20-84 RDA
RESOLUTION NO. 20-84
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI BEACH REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY SUBMITTING THE SOUTH SHORE REVITALIZATION
STRATEGY PLAN, A COMMUNITY R8DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PURSUANT TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT,
FLA. STATS. ~~ 163.330 et seq., TOGETHER WITH
WRITTEN RECOMMENDATIONS THEREON, TO THE CITY
COMMISSION FOR ITS APPROVAL
WHEREAS, the Miami Beach
and operates pursuant to the
amended, Fla. Stats. ~~163.330
Redevelopment Agency is organized
Communi ty Redevelopment Act, as
et seq.; and
\lVHEREAS, the Agency has endorsed and the Ci ty has adopted
a community redevelopment plan for the South Shore area pursuant
to the Act, which plan was adopted by the City on March 2, 1977,
and amended on April 25, 1979, and May 5, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the Agency and the City have initiated a planning
process leading to the development of a revised redevelopment
plan for South Shore, emphasizing the goals and objectives as
set forth in City Commission Resolution No. 82-17222, adopted
December 17, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the revised Redevelopment plan entitled "South
Shore Revitalization Strategy" has been prepared pursuant to the
guidelines of, and contains the plan elements specified in, the
Community Redevelopment Act for such plans; and
WHEREAS, the South Shore Revitalization Strategy has been
submitted to the Miami Beach Planning Board in accordance with
Fla. Stats. 5163.360(3) and said Planning Board has held the
requisite public hearings thereon and has submitted written
recommendations to the Agency with respect to the conformity of
the plan with the City Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has found and the Agency con-
curs that the South Shore Revitalization Strategy conforms to
the Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan (August 1980), the City's
adopted plan pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive
Planning Act of 1975; and
WHEREAS, the South Shore Revitalization Strategy indicates
land acquisition, demolition and removal of structures, redevel-
opment, improvements and rehabilitation proposed in the redevel-
opment area; zoning and planning changes; land uses; maximum
densities; and building requirements, all in conformance with
Fla. Stats. ~163.360(2); and
WHEREAS, the Agency has rev iewed the wri tten recommenda-
t ions of the Planning Board and recommendations of staff, as
well as supplementary information in response to such recom-
mendations; and
WHEREAS, the Agency has reviewed the plan for consistency
with the guidelines and standards of the Community Redevelopment
Act and for conformity with the redevelopment goals and objec-
tives specified by the City; and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Community Affairs has
conducted a review of the South Shore Revitalization Strategy
and has found that the Plan is consistent with the statutory
requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act;
and
WHEREAS, the plan has been transmitted to Dade County, to
the South Florida Regional Planning Council and to adjacent
cities for review and no comments having been received within
the statutory time period_1Qr such comment;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MIAMI BEACH REDEVEL-
OPMENT AGENCY: that the South Shore Revitalization Strategy
conforms in all respects with the requirements of the Community
Redevelopment Act and the Local Government Comprehensive Plan-
ning Act of 1975 and, that pursuant to Fla. Stats. ~~163.360(4)
and 163.361, the Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency hereby recom-
mends for approval and submits the "South Shore Revitalization
Strategy" to the City Commission, together with the written
recommendations attached thereto, for approval and adoption in
accordance wi th the Communi ty Redevelopment Act and the Local
Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 18th
day of
, 1984.
c-
J3/ uary
/ "'" // r').t aI ...----C-__
v' ~. ~ _--
CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
~~~~
SECRETARY
Attachments:
(1)
South Shore Revitalization Strategy Plan
Summary.
(2) Redevelopment Agency Memorandum No. 83-13:
Report and Recommendation of the Planning
Board on the South Shore Revitalization
plan (October 19, 1983).
(3) Revised Planning Department Analysis and
Report on Mod i fica t ions and Add i t ions to
the South Shore Revitalization Plan
( Oc to be r 12, 1983).
(4) Correspondence from George Griffith, Bureau
Chi e f, Divis ion of Local Resource Manage-
ment, Florida Department of Communi ty
Affairs (December 5, 1983).
FORM APPROVED
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
BY: (LI-~ ~ lkL)
.~) L _____
HATE: (~6--'- L 2-- &' ';/ ,
......--.....~ ~'.' "'- r., .. '..
-2-
MEMORANDUM
Date:
January 18, 1984
To: M iam i Reach Redeve lopmen t Aqe ni'V
From:
Freilich & Leitner, P.C.
Legal Consultants
Subject:
"South Shore Revitalizi'ltion ~;tr(il.'qy" Plall Summary
A.
Overview of Chronology ~ate~L_t() ~l~~r2._I~E.(,:.E.~_~~~_!:Jo~
Adoption an~ Implem~ntatlon
December 17, 1982
City Cammi ssion c.lllopt ion of
Resolution No. 8?-17222 s(.~tting
for t h go a I s ,1 n dub i e c t i ve s for
rev i sed Red f,~ve 1 opm'~ n I: P 1 i, II .
January 5, 19B,
City Commission adoption nf
Inter im Dpve 1 opmen t Con t. r'o 1
Ordinance>.
January 'C;,. IlJ83
InitiatllJlI 1)1 pliln I..vision
pr(ICf~SS .
January 15, 1983 -
.June 15,1983
Me.~tin<Jc; witll MaYII!f,; Ad 11,)c
Comm i t tee on planned I\((~,'l
Development: It South Shon'.
June 15, 1983
Completion of dratt Plan.
July 18, 1983
presentatinn of plan to
Redevo lopmen t Ayency and C i t:y
Commission; Auency transmittal of
P 1 ant 0 P 1 ann i n q Ro a t cl t () r- t' e vie w .
September 6, 1983
September 15, lqi:l3
P1anninq Hoar'.j Public H(',lcin~Js on
Plan.
october 12, 1983
October 17, 1983
pI anni nq \lnd nl S~)I'(' i ,11 r'1p(~ t i ng s on
Plan.
October 19, 1983
Transmitti'll ot PLanninq HOdrd
recommendil t: i on to A(~en':y; A~Jency
transmittal of Plan to City Com-
mission; City Commission tt'dnsmit-
t."ll of l'l,Clrl to Statf'c, COllnt.y,
regional iJnd loca'J unit~; ,,1 JOv-
ernment rurslJant I( ,O<'.IJ (;i)Vc':-n,
ment Compre!lpn;,ivc' pI"rln!nl) /\ct.
October 25, 1983 -
December 25,1983
60-day St".111JI rH'Y re\j [c'\v P('CiDd.
November 28, 1983
P I ann i n'l H n ,It " W, >r- k ! I U I ' ,) Ii fl (~ ''''
Permann!"lt '/:n inq t 01 ~;')\It h :;}Iore.
December 5, 1983
Respons(! t '-'H11 ~;l ,,-Ie !le[ldrl'l1f'nt of'
Community Alfair-s.
January 4, 1984
Cjt~y Commi!-1~iotl res(>lutiorl clutho["-
izing placement or; hallot uf $9.8
i" ..1 ion hond pa<,'k:I(V' tor t;uuth
Shore pub lie iml"l'('v,:'rr>i~nt.c;, PUt-
IJant tn PL,in.
-, 1-
~,;1
'i. I,
~.' !,.',
January 13, 1984
City Commi:;'.;i<)[\ ..(Iol>! 1,ln of.
Interim Devplopment or',linance
extension.
J.:tnuary 18, 1984
Agency consideralion of plan and
transmittal to City Commission.
February 1, 1984
February 15, 1984
City Commission public hearings on
Plan.
March 1, 1984 -
March 11, 1984
Planning HOC\t'.j public hearinys on
new penn a n (~ n t' Z 0 n i f1IJ f <> r S () 11 t. h
Shore.
Ap r ill, 1 984 -
April 30, 1984
City Commission [\ut)lic,' hearings on
dnd c'idopt i on ot IIl)W pennant>n\'.
zoning for s()I,th Shon'.
B. Executive Sum~dry
THE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY PLAN
fo'our major (Joals of the revitalization ,,:1 1"I'I"I'j ,II',> ,1<; t,)llows:
To reestablish the area ,1S dn 1','()nI1'Tlically viahle and
functionally diverse Ul-hiln riP I jhhn"ll<)od/I'C'SOt't.
community.
To involve minimum n~loc..ti(l!l .rId ,;'H)lk,mlldti,)11.
To enhance the diversity o[ f!HIll '1n<1 dctivity throuqh
the use of established pLUlnlfJ'J dnd d~~silJn
principles.
To create a traffic sYS\YIO that ,cldequ,'lIc'!ly ;i(~rves
both through and loc,'d-tratfi,- npeds of the an:-'!a.
Land Use
The land use plan is charact.erizt~d hy \ hl's<' :'1 ,1[jd1Y i "dIUt"i?s:
A peripheral watertront: 1 inc'dl pdt'k ',;ysl '111.
A resort area relating to tll<' 1 jn(~ar jl.:ll"k.
