LTC 352-2018 June 13 LUDC Memo and Attached ExhibitsPage 143 of 289
Land Use and Development Committee
Town Center (TC) FAR and Zoning Districts
June 13, 2018 Page 2 of 17
The boundaries approved for an FAR increase, as noted on the attached aerial map,
include properties with the following zoning districts:
• TC-1 (previous maximum FAR of 2.25 – 2.75);
• TC-2 (previous maximum FAR of 1.50 – 2.00);
• TC-3 (previous maximum FAR of 1.25).
Pursuant to the approved ballot question, the maximum FAR for all zoning districts within
the specified boundaries has been permitted by the voters to be increased to 3.5. In
order to effectuate the proposed FAR increase, a separate enabling ordinance was
referred to the Planning Board by the City Commission on January 17, 2018. On
February 27, 2018, the Planning Board transmitted the ordinance to the City
Commission with a favorable recommendation. This enabling legislation was adopted by
the City Commission on May 16, 2018.
The initial December 13, 2017 City Commission referral was to develop a
comprehensive planning strategy for the Town Center area approved for the 3.5 FAR
increase. On February 7, 2018, the Land Use and Development Committee discussed
the referral for the first time, and recommended that the following be considered for
inclusion in a draft ordinance:
1. The creation of special regulations for the boundaries approved for a 3.5 FAR
(FAR overlay).
2. Strategic increases in maximum allowable building height in order to better
accommodate the new 3.5 FAR. At a minimum, maximum building height will
need to be increased in TC-2 (current maximum height of 50’) and TC-3 (current
maximum height of 45’) districts.
3. In conjunction with increases in height, modified setback regulations should be
explored, as follows:
• For properties along 69th street, which have adjoining RM-1(max height:
50’) and CD-2 (max height: 50’) districts to the south.
• For the properties along Indian Creek Drive, which have adjoining RM-
1(max height: 50’), RM-2(max height: 60’) and TC-3(max height: 45’)
districts to the west.
• Additional tower side setbacks and /or tower separation requirements for
development sites along 72nd Street, in order to prevent a continuous wall
and potential shading of what could be a park north of 72nd Street.
4. The location of certain, more intense allowable uses within the overlay, in order
to address existing, lower scale / less intense uses to the south (along 69th
Street) and west (along Indian Creek Drive).
Page 144 of 289
Land Use and Development Committee
Town Center (TC) FAR and Zoning Districts
June 13, 2018 Page 3 of 17
5. All existing zoning district categories (TC-1, 2, 3 & 3c) should be looked at
holistically throughout the entire overlay, with particular emphasis on existing
properties that cross zoning district boundaries (e.g. abutting parcels that
currently have TC-1 and TC-3 classifications).
6. Lot aggregation requirements, in addition to potential increases in maximum
building heights, in order to ensure that the increased FAR, particularly within
existing TC-2 and TC-3 areas, is appropriately distributed.
7. A review of off-street parking requirements for all uses within the overlay should
be conducted, including the impact of transit, ride share and non-vehicular
modes of transportation, as well as a revised mix of uses, on off-street parking
storage.
8. Standards and requirements for street trees and sidewalk canopy that would be
applicable to the entire overlay.
Additionally, the LUDC discussed the issues in the North Beach Master Plan: walkability,
safe streets, partnerships, mobility, affordable housing and, generally, quality of life.
Pursuant to the direction of the Land Use Committee on February 7, 2018, a first draft of
the Ordinance was prepared for discussion at the March 14, 2018 LUDC. Subsequent
to the item being continued on March 14, 2018, staff has further developed the proposed
overlay ordinance.
PLANNING ANALYSIS
This draft ordinance incorporates the elements of design in the North Beach Master Plan
and in the FAR Voter Guide from the last election. It is a balanced approach intended to
ignite sustainable development to revitalize North Beach. Staff has listened to public
comment and Commission direction over the last few months/years in order to produce
this draft. Given the rather small size of the area and the different important goals for
North Beach this is our professional urban planning recommendation for your
consideration and further public input.
The revised draft ordinance proposes to establish a TC-C, Town Center – Central Core
zoning district with an FAR of 3.5, and would replace the TC-1, TC-2, TC-3, and TC-3(c)
districts within the boundaries of the area established by the FAR referendum. The
administration believes that this will provide for a more uniform and cohesive Town
Center area, allowing for a seamless distribution of allowable FAR, height, setbacks and
uses. The remainder of TC districts outside the boundaries of the overlay area will not be
affected by these regulations.
The regulations proposed in the draft ordinance are consistent with the
recommendations of the North Beach Master Plan and the referenced guidelines in the
Intensity Increase Study prepared by Shulman + Associates in 2014. The Shulman
Study analyzed the impact of allowing buildings with increased height and FAR and
made recommendations as to setbacks to ensure that views were protected, sidewalks
are sufficiently wide, and that air and light corridors are accommodated between towers.
Page 145 of 289
Land Use and Development Committee
Town Center (TC) FAR and Zoning Districts
June 13, 2018 Page 4 of 17
The relevant sections of the Shulman massing studies are attached, and provide a visual
representation of how the proposed FAR and height can be distributed.
The following is a summary of the proposed development regulations within the revised
draft ordinance:
Building Height
The maximum building height proposed in the draft ordinance is 125 feet for the entire
TC-C district, with the ability to increase the height up to 200 feet with participation in a
Public Benefits program explained below. For reference the current maximum allowable
height regulations are as follows (See attached map titled “Current Zoning and Height
Limits”):
• TC-1: 125 feet
• TC-2: 50 feet
• TC-3: 45 feet.
Also attached to this memorandum are various massing studies, which provide
examples of how this massing could be achieved and how it would appear from
surrounding areas. Please note for reference neighboring tall building heights
Public Benefits
Participation in a public benefits program (to be created by separate Commission action)
would be required for building height beyond 125 feet. The draft ordinance establishes
several options which may be utilized to achieve the additional height; however, it is
proposed that the height not exceed 200 feet. The initial draft options include the
following:
• Contribution to the Public Benefit Fund per square foot located above 125 feet.
• Providing On-Site Workforce or Affordable Housing at a rate of two square feet
above 125 feet for each square foot of workforce or affordable housing provided.
• Providing Off-Site Workforce or Affordable Housing in the City at a rate of 1.5
square feet above 125 feet for each square foot of workforce or wffordable housing
provided.
• Achieving LEED Platinum Certification for an additional 75 feet above 125 feet.
• Provide a fully Sustainable Structure and Surplus Stormwater Retention and
Reuse for an additional 75 feet above 125 feet.
A market study is currently is being undertaken in order to determine the appropriate
value for contributions to the Public Benefit Fund. The Administration expects this study
to be complete in advance of the next LUDC meeting.
The draft ordinance provides that the City Commission would have discretion to allocate
the revenue from the Public Benefit Fund in North Beach for the following purposes:
• Sustainability and resiliency grants for properties in North Beach Historic Districts
• Uses permitted for the Sustainability and Resiliency Fund
• Improvements to existing parks
• Enhancements to public transportation and alternative modes of travel, including
Page 146 of 289
Land Use and Development Committee
Town Center (TC) FAR and Zoning Districts
June 13, 2018 Page 5 of 17
rights of ways and roadways
• Acquisition of new parkland and environmental and adaption areas
• Initiatives that improve the quality of life for residents.
Setbacks
Increased setbacks at the first level allow for expanded pedestrian movement and for
outdoor cafes that do not interfere with pedestrian flow. Since the rights-of -ways in the
proposed overlay area are limited and vary greatly in terms of width and public facilities
and function, the recommended setbacks are specific to each street. As part of the
requirement for ground level setbacks, there is a proposal to maintain a “Clear
Pedestrian Path” of ten feet that is free from obstructions in order to improve pedestrian
safety and comfort, and to encourage pedestrian activity.
In this regard, the proposed ordinance incorporates street-level and tower setbacks that
are generally consistent with those recommended by the October 2014 Shulman Study
for the FAR of 3.5. Additional considerations have been taken into account to ensure
that lower-scale neighborhoods to the south are not impacted by the additional height
and FAR through the use of upper level setbacks.
The proposed setbacks along the street frontages are as follows:
Property line abutting
Building Height
at which
Setback occurs
Minimum Setback
from property line
Allowable
Habitable
Encroachments
into setback
69th Street Between Collins
Avenue
and Harding Avenue
Grade to 135 feet 10 feet 5 feet
135 feet to max
height 35 feet 5 feet
69th Street Between
Harding Avenue
and Indian Creek Drive
Grade to 55 feet 10 feet 5 feet
55 feet to 135
feet 50 feet 0 feet
135 feet to max
height 85 feet 0 feet
70th Street Alley Line Grade to max
height 10 feet 3 feet
71st Street
Grade to 55 feet 10 feet 0 feet
55 feet to max
height 25 feet 5 feet
72nd Street Grade to max
height
20 feet from back of
curb line; curb line
location shall be at
the time of
permitting; however,
it shall be no less
than 5 feet from the
property line
5 feet
Collins Avenue Grade to 55 feet 10 feet 5 feet
Page 147 of 289
Land Use and Development Committee
Town Center (TC) FAR and Zoning Districts
June 13, 2018 Page 6 of 17
55 feet to 135
feet 20 feet 5 feet
135 feet to max
height 35 feet 5 feet
Indian Creek Drive, Abbott
Avenue, Dickens Avenue,
Byron Avenue, Carlyle
Avenue,
and Harding Avenue
Grade to max
height 10 feet 5 feet
Interior Side
Grade to 55 feet 0 feet 0 feet
55 feet to max
height 30 feet 10 feet
Rear abutting an alley
(Except 70th Street Alley)
Grade to 55 feet 5 feet 0 feet
55 feet to max
height 20 feet 10 feet
Rear abutting a parcel
Grade to 55 feet 0 feet 0 feet
55 feet to max
height 30 feet 10 feet
Of note is the upper-level setback from 69th Street, as staff was sensitive to the existing,
established scale of 69th street, particularly the south side, which has a height limit of 50
feet for new construction, but a built context of two story apartments. It is
recommended that any portion of a building fronting 69th Street that is above 55 feet in
height be setback 50 feet from the 69th Street property line. This is intended to provide
an appropriate transition to the lower-intensity RM-1 neighborhood to the south of the
Town Center.
Also of note is the recommended 20 foot setback along 72nd Street from the back of curb
at the time of permitting. This is intended to encourage sidewalk cafes facing the open
space uses on the opposite frontage, while still maintaining ample sidewalks.
Tower Regulations
The proposed ordinance defines towers as the portions of buildings located above 55,
except for allowable height exceptions. In addition to upper level setbacks, in order to
further minimize the impact of towers adjacent to streets and prevent a canyon effect,
the proposed ordinance requires that the furthest wall faces on portions of towers that
are within 50 feet of a property line be limited to 160 feet apart. It also requires that
individual towers be separated by 60 feet. This will ensure that there are significant
block segments that are clear from towers, therefore allowing air and light to make it to
the street level, while still allowing for flexibility and creativity in tower design, in
particular towards the center of blocks.
Frontage Types
The draft ordinance organizes different streets within the TC-C district into classes for
the purposes of providing regulations for the building frontage (see attached map titled
“Proposed North Beach Roadway Classes”). The streets are designated as Class A, B,
C, and D. Each class has various requirements for habitable space (see attached map
titled “Ground Floor Areas with Habitable Space Requirements”). The regulations for
Page 148 of 289
Land Use and Development Committee
Town Center (TC) FAR and Zoning Districts
June 13, 2018 Page 7 of 17
each class vary as follows:
• Class A streets are intended to be predominantly commercial in nature. It requires a
continuous street wall with a height of 35 feet, which is similar to the height of the
1948 City National Bank Building. It also requires a minimum of three floors along 90
percent of the length of the frontage and that the ground floor is primarily used for
commercial uses while providing for access to upper levels. To ensure that the
commercial space is viable, it requires that it have a minimum depth of 50 feet. The
upper two floors must have a minimum depth of 25 feet. In order to provide a safe
pedestrian environment, driveways are generally prohibited unless it is the only
means of access to the site. Class A streets include 71st Street, 72nd Street, Collins
Avenue, and Indian Creek Drive.
• Class B streets are intended to provide additional flexibility at the ground floor, while
still providing for an active frontage. It requires a continuous street wall with a height
of 35 feet. The frontage is required to have one floor along 90 percent of the length
of the frontage. It allows for the ground floor be for commercial uses, residential
uses, and to provide access to upper levels. To ensure that these uses are viable, it
requires that they have a minimum depth of 20 feet. Ground floor residential uses
are required to provide individual entrances in order to provide “eyes on the street”
and active street level. This would provide for private gardens or porches similar to
6000 Collins Avenue. In order to provide a safe pedestrian environment, driveways
are generally prohibited unless it is the only means of access to the site, or if the only
other access is a Class A street. Class B Streets include Abbott Avenue, Dickens
Avenue, and 69th Street.
• Class C streets provide the most flexibility, while still providing for an active frontage.
It requires a continuous street wall with a height of 35 feet. The frontage is required
to have one floor along 85 percent of the length of the frontage. It allows for the
ground floor be for commercial uses, residential uses, and to provide access to
upper levels. To ensure that these uses are viable, it requires that they have a
minimum depth of 20 feet. Similar requirements exist for ground floor residential
uses as Class B Streets. Driveways and loading are permitted on Class C frontages;
however, their width is limited and they must be incorporated into the façade of the
building. Additionally, loading must be setback to limit its visibility from the street.
Class C Streets include Harding Avenue, Byron Avenue, and Carlyle Avenue.
• Class D frontages establish a pedestrian alley. The blocks between 69th Street and
71st Street are over 620 feet in length as a result of a 70th Street never having been
platted. This distance is not ideal for pedestrian connectivity. As a result, the
proposed ordinance identifies a property line where 70th Street should have been
located. This line is treated as a frontage line, and requires a 10 foot setback from
the adjacent properties. This will eventually result in a 20 foot wide alley being
established that will greatly enhance connectivity and provide for interesting active
spaces for the Town Center area. The frontage is required to have one floor along
25 percent of the length of the frontage and is to be for commercial, hotel, or
residential use. No loading or driveways are permitted along this alley.
Street Tree and Canopy Requirements
Page 149 of 289
Land Use and Development Committee
Town Center (TC) FAR and Zoning Districts
June 13, 2018 Page 8 of 17
In addition to the requirements of Chapter 126, within the TC-C district, all street trees
shall require the installation of an advanced structural soil cells system (Silva Cells or
approved equal). Minimum amenity requirements have been proposed, including
irrigation, up lighting and porous aggregate tree place finish, for all tree pits.
Additionally, street trees must be of a species typically grown in Miami Beach and
comply with ADA clearance requirements.
Minimum street tree standards have also been established by street frontage class,
which will take into account the anticipated widths of sidewalks, as well as available
space underneath the sidewalk for adequate root growth. These minimum street tree
standards shall include maximum average spacing, minimum clear trunk dimensions,
minimum overall height and minimum caliper at time of planting. Additionally, in the
event of an infrastructure or other conflict that would prevent street trees from being
planted, the applicant/property owner would be required to contribute double the sum
required in Section 126-7(2) into the City’s Tree Trust Fund.
Use Regulations
The draft ordinance establishes several regulations to incentivize sustainable economic
development, while enhancing surrounding communities with a viable Town Center,
while ensuring that potential impacts are mitigated. The list of permitted, conditional,
prohibited, and accessory uses has been re-structured into a unified table for all TC
districts.
It is important to note that the revised list of uses, and specific limits on the quantity of
certain types of uses, has been informed by the mobility study for the area, which is
attached for reference.
Viable Commerce
E-commerce has had a great impact on traditional retail. The ability to order goods
online has resulted in many traditional retail businesses going bankrupt. As a result, it is
important to rethink how commercial regulations must change to ensure that storefronts
remain viable and the City remains vibrant. As consumers often seek locally produced
goods that cannot be found online, Artisanal Retail for On-Site Sale is listed as a
permitted use in the draft ordinance. This will allow for retail uses that produce and
repair low-impact goods on-site, including artwork, personal care items, foodstuffs,
microbreweries, light repairs, etc. Should the artisan wish to sell goods to other vendors,
a conditional use permit with approval from the Planning Board would be required to
minimize impacts to surrounding properties.
Additionally, e-commerce retailers are looking to find ways to get goods to consumers
faster. As a result, Neighborhood Fulfillment Centers are listed as a permitted use,
which allow e-commerce retailers to sell goods online and allow them to be picked up at
the center and provide a place where the goods can be distributed throughout the
immediate neighborhood by means other than vans, cars, or trucks. The ordinance
provides that there be no more than two such facilities and that they be limited to 30,000
square feet.
Additionally, the proposal allows for ground level residential units to be live-work units.
This allows for artists or other professionals to have a portion of their home to be used
for business purposes, reflecting current trends. It further helps activate the street the
Page 150 of 289
Land Use and Development Committee
Town Center (TC) FAR and Zoning Districts
June 13, 2018 Page 9 of 17
street level.
Use Predictability
In an effort to minimize impacts of certain uses on surrounding properties, the Planning
Board places conditions on applications approved for a ‘Conditional Use’. Several of the
conditions have become very common, as they are effective at mitigating impacts. In
order to increase compatibility with surrounding uses, the conditions which are placed on
a typical Conditional Use Permit Board Order have been included as a requirement for
certain uses in the draft ordinance. This will ensure that the conditions are applied
equally to all applicable uses, regardless of whether the uses requires Planning Board
review or not. These conditions and criteria include:
• Hours of operation for entertainment;
• Requirements for double door vestibules for entertainment;
• Requirement for entertainment establishments to also be restaurants;
• Loading and trash hours, and standards;
• Other noise reduction criteria.
Having this criteria mandated in the Code will greatly improve predictability for both
residents and applicants, as the expectations will be clear from the outset. It will also
streamline the process.
The proposal also establishes a requirement that the primary means of pedestrian
ingress and egress for uses that may have an impact on low-intensity residential, such
as entertainment establishments, commercial establishments over 25,000 square feet,
retail establishments over 25,000 square feet, and artisanal retail uses, not be located
within 200 feet of an RM-1 district. This proposed distance separation will help ensure
that the more intense uses permitted within the proposed TC-C district are adequately
buffered from the existing, low intensity RM-1 district south of 69th Street.
Streamlined Review Process
In conjunction with the above-mentioned criteria and standards to mitigate potential
impacts to surrounding properties established in the draft ordinance, a more streamlined
review process is proposed for certain uses that previously fell under the definition of a
Neighborhood Impact Establishment (NIE). Specifically, the proposed ordinance
modifies the thresholds for an NIE from occupant content, which requires certification
from the Fire Marshal and subject to change based on aspects such as furniture layout,
to a square footage criterion, which can be easily determined from floor plans. In this
regard, the proposed thresholds for NIE’s in the TC-C district are as follows:
• An alcoholic beverage establishment or restaurant, not also operating as an
entertainment establishment or dance hall from an occupant content of 300 or
more persons to an area of 10,000 square feet or greater of areas accessible by
patrons; or
• An entertainment establishment or dance hall, from an occupant content of 200 or
more persons to an area of 5,000 square feet or greater of areas accessible by
patrons.
Page 151 of 289
Land Use and Development Committee
Town Center (TC) FAR and Zoning Districts
June 13, 2018 Page 10 of 17
In order to streamline the process and facilitate the revitalization envisioned in the
master plan, the requirement for Planning Board review of development projects in
excess of 50,000 square feet has not been included within the proposed TC-C district.
This reduces the number of Land Use Boards that a development proposal has to go
through. Additionally, the revised thresholds and criteria in the ordinance address issues
that are typically reviewed by the Planning Board as part of a 50,000 square foot project
application.
Co-Living Residential Units and Micro-Hotel Units
Modern trends in the housing and hotel industries are co-living units and micro-hotels.
In order to develop more housing options, these types of units have been introduced into
the proposed overlay. A co-living unit provides for smaller units than what has been
traditionally seen; however, they provide many amenities and opportunities for social
interaction which may be more attractive to some people than a larger living space.
Amenities may include community gourmet kitchens, business centers, gyms,
community rooms, pools, restaurants, etc. The proposed ordinance requires that a
minimum of 20 percent of a building’s gross floor area be for amenities that are available
to residents. A resident who lives in such a unit would likely be spending more time in
the communal amenity spaces with neighbors and in the new vibrant and walkable town
center, rather than in a traditional housing unit. Due to the smaller square footages,
such units can typically be provided at a lower rate than what can be provided for a
larger unit which may not have as many amenities available to residents.
This type of housing also follows current trends towards shared spaces that are seen
with office uses. Many small businesses are choosing to locate in shared office spaces
such as those seen at WeWork and Büro in various parts of Miami Beach. In these
types of environments, private office spaces are limited, while amenities such as
conference rooms and work spaces are shared by all tenants. This essentially allows
the cost of amenities that may not be needed by each tenant each day to be shared by
all tenants. The same would occur with co-living units.
An example of a coliving provider is Ollie Coliving, which has co-living units in
Manhattan, Queens, and Pittsburgh; with units in Boston, Jersey City, Los Angeles, and
Brooklyn under development. Their developments host events for residents and provide
amenities such as gyms, lounges, terraces. Additionally, utilities and internet are
provided. However, some of the units are as small as 265 square feet. Another
example of a coliving provider is WeLive in Manhattan and Washington, DC, which
provides communal chef’s kitchen, yoga studio, and common areas, in addition to
including access daily events, utilities, furnishings, unlimited refreshments, concierge
services, and housekeeping.
Micro-hotels are similar in concept, where smaller hotel rooms are provide in a hotel that
has many amenities. The recently adopted Washington Avenue Zoning Incentives
provides for micro-hotel units. As a result of these incentives, several hotel projects are
proposed for Washington Avenue that will lead to a great improvement the surrounding
areas.
Transportation, Parking and Use Analysis
The proposed ordinance establishes Parking District 8, which incorporates the FAR area
of the Town Center (proposed TC-C district). Parking District 8 will replace those areas
Page 152 of 289
Land Use and Development Committee
Town Center (TC) FAR and Zoning Districts
June 13, 2018 Page 11 of 17
currently within Parking District 4, which encompasses the surrounding commercial
areas along Collins Avenue, Ocean Terrace, and Normandy Isle. Parking District 8
contains regulations intended to encourage and expand mobility options, including the
use of alternative modes of transportation in order to reduce the potential traffic impact
of new development and reflect current trends in parking.
The City’s Transportation Department has coordinated a comprehensive mobility study
specific to the proposed TC-C area. This study, which is attached, has taken into
account existing traffic data (both internally and regionally), as well as future projected
traffic data and mobility trends. The study projects mobility trends through the year 2040
and takes into account planned mobility improvements for the area. Based upon this
analysis, the following are recommendations regarding allowable uses, off-street parking
regulations and requirements, alternative modes of transportation, alignments for public
rights of way and on-street parking, and public transportation that have been
incorporated into the proposed ordinance:
• Limit certain uses in order to create an ideal mix of uses that encourages walking
and mass transit use while minimizing single occupancy vehicle use:
o Limit hotels to 1,800 rooms
o Limit apartments over 1,000 square feet to 200 units
o Limit apartments under 1,000 square feet to 300 units
o Limit co-living, workforce, & affordable housing to 300 units
• Reduce parking requirements and encourage centralized parking areas.
• Require facilities to encourage biking such as bicycle parking.
• Require facilities to encourage walking such as wider and more comfortable
sidewalks.
• Require transit oriented development (TOD).
The revised minimum off-street parking requirements are more specifically outlined in
the draft ordinance. The proposed ordinance includes limits on residential units that are
generally consistent with the recommended land uses. However, instead of
differentiating between units by size and the proposed ordinance includes of a limit of
500 apartment units in order to simplify review and permitting. Additionally, the draft
ordinance includes a limit of 500 units for co-living, workforce, & affordable housing as
opposed to the 300 recommended in the report. Since these types of units do not have
an impact on parking and maximize the use of alternative modes of transportation, a
slightly larger number was utilized in order to more equitably distribute housing
throughout the district.
SUMMARY
At the May 23, 2018 meeting, a power point presentation was made to the Land Use and
Page 153 of 289
Land Use and Development Committee
Town Center (TC) FAR and Zoning Districts
June 13, 2018 Page 12 of 17
Development Committee, which provided a broad outline of the more specific draft
regulations contained herein. Staff believes that the previous comments of the LUDC
have been successfully addressed within the attached draft ordinance. The only
outstanding item that will require input is the minimum contribution amount to the Public
Benefits fund. The Administration expects the market analysis to be completed by early
July, and will provide a more specific set of options at the July LUDC meeting.
One of the previous recommendations of the Committee was to further study the location
of the bulk of the massing of buildings, and that the greater height of new buildings be
concentrated towards the central portion of the Town Center overlay. In this regard, the
proposed setbacks from 69th Street achieve this goal for the southern portion of the
district.
The north side of the Town Center district is adjacent to an open park, recreation facility
and surface parking lot along 72nd Street, which buffers the proposed TC-C area from
the residential areas north of 73rd Street. After a detailed analysis of different massing
options, and in consideration of the aforementioned conditions along 72nd Street, staff
believes that there is some latitude for allowing more height closer to 72nd Street. In this
regard, the proposed setback and tower regulations included in the proposed overlay
ordinance will mitigate the impact of taller structures proposed near 72nd Street, by
requiring minimum separation and maximum length standards, in addition to minimum
setback requirements. Staff believes these standards and requirements will prevent a
canyon effect of multiple tall buildings, as well as the walling off of 72nd Street.
Should the Committee conclude that a greater setback for taller buildings is needed
along the northern portion of the Town Center district, in order to concentrate the
maximum allowable overall height toward 71st Street, the following option for setbacks
along 72nd Street may be considered:
Property line
abutting
Building Height at
which Setback
occurs
Minimum Setback from
property line
Allowable
Habitable
Encroachments
into setback
72nd Street
Grade to 55 feet
20 feet from back of curb
line; curb line location
shall be at the time of
permitting; however, it
shall be no less than 5
feet from the property line
5 feet
55 feet to 135 feet 50 feet 5 feet
135 feet to max height 85 feet 5 feet
CONCLUSION
This draft ordinance incorporates the elements of design in the North Beach Master Plan
and in the FAR Voter Guide from the last election. It is a balanced approach intended to
ignite sustainable development to revitalize North Beach. Staff has listened to public
comment and Commission direction over the last few months/years in order to produce
Page 154 of 289
Land Use and Development Committee
Town Center (TC) FAR and Zoning Districts
June 13, 2018 Page 13 of 17
this draft. Given the rather small size of the area and the different important goals for
North Beach this is our professional urban planning recommendation for your
consideration and further public input.
