street end to street end
at beach. (This includes the area between the dead end and the boardwalk, but not
including the boardwalk itself. Bruce Henderson is working on the boardwalk,
bathrooms, and environmental plans east of the boardwalk.)
f) Bruce Henderson has bathrooms under his design scope, but EDA W should
address these in the planning phase. Examples are the 29th Street Bathroom
possible relocation, and possible new bathrooms at Pancoast Park streetends. 29th
Street bathroom could be ''folded into" Oceanfront contract.
g) Areas north of 43rd, to 63rd Street, are part of planning scope only. (Planning
should include those contextual areas) The primary scope for the design phase of
the Oceanfront project is strictly 23rdthrough 43rd Streetscapes.
h) The City owns between Creek edge, and state right-of-way along Indian Creek
Drive. This strip varies in width, and ownership must be confirmed with Jorge
DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE
P:_I01-",BOCI!ANJ'RONTCOMM\IlODRJU!l'OR1W'I'I!NDOU'm!-RIlCON~UL \'26.01.DOC
1
]
J
]
l
~l
1
J
J
J
J
;..".1
LJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
Chartrand. (Design team should refer to Indian Creek Greenway Master Plan
document for 3 typical cross sections of creek edge).
i) All areas will be addressed for future improvements to develop a complete
planning document.
2. An important future development south of 23rd is the Cultural Campus I Library Project.
The City (Jorge Chartrand) agreed to provide EDAW all current drawings and information
on this project.
3. The pedestrian bridge at the dead end of Liberty on the creek, is an important greenway link
north and south of 23rd.
4. William Cary touched on the historical aspects of the south end of the scope area:
a) John Collins, an important historical figure in this area.
b) Original purpose of Indian Creek & canal was for boats carrying mangos from
farms up the creek for shipping.
c) Significance of Mangroves along Indian Creek.
d) Old Miarrii Beach Drive (currently a bikeway) was once an important city street,
which connected the Roney Hotel to the Lake Pancoast Hotel to the north. The
wealthy citizens once walked along this street between hotels. There once existed
an old "putting green", which is currently the 29th Street turn-around.
5. Consideration of the history of Miami Beach Drive is important, however, the majority of
this corridor is out of scope, other than where it intersects streetends. Subsequent to the site
visit, it was agreed that the city would not include Miami Beach Drive in the scope.
Ownership of this area will be clarified by the city, and information will be provided to the
design team. Jorge Chartrand believes it is city property, but not in our scope.
6. For better street, curb, buildings, and sidewalk information, the City suggested that EDA W
contact Leo Francis. Jorge Chartrand felt that surveys are critical, but are not yet available,
It was agreed that surveys should be provided, and are necessary for future design phases of
the project. Subsequent to the site visit, and at the request of various AlE consultants, the
City has allowed Consultants to request that they be allowed to spend survey dollars during
the planning stage.
7. Angled parking may be ok, if appropriate. Parking count is high priority, and should be
maximized. Losing spaces is not an option, especially for local citizens.
8. Surface parking lot at 27th Street - edges need screening & enhancements.
9. Important issue is recognition of these streetends as service drives for the hotels.
Implementation schedules were suggested.
10. Possibility of reconfiguration of streets between Collins and Indian Creek to one-way pairs.
Reconfiguration of these middle sections is worth looking at, because of the limitations.
11. Historic mangroves along Indian Creek noted.
12. Bus Shelters, bridges, and pedestrian connections are important.
13. Under-grounding overhead utilities is a "long-range" proposal, and not part of G.O. Bond
program.
14. Tree Master Plan is in the process of being prepared, but is not yet available. (Acquire from
City, Charles Buckles)
END OF MINUTES
DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE
P:I2OOOOAlOl~OI<1\COMM\IlODRJlI!I'OR1IAPPENDIX..Srm-RI!CON.JUL Y26<>I,OOC
l
E~I)AW
l
1 EDAW INC
777 17TH STREET
J SUITE 200
MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA
1 33139
l TEL 305 604 5878
FAX 305 604 5704
J LICENSE NUMBER
LCOOO0386
J www.adaw,com
J
J
]
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
MEMORANDUM
TO
Bert Vidal, Hazen & Sawyer
FROM
Glen Deal
DATE
October 8, 2001
CC
Leo Alvarez, Barbara Faga, Cesar Garcia-Pons, James Kanter, Suresh Mistry
SUBJECT
Meeting Minutes - Oceanfront Visioning Session - October 8, 2001- OAlO1.01
On October 8, 200 1, the EDA W team met with the City of Miami Beach for the Visioning Session - Task
1.4 of the Oceanfront project. The group met at City Hall to discuss the proposed.