An urban neighborhood core.
A central retail core s(~rvinq hot h !ll(> fl"::)t't
development and the ur-llcln n0iqld1ol'\j,,(>,! ,\,,>,1.
The generali?:ed land uses ot the ~;ollth :~h,lt'e 1~('\'111' i7~II()n
Strategy are .:ts follows:
Office - The Miami Beach Houlevard \'.iftllc;lll'l't) cOl'cidor
is to be a mixed-use area with rntdi I i1l.ti\'i\i{'~; Il'quired
on the ground floor and office f"lnd n~:;i.t(>nllal w..,~;
allowed above the first floor. PodesLri,lI1 ;ictivity will
be encouraged along this corrictor.
Res ident ial - The area located be tween F i I'~; t and Fourth
Streets and extending from Al ton Roacl to tll(> ocean is a
residential neighborhood. The plan env i ~.;j ons low i nten-
sity residential develor~Gnt adjacent t,) the marina and
Alton Road, transitioning tn hiyh rl;;l\ df'\1(~loprnent alony
the ocean.
fl~
-) ,
, .
, .;
Retail Core - This area, located in tht, southern portion
of South Shore between Biscayne Street and First Street
and hetween Jefferson Avenue and OCE!iHI Drive, is planned
for neighborhood and tourist-oriented commercial uses.
Residential uses will be allowed above the first floor.
Marina Upland Area - This area lies between Fifth Street
and Biscayne Street, east of Alton Road. Central marina
facilities to service the 400-slip South Shore marina,
including a 300-slip dry storage area, will be constructed
on a portion of this site. Tourist and marina-oriented
retail and hotel uses will be encouraged in this area. A
triangular parcel east of Alton Road, south of Miami Beach
Boulevard and west of Michigan Avenue is proposed for
additional marina-related development if the SO~lth Beach
Elementary School can be relocated.
Hotel - The plan envisions developrM!nt. of t 1](' tot-mer Miami
Beach Kennel Club site locatl~d south of lIiHcayne St.reet as
a resort hotel. An additional hotel site is designated on
the ocean between First and Second Streets.
Parks and Open Spaces - Several parks exist in the area,
including three beachfront parks. South Shore Park,
located at the southernmost tip of Miami Beach, will
include active and passive recreational facilities, a
restaurant, and an amphitheatre. A ~edestrian walkway
system is planned linking the beachfront pRrks, South
Shore Parks, and South Shore Marina.
Traffic Circulation syst~-~_~?<?E-_~2~:(~I~
The plan proposes a circulation syst'~m oJ lwc) Il1lPI'CClIH\.'cted
loops. The Alton Road - l"irst Stn)(~t - Washinyton AVf:rIlH,
corridor will offer primary circulation through the South Shore
area and offer access to the principal residential and commer-
cial areas. A second loop, utilizing the Jefferson Avenue
(south of First Street) - Biscayne street - Ocean Drive corri-
dors, will supplement the primary loop by offering access to the
recreational and other commercial areas.
Amenity plan
The Revitalization strategy cont.ains an {\Inc.nity Plan of improve-
ments designed to enhance the aest.hetic chdLictur of the neigh-
borhood.
The arterial look will pn)vid" tl\l~ tit';1 vi.'w (\1'
South Shore for many: it \,,,lI1 ,jl~\(l ,',)nl inlll! I"~
provide the visual eXpt'lr i"lh'" lIlt v i~; i t (>I ,l'll\
resident alike.
Four east-west roads -- Th i nl :;\ n,,'I, ~';c~:('l\d street,
f'irst street, anli Biscayru' :-;1 t("~1 --- pnJ'J ide access
to two oceanfront_ parks and l c) t.he Ci I'v-own(~d haysicle
marina property.
The linear waterfront parks constituh' An important
amen i ty. They prov ide a na t ut't3 1 env i Cflome n t tor the
residents of the urban neighborhood, and also provide
an essential base for the resort dev'dopment.
Eliminating the existing unsafe intersections creates
small right-of-way e,reas that milY lJt~ devHlop(~d as
pedestrian amenity areas.
~6
- 3-
~:~~'
URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Revitalization Strategy contains ch.sj'Jn "-,uidelines "l1el
standards to provide South Shore with a "total image" environ-
ment - a water-oriented community in which to 11"e, work and
play.
ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS
Eminent Domain - The plan envisions the use of orn inent rlomain in
limited circumstances only. Appropriate uses of f)rninent domain
include:
To acquire small parcelf'! ne('pg~';,HY hlr pllhl ic
improvements.
To complete lot assemblage in d 1,Inck pn)vided more
than 50 percent of the lot is in singll' ownership.
To acquire properties that dt!: .\ hli'jht-inq influence
on the redevelopment area.
Property Disposition - Municipal property can be (lisposed of
through competitive bidding or competitive negotiations. Muni-
cipal property transferred to private use to implement the plan
will be subject to "designation and development agreements"
obligating purchasers or lessees to devote such property to uses
specified in the plan.
Regulation of Private Property
Development Agreements - When developmnnt. OC('IH'S Oil private
property, developers will be encouraged I,) oht.lin a "d(~v('lopment
agreement" by which the City will make a commi~IllC:)lIt IIOt to alter
the zoning for a specified time in return tor (~OnllnitlOents by the
developer as to construction of improvempnts, ptuvis10n of pub-
lic facilities or amenities, timin~1 and sequell,~ir)(J of develop-
ment, etc.
Zoning
The proposed zoning contained in till' r~(''1,! "I i '-,:,1\ inn ~;i I'dt '~(JY
Plan has the following characlerist ics:
General
Base-level intensi tit~S as of t'L(Jht' (hut based on
compl iance wi th appl icable pe r fe't'rnanc(~ s t a ndanl s) and
maximum intensities obtainable only by dcq\lisit.ion of
bonuses and incentives.
provision of substanti.al incent IV.":; "'lll,jlj""qation
of parcels.
Incentives for amenitien, desiqn, undHI"AI-'Hllltl
parking, environmental st~nsit'ivity, ~:;cdl(', tH~jyht,
view preservation, and ot.her. h~,ltLln";.
Requirements for landscapin(J, obwn ~~pace, ,till! d(~si'Jn
elements as part of required site and development
plan approval processes.
A height limitation overlay zorw.
Required underground and structuz',l [';lrklnq, as
opposed to surface parking.
'!i7
-4-
.'\
:;,1IJ'
~ ,l,~
Use of floor area ratiouHI I.l!
to create a land use intensity
. , ",'I' r ,,"Jo
~~~Cd 1 f_~ .
t ('qu i rf~ments
Use of an open space ratio.
Residential
A minimum square footage tl)l~ udch dwolling unit and a
m in imum average dwe 11 i ny un j t: ~;quare footaye tor the
entire development.
Use of occupant and total parking ratios.
Within the urban neighhorhood, vrtryin~l int~nsities of
residential development, t1w lowl~st rl\'ar 1\J ton Road
and gradually increasing to thl' hjqh(~"t nil~~t of
Collins Avenue.
Commercial
provision for mix(-~d-use dev,'I()fHTH.til:; .JIll! f()l~ mixed-
use structures (i .e., fi rst fl\llH n~l ,'li] wi th offices
or residential ahove).
Nonresidential development il!t('nsities (F~.ln~d tl)
adjacent residential uses and inten'-~ities, to the
transportation system, to the open space network, and
to the size and scale of sut'roundin(l development.
Emphasis on retail commerci,ll d(~\Telr)pmE'nt, including
restaurants, services and ;.'laLed USf.'.,,;,
Residential development ,"lS rl [l':'lrnitl,'d IlSC' III thc.se
nonresidential areas, ~HJb:i(>ct r() I hI' (lppl iCdhlv
standards as specifh1(} tor R-PS 1-4 :;\Ih,ji,;tricts.
Office development' a~ (l pt~r'llI i I \.I'd 11:;",
Nonresidential development. intensitiec, will
wi th the role and location of each () f t he ~>l'
Revitalization Plan cont.ext and stt'ateq)'.
\'i.lt'i 1 n dl'("Jrdance
1'-",1'-; ill the overall
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
Financing
The financing of the South Shore R,~vil,,11 /,1\ I"
rely on the following funding sourcp~:
; 1,llp'li ,,,i 11
Tax increment fi.nancin'J
Marina lease payments
Marina upland developmpnt
Special assessment district::;
Commun i ty deve lopmen t h lo(~ k 'Jl d' I I
Urban deve lopment act i,on (J l'() ii I
Sewer and water grant
Capital Improvement program
The 5-year capital i.mprovement. proyt-,111\ I"'jlli,-,',j i" i'npl'~lllC!nt
Phase I of the South Shore Revitali 7.i'lt il'll ;]tl 111'<JY I "t .lIs $7
million. This capital improvement 1'11)'11 ,J'n ill!' I I!'!'''; ;\ r.:~(~t
improvement, creation of an artet~Lll ll)(Jp sy:;tpm, dl'd wdter dnd
sewer improvements.