The Administration recommends that the Land Use and Development Committee
discuss the attached draft ordinance and provide additional recommendations and policy
direction. It is further recommended that the Land Use and Development Committee
continue the item to the July 18, 2018 meeting for the purpose of receiving the market
analysis for the proposed public benefit program.
JLM/SMT/TRM/RAM
M:\$CMB\CCUPDATES\Land Use and Development Committee\2018\June 13, 2018\TC-C Regulations - MEMO
June 2018 LUDC.docx
Page 155 of 289
Land Use and Development Committee
Town Center (TC) FAR and Zoning Districts
June 13, 2018 Page 14 of 17
Proposed Zoning and Height Limits
Page 156 of 289
Land Use and Development Committee
Town Center (TC) FAR and Zoning Districts
June 13, 2018 Page 15 of 17
Current Zoning and Height Limits
Page 157 of 289
Land Use and Development Committee
Town Center (TC) FAR and Zoning Districts
June 13, 2018 Page 16 of 17
Proposed North Beach Roadway Classes
Page 158 of 289
Land Use and Development Committee
Town Center (TC) FAR and Zoning Districts
June 13, 2018 Page 17 of 17
Ground Floor Areas with Habitable Space Requirements
Page 159 of 289
DRAFT
NORTH BEACH TOWN CENTER – CENTRAL CORE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
ORDINANCE NO._____________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 114, “DEFINITIONS__________________________________
CHAPTER 130, “OFF-STREET PARKING”_________________________
____________________________________________________________
CHAPTER 142, “ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS,” ARTICLE II,
“DISTRICT REGULATIONS,” ___________________________________
____________________________________________________________
APPENDIX A, “FEE SCHEDULE”____
PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; REPEALER; SEVERABILITY; AND
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, in September 2015, at the recommendation of the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon
Panel on North Beach and after an appropriate Request for Qualifications had been issued, the
City Commission entered into an agreement with Dover, Kohl and Partners, Inc. to prepare a
master plan for the North Beach district of the City; and
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2016, and pursuant to City Resolution No. 2016-29608, the
Mayor and City Commission adopted the North Beach Master Plan developed by Dover, Kohl
and Partners Inc. after significant public input; and
WHEREAS, the North Beach Master Plan identifies the Town Center area as being in
need of redevelopment and revitalization; and
WHEREAS, the North Beach Master Plan recommended increasing the FAR to 3.5 for
the Town Center zoning districts (TC-1, TC-2, and TC-3) within the Town Center district areas;
and
WHEREAS, the goal of the recommendation is to enable the design and construction of
larger buildings within the Town Center, and to encourage the development of 71st Street as a
“main street” for the North Beach area; and
WHEREAS, City Charter Section 1.03(c), requires that any increase in zoned FAR for
any property in the City must be approved by a majority vote of the electors of the City of Miami
Beach; and
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2017, and pursuant to Resolution No. 2016-29608, the
following ballot question was submitted to the City’s voters:
Page 1 of 25
Page 160 of 289
DRAFT
FAR Increase For TC-1, TC-2 and TC-3 to 3.5 FAR –
Floor area ratio (FAR) is the measure the City utilizes to regulate the overall size
of a building. Should the City adopt an ordinance increasing FAR in the Town
Center (TC) zoning districts (Collins and Dickens Avenues to Indian Creek Drive
between 69 and 72 Streets) to 3.5 FAR from current FAR of 2.25 to 2.75 for the
TC-1 district; from 2.0 for the TC-2 district; and from 1.25 for the TC-3 district;
and
WHEREAS, the ballot question was approved by 58.64 percent of the City’s voters; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach has the authority to enact laws which promote the
public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens; and
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are necessary to accomplish the above
objectives and consistent with the vote of the electorate.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA.
SECTION 1. Chapter 114, “General Provisions,” Section 114-1, “Definitions,” is hereby
amended as follows:
Chapter 114 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 114-1. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases when used in this subpart B, shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different
meaning:
Artisanal Retail for On-Site Sales Only shall mean a retail establishment where consumer-
oriented goods, services, or foodstuffs are produced; including but not limited to works of art,
clothing, personal care items, dry-cleaning, walk-in repairs, and alcoholic beverages production,
for sale to a consumer for their personal use or for consumption on the premises only. Such
facilities use moderate amounts of partially processed materials and generate minimal noise
and pollution.
Artisanal Retail with Off-Site Sales shall mean a retail establishment where consumer-
oriented goods, services, or foodstuffs are produced; including but not limited to works of art,
clothing, personal care items, dry-cleaning, walk-in repairs, and alcoholic beverages production,
for sale to a consumer for their personal use or for consumption on the premises and
concurrently for sale to vendors and retailers off the premises. Such facilities use moderate
amounts of partially processed materials and generate minimal noise and pollution.
* * *
Page 2 of 25
Page 161 of 289
DRAFT
Co-Living shall mean a small multi-family residential dwelling unit that includes sanitary
facilities and kitchen facilities; however, such facilities may be shared by multiple units.
Additionally, co-living buildings shall contain amenities that are shared by all users.
* * *
Neighborhood Fulfillment Center shall mean a retail establishment where clients collect
goods that are sold off-site, such as with an internet retailer. Additionally, the establishment
provides a hub where goods can be collected and delivered to clients’ homes or places of
business by delivery persons that do not use cars, vans, or trucks. Such facilities are limited to
35,000 square feet.
* * *
Live-Work shall mean residential dwelling unit that contains a commercial or office
component which is limited to a maximum of fifty percent (50%) of the dwelling unit area.
SECTION 2. Chapter 142, “Zoning Districts and Regulations,” Article II, “District Regulations,”
is hereby amended to establish Division 21, “Town Center – Central Core (TC-C)
District as follows:
DIVISION 21. TOWN CENTER – CENTRAL CORE (TC-C) DISTRICT
Sec. 142-740. – Purpose and Intent.
The overall purpose of the Town Center – Central Core (TC-C) District is to:
(a) Encourage the redevelopment and revitalization of the North Beach Town Center.
(b) Promote development of a compact, pedestrian-oriented town center consisting of a high-
intensity employment center, mixed-use areas, and residential living environments with
compatible office uses and neighborhood-oriented commercial services;
(c) Promote a diverse mix of residential, educational, commercial, and cultural and
entertainment activities for workers, visitors and residents;
(d) Encourage pedestrian-oriented development within walking distance of transit opportunities
at densities and intensities that will help to support transit usage and town center
businesses;
(e) Provide opportunities for live/work lifestyles and increase the availability of affordable office
and commercial space in the North Beach area.
(f) Promote the health and well-being of residents by encouraging physical activity, waterfront
access, alternative transportation, and greater social interaction;
(g) Create a place that represents a unique, attractive and memorable destination for residents
and visitors;
Page 3 of 25
Page 162 of 289
DRAFT
(h) Enhance the community's character through the promotion of high-quality urban design;
(i) Promote high-intensity compact development that will support the town center's role as the
hub of community-wide importance for business, office, retail, governmental services,
culture and entertainment;
(j) Encourage the development of workforce and affordable housing; and
(k) Improve the resiliency and sustainability of North Beach.
Sec. 142-741. - Main permitted uses, accessory uses, exception uses, special exception
uses, conditional uses, and prohibited uses and supplemental use regulations.
Land Uses in the TC-C district shall be regulated as follows:
(a) The main permitted, accessory, exception, special exception, conditional, and prohibited
uses are as follows:
General Use Category
Residential Uses
Apartments & Townhomes P
Co-Living P
Live-Work P
Single Family Detached Dwelling P
Hotel Uses
Hotel P
Micro-Hotel P
Commercial Uses
Alcoholic Beverage Establishments P
Artisanal Retail for On-Site Sales Only P
Grocery Store P
Indoor Entertainment Establishment P
Neighborhood Fulfillment Center P
Offices P
Restaurants P
Retail P
Outdoor Cafe A
Outdoor Bar Counter A
Sidewalk Café A
Artisanal Retail with Off-Site Sales C
Day Care Facility C
Public and Private Institutions C
Page 4 of 25
Page 163 of 289
DRAFT
Religious Institution C
Schools C
Commercial Establishment over 25,000 SF C
Retail Establishment over 25,000 SF C
Neighborhood Impact Establishment C
Outdoor and Open Air Entertainment Establishment C
Pawnshop N
P = Main Permitted Use, C = Conditional Use, N = Not Permitted, A = Accessory only
(b) The following supplemental regulations shall apply to specific uses in the TC-C district:
(1) There shall be no variances regarding the regulations for permitted, prohibited,
accessory, exception, special exception, and conditional uses in subsection 147-741(a);
and the supplemental regulations of such uses and subsection 147-741(b).
(2) There shall be a limit of 1,800 hotel rooms within the TC-C district. Credits for hotel
rooms shall be allocated on a first-come, first serve basis as part of an application for
land use board approval, building permit, or business tax receipt, whichever comes first.
If said approval, permit, or receipt expires and the hotel rooms are not built or cease
operations, the credits shall become available to new applicants. Any hotel rooms
permitted in the area of the TC-C district, after November 7, 2017 shall be counted
towards the maximum limit established herein.
(3) There shall be a limit of 500 apartment units built within the TC-C district. Credits for
such housing units shall be allocated on a first-come, first serve basis as part of an
application for land use board approval, building permit, or certificate of occupancy,
whichever comes first. If said approval, permit, or certificate expire and the apartment
units are not built or cease to be housing units, the credits shall become available to new
applicants. Any apartment units permitted in the area of the TC-C district, after
November 7, 2017 shall be counted towards the maximum limit established herein.
(4) There shall be a combined limit of 500 workforce housing, affordable housing, or co-
living units built within the TC-C district. Credits for such units shall be allocated on a
first-come, first serve basis as part of an application for land use board approval, building
permit, or certificate of occupancy, whichever comes first. If said approval, permit, or
certificate expire and the units are not built or cease to be residential units, the credits
shall become available to new applicants. Any workforce housing, affordable housing,
or co-living units permitted in the area of the TC-C district, after November 7, 2017 shall
be counted towards the maximum limit established herein.
(5) There shall be a limit of two (2) retail establishments over 25,000 square feet within the
TC-C district. Credits for such retail establishments shall be allocated on a first-come,
first serve basis as part of an application for land use board approval, building permit, or
business tax receipt, whichever comes first. If said approval, permit, or receipt expires
and the establishment is not built or ceases operations, the credits shall become
available to new applicants. Any such establishment permitted in the area of the TC-C
district, after November 7, 2017 shall be counted towards the maximum limit established
herein.
Page 5 of 25
Page 164 of 289
DRAFT
(6) There shall be a limit of two (2) Neighborhood Fulfillment Centers within the TC-C district.
Credits for such establishments shall be allocated on a first-come, first serve basis as
part of an application for land use board approval, building permit, or business tax
receipt, whichever comes first. If said approval, permit, or receipt expires and the
establishment is not built or ceases operations, the credits shall become available to
new applicants. Any such establishment permitted in the area of the TC-C district, after
November 7, 2017 shall be counted towards the maximum limit established herein.
(7) For the purposes of the TC-C district, the definition for a neighborhood impact
establishments established in section 142-1361 is modified as follows:
A neighborhood impact establishment means:
a. An alcoholic beverage establishment or restaurant, not also operating as an
entertainment establishment or dance hall (as defined in section 114-1) with an area
of 10,000 square feet or greater of areas accessible by patrons; or
b. An alcoholic beverage establishment or restaurant, which is also operating as an
entertainment establishment or dance hall (as defined in section 114-1), with an area
of 5,000 square feet or greater of areas accessible by patrons.
(8) The primary means of pedestrian ingress and egress for alcoholic beverage
establishments, entertainment establishments, neighborhood impact establishments,
commercial establishment over 25,000 SF, retail establishment over 25,000, or artisanal
retail uses in the TC-C district shall not be permitted within 200 feet of an RM-1 district
boundary. This shall not apply to emergency egress.
(9) The following requirements shall apply to Indoor Entertainment Establishments and
Outdoor and Open Air Entertainment Establishments:
a. Indoor Entertainment Establishments shall be required to install a double door
vestibule at all access points, except for emergency exits.
b. Indoor entertainment establishments shall cease operations no later than 5 am and
commence entertainment no earlier than 9 am.
c. Open Air Entertainment shall cease operations no later than 11 pm on Sunday
through Thursday, and 12 am on Friday and Saturday; operations shall commence
no earlier than 9 am on weekdays and 10 am on weekends; however, the Planning
Board may establish stricter requirements.
d. There shall be a maximum of ten (10) Entertainment Establishments (Inclusive of
Indoor, Outdoor, and Open Air Entertainment) permitted within this zoning district.
Credits for entertainment establishments shall be allocated on a first-come, first
serve basis as part of an application for land use board approval, building permit, or
business tax receipt, whichever comes first. If said approval, permit, or receipt
expires and the entertainment establishment is not built or ceases operations, the
credits shall become available to new applicants. Any entertainment establishment
permitted in the area of the TC-C district, after November 7, 2017 shall be counted
towards the maximum limit established herein.
Page 6 of 25
Page 165 of 289
DRAFT
e. Entertainment Establishments shall also be restaurants with full kitchens. Such
restaurants shall be open and able to serve food at a minimum between the hours of
10 am and 2 pm on days in which the Entertainment Establishment will be open and
additionally during hours in which entertainment occurs and/or alcohol is sold.
(10) Restaurants with sidewalk cafe permits or outdoor cafes shall only serve alcoholic
beverages at sidewalk cafes and outdoor cafes during hours when food is served in
the restaurant, shall cease sidewalk cafe operations at 12:00 am and commence no
earlier than 7 am.
Sec. 142-743. – General Development Regulations.
(a) The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) shall be 3.5.
(b) The maximum building height shall be follows:
(1) 125 feet (Base Maximum Height);
(2) 200 feet maximum height with participation in the Public Benefits Program as outlined in
Sec. 142-746 (Public Benefit Maximum Height).
(c) Minimum Unit Sizes:
(1) Residential Unit Sizes. The minimum unit sizes for residential uses shall be as follows:
c. Apartment – 550 SF
d. Workforce Housing – 400 SF
e. Affordable Housing – 400 SF
f. Co-Living Units – 375 SF with a minimum of 20 percent of the gross floor area of the
building consisting of amenity space that is physically connected to and directly
accessed from the co-living units without the need to exit the parcel. Amenity space
includes the following types of uses, whether indoor or outdoor, including roof decks:
restaurants; bars; cafes; kitchens; club rooms; business center; retail; screening
rooms; fitness center; spas; gyms; pools; pool decks; and other similar uses whether
operated by the condo or another operator. Bars and restaurants shall count no more
than 50 percent of the total co-living amenity space requirements. These amenities
may be combined with the amenities for Micro-Hotels, provided residents and hotel
guests have access.
(2) Minimum Hotel Room Sizes. The minimum hotel room size shall be:
a. Hotel – 300 SF
b. Micro-Hotel – 175 SF provided that a minimum of 20 percent of the gross floor area of
the building consists of amenity space that is physically connected to and directly
accessed from the micro-hotel units without the need to exit the parcel. Amenity
Page 7 of 25
Page 166 of 289
DRAFT
space includes the following types of uses, whether indoor or outdoor, including roof
decks: restaurants; bars; cafes; hotel business center; hotel retail; screening rooms;
fitness center; spas; gyms; pools; pool decks; and other similar uses customarily
associated with a hotel uses whether operated by the hotel or another operator. Bars
and restaurants shall count no more than 50 percent of the total amenity space
requirements. These amenities may be combined with the amenities for Co-Living
Units, provided residents and hotel guests have access.
(d) The maximum residential density shall be 150 units per acre.
(1) The maximum residential density of may be increased by up to 80 percent beyond the
maximum residential density if the development incorporates certified workforce or
affordable housing units. The additional density may only be utilized for workforce or
affordable housing units.
(e) The following floor to ceiling height limits shall apply to floors located above 55 feet in
height:
(1) Residential and Hotel Uses – 12 feet
(2) Commercial Uses – 14 feet
Sec. 142-744. - Setbacks and Encroachments.
Setbacks and Allowable Encroachments into Setbacks shall be as per Table A below.
For the purposes of new construction in this zoning district, heights shall be measured from the
City of Miami Beach Freeboard of five (5) feet, unless otherwise noted.
Table A
Street
Class Property line abutting
Building Height
at which
Setback occurs
Minimum
Setback from
property line
Allowable
Habitable
Encroachments
into setback
Class
B
69th Street Between Collins
Avenue
and Harding Avenue
Grade to 135
feet 10 feet 5 feet
135 feet to max
height 35 feet 5 feet
Class
B
69th Street Between Harding
Avenue
and Indian Creek Drive
Grade to 55 feet 10 feet 5 feet
55 feet to 135
feet 50 feet 0 feet
135 feet to max
height 85 feet 0 feet
Class
D 70th Street Alley Line Grade to max
height 10 feet 3 feet
Class
A 71st Street
Grade to 55 feet 10 feet 0 feet
55 feet to max
height 25 feet 5 feet
Class
A 72nd Street Grade to max
height
20 feet from
back of curb 5 feet
Page 8 of 25
Page 167 of 289
DRAFT
line; curb line
location shall
be at the time
of permitting;
however, it
shall be no
less than 5
feet from the
property line
Class
A Collins Avenue
Grade to 55 feet 10 feet 5 feet
55 feet to 135
feet 20 feet 5 feet
135 feet to max
height 35 feet 5 feet
Class
A Indian Creek Drive Grade to max
height 10 feet 5 feet
Class
B
Abbott Avenue and Dickens
Avenue
Grade to max
height 10 feet 5 feet
Class
C
Byron Avenue, Carlyle
Avenue,
and Harding Avenue
Grade to max
height 10 feet 5 feet
N/A Interior Side
Grade to 55 feet 0 feet 0 feet
55 feet to max
height 30 feet 10 feet
N/A Rear abutting an alley
(Except 70th Street Alley)
Grade to 55 feet 5 feet 0 feet
55 feet to max
height 20 feet 10 feet
N/A Rear abutting a parcel
Grade to 55 feet 0 feet 0 feet
55 feet to max
height 30 feet 10 feet
Sec. 142-745. –Street Frontage, Design, and Operations Requirements.
The development regulations and street frontage requirements for the TC-C district are as
follows:
(a) The following regulations shall apply to all frontages:
(1) Tower Regulations. The tower shall be considered the portion of a building located
above 55 feet, excluding allowable height exceptions as defined in section 142-1161.
Towers shall comply with the following:
a. That portion of a tower located within 50 feet of a public right-of-way shall not exceed
165 feet in length between the two furthest points of the exterior face of the tower.
b. The minimum horizontal separation between multiple towers located on the same
site, including balconies, shall be 60 feet.
Page 9 of 25
Page 168 of 289
DRAFT
(2) Setback Design. The minimum setback shall be designed to function as an extension
of the adjacent public sidewalk unless otherwise noted in the regulations of this zoning
district.
(3) Clear Pedestrian Path. A minimum ten (10) foot wide “Clear Pedestrian Path,” free
from obstructions, including but not limited outdoor cafes, sidewalk cafes, landscaping,
signage, utilities, and lighting, shall be maintained along all frontages as follows:
a. The Clear Pedestrian Path may only utilize public sidewalk and setback areas.
b. Pedestrians shall have 24-hour access to the Clear Pedestrian Path.
c. The Clear Pedestrian Paths shall be well lit.
d. The Clear Pedestrian Paths shall be designed as an extension of the adjacent public
sidewalk.
e. The Clear Pedestrian Path shall be delineated by differing pavement tones,
pavement type, or other method to be approved by the Planning Director or designee.
f. An easement to the City providing for perpetual public access shall be provided for
portions of the Clear Pedestrian Path that fall within the setback area.
(4) Balconies. Balconies may encroach into required setbacks above a height of 15 feet up
to the applicable distance indicated for allowable habitable encroachments in Table A.
(5) Articulation. Facades with a length of 240 feet or greater shall be articulated so as to
not appear as one continuous façade, subject to design review criteria.
(6) Windows. All windows shall be a minimum of double-pane hurricane impact glass.
(7) Street trees. In addition the requirements of Chapter 126, street trees shall require the
installation of an advanced structural soil cells system (Silva Cells or approved equal)
and other amenities (irrigation, uplighting, porous aggregate tree place finish) in tree pits.
Additionally, street trees shall be of a species typically grown in Miami Beach and shall
comply with ADA clearance requirements.
(8) Commercial, Hotel, and Access to Upper Level Frontages. In addition to other
requirements for specific frontage types and other requirements in the City Code,
frontages for commercial, hotel, and access to upper level frontage shall be developed
as follows:
a. The habitable space shall be directly accessible from the Clear Pedestrian Path.
b. Such frontages shall contain a minimum of 70 percent clear glass windows with
views into the habitable space.
c. A shade structure that projects for a minimum depth of 5 feet into the setback
beyond the building facade, shall be provided at a height between 15 feet and 25
feet. Said shade structure may consist of an eyebrow or similar structure.
Page 10 of 25
Page 169 of 289
DRAFT
Additionally, an allowable habitable encroachment such as balconies or parking deck
may take the place of the shade structure.
d. No more than 35 percent of the required habitable space along the ground floor of a
building frontage shall be for Access to Upper Levels, unless waived by the Design
Review Board.
(9) Residential Frontages. In addition to other requirements for specific frontage types and
other requirements in the City Code, residential frontages shall be developed as follows:
a. Ground floor residential units shall have private entrances from the Clear Pedestrian
Path.
b. Live-work units shall only be permitted where there are private entrances from the
Clear Pedestrian Path.
c. Where there are ground floor residential units, the building may be recessed from the
setback line up to an additional to five (5) feet in order to provide private gardens or
porches that are visible and accessible from the street.
d. A shade structure over the private garden or porch may be provided.
e. Private access stairs, ramps, and lifts to the ground floor units may be located within
the area of the private garden or porches.
f. Fencing and walls for such private gardens or porches may encroach into the
required setback up to the applicable distance indicated for allowable encroachments
in Table A at grade; however, it shall not result in a Clear Pedestrian Path of less
than ten (10) feet. Such f encing and walls shall not be higher than four (4) feet from
grade.
(10) Off-Street Parking Facilities. In addition to requirements for specific frontage types
and other requirements in the City Code, off-street parking facilities shall be built as
follows:
a. Parking facilities shall be entirely screened from view from public rights of way and
Clear Pedestrian Paths. Parking garages shall be architecturally screened or lined
with habitable space.
b. Parking garages may only encroach into the required setback between a height 25
feet and 55 feet up to the applicable distance indicated for allowable habitable
encroachments in Table A.
1. Habitable space for residential, commercial, or hotel uses may be placed within
the allowable habitable encroachment in order to screen the parking garage from
view of the public right-of-way.
c. Portions of parking decks that encroach into the required setback or that are located
in levels directly below habitable space shall have a minimum floor to ceiling height
of nine (9) feet.
Page 11 of 25
Page 170 of 289
DRAFT
d. Portions of parking decks that encroach into the required setback or that are located
in levels directly below habitable space shall have horizontal floor plates.
e. Rooftop and surface parking shall be screened from view from surrounding towers
through the use of solar carports or landscaping.
(11) Utilities. In addition to other requirements for specific frontage types and other
requirements in the City Code, facilities for public utilities shall be built as follows:
a. For new construction, local electric distribution systems and other lines/wires shall be
buried underground. They shall be placed in a manner that avoids conflicts with
street tree plantings.
b. Long-distance power transmission lines not otherwise buried shall be placed on
poles for above-ground distribution pursuant to the following restrictions:
a. Poles shall be located in the area of Allowable Encroachments into Setbacks;
however, they may not obstruct Clear Pedestrian Paths.
b. Poles shall be located no closer than 50 feet from the radius of the intersection of
two streets.
c. Poles shall be separated by the longest distance possible that allows the lines to
operate safely.
d. Poles shall be architecturally and artistically treated.
(12) Loading. Where loading is permitted, it shall be designed as follows, in addition to the
requirements for driveways:
a. Loading shall at a minimum be setback behind the area required to be habitable for
each Street Class designation.
b. Loading for non-residential uses that are on lots over 45,000 square feet shall
provide for loading spaces that do not require vehicles to reverse into or out of the
site, unless waived by the Design Review Board.
c. Driveways for parking and loading shall be combined, unless waived by the Design
Review Board.
d. Loading areas shall be closed when not in use.
e. Garbage rooms shall be noise-baffled, enclosed, and air-conditioned.
f. Trash containers shall be located in loading areas.
g. Trash containers shall utilized rubber tired wheels.
h. Delivery trucks shall not be allowed to idle in the loading areas
Page 12 of 25
Page 171 of 289
DRAFT
i. Loading for commercial and hotel uses and trash pick-ups with vehicles of more than
two (2) axles may only commence between the hours of 6 am and 7 am, 9 am and 3
pm, and 6 pm and 9 pm on weekdays; and 9 am and 9 pm on weekends, unless
waived by the Planning Board with Conditional Use approval. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, hybrid or electric vehicles may commence loading at 5 am instead of 6 am
on weekdays.
j. Loading for commercial and hotel uses with vehicles of two (2) axles or less may
occur between the hours of 6 am and 11 pm on weekdays and 9 am and 11 pm on
weekends. Notwithstanding the foregoing, hybrid or electric vehicles may commence
loading at 5 am instead of 6 am on weekdays.
k. Required off-street loading may be provided on another site within the TC-C district
and within 1,500 feet of the site.
(b) 70th Street Frontage. The property line between southern boundary of Lots 6 and 7 of
Blocks 11 through 14 of “Normandy Beach South” according to the plat thereof as recorded
in Plat Book 21 at Page 54 and the northern boundary of Lots 1 and 12 of Blocks D, E, and
H of “Atlantic Heights Corrected” according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 9 at
Page 54 and of Lots 1 and 6 of Block J of “Atlantic Heights” according to the plat thereof as
recorded in Plat Book 9 at Page 14, is hereby defined as the “70th Street Frontage.”