The following is the list of attendees:
Jorge Chartrand, CMB, CIP
Tim Hemstreet, CMB, elP
Robert Middaugh, CMB, CIP
Donald Shockey, CMB, CIP
Ronnie Singer, CMB, CIP
Bruce Henderson, CMB, Environmental
Kevin Smith, CMB, Parks and Recreation
Reuben Caldwell, CMB, Planning
William Cary, CMB, Planning
Joyce Myers, CMB, Planning
Fred Beckmann, CMB, Public Works
Bert Vidal, Hazen and Sawyer (H&S)
Suresh Mistry, Hazen and Sawyer
Leo Alvarez, EDA W
Glen Deal, EDA W
Barbara Faga, EDA W
<;esar Garcia Pons, EDA W
General Comments:
1. Suresh informed EDA W that Hazen and Sawyer is requesting a fee proposal from EDA W for the
water-line improvements, a separate part of the project.
2. It was noted that better Right-of-Way delineation (tax) maps can be provided by the city. More
current aerial photography of the oceanfront area can not be aquired due to recent FAA "no fly zone"
measures. Bruce Henderson says he can provide survey information from the East edge of Collins to
the boardwalk. EDAW needs better survey information for design phase of project.
3. William Cary and Bruce Henderson agree with EDA W that 29th street is an ideal location for a new
bathroom facilitity, within Oceanfront project limits.
4. Bruce said that the West railing of the Boardwalk is east boundary line of the EDA W scope of work.
5. William Cary would like the name of the project to be "Oceanfront Streetscape Improvements and
Greenway Area." (He feels that the project is also about neighborhoods and greenway connections,
not just streetscape.)
6. EDAW should only show budget based plans (not enhanced versions) at public presentation.
7. Leo Alvarez presented EDA W drawings to the group, and group comments are as follows:
Site Context and Photo Analvsis drawines :
1. Leo emphasized that there are no East-West, Right-of-Way treatment areas north of the 43n1 street
design boundary. EDAW did, however, address 43n1 to 63n1 Street at a contextual! planning level
with emphasis on important parks and future green way connections for the entire Mid-Beach
neighborhood, from 63n1 to 23n1.
DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE
1
l
2. Site Context and Photo Analysis drawings well-received by group. No major comments.
"Connector" Street Drawml!s - (Libertv, 24th, 29th. & 41st Streets):
J
]
1. Bruce Henderson and Donald Shockey commented that Royal Palms are not the best choice of palm
tree along Collins, due to salt and wind conditions close to beach. Coconuts are recommended as a
better choice at street ends, and also at entrance areas to street ends. EOA W agrees.
2. Connector streets all cross the creek, either by pedestrian crossings or by 4151 Street Bridge. This
should be noted to public as the prime reason for this "Connector" designation. (Connectivity is a top
priority of the project.)
3. Take off "Sod" and "Seed" notes. Native grasses and natural dune vegetation would be more
appropriate as "transitional" groundcover from streetend to beach. Ronnie Singer expressed concern
about appearance of existing dune environment at existing streetends, and would like to see
something that "looks better." EOA W feels that the natural look, with native grasses instead of
traditional sod or seed, can be incorporated, and still result in a more appropriate look for the
streetends.
4. An informal use of Coconut Palms would also be more appropriate than the gridded pattern of palms
shown on the plan.
5. Buffer planting edge along R/W line, walls and adjacent uses should be incorporated.
6. William Cary feels that public art is a good choice for this streetend, instead of the fountain shown.
Oonald Shockey does not want public art opportunities to take away money from streetscape
improvements funding. It was agreed that alternative focal ideas (other than the fountain) be
explored by EOA W, therefore allowing better distribution of money to Linkage and Local streets.
($ 120K fountain may not be best allocation of money.)
7. Showers, footwashers, bike r~cks, bus .sh.elters, bathrooms, & drinkin~ fountains to be shown ~n ,
EOA W plans, where appropnate. (Exlstmg showers occur at 24th, 27 ,29th, and 35th, (needs 10 be enfied).
Bathroom at 29th.)
8. Vandalism concerns with stainless steel sign numbers shown on deco plinths.
9. Concerns with terrazo weathering over time I long range performance.
10. Bruce stated that promenade on 241h street may double as bikepath.
11. Kevin Smith would prefer to see irrigation, and natural, low landscaping around pedestrian circle.
(Irrigation will be proposed by EOA W for Connector streets as an allowance.)
12. Existing drainage is to be left as it exists on Connector streets.
J
l
J
J
J
J
J
"Linkal!e" Street Drawines - (23rd. 27th. 30th. 34th. 35th. 39th, & 43"' Streets):
J
1. It was agreed that new sidewalks should be proposed on all schemes, including Local Streets.
(Question was asked by Jorge Chartrand: Why not use new concrete everywhere instead of repaired
concrete?)
2. One-way pair options agreed as not feasible, due to impact on road design, drainage, and
engineering costs.