...
-5-
J
-. _..it_ _. __.. ~.....,,-
, ./
MEmo~))
c=J '
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~)Ull t 900, BRICKELL PLAZA
909 SE 1ST AVENUE
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
(305) 579,2800
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Pee('lIll.('I- 70, ]()H3
The Honorable Bruce Singer
Vice Mayor of Miami Beach
Office of the Mayor
City of Miami Beach
}liami Beach, Florida
Dear Vice Mayor Singer:
Pursuant to 5.163.3184 and 5.163.3187, E.~(),~,~_?''1..:<;,t.a.tdlJtL,-:q, the Dade County Planning
Department has conducted a review of the pr(lpo~;cd "South Shore Revitalization
Strategy", an amendment to the redevelopl1H~nl element: of the Mi3rni Beach Compre-
hensive Plan.
Our review indicated that the proposed ;Jmenc1I'lcnt js consistent with the Dade
County Comprehensive Development M3ster P] <In and t 11c llnde County Transportation
Plan. If we may he of assitance, pl('a~;(' ll't w; know.
rkaU/l ~
Reginald R. Walters, ATep, Director
Plilllning Departmeot
RRW: JW: sr
\.' r;: \)
-(.' ",'.~,~\\
f"" .-:: L, . " \~
\ . \...- 'r \ ", " t ,'''-",'
. ,t;',l-.l...\ ,I '\~........
'(".. f....\'~. ~. \,,1\1"" --
.' ,\i Or . ~-'
, 0_ 1:;...,("~~-
C ,_- ~' V
\.,1
i l() ~9ro~
jf\~
~9
. ...,
_ STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ATTACHMENT (4)
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
DIVlSION OF LOCAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
. ..,....
,. L "_' L. I , L :..'
',I
. JOHN M. DeGROVE
" ; I:: I 7 Sec~'1ry
BOB ORAHAM
aovrmof
December 5.' 19'~,~, , ,,:
Mr. Bruce Singer
Vice Mayor, Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Dear Mr. Singer:
Pursuant to 5.163.3184 and s.163.3187, Florida Statutes,
the Department of Corr :1Unity Affairs has conducteaa-revrew~the
;Jroposed "South Shore Revitalization Strategy", an amendment to
the redevelopment elpment of the Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan.
Our review indicated that the proposed amendment is
consistent with statutory requirements. We have no ubjection to
the proposed amendment. A determination of the impact of the
proposed revitalization strategy on the DRI status of the project
is still pending.
In order for the Department of Community Affairs to comply
with the provisions of 5.163.3184(1)(a), !lo~ida Sta!~tes, we
request that you provide us the date, time, a~place 0rpublic
hearings to consider adoption of the proposed amendment. Further,
we request that you provide us a copy of the amendment once the
adoption process has been completed.
If we may be of assistance, please let us know.
Sll1c~eJe]y. ~I ~
' f!j ,l, IF
" y- ~/{.~ -~.. ,"- '-..
.,.-' ~ /'~;' l
Ge~e Griffi tll
Bureau Chief
GG/kmu
BUREAU OF LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT
2571 EXECUTIV!: CE~TER CIRCLE, EAST . 1AU.AHASSEE, FLORJDA 31301 (904) 488-4925
60
,\TT,\CII~II':N'I' (2)
Miami Beach
. Redevelopment Agency
'700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMORANDUM NO. 93 -/3
FROM:
ROB W. PARKINS
Executive Director
/)
OCT. 19, 1983
TO:
SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD ON THE
SOUTH SHORE REVITALIZATION PLAN
The Miami Beach Planning Board, at a special meeting on October 17, 1983, took final
action on the proposed South Shore Revitalization Strategy Plan. The Planning Board
conducted two public hearings on the Plan (September 6 and 15, 1983) and further reviewed
the Plan at special meetings held on October 12 and 17, 1983.
The following motion was adopted unanimously by the Planning Board on October 17, 1983:
"The Planning Board recommends adoption of the South Shore Revitalization
Strategy Plan as a Community Redevelopment Plan, under Florida State
Statute 163.360, and as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan
pursuant to Florida State Statute 163.3184. The Planning Board further
recommended that the existing plan be modified by including all of the
modifications (items 1-11) listed in the Planning Department's report on the
South Shore Revitalization Plan, dated October 12, 1983, and in addition, the
following modifications adopted by the Planning Board:
A.
The implementation of the South Shore
independent Redevelopment Authority
professional staff which will expedite
development activities;
Plan shall be handled by an
including an independent
and coordinate South Shore
B. The South Shore Plan on p. 56, Parcel E-l, should be revised to indicate
that the acquisition of that portion of the parcel, including the South Shore
Elementary School site (south of 4th Street) is an immediate priority in
order that its development be coordinated with the marina upland area
development;
C. The South Shore Plan, on p. 53, should be revised to indicate that the City
should place a high priority on preparing a Request for Proposal for
development of the Marina Upland area (Parcels E and C);
D. That the section of the South Shore Plan which refers to density guidelines
should contain the following written policy: Under certain circumstances a
project may be allowed to exceed the density ranges listed, if a specific
development utilizes the bonuses, incentives, transfer of development
rights, or other techniques which will be provided in the permanent zoning
for the South Shore area.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDA nON
The Administration feels that Planning Board modification "A" is not an appropriate revision
for inclusion in the Plan; the issues of an independent Redevelopment Agency may be an
item the City Commission would want to reconsider after the adoption of the Plan.
It is recomrT)ended that the Redevelopment Agency accept the recommendations of the
Planning Board including the list of modifications, exclusive of Item "A" above.
RWP/SAY/rg
~~nn r en
9
'rrcrl\\./'Cr[J'
( : \ . ( \ c):
~fJt;)
~/}).~
south florida regional planning council
broword (305) 961,2999
dode (305) 620-4266
3440 hollywood blvd, SUitE' 140, hollYWOOd, flondo 03021
January ", 1984
The Honorable Norman Clment
Mayor, CIty of MIamI Bea~h
CIty Hall
1700 ConventIon Center DrIve
MIamI Beach, FlorIda 33139
RE: South Shore RevItalIzatIon Strategy
Dear Mayor Clment:
At Its meetIng on January 9, 1984, the CouncIl revIewed the above
comprehensIve plan element/amended redevelopment plan and proposed
modIfIcatIon to th~ approved South Shore Development of Regional Impact
and approved transmIttal of the attached comments.
It appears that the plan amendments requIre the preparatIon of an amended
DRI ApplIcatIon for Development Approval and Development Order. I
encourage you to contact me or Sharyn DodrIll at your earliest
convenIence In order to complete the necessary modifications as
expedltlousl as possIble.
AICP
nEcrrvr:'D
rt.t"f'JN).)r:~ ~ ",~' "!r
CI rv 01 ;'i"." I , c...,:\ vH
[; j' - --....L2..fL._
PEP/bh
'JAN 1 6 1984
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Sanford Youkllls
Mr. Carey L. RawlInson
Mr. Jim Murley
Ms. Sarah NaIl
I
-_._-~---"----_._------_.._.-_....._,_...- . -_._--,-- ~--'--'--,--
';1
,
~~~
~@:.~
south florida regional planning council
broword (J05) 961,2999
dod€': (305) 620,4266
3440 hollywood blvd. suire 140. hollywood flondo 3..1021
AGENDA ITEM 110b
January 9, 1984
TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: SOUTH SHORE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT/DR I MOUIFICATION
Introduction
The City of Miami Beach has submitted an amendment to the South Shore
Redevelopment Plan, entItled South Shore RevItalizatIon Strategy (Revised
October, 1983), for review pursuant to Sections 163.3184 and 163.360,
Florida Statutes. The amended plan covers an area subject to two
Development of Regional Impact Development Orders (DOs): the South Shore
DO (Resolution No. 78-15705, amended by Resolution No. 79-15828), and the
MiamI Beach Marina 00 (Resolution No. 75-14762). This area Is located
south of Sixth Street and Is bounded by the AtlantIc Ocean on the east,
Government Cut on the south, and Blscayne Bay on the west (Figure 1).
Plan Summary
The plan amendment contains an excellent Intr"oductlon, IncludIng a
concise outline of the purpose for the plan and a summdry of the proposed
revItalizatIon plannlng'process. ExtensIve descriptIons of the existing
condItIons withIn the area are provided. Problems withIn the area, and
the opportunities they represent, are descrIbed. Goals and ObJectives,
organIzed by the major Issues of form/functIon/design, circulation and
parkIng, and socIal/economIc, are proposed.
The redevelopment plan Itself Is defIned In terms of land uses, amenity
areas, and Infrastructure. The proposed t"and use map (Figure 2> shows
the plan and Its general conformance to the existing street network.
Conceptually, the area Is divIded Into a retail boundary (along FIfth
Street), urban resIdentIal neIghborhood, southern retaIl core (between
FIrst and BIscayne Streets), resort hotel area south of Blscayne Street
and a smaller sIte on the beach, major cIty park along C~vernmant Cut,
and the marIna area along Blscayne Bay.