(c) Street Class Designation. For the purposes of establishing development regulations for
adjacent properties and public rights of way, streets and frontages shall be organized into
classes as follows:
(1) Class A frontages are the following:
a. 71st Street
b. 72nd Street
c. Collins Avenue
(2) Class B frontages are the following:
a. Abbott Avenue
b. Dickens Avenue
c. Indian Creek Drive
d. 69th Street
(3) Class C frontages are the following:
a. Abbott Avenue
b. Carlyle Avenue
c. Harding Avenue
Page 13 of 25
Page 172 of 289
DRAFT
(4) Class D frontages are the following:
a. 70th Street Frontage
(d) Hierarchy of Frontages. For the purposes of conflicts, Class A frontages shall be the
highest class frontage; Class B frontages shall be the second (2nd) highest class frontage;
Class C frontages shall be the third (3rd) highest class frontage; and Class D shall be the
fourth (4th) highest class frontage. Where requirements for frontages of different classes
overlap and conflict, the regulations for the higher class frontage shall supersede the
regulations for the lower class frontage.
(e) Class A. In addition to other requirements in the City Code, Class A frontages shall be
developed as follows:
(1) Facades shall have a minimum of height of 35 feet.
(2) Buildings shall have a minimum of three (3) floors located along a minimum of 90
percent of the length of the setback line pursuant to the following regulations:
a. The building may be recessed from the setback line in order to provide active public
plazas that have no floor area located above the plaza.
b. Except where required for driveways and utility infrastructure, the ground floor shall
contain habitable space with a minimum depth of 50 feet from the building façade.
c. The habitable space on the ground floor shall be for commercial and hotel uses, and
to provide access to uses on upper floors of the building.
d. The second (2nd) and third (3rd) floors shall contain habitable space for residential,
hotel, or commercial uses with a minimum depth of 25 feet from the building façade.
e. Ground floor and surface parking shall be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the
building façade and be concealed from view from the Clear Pedestrian Path.
(3) Driveways and vehicle access to off-street parking and loading shall be prohibited on a
Class A frontage, unless it is the only means of egress to the site. Permitted drive-ways
on Class A frontages shall be limited by the following:
a. If a driveway is permitted it shall be limited to 22 feet in width and be incorporated
into the façade of the building.
b. Driveways shall be spaced no closer than 60 feet apart.
c. Driveways shall consist of mountable curbs that ensure a continuation of the ten (10)
foot Clear Pedestrian Paths.
(4) Off-street loading shall be prohibited on a Class A frontage, unless it is the only means
of egress to the site.
(5) On-street loading shall be prohibited on Class A frontages.
Page 14 of 25
Page 173 of 289
DRAFT
(6) Ground floor utility infrastructure as may be required by Florida Power and Light (FPL)
shall be prohibited on a Class A frontage, unless it is the only means of egress to the
site. Permitted utility infrastructure shall be developed as follows:
a. Permitted utility infrastructure shall be concealed from the public view and be placed
within the line of the façade if access from the street is required.
(7) Street trees shall be provided at a maximum average spacing of 20 feet on center, have
a minimum clear trunk of eight (8) feet, an overall height of 22 feet, and a minimum
caliper of six (6) inches at time of planting. Additionally, the following shall apply:
a. Street trees shall be up-lit.
b. If such street trees cannot be planted the applicant/property owner shall contribute
double the sum required in Section 126-7(2) into the City’s Tree Trust Fund.
(f) Class B. In addition to other requirements in the City Code, Class B frontages shall be
developed as follows:
(1) Facades shall have a minimum of height of 35 feet.
(2) Buildings shall have a minimum of one (1) floor located along a minimum of 90 percent
of the length of the setback line pursuant to the following regulations:
a. The building may be recessed from the setback line in order to provide active public
plazas that have no floor area located above the plaza.
b. Except where required for driveways and utility infrastructure, the ground floor shall
contain habitable space for residential, hotel, or commercial uses with a minimum
depth of 45 feet from the building façade for the minimum required length along the
setback line.
(3) Driveways and vehicle access to off-street parking and loading shall be prohibited unless
it is the only means of egress to the site or if the only other means of egress is from a
Class A street. Permitted drive-ways on Class B frontages shall be limited by the
following:
a. The prohibition on driveways may be waived by the Design Review Board on blocks
that are over 260 feet in length; however, such driveways shall be limited to 12 feet
in width.
b. Driveways shall be limited to 22 feet in width and be incorporated into the façade of
the building.
c. Driveways shall be spaced no closer than 60 feet apart on a single parcel.
d. Driveways shall consist of mountable curbs that ensure a continuation of the ten (10)
foot Clear Pedestrian Paths.
Page 15 of 25
Page 174 of 289
DRAFT
(4) Off-street loading shall be prohibited on Class B frontages, unless it is the only means of
egress to the site, or if the only other means of egress is from a Class A street.
(5) On-Street Loading shall be prohibited on Class B frontages.
(6) Ground floor utility infrastructure as may be required by Florida Power and Light (FPL)
shall be prohibited on a Class B frontage, unless it is the only means of egress to the
site or if the only other means of egress is from a Class A street. Permitted utility
infrastructure shall be developed as follows:
a. Permitted utility infrastructure shall be concealed from the public view and be placed
within the line of the façade if access from the street is required.
(7) Street trees shall be provided at a maximum average spacing of 20 feet on center, have
a minimum clear trunk of six (6) feet, an overall height of 16 feet, and a minimum caliper
of four (4) inches at time of planting. Additionally, the following shall apply:
a. Street trees shall be up-lit.
b. If such street trees cannot be planted the applicant/property owner shall contribute
1.5 times the sum required in Section 126-7(2) into the City’s Tree Trust Fund.
(g) Class C. In addition to other requirements in the City Code, Class C frontages shall be
developed as follows:
(1) Facades shall have a minimum of height of 35 feet.
(2) Buildings shall have a minimum of one (1) floor located along a minimum of 85 percent
of the length of the setback line pursuant to the following regulations:
a. The building may be recessed from the setback line in order to provide active public
plazas that have no floor area located above the plaza.
b. Where there are ground floor residential units, the building may be recessed from the
setback line up to five (5) feet in order to provide private gardens or porches that are
visible and accessible from the street.
c. Except where required for driveways and utility infrastructure, the ground floor shall
contain habitable space for residential, hotel, or commercial uses with a minimum
depth of 20 feet from the building façade for the minimum required length along the
setback line.
d. Ground floor and surface parking shall be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the
building façade and shall be concealed from view from the Clear Pedestrian Path.
(3) Driveways on Class C frontages shall be limited as follows:
a. Driveways shall be limited to 24 feet in width and be incorporated into the façade of
the building.
Page 16 of 25
Page 175 of 289
DRAFT
b. Driveways shall be spaced no closer than 30 feet apart, unless waived by the Design
Review Board.
c. Driveways shall consist of mountable curbs that ensure a continuation of the ten (10)
foot Clear Pedestrian Paths.
(4) Ground floor utility infrastructure as may be required by Florida Power and Light (FPL)
shall be concealed from the public view and be placed within the line of the façade if
access from the street is required.
(h) Class D. In addition to other requirements in the City Code, Class D frontages shall be
developed as follows:
(1) The Class D frontage is intended to provide a comfortable pedestrian path that connects
Indian Creek Drive to Collins Avenue; therefore, the minimum setback area shall contain
Clear Pedestrian Path that provides access from the perpendicular Clear Pedestrian
Paths which are intersected.
(2) Facades shall have a minimum of height of 20 feet.
(3) Buildings shall have a minimum of one (1) floor located along a minimum of 25 percent
of length of the setback line pursuant to the following regulations:
a. The building may be recessed from the setback line in order to provide active public
plazas that have no floor area located above the plaza.
b. The ground floor shall contain habitable space for residential, hotel, or commercial
uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet from the building façade for the minimum
required length along the setback line.
c. Surface Parking shall be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the building façade and
shall be concealed from view from the Clear Pedestrian Path.
(4) Driveways shall be prohibited on Class D frontages.
(5) Loading shall be prohibited on Class D frontages.
(6) Ground floor utility infrastructure as may be required by Florida Power and Light (FPL)
shall be concealed from the public view and be placed within the line of the façade if
access from the street is required.
(7) Buildings on either side of the frontage shall be permitted to provide one elevated
pedestrian walkway to connect to the building on the opposite side of the frontage
pursuant to the following restrictions:
a. The elevated walkway shall be located between a height of 25 feet and 55 feet.
b. Elevated walkways shall be setback a minimum 30 feet from Class A, B, or C
setbacks.
c. Elevated walkways may be enclosed.
Page 17 of 25
Page 176 of 289
DRAFT
d. Elevated walkways shall be architecturally treated.
e. Elevated walkways shall be no wider than 20 feet, excluding architectural treatments.
Sec. 142-746. - Public Benefits Program.
Participation in the public benefits program shall be required for floor area that is located above
125 feet up to the Maximum Height. The following options or mix of options are available for
participation in the public benefits program:
(a) Contribution to Public Benefits Fund. A contribution to the Public Benefits Fund, in the
amount identified in Appendix A shall be required as follows:
(1) Projects up to 150 feet in height: For each one (1) square foot of floor area that is
located between 125 feet and 150 feet in height.
(2) Projects up to 175 feet in height: For each 0.75 square feet of floor area that is located
between 125 feet and 175 feet in height.
(3) Projects up to 200 feet in height: For each 0.50 square feet of floor area that is located
between 125 feet and 200 feet in height
(4) The payment shall be made prior to obtaining a building permit. However, such option
may only be chosen within 18 months of the development obtaining approval from the
design review board. If the payment is made and a building permit is not obtained within
the aforementioned time-frame, the payment shall be forfeited to the City. An extension
of time of issued by the design review board for the project, and any applicable State
extension of time shall not extend this option.
(b) On-Site Workforce or Affordable Housing. Provide On-Site Workforce Housing or
Housing for Low and/or Moderate Income Non-Elderly and Elderly Persons pursuant to the
requirements of Articles V and VI of Chapter 58 of the City Code and certified by the
Community Development Department. Two square feet of floor may be built above 125 feet
for each square foot of Workforce Housing or Housing for Low and/or Moderate Income
Non-Elderly and Elderly Persons provided onsite. The following regulations shall apply to
such units:
(1) There shall be no separate entrance or access for such units. Residents of such units
shall be permitted to access the building from the same entrances as the market rate
units, unless units are on the ground floor, in which case they shall have private
entrances from the Clear Pedestrian Path.
(2) Units shall comply with the minimum unit size requirements for affordable or workforce
housing of this division.
(3) Only the square footage within the unit itself shall count for the square footage above the
As of Right Height.
Page 18 of 25
Page 177 of 289
DRAFT
(c) Off-Site Workforce or Affordable Housing. Provide Off-Site Workforce Housing or
Housing for Low and/or Moderate Income Non-Elderly and Elderly Persons pursuant to the
requirements of Articles V and VI of Chapter 58 of the City Code and certified by the
Community Development Department within the City of Miami Beach. 1.5 square feet of
floor area may be built above 125 feet for each square foot of Workforce Housing or
Housing for Low and/or Moderate Income Non-Elderly and Elderly Persons provided off-site
within the City of Miami Beach. The following regulations shall apply to such units:
(1) Units shall comply with the minimum unit size requirements for affordable or workforce
housing of this zoning district.
(2) Only the square footage within the unit itself shall count for the square footage above the
As of Right Height.
(3) The housing shall be provided prior to the development obtaining a Certificate of
Occupancy.
(4) If the housing cannot be provided prior to the development obtaining a Certificate of
Occupancy, a contribution into the public benefits trust fund shall be made in the amount
identified in Appendix A for each 0.5 square feet of floor area that is above the As of
Right Height.
(d) LEED Platinum Certification. Obtain LEED Platinum Certification or International Living
Future Institute Living Building Challenge Certification. An additional 75 feet of height above
125 feet shall be provided for this option. This option shall be regulated per the Green
Building Program in Chapter 133, Division 1; however, it requires that the participant post a
sustainability fee payment bond or issue full payment of the sustainability fee in the amount
of ten (10) percent of the total construction valuation of the building permit, as opposed to
the five (5) percent as required in section 133-6(a) and that the following Compliance
Schedule be utilized:
Certification Compliance Schedule
Level of Certification Achieved Sustainability Fee Reimbursement to
Participant for Meeting Certain Green
Building Certification Levels
Failure to obtain Certification 0% refund of bond or payment of
Sustainability Fee
LEED Certified 30% refund of bond or payment of
Sustainability Fee
LEED Silver Certified 40% refund of bond or payment of
Sustainability Fee
LEED Gold Certified or International Living
Future Institute Petals or Net Zero Energy
Certified
60% refund of bond or payment of
Sustainability Fee
LEED Platinum or International Living Future
Institute Living Building Challenge Certified
100% refund of bond or payment of
Sustainability Fee
Page 19 of 25
Page 178 of 289
DRAFT
(e) Self-Sustaining Electrical and Surplus Stormwater Retention and Reuse. Provide
storm water retention that is over and above the minimum requirements in order to
accommodate offsite storm water, including the reuse of such storm water through purple
pipes throughout the building, in a manner to be reviewed and approved by Public Works.
Additionally, the entire building shall be fully self contained in terms of electrical power
through the use of solar panels and similar electricity generating devices. An additional 75
feet of height above 125 feet shall be provided for this option.
Sec. 142-747. - Public Benefits Fund.
(a) The city has established a Public Benefits Fund. The revenue generated through the Public
Benefits Program in section 142-748 shall be deposited in the Public Benefits Fund. Interest
earned under the account shall be used solely for the purposes specified for funds of such
account.
(b) Earned fees in the Public Benefits Fund shall be utilized for the purposes outlined herein:
(1) Sustainability and Resiliency grants for properties in North Beach Historic Districts;
(2) Uses identified for the Sustainability and Resiliency Fund, as identified in section 133-
8(c);
(3) Improvements to existing parks;
(4) Enhancements to public transportation and alternative modes of travel, including rights
of ways and roadways;
(5) Acquisition of new parkland and environmental and adaptation areas;
(6) Initiatives that improve the quality of life for residents.
(c) All expenditures from these funds shall require City Commission approval. Prior to the
approval of any expenditure of funds by the City Commission, the City Manager or designee
shall provide a recommendation.
SECTION 3. Chapter 130, “Off-Street Parking,” Article II, “Districts; Requirements” of the Code
of the City of Miami Beach is hereby amended as follows:
Chapter 130 - OFF-STREET PARKING
ARTICLE II. - DISTRICTS; REQUIREMENTS
(a) For the purposes of establishing off-street parking requirements, the city shall be divided
into the following parking districts:
* * *
Page 20 of 25
Page 179 of 289
DRAFT
(4) Parking district no. 4. Parking district no. 4 includes those properties within the TC-1
and TC-2 commercial district in the North Beach Town Center and those properties in
CD-2 districts with a lot line on 71st Street, or between 67th Street and 72nd Street,
from the west side of Collins Avenue to the east side of Rue Notre Dame, and those
properties with a lot line on Normandy Drive from the west side of the Indian Creek
Waterway to the east side of Rue Notre Dame, and those properties in the CD-2 and
MXE districts between 73rd Street and 75th Street, as depicted in the map below:
* * *
Page 21 of 25
Page 180 of 289
DRAFT
(8) Parking district no. 8. Parking district no. 8 includes those properties within the TC-C, TC-1,
TC-2, and TC-3 districts, as depicted in the map below:
Sec. 130-33. - Off-street parking requirements for parking districts nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7,
and 8.
* * *
(d) Parking district no. 8. Except as otherwise provided in these land development
regulations, when any building or structure is erected or altered in parking district no. 8,
off-street automobile parking spaces shall be provided for the building, structure or
additional floor area as follows. For uses not listed below, the off-street parking
requirement shall be the same as for parking district no. 4, as applicable.
(1) Apartment units and Townhomes:
1. One-half (½) space per unit for Units between 550 and 749 square feet;
2. Three-quarters (¾) space per unit for Units between 750 and 1,000 square feet;
3. One (1) space per unit for Units above 1,000 square feet.
(2) Affordable housing and workforce housing: no parking requirement.
(3) Co-living and live-work units less than 550 square feet: no parking requirement. For co-
living and live-work units greater than 550 square feet, the parking requirement shall
follow the per unit requirement specified under apartment units and townhomes.
(4) Hotel: No parking requirement. For accessory uses to a hotel, no parking requirement
provided a facility with publicly accessible parking spaces is located within 1,500 feet;
otherwise, as per parking district no. 4.
Page 22 of 25
Page 181 of 289
DRAFT
(5) Office: No parking requirement provided a facility with publicly accessible parking spaces
is located within 1,500 feet; otherwise, as per parking district no. 4.
(6) In order to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, the limitation for the
sum of all parking reductions in Section 130-40(g) shall not apply in parking district no. 8.
(7) In order to encourage the use of centralized parking locations, required off-street parking
may be located within 2,000 feet of a development site.
(8) Any building or structure erected in parking district no. 8 may provide required parking
on site as specified in parking district no. 1. Such required parking, if provided, shall be
exempt from FAR, in accordance with the regulations specified in chapter 114 of these
land development regulations.
(9) New construction of any kind may satisfy their parking requirement by participation in the
fee in lieu of parking program for pursuant to subsection 130-132(a) of the City Code.
(10) Short-Term and Long-Term Bicycle Parking shall be provided for development in
parking district no. 8 as follows:
1. Commercial uses in parking district 8 shall provide at a minimum, bicycle parking as
follows:
a. Short-term bicycle parking: one (1) per business, four (4) per project, or one (1)
per 10,000 square feet, whichever is greater.
b. Long-term bicycle parking: one (1) per business or (2) per 5,000 square feet.
2. Hotel uses in parking district 8 shall provide at a minimum, bicycle parking as follows:
a. Short-term bicycle parking: two (2) per hotel or one (1) per 10 rooms, whichever
is greater.
b. Long-term bicycle parking: two (2) per hotel or (1) per 20 rooms, whichever is
greater.
3. Residential uses in parking district 8 shall provide at a minimum, bicycle parking as
follows:
a. Short-term bicycle parking: four (4) per building or one (1) per 10 units,
whichever is greater.
b. Long-term bicycle parking: one (1) unit.
This above noted required bicycle parking shall be permitted to apply towards vehicle
parking reductions identified in section 130-40.
Page 23 of 25
Page 182 of 289
DRAFT
SECTION 4. Appendix A - Fee Schedule of the Code of the City of Miami Beach is hereby
amended as follow:
APPENDIX A – FEE SCHEDULE
FEE SCHEDULE
This appendix includes all fees and charges established by the city commission that are
referred to in the indicated sections of the Code of Ordinances:
* * *
Section
this Code Description Amount
Subpart B. Land Development Regulations * * *
Chapter 142. Zoning Districts and Regulations * * *
142-746(a) Public benefits, per unit identified in LDRs TBD
SECTION 5. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT The following amendment to the City’s zoning map
designation for the property described herein are hereby approved and adopted and the
Planning Director is hereby directed to make the appropriate changes to the zoning map of the
City:
The area bounded by Indian Creek Drive and Dickens Avenue on the west, 72nd
Street on the north, Collins Avenue on the east, and 69th Street on south, as
depicted in Exhibit A, from the current zoning classifications of TC-1, “Town
Center Core;” TC-2, “Town Center Mixed-Use;” and TC-3, “Town Center
Residential Office” to the proposed zoning classification TC-C, “North Beach
Town Center - Central Core.”
SECTION 6. CODIFICATION.
It is the intention of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, and it is
hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made part of the
Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or
re-lettered to accomplish such intention, and, the word “ordinance” may be changed to “section”,
“article”, or other appropriate word.
SECTION 7. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby
repealed.
Page 24 of 25
Page 183 of 289
DRAFT
SECTION 8. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the
remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
SECTION 9. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect ten days following adoption.
PASSED and ADOPTED this ____ day of ______________, 2018.
ATTEST: ______________________
Dan Gelber, Mayor
__________________________
Rafael E. Granado City Clerk
First Reading: ______ __, 2018
Second Reading: ______ __, 2018
(Sponsor: Commissioner John Elizabeth Aleman)
Verified By: __________________________
Thomas R. Mooney, AICP
Planning Director
M:\$CMB\CCUPDATES\Land Use and Development Committee\2018\June 13, 2018\TC-C Regulations - DRAFT ORD June 2018
LUDC.docx
Page 25 of 25
Page 184 of 289
June 6, 2018
M IAMI B EACH
T OWN C ENTER M ULTIMODAL
M ODEL A CCESSIBILITY S TUDY
Technical Memorandums
Page 185 of 289
Executive Summary
This Technical Memorandum presents the results of a multimodal accessibility study for the North Beach
Town Center (Town Center) located in the north section of the City of Miami Beach. The Town Center area
is generally bounded by Collins Avenue to the east, Indian Creek Drive to the west, 69th Street to the south
and 73rd Street to the north. This study evaluates the impact of increasing development intensity and density
in the Town Center area on transportation and multimodal accessibility. The analysis includes the use of the
Multimodal Accessibility Analysis (MAA) model to evaluate the adequacy of the mitigation strategies included
in the latest master plans, a demand and capacity analysis of the study area roadways, and an estimation of
off-street parking need to support future developments. The SERPM regional model was used to estimate
the cut-through traffic using 71 Street and surrounding major roadways within the study area.
The MMA model was calibrated for the study area and used to forecast future modal splits assuming the
various multimodal projects (Priority 1, 2 and 3) listed in the 2016 Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The
MAA analysis results indicate that for the study area the auto mode share of travel will be reduced by 16%
from 69% in 2017 to 53% in 2040; corresponding to an increase of 4% of transit mode split from 12% to 16%
and an increase of 11% of walk/bike mode split from 20% to 31%. The 2040 travel mode shares are
consistent with the master plans modal split projections of 55% for auto, 20% for transit and 25% for walk/bike
modes.
The SERPM regional model was used to estimate the pass-through traffic not destined or originating from an
area extending from 41 Street to 86 Street. The model result shows that pass-through traffic is around 32%
along 71 Street, and around 50% along Collins Avenue and Abbott Avenue.
The traffic impact analysis based on the adjusted modal splits provided by the MAA model that indicated a shift from
car to multimodal trips resulted in generally improved traffic conditions in 2035 compared to the Master Plan projections
(see Table 5). Whereas six of the eight evaluated segments were projected to operate at a failing condition (V/C > 1)
in 2035, only two segments are now projected to operate at failing conditions in 2035 (daily and two-way peak hour)
but even these segment would operate at acceptable LOS based on peak directional analysis. This justifies the need
to implement the identified multimodal projects and improve accessibility along 71st Street and the convenience and
integration of multimodal systems serving the study area.
The proposed Land Use Plan Amendment should encourage compact development which includes a mixture of uses
such as residential, hotel, commercial, and office that promotes pedestrian and bicycle circulation and convenient
access to transit facilities. The Land Use Amendment should support and encourage the location of uses and internal
circulation such that pedestrian mobility is a priority. All land uses within the Town Center districts shall be directly
accessed via pedestrian ways, and accessible to existing or future alternate public transportation modes, including
bicycle and transit.
It is recommended to implement strategies to enhance transit ridership. The feasibility of rapid transit depends heavily
on ridership. In turn, ridership depends on the number of people who can walk to and from rapid transit stations. Since
MAA model results show a significant percent of trips as bike/walk trips, it is reasonable to prioritize these projects,
insure good multimodal integration at hub locations, enhance safety and convenience, promote and publicize the bike
share program, and implement various TDM (Transportation Demand Management) policies to promote non-vehicular
trips and work with various stakeholders to achieve mobility objectives
Page 186 of 289
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Multimodal Accessibility Analysis Model .............................................................................................1
III. Origin Destination and Cut-Through Traffic .........................................................................................2
IV. Traffic Impacts of FAR Increase .......................................................................................................3
V. Parking Impacts of FAR Increase .....................................................................................................9
VI. Proposed land Use Amendment Recommendations .........................................................................15
VII. Strategies ....................................................................................................................................16
List of Figures
Figure 1 Study Area ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2 Town Center Parking Zones .......................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3 Locations of City Public Parking Lots ............................................................................................. 12
List of Tables
Table 1 Miami Beach Town Center Daily Trip Generation .............................................................................. 5
Table 2 Town Center Background Growth (SERPM-7) ................................................................................. 6
Table 3 Miami Beach Town Center Traffic Impact Analysis ............................................................................ 7
Table 4 Priority Projects in TMP Impacting Study Area .................................................................................. 8
Table 5 Town Center Parking Inventory and Peak-Hour Occupancy ............................................................ 11
Table 6 City of Miami Beach Parking in Town Center .................................................................................. 12
Attachments
Attachment A Multimodal Accessibility Analysis Model Results
Attachment B Town Center Trip Distribution and Pass-Through Plots
Attachment C Town Center Trip Generation and Internalization
Attachment D Future Traffic Projections and Levels of Service
Attachment E Multimodal Accessibility Analysis Model Development Presentation
Page 187 of 289
Keith & Schnars ׀ 6500 North Andrews Avenue ׀ Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309-2132
(954) 776-1616 ׀ (800) 488-1255 ׀ Fax (954) 771-7690 ׀ www.KSFLA.com
DRAFT MEMORANDUM
TO: Lynda Kompelien Westin, AICP
Transportation Manager, City of Miami Beach
COPIES TO: Levi K. Stewart, MSURP,
Planning Analyst, City of Miami Beach
Heidi Siegel, AICP, Keith & Schnars
John P. Krane, P. E., Keith & Schnars
José Luis Rodríguez, P.E., Keith & Schnars
Caleb Van Nostrand, P.E., Renaissance Planning
FROM: Fadi Emil Nassar, PhD., P.E., P.T.O.E, Keith & Schnars
DATE: June 6, 2018
SUBJECT: Miami Beach – Town Center Multimodal Model Accessibility Study
Keith & Schnars Project No. 18237.08
I. INTRODUCTION
This Technical Memorandum presents the results of a multimodal accessibility study for the North Beach
Town Center (Town Center) located in the north section of the City of Miami Beach. The Town Center area
is generally bounded by Collins Avenue to the east, Indian Creek Drive to the west, 69th Street to the south
and 73rd Street to the north (see Figure 1).
This study evaluates the impact of
increasing development intensity and
density in the Town Center area on
transportation and multimodal accessibility.