3. Raised paver I crosswalks suggested for Linkage streets by Bruce Henderson. EOA W to explore if
possible, but currently only budgets for Connector streets.
4. Colored concrete in vehicular special paving areas presents maintenance problems. (Unless dark
enough, color will get tire marks from service trucks, 3-point turns, and will require high pressure
washing to keep clean.) EOA W will locate colored paving in pedestrian areas, not in the street.
J
J
J
"Local" Street Drawinl!S - (25th, 26th, 28th. 31st. 32nd. 33"'. 36th. 37th, 38th. 40th. & 4200):
J
1. To stay consistent with Connector and Linkage street schemes, Bert and Jorge feel that new
sidewalks (not repaired) and specialty paving at streetend should be proposed also on local streets.
2. Use of yellow pavers or colored concrete to delineate painted yellow fire zone line at streetend.
3. In general, Local Street treatments need to be upgraded.
J
J
J
DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE
r]
. \
J
Recommendations Plan I Indian Creek Treatments:
~l
1. A couple spelling errors on drawings, to be corrected by EDA W: (Capital, not Capitol. Separate, not
seperate. EDA W to check for other mis-spellings on drawings)
2. "Putting Green Park" should be designated in purple, representing improvements outside of budget.
(Center turnaround is not owned by city. It is privately owned by hotel, and is a private development
oPfortunity.)
3. 34 Street should probably be reduced in priority, instead of an Connector level street, since there is
no physical connection across creek.
4. EDA W asked Bruce Henderson for clarification of creekside treatment areas in scope, (areas along
creek within Right-of Way, ownership by city?) Bruce's answer is that the Right-of-Way of all streets
extends to the creek's edge, therefore EDA W can treat those streets that they feel appropriate for
creekside improvements. It was concluded by EDAW, and Bruce that 27m, 29m, 34m, 39m, and 43rd
are the appropriate choices for creekside improvements, as part of the Oceanfront budget. William
Cary feels that is is critical that these creek treatments be a part of this project.
5. Drinking fountains will be proposed by EDA W at the Indian Creek Streetend treatment areas.
6. Bruce Henderson will install signage I plinths on east side of boardwalk, which will match EDA W
designed plinths. (Street I Wayfinding needs on beach side are equally important)
7. EDA W will propose push-button pedestrian crossings on appropriate Connector or Linkage Streets.
l
J
1
J
J
EDA W will address all meeting comments, and will bring final Oceanfront planning drawings to
November 13 Community Workshop. William Cary requested (2) half size or 11 by 17" set of drawings.
J
J
J
J:'-
'.
J
J
]
J
J
J
J
DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRDNMENTS WORLDWIDE
]
~
EI)A\V
J
J
EDAW INC
777 17TH STREET
J
l
l
SUITE 200
MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA
33139
TEL 305 604 587B
FAX 305 604 5704
J
J
J
J
J
']C,C,
....
. '
. '
J
J
~.",',l
U
]
J
LICENSE NUMBER
LC0000386
www.edaw.com
J
J
MEMORANDUM
TO
Suresh Mistry, Hazen & Sawyer
Glen Deal
FROM
DATE
November 14, 2001
CC
Leo Alvarez, Barbara Faga, Cesar Garcia Pons, Bert Vidal, file OAI01.01
SUBJECT
Meeting Summary - Oceanfront Community Workshop #1
On November 13,2001, the EDA W team, along with representatives from Hazen & Sawyer,
and officials from the City of Miami Beach met with the residents of Neighborhood #6
(Oceanfront) for Community Design Workshop No.1 (Task 1.6.1). The group met at 6:30 p.rn.
at the Caribbean Hotel on the comer of 37th Street and Collins A venue to discuss the proposed
Greenway and Streetscape Improvements for the Oceanfront Neighborhood.
The following is the list of attendees from EDA W, H&S and CMB:
Tim Hemstreet, CMB, CIP
Robert Middaugh, CMB, City Manager's Office
Donald Shockey, CMB, CIP
Ronnie Singer, CMB, CIP
Joyce Meyers, CMB, Planning
William Cary, CMB, Planning
Bruce Henderson, CMB, Public Works
Suresh Mistry, Hazen and Sawyer (H&S)
Bert Vidal, H&S
Stephanie Webster, EDA W
Glen Deal, EDA W
Cesar Garcia Pons, EDA W
Leo Alvarez, EDA W
See attached sheet for full attendance list.