-.
"
~2
...
..
~
<C
-
..
<C
z
c
..
u
o
u
South Shore t Area
Redeveloprlen
-
NOITN
Source:
i\'e Plan
Comprehens
r:i ar:d Beach
SFRPC
FIGURE
LOCATION
MAP
~3
,
z
wO
a::-
...
NO<
w%N>-
0::(1)-"
::> ...I
~%<W
Ll.....~...
~-<
0> a::
w...
U)a::(I)
Q.
C
.
Cau
....'"
"'=
o
Q.C
oZ
CC
Q..J
.' \' ,
..' ~'~
' ". .,
. . .., ~
. ", ...
It' .~-
.....
pi')
co
C"\
-
..
L.
Q)
.0
o
+-
is
....
>-
0;
Q)
+-
10
L.
+-
I/)
c
o
+-
10
N
-
, It!
+-
>
~
Q)
L.
.2
I/)
~
+-
:::l
~
C
z
au
C
au
.J
..
CD
U
L.
:::l
o
I/)
f'4
The proposed transportatIon network essentIally maIntaIns the exIstIng
street system wIth the closure of two small street segments south of
Alton Road, and two segments of EuclId south of FIfth Street. SIx other
street segments (In the two retaIl areas) have been IdentIfIed for
possIble closure. Only a sketchy descrIptIon of water and wastewater
system Improvements Is provIded. However, urban desIgn guIdelInes are
extensIvely descrIbed.
StrategIes to Implement the plan are IdentIfIed, IncludIng use of publIc
properties and acquIsItIon of lImIted prIvate property through the Clty's
powers of emInent domaIn, establIshment of commercIal and resIdentIal
performance standards, tax Increment fln,nclng, long-term leases on
cIty-owned land In and around the marIna, speclel ass.ssment dIstricts,
CommunIty Development Block Grants, Urban Dev,'opment Action Grants, and
other sources. A prelIminary capital Improvements program for only a
portIon of the total development plen Is provIded. The costs of public
Infrastructure and rehabIlItation of prIvate property have not been
Identified.
EvaluatIon
The local Government Comprehensive PlannIng Act specIfies that a
ComprehensIve Plan, Its elements and any amendments thereof must:
1. Be mutually consIstent;
2. COntaIn economIc assumptions whIch must be set out as a part of the
plan;
3. COntaIn fIscal proposals for elements requIrIng publIc expendItures;
4. ContaIn a specIfIc polIcy statement coordInatIng future development
of the CIty with that of adJacent munIcIpalItIes, the County, the
RegIon, and the State; and
5. COntaIn recommendations for ImplementatIon.
The Act further allows an optIonal "...general area redevelopment element
consIstIng of plans and programs for the redevelopment of slums and
blighted locatIons In the area and for communIty redevelopment, IncludIng
housIng sItes, busIness and IndustrIal sites, publIc buIldIngs sItes, ,
recreatIonal facIlItIes, and other purposes authorIzed by law." (SectIon
163.3177(7)(h), F.S.).
In additIon, "the procedure for an amendment of an adopted comprehensive
plan, or element, or,portlon thereof...shall be as for the orIgInal
adop!lon of the comprehensIve plan." (Chapter 163.3187, F.S.).
-
4
~5
"
.;..':"-.....:t.' ".;J' ," ,
" '.,~;, ,', ;f')f~-> ;
.',' ',t:~: ,,:>~ ;:):;,,/::;
" ; : '~'",~,~{:,~;: ~;:,,:
:~'.',;,',\~r '\":'{;':"'., '-~;;.::"'.: ,,:,,:;:~.?,.
, . Ii"" :~_~,\i,:,:
r' ,:<S:i/ ,',?
,," ~.<i r" . ".:,:,)>:. .'"
,,~,~<,\~,~tr,t'n( ,
".\~,1.-:,-:'. "".:",:,:;.^,
,.' ':i~:,-~.;./,'.{";;':',, ~,:.::'.i':.~,:;~::i{;;~.,,::/~~~).;.:~~.;t\. ":i'<::/'."
'J'h.;~.,b('. ' ,"~$q~t",i~~t, ",' ,~e,h)i~nt Stretegy hiS been rev I ewed
J ft."~~:-" ,',' " " 'lance 'wIt" ~~. ',q~<<J";'.fer'.nced"equ I rements J
CX)n,~,~~~n\';~\',.h~un~ It 1l1~~~1,~U C;~.$. 'Ilh~, prOgr om;$ r~nd the OR'
,',~!I~""n.'ord't,'s' 1$$ue~'f9"'f~..':~fnif~nq,' South Shor.' redeve I opment.
t
1 .LGCPA f'.men'" Requ I rements
I. . . _. ," '..~!.. '. .,..' ',.' 1 . ..', '. .,.1
. The amendment appears to satIsfy the requIrements of the statute
for theoptlonllredevelopment element of the comprehensive plan.
2. Overall lGCPA ReQuirements
. The plan spec: 1f1.~ec:Oftom I c: and social bllckground dlltll for the
area, but doe. not adequately address the costs or fiscal
proposals for plan Implementation.
. The redevelopment plan appears to be generally consistent with
other plan elements: however, the traffic: circulation element
needs to be modified to Incorporate the proposed "loop roads."
3. CommunIty Redevelopment Plan Requirements
. The plan contaIns a legal description of the redevelopment area
boundaries, as required.
t
!
,
,
.,'.
,
I
i
. The plan shows the approximate amount of open space, dwelling
units to be provided, street layout, property Intended for publIc
use and Improvements, and general lImItations on the type, sIze,
height, number and proposed use of buildings. However, the
proposll to deslgnlte South Shore as a Transfer of Development
Rights (TOR) "receiving" target area, to encourage conservation
and rehabilitation of the City'S historic buildings, which Is
only briefly described, .Quld allow higher density development In
Sol.tfh$hQrethen II.descr'bedandevaluated elsewhere In the
pt.".. tlnc.l"'l,t,,~1.qt;~I""'ibonuses are not proposed
wlt~ht t"- pia"" tlll'....tf.~'-onth.,lz. and height of buildings
are not prescribed, II required by th" Community Development Act.
. Tbe:J)lln does not CQntlln a "etghborhood Impact element which
".descrlbes In detail the Impact of the project upon the residents
"9it,;".I)!'o.J~t"'.~'~llq.~bf.~..,,rround In9 or~as, I n terms of
,'.' t'..:I~."on, tr.Uh:C:'''C\l.t,_tfon, e"v'ronmentelquallty,
tv,.' 'ablllty of oOmmunltyf~'t Itles and services, effect on
school population and ot"ermatters affecting the physIcal and
$O,CI,a' quality of the n.Ig"bor"()OcJ~, as required pursuant to
. Sect' on 163.362 ( 3), f .$'. F()r examp Ie, wh II e I tis noted that
th,,.. Is I relatfvelY high vacancy rite (13 percent) In the City;
the discrepancy between rent paid by resIdents of the area and
the average rent In the CIty ($137 versus $275, respectively) and
median Income CS8,600 In the Irea versus a 512,900 City everage)
have been Ignored as II potentlll constraint to relocatIon.
5
i
"6
· WhIle the plan descrIbes methods of fInancIng, the costs of
pUbllc- and prlvately-funaed rehabIlItatIon and redevelopment
have not been estImated, nor has a complete estImate of publIc
Infrastructure needs and costs been provIded, as Is necessary to
ensure that adequate facIlItIes and servIces can be programmed
coIncIdent wIth development.
· The plan generally Includes development controls and
ImplementatIon methods Intended to assure that redevelopment wIll
follow the plan.
· The plan proposes contInuatIon of resIdentIal use, but does not
adequately address the Issue of relocatIon, as requIred.
ExIstIng Development Order (ResolutIon No. 79-15828)
The area covered by the amended redevelopment plan Is IdentIcal to the
area covered by a Development of RegIonal Impact revIewed by the CouncIl
In July, 1978. In September, 1978, a Development Order (ResolutIon No.
78-15705) was Issued, whIch provIded for 3,"0 dwellIng unIts, 4,785
hotel unIts, "2,600 gross square feet of retaIl space, 68,750 gross
square feet of office space, plus recreatIon and entertaInment facIlItIes
totalling 90,200 square feet. ThIs development order was Subject to an
appeal by the CouncIl, as It dId not contaIn CouncIl recommended
condItIons for approval or FIndIngs of Fact and ConclusIons of law, as
requIred by Chapter 380, F.S.
On February 7, 1979, an Amended Development Order (ResolutIon No.