The increase in density is based on an
increase in FAR (Floor to Area Ratio) that
allows additional residential units, office
space and hotel rooms. The analysis
includes the use of the Multimodal
Accessibility Analysis (MAA) model to
evaluate the adequacy of the mitigation
strategies included in the latest master
plans, a demand and capacity analysis of
the study area roadways, and an estimation
of off-street parking need to support future
developments.
Figure 1. Study Area
Page 188 of 289
Town Center Multimodal Model Accessibility Study
Keith & Schnars Project No. 18237.08
June 6, 2018
-2-
II. MULTIMODAL ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS MODEL
The multimodal access travel modes for the study area were evaluated for existing and future conditions
using the Multimodal Accessibility Analysis (MAA) model developed by Renaissance Planning Group (RPG).
The MAA analysis was performed by RPG and the model results were reviewed by Keith and Schnars (K&S).
The MAA model uses current and future land use data and multimodal transportation networks to estimate
the modal splits for the study area among the car, transit, and walk/bike modes for various trip purposes.
The model works at the plot/block level that are aggregated into travel zones consistent with the adopted
transportation regional model used for the South Florida area (SERPM-7). The study area of the Town Center
corresponds to Micro Analysis Zone (MAZ) 2189 and 2210 of SERPM-7. Two scenarios were analyzed using
MAA: (1) existing 2017 conditions; and (2) future 2040 conditions that included planned multimodal
improvements identified in the City’s Transportation Master Plan (April 2016).
The base year (2017) and future year (2040) socio-economic data were developed for all parcels within a 1-
mile radius of the study area and for all MAZs beyond the 1-mile of the study area. The socio-economic data
including jobs, households, non-work opportunities, and household characteristics were developed using
Miami-Dade County’s 2010 and 2040 estimates both at the micro-analysis zone (MAZ) and traffic analysis
zone (TAZ) geographies. This data was supplemented with household characteristics from the U.S. Census
American Community Survey (ACS) and points of interest from ESRI Business Analyst by Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code. Base year jobs data was interpolated from the 2010 and 2040 MAZ data to
estimate 2017 jobs per MAZ. This interpolation was tied to the amount of development that has occurred
since 2010. That is, if 20% of the parcels within an MAZ have been developed since 2010, then 20% of the
expected growth to 2040 will be included. Future year data is based on the 2040 MAZ level estimates from
the County. Jobs were parsed to the parcels based on both square footage and use code using some square
footage/employee data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency. It is assumed that non-work opportunities
will grow at a similar rate to jobs growth.
A multi-modal network was constructed to compute zone to zone travel times for transit, bike, and walk
modes. The transit network was built using the general transit feed specification (GTFS). This network is
schedule based and includes all stop to stop connections. A typical Wednesday 7:45AM departure time was
used to develop AM period transit travel times. The walk/bike network was built using Open Street Map,
which is an open-sourced mapping service which provides an all-streets network. To translate paths on this
network to travel times, static speeds for walking and bicycling are used by facility type. Dedicated non-
motorized facilities, such as trails, are assumed to have a speed of 3 miles per hour for walking and 12 miles
per hour for biking. This drops to 2.7 miles per hour for walking and 10.8 miles per hour for biking (a 10
percent decline) on residential roads. On all other walkable/bikeable roads, 2.4 miles per hour for walking
and 9.6 miles per hour for biking are used (a 20 percent decline). To create a future year walk/bike network,
these speeds are all improved to that of a dedicated non-motorized facility where a non-motorized project is
planned (walk speeds are improved for walk projects, bike speeds are improved for bike projects, and walk
and bike speeds are improved for multi-modal projects).
For existing conditions, socio-economic data was interpolated between 2010 and 2040 for 2017 conditions
and adjusted for study area using data from various sources including American Community Survey (ACS)
and National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) databases. The multimodal network was also adjusted to
reflect current conditions.
Page 189 of 289
Town Center Multimodal Model Accessibility Study
Keith & Schnars Project No. 18237.08
June 6, 2018
-3-
For future conditions in 2040, zonal data within the study area was adjusted to account for an additional 500
residential units, 382.5 KSF of office space and 2,324 hotel rooms resulting from the FAR increase. The
additional office space and hotel rooms were translated into 638 and 4,648 jobs, respectively. The residential
and employment growth was distributed among the parcels of the study area based on zoning and the
characteristics of the parcels. Outside the study area, 2040 socio-economic data from the SERPM-7 model
was used at the MAZ level.
The MAA analysis was performed for Miami-Beach north area, middle area, south area and city-wide. The
modal choices were evaluated for Home Based Work (HBW) trips and Home Based Other (HBO) trips. None-
home based trips were included in the home-based trips. Truck trips were assumed as auto trips. The travel
modes considered in the MAA model are Auto, Transit and Bike/Pedestrian (Non-motorized) modes. The
MAA model was first calibrated to existing modal splits. The mode share results and auto and transit trip
distributions of the Town Center trips are summarized in Attachment A. A list of the main transit and
bike/pedestrian projects included into the 2040 MAA model and graphs for the study area illustrating auto,
transit and walk/pedestrian access mode levels comparison between 2017 and 2040 are provided in
Attachment A, as well as the Daily Auto, Transit and Walk/Bike trip distribution figures. A complete
illustrated description of the development and adjustment of the MAA model for the Miami Beach area is
provided in Attachment E.
The MAA analysis results indicate that for the study area the auto mode share of travel will be reduced by
16% from 69% in 2017 to 53% in 2040; corresponding to an increase of 4% of transit mode split from 12%
to 16% and an increase of 11% of walk/bike mode split from 20% to 31%. The 2040 travel mode shares are
consistent with the master plans modal split projections of 55% for auto, 20% for transit and 25% for walk/bike
modes.
III. ORIGIN DESTINATION AND CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC
The SERPM 6 regional transportation model was used to perform select zone and select link analyses to
estimate the origin of trips to the study area and the amount of cut-through traffic. The Town Center is located
in two traffic analysis zones (#3305 and #3309) that also encompass the surrounding areas east of the bridge
between 67th Street and 77th Street. The analysis indicated that the main access routes to the study area
are 79th Street Causeway (28%), Indian Creek Road/Abbott Avenue (11% to the north and 24% to the south)
and Collins Avenue (11% to the north and 14% to the south). Approximately 13% of the study area traffic
access the Town Center via the Julia Tuttle Causeway. The trip distribution plot from the SERPM model is
provided in Attachment B.
The pass-through traffic along 71st Street within the study area limits was estimated using traffic volumes
from the SERPM model by comparing the traffic destined to the Town Center two traffic analysis zones to
the total traffic volumes. The SERPM analysis shows that the pass-through traffic along 71st Street that does
not have a destination within the study area is in excess of 75% of the total traffic as depicted in the volume
summary plot provided in Attachment B.
Pass-through traffic was also estimated for traffic not destined or originating from a larger area extending
from 41 Street to 86 Street. The SERPM plot is also provided in Attachment B. For this larger area, pass-
through traffic is around 32% along 71 Street, and around 50% along Collins Avenue and Abbott Avenue.
Page 190 of 289
Town Center Multimodal Model Accessibility Study
Keith & Schnars Project No. 18237.08
June 6, 2018
-4-
IV. TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF FAR INCREASE
The traffic impacts of new developments resulting from the increased FAR were analyzed in combination
with the multimodal improvements identified in the City’s Transportation Master Plan. These multimodal
projects enhance public transportation and non-motorized travel modes, and also improve accessibility to
transit and bike/walk modes. The analysis consists of first evaluating current traffic conditions and levels of
service, estimating additional trips to be generated by the Town Center from increased FAR, and analyzing
future traffic conditions considering both the additional person-trips generated by the new developments and
the improved accessibility and operation of the multimodal facilities.
The traffic impact analysis steps performed for this multimodal access study are the following:
1. Existing Conditions: Since no traffic counts were collected for this study, existing conditions were
based on the daily, AM and PM traffic data provided in the City’s Master Plan. Additional traffic
counts were obtained from FDOT’s count stations and from recent traffic studies that provided peak
hour data.
2. New Project Trips: City staff estimated that the increased FAR will result in an increase of 500
residential units, 382.5 KSF of office space and 2,324 hotel rooms within the Town Center. The
latest Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 10th Edition was used to estimate
the daily, AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips generated by these new uses. Internalization between
the uses was estimated using ITE recommended factors. The ITE net external vehicle trips were
converted into person trips assuming 1.2 persons per vehicle and 10% combined transit/bike/walk
modes since most ITE studies are from suburban regions, then the person trips were converted back
into car, transit and walk/bike modes using the MAA modal split (16% transit and 31% bike/walk) and
vehicle occupancy (1.5 persons per vehicle) results developed for the study area. This resulted in
significantly lower vehicle trips and higher transit and walk/bike trips compared with ITE estimates.
The estimated ITE daily 25,280 vehicle-trips were reduced by 53% to 11,910 vehicle-trips by applying
the MAA modal splits and vehicle occupancy factors specific to the study area. Likewise, the AM and
PM peak hour vehicle-trips from the additional Town Center developments were reduced by 53%
from 1,688 to 795 vehicle-trips during the AM peak hour and from 1,980 to 924 vehicle-trips during
the PM peak hour. The Town Center daily trips are shown in Table 3. The trip generation analysis
and internalization sheets for Daily, AM and PM peak hours are provided in Attachment C.
Page 191 of 289
Town Center Multimodal Model Accessibility Study
Keith & Schnars Project No. 18237.08
June 6, 2018
-5-
3. Project trip Distribution: The net external project trips estimated in Step 2 were distributed over
the study area roadway network using trips distribution percentages from the SERPM select zone
analysis, and also taking into consideration the Miami-Dade County cardinal distribution and the
MMA traffic split in the north, west and east directions.
4. Background Traffic Growth: The City’s Transportation Master Plan estimated an annual growth
rate of 1.4% for the north section of Miami Beach. However, since growth for the Town Center was
estimated separately in this study, background growth was recalculated using SERPM-7 projected
volumes for roadways within the study area. This resulted in an annual compounded growth rate of
0.43% (see Attachment C.). A 0.5% annual background growth rate was used in the analysis as
shown in Table 4.
5. Modal Changes in Background Traffic: As explained in Step 2, the improved accessibility and
enhanced multimodal facilities benefit directly the new traffic from the Town Center (MAA Analysis)
as these improvements target this area. However, existing background traffic will also benefit from
improved transit and walk/bike facilities, though not to the same extent, as most of the background
traffic is pass-through not originating from the study area and therefore less impacted by enhanced
accessibility. Nonetheless, the Transportation Master Plan envisions a city-wide multimodal
enhancements and significant increase in transit and bike/walk trips by 2035, and therefore, it is
reasonable to assume a modal shift in background traffic.
TABLE 1
Miami Beach Town Center Daily Trip Generation
%T r i p s%T r i p s
Multi High-Rise 500 Units 222 T=3.94 (X) + 211.81 2,182 50%1,091 50%1,091
General Office 383 KSF-GLA 710 LN(T)=0.97 LN(X) + 2.50 3,899 50%1,950 50%1,949
Hotel 2,324 Rooms 310 T = 8.36 (X)19,429 50%9,715 50%9,715
Gross Daily Trips 25,510 12,756 12,755
Internalization Rate 0.9% 230 115 115
External Vehicle Trips after Internalization 25,280 50%12,641 50%12,640
External Person Trips (ITE Vehicle Occupancy)1.2 (Assume 10% Transit/Walk/Bike)33,707 16,854 16,853
Transit Trip Reduction: 16.0% 5,393 50% 2,697 50% 2,696
Walk/Bike Trip Reduction 31.0% 10,449 50% 5,225 50% 5,224
Vehicle External Trips 17,865 8,932 8,933
NET EXTERNAL DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS:1.5 (Miami Beach Veh Occupancy)11,910 50% 5,955 50% 5,955
NOTES:
Trip rates are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation, 10th Edition. Average rate for hotel was used because number of rooms exceeds equation limits.
ITE Trip Rates are based mainly on suburban studies with limited transit/pedestrian facilities. A 1.2 vehicle occupancy & 10% transit/bike/walk mode share were assumed.
Transit and bike travel mode share percentages for Miami Beach are based on analysis performed by Renaissance Group for this project.
Miami Beach vehcile occupancy factor is based on analysis performed by Renaissance Group for this project.
INBOUND OUTBOUNDLAND USE DESCRIPTION LAND USE
CODEDENSITY ITE 10TH EDITION
DAILY TRIP GEN RATE
DAILY
TRIPSUNITS
Page 192 of 289
Town Center Multimodal Model Accessibility Study
Keith & Schnars Project No. 18237.08
June 6, 2018
-6-
6. A reasonable 10% decrease in vehicle trips was assumed for background (pass-through) traffic in
2035 that is converted to transit, walk/bike trips, shared rides or telecommuting.
7. Future Traffic Conditions: The 2035 future total traffic for the study area was developed by
combining the previous analysis steps. Existing background vehicle traffic was adjusted to reflect
the city-wide improvement in modal split (car trips reduced by 10%), then the calculated background
traffic growth rate of 0.5% was applied to develop 2035 future background traffic volumes, and finally
the new project trips as calculated in Step 2 (using ITE rates and MAA modal splits and vehicle
occupancy factors) were added to future background traffic to generate 2035 total traffic volumes.
These traffic volumes were compared with the Transportation Master Plan projected 2035 traffic
volumes for the study area roadways. A summary of future traffic conditions is provided in Table 5.
Additional analyses are provided in Attachment D.
8. Multimodal Transportation Improvements: The multimodal projects listed in the 2016 TMP
impacting the study area are summarized in Table 6 (also see Attachment E). Therefore, the future
roadway network includes a lane reduction (repurposing) from 3 one-way lanes to 2 one-way lanes
along 71 Street and Normandy Drive as well as Collins Avenue and Abbott Avenue to accommodate
potential exclusive transit lanes. In addition, a 10% capacity reduction was applied to 71 Street
between Collins Avenue and Dickens Avenue for potential loss of turn lanes. The capacity of Indian
Creek Drive south of 71 Street was also reduced by 10% to accommodate potential bike lane
enhancements.
TABLE 2
Town Center Background Growth (SERPM‐7)
Road Section 2010 2040 Growth/Yr
SR 71 Street N. Shore Dr to Indian Creek 33,944 38,832 0.45%
Indian Creek to Abott Ave 19,123 22,241 0.50%
Abott Ave to Collins Ave 7,859 7,758 -0.04%
Indian Creek South of 71 Street 22,005 24,695 0.39%
North of 71 Street 27,048 31,228 0.48%
Collins Avenue South of 71 Street 23,096 25,779 0.37%
North of 71 Street 27,062 31,369 0.49%
All Roads 160,137 181,902 0.43%
Use 0.50%
Page 193 of 289
TA
B
L
E
3
Mi
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
f
o
r
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
,
T
MP
a
n
d
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
%
T
r
i
p
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
T
r
i
p
s
Y ea
r
2
0
1
6
(
T
M
P
)
Y ea
r
2
0
3
5
(
T
M
P
)
Y ear 2035 (Town Center Study)
No
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
o
a
d
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
L
a
n
e
s
D
i
s
t
D
a
i
l
y
P
M
A M
D
i
r
D
a
i
l
y
2
-
W
a
y
P
k
D
i
r
D
a
i
l
y
2
-
W
a
y
P
k
D
i
r
D
a
i
l
y
2
-
W
a
y
P
k
D
i
r
25
7
1
S
t
B
t
w
D
i
c
k
e
n
s
&
E
B
a
y
D
r
4L
D
2
9
%
3
4
5
4
2
6
8
2
3
1
1
4
8
1
1
,
6
0
0
1
,
0
4
4
5
4
7
1
5
,
3
1
9
1
,
3
8
0
7
2
0
1
4
,
9
3
2
1
,
3
0
1
6
8
9
26
7
1
S
t
B
t
w
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
a
n
d
D
i
c
k
en
s
2
L
U
2
0
%
2
3
8
2
1
8
5
1
5
9
1
0
2
1
1
,
6
0
0
1
,
0
4
4
5
4
7
1
5
,
3
1
9
1
,
3
8
0
7
2
0
1
3
,
8
6
0
1
,
2
1
8
6
4
3
23
S
R
9
3
4
/
7
1
S
t
(
1
-
W
a
y
E
B
)
3
L
-
1
W
1
3
%
1
5
4
8
1
2
0
1
0
3
66
2
0
,
5
0
0
1
,
8
4
5
1
,
8
4
3
2
7
,
0
7
2
2
,
4
4
0
2
,
4
3
0
2
1
,
8
3
2
1
,
9
4
6
1
,
8
9
0
24
S
R
9
3
4
/
N
o
r
m
a
n
d
y
D
r
(
W
B
)
3
L
-
1
W
1
5
%
1
7
8
7
1
3
9
1
1
9
77
1
8
,
5
0
0
1
,
6
6
5
1
,
6
6
3
2
4
,
4
3
0
2
,
2
0
0
2
,
2
0
0
2
0
,
0
9
2
1
,
7
8
6
1
,
7
2
2
16
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
A
v
e
N
o
r
t
h
o
f
7
1
S
t
3
L
-
1
W
1
1
%
1
3
1
0
1
0
2
8
7
5
6
2
5
,
5
0
0
2
,
29
5
2
,
2
9
3
3
3
,
6
7
4
3
,
0
3
0
3
,
0
3
0
2
6
,
5
4
1
2
,
3
7
3
2
,
3
2
5
12
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
A
v
e
S
ou
t
h
o
f
7
1
S
t
3
L
-
1
W
1
7
%
2
0
2
5
1
5
7
1
3
5
8
7
2
1
,
0
0
0
1
,
89
0
1
,
8
8
8
2
7
,
7
3
2
2
,
5
0
0
2
,
4
9
0
2
2
,
8
0
4
2
,
0
2
7
1
,
9
5
5
17
A bb
o
t
t
A
v
e
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
7
1
S
t
3
L
-
1
W
1
1
%
1
3
1
0
1
0
2
8
7
5
6
25
,
5
0
0
2
,
2
9
5
2
,
2
9
3
3
3
,
6
7
4
3
,
0
3
0
3
,
0
3
0
2
6
,
5
4
1
2
,
3
7
3
2
,
3
2
5
15
I
n
d
i
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
S
o
u
t
h
o
f
7
1
S
t
4
L
U
1
8
%
2
1
4
4
1
6
6
1
4
3
9
2
3
,
9
0
0
3
5
1
2
0
7
5
,
1
5
0
4
6
0
2
7
0
6
,
0
0
3
5
1
3
2
9
7
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
o
a
d
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
L
a
n
e
s
%
D
i
s
t
D
a
i
l
y
P
M
A M
D
i
r
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
L
O
S
25
7
1
S
t
B
t
w
D
i
c
k
e
n
s
&
E
B
a
y
D
r
4L
D
2
9
%
3
4
5
4
2
6
8
2
3
1
1
4
8
C
C
C
D
D
C
D
D
D
26
7
1
S
t
B
t
w
C
o
ll
i
n
s
a
n
d
D
i
c
k
en
s
2
L
U
2
0
%
2
3
8
2
1
8
5
1
5
9
1
0
2
D
D
D
FF
E
FF D
23
S
R
9
3
4
/
7
1
S
t
(
1
-
W
a
y
E
B
)
3
L
-
1
W
1
3
%
1
5
4
8
1
2
0
1
0
3
6
6
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
24
S
R
9
3
4
/
N
o
r
m
a
n
d
y
D
r
(
W
B
)
3
L
-
1
W
1
5
%
1
7
8
7
1
3
9
1
1
9
7
7
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
16
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
A
v
e
N
o
r
t
h
o
f
7
1
S
t
3
L
-
1
W
1
1
%
1
3
1
0
1
0
2
8
7
5
6
D
D
D
FF
E DDD
12
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
A
v
e
So
u
t
h
o
f
7
1
S
t
3
L
-
1
W
1
7
%
2
0
2
5
1
5
7
1
3
5
8
7
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
17
A bb
o
t
t
A
v
e
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
7
1
S
t
3
L
-
1
W
1
1
%
1
3
1
0
1
0
2
8
7
5
6
D
D
D
FF
E DDD
15
I
n
d
i
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
S
o
u
t
h
o
f
7
1
S
t
4
L
U
1
8
%
2
1
4
4
1
6
6
1
4
3
9
2
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
o
a
d
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
L
a
n
e
s
%
D
i
s
t
D
a
i
l
y
P
M
A MD
i
r
V /C
V /C
V
/
C
V /C
V /C
V /C
V /C V /C V /C
25
7
1
S
t
B
t
w
D
i
c
k
e
n
s
&
E
B
a
y
D
r
4L
D
2
9
%
3
4
5
4
2
6
8
2
3
1
1
4
8
0
.
3
0
0
.
3
0
0
.
2
8
0.
3
9
0
.
3
9
0
.
3
7
0
.
3
8
0
.
3
7
0
.
3
5
26
7
1
S
t
B
t
w
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
a
n
d
D
i
c
k
e
n
s
2
L
U
2
0
%
2
3
8
2
1
8
5
1
5
9
1
0
2
0
.
7
3
0
.
7
3
0.
6
8
0
.
9
6
0
.
9
6
0
.
8
9
0
.
8
7
0
.
8
5
0
.
7
9
23
S
R
9
3
4
/
7
1
S
t
(
1
-
W
a
y
E
B
)
3
L
-
1
W
1
3
%
1
5
4
8
1
2
0
1
0
3
66
0
.
5
7
0
.
5
7
0
.
5
1
0
.
7
5
0
.
7
5
0
.
6
7
0
.
6
1
0
.
6
0
0
.
5
2
24
S
R
9
3
4
/
N
o
r
m
a
n
d
y
D
r
(
W
B
)
3
L
-
1
W
1
5
%
1
7
8
7
1
3
9
1
1
9
77
0
.
5
1
0
.
5
1
0
.
4
6
0
.
6
8
0
.
6
8
0
.
6
1
0
.
5
6
0
.
5
5
0
.
4
7
16
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
A
v
e
N
o
r
t
h
o
f
7
1
S
t
3
L
-
1
W
1
1
%
1
3
1
0
1
0
2
8
7
5
6
0
.
7
1
0
.
71
0
.
6
3
0
.
9
4
0
.
9
4
0
.
8
3
0
.
7
4
0
.
7
3
0
.
6
4
12
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
A
v
e
S
ou
t
h
o
f
7
1
S
t
3
L
-
1
W
1
7
%
2
0
2
5
1
5
7
1
3
5
8
7
0
.
5
8
0
.
58
0
.
5
2
0
.
7
7
0
.
7
7
0
.
6
9
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
3
0
.
5
4
17
A bb
o
t
t
A
v
e
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
7
1
S
t
3
L
-
1
W
1
1
%
1
3
1
0
1
0
2
8
7
5
6
0.
7
1
0
.
7
1
0
.
6
3
0
.
9
4
0
.
9
4
0
.
8
3
0
.
7
4
0
.
7
3
0
.
6
4
15
I
n
d
i
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
S
o
u
t
h
o
f
7
1
S
t
4
L
U
1
8
%
2
1
4
4
1
6
6
14
3
9
2
0
.
1
5
0
.
1
5
0
.
1
6
0
.
2
0
0
.
2
0
0
.
2
1
0
.
2
4
0
.
2
3
0
.
2
3
Fu
t
u
r
e
R
o
a
d
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
L
a
n
e
s
%
D
i
s
t
D
a
i
l
y
P
M
A MD
i
r
V /C
V /C
V
/
C
V /C
V /C
V /C
V /C V /C V /C
25
7
1
S
t
B
t
w
D
i
c
k
e
n
s
&
E
B
a
y
D
r
4L
-
1
0
%
29
%
3
4
5
4
2
6
8
2
3
1
1
4
8
0
.
3
3
0
.
3
3
0
.
3
1
0
.
44
0
.
4
4
0
.
4
1
0
.
4
3
0
.
4
1
0
.
3
9
26
7
1
S
t
B
t
w
C
o
ll
i
n
s
a
n
d
D
i
c
k
e
n
s
2L
-
1
0
%
20
%
2
3
8
2
1
8
5
1
5
9
1
0
2
0
.
8
1
0
.
8
1
0
.
7
5
1.
0
6
1
.
0
7
0.
9
9
0
.
9
6
0
.
9
4
0
.
8
8
23
S
R
9
3
4
/
7
1
S
t
(
1
-
W
a
y
E
B
)
2L
-
1
W
13
%
1
5
4
8
1
2
0
1
0
3
6
6
0
.
8
8
0
.
8
8
0
.
7
9
1.
1
6
1
.
1
6
1
.
0
4
0.94 0.93 0.81
24
S
R
9
3
4
/
N
o
r
m
a
n
d
y
D
r
(
W
B
)
2L
-
1
W
15
%
1
7
8
7
1
3
9
1
1
9
7
7
0
.
7
9
0
.
7
9
0
.
7
1
1.
0
5
1
.
0
5
0.
9
4
0
.
8
6
0
.
8
5
0
.
7
3
16
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
A
v
e
N
o
r
t
h
o
f
7
1
S
t
2L
-
1
W
11
%
1
3
1
0
1
0
2
8
7
5
6
1.
0
9
1
.
0
9
0.
9
8
1.
4
4
1
.
4
4
1
.
2
9
1
.
1
4
1
.
1
3
0.99
12
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
A
v
e
S
o
u
t
h
o
f
7
1
S
t
2L
-
1
W
17
%
2
0
2
5
1
5
7
1
3
5
8
7
0
.
9
0
0
.
9
0
0
.
8
0
1.
1
9
1
.
1
9
1
.
0
6
0.98 0.96 0.83
17
A bb
o
t
t
A
v
e
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
7
1
S
t
2L
-
1
W
11
%
1
3
1
0
1
0
2
8
7
5
6
1.
0
9
1
.
0
9
0.
9
8
1.
4
4
1
.
4
4
1
.
2
9
1
.
1
4
1
.
1
3
0.99
15
I
n
d
i
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
S
o
u
t
h
o
f
7
1
S
t
4L
-
1
0
%
18
%
2
1
4
4
1
6
6
1
4
3
9
2
0
.
1
7
0
.
1
7
0
.
1
8
0
.
23
0
.
2
2
0
.
2
4
0
.
2
6
0
.
2
5
0
.
2
6
No
t
e
s
:
Ye
a
r
2
0
3
5
(
T
M
P
)
a
r
e
t
h
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
2
0
1
6
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
at
i
o
n
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g
a
1
.
4
%
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
o
w
t
h
r
a
t
e
.