The Meetine
Tim Hemstreet began the meeting with the introduction of the project team. Bert Vidal
provided an overview of the project funding, which included the G.O. Bond amount, cost
adjustments, contingencies, and net construction cost. Bert emphasized that this funding would
not change, and that any public comments and subsequent changes to the design would not
increase or decrease this funding, nor change the project scope or boundary. He stated that this
funding only applies to the city owned public right-of-way, from Liberty & 23rd Street to 43rd
Street. Leo Alvarez presented the EDA W design drawings and provided a detailed power point
show. This presentation included a description ofEDAW, the design team, the design approach,
site reconnaissance, contextual issues, design issues, and proposed recommendations for the
project. Generally, the response to the presentation was very positive, and support was
expressed for the ideas and recommendations presented. The following is a summary of
meeting minutes, comments and questions raised at the meeting.
DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE
~1 ,
l
l
J
l
l
J
J
'1
,J
0
J
J
J
"
J
J
J
:']
.J
J
J
Meetin2 Minutes:
1. Leonard Wein stated that there may be funds available for public art. Leo stated that the
public art presented is shown as an "opportunity" for the Connector streets, and is not part
of the Oceanfront budget.
2. It was stated that the 41st Street Bridge has been recently designed with a concept very
similar to the EDA W signage ideas presented. (The pattern depicting the ocean is also used
in the new bridge design.)
3. One attendee was concerned that there may be a handicap accessibility issue at 30th Street.
Leo made it clear that EDA W will address all ADA issues in the design I implementation
phases of the project. A site survey will be necessary to address these types of issues.
4. Leonard Wein was interested in exploring options for widening the Indian Creek Greenway.
He feels that parking on east edge of Indian Creek Drive could be moved, traffic lanes could
shift east, therefore allowing more room on west side of street for Indian Creek Greenway.
This was just one of 4 options discussed in past Greenway related workshops, and the
EDAW SSP program. Leonard feels that the side streets (East-West streets) could have
added stacked I diagonal parking to replace Indian Creek Drive parking, or one-way pair
options could be explored for these side streets. This Indian Creek Drive and Greenway
topic was prevalent during the presentation. EDA W agreed to explore this in future
implementation phases, but the City did not recommend that EDA W revise the current
drawings to reflect these ideas. It was noted that work on Indian Creek Drive is not in the
scope of this Oceanfront project.
5. Leonard feels that "less is more"for plaza paving on Local streets.
6. Leo stated that bike racks may be located at Indian Creek Greenway overlooks.
7. A question was raised: Will Indian Creek Drive be affected, or possibly shut down, (like
Collins Ave.) when this Oceanfront project begins? Leo answered that he does not foresee
any major shut down of Indian Creek Drive.
8. Comments were raised by those in attendance, who reside in the northern parts of the
neighborhood, (near 63rd Street) expressing disappointment with the project scope, which
stops at 43rd Street. They would have liked to see the funding extend further north, and feel
that their neighborhood has been "neglected". Ronnie Singer informed them of the NBRC
project, which is currently underway. Bruce Henderson described this NBRC project in
more detail, which was well received by those concerned attendees. Donald Shockey
explained why the scope was stofped at 43rd,: "Because there are no City of Miami Beach
right-of ways north of 43rd to 63r street."
9. The owner of the Indian Creek Hotel was in attendance, and had several comments. He
would like to see the overhead utilities under-grounded on the 27th Street (parking lot side)
of his street. Bert Vidal stated that a neighborhood association is the fIrst step in getting this
accomplished with FP&L, and the City.
This attendee also was disappointed that 27th street is delineated by EDA W as a
"Linkage" street, and 28th as a "Local" street. (He owns properties on each of these streets.)
He feels that his street enhancements may be less signifIcant than a "connector" level
treatment, particularly 29th street. Leo assured him that his street enhancements would be
very signifIcant, and would include an Indian Creek overlook at 27th Street, and would also
include pedestrian pole lighting on this street.
10. Leonard Wein talked about the idea of having back-lighted standard street signs, as a
cheaper option to the directional signs shown on EDA W drawings.
11. An attendee raised a comment about the flooding, which occasionally occurs between Indian
Creek and Collins Avenue. Bruce Henderson stated that dredging Indian Creek will happen
in the near future, as a means to solving this flooding problem.
DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE
'~l
l
J
l
]
l
Comment Sheets :
EDA W handed out comment sheets to all attendees. The following list is a summary of those
(4) written responses and reactions to the Oceanfront presentation:
1. Gordon Dom, 5838 Collins Ave., #9B: "Beach access is an important issue for
those of us who live on the west side of Collins. We pay to maintain the beach, but
have little access!!"
J
J
J
J
J
]
J
q.',
J
J
J
J
J
J
"Great project!!, but I never saw so much value for 4 million dollars. At some point, I
would like to see the Marabella Site, that little green spot between Indian Creek &
Collins Avenue should all be used as a Green Park. (That area across from the Bath
Club.) If the city bought the Marabella lot site for a park - some area I city parking
might also be provided there. We could use some of the street city parking (parking
deck?) in our area as well as green space."
