The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEOPW-CRA-2002-03-25-Discussion Item 04March 25, 2002 ITEM 4 POLICY AND PLANNING REPORT, DISCUSSION, AND ACTION UPON THE BOUNDARY STUDY REPORT, PREPARED BY DOVER KOHL & PARTNERS. sEOPw/CRA �Yr�. Dowp, KOHL & PARTNERS t u w a p l a n n i n g Memorandum Date: 2/27/02 To: Annette Lewis, Acting Executive Director From: Victor Dover AICP, Sergio Vazquez Cc: Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Ana Gelabert-Sanchez AICP, Antranette Pierre Edwards, Chelsa Douglas Arscott, Maria Nardi, David Cardwell Subject: Preliminary Boundary Study Recommendations Please consider this a response to Mr. Judy and Mr. Olmedillo's September 2 1 " memorandum. These are recommendations so as to finalize the study document so that we may move forward on presenting to the CRA Board. General Recommendations These are global recommendations on format and content, which apply to all the options. Specific recommendations to each option are provided in the next section. 1. Description of Options The options have only been described in terms of boundary location. The options should be qualified as to why they should be considered as part of a redevelopment area. This is imperative as this study documents the first step in a legal process. Each option should be described in respect to CRA requirements, such as findings of slum and blight and environmental conditions. In our previous meetings with Mr. Judy, Mr. Olmedillo and Mr. Cardwell, it was agreed that a full cataloging of all the properties is not necessary at this initial phase of the Restatement process, but will be required when the number of options have been reduced, defined and are ready to be presented to the County Commission. 2. Proper Boundary Siting Best planning practices advocates locating CRA boundaries behind properties. Rather than setting the boundary on the centerline of the street, the intent is to provide a positive influence in a 360- degree environment. Boundary options should include the right-of-way that forms the street and properties on both sides. 3. Simplify the Options Currently there are too many options, and they have not been given descriptive