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
n
um
b
e
r
s
a
r
e
s
a
m
e
a
s
2
0
1
6
T
M
P
.
Ye
a
r
2
0
3
5
(
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
t
u
d
y
)
a
r
e
t
h
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
f
o
r
2
0
3
5
i
n
t
h
i
s
s
t
u
d
y
a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
mo
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
c
c
e
ss
a
n
d
m
u
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
w
i
t
h
m
o
r
e
f
a
v
o
r
a
b
l
e
m
o
d
a
l
s
p
l
i
t
s
.
LO
S
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
(
M
S
M
)
p
e
r
r
o
a
d
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
(
C
i
t
y
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
)
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
2
0
1
6
T
M
P
.
V/
C
f
o
r
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
l
a
n
e
s
(
w
i
t
h
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
m
u
l
t
i
m
od
a
l
)
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
C
i
t
y
M
S
V
a
s
t
h
e
s
e
r
o
a
d
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
o
n
t
he
S
I
S
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
l
o
c
a
l
M
S
V
p
r
e
v
a
i
l
s
.
-7
-
Pa
g
e
1
9
4
o
f
2
8
9
TA
B
L
E
4
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
T
M
P
I
m
p
a
c
t
i
n
g
S
t
y
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
N
o
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
T
y
p
e
F
r
o
m
T
o
L
e
n
g
t
h
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Total Cost
4
O
n
e
W
a
y
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
B
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
-
7
3
S
t
N
o
r
t
h
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
D
i
c
k
e
n
s
A
v
e
A
tl
a
n
t
i
c
T
r
a
i
l
0
.
3
5
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
/
b
u
f
f
e
r
e
d
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
(
L
a
n
e
r
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
i
n
g
)
Enhanced crosswalks $4,059,000
5
O
n
e
W
a
y
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
B
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
-
7
2
S
t
N
o
r
t
h
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
D
i
c
k
e
n
s
A
v
e
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
A
v
e
0
.
2
8
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
/
b
u
f
f
e
r
e
d
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
(
L
a
n
e
r
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
i
n
g
)
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s
$4,059,000
6
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
B
i
k
e
L
a
n
e
/
G
r
e
e
n
w
a
y
-
B
y
r
o
n
A
v
e
N
o
r
t
h
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
7
3
S
t
Ha
w
t
h
o
r
n
e
A
v
e
0.
5
6
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
/
b
u
f
f
e
r
e
d
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
(
L
a
n
e
r
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
i
n
g
)
C
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s
/
G
r
e
e
n
w
a
y
$850,000
19
D
i
c
k
e
n
s
A
v
e
&
S
R
9
3
4
/
7
1
S
t
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
c
h
a
n
g
e
N
o
r
t
h
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
n
/
a
n/
a
n/
a
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
s
t
u
d
y
f
o
r
g
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
a
d
d
S
B
l
a
n
e
(Done)$50,000
26
S
a
f
e
t
y
I
m
p
r
.
-
S
R
9
3
4
/
7
1
S
t
&
N
o
r
m
a
n
d
y
D
r
N
o
r
t
h
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
N
S
h
o
r
e
D
r
S
R
A
1
A
/
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
0.
5
0
S
a
f
e
t
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
$50,000
30
S
R
A
1
A
&
I
n
d
i
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
S
i
g
n
a
l
O
p
t
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
N
o
r
t
h
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
S
R
9
0
7
/
6
3
S
T
S
R
9
3
4
/
7
1
S
t
0
.
7
9
S
i
g
n
a
l
o
p
t
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
f
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
s
t
u
d
y
o
n
SR
A
1
A
$100,000
31
S
R
9
3
4
/
7
1
S
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
s
t
u
d
y
No
r
t
h
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
C
a
r
l
y
l
e
S
R
A
1
A
/
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
1.
0
2
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
s
t
u
d
y
-
r
e
m
o
v
i
n
g
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
s
o
n
7
1
S
t
&
a
d
d
i
n
g
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
a
n
e
$199,000
47
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
G
r
e
e
n
w
a
y
-
B
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
N
o
r
t
h
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
W
7
1
S
t
E
7
1
S
t
1
.
3
0
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
g
r
e
e
n
w
a
y
/
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
a
l
m
i
n
g
/
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s
$3,400,000
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
1
4
.
8
0
$
1
2
,
7
6
7
,
0
0
0
N
o
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
2
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
T
y
p
e
F
r
o
m
T
o
L
e
n
g
t
h
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
T
o
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
4
B
u
f
f
e
r
e
d
B
i
k
e
L
a
n
e
-
6
9
S
t
N
o
r
t
h
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
I
n
d
i
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
A
v
e
0
.
2
0
B
u
f
f
e
r
e
d
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
$1,529,316
7
E
x
l
u
s
i
v
e
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
/
b
i
k
e
-
S
R
9
3
4
/
7
1
S
t
/
N
o
r
m
a
n
d
y
N
o
r
t
h
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
B
a
y
D
r
S
R
A
1
A
/
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
2.
6
0
E
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
a
n
d
/
o
r
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
/
L
a
n
e
r
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
o
r
w
i
d
e
n
$28,411,251
14
S
h
a
r
e
d
U
s
e
P
a
t
h
-
F
a
i
r
w
a
y
D
r
No
r
t
h
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
B
i
a
r
r
i
t
z
D
r
B
a
y
D
r
1
.
1
0
S
h
a
r
e
d
-
u
s
e
p
a
t
h
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
g
o
l
f
c
o
u
r
s
e
$399,465
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
2
3.
9
0
$30,340,032
N
o
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
3
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
T
y
p
e
F
r
o
m
T
o
L
e
n
g
t
h
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Total Cost
4
E
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
/
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
B
i
k
e
L
a
n
e
s
-
S
R
A
1
A
Mi
d
d
l
e
/
N
o Tr
a
n
s
i
t
/
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
S
R
A
1
A
/
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
/
I
n
d SR
9
3
4
/
7
1
S
t
2
.
0
5
E
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
a
n
d
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
(
l
a
n
e
r
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
o
r
w
i
d
e
n
)
$25,322,465
6
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
/
b
u
f
f
e
r
e
d
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
-
A
b
b
o
t
t
A
v
e
N
o
r
t
h
B
i
k
e
/
p
e
d
I
n
d
i
a
n
c
r
e
e
k
D
r
S
R
9
3
4
/
7
1
S
t
0
.
3
0
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
/
b
u
f
f
e
r
e
d
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
/
L
a
n
e
r
e
p
u
r
p
os
e
o
r
w
i
d
e
n
/
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s
$2,495,706
18
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
g
r
e
e
n
w
a
y
-
B
a
y
D
r
N
o
r
t
h
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
F
a
i
r
w
a
y
D
r
S
R
9
3
4
/
71
S
t
0
.
3
4
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
g
r
e
e
n
w
a
y
/
S
h
a
r
r
o
w
m
a
r
k
e
r
s
/
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s $975,221
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
3
2
.
6
9
$
2
8
,
7
9
3
,
3
9
2
To
t
a
l
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
1
&
2
&
3
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
1
1
.
3
9
$
7
1
,
9
0
0
,
4
2
4
-8
-
Pa
g
e
1
9
5
o
f
2
8
9
Town Center Multimodal Model Accessibility Study
Keith & Schnars Project No. 18237.08
June 6, 2018
-9-
The traffic impact analysis based on the adjusted modal splits provided by the MAA model that indicated a
shift from car to multimodal trips resulted in generally improved traffic conditions in 2035 compared to the
Master Plan projections (see Table 5). Whereas six of the eight evaluated segments were projected to
operate at a failing condition (V/C > 1) in 2035, only two segments are now projected to operate at failing
conditions in 2035 (daily and two-way peak hour) but even these segment would operate at acceptable LOS
based on peak directional analysis. This justifies the need to implement the identified multimodal projects
and improve accessibility along 71st Street and the convenience and integration of multimodal systems
serving the study area.
V. PARKING IMPACTS OF FAR INCREASE
Current Parking Conditions
The Town Center Study Area in Miami Beach is centered along the east-west 71st Street (SR 934) corridor
and is defined as the area bounded on the north by 72nd Street, on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the
south by 69th Street, and on the west by Indian Creek Drive and the Intracoastal Waterway (Figure 1).
The current parking supply within in the Town Center study area (as of 2014) consists of a combination of
public and private facilities. In the report North Beach Parking Demand Analysis, Walker Parking
Consultants, October 14, 2014, approximately 3,728 parking spaces within and adjacent to the study area
were inventoried (see Table 6 and Figure 2). Table 7 presents the present day (2018) city parking supply
within or adjacent to the study area (Figure 3). The 560 spaces in the City lots represent 15% of the total
area supply.
The distribution of the weekday peak-hour parking occupancies by block is presented in Table 6. Based on
the occupancy and inventory data, the peak occupancy is approximately 92% of available supply (3,429
demand/3,728 supply). The average parking occupancy rates for the area has been estimated at 84% during
the weekday periods and up to 90% on Saturdays.
Proposed Town Center Development
The City of Miami Beach is proposing changes to the zoning regulations to be consistent to the proposed
2035 development goals for the Town center, centered on making the area more pedestrian-centric and
reducing dependence on the automobile. The future development based on the City’s FAR analysis is as
follows:
500 new residential units;
382,554 square feet of new office space which translates to 638 jobs (average of 600 SF per
employee); and
2,324 new hotel rooms which translates to 4,648 jobs (average 2 employees per room).
Page 196 of 289
Town Center Multimodal Model Accessibility Study
Keith & Schnars Project No. 18237.08
June 6, 2018
-10-
Figure 2
Town Center Parking Zones
Page 197 of 289
Town Center Multimodal Model Accessibility Study
Keith & Schnars Project No. 18237.08
June 6, 2018
-11-
Table 5
Town Center Parking Inventory and Peak-Hour Occupancy
Source: Table 9: North Beach – Parking Adequacy by Block, North Beach Parking Demand Analysis, October 14, 2014, Walker
Parking Consultants.
Block On-Street Public
City Lot
Public
Garage Public Lot Off-Street
Private Total Effective
Supply
Surplus /
(Deficit)
80000 4 8 5 4 8 5 4 6 1 ( 2 4 )
9 15 0 0 0 540 555 513 (42)
1 4 1 9 0009 2 8 4 4 1 6
15 23 17 0 0 36 76 139 63
22 26 40 0 0 49 115 164 49
2 3 1 3 0007 2 0 4 7 2 7
2 480008 1 6 1 9 3
25 18 16 0 0 285 319 436 117
30 42 0 0 0 33 75 82 7
3 1 1 6 0000 1 6 3 2 1 6
32 13 0 0 0 29 42 52 10
3 340000473
3 470009 1 6 6 9 5 3
3 5 1 4 0000 1 4 3 8 2 4
3 6 1 6 0000 1 6 1 1 ( 5 )
3 7 1 8 0000 1 8 3 2 1 4
3 8 1 3 0000 1 3 1 0 ( 3 )
3 9900009 2 1 1 2
Sub -
Totals 274 73 0 0 1,490 1,837 2,177 340
70000 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 9 5 ( 1 6 )
1 0 1 6 0000 1 6 1 3 ( 3 )
13 29 304 0 0 0 333 312 (21)
16 71 0 0 0 473 544 557 13
21 82 0 0 0 36 118 112 (6)
26 41 0 0 0 45 86 85 (1)
2 80000 1 6 2 1 6 2 1 6 2 0
2 9 2 2 0000 2 2 1 5 ( 7 )
Sub -
Totals 261 304 0 0 1,027 1,592 1,551 (41)
Area
Totals 535 377 0 0 2,517 3,429 3,728 299
FRINGE BLOCKS - ONE BLOCK NORTH OR SOUTH TOWN CENTER STUDY LIMIT
TOWN CENTER PARKING INVENTORY AND WEEKDAY PEAK-HOUR OCCUPANCY - 2014
TOTAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING FOCCUPANCY FOR TOWN CENTER
Page 198 of 289
Town Center Multimodal Model Accessibility Study
Keith & Schnars Project No. 18237.08
June 6, 2018
-12-
Table 6
City of Miami Beach Parking in Town Center
Figure 3
Locations of City Public Parking Lots
NO. PARKING LOTS LOCATIONS SPACES Within Town
Center?
P83 6933 Harding Avenue, Miami Beach, FL 29 Yes
P80 410 71 Street, Miami Beach, FL 30 Yes
P84 6950 Harding Avenue, Miami Beach, FL 53 Yes
P85 6977 Carlyle Avenue, Miami Beach, FL 14 Yes
P86 7011 Indian Creek Drive, Miami Beach, FL 36 Yes
P90 7113 Bonita Drive, Miami Beach, FL 16 Yes
P91 541 72 Street, Miami Beach, FL 50 Yes
P92 299 72 Street, Miami Beach, FL 313 Yes
P93 7270 Dickens Avenue, Miami Beach, FL 19 Yes
560Total City of Miami Beach Public Parking Spaces
Source: https://www.miamibeachfl.gov/city-hall/parking/parking-garages-lot-locations/north-beach/
Note: Does not inlcude facilities north of 75th Street, south of 67th Street, or on Normandy Isle.
Page 199 of 289
Town Center Multimodal Model Accessibility Study
Keith & Schnars Project No. 18237.08
June 6, 2018
-13-
It is estimated that this area currently (2018) has 798 households and 1,336 jobs. Therefore, the residential
sector is expected to increase 62% by 2035 and the number of jobs will increase 400% by 2035. A similar
increase in parking demand is not unreasonable. However, a combination of reduced parking requirements
and provision and/or promotion of alternate transportation modes can help to reduce overall parking demand.
Proposed Parking Requirements for Town Center
The proposed changes to the Town Center zoning parking requirements (development ordinances) are
geared to smaller and more affordable residential and hotel units, namely Co-Living Units as small as 375
square feet and Micro-Hotels with rooms as small as 175 square feet. These smaller units are expected to
help to reduce the traffic throughout the study area. The proposed parking requirements, among others, for
the expected developments are:
Apartments and Townhomes: one (1) space per unit. (Affordable housing, workforce housing, co-
living, and live-work: no parking requirement).
Hotel: No parking requirement. For accessory uses to a hotel, no parking requirement provided a
facility with publicly accessible parking spaces is located within 1,500 feet; otherwise, as per Parking
District No. 4; and
Office: No parking requirement provided a facility with publicly accessible parking spaces is located
within 1,500 feet; otherwise, as per Parking District No. 4.
The minimum parking requirements for the three proposed uses applying the new parking requirements to
the Town Center study area are as follows:
Residential - 500 parking spaces;
Hotel – No parking required; and
Office – No parking required.
As per the new requirements, the residential use would require 500 parking spaces. This is consistent with
the existing minimum requirement of 1 space per dwelling unit. The prior regulation required the provision of
supplemental designated guest parking equal to 10% of the required residential parking spaces. Thus the
required spaces with the 10% guest parking are 550 spaces. These spaces would be provided on site.
The hotel requirement of zero spaces is contingent on the availability of publically accessible parking spaces
within 1,500. This criteria is satisfied by any hotel development within the study area since all of the parcels
lie within a walking distance of 1,500 feet from a municipal lot. The largest city parking lot is Lot P92 (313
spaces) on 72nd Street on the northern border of the study area.
Based on the prior zoning parking requirements, the projected 2,324 hotel rooms would be about 1,600
parking spaces. This latter value includes reductions for short and long term bicycle parking. The value does
not include site specific parking reductions or reductions such as shared parking.
Page 200 of 289
Town Center Multimodal Model Accessibility Study
Keith & Schnars Project No. 18237.08
June 6, 2018
-14-
Likewise, the office requirement of zero spaces is also contingent on the availability of publically accessible
parking spaces within 1,500. This criteria is satisfied by any office development within the study area since
all of the parcels lie within a walking distance of 1,500 feet from a municipal lot.
Based on the prior zoning parking requirements, the future 382,554 square feet of office space would require
about 956 parking spaces (1 space per 400 square feet of office use). With reductions for short and long
term bicycle parking, the requirement can be reduced to 905 spaces. The value does not include other site
specific parking reductions.
Thus, the total unadjusted parking requirement for all proposed developments in District 8 based on the new
regulations is 550 spaces. (550+0+0).
On the other hand, the total parking requirement based on the prior regulations is approximately 3,100
spaces. Since 550 spaces are for residential use and will be provided on site, the net overall requirement
would be 550 spaces.
Observations and Recommendations
The aforementioned 2014 Walker parking study indicated a peak hour parking demand of 3,429 spaces,
representing a surplus of about 299 spaces based on an available 2014 3,728 space inventory. This yields
an adequacy of 92% occupancy within the Town Center study area.
Parking demand in Town Center will continue to grow. This condition will continue in the near term as the
new regulations and the projected development begin to be implemented. The new developments will
compete with the existing developments for the limited parking supply. Parking requirement reductions do
not translate into a comparable reduction in parking demand. The demand is expected to continue to grow
albeit with the implementation of alternate modes of transportation it can be harnessed to some extent.
As presented in the previous sections, the proposed future development consisting of a mixture of residential,
office, and hotel uses are compatible with the proposed parking requirements for the Town Center. However,
in order to keep pace with future parking demand, the new parking ordinances reduction in parking should
be coupled with several other actions described as follows:
Parking Monitoring:
A regular monitoring of the area’s parking conditions should be conducted as the developments are
implemented and the general effects of the new units are realized. This monitoring, consisting of
basic parking demand vs. supply studies, will help to address changes in parking demand, identify
parking opportunities, and assess the effectiveness of the parking requirement policies. This
monitoring should be conducted at least every 3 to 4 years.
Centralization of parking:
The future parking demand and requirements can be mitigated with the centralization of parking
within and/or on the fringes of Town Center. Lot P92 at 299 72nd Street is currently a surface lot with
a capacity of 313 spaces. This lot represents an opportunity for a future multi-level parking garage
that will be able to help satisfy most of the parking demand in the near term. A 900-1000 space
Page 201 of 289
Town Center Multimodal Model Accessibility Study
Keith & Schnars Project No. 18237.08
June 6, 2018
-15-
garage at his location is not unreasonable. The need and programming for this garage can be
determined via the aforementioned monitoring program.
The City can use the fee in lieu of parking program to help fund the centralized parking facilities.
Alternate transportation modes such as local shuttle vehicles, ride-sharing services (i.e., Uber, Lyft)
and bicycles should be promoted especially for hotels.
Strategically placed locations for shared ride drop-off and pick-up areas should be considered.
The new regulations do allow the option for developers to provide the needed parking on site based
on the requirements for district 1.
Hotel operations, especially in the tourist dominated eastern coastal areas of Miami-Dade County,
are dependent in varying degrees on valet services and require on-street and/or off-street spaces
for these services. The regulations allow the City to consider dedicating curb spaces to provide curb-
side valet services. A centralized/shared valet program may be considered for groups of hotels,
especially the boutique hotels. The program may include designated shared lots or curb spaces.
VI. PROPOSED LAND USE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
As part of the Land Use Plan Amendment for the increase in Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Town Center districts, the
City will introduce permitted uses. The results of the Mobility Assessment should be used to determine the allocation
of certain types of uses. The Mobility Assessment is based on the following proposed uses provided by the City:
a. 500 residential units
b. 382,554 additional square feet of office space or 638 jobs
c. 2,324 hotel rooms plus an average 2 employees per room
Using this data, it is predicted that the mode-share split for each type of studied travel mode will be as follows:
Home Based Work Auto 58%
Home Based Work Transit 14%
Home Based Work Walk/Bike 29%
Non-Work Auto 52%
Non-Work Transit 16%
Non-Work Walk/Bike 32%
While this mode-share split is consistent with the City’s Transportation Master Plan desired mode-share, there are
opportunities in the creation of the Town Center Land Use Districts to support more transit mode trips.
A suggested change to the mix of uses to support an increase in transit and walk/bike is as follows:
d. 800 residential units
i. 200 units 1,000 square feet or more (market rate)
ii. 300 units 1,000 square feet or less (market rate)
Page 202 of 289
Town Center Multimodal Model Accessibility Study
Keith & Schnars Project No. 18237.08
June 6, 2018
-16-
iii. 300 units workforce housing 1,000 square feet or less (60% of area median income). Co-living
units should be consistent with workforce housing median income goals.
e.382,554 additional square feet of office or commercial space or 638 jobs
f.1,824 hotel rooms plus an average 2 employees per room
Through Ordinance 2017-4138, the City established Alternative Parking Incentives to decrease parking requirements,
which in turn will attract users and residents that are not dependent on “front-door” parking solutions. Future Land
Development Regulations for the Town Center districts should have minimal, if any, off-street parking requirements.
Centralized parking facilities should be located with 1,500 feet of future developments to encourage the use of these
facilities.
The proposed Land Use Plan Amendment should encourage compact development which includes a mixture of uses
such as residential, hotel, commercial, and office that promotes pedestrian and bicycle circulation and convenient
access to transit facilities. Uses should be encouraged to be within a five minute (i.e., quarter-mile) walk within the
Town Center districts. The Land Use Amendment should support and encourage the location of uses and internal
circulation such that pedestrian mobility is a priority. All land uses within the Town Center districts shall be directly
accessed via pedestrian ways, and accessible to existing or future alternate public transportation modes, including
bicycle and transit.
The proposed Land Use Plan Amendment should encourage and incentivize workforce housing solutions to attract
workers to support local industries within the City of Miami Beach. By attracting local workers, local transit and bicycle
mobility will become a priority due to parking demands throughout the City.
VI.STRATEGIES
In addition to the multimodal projects identified in the Transportation Master Plan, the parking strategies
stated above, and the recommended land use amendments, it is recommended to implement strategies to
enhance transit ridership. The feasibility of rapid transit depends heavily on ridership. In turn, ridership
depends on the number of people who can walk to and from rapid transit stations. Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) organizes and intensifies development within a half mile of stations, a pedestrian shed,
to support rapid transit ridership, and is encouraged by both the Federal Transit Administration and the Florida
Department of Transportation.
The North Town Center Master Plan embodies the principles of TOD. It organizes and intensifies
development within a half mile of a potential station located near the intersection of 71st Street and Collins
Avenue, which will serve both the BERT express bus service along 71st and rapid transit along Collins. The
transportation analysis estimates the actualized Town Center Master Plan will generate around 4,300 daily
transit trips along 71st, most of which will board BERT, and around 8,500 daily transit trips along Collins to
the south, most of which will board the proposed rapid transit along Collins. These anticipated boardings are
high relative to most station boardings along rapid transit lines across the country.
Regarding project priorities, the analysis was based on the all the multimodal projects listed in the
Transportation Master Plan that were incorporated into the MAA model. Since only one future model run
was performed, it is not possible to identify the importance and benefit of individual projects. Nonetheless,
Page 203 of 289
Town Center Multimodal Model Accessibility Study
Keith & Schnars Project No. 18237.08
June 6, 2018
-17-
since the model results show a significant percent of trips as bike/walk trips, it is reasonable to prioritize these
projects, insure good multimodal integration at hub locations, enhance safety and convenience, promote and
publicize the bike share program, and implement various TDM (Transportation Demand Management)
policies to promote non-vehicular trips and work with various stakeholders to achieve mobility objectives.
Page 204 of 289
ATTACHMENT A
Multimodal Accessibility Analysis Model Results
Page 205 of 289
Multimodal Strategies – Future Investments
79th Street Causeway BERT
Added service (10 minute headway)
Bay Link
Added route as per latest alternatives
analysis documents (5 minute headways)
LRT Collins extension to 69th added, same
headway as BayLink
Exclusive transit lanes network
Transit service reduces travel time 10% up
to 5 minutes.