2. Mark Levin, Indian Creek Hotel Owner, ph:(305)-531-2727: "I need help to make
this happen: Want assistance to have FP&L underground utilities - 28th Street,
between Indian Creek Dr. and Collins I 27th Street, between Indian Creek Dr. and
Collins. Would like decorative urban lighting I or at least wiring for future
improvements at these two streets areas. Also would like 27th street considered as a
connector street, because of large public parking lot." (see Minutes, #9 above)
3. Leonard Wein: "You need to plan to replace parallel parking with angled parking
near Indian Creek Drive, in case FDOT agrees to move parking to the side streets."
(see Minutes, #4 above)
4. Comment (name not provided): "Please keep the public up to date with any new
information available. Beautiful project!, and upgrade program to the area."
Action Items :
1. EDA W requests drawings from the City of Miami Beach, for the 41 st Street Bridge
Enhancements. (see Minutes, #2 above)
2. City of Miami Beach to coordinate a meeting with FDOT regarding current Collins
Avenue construction efforts, and the coordination necessary with the Oceanfront
project.
END OF SUMMARY
DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE
~1
E I) A \tV
1
r")
..1
EDAW INC
777 17TH STREET
J
J
SUITE 200
MIAMI BEACH FLORIOA
33139
l
TEL 305 604 5878
FAX 305 604 5704
J
J
LICENSE NUMBER
LC0000386
www.edaw.com
1
_J
J
:J'..
,-
J
J
J
j
J
J
J
J
MEMORANDUM
TO
Suresh MiStry, Hazen & Sawyer
FROM
Barbara Faga
DATE
January 24,2001
CC
Leo Alvarez, Glen Deal, Cesar Garcia Pons, Bert Vidal, file OAlO1.01
SUBJECT
Meeting Summary - Oceanfront Community Workshop #2
On January 17, 2002, the EDA W team, along with representatives from Hazen & Sawyer, and
officials from the City of Miami Beach met with the residents of Neighborhood #6 (Oceanfront)
for Community Design Workshop No.2 (Task 1.6.1). The group met at 7:00 p.m. at the
Caribbean Hotel on the comer of 37th Street and Collins A venue to discuss the proposed
Greenway and Streetscape Improvements for the Oceanfront Neighborhood.
The following is the list of attendees from EDA W. H&S and CMB:
Tim Hemstreet, CMB, CIP
Donald Shockey, CMB, CIP
Ronnie Singer, CMB, CIP
Stacy Kilroy, CMB, CIP
Bruce Henderson, CMB, Public Works
Rueben Caldwell, CMB, Planning
Suresh Mistry, Hazen and Sawyer (H&S)
Bert Vidal, H&S
Charlie Carreno, H&S
Cesar Garcia Pons, EDA W
Barbara Faga, EDA W
See attached sheet for full attendance list.
Presentation
Tim Hemstreet opened the meeting with the introduction of the project team and a brief
discussion of the Capital Improvement Program. Barbara Faga began EDA W's presentation
with a description of EDA W, the design team, and the design approach including the firm's
background, an overview of the 1998 EDA W Summer Student Program in Miami Beach and the
Indian Creek Greenway master plan. Cesar Garcia-Pons presented the design drawings and
provided a detailed power point show. This presentation included, addressing comments from
Meeting #1, the site reconnaissance, contextual issues, design issues, and proposed
recommendations for the project. Bert Vidal provided an overview of the project funding,
including the G.O. Bond amount, cost adjustments, contingencies, and net construction cost.
The response to the presentation was positive, and support was expressed for the ideas and
recommendations presented. The attendees understood the next step is to seek approvals from
agencies, boards and departments and proceed with construction documents,
DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WOFlLDWIDE
1 .
)
l
1
l
, J
J
"l
.J
J
J
J
J
]
]
J
J
J
J
J
1
I
--.J
J
The following is a summary of meeting minutes, comments and questions discussed at the
meeting.
Ouestions and Comments
1. The 29th Street bathroom was identified as an issue by two attendees. They stated that the
new bathroom should be located near existing parking to serve those who drive to the
beach, that it is a haven for the homeless and that the City had not maintained the previous
bathroom clean nor secure.
Leonard Wein, G.O. Bond Committee Member, stated that the money to rebuild the 29th
Street bathroom had been approved and the intent is to keep it clean and locked at night. He
also stated that the City recently held a workshop on homeless issues and is striving to
provide more alternative housing and otherwise maintain City property clean and secure.
Generally, the bathrooms are thought to be a benefit by day and a liability by night.
The siting of the 29th street bathrooms are not in the scope of the EDA W project, the City
stated that they were in the process of scheduling a separate community meeting
specifically to discuss the issue of siting the bathrooms.