79-15828) was Issued, whIch resolved the Issues raIsed In the CouncIl's
appeal. The ConclusIons of law wIthIn the Amended Development Order
provIde:
That thIs Amended Development Order Shall remaIn In effect for a
period of ten years from the date of Its rendItion, provided that
thIs effectIve perIod may be extended by the City CommIssIon upon a
fIndIng of excusable delay In any proposed development actIvIty and
that condItIons have not changed suffIcIently to warrant further
consIderations of the development. In the event the developer falls
to commence sIgnIfIcant physIcal development wIthIn 2 years from the
date of rendItIon of this Amended Development Order, development
Shall be subject to further consIderatIon. (emphasIs added)
Thus, the Amended 00 Is In effect and wIll remaIn so until February 6,
1989, even If a new DRI ApplIcatIon for Development Approval (ADA) must
be submitted, pursuant to the above requIrement for the development to be
Subject to "further consIderatIon," absent sIgnIfIcant development prIor
to February 6, 1981. Further:
6
~7
<
....thls Amended Development Order shall be bIndIng upon the
applIcant and Its heIrs, assIgnees or successors In Interest. It Is
understood that any reference hereIn to any governmental agency
shall be construed to mean any future InstrumentalIty whIch may be
created and desIgnated as successor In Interest to, or whIch
otherwIse possesses any of the powers and dutIes of any referenced
governmental agency In exIstence on the effectIve date of thIs
Development Order.
ThuS, although the CIty no longer Intends to obtaIn ownershIp of the
proJect area, as proposed In the 1978 ApplicatIon for Development
Approval, development of the area must proceed In conformance wIth the
current DRI development orders untIl an Amended DRI Development Order 15
Issued.
SubstantIal DevIatIon
Chapter 380, F.S., establIshes a procedure for determining whether a
proposed change to a proJect covered by an exIstIng DRI development order
requIres addItIonal revIew of the entIre development of regIonal Impact
(SectIon 380.06(17), F.S.). Statutory guIdelInes for changes presumad
not to be substantial devIatIons requIrIng further revIew are:
1. An Increase In the number of dwellIng unIts of not more than 5
percent or 200 dwelling unIts, whIchever Is less.
2. A decrease In the number of dwellIng unIts whIch does not
requIre a maJor redIstrIbutIon of densIty.
3. A decrease In the area set asIde for common open space of not
more than' percent or 50 acres, whIchever Is less.
4. An Increase In the area set asIde for common open space.
5. An Increase In the floor area proposed for non-resIdential use
of not more than 5 percent or 10,000 square feet, whichever Is
less.
6. A decrease In the regIonal Impact of the development.
7. A change requIred by permIt conditions or requIrements Imposed
by the Department of EnvIronmental RegulatIon, the Department
of Natural Resources, or any water management district created
by s. 373.069 or any of theIr successor agencies or by any'
appropriate federal regulatory agency. (Section 380.06(17)(b),
F.S.>
7
~8
Review of the South Shore Revitalization Strategy Indicates that the
proposed changes from the plan approved In the 1979 Amended 00 exceed the
above guidelines In et least five categories, thus Indicating that the
current plan constitutes e substantial deviatIon.
. While the Strategy does not explicitly Identify the number of proposed
dwelling units, the residential densities proposed for each of the
"urban neIghborhood" subdistricts, mixed-use retaIl core, and marina,
even excluding the unspecified, but proposed, Transfer of Development
Rights bonuses, allows the total number of dwelling units to exceed
the number approved In the existing DO by 876 units or 24.7 percent.
Table 1 summarizes the projected resIdentIal densItIes end unIts
permItted under the revised plen. These differences are more than
four times the presumptIve guidelIne In the statute.
TABLE I
PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES
SOUTH SHORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY
Maximum PermItted
~ Acreage DensIty (1), (2) Units
--
Urban NeIghborhood
R-PSI 12.4 60 744
R-PS2 15.6 60 936
R-PS3 5.9 80 472
R-PS4 13.9 100 1,390
Reta I I C'A:lre 11.4 60 684
MarIna --lQQl3 )
TOTAL Al,426
1979 Amended DO 3,550
ADsolute Increase 876
Percentage Increase 24.7
(1) DwellIng unltslacre
(2) ExcludIng Transfer of Development Rights bonuse$
(3) ExIstIng hi-rIse publIc housIng
SOURCES: South Shore RevItalIzatIon Strategy
South Shore Development Order (ResolutIon 79-15828)
. ComparIson of the approved and proposed sIte plans (Figures 3 and 2,
respectively> Indicates a major redistribution of density, In addition
to the Increase In the number of dwelling units allowed. Thus, the
second guidelIne Is also exceeded.
8
~9
,.
c
ro
a.. "@L.
+-
c
~
a.
0
- 8
Q)
>
Q) -0
-0
Q) Q)
r<1 ex -0
c
W aJ ~
a: L.
::> 0
C!l .J::.
l.I) 0\
u... r-
.J::. 0\
+-
:J
0
(/)
"
~-""""
"
"
'\
'\
,
\
\
\
\
,
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
.
.
..
I
.
,
I
I
,
I
I
,
,
'-', I'
t '_...........
\
\
"
;
l.
I ,
\
\
i
.
. ,
,
,
,
,
,
I
.
.
,
,
,
,
I
.
,
I
.
,
I
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~~ ~ ...' :z,'\~'
'.~~~~\,*, ;",,' ,x,
~~~\'\"0; \ \,,\',;.',,\
';~~~~~~;$~\)<~ ~'\
,'i~~~ \,,~, ",,~~,
' '\,\" \ """ ''0:';',:~~'\
--.....\.\;...""., ::i\""~\~,,
, r I
! . f I
.
f ,
.
,. I
I . .
I
,
I ,
70
"
II
. A sIgnIfIcant reduction In the emount of open space Is proposed from
that In the approved plan. Over one hundred acres (107.99 acres);
IncludIng 27.39 acres of canals, are provIded for In the existing DO
for parks, recreation, and entertainment. Only 61.4 acres of parks
and beach are proposed In the plan amendment, representing a potential
decrease of 43 percent. This excludes, however, three small parks
near the IntersectIon of Second Street and Washington, and additional
open space requirements of the lo-Interlm Development district overlay
of the residential RM-60 and AM-tOO zones. The plan neither
Identifies the proportIon of existIng lots currently meeting those
standards, nor projects the amount of redevelopment that may comply In
the future. Regardless of the amount of open space provided on
IndIvidual parcels, the amount of common open space required by the
existing DO Is not preserved under the new pl~n and, therefore,
presumptIve guIdelines 3 end 4 are also exceeded.
. The Revitalization Strategy does not specIfy the proposed floor area
for non-residentIal development In the area, so It Is not possIble to
estimate whether guideline 5 Is exceeded.
. The existing 00 Includes 20 explicit conditions whIch eliminate,
reduce, or mitIgate undesirable regional Impacts whIle the proposed
plan Includes no specific correspondIng condItIons. Thus, guIdeline 6
Is exceeded.
Given the above, the proposed plan amendment cannot be presumad not to be
a substantial devIatIon from the approved project, accordIng to Section
380.06(17), F.S. Thus, It appears that the City should submit an Amended
ADA to the Council and the Department of Community AffaIrs, so that an
Amended 00, consistent with the cur"rently proposed plan amendments, can
be properly adopted by the City.
71
PLANNING BOARD MODIFICA nONS
The following motion was adopted unanimously by the Planning Board on October 17, 1983:
"The Planning Board recommends adoption of the South Shore Revitalization
Strategy Plan as a Community Redevelopment Plan, under Florida State
Statute 163.360, and as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan
pursuant to Florida State Statute 163.3184. The Planning Board further
recommended that the existing plan be modified by including all of the
modifications (items 1-11) listed in the Planning Department's report on the
South Shore Revitalization Plan, dated October 12, 1983, and in addition, the
following modifications adopted by the Planning Board:
*A.
The implementation of the South Shore
independent Redevelopment Authority
professional staff which will expedite
development activities;
Plan shall be handled by an
including an independent
and coordinate South Shore
B. The South Shore Plan on p. 56, Parcel E-I, should be revised to indicate
that the acquisition of that portion of the parcel, including the South Shore
Elementary School site (south of 4th Street) is an immediate priority in
order that its development be coordinated with the marina upland area
development;
C. The South Shore Plan, on p. 53, should be revised to indicate that the City
should place a high priority on preparing a Request for Proposal for
development of the Marina Upland area (Parcels E and C);
D. That the section of the South Shore Plan which refers to density guidelines
should contain the following written policy: Under certain circumstances a
project may be allowed to exceed the density ranges listed, if a specific
development utilizes the bonuses, incentives, transfer of development
rights, or other techniques which will be provided in the permanent zoning
for the South Shore area.
72
MODIFICA nONS PROPOSED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FRIELICH AND LEITNER
POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH AND JERNIGAN, INC.