Bike and pedestrian
Transportation Master Plan projects
Page 206 of 289
Page 207 of 289
Page 208 of 289
Page 209 of 289
Page 210 of 289
ATTACHMENT B
Town Center Trip Distribution and Pass-Through Plots
Page 211 of 289
Page 212 of 289
Page 213 of 289
SERPM (Traffic Volumes without Origin or Destimation in Study Area)
Miami Beach Town Center - Total (Red)-Local (Blue)-Pass Through (Green) and Pass Through Percent (Pink) Volumes
(Licensed to Keith and Schnars Inc)
1 3 5 4 8
1 2 3 8
1 2 3 1 0
9 1
7
1
5
3
0
7
1
5
3
1
0
0
4
2
8
9
6
4
0
3
6
4
9
8
5
6 1 96
9 4
6 1 02
9 8
1
0
2
5
0
1
0
2
5
0
0
0
2588
2588
0
0
2182
2182
0
0
6617653596390
8034
0
8034
100 6 6 0 9
6 6 2
5 9 4 7
9 0
1 9 7 1 4
1 9 7 1 400
26586
6827
19758
74
2 3 1 8 1
3 4 2 3
1 9 7 5 8
8 5
82977341473
9 2 8 2
2 6 9 1 1
5 0 5 1
2 1 8 5 9
8 1
2 4 1 73
3 3 2 6
2 0 8 47
8 6
1 9 6 4 241261551679
30
98
6
57
55
25
23
1
81
13235
1 223 7
99 8
8
4
8
3
8
9
1
0
8
0
2
3
7
5
8
7
7
8
4
6
0
0
4
8
4
8
2
3
7
5
2
2
8
2
2
8
6
7
8
3
5
1
3
2
5
1
6
5
8
8
2
3
0
6
7
6
1
6
0
1
6
9
0
8
7
3
1 3 2 4 6
4 0 2 6
9 2 2 0
7 0
6
5
8
6
6
5
8
5
9
2
8
9
0
2 0 1 3 345991553477
1 9 7 4 3
4 6 8 4
1 5 0 5 9
7 6
46604
9941
36664
79
2 68 6 2525721605
8 0
2
5
3
2
1
4
6
4
2
2
0
6
7
9
8
2
8715
1160
7555
87
3 5 2 6 1
2 3 7 8
3 2 8 8 3
9 3
35
0
7
2
23
5
3
32
7
1
9
93
3
5
0
7
2
2
3
5
3
3
2
7
1
9
9
3
5 93 8
2 29 0
3 6 4 9
6 1
1 02 1 7
2 79 4
7 42 3
7 3
3
7
4
4
3
4
5
6
0
3
2
8
8
3
8
8
2 9 1 9 3
3 7 9 7
2 5 3 9 6
8 7
2 8 0 7 3
3 8 2 6
2 4 2 4 6
8 6
7244
77
7167
99
3 5 2 6 1
2 3 7 8
3 2 8 8 3
9 3
1 9 7 4 3
4 6 8 4
1 5 0 5 9
7 6
2 6 8 6 252572160580
3 39
3
5
0
7
2
2
3
5
3
3
2
7
1
9
9
3
3
5
0
7
2
2
3
5
3
3
2
7
1
9
9
3
8
6
3 4 8 6
6 6 7
2 8 1 9
8 1
7 9
66 7
81
3 4 8 6
6 6 7
2 8 1 9
8 1
1 8 3 4 5
4 4 8 9
1 3 8 5 676
183
4
5
448
9
138
5
6
76
1 8 3 4 544891385676
3303
3304
3305
3308
3309
Page 214 of 289
SERPM 2035 (Pass Thru Traffic without Origin or Destination between 41 Street and 86 Street)
Miami Beach Town Center - Total 2035 AADT Volumes (Blue) - Pass-Thru Traffic (Red) - Pass-Thru Percent (Green)
(Licensed to Keith and Schnars Inc)
Lanes = 2
Lanes = 4
Lanes = 6
lanes = 8
lanes = 10
Centroid Connector
26586
8242
31
8 9 8 1
8 7
1 3 7 6 7
5 1 6 2
3 7
3 6 2 4 3
1 3 9 6 6
3 9
1
8
9
8
1
8
3
8
7
4
4
1 2 8 6 7
4 6 6 8
3 6
1
1
7
0
0
5
1
6
2
4
4
3
6
2
4
3
1
3
9
6
6
3
9
1 9 3 3 8
7 5 3 0
3 9
1 8 9 8 3
8 3 8 7
4 4
1
0
7
9
0
4
6
6
8
4
3
4 1 4 7 3
1 8 2 1 7
4 4
1
6
9
0
5
6
4
3
6
3
8
2 4 1 7 3
8 5 2 8
3 5
3 0 9 8 6
1 4 9 6 6
4 8
4
8
3
8
9
1
7
0
8
8
3
5
4
6
0
0
4
1
7
2
1
8
3
7
2
8
6
7
8
1
5
0
9
6
5
3
2
3
0
6
7
4
8
2
0
2
1
4886113061
27
4 8 8 6 1
1 3 0 6 1
2 7
2 0 8 4 3
4 8 1 7
2 3
2 8 01 98244
2 9
1 3 2 4 6
4 8 1 7
3 6
2 0 1 3 3824441
1 9 7 4 3
4 8 1 7
2 4
46604
13061
28
2 6 8 6 2824431
2
5
3
2
1
1
2
2
6
8
4
8
8715
2825
32
3
5
0
7
2
1
7
9
2
0
5
1
3
7
4
4
3
1
7
6
8
6
4
7
2 9 1 9 3
1 7 9 2 0
6 1
2 8 0 7 3
1 7 6 8 6
6 3
3
2
8
6
1
1
7
9
2
0
5
5
3
3
0
6
4
1
7
6
8
6
5
3
3 5 2 6 1
1 7 6 8 6
5 0
1 9 7 4 3
4 8 1 7
2 4
2 6 8 6 2824431
3
5
0
7
2
1
7
9
2
0
5
1
3
5
0
7
2
1
7
9
2
0
5
1
Page 215 of 289
ATTACHMENT C
Town Center Trip Generation and Internalization
Page 216 of 289
TA
B
L
E
C
-
1
Mi
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
%T
r
i
p
s
%
T
r
i
p
s
Mu
l
t
i
H
i
g
h
-
R
i
s
e
5
0
0
U
n
i
t
s
2
2
2
T=
3
.
9
4
(
X
)
+
2
1
1
.
8
1
2,
1
8
2
5
0
%
1,
0
9
1
50
%
1,
0
9
1
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
3
8
3
K
S
F
-
G
L
A
7
1
0
LN
(
T
)
=
0
.
9
7
L
N
(
X
)
+
2
.
5
0
3,
8
9
9
5
0
%
1,
9
5
0
50
%
1,
9
4
9
Ho
t
e
l
2
,
3
2
4
R
o
o
m
s
3
1
0
T
=
8
.
3
6
(
X
)
19
,
4
2
9
5
0
%
9,
7
1
5
50
%
9,
7
1
5
Gr
o
s
s
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
i
p
s
2
5
,
5
1
0
12
,
7
5
6
1
2
,
7
5
5
In
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
0
.
9
%
2
3
0
11
5
1
1
5
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
T
r
i
p
s
a
f
t
e
r
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
2
5
,
2
8
0
5
0
%
12
,
6
4
1
50
%
12
,
6
4
0
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l
P
e
r
s
o
n
T
r
i
p
s
(I
T
E
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
)
1.
2
(A
s
s
u
m
e
1
0
%
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
/
W
a
l
k
/
B
i
k
e
)
33
,
7
0
7
1
6
,
8
5
4
1
6
,
8
5
3
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
T
r
i
p
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
6
.
0
%
5
,
3
9
3
5
0
%
2
,
6
9
7
5
0
%
2
,
6
9
6
Wa
l
k
/
B
i
k
e
T
r
i
p
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
3
1
.
0
%
1
0
,
4
4
9
5
0
%
5
,
2
2
5
5
0
%
5
,
2
2
4
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
T
r
i
p
s
1
7
,
8
6
5
8
,
9
3
2
8
,
9
3
3
NE
T
E
X
T
E
R
N
A
L
D
A
I
L
Y
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
T
R
I
P
S
:
1.
5
(M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
V
e
h
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
)
11
,
9
1
0
5
0
%
5
,
9
5
5
5
0
%
5
,
9
5
5
NO
T
E
S
:
Tr
i
p
r
a
t
e
s
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
'
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
1
0
t
h
E
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
r
a
t
e
f
o
r
h
o
t
e
l
w
a
s
u
s
e
d
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
o
o
m
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
s
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
l
i
m
i
t
s
.
IT
E
T
r
i
p
R
a
t
e
s
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
m
a
i
n
l
y
o
n
s
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
/
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
A
1
.
2
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
&
1
0
%
tr
a
n
s
i
t
/
b
i
k
e
/
w
a
l
k
m
o
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
w
e
r
e
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
.
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
a
n
d
b
i
k
e
t
r
a
v
e
l
m
o
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
b
y
R
e
n
a
i
s
s
a
n
c
e
G
r
o
u
p
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
p
r
oj
e
c
t
.
Mi
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
v
e
h
c
i
l
e
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
f
a
c
t
o
r
i
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
b
y
R
e
n
a
i
s
s
a
n
c
e
G
r
o
u
p
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
IN
B
O
U
N
D
O
U
T
B
O
U
N
D
LA
N
D
U
S
E
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
LA
N
D
U
S
E
CO
D
E
DE
N
S
I
T
Y
IT
E
1
0
T
H
E
D
I
T
I
O
N
DA
I
L
Y
T
R
I
P
G
E
N
R
A
T
E
DA
I
L
Y
TR
I
P
S
UN
I
T
S
Page 217 of 289
Fi
g
u
r
e
C
-
1
Mi
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Da
i
l
y
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
t
r
i
x
An
a
l
y
s
t
FE
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
Da
t
e
05
/
2
1
/
1
8
T
i
m
e
P
e
r
i
o
d
D
a
i
l
y
LA
N
D
U
S
E
A
M
u
l
t
i
H
i
g
h
-
R
i
s
e
LA
N
D
U
S
E
B
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
IT
E
L
U
C
o
d
e
22
2
IT
E
L
U
C
o
d
e
71
0
Si
z
e
50
0
U
n
i
t
s
Si
z
e
38
3
K
S
F
-
G
L
A
De
m
a
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
Ex
i
t
t
o
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
To
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
2%
22
22
2%
39
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
En
t
e
r
F
r
o
m
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
1,
0
3
6
E
n
t
e
r
1
,
0
9
1
2
2
1
,
0
6
9
En
t
e
r
1
,
9
5
0
7
2
1
,
8
7
8
1
,
8
7
8
Ex
i
t
1
,
0
9
1
5
5
1
,
0
3
6
Ex
i
t
1
,
9
4
9
2
2
1
,
9
2
7
1,
0
6
9
T
o
t
a
l
2
,
1
8
2
7
7
2
,
1
0
5
3%
33
33
30
%
58
5
T
o
t
a
l
3
,
8
9
9
9
4
3
,
8
0
5
1
,
9
2
7
E
n
t
e
r
F
r
o
m
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
%
1
0
0
%
3
.
5
%
9
6
.
5
%
De
m
a
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
%
1
0
0
%
2
.
4
%
9
7
.
6
%
E
x
i
t
t
o
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
0%
0
0%
0
De
m
a
n
d
De
m
a
n
d
0
2%
39
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
2%
22
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
De
m
a
n
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
De
m
a
n
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
22
0
00
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
6%
58
3
1%
97
0%
0
0%
0
De
m
a
n
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
0%
0
De
m
a
n
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
0%
0
39
De
m
a
n
d
De
m
a
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
0
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
d
0%
0
0%
0
De
m
a
n
d
LA
N
D
U
S
E
C
H
o
t
e
l
3
8
%
36
9
2
De
m
a
n
d
LA
N
D
U
S
E
D
De
m
a
n
d
IT
E
L
U
C
o
d
e
31
0
IT
E
L
U
C
o
d
e
Si
z
e
2,
3
2
4
R
o
o
m
s
Si
z
e
De
m
a
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
Ex
i
t
t
o
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
To
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
0%
0
0
0%
0
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
En
t
e
r
F
r
o
m
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
9,
6
7
6
E
n
t
e
r
9
,
7
1
5
2
2
9
,
6
9
3
En
t
e
r
0
0
0
0
Ex
i
t
9
,
7
1
5
3
9
9
,
6
7
6
Ex
i
t
0
0
0
9,
6
9
3
T
o
t
a
l
1
9
,
4
2
9
6
1
1
9
,
3
6
8
0%
0
0
0%
0
T
o
t
a
l
0
0
0
0
E
n
t
e
r
F
r
o
m
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
%
1
0
0
%
0
.
3
%
9
9
.
7
%
De
m
a
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
%
1
0
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
E
x
i
t
t
o
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
NE
T
E
X
T
E
R
N
A
L
T
R
I
P
S
F
O
R
M
U
L
T
I
-
U
S
E
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
TO
T
A
L
No
t
e
s
:
En
t
e
r
1,
0
6
9
1
,
8
7
8
9
,
6
9
3
12
,
6
4
0
IN
T
E
R
N
A
L
C
A
P
T
U
R
E
So
u
r
c
e
:
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
(
I
T
E
)
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
H
a
n
d
b
o
o
k
,
1
0
t
h
E
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
2
0
1
7
.
Ex
i
t
1,
0
3
6
1
,
9
2
7
9
,
6
7
6
12
,
6
3
9
0
.
9
%
To
t
a
l
2,
1
0
5
3
,
8
0
5
1
9
,
3
6
8
25
,
2
7
8
(2
3
2
T
r
i
p
s
)
V
a
l
u
e
s
i
m
p
o
r
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
r
i
p
g
e
n
s
h
e
e
t
T
o
t
a
l
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
2,
1
8
2
3
,
8
9
9
1
9
,
4
2
9
25
,
5
1
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
I
T
E
Mu
l
t
i
Hi
g
h
-
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Of
f
i
c
e
Ho
t
e
l
Page 218 of 289
TA
B
L
E
C
-
2
Mi
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
%T
r
i
p
s
%
T
r
i
p
s
Mu
l
t
i
H
i
g
h
-
R
i
s
e
5
0
0
U
n
i
t
s
2
2
2
T=
0
.
3
4
(
X
)
+
8
.
5
6
17
9
6
1
%
10
9
39
%
70
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
3
8
3
K
S
F
-
G
L
A
7
1
0
LN
(
T
)
=
0
.
9
5
L
N
(
X
)
+
0
.
3
6
40
7
1
6
%
65
84
%
34
2
Ho
t
e
l
2
,
3
2
4
R
o
o
m
s
3
1
0
T=
0
.
6
0
(
X
)
1,
3
9
4
5
1
%
71
1
49
%
68
3
Gr
o
s
s
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
T
r
i
p
s
1
,
9
8
0
88
5
1
,
0
9
5
In
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
0
.
9
%
1
8
81
0
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
T
r
i
p
s
a
f
t
e
r
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
1
,
9
6
2
4
5
%
87
7
55
%
1,
0
8
5
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l
P
e
r
s
o
n
T
r
i
p
s
(I
T
E
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
)
1.
2
(A
s
s
u
m
e
1
0
%
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
/
W
a
l
k
/
B
i
k
e
)
2,
6
1
6
1
,
1
6
9
1
,
4
4
7
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
T
r
i
p
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
6
.
0
%
4
1
9
4
5
%
1
8
7
5
5
%
2
3
2
Wa
l
k
/
B
i
k
e
T
r
i
p
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
3
1
.
0
%
8
1
1
4
5
%
3
6
2
5
5
%
4
4
9
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
T
r
i
p
s
1
,
3
8
6
6
2
0
7
6
6
NE
T
E
X
T
E
R
N
A
L
P
M
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
T
R
I
P
S
:
1.
5
(M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
V
e
h
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
)
92
4
4
5
%
4
1
3
5
5
%
5
1
1
NO
T
E
S
:
Tr
i
p
r
a
t
e
s
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
'
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
1
0
t
h
E
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
r
a
t
e
f
o
r
h
o
t
e
l
w
a
s
u
s
e
d
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
o
o
m
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
s
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
l
i
m
i
t
s
.
IT
E
T
r
i
p
R
a
t
e
s
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
m
a
i
n
l
y
o
n
s
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
/
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
A
1
.
2
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
&
1
0
%
tr
a
n
s
i
t
/
b
i
k
e
/
w
a
l
k
m
o
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
w
e
r
e
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
.
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
a
n
d
b
i
k
e
t
r
a
v
e
l
m
o
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
b
y
R
e
n
a
i
s
s
a
n
c
e
G
r
o
u
p
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
p
r
oj
e
c
t
.
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
v
e
h
c
i
l
e
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
f
a
c
t
o
r
i
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
b
y
R
e
n
a
i
s
s
a
n
c
e
G
r
o
u
p
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
PM
TR
I
P
S
IN
B
O
U
N
D
O
U
T
B
O
U
N
D
LA
N
D
U
S
E
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
U
N
I
T
S
LA
N
D
U
S
E
CO
D
E
IT
E
1
0
T
H
E
D
I
T
I
O
N
PM
T
R
I
P
G
E
N
R
A
T
E
Page 219 of 289
Fi
g
u
r
e
C
-
2
Mi
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
PM
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
t
r
i
x
An
a
l
y
s
t
FE
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
Da
t
e
05
/
2
1
/
1
8
Ti
m
e
P
e
r
i
o
d
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
LA
N
D
U
S
E
A
M
u
l
t
i
H
i
g
h
-
R
i
s
e
LA
N
D
U
S
E
B
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
IT
E
L
U
C
o
d
e
22
2
IT
E
L
U
C
o
d
e
71
0
Si
z
e
50
0
U
n
i
t
s
Si
z
e
38
3
K
S
F
-
G
L
A
De
m
a
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
Ex
i
t
t
o
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
To
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
4%
4
4
2%
7
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
En
t
e
r
F
r
o
m
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
65
E
n
t
e
r
1
0
9
4
1
0
5
En
t
e
r
6
5
3
6
2
6
2
Ex
i
t
7
0
5
6
5
Ex
i
t
3
4
2
4
3
3
8
10
5
T
o
t
a
l
1
7
9
9
1
7
0
4%
3
3
57
%
37
T
o
t
a
l
4
0
7
7
4
0
0
3
3
8
En
t
e
r
F
r
o
m
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
%
1
0
0
%
5
.
0
%
9
5
.
0
%
De
m
a
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
%
1
0
0
%
1
.
7
%
9
8
.
3
%
Ex
i
t
t
o
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
0%
0
0%
0
De
m
a
n
d
De
m
a
n
d
0
0%
0
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
3%
2
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
De
m
a
n
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
De
m
a
n
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
20
00
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
12
%
85
2%
14
0%
0
0%
0
De
m
a
n
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
0%
0
De
m
a
n
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
0%
0
0
De
m
a
n
d
De
m
a
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
0
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
d
0%
0
0%
0
De
m
a
n
d
LA
N
D
U
S
E
C
H
o
t
e
l
0
%
0
De
m
a
n
d
LA
N
D
U
S
E
D
De
m
a
n
d
IT
E
L
U
C
o
d
e
31
0
IT
E
L
U
C
o
d
e
Si
z
e
2,
3
2
4
R
o
o
m
s
Si
z
e
De
m
a
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
Ex
i
t
t
o
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
To
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
0%
0
0
0%
0
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
En
t
e
r
F
r
o
m
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
68
3
E
n
t
e
r
7
1
1
2
7
0
9
En
t
e
r
0
0
0
0
Ex
i
t
6
8
3
0
6
8
3
Ex
i
t
0
0
0
70
9
T
o
t
a
l
1
,
3
9
4
2
1
,
3
9
2
0%
0
0
0%
0T
o
t
a
l
0
0
0
0
En
t
e
r
F
r
o
m
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
%
1
0
0
%
0
.
1
%
9
9
.
9
%
De
m
a
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
%
1
0
0
%
#
D
I
V
/
0
!
#
D
I
V
/
0
!
Ex
i
t
t
o
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
NE
T
E
X
T
E
R
N
A
L
T
R
I
P
S
F
O
R
M
U
L
T
I
-
U
S
E
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
TO
T
A
L
No
t
e
s
:
En
t
e
r
10
5
6
2
7
0
9
87
6
IN
T
E
R
N
A
L
C
A
P
T
U
R
E
So
u
r
c
e
:
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
(
I
T
E
)
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
H
a
n
d
b
o
o
k
,
1
0
t
h
E
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
2
0
1
7
.
Ex
i
t
65
3
3
8
6
8
3
1,
0
8
6
0
.
9
%
To
t
a
l
17
0
4
0
0
1
,
3
9
2
1,
9
6
2
(1
8
T
r
i
p
s
)
V
a
l
u
e
s
i
m
p
o
r
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
r
i
p
g
e
n
s
h
e
e
t
T
o
t
a
l
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
17
9
4
0
7
1
,
3
9
4
1,
9
8
0
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
I
T
E
Mu
l
t
i
Hi
g
h
-
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Of
f
i
c
e
Ho
t
e
l
Page 220 of 289
TA
B
L
E
C
-
3
Mi
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
%T
r
i
p
s
%
T
r
i
p
s
Mu
l
t
i
H
i
g
h
-
R
i
s
e
5
0
0
U
n
i
t
s
2
2
2
T=
0
.
2
8
(
X
)
+
1
2
.
8
6
15
3
2
4
%
37
76
%
11
6
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
3
8
3
K
S
F
-
G
L
A
7
1
0
T=
0
.
9
4
(
X
)
+
2
6
.
4
9
38
6
8
6
%
33
2
14
%
54
Ho
t
e
l
2
,
3
2
4
R
o
o
m
s
3
1
0
T=
0
.
5
0
(
X
)
-
5
.
3
4
1,
1
5
7
5
9
%
68
3
41
%
47
4
Gr
o
s
s
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
T
r
i
p
s
1
,
6
9
6
1,
0
5
2
6
4
4
In
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
0
.
5
%
8
53
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
T
r
i
p
s
a
f
t
e
r
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
1
,
6
8
8
6
2
%
1,
0
4
7
38
%
64
1
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l
P
e
r
s
o
n
T
r
i
p
s
(I
T
E
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
)
1.
2
(A
s
s
u
m
e
1
0
%
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
/
W
a
l
k
/
B
i
k
e
)
2,
2
5
1
1
,
3
9
6
8
5
5
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
T
r
i
p
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
6
.
0
%
3
6
0
6
2
%
2
2
3
3
8
%
1
3
7
Wa
l
k
/
B
i
k
e
T
r
i
p
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
3
1
.
0
%
6
9
8
6
2
%
4
3
3
3
8
%
2
6
5
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
T
r
i
p
s
1
,
1
9
3
7
4
0
4
5
3
NE
T
E
X
T
E
R
N
A
L
A
M
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
T
R
I
P
S
:
1.
5
(M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
V
e
h
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
)
79
5
6
2
%
4
9
3
3
8
%
3
0
2
NO
T
E
S
:
Tr
i
p
r
a
t
e
s
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
'
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
1
0
t
h
E
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
IT
E
T
r
i
p
R
a
t
e
s
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
m
a
i
n
l
y
o
n
s
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
/
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
A
1
.
2
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
&
1
0
%
tr
a
n
s
i
t
/
b
i
k
e
/
w
a
l
k
m
o
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
w
e
r
e
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
.
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
a
n
d
b
i
k
e
t
r
a
v
e
l
m
o
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
b
y
R
e
n
a
i
s
s
a
n
c
e
G
r
o
u
p
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
p
r
oj
e
c
t
.
Mi
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
v
e
h
c
i
l
e
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
f
a
c
t
o
r
i
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
b
y
R
e
n
a
i
s
s
a
n
c
e
G
r
o
u
p
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
AM
TR
I
P
S
IN
B
O
U
N
D
O
U
T
B
O
U
N
D
LA
N
D
U
S
E
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
U
N
I
T
S
LA
N
D
U
S
E
CO
D
E
IT
E
1
0
T
H
E
D
I
T
I
O
N
AM
T
R
I
P
G
E
N
R
A
T
E
Page 221 of 289
Fi
g
u
r
e
C
-
3
Mi
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
AM
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
t
r
i
x
An
a
l
y
s
t
FE
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
Da
t
e
05
/
2
1
/
1
8
Ti
m
e
P
e
r
i
o
d
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
LA
N
D
U
S
E
A
M
u
l
t
i
H
i
g
h
-
R
i
s
e
LA
N
D
U
S
E
B
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
IT
E
L
U
C
o
d
e
22
2
IT
E
L
U
C
o
d
e
71
0
Si
z
e
50
0
U
n
i
t
s
Si
z
e
38
3
K
S
F
-
G
L
A
De
m
a
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
Ex
i
t
t
o
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
To
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
0%
0
0
1%
1
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
En
t
e
r
F
r
o
m
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
11
4
E
n
t
e
r
3
7
0
3
7
En
t
e
r
3
3
2
4
3
2
8
3
2
8
Ex
i
t
1
1
6
2
1
1
4
Ex
i
t
5
4
0
5
4
37
T
o
t
a
l
1
5
3
2
1
5
1
2%
2
2
3%
10
T
o
t
a
l
3
8
6
4
3
8
2
5
4
En
t
e
r
F
r
o
m
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
%
1
0
0
%
1
.
3
%
9
8
.
7
%
De
m
a
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
%
1
0
0
%
1
.
0
%
9
9
.
0
%
Ex
i
t
t
o
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
0%
0
0%
0
De
m
a
n
d
De
m
a
n
d
0
3%
2
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
0%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
0
De
m
a
n
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
De
m
a
n
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
00
00
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
De
m
a
n
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
0%
0
De
m
a
n
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
0%
0
2
De
m
a
n
d
De
m
a
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
0
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
d
0%
0
0%
0
De
m
a
n
d
LA
N
D
U
S
E
C
H
o
t
e
l
7
5
%
35
6
De
m
a
n
d
LA
N
D
U
S
E
D
De
m
a
n
d
IT
E
L
U
C
o
d
e
31
0
IT
E
L
U
C
o
d
e
Si
z
e
2,
3
2
4
R
o
o
m
s
Si
z
e
De
m
a
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
Ex
i
t
t
o
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
To
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
0%
0
0
0%
0
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
En
t
e
r
F
r
o
m
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
47
2
E
n
t
e
r
6
8
3
0
6
8
3
En
t
e
r
0
0
0
0
Ex
i
t
4
7
4
2
4
7
2
Ex
i
t
0
0
0
68
3
T
o
t
a
l
1
,
1
5
7
2
1
,
1
5
5
0%
0
0
0%
0
T
o
t
a
l
0
0
0
0
En
t
e
r
F
r
o
m
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
%
1
0
0
%
0
.
2
%
9
9
.
8
%
De
m
a
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
%
1
0
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
Ex
i
t
t
o
E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
NE
T
E
X
T
E
R
N
A
L
T
R
I
P
S
F
O
R
M
U
L
T
I
-
U
S
E
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
TO
T
A
L
No
t
e
s
:
En
t
e
r
37
3
2
8
6
8
3
1,
0
4
8
IN
T
E
R
N
A
L
C
A
P
T
U
R
E
So
u
r
c
e
:
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
ta
t
i
o
n
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
(
I
T
E
)
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
H
a
n
d
b
o
o
k
,
1
0
t
h
E
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
2
0
1
7
.
Ex
i
t
11
4
5
4
4
7
2
64
0
0
.
5
%
To
t
a
l
15
1
3
8
2
1
,
1
5
5
1,
6
8
8
(8
T
r
i
p
s
)
V
a
l
u
e
s
i
m
p
o
r
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
r
i
p
g
e
n
s
h
e
e
t
To
t
a
l
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
15
3
3
8
6
1
,
1
5
7
1,
6
9
6
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
I
T
E
Mu
l
t
i
Hi
g
h
-
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Of
f
i
c
e
Ho
t
e
l
Page 222 of 289
ATTACHMENT D
Future Traffic Projections and Levels of Service
Page 223 of 289
FD
O
T
a
n
d
C
i
t
y
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
V
o
l
u
m
e
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
F
D
O
T
Q
/
L
O
S
2
0
1
3
Ci
t
y
A
d
o
p
t
e
d
M
S
V
(
L
O
S
D
+
2
0
%
)
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
F
U
T
U
R
E
M
S
V
La
n
e
s
L
a
n
e
s
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
A
d
o
p
t
e
d
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
F
u
t
u
r
e
F
D
O
T
L
O
S
D
F
D
O
T
L
O
S
D
No
.