2. One attendee responding to EDA W's request for areas with "localized" ponding or
flooding stated that there was "some" flooding at 24th Street. The Oceanfront neighborhood
has not been awarded any stormwater funds for improvements to the stormwater system.
Any information regarding localized ponding or flooding will be included in the Basis of
Design Report to be identified by the City as a maintenance project or future Capitol
Improvement Project.
3. One attendee asked why the Indian Creek Greenway project was not included in this
project. Cesar explained that small portions of City owned right-of-way along the Indian
Creek Greenway are anticipated for construction as part of this project. Leonard Wein
stated that there are efforts by the City and residents to acquire further funding for the
Greenway in the future.
4. Leonard Wein asked about the angled parking alternative he raised at the first Oceanfront
Community Design Workshop, stating that the reason for the alternative was to increase the
width of the Indian Creek Greenway. Cesar presented some sketches of the angled parking
alternative and discussed the increase in costs and increase in the amount of infrastructure
that were necessary would make this option unaffordable. Additionally, the Department of
Planning has reviewed the alternative and does not believe it is appropriate in this historic
district. The consensus was that the proposed alternative was not feasible.
5. Representatives from the Roney Palace asked if they could coordinate their improvements
along their stretch of beachfront with the design of the street access adjacent to their
property. They also asked it the fence on the adjoining property at 23rd Street could be
removed. Tim Hemstreet said he would have the Planning Department look into the
legality of the existing fence.
Comment Sheets:
EDA W handed out comment sheets to all attendees. The following list is a summary of those
(2) written responses and reactions to the Oceanfront presentation:
DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE
1 ~
: )
l
, J
J
n
J
fJ
:J
J
J
J
J
]
J
J
0
0
U
J
J
J
1. M. Temor, 2899 Collins Ave, #437, "1 will suggest to move the bathroom from 29th
St to 35-36'"
2. S. Takans, 2899 Collins Ave, Tel. 305 535 8006, "No bathroom in 29th St. should
be moved to another location. There are not enough parking spaces."
The two comment sheets received will be included in the Basis of Design Report. Both
Comments were related to the 29th Street Bathroom which is not in the EDA W Scope and the
City will be addressing at a future meeting. (See question comment #1)
Conclusions:
A general consensus in favor of the proposed improvements was reached at the end of this
Community Development Workshop.
Please see the attached powerpoint presentation that was presented at the workshop.
END OF SUMMARY
DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE
1
J
J
J
l
l
]
J
]
],'
, .
.
J
]
J
J
J
]
J
J
J
Neighborhood No.6 - Oceanfront
Basis of Design Report (BODR)
Appendix 'B'
Community Workshop Presentatio'n
]
J
J
;]
J
ocea
Prepared by EDAW
J
Oceanfront Streetscape Improvements
& Greenway Area
City of Miami Beach Proposed NeighborhoOO
Capital Improvements Program
~]"
.'
n
J
EDAW
]
J
J
J
J
EDAW
J
.J
J
J
10
EDAW
1, Total Funding
G,O, Bond
3, Construction Budget
Total Funding
Total Adjustments
Totals
$ 4,300,000
$ 677,078
$ 3,622,922
$ 4,300,000
2, Adjustments
AlE Fee $ 307,690
PM Fee $ 154,888
Miscellaneous
Restroom Fadllty
@ 29th Street $ 175,000
Trash Receptacles $ 38,000
Citywide Signage $ 1,500
Totals $ 677,078
4, Net Construction Budget
Total Budget
Contingency (10%)
Net
$ 3,622,922
$ 362,292
$ 3,260,630
5, Budget by Funding Source
G,Q, Bond $ 3,260,630
o c e a nM8~~r plan
EDAW
EDAW
~, ,. - . -'-
It-J /~~ ~-~1.~. ~;J.J1;l-l~~i~l ~-..~~ -;..\~
{Of~~...=",;,,;.,,;:.;,;m;,...~.t
CH "rr~:'; - ;}~:~Lg;;-;'~~l:.l~ -;:7~~r~'.""'''''~;i '
., . ~',-,=~c. ~,~-' . :.:..!....,-. _ ~~=.:::;' .
111\.A~lvl
1
l
J
o
l
IliIJI.[....'.#;\~I~
indian creek greenway ~'." '
>> edaw summer student program
[~~:-r' ~ :~:~ ..,~. .
1
l
]
IJ
]
context
J
.~'CIRI!~I1lll(f
a'.-s'I'Il:~r:lllO/IlI"
tt~'I("UIM4\:tJ;lNS
tUlI$'~""AClI"IlILC~n
....., -..............-.""'.
------
]
J
ocea
0"-
! .