(as modified by Redevelopment Agency)
1. Modification to Proposed Land Use Plan (See Map on p. 49)
a. A portion of Parcel E-l, that area north of Fourth Street between Alton Road
and Michigan Avenue, should be revised to be included in Parcel A, which is the
Fifth Street _ Mixed Use Subarea. The description of the alternative land use is
found on p. 56 (Parcel E-l). It does not appear feasible nor necessary for this
area to remain as accessory land area for the marina upland development. The
use of these blocks are clearly related to development on Fifth Street. (Please
see schematic plan for upland development in Appendix A, p. A-47). The western
portion of the parcel is mostly owned by a single property owner who is actively
seeking to build an office building, if he can acquire that portion of the block
owned by the City. The City Administration is in support of his project. The
Zoning District Map already reflects this modification.
b. The parcel designated by the small asterisk as Alternate 1 (the area bounded by
Biscayne Street, Washington Avenue, the U.S. Government Reservation and the
Bay) should be revised and redesignated as part of Parcel F. Although a portion
of this parcel is presently a City-owned park and another portion is owned by the
Miami Beach Housing Authority, the remainder is owned in common with
Parcel F and the long-term proposal is for utilization as part of the existing
Parcel F.
Note: The Parcel Aggregation Map (p. 27) erroneously designates the entire
parcel as government-owned although a portion thereof is privately owned by the
owners of Parcel F.
2. Modification of Proposed Zoning Districts (See Zoning Map, p. 98)
a. A group of parcels located at the northeast corner of Jefferson and First Street
should be removed from the R-PSI District and placed in the R-PS2 District.
This boundary line of the R-PS2 which runs along Jefferson Avenue should
connect straight to First Street. The properly is adjacent to the City-owned
police-court facility which will be abandoned. The R-PS2 zoning is a more
appropriate zone for the properties.
b. The C-PS3 zoning district should extend west to Biscayne Bay to reflect the
ultimate use of the property despite the fact that a portion of this property is
City-owned. Any development will have to make adequate provision for
continuation of the Baywalk and preservation of public access to the Bay. This
may, in fact, be done by deed in fee simple, easement, lease, or other suitable
legal mechanism.
c. The R-PS3 designation on the Map is misplaced. It should be between
Washington and Collins Avenues rather than between Collins and Ocean Drive.
d. The City presently has pending the adoption of a Dune Overlay District which
will regulate and restrict uses and structures in the area between the established
Bulkhead Line and the Erosion Control Line. If adopted, this designation should
be shown on the proposed Zoning Map.
3. Modification of Height Limit in C-PS2 Zoning Dis!~J.c! (See p. 105)
The proposed maximum height of six stories over three stories of parking (75 feet) for
the C-PS2 zone along Fifth Street may be overly restrictive. A major objective of the
Plan is to concentrate commercial activity, specifically, office development along
Miami Beach Boulevard. An increase of two or three stories in building height is
justified based upon the width of ~ile street and to encourage corporate office
development.
7;1
*4. Preservation of Miami Beach Warehouse No. 100
5. Designating South Shore as a Transfer of Development Rights (TOR) Target Area
It is proposed that the South Shore Revitalization Area be designated as a "receiving"
area for density bonuses earned through a transfer of development rights from
renovated locally designated historic properties.
The City's Zoning Ordinance in Section 26 (Historic Preservation District Regulations)
directs the City to prepare a Transfer of Development Rights (TOR) ordinance
primarily as an incentive to encourage property owners to seek local designation of
their historic buildings. This legislation is now being drafted jointly by the City
Attorney's office and the Planning Department at the request of the City's Historic
Preservation Board.
The concept, as determined by the Historic Preservation Board, would allow a
'property-owner or developer, who substantially renovates a locally designated historic
building, to be "awarded" density bonuses which could be added as a matter of right to
another property. The density bonuses (i.e. number of units, FAR, or square footage)
could be transferred to the same owner's property located elsewhere in the City or
sold to another separate property owner. The location of the transfer property or
"receiving" area must be carefully controlled, and at this stage, it is being
recommended that the South Shore Revitalization area be the primary receiving
target. It is felt that this additional bonus would be helpful in stimulating new
development in the South Shore project area. The product of this concept
accomplishes two objectives:
A. It financially rewards property-owers who rehabilitate historic structures, and;
B. It provides an additional development incentive for properties in the South Shore
area.
The TOR concept to encourage historic preservation has been successfully used in New
York City, Chicago and Denver. The City of San Francisco, is now drafting a similar
ordinance. Miami Beach would be the fourth City in the Country to use this unique
approach to land use development.
It is recommended that Chapter 10, Zoning and Land Use Controls, be modified in the
appropriate sections to incorporate the bonus density factor as a result of a Transfer
of Development Rights Ordinance.
6. Creation of a South Shore Expeditor Position
It is recommended that South Shore Revitalization Plan (Chapter 11, Implementation
Program) be modified to include the creation of a special city government expeditor
for the project area. This suggestion has been made by members of the South Shore
Ad-Hoc Planning Committee and other individuals testifying before the Planning
Board. The implementation of the South Shore Plan will be a complex undertaking
involving responsibilities in seeking developers for City-owned sites; negotIating
development agreements; scheduling ~apital improvement projects; and responding to
citizen and property-owner inquiries. It would be appropriate to include in Chapter 11,
a specific recommendation to have a staff development expeditor appointed for the
South Shore project.
2
14
7. Modification of Proposed Transportation Network - (See Map on p. 62)
Consider revising the Proposed Transporation Network to reconfigure the secondary
loop road so that it extends directly from Alton Road to Biscayne Street instead of
jogging on Jefferson Avenue from First Street to Biscayne Street. This would
facilitate traffic flow to the area of South Beach south of First Street, which will
include such major traffic generators/attractions as South Shore Park, Miami Beach
Kennel Club property, the southern marina upland development parcel and the area
proposed for C-PS 1 zoning.
8. Relocation
Expand relocation element (p. 96) to incorporate more detailed information on the
precise scope of potential relocation based upon condition of structures, public
improvements that may necessitate displacement and other factors; identify potential
relocatees by demographic characteristics (age, family size and characteristics,
income, etc.); and quantify the availability of suitable replacement housing elsewhere
in Miami Beach, by location, cost or rental rate, size of unit and other relevant
characteristics.
9. City Parks Improvements
Incorporate reference to necessary improvements to the two City parks along the
Ocean between Biscayne and First Streets and between Second and Third Streets (p.
92) and incorporate cost estimates for such improvements, including demolition of the
City pier, in the Stage I capital improvements program (p. 115).
10. Tax Increment Financing
Revise references to County action on tax increment financing (p. 110) and change
erroneous reference to tax increments resulting from marina development (p. 117)
from $10 million to approximately $100,000 per year.
II. Land Use Intensity Matrices
It is suggested that the Land Use Intensity Matrices and Bonus Matrices (pp.
100,102,105 and 107) be deleted and that all references thereto on pp. 99, 102, 104
and 106 be stricken. In substitution thereof, insert the following Tables which provide
general density/intensity guidelines:
Density Guidelines for R-PS Zoning ~istricts
Subdistrict
Use
Owelling Units
Per Acre
R-PS 1
Medium -Low Density
Residential
25 - 60
R-PS 2
Medium Density
Residential
40 - 60
R-PS 3
Medium-High Densi ty
Residential
50,,80
R-PS 4
High Density
Residential
70 - 100
Density Guidelines for C-PS Zoning Q~stricts
Subdistrict
Use
'ntensity - FAR
C-PS 1
Limited Mix-Use Commercial
(residential at R-PS 2 denities)
1.0 - 2.0
C-PS 2
General Mixed-Use Commercial
(residential at R-PS 3 densities)
2.0 - 2.5
C-PS 3
Intensive Mixed Use Commercial
(residential at R-PS 4 densities)
2. ') - 3.0
3
15
The elimination of the Intensity and Bonus matrices wiH allow for greater flexibility in
development of the permanent zoning, but within the constraints established by the
proposed Density Guidelines, S!:IP"a. The City's Consultant has provided a detailed
explanation of the South Shore Pian zoning densities; see attached memorandum dated
October 3, 1983 from Freilich and Leitner. The intensity and bonus matrices are too
detailed for purposes of a comprehensive plan. The density guidelines are
commensurate with the level of detal! found in the Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan
(August, 1980) (See p. 23 Land Use Categories and Future Land Use Element, Figure 11-
4). In addition, it will be necessary to remove Appendix F from the report. This
appendix (zoning Pro Forma) should be eliminated because the intensity matrices on
which they are based will be deleted in favor of the above rE:commended density
guidelines.
* 12. Florida International University
The City Commission has recently adopted Resolution No. 83-17604 (December 21,
1983) which surported the concept of locating an FlU Conservatory of Fine Arts
campus in the South Shore project area. AHhough no speciflc site has been
determined, it would be appropriate to incorporate and reference this concept in the
Plan. Specifically in Chapter 7, the Plan should contain (\ reference to the Fiorida
International University c:e.rnpus proposal.
SAY /rg
*Revised in January, 1984
l~.