R
o
a
d
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
Ex
F
u
t
u
r
e
J
u
r
i
s
d
S
p
e
e
d
A
d
j
u
s
t
L
O
S
D
a
i
l
y
2
-
W
a
y
P
k
D
i
r
D
a
i
l
y
2
-
W
a
y
P
k
D
i
r
D
ai
l
y
2
-
W
a
y
P
k
D
i
r
D
a
i
l
y
2
-
W
a
y
P
h
D
i
r
25
7
1
S
t
B
t
w
D
i
c
k
e
n
s
&
E
B
a
y
D
r
4L
D
4L
-
1
0
%
St
a
t
e
3
5
1
0
0
%
D
+
2
0
%
3
8
8
8
0
3
5
0
4
1
9
5
6
34
9
9
2
3
1
5
4
1
7
6
0
32
4
0
0
2
9
2
0
1
6
3
0
29160 2628 1467
26
7
1
S
t
B
t
w
C
o
ll
i
n
s
a
n
d
D
i
c
k
e
n
s
2L
U
2L
-
1
0
%
St
a
t
e
3
5
-
1
0
%
D
+
2
0
%
1
5
9
8
4
1
4
3
6
8
1
0
14
3
8
6
1
2
9
2
7
2
9
13
3
2
0
1
1
9
7
6
7
5
11988 1077 608
23
S
R
9
3
4
/
7
1
S
t
(
1
-
W
a
y
E
B
)
3L
-
1
W
2L
-
1
W
St
a
t
e
3
5
6
0
%
2
W
D
+
2
0
%
3
6
0
0
0
3
2
4
0
3
6
2
9
23
3
2
8
2
1
0
2
2
3
4
7
30
0
0
0
2
7
0
0
3
0
2
4
19440 1752 1956
24
S
R
9
3
4
/
N
o
r
m
a
n
d
y
D
r
(
W
B
)
3L
-
1
W
2L
-
1
W
St
a
t
e
3
5
6
0
%
2
W
D
+
2
0
%
3
6
0
0
0
3
2
4
0
3
6
2
9
23
3
2
8
2
1
0
2
2
3
4
7
30
0
0
0
2
7
0
0
3
0
2
4
19440 1752 1956
16
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
A
v
e
N
o
r
t
h
o
f
7
1
S
t
3L
-
1
W
2L
-
1
W
St
a
t
e
3
5
6
0
%
2
W
D
+
2
0
%
3
6
0
0
0
3
2
4
0
3
6
2
9
23
3
2
8
2
1
0
2
2
3
4
7
30
0
0
0
2
7
0
0
3
0
2
4
19440 1752 1956
12
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
A
v
e
S
o
u
t
h
o
f
7
1
S
t
3L
-
1
W
2L
-
1
W
St
a
t
e
3
5
6
0
%
2
W
D
+
2
0
%
3
6
0
0
0
3
2
4
0
3
6
2
9
23
3
2
8
2
1
0
2
2
3
4
7
30
0
0
0
2
7
0
0
3
0
2
4
19440 1752 1956
17
A
b
b
o
t
t
A
v
e
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
7
1
S
t
3L
-
1
W
2L
-
1
W
St
a
t
e
3
5
6
0
%
2
W
D
+
2
0
%
3
6
0
0
0
3
2
4
0
3
6
2
9
23
3
2
8
2
1
0
2
2
3
4
7
30
0
0
0
2
7
0
0
3
0
2
4
19440 1752 1956
15
I
n
d
i
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
S
o
u
t
h
o
f
7
1
S
t
4L
U
4L
-
1
0
%
Ci
t
y
3
5
-
3
5
%
D
+
2
0
%
2
5
2
7
2
2
2
7
8
1
2
7
2
22
7
4
5
2
0
5
0
1
1
4
5
21
0
6
0
1
8
9
8
1
0
6
0
18954 1708 954
Pa
g
e
2
2
4
o
f
2
8
9
TA
B
L
E
D
-
1
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
L
I
N
K
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
-
F
D
O
T
C
O
U
N
T
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
S
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
D
I
R
L
a
n
e
s
F
r
o
m
To
Cla
s
s
i
f
.
Le
f
t
Tu
r
n
la
n
e
?
Rig
h
t
Tu
r
n
La
n
e
?
Da
t
So
u
r
c
e
FD
O
T
Co
u
n
t
St
a
t
i
o
n
20
1
7
AA
D
T
FD
O
T
MS
V
LO
S
D
FD
O
T
MS
V
LO
S
E
MS
V
D+
2
0
%
2017 LOS2040 AADT LRTP2040 LOS
1
S
R
9
3
4
/
N
o
r
m
a
n
d
y
D
r
W
B
3
N
o
r
t
h
B
a
y
C
s
w
y
B
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
M
i
n
o
r
N
o
N
o
F
D
O
T
8
7
0
1
1
5
2
1
,
0
0
0
2
6
,
5
2
0
3
3
,
7
2
0
3
1
,
8
2
4
D
2
1
,
8
9
4
D
2
S
R
9
3
4
/
7
1
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
B
3
N
o
r
t
h
B
a
y
C
s
w
y
B
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
M
i
n
o
r
N
o
N
o
F
D
O
T
8
7
5
1
9
1
1
7
,
0
0
0
2
6
,
5
2
0
3
3
,
7
2
0
3
1
,
8
2
4
D
1
6
,
9
3
8
D
3
S
R
9
3
4
/
7
1
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
2
-
W
a
y
2
I
n
d
i
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
A
v
e
M
i
n
o
r
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
F
D
O
T
8
7
5
1
8
9
1
0
,
8
0
0
4
,
2
0
0
1
4
,
3
0
0
5
,
0
4
0
E 7,758 E
4
S
R
A
1
A
/
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
A
v
e
N
B
3
8
7
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
8
9
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
i
no
r
Y
e
s
N
o
F
D
O
T
8
7
0
2
5
21
,
0
0
0
2
6
,
5
2
0
3
3
,
7
2
0
3
1
,
8
2
4
D
3
1
,
3
6
9
E
5
S
R
A
1
A
/
H
a
r
d
i
n
g
A
v
e
S
B
3
8
7
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
8
9
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
i
n
o
r
Y
e
s
N
o
F
D
O
T
8
7
0
5
2
0
2
4
,
5
0
0
2
6
,
5
2
0
3
3
,
7
2
0
3
1
,
8
2
4
D
3
1
,
2
2
8
E
6
S
R
A
1
A
/
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
A
v
e
N
B
3
I
n
d
i
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
6
3
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
i
n
o
r
Y
e
s
N
o
F
D
O
T
8
7
2
5
4
1
1
8
,
0
0
0
2
6
,
5
2
0
3
3
,
7
2
0
3
1
,
8
2
4
D
1
6
,
7
2
9
D
No
t
e
:
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
M
S
V
)
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
F
D
O
T
2
0
1
8
Q
L
O
S
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
Pa
g
e
2
2
5
o
f
2
8
9
TA
B
L
E
D
-
2
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
L
I
N
K
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
B
A
S
E
D
O
N
P
E
A
K
H
O
U
R
V
O
L
U
M
E
S
O
B
T
A
I
N
E
D
F
R
O
M
F
R
O
M
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
S
T
U
D
I
E
S
AM
P
M
A
M
P
M
A
M
P
M
A
M
P
M
1
71
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
B
3
N
o
r
m
a
n
d
y
I
s
l
e
s
I
n
d
i
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
i
v
e
M
i
n
o
r
Y
e
s
*
Y
e
s
*
Kim
l
e
y
-
H
o
r
n
6/2
7
&
7
/
1
1
2
0
1
7
1
,
5
0
8
1
,
2
5
7
1
.
0
0
5
1
,
5
1
6
1
,
2
6
3
2
,
1
9
0
2
,
7
8
0
1
.
0
0
1
.
2
0
3
,
3
3
6
0
.
4
5
0
.
3
8
C
c
WB
2
I
n
d
i
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
i
v
e
N
o
r
m
a
n
d
y
I
s
l
e
s
M
i
n
o
r
Y
e
s
N
o
NO
B
E
S
t
u
d
y
6/2
7
&
7
/
1
1
2
0
1
7
1
,
1
1
0
2
,
0
3
4
1
.
0
0
5
1
,
1
1
6
2
,
0
4
4
1
,
3
9
0
1
,
8
4
0
1
.
0
0
1
.
2
0
2
,
2
0
8
0
.
5
1
0
.
9
3
C
E
+
2
0
2
71
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
B
1
I
n
d
i
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
i
v
e
B
y
r
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
n
o
r
Y
e
s
N
o
Kim
l
e
y
-
H
o
r
n
6/2
7
&
7
/
1
1
2
0
1
7
5
3
1
5
5
8
1
.
0
0
5
5
3
4
5
6
1
2
1
0
7
1
0
1
.
0
0
1
.
2
0
8
5
2
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
6
E
E
WB
2
B
y
r
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
I
n
d
i
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
i
v
e
M
i
n
o
r
N
o
N
o
NO
B
E
S
t
u
d
y
6/2
7
&
7
/
1
1
2
0
1
7
4
8
0
8
1
4
1
.
0
0
5
4
8
2
8
1
8
2
1
0
1
,
8
4
0
0
.
7
5
1
.
2
0
1
,
6
5
6
0
.
2
9
0
.
4
9
E
E
3
71
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
B
1
B
y
r
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
R
A
1
A
/
A
b
b
o
t
t
A
v
e
M
i
n
o
r
N
o
Y
e
s
Kim
l
e
y
-
H
o
r
n
6/2
7
&
7
/
1
1
2
0
1
7
4
2
0
3
6
9
1
.
0
0
5
4
2
2
3
7
1
2
1
0
7
1
0
1
.
0
0
1
.
2
0
8
5
2
0
.
5
0
0
.
4
4
E
E
WB
1
S
R
A
1
A
/
A
b
b
o
t
t
A
v
e
B
y
r
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
n
o
r
Y
e
s
N
o
NO
B
E
S
t
u
d
y
6/2
7
&
7
/
1
1
2
0
1
7
4
1
8
7
1
6
1
.
0
0
5
4
2
0
7
2
0
2
1
0
7
1
0
1
.
0
0
1
.
2
0
8
5
2
0
.
4
9
0
.
8
5
E
E
+
2
0
3A
71
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
B
1
S
R
A
1
A
/
A
b
b
o
t
t
A
v
e
S
R
A
1
A
/
A
b
b
o
t
t
A
v
e
M
i
n
o
r
N
o
Y
e
s
FD
O
T
6/6
-
8
/
2
0
1
7
(
#
5
1
8
9
)
3
5
1
3
4
6
1
.
0
0
5
3
5
3
3
4
8
2
1
0
7
1
0
1
.
0
0
1
.
2
0
8
5
2
0
.
4
1
0
.
4
1
E
E
WB
1
S
R
A
1
A
/
A
b
b
o
t
t
A
v
e
S
R
A
1
A
/
A
b
b
o
t
t
A
v
e
M
i
n
o
r
Y
e
s
N
o
Sy
n
o
p
s
i
s
6/6
-
8
/
2
0
1
7
(
#
5
1
8
9
)
2
9
0
4
2
1
1
.
0
0
5
2
9
2
4
2
3
2
1
0
7
1
0
1
.
0
0
1
.
2
0
8
5
2
0
.
3
4
0
.
5
0
E
E
4
71
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
B
1
S
R
A
1
A
/
A
b
b
o
t
t
A
v
e
H
a
r
d
i
n
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
n
o
r
Y
e
s
N
o
Kim
l
e
y
-
H
o
r
n
6/2
7
&
7
/
1
1
2
0
1
7
3
5
9
7
2
3
1
.
0
0
5
3
6
1
7
2
7
2
1
0
7
1
0
1
.
0
0
1
.
2
0
8
5
2
0
.
4
2
0
.
8
5
E
E
+
2
0
WB
1
H
a
r
d
i
n
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
R
A
1
A
/
A
b
b
o
t
t
A
v
e
M
i
n
o
r
Y
e
s
N
o
NO
B
E
S
t
u
d
y
6/2
7
&
7
/
1
1
2
0
1
7
2
1
8
3
5
0
1
.
0
0
5
2
1
9
3
5
2
2
1
0
7
1
0
1
.
0
0
1
.
2
0
8
5
2
0
.
2
6
0
.
4
1
E
E
5
71
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
B
1
H
a
r
d
i
n
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
R
A
1
A
/
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
A
v
e
M
i
n
o
r
Y
e
s
N
o
Kim
l
e
y
-
H
o
r
n
6/2
7
&
7
/
1
1
2
0
1
7
3
0
0
3
3
0
1
.
0
0
5
3
0
2
3
3
2
2
1
0
7
1
0
1
.
0
0
1
.
2
0
8
5
2
0
.
3
5
0
.
3
9
E
E
WB
1
S
R
A
1
A
/
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
A
v
e
H
a
r
d
i
n
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
M
i
n
o
r
Y
e
s
N
o
NO
B
E
S
t
u
d
y
6/2
7
&
7
/
1
1
2
0
1
7
1
8
8
2
6
3
1
.
0
0
5
1
8
9
2
6
4
2
1
0
7
1
0
1
.
0
0
1
.
2
0
8
5
2
0
.
2
2
0
.
3
1
D
E
6
SR
A
1
A
/
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
N
B
3
6
9
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
7
1
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
i
n
o
r
Y
e
s
N
o
K
i
m
l
e
y
-
H
o
r
n
6
/
2
7
&
7
/
1
1
2
0
1
7
1
,
1
6
4
2
,
2
6
9
1
.
0
0
5
1
,
1
7
0
2
,
2
8
0
2
,
1
9
0
2
,
7
8
0
1
.
2
0
1
.
2
0
4
,
0
03 0.29 0.57 D E
7
SR
A
1
A
/
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
N
B
3
7
1
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
7
2
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
i
n
o
r
N
o
N
o
K
i
m
l
e
y
-
H
o
r
n
6
/
2
7
&
7
/
1
1
2
0
1
7
1
,
3
0
2
2
,
3
5
6
1
.
0
0
5
1
,
3
0
9
2
,
3
6
8
2
,
1
9
0
2
,
7
8
0
1
.
2
0
1
.
2
0
4
,
0
0
3 0.33 0.59 D E
8
SR
A
1
A
/
A
b
b
o
t
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
B
3
7
2
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
7
1
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
i
n
o
r
N
o
Y
e
s
K
i
m
l
e
y
-
H
o
r
n
6
/
2
7
&
7
/
1
1
2
0
1
7
2
,
3
4
9
1
,
9
8
7
1
.
0
0
5
2
,
3
6
1
1
,
9
9
7
2
,
1
9
0
2
,
7
8
0
1
.
2
0
1
.
2
0
4
,
0
0
3 0.59 0.50 E D
9
SR
A
1
A
/
A
b
b
o
t
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
B
3
7
1
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
6
9
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
i
n
o
r
N
o
N
o
K
i
m
l
e
y
-
H
o
r
n
6
/
2
7
&
7
/
1
1
2
0
1
7
2
,
2
1
8
1
,
6
2
8
1
.
0
0
5
2
,
2
2
9
1
,
6
3
6
2
,
1
9
0
2
,
7
8
0
1
.
2
0
1
.
2
0
4
,
0
0
3
0.56 0.41 E D
10
SR
A
1
A
/
A
b
b
o
t
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
B
3
6
9
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
o
u
t
h
o
f
6
9
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
i
n
o
r
N
o
N
o
K
i
m
l
e
y
-
H
o
r
n
6
/
2
7
&
7
/
1
1
2
0
1
7
2
,
3
9
0
1
,
7
9
6
1
.
0
0
5
2
,
4
0
2
1
,
8
0
5
2
,
1
9
0
2
,
7
8
0
1
.
2
0
1.20 4,003 0.60 0.45 E D
NO
T
E
S
:
(1
)
M
i
n
o
r
(
1
S
i
g
n
a
l
p
e
r
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
m
i
l
e
)
-
-
T
a
b
l
e
7
,
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
i
z
e
d
P
e
a
k
-
H
o
u
r
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
f
o
r
F
l
o
r
i
d
a
'
s
U
r
b
a
n
i
z
e
d
A
r
e
a
s
,
2
0
1
8
FD
O
T
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
/
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
H
a
n
d
b
o
o
k
T
a
b
l
e
s
.
(2
)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
l
a
n
e
s
a
t
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
.
(3
)
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
M
e
d
i
a
n
a
n
d
T
u
r
n
L
a
n
e
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
-
-
T
a
b
l
e
7
,
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
i
z
e
d
P
e
a
k
-
H
o
u
r
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
f
o
r
F
l
o
r
i
d
a
'
s U
r
b
a
n
i
z
e
d
A
r
e
a
s
,
2
0
1
8
F
D
O
T
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
/
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
H
a
n
d
b
o
o
k
T
a
b
l
e
s
.
(4
)
7
1
N
O
B
E
,
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
,
F
l
o
r
i
d
a
,
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
K
i
m
l
e
y
-
H
o
r
n
a
n
d
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
,
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
8
.
(5
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
2
0
1
8
F
D
O
T
F
l
o
r
i
d
a
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
O
n
l
i
n
e
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
(6
)
A
s
s
u
m
e
d
g
r
o
w
t
h
r
a
t
e
o
f
0
.
5
%
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
.
(7
)
M
e
d
i
a
n
a
n
d
T
u
r
n
L
a
n
e
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
-
-
T
a
b
l
e
7
,
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
i
z
e
d
P
e
a
k
-
H
o
u
r
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
f
o
r
F
l
o
r
i
d
a
'
s
U
r
b
a
n
i
z
e
d
A
r
e
a
s
,
2
0
1
8
F
D
O
T
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
/
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
H
a
n
d
b
o
o
k
T
a
b
l
e
s
.
(8
)
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
S
u
b
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
,
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
T
C
-
1
B
,
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
,
M
i
a
m
i
-
D
a
d
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
pm
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
,
D
e
c
.
4
,
2
0
1
3
.
20
1
8
Gro
w
t
h
Fa
c
t
o
r
(6
)
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
DIR
20
1
8
No
.
La
n
e
s
(1
)
Fr
o
m
T
o
FD
O
T
S
t
a
t
e
Sig
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
Art
e
r
i
a
l
Cla
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
Pla
n
n
i
n
g
L
O
S
(2
)
Ex
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
LT
L
a
n
e
(3
)
Ex
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
RT
L
a
n
e
(3
)
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Co
u
n
t
So
u
r
c
e
(4
)
Co
u
n
t
D
a
t
e
Ba
s
e
2
0
1
7
P
e
a
k
-
Ho
u
r
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
Vo
l
u
m
e
2018 Peak Hour v/c2018 Peak-Hour LOS
20
1
8
P
e
a
k
-
H
o
u
r
Dir
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
Vo
l
u
m
e
Ba
s
e
FD
O
T
M
S
V
LO
S
D
(7
)
Ba
s
e
FD
O
T
M
S
V
LO
S
E
(
7
)
On
e
-
W
a
y
an
d
/
o
r
M
e
d
i
a
n
or
T
u
r
n
L
a
n
e
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
Fa
c
t
o
r
(
7
)
LO
S
E
+
2
0
%
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
(M
-
D
C
o
m
p
Plan) (8)Adjusted Peak-Hour Directional MSV (LOS E+20) (7)
Pa
g
e
2
2
6
o
f
2
8
9
ATTACHMENT E
Multimodal Accessibility Analysis Model Development
Presentation
Page 227 of 289
MA
Y
3
,
2
0
1
8
TO
W
N
C
E
N
T
E
R
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
Pa
g
e
2
2
8
o
f
2
8
9
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
Mo
d
e
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Mo
d
e
l
c
a
l
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
m
o
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
Fo
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
PR
E
S
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
Pa
g
e
2
2
9
o
f
2
8
9
1
Ne
x
t
S
t
e
p
s
OV
E
R
V
I
E
W
A
N
D
A
P
P
R
O
A
C
H
3
Pa
g
e
2
3
0
o
f
2
8
9
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
Mi
x
e
d
u
s
e
Ol
d
e
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
t
o
c
k
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
F
A
R
u
p
t
o
3
.
5
)
Mi
x
e
d
u
s
e
Mu
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
Cr
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
w
a
l
k
a
b
l
e
p
l
a
c
e
Su
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
b
y
b
i
k
e
a
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
NO
R
T
H
B
E
A
C
H
T
O
W
N
C
E
N
T
E
R
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
Pa
g
e
2
3
1
o
f
2
8
9
Mu
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Bi
k
e
p
a
t
h
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Mu
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
-
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
v
e
u
r
b
a
n
f
o
r
m
Hi
g
h
e
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
Mi
x
o
f
u
s
e
s
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
o
f
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
w
a
l
k
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mu
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Fo
c
u
s
o
n
r
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
m
o
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
t
a
r
g
e
t
s
MU
L
T
I
M
O
D
A
L
O
U
T
C
O
M
E
S
5
Pa
g
e
2
3
2
o
f
2
8
9
1.
C
o
d
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
y
e
a
r
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Mu
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
Mu
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
u
r
b
a
n
f
o
r
m
2.
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
o
d
e
l
MD
O
T
m
o
d
e
l
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
b
y
m
o
d
e
a
n
d
t
r
i
p
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
3.
C
a
l
i
b
r
a
t
e
H
B
W
a
n
d
N
W
m
o
d
e
l
s
a
n
d
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
m
o
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
s
1.
T
a
r
g
e
t
s
b
y
m
o
d
e
a
n
d
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
2.
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
4.
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
p
e
r
s
o
n
t
r
i
p
s
b
y
m
o
d
e
1.
M
o
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
s
h
i
f
t
s
b
y
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
2.
P
e
r
s
o
n
t
r
i
p
s
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
b
y
m
o
d
e
a
n
d
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
MO
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
M
E
T
H
O
D
O
L
O
G
Y
Pa
g
e
2
3
3
o
f
2
8
9
1
Ne
x
t
S
t
e
p
s
FU
T
U
R
E
Y
E
A
R
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
7
1 3.
1
Pa
g
e
2
3
4
o
f
2
8
9
Ne
x
t
S
t
e
p
s
79
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
C
a
u
s
e
w
a
y
B
E
R
T
Ad
d
e
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
(
1
0
m
i
n
u
t
e
h
e
a
d
w
a
y
)
Ba
y
L
i
n
k
Ad
d
e
d
r
o
u
t
e
a
s
p
e
r
l
a
t
e
s
t
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
(
5
mi
n
u
t
e
h
e
a
d
w
a
y
s
)
LR
T
C
o
l
l
i
n
s
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
t
o
6
9
th
ad
d
e
d
,
s
a
m
e
h
e
a
d
w
a
y
a
s
B
a
y
L
i
n
k
Ex
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
l
a
n
e
s
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
t
r
a
v
e
l
t
i
m
e
1
0
%
u
p
t
o
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
.
Bi
k
e
a
n
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
MU
L
T
I
M
O
D
A
L
S
T
R
A
T
E
G
E
S
–
F
U
T
U
R
E
I
N
V
E
S
T
M
E
N
T
S
8
Pa
g
e
2
3
5
o
f
2
8
9
Gr
o
w
t
h
20
1
7
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
•
1
,
3
3
6
j
o
b
s
•
7
9
8
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
Ad
d
e
d
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
2
0
4
0
)
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
C
i
t
y
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
•
5
0
0
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
•
6
3
8
j
o
b
s
•
3
8
2
,
5
5
4
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
F
o
f
o
f
f
i
c
e
s
p
a
c
e
•
6
0
0
S
F
p
e
r
j
o
b
•
4
,
6
4
8
h
o
t
e
l
j
o
b
s
•
2
,
3
2
4
h
o
t
e
l
r
o
o
m
s
•
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
2
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
p
e
r
r
o
o
m
MU
L
T
I
M
O
D
A
L
U
R
B
A
N
F
O
R
M
–
F
U
T
U
R
E
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
I
E
S
9
Pa
g
e
2
3
6
o
f
2
8
9
Gr
o
w
t
h
MU
L
T
I
M
O
D
A
L
U
R
B
A
N
F
O
R
M
–
F
U
T
U
R
E
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
I
E
S
10
20
1
7
J
o
b
s
Ad
d
e
d
j
o
b
s
f
r
o
m
F
A
R
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
Pa
g
e
2
3
7
o
f
2
8
9
1
Ne
x
t
S
t
e
p
s
MO
D
E
L
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
11
3.
2
Pa
g
e
2
3
8
o
f
2
8
9
Mu
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
d
e
c
a
y
e
d
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
a
c
h
a
b
l
e
j
o
b
s
)
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
Ho
m
e
b
a
s
e
d
w
o
r
k
(
H
B
W
)
No
n
-
w
o
r
k
(
N
W
)
(
h
o
m
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
t
h
e
r
a
n
d
n
o
n
-
h
o
m
e
b
a
s
e
d
)
Mo
d
e
Au
t
o
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
No
n
-
m
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
(
b
i
k
e
a
n
d
w
a
l
k
)
Ne
s
t
e
d
l
o
g
i
t
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
No
n
-
m
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
t
r
i
p
s
a
t
t
o
p
o
f
n
e
s
t
Au
t
o
v
e
r
s
u
s
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
t
r
i
p
s
s
e
c
o
n
d
n
e
s
t
MO
D
E
L
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
Pa
g
e
2
3
9
o
f
2
8
9
MU
L
T
I
M
O
D
A
L
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
13
Or
i
g
i
n
10
0
2
Origin
10
0
100
Ba
s
e
B.
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
Or
i
g
i
n
10
0
A.