I
u
context
J
ItCOU<<1Ci1l1/-ll'ImaT
t!l'~IIIC'J"'CIIVon:;lll.t.llL\.l
~~.t.Tl~ACTIlIlI
~ 1111* IIUCU I "'!I'JC;llRt
J
_"On ....._____
----
J
J
J
introduction - project team
)) Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. - Program
Manager
>> EDAW - Landscape Architect
)) Burns & McDonnell - Civil Engineer
>) "Miami Beach IS the AmeriCas' R/'IIera; a
cosmopolitan city whose residents are as
diverse as Its visitors."
So..-ce: I'bml Bekh Owmb. .r Commern
o c e a nMaHter plan
conl~'-'l.~_
)');;- ':;'
~ .,.:r;Jr~'_
,/:,~i~~
-or...
,. ",~
context
--,-_.
~=...:;:..~:: - ~:~===
~;!~1if~' i~~
::=-~.... :===-
:e~~:-i.=:~ :~i:~=..:
2
j
, '\
]
n
l
i!t--.--
l1t.-.---
1<1-"'-
",-'~'''--
context
J
>> CoIUns Park
l
J
o
J
J
~]
Parking on BOlli
&IdN of 1:1'1. $u..t
to NflMJn"'ln.-d
J
(
J
J
recommendations1~1~"
J
~ CONNECTOR STREET >) 4 total
>) ~~f~h~~~~r ~'m~~~~it~er=a~~urroundlng
)) pedestrian or vehicular bridge
J
.. LINKAGE STREET >> 7 total
)) link between neighborhood, beach &. Indian creek .
greenway overkXlks .
J
:'1
U
J
Photo analysis
.-
j
-I_
I
-I~
major issues
>> oceanfront neighborhood streetscape
>> aoss streets. liberty & 23rd-43rd streets
)> street resurfacing
>) sidewalk repair
>> curb &. gutter repair
>> enhanced iandscaplng
>> street light upgrades
>) enhanced pedestrian beach access
>> ~=~~=h~~ at select
>> enhanced pedestrian access to the indian creek
greenway
>> coo.rdinate with Indian creek greenway plans &.
designs
>) ~i~SIn:S:,'tieith~~~~~~'i 3n~ades under
__________._._m
-m~TlJIl.'flIIISIII1
!jlN<I4l,,1lHt
bu>:MS..rI
.-.fo(l(lOOO'OllIlUT'l'
:tl=~.l~
. m==-,T'IOl'lJI't"ru
.~=f\,NI~
=~=::::..:_-
.--.-. .
3
'1
. l \
J
J
connector street .
recommendations plan
>> 24th Street
1
J
>> New road pl\lel'Mnt&~ng
>> rew 5Idewalks
>> new cul>s
)) street bunp-0ut5 w/landscap~
>> promenade[ comectivity
>> liQhl:ing
>>special~
>> boI1ards
>> d1~cnalpllnths(2)
>> bikeracks
>> sit!': f\mIbn
>> t=~, footwashel"5 &. drlnkil'9
>> ~npalms&sh~trees
>> native: ~assesl du'le vegetation
>> lITIgation
)) demolition
o c e a nMa~~; Pi~.~
". '..... '
,,! ~, .J..'"'f,..... .
t, -', _-','" ~;rf'J"'~'. ~
.~~_ -. ~~~Z~~I, ,
~.-~:l"'-~,
~ j~~~~.~:k~
J
J
o
J
Iinka~ street .
recommendations plan
J
J
J
J
D
linkage street ~QnGe.pts
~=.
=
];'
.'
~~,l:"'"
J
Jl=--~..~-,~-
'~
/;:; t", .,...--~..~--
,1jl~or.- 4BI ij' :=:"-=r.=: ----:
~- "~ . - ~ ,~-~~l#l'~~;~
, " t I g ,
, -~ ] 11 i
L '--:=:~, :=':"'1:::0-' '--t:!:';.
.~..:.-..c"~Pl!'Ot,~_
J
.!
J
ID
connector stI~et~Qnce.pt~___,..."
."",.-
--~;':..
0(;
'j
J.
",=~~'::-'~\#:.~'(=---" \.-J:!=.$:-I A
Iinksge street .
recommendations plan
>> 30th Street
>> new road pavement&. restriplng
>> new sidewalks
>> rew arlzs
>> sIreet bump-outs w/landsalplng
>> Ilglbl"'9
>> directional plInths (2)
>> coralsta"lewalls
>> pedestr1anplaza
>> bfkerack5
>> ~rn-footwashers&tk1fiO~
>> palms&sI'1acH! trees
>> native ~ dlXle: v~tlon
>> ln1~tion
>> demoIlbcn
>> engineering/mise:. utlliti~
o c e a nMa~~r plan
local street .
recommendations plan
U:leot*"'JJiIftT
Ei~-"'"
tJlOColllWUI
lii--lUm
ia_"'__
I=twtall!r7~
.0UJ:~1!IU_1M'I.OOl
"I~
.~P'CJ~
4
I ] .