-16
TO:
MIAMI BEACH PLANNING BOARD
SANFORD A. YOUKILlS
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1983
FROM:
SUBJECT: REVISED PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANAL YSIS AND REPORT ON
MODIFICATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE SOUTH SHORE REVIT ALlZA TlON
PLAN
f
BACKGROUND
~iThe South Shore Revitalization Strategy (Plan) was officially transmitted to the Plannihg
ard by the Redevelopment Agency at its July 18, 1983 meeting. Within sIxty (60) days of
he receIpt of the Plan, the PlannIng Board must hold a public hearing and prepare its
ritten recommendation(s) on the Plan. The Planning Board received the Plan at its
'July ~6, 1983 meeting; therefore, the Board would have been required to transmit its
response by September 26, 1983. The Planning Board has held public hearings on the Plan on
~eptember 6, 1983 and September 15, 1983 and has scheduled a special meeting on
bCtober 12, 1983.
~he South Shore Revitalization Strategy was prepared by Freilich Hnd Leitner, P.C., Post,
Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. Halcyon Corporation, and the City of Miami Beach
Planning Department. The Plan was prepared with continuing input and guidance of the
Mayor's Ad Hoc Committee on Planned Area Development for South Shore. If adopted by
the City Commission, the Revitalization Strategy wiU replace the South Shore
Redevelopment Plan adopted March 2, 1977. The Revitalization Strategy wUl also be
adopted as an amendment to the Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan.
The Community Redevelopment Act requires that, prior to consideration and adoption of or
an amendment to a community redevelopment plan, that it be submitted to the Planning
Board for review and recommendation as to its conformity with the adopted Comprehensive
Plan. The Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 requires that
Comprehensive Plan amendments be reviewed by the Planning Board prior to adoption by the
City Commission.
DESCRIPTION OF PLAN
"Ian Highlights:
1.
.
Land use patterns emphasizing marin<~ and waterfront activities; office and
commercial centers; waterfront hotel sites; environmentally scaled housing and
increased parks and open space;
J
Replacement of the "master developer to~al clearance" concept with innovative zoning
techniques to encourage private land owners and developers to aggregate properties.
through incentives and bonuses;
Urban Design Guidelines and standards to provide South Shore' with a "total image"
environmertt as a water oriented community in which to live, work, and piay; and
f
,
311
I
4.
A phased capital improvement~ program which will focus sevf'rai million dollars in
improvements in the area during the next several years.
The Planning Department suggests that the Board members ("(lrlcentratc their attention on
the following chapters which together constitute the most important elements of the Plan:
Chapter 7: The Pian pp. 44 - 68
Chapter 10: Zoning and Land Use Controls, pp. 89 - ! 08
Chapter il: Implementation Program; pp. 109-117
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
During the past two months since the publication of the Plan, the Planning Department has
reViewed and solicited comments on the Pian from a number of organizations and
Individuals. In addition, recent actions and discussions by the City Commission, the Historic
Preservation Board and other CIty Agencies have necessitated consideration of certain
mpdifications and additions to the Plan. The Planning Department is recommending that the
Plfnning Board's official comments on the South Shore Plan include the following
m difications:
i"'\i,1! 1',',! 1
nrrwn,! t:; r I',;; ,';. Ii';
a
i): , .
MUjj;,i:~
I. Modification to Proposed Land Use Plan (See Map on p. 49)
a. A portion of Parcel E-I, that area north of Fourth Street between Alton Road
and Michigan Avenue, should be revised to be Included in Parcel A, which is the
Fifth Street - MIxed Use Subarea. The description of the alternative land use is
found on p. 56 (Parcel E-J). It does not appear feasible nor necessary for this
area to remain as accessory land area for the marina upland development. The
use of these blocks are clearly related to development on Fifth Street. (Please
see schematic plan for upland development in Appendix A, p. A-47). The western
portion of the parcel Is mostly owned by a sIngle property owner who is actively
seeking to build an office building, if he can acquire that portion of the block
owned by the City. The City Administration is In support of his project. The I
Zoning District Map already reflects this modification.
b. The parcel designated by the smaJI asterisk as Alternate I (the area bounded by
Biscayne Street, Washington Avenue, the U.S. Government Reservation and the
Bay) should be revised and redesignated as part of Parcel F. Although a portion
of this parcel is presently a City-owned park and another portion is owned by the
Miami Beach Housing Authority, the remaInder Is owned in common with
Parcel F and the long-term proposal is for utilization as part of the existing
Parcel F.
Note: The Parcel Aggregation Map (p. 27) erroneously designates the entire
parcel as government-owned although a portion thereof i5 privately owned by the
owners of Parcel F.
2. Modification of Proposed Zonin<< Districts (See Zoning Map, p. 98)
a.
A group of parcels locate~ at the northeast corner of Jefferson and First Street
should be removed from the R-PSI District and placed in the R-PS2 DIstrict.
This boundary Jlne of the R-PS2 which runs along Jefferson Avenue should
connect straIght to First Street. The property is adjacent to the City-owned
police-court facUity which wlU be abandoned. The R-PS2 zoning is a more
appropriate zone for the properties.
b. '
The C-PS3 zoning district should extend west to Biscayne Bay to reflect the
ultimate use of the property despite the fact that a portion of this property is
City-owned. Any development will have to make adequate provision for
continuation of the Baywalk and preservation of public access to the Bay. This
may, in fact, be done by deed in fee simple, easement, lease, or other suitable
legal mechanism.
\
I c.
The R-PS3 designation, on the Map is misplaced. It should be between
Washington and Collins Avenues rather than between Collins and Ocean Drive.
"
t
d.
The City presently has pending the adoption of a Dune Overlay District which
will regulate and restrict uses and structures in the area between the established
Bulkhead Line and the Erosion Control Line. If adopted, this designation should
be shown on the proposed Zoning Map.
3. Modification of Height Limit in C-PS2 Zoning District (See p. 105)
The proposed maximum height of six stories over three stories of parking (7.5 feet) for
the C-PS2 zone along Fifth Street may be overly restrictive. A major objective of the
Plan is to concentrate commercial actIvity, specifically, office development along
Miami Beach Boulevard. An increase of two or three stories in building height is
justified based upon the width of the street and to encourage corporate office
development.
.
4. Preservation'of MIami Beach Warehouse No. 100
This structure, entitled C.M.B. Warehouse 100, is located at 100 Alton Road within the
Marina South area (Parcel C) (See p. 53). The land use for this area is designated as
hotel use with ancillary activities such as restaurants or specialty shops. The subject
building. built in 1?2' is one of the few remaining red 6rick buildings in South Florida.
The structure, which Is in good condition, is located adjacent to the bay. The adaptive
re-use of this structure as a unique theme restaurant, or specialty shopping complex
should be actively pursued. A number of major cities (Boston, Baltimore, New York,
Seattle, etc.) have encouraged the re-use of similar structures along their waterfronts
and which are now extremely successful projects. It is recommended that the specific
!.,( 'ril I i,,'; i:
i ~; I" .,:'-! j ;; r ~; II f '~ .:' l :
2
. '1 I ~
.
r 1 if III ~
planning recommendations for Parcel C be modified to include the preservation and
re-use of this building.
5. DesiKfUlting South Shore as a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Target Area
I
It is proposed that the South Shore Revitalization Area be designated as a "receiving"
area for density bonuses earned through a transfer of development rights from
renovated locally designated historic properties.
The City's Zoning Ordinance in Section 26 (Historic Preservation District Regulations)
directs the City to prepare a Transfer of Development Rights (TOR) ordinance
primarily as an incentiv,e to encourage property owners to seek local designation of
their historic bUildings. This legislation is now being drafted jointly by the Citt
Attorney's office and the Planning Department at the request of the City's Historic
Preservation Board.
The concept, as determIned by the Historic Preservation Board, would allow a
property-owner or developer, who substantially renovates a locally designated historic
building, to be "awarded" density bonuses which could be added as a matter of right to
another property. The densIty bonuses (i.e. number of units, FAR, or square footage)
could be transferred to the same owner's property located elsewhere in the City or
sold to another separate property owner. The location of the transfer property or
"receiving" area must be carefully controlled, and at this stage, it is being
recommended that the South Shore Revitalization area be the primary receIving
target. It is felt that this additional bonus would be helpful In stimulating new
development in the South Shore project area. The product of this concept
accomplishes two objectives:
A. It financially rewards property-owers who rehabilitate historic structures, and;
B. It provides an additional development incentive for properties in the South Shore
area.
The TDR concept to encourage historic preservation has been sllccessfully used in New
York City, Chicago and Denver. The City of San Francisco, is now drafting a similar
ordinance. Miami Beach would be the fourth City in the Country to use this unique
approach to land use development.
It is recommended that Chapter 10, Zoning and Land Use Controls, be modified in the
appropriate sections to incorporate the bonus density tach)r as a result of a Transfer
of Development Rights Ordinance.