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
h
a
n
g
e
Sc
o
r
e
i
s
t
o
t
a
l
t
i
m
e
-
d
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
e
d
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
a
c
h
a
b
l
e
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
Sc
o
r
e
c
a
n
b
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
w
i
t
h
e
i
t
h
e
r
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
Pa
g
e
2
4
0
o
f
2
8
9
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
HB
W
A
U
T
O
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
T
O
J
O
B
S
2
0
1
7
14
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
Ci
t
y
o
f
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
20
1
7
a
u
t
o
s
c
o
r
e
ra
n
g
e
:
50
0
K
t
o
6
5
0
K
Pa
g
e
2
4
1
o
f
2
8
9
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
HB
W
A
U
T
O
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
T
O
J
O
B
S
2
0
4
0
15
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
Ci
t
y
o
f
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
20
4
0
a
u
t
o
sc
o
r
e
r
a
n
g
e
:
65
0
K
t
o
1
,
0
0
0
K
30
%
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
20
1
7
a
u
t
o
s
c
o
r
e
ra
n
g
e
:
50
0
K
t
o
6
5
0
K
Pa
g
e
2
4
2
o
f
2
8
9
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
HB
W
T
R
A
N
S
I
T
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
T
O
J
O
B
S
2
0
1
7
16
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
Ci
t
y
o
f
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
20
1
7
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
s
c
o
r
e
ra
n
g
e
:
40
K
t
o
6
0
K
(a
r
o
u
n
d
1
0
%
)
20
1
7
a
u
t
o
s
c
o
r
e
ra
n
g
e
:
50
0
K
t
o
6
5
0
K
Pa
g
e
2
4
3
o
f
2
8
9
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
HB
W
T
R
A
N
S
I
T
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
T
O
J
O
B
S
2
0
4
0
17
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
Ci
t
y
o
f
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
20
4
0
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
s
c
o
r
e
ra
n
g
e
:
60
K
t
o
1
0
0
K
70
%
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
20
1
7
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
s
c
o
r
e
ra
n
g
e
:
40
K
t
o
6
0
K
Pa
g
e
2
4
4
o
f
2
8
9
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
HB
W
B
I
C
Y
C
L
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
T
O
J
O
B
S
2
0
1
7
18
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
Ci
t
y
o
f
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
20
1
7
b
i
k
e
s
c
o
r
e
ra
n
g
e
:
17
K
t
o
2
0
K
(a
r
o
u
n
d
3
%
)
20
1
7
a
u
t
o
s
c
o
r
e
ra
n
g
e
:
50
0
K
t
o
6
5
0
K
Pa
g
e
2
4
5
o
f
2
8
9
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
HB
W
B
I
C
Y
C
L
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
T
O
J
O
B
S
2
0
4
0
19
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
Ci
t
y
o
f
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
20
4
0
b
i
k
e
s
c
o
r
e
ra
n
g
e
:
27
K
t
o
5
7
K
70
%
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
20
1
7
b
i
k
e
s
c
o
r
e
ra
n
g
e
:
17
K
t
o
2
0
K
Pa
g
e
2
4
6
o
f
2
8
9
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
HB
W
W
A
L
K
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
T
O
J
O
B
S
2
0
1
7
20
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
Ci
t
y
o
f
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
20
1
7
a
u
t
o
s
c
o
r
e
ra
n
g
e
:
50
0
K
t
o
6
5
0
K
20
1
7
w
a
l
k
s
c
o
r
e
ra
n
g
e
:
3K
t
o
6
K
(a
r
o
u
n
d
1
%
)
Pa
g
e
2
4
7
o
f
2
8
9
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
HB
W
W
A
L
K
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
T
O
J
O
B
S
2
0
4
0
21
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
Ci
t
y
o
f
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
20
4
0
w
a
l
k
s
c
o
r
e
ra
n
g
e
:
6K
t
o
1
3
K
10
0
%
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
20
1
7
w
a
l
k
s
c
o
r
e
ra
n
g
e
:
3K
t
o
6
K
Pa
g
e
2
4
8
o
f
2
8
9
1
Ne
x
t
S
t
e
p
s
HB
W
M
O
D
E
L
C
A
L
I
B
R
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
22
3.
3
A
Pa
g
e
2
4
9
o
f
2
8
9
Gr
o
w
t
h
HB
W
M
O
D
E
L
V
E
R
S
U
S
M
A
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
S
23
Ar
e
a
Ob
s
e
r
v
e
d
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Au
t
o
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
N
o
n
‐
M
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
A
u
t
o
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
N
o
n
‐
M
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
No
r
t
h
71
.
3
%
2
0
.
5
%
8
.
3
%
7
4
.
9
%
1
4
.
1
%
1
1
.
0
%
Mi
d
d
l
e
86
.
0
%
6
.
9
%
7
.
1
%
7
9
.
6
%
1
0
.
0
%
1
0
.
4
%
So
u
t
h
57
.
0
%
1
0
.
5
%
3
2
.
5
%
5
5
.
9
%
1
3
.
4
%
3
0
.
7
%
Ci
t
y
‐
w
i
d
e
68
.
5
%
1
2
.
0
%
1
9
.
5
%
6
7
.
8
%
1
2
.
7
%
1
9
.
5
%
•
O
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
c
i
t
y
-
w
i
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
s
f
r
o
m
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
•
O
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
h
a
r
e
s
f
r
o
m
b
l
o
c
k
g
r
o
u
p
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
ca
n
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
u
r
v
e
y
(
A
C
S
)
Pa
g
e
2
5
0
o
f
2
8
9
Mo
d
e
S
h
a
r
e
HB
W
A
U
T
O
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
2
0
1
7
24
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
Ci
t
y
o
f
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
20
1
7
a
u
t
o
s
h
a
r
e
60
t
o
8
0
%
Pa
g
e
2
5
1
o
f
2
8
9
HB
W
A
U
T
O
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
2
0
4
0
25
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
Ci
t
y
o
f
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
20
4
0
a
u
t
o
s
h
a
r
e
50
t
o
7
0
%
Pa
g
e
2
5
2
o
f
2
8
9
HB
W
T
R
A
N
S
I
T
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
2
0
1
7
26
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
Ci
t
y
o
f
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
20
1
7
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
s
h
a
r
e
12
t
o
1
4
%
Pa
g
e
2
5
3
o
f
2
8
9
Mo
d
e
S
h
a
r
e
HB
W
T
R
A
N
S
I
T
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
2
0
4
0
27
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
Ci
t
y
o
f
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
20
1
7
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
s
h
a
r
e
18
+
%
Pa
g
e
2
5
4
o
f
2
8
9
Mo
d
e
S
h
a
r
e
HB
W
N
O
N
-
M
O
T
O
R
I
Z
E
D
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
2
0
1
7
28
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
Ci
t
y
o
f
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
20
1
7
w
a
l
k
/
b
i
k
e
sh
a
r
e
11
t
o
1
5
%
Pa
g
e
2
5
5
o
f
2
8
9
Mo
d
e
S
h
a
r
e
HB
W
N
O
N
-
M
O
T
O
R
I
Z
E
D
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
2
0
4
0
29
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
Ci
t
y
o
f
M
i
a
m
i
B
e
a
c
h
20
4
0
w
a
l
k
/
b
i
k
e
sh
a
r
e
16
t
o
2
0
%
Pa
g
e
2
5
6
o
f
2
8
9
Gr
o
w
t
h
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
H
B
W
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
S
2
0
1
7
A
N
D
2
0
4
0
30
Ar
e
a
20
1
7
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
2
0
4
0
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Au
t
o
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
N
o
n
‐
M
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
A
u
t
o
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
N
o
n
‐
M
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
No
r
t
h
74
.
9
%
1
4
.
1
%
1
1
.
0
%
6
7
.
2
%
1
5
.
3
%
1
7
.
5
%
Mi
d
d
l
e
79
.
6
%
1
0
.
0
%
1
0
.
4
%
7
4
.
9
%
1
2
.
1
%
1
3
.
0
%
So
u
t
h
55
.
9
%
1
3
.
4
%
3
0
.
7
%
5
2
.
1
%
1
6
.
2
%
3
1
.
6
%
Ci
t
y
‐
w
i
d
e
67
.
8
%
1
2
.
7
%
1
9
.
5
%
6
2
.
7
%
1
4
.
9
%
2
2
.
5
%
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
55
%
2
0
%
2
5
%
Pa
g
e
2
5
7
o
f
2
8
9
1
Ne
x
t
S
t
e
p
s
NO
N
-
W
O
R
K
M
O
D
E
L
C
A
L
I
B
R
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
31
3.
3
B
Pa
g
e
2
5
8
o
f
2
8
9
Gr
o
w
t
h
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
2
0
1
7
N
O
N
-
W
O
R
K
(
N
W
)
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
32
Ar
e
a
Ta
r
g
e
t
s
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Au
t
o
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
N
o
n
-
M
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
A
u
t
o
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
N
o
n
-
M
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
No
r
t
h
69
.
8
%
1
3
.
6
%
1
6
.
5
%
7
3
.
9
%
2
.
7
%
2
3
.
4
%
Mi
d
d
l
e
81
.
2
%
4
.
6
%
1
4
.
2
%
7
0
.
4
%
1
.
4
%
2
8
.
1
%
So
u
t
h
28
.
0
%
7
.
0
%
6
5
.
0
%
4
1
.
3
%
2
.
4
%
5
6
.
3
%
Ci
t
y
-
w
i
d
e
54
.
5
%
8
.
3
%
3
7
.
2
%
5
8
.
6
%
2
.
2
%
3
9
.
2
%
•
M
o
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
t
a
r
g
e
t
s
f
o
r
N
o
n
-
W
o
r
k
(
N
W
)
t
r
i
p
s
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
H
o
m
e
B
a
s
e
d
W
o
r
k
an
d
N
W
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
f
o
u
n
d
i
n
t
he
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
T
r
a
v
e
l
S
u
r
ve
y
(
N
H
T
S
)
•
T
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
u
r
v
e
y
(
A
C
S
)
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
m
o
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
b
y
C
e
n
su
s
B
l
o
c
k
G
r
o
u
p
s
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
H
B
W
tr
i
p
s
.
N
H
T
S
i
s
n
o
t
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
b
y
C
e
n
s
u
s
B
l
o
c
k
G
r
o
u
p
s
•
K
e
y
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
•
N
o
n
-
m
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
m
o
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
f
o
r
N
W
i
s
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
d
o
u
b
l
e
H
B
W
i
n
t
h
e
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
d
e
d
a
t
a
s
e
t
•
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
m
o
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
f
o
r
N
W
i
s
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
h
a
l
f
o
f
H
B
W
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
m
o
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
i
n
t
h
e
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
d
e
da
t
a
s
e
t
Pa
g
e
2
5
9
o
f
2
8
9
Gr
o
w
t
h
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
2
0
1
7
N
O
N
-
W
O
R
K
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
33
•
N
W
m
o
d
e
l
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
:
•
S
l
i
g
h
t
l
y
o
v
e
r
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
a
u
t
o
s
h
a
r
e
s
a
c
r
o
s
s
c
i
t
y
,
l
a
c
k
s
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
it
y
a
m
o
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
•
N
o
t
i
c
e
a
b
l
y
u
n
d
e
r
-
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
s
h
a
r
e
s
a
c
r
o
s
s
a
l
l
a
r
e
a
s
•
S
l
i
g
h
t
o
v
e
r
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
n
o
n
-
m
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
s
h
a
r
e
s
,
l
a
c
k
s
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y
a
mo
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
•
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
H
B
W
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
m
o
d
e
l
)
:
•
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
s
h
a
r
e
s
i
n
s
t
u
d
y
a
r
e
a
t
o
1
0
%
•
R
e
d
u
c
e
a
u
t
o
s
h
a
r
e
s
b
y
5
%
a
n
d
w
a
l
k
s
h
a
r
e
s
b
y
2
%
•
Fi
n
a
l
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
t
a
r
g
e
t
s
:
a
u
t
o
6
9
%
,
t
r
a
n
s
it
1
0
%
,
n
o
n
-
m
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
2
1
%
Ar
e
a
Ta
r
g
e
t
s
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Au
t
o
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
N
o
n
-
M
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
A
u
t
o
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
N
o
n
-
M
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
No
r
t
h
69
.
8
%
1
3
.
6
%
1
6
.
5
%
7
3
.
9
%
2
.
7
%
2
3
.
4
%
Mi
d
d
l
e
81
.
2
%
4
.
6
%
1
4
.
2
%
7
0
.
4
%
1
.
4
%
2
8
.
1
%
So
u
t
h
28
.
0
%
7
.
0
%
6
5
.
0
%
4
1
.
3
%
2
.
4
%
5
6
.
3
%
Ci
t
y
-
w
i
d
e
54
.
5
%
8
.
3
%
3
7
.
2
%
5
8
.
6
%
2
.
2
%
3
9
.
2
%
Pa
g
e
2
6
0
o
f
2
8
9
Gr
o
w
t
h
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
2
0
1
7
A
N
D
2
0
4
0
N
O
N
-
W
O
R
K
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
34
Ar
e
a
20
1
7
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
2
0
4
0
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Au
t
o
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
N
o
n
‐
M
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
A
u
t
o
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
N
o
n
‐
M
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
No
r
t
h
73
.
9
%
2
.
7
%
2
3
.
4
%
69
.
1
%
3
.
6
%
2
7
.
3
%
Mi
d
d
l
e
70
.
4
%
1
.
4
%
2
8
.
1
%
57
.
4
%
2
.
3
%
4
0
.
4
%
So
u
t
h
41
.
3
%
2
.
4
%
5
6
.
3
%
28
.
8
%
3
.
0
%
6
8
.
2
%
Ci
t
y
‐
w
i
d
e
58
.
6
%
2
.
2
%
3
9
.
2
%
48
.
2
%
3
.
0
%
4
8
.
8
%
Ar
e
a
20
4
0
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
Au
t
o
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
N
o
n
‐
M
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
53
%
1
6
%
3 1 %
•
20
4
0
N
o
n
‐
W
o
r
k
M
o
d
e
S
h
a
r
e
s
w
e
r
e
ad
j
u
s
t
e
d
t
o
p
i
v
o
t
f
r
o
m
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
m
o
d
e
sh
a
r
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
ch
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
H
B
W
m
o
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
s
be
t
w
e
e
n
2
0
1
7
a
n
d
2
0
4
0
•
Th
e
s
e
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
w
e
r
e
m
a
d
e
t
o
re
f
l
e
c
t
e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
m
o
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
fr
o
m
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
n
d
t
h
e
l
a
c
k
o
f
r
e
l
i
a
b
l
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
n
o
n
‐
w
o
r
k
m
o
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
s
.
Pa
g
e
2
6
1
o
f
2
8
9
1
Ne
x
t
S
t
e
p
s
FO
R
E
C
A
S
T
P
E
R
S
O
N
T
R
I
P
S
B
Y
M
O
D
E
35
3.
4
Pa
g
e
2
6
2
o
f
2
8
9
Mo
d
e
S
h
a
r
e
•
T
o
t
a
l
t
r
i
p
s
b
y
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
(
H
B
W
a
n
d
N
W
)
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
s
f
r
o
m
S
E
R
P
M
6
.
5
m
o
d
e
l
•
T
r
i
p
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
M
A
Z
s
i
n
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
y
a
r
e
a
•
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
y
e
a
r
•
F
u
t
u
r
e
y
e
a
r
w
i
t
h
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
g
r
o
w
t
h
f
r
o
m
F
A
R
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
•
T
o
t
a
l
t
r
i
p
s
b
y
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
d
b
y
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
s
t
u
d
y
a
r
e
a
m
o
d
e
sh
a
r
e
s
•
M
o
d
a
l
t
r
i
p
s
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
t
o
n
o
r
t
h
,
w
e
s
t
a
n
d
s
o
u
t
h
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
TR
I
P
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
S
T
E
P
S
36
MAZ 2189 MAZ 2210
Pa
g
e
2
6
3
o
f
2
8
9
Mo
d
e
S
h
a
r
e
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
T
R
I
P
S
B
Y
P
U
R
P
O
S
E
A
N
D
M
O
D
E
(
A
D
J
U
S
T
E
D
)
37
21
8
9
22
1
0
Total
20
1
7
Tr
i
p
s
%
T
r
i
p
s
%
T
r
i
p
s
%
HB
W
A
u
t
o
72
5
6
5
%
8
4
0
7
2
%
1
,
5
6
5
6
9
%
HB
W
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
19
0
1
7
%
1
2
8
1
1
%
3
1
8
1
4
%
HB
W
W
a
l
k
/
B
i
k
e
2
0
1
1
8
%
1
9
8
1
7
%
3
9
9
1
7
%
NW
A
u
t
o
3,
5
6
1
6
3
%
3
,
6
3
5
6
3
%
7
,
1
9
6
6
3
%
NW
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
22
6
4
%
1
7
3
3
%
3
9
9
3
%
NW
W
a
l
k
/
B
i
k
e
1
,
8
6
5
3
3
%
1
,
9
6
2
3
4
%
3
,
8
2
7
3
4
%
To
t
a
l
A
u
t
o
4,
2
8
6
6
3
%
4
,
4
7
5
6
5
%
8
,
7
6
1
6
4
%
To
t
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
41
6
6
%
3
0
1
4
%
7
1
7
5
%
To
t
a
l
W
a
l
k
/
B
i
k
e
2
,
0
6
6
3
1
%
2
,
1
6
0
3
1
%
4
,
2
2
6
3
1
%
20
4
0
Tr
i
p
s
%
T
r
i
p
s
%
T
r
i
p
s
%
HB
W
A
u
t
o
2,
6
2
4
5
3
%
4
,
3
0
0
6
0
%
6
,
9
2
4
5
7
%
HB
W
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
84
2
1
7
%
8
6
0
1
2
%
1
,
7
0
2
1
4
%
HB
W
W
a
l
k
/
B
i
k
e
1
,
4
8
5
3
0
%
2
,
0
0
7
2
8
%
3
,
4
9
2
2
9
%
NW
A
u
t
o
10
,
2
9
6
5
2
%
1
4
,
4
7
5
5
2
%
2
4
,
7
7
1
5
2
%
NW
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
3
,
1
6
8
1
6
%
4
,
4
5
4
1
6
%
7
,
6
2
2
1
6
%
NW
W
a
l
k
/
B
i
k
e
6
,
3
3
6
3
2
%
8
,
9
0
8
3
2
%
1
5
,
2
4
4
3
2
%
To
t
a
l
A
u
t
o
1
2
,
9
2
0
5
2
%
1
8
,
7
7
5
5
4
%
3
1
,
6
9
5
5
3
%
To
t
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
4
,
0
1
0
1
6
%
5
,
3
1
4
1
5
%
9
,
3
2
4
1
6
%
To
t
a
l
W
a
l
k
/
B
i
k
e
7
,
8
2
1
3
2
%
1
0
,
9
1
5
3
1
%
1
8
,
7
3
6
3
1
%
Tr
i
p
s
A
t
t
r
a
c
t
e
d
Tr
i
p
s
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
21
8
9
22
1
0
To
t
a
l
20
1
7
Tr
i
p
s
%
T
r
i
p
s
%
T
r
i
p
s
%
HB
W
A
u
t
o
86
6
5
%
4
6
0
7
2
%
5
4
6
7
1
%
HB
W
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
23
1
7
%
7
0
1
1
%
9
3
1
2
%
HB
W
W
a
l
k
/
B
i
k
e
2
4
1
8
%
1
0
9
1
7
%
1
3
3
1
7
%
NW
A
u
t
o
1,
1
1
2
6
3
%
1
,
5
3
7
6
3
%
2
,
6
4
9
6
3
%
NW
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
71
4
%
7
3
3
%
1
4
4
3
%
NW
W
a
l
k
/
B
i
k
e
5
8
2
3
3
%
8
3
0
3
4
%
1
,
4
1
2
3
4
%
To
t
a
l
A
u
t
o
1,
1
9
8
6
3
%
1
,
9
9
7
6
5
%
3
,
1
9
5
6
4
%
To
t
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
94
5
%
1
4
3
5
%
2
3
7
5
%
To
t
a
l
W
a
l
k
/
B
i
k
e
6
0
6
3
2
%
9
3
9
3
0
%
1
,
5
4
5
3
1
%
20
4
0
Tr
i
p
s
%
T
r
i
p
s
%
T
r
i
p
s
%
HB
W
A
u
t
o
36
8
5
3
%
8
8
0
6
0
%
1
,
2
4
8
5
8
%
HB
W
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
11
8
1
7
%
1
7
6
1
2
%
2
9
4
1
4
%
HB
W
W
a
l
k
/
B
i
k
e
2
0
9
3
0
%
4
1
1
2
8
%
6
2
0
2
9
%
NW
A
u
t
o
5,
9
0
2
5
2
%
8
,
8
8
2
5
2
%
1
5
,
9
2
1
5
2
%
NW
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
1
,
8
1
6
1
6
%
2
,
7
3
3
1
6
%
1
,
7
0
6
1
6
%
NW
W
a
l
k
/
B
i
k
e
3
,
6
3
2
3
2
%
5
,
4
6
6
3
2
%
1
0
,
8
0
3
3
2
%
To
t
a
l
A
u
t
o
6,
2
7
0
5
2
%
9
,
7
6
2
5
3
%
1
6
,
0
3
2
5
2
%
To
t
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
1
,
9
3
4
1
6
%
2
,
9
0
9
1
6
%
4
,
8
4
3
1
6
%
To
t
a
l
W
a
l
k
/
B
i
k
e
3
,
8
4
1
3
2
%
5
,
8
7
7
3
2
%
9
,
7
1
8
3
2
%
Pa
g
e
2
6
4
o
f
2
8
9
Mo
d
e
S
h
a
r
e
FI
N
A
L
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
S
(
A
D
J
U
S
T
E
D
)
38
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
Al
l
T
r
i
p
s
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
HB
W
20
1
7
A ut
o
M
o
d
e
64
%
69
%
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
M
o
d
e
5%
12
%
No
n
-
M
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
M
o
d
e
31
%
20
%
20
4
0
A ut
o
M
o
d
e
53
%
55
%
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
M
o
d
e
16
%
20
%
No
n
-
M
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
M
o
d
e
31
%
25
%
Pa
g
e
2
6
5
o
f
2
8
9
Mo
d
e
S
h
a
r
e
20
4
0
D
A
I
L
Y
A
U
T
O
T
R
I
P
D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
(
A
D
J
U
S
T
E
D
)
39
15
,
5
0
0
23
,
5
0
0
8,
8
0
0
Pa
g
e
2
6
6
o
f
2
8
9
Mo
d
e
S
h
a
r
e
20
4
0
D
A
I
L
Y
T
R
A
N
S
I
T
T
R
I
P
D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
(
A
D
J
U
S
T
E
D
)
40
1,
4
0
0
4,
3
0
0
8,
5
0
0
Pa
g
e
2
6
7
o
f
2
8
9
Mo
d
e
S
h
a
r
e
20
4
0
D
A
I
L
Y
A
U
T
O
+
T
R
A
N
S
I
T
T
R
I
P
D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
(
A
D
J
U
S
T
E
D
)
41
17
,
0
0
0
13
,
0
0
0
32
,
0
0
0
Pa
g
e
2
6
8
o
f
2
8
9
Mo
d
e
S
h
a
r
e
20
4
0
N
O
N
-
M
O
T
O
R
I
Z
E
D
A
U
T
O
T
R
I
P
D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
(
A
D
J
U
S
T
E
D
)
42
2,
9
0
0
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
57
0
0
2,
9
0
0
11
,
5
0
0
5,
7
0
0
Pa
g
e
2
6
9
o
f
2
8
9
TC-C MASSING STUDY
Legend
x Up to 125 FT – 11 stories (White)
x 125-145 FT – Approximately 13 stories (Gray)
x 145-175 FT – Approximately 16 stories (Orange)
x 175-200 FT – Approximately 19 stories (Turquoise)
TC-C MASSING STUDY - OPTION A
(Block from 71st to 72nd St.)
Option to maximize floor area while providing public benefits.
Page 270 of 289
TC-C MASSING STUDY - OPTION B
(Block from 71st to 72nd St.)
Option to maximize floor area without providing public benefits.
Page 271 of 289
TC-C MASSING STUDY - BASE REGULATIONS
(Block from 71st to 72nd St.)
Minimum required habitable space pursuant to the regulations for Class A and Class C
roadways.
Page 272 of 289
TC-C Massing Study Bird’s Eye Renderings
Legend
x Approved Hotel Development (Green)
o 3.5 FAR at 125 feet
x Land Swap Parcels Proposed Development (Yellow)
x Massing Study Samples
o Up to 125 FT – 11 stories (White),
o 125-145 FT – Approximately 13 stories (Gray)
o 145-175 FT – Approximately 16 stories (Orange)
o 175-200 FT – Approximately 19 stories (Turquoise)
Page 273 of 289
Page 274 of 289
Page 275 of 289
Page 276 of 289
Page 277 of 289
Page 278 of 289
Page 279 of 289
Page 280 of 289
Page 281 of 289
Page 282 of 289
Page 283 of 289
Ballot Question 2
FAR Increase For TC-1, TC-2 and TC-3 to 3.5 FAR
Floor area ratio (FAR) is the measure the City utilizes to regulate the overall size of a building .
Should the City adopt an ordinance increasing FAR in the Town Center (TC) zoning districts
(Collins and Dickens Avenues to Indian Creek Drive between 69 and 72 Streets) to 3.5 FAR
from current FAR of 2.25 to 2.75 for the TC-1 district; from 2.0 for the TC-2 district; and from
1.25 for the TC-3 district?
Explanation of Ballot Question 2
This ballot question relates to a proposed increase in the current allowable Floor Area Ratio
("FAR") for the Town Center ("TC") zoning districts in the North Beach area of the City of Miami
Beach. The area subject to the proposed FAR increase is bounded by Collins Avenue on the
east, Dickens Avenue and Indian Creek Drive on the west, 69th Street on the south, and 72nd
Street on the north.
The following is a map of the area subject to the proposed FAR increase:
Legend
l:IAttected Area
c:::IGU
-TC-1
TC-2
0 125 250 500 Feet n
'
Page 284 of 289
The term "Floor Area Ratio" (or "FAR") generally describes the size of a building in relation to
the size of the property where the building will be located. A property's maximum buildable floor
area is calculated by multiplying the square footage of the property by the allowable FAR in the
zoning district where the property is located. For example, if a property owner owns 10,000
square feet of land with a zoned FAR of 3.0, the owner can generally build a building with
30,000 usable square feet , subject to any applicable exceptions in the City Code.
City Charter Section 1.03(c), which was approved by the City's voters in 2001, requires that any
increase in zoned FAR for any property in the City must be approved by a majority vote of the
electors of the City of Miami Beach. Accordingly, the proposed FAR increase for the Town
Center ("TC ") zoning districts requi res vote r approval.
On October 19, 2016, and pursuant to City Resolution No . 2016-29608, the Mayor and City
Commission adopted the North Beach Master Plan (the "Master Plan"). The Master Plan was
developed by Dover, Kohl and Partners, Inc. and received significant public input. The Master
Plan recommended increasing the FAR to 3.5 for the Town Center zoning districts (referred to
as "TC-1," "TC-2," and "TC-3" in the City's land development regulations). The goal of this
recommendation is to enable the design and construction of larger buildings within the Town
Center, and to encourage the development of 71 st Street as a "main street" for North Beach.
This ballot question would authorize the following increases in FAR:
Zoning District Current FAR Proposed FAR
TC-1 2.25-2.75 3.5
TC-2 2.0 3.5
TC-3 1.25 3.5
If a majority of the City 's electors voting on this ballot measure vote in favor of it , that approval
will have binding, official effect on the City of Miami Beach and the proposed Ordinance will be
codified upon its adoption by the City Commission .
Page 285 of 289