0
D
1
1
l
J
0
U
0
J
J
I 0
0
U
D
U
I J
I
0
local street .
recommendations plan
)) 37th Street
.. - . -~ ~
~ ,',,' ,. L
~,~~~~~~i~,. :'.
~ ~;~,;",,-'
.- ,..;~.
)) new road pavement & restriping
>> new sidewalks
>> ....."""
>> s1ne:t~ wllan:lscaplnJ
>> Wec:ticnal plinths (1)
>> special paving
>> Sitel'LrnitLn
>> palm grove & shad!. 1ta!S
>> natlve~duleveoetation
>> ~molition
>> eogineelingf mise. 1tIlitles
.", lr.I~
. <"~ ' -.,>'"
~~~fi(~:lL. "
~, .....,-t-~
~~.~~~...,., ~~,,~
.; '';\_ .(~":J~1~\::r[. ~;::.~}:~Z;-
ocea
nMaS't~r plan
Indian creek greenway
workshop 1
>> angled parking alternative
)) refT'lOVal of Indian creek. drive parking, and replace
~~~~~ ~~~~~~~I=~~:~~g
of Indian creek greenway
>> only viable option is to convert side streets to
oll<MOay pairs
>> edaw does not recommend this ZIIltematlve tor the
following reasons:
. =I'tg ~re~~ng g~~endable angled
1. sidewalk widening costS
2. C\M'b and Ql.(ter relocatlon I curb reccntlglSation
cas..
3. roedway re-pmfiUng CD5l::S
1. addltXrlallandscape ~11ldes I assod.lt!;d CCSl:$
. City public workS department dtSCOur~ed one
~~J~~oGt5~~~~~~~~~~~1d In
Issues with county
. city plannl~ historically does not support angled
pai1<ing in hiStoric dlstrk:tS
local street c9ncept~
~=:S"-
"":".."'~
~::.:;:
::.:.3_---i
~=.=-=-~PlII..MI:~_
.=
~~--
workshop 1
>> public comments
>> project scope
"'~bau'd"'" fnm ''"' ",4,",_ ,
are. , 43'W and 63'" street addressed at a
p1"""l1 ori'(,-'
I, .....
2. Mln ~ay ccmections
3. dl.ft: ruroraticl1
4. ~j@ct (north beach recreational
5. ~~rrwayfulln:lmproIIementsl
>> undergrounding cI utilttles
. not fuldabIe with 9.0. bond
. dty to define ~ forf!:sidents 1~ll!d:
1.~~~~~~a:mpIeted
associations.
2. l?.~ cD"lStr\dion scf'1edlje is avaUable to
wJ7 so that residents can coon;tir'lllte with
)) tidal Intrusion related flooding
. dty Is plaITIng for dredging of indian creek
: ~f:K~-:~lDmlwater. wtit:hlndu:jes
outfalls, and will alevlate much of the tidal intruSion
workshop 1
>> angled parking alternative
>> edaw studied 27'" and 2S"' street as a one-way pair system,
. city concurrency department supports thfs alternattve, rr there are:
1. protectlvf! b...mp-cus at each em of side:~.
2. proteaIve bamer between Sidewalk and travel lane ala1g Ind.an aeek drive
. indian creek drtve Is not In the oceanfront project scope.
: I i _17t111'............~ 1
. J 1- ~F-~(~';j~ii~.~
\ ==T-}(ffu~::.
I ~1~ -'-ff"r-~~~
! L~lO I
i .......--. !
l,\\ ,I . I,~~<=k-- .....;_---'!-L_
~..\\., h,'\,\\\\' ffiCJ=r....
\ \ ~(Q!/.(ii/;/i;II/I!4~;
\ =~~:-~.........-.::
5
Il
I
jJ
J
1
1
,.I
J
:t
J
o
J
J
J
J
'j
u
J
J
u
J
o
LJ
~
oc
n
summa
et
l
z~
:~
.
21J1
~~-
29th-. .
""
:Iii.
~~'-
~. ~.~
351l}_...:.:.;.....~..;;,.......J......:,_._
"" . ,- ..'....
~~~
"'~
. j"
,
.:...1
i:~~:;~~ ;!,' J:J_::::
.' ,,\ "'''...-.\' .xi",,_
~Ul."'.
'" 1ft '~7r~'~i.~-..t~.- .A
o c e a nM
connector street bud
C_~I_=':'_"!"a1II......._.~ ...
-h~__~~~~ii.~..-;,+._~...;
ocea
r plan
Oceanfront 5lreelscape Improvements &
Greenway Area
II1I\I
Oty of Miami Beach Proposed Neighborhood
Capital Improvements Program
linkage street bud et
~.. 11lrl'!".
o c e a nM
~~~.>(.
6