6.1
Creation of a South Shore Expedi.!or Position
f-
,
It is recommended that South Shore Revitalization Plan (Chapter 11, Implementation
Program) be modified to include the creation cf a special city government expeditor
for the project area. This suggestion has been made by members of the South Shore
Ad-Hoc Planning Committee and other individuals testifying before the Planning
Board. The implementation of the South Shore Plan will be a complex undertaking
involving responsibilities in seeking developers for City-owned sites; negotiating
development agreements; scheduling capital improvement projects; and responding to
citizen and property-owner inquiries. It would be appropriate to include in Chapter 11,
a specific recommendation to have a staff development expeditor appointed for the
South Shore project. '
7.
Modification of Proposed Transportation Netw()("~ - (See Map on p. 62)
Consider revising the Proposed Transporation Network to reconfigure the secondary
loop road so that it extends directly frolll Alton Road to Biscayne Street instead of
jogging on Jefferson Avenue from First Street to Biscayne Street. This would
facilitate traffic flow to the area of South Beach south of First Street, which will
include such major traffic generators/attractions as South Shore Park, Miami Beach
Kennel Club property, the southern marina upland development parcel and the area
proposed for C-PSJ zoning.
8. Relocation
Expand relocation element (p. 96) to incorporate more detailed information on the
precise scope of potential relocation based upon condition of structures, public
improvements that may necessitate displacement and other factors; identify potential
3
5
rclocatees by demogrJphic charar:tcristic~ (<tgP, family size and characteristics,
income, etc.); and quantify the availability of sui table replac:cml'nt housing elsewhere
in Miami Beach, by location, cost or rental rate, si7.c of unit and other relevant
characteristics.
9. City Parks Improvements
10.
Incorporate reference to necessary improvements. to tlw two City parks along the
Ocean between Biscayne and First Streets and between C;econd and Third Streets (p.
92) and incorporate cost estimates for such improver,lents, including demolition of the
City pier, in the Stage I capital improvements program (p. 115).
tax Increment Financing
~evise references to County action on tax increment financing (p. 110) and change
erroneous reference to tax increments resulting from marina d('velopment (p. 117)
from $10 million to approximately $100,000 per year.
11.
Land Use Intensity Matrices
It is suggested that the Land Use Intensity Matrices and Bonus Matrices (pp.
100,102,105 and 107) be deleted and that all referencec; thereto on pp. 99, 102, 104
and 106 be stricken. In substitution thereof, insert the foJJowing Tables which provide
general denSity/intensity guidelines:
Density Guidelines for R-PS Zoning Districts
Subdistrict
r~-ps 1
/{-PS 2
R-PS 3
R-PS 4
I
I
f Subdistrict
,
C-PS 1
C-PS 2
C-PS 3
Use
DweUing UnitS
Per Acre
Medium -Low Den.,j L y
Residential
25 - 60
Medium [)enc;j tv
Residential
40 - 60
Medium-High l)el1SI ty
Residential
50 - 80
High Density
Residential
70 - 100
Density Guidelines for C-PS Zoning Districts
Use
Intensity - FAR
Limited Mix-Use Commerciill
(reSidential at R-PS 2 denities)
1.0 - 2.0
General Mixed-Use Co"!'uTlcrcial
(residential at R-PS 3 demities)
2.0 - 2.5
Intensive Mixed Use Commercial
(reSidential at R-PS IJ densities)
2.5 - 3.0
The elimination of the Intensity and Bonus matrices will allow for greater flexibility in
development of the permanent zoning, but within the constraints established by the
proposed Density Guidelines, Supra. The City's Consultant has provided a detailed
explanation of the South Shore Plan zoning densities; see attached memorandum dated
October 3, 1983 from Freilich and Leitner. The intensity and bonus matrices are too
detailed for purposes of a comprehensive plan. The density guidelines are
commensurate with the level of detail found in the Miami 8each Comprehensive Plan
(August, 1980) (See p. 23 Land Use Categories and Future Land Use Element, Figure 11_
4). In addition, it wiH be necessary to remove Appendix F from the report. This
appendix (zoning Pro Forma) should be eliminated because the intensity matrices on
which they are based will be deleted in favor of the above recommended density
guidelines.
i
JI
/J
8
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Board take the following actions:
I. approve the South Shore Revitalization Plan as a Community Redevelopment Plan
under Florida State Statute 16.3..360;
2. approve the South Shore Revitalization Plan as an amendment to the City's
Comprehensjve Plan pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3184; and
3. recommend that the City's consultants, the Redevelopment Agency and the City
I Commission consider modifying the existing plan as stated in Items 1 through 11 0'
, this report, as well as any other proposed revisions adopted by the Planning Board.
~espectivelY Submitted
, ~/~a~
.......~NFORD A. QILlS
pLANNING DIRECTOR
SAY/rg
t,
,
11,\UI ; I ,::1
In IlIvr I I)/' l\l~' ii' \ ': ( : It,(
OJ
II 'j :,:' I' \, ' I
'7
"IU,iliW
LAW OFFICES
FREILICH & LEITNER, p, C.
SUIT~ 710
Pl,uA eANK AND tRUST AlIlt OINO
"f}~S WYANDOlTe
I("NS"S CITY, MISSOU,.I 64112
~OBERT H. FREILICH'
MARTIN L, LEITNER
WAYNE M. 5ENVILLE
'816' 7!5'.O~'A!>
RICHARD G. CARLISLE
0" COUN5Cl.
'HULEN PROF"ESSOA OF LAW
UNIV[ASITY Of ....,SSOURI. M....HS...S el1"-
SCHOOL 0" LAW
~IOO AOCkHIIl. "0...0
KANSA!) CITy. MISSOURI "<4110
18181 27B-I!J8'
t'
MEMOI~ANDUM
Da te :
September 19, 1983
To: Robert W. Parkins, City Man~yer
From: Freilich & Leitner, P.C.
Planning Consultants
Subject: South Beach Redevelopment Plan:
"Redevelopment Agency/City Co~nission Responsibilities
Plan Adoption Schedule
Attached please find the suggested schedule for redevelop-
ment plan consideration, review and adoption as set forth in the
Appendix to the proposed plan and as incorporated in your July
18, 1983 Executive Director's Redevelopment Agency Memorandum.
The Agency, on July 18, 1983, accepted the Plan from the PAD
Committee and transmitted same to the Planning Board.
The Plan-
ni~g Board held public hearings on September 6 and 15, 1983.
I
Whe public hearing was closed on Septemhl"r 15, The Planning
I
birector has recommended approval of the-Plan with six (6)
l
,
modifications.
Neither we nor the Planning Board have objected
to the suggested modifications.
The Planning Hoard has indi-
cated a desire to discuss the issue of "density" at some greater
length, at a workshop, prior to submitting its recommendations
to the Agency.
We anticipate that this will occur at a special
-1-
f'li"';\ : . :'! :L
Pu,~\.:rllq'rl:ijl :'['; ~ll,{
; 11 I
, "
8
Mn Ilf~G
meeting in early October and that the Planning Hoard will recom-
mend approval with modifications at the regularly scheduled
October 19, 1983 meeting of the Agency.
At that meeting, the Agency shall co.n~;id(!r the Pl.ow and the
Planning Board recommendations and submit the Plan it recommends
for approval together with its written reco~nendations to the
jCity Commission. The Agency recommendation may include some,:
al~, or none of the Planning Board's suggested modifications
plus any others.
We have attached a draft Resolution to effectuate the
subm~ t tal of the Plan by ~.he _ A9~~<:'Y __t()_...!he__~.o,':!'.m~c;..:c;ion.
Thereafter, the City COllunission shall cOlIgider the Plan at
its regularly scheduled October 19, 1983 meeting.
(Neither the
Agency nor the Commission meetings on this date need be a public
hearing; these items may simply appear as agenda items.)
At this meeting, the Commission should transmit the Plan to
the State land planning agency, the County, and other units of
local government, as required, pursuant to the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning Act.
(City Commission public hearings on
the plan will occur afte-E all comments are r.eceived from the
~tate, County and units of local government.)
It is important that the Commission transmit the Plan on
;- October 19. The State land planning agency (and the County and
other units of local government) have up to sixty (60) days to
review and submit written comments on the Plan. Assuming that
the full amount of time will be taken, the comments will not be
received by the City until December 21, 1983. The City then
-2-
8
needs to respond to any objections received and hold two public
hearings before adoption. Adoption should occur prior to the
expiration of the 10 Ordinance on January 15, 1984: otherwise,
the 10 Ordinance will need to be extended.
Therefore, attached also ~or your consideration is a pro-
I posed City Commission resolution transmitting the Plan to the
f State land planning Agency on October 19, 1983.
I
(;- ,
u
,
f-
,
-3-
:' i 11J~ I I: r :', : ,
prl;; '/I! (~:'Ili I I :\I'r;!'~'{
I ",: I ,; f" I' ':
MUJ IfJG
,10
/
/
~
, ,
.,...,,,
I 1:
I
<:",1 .~: :
III
f'1
-- I
I 1, ~ J
..,! I
'-~
.. .
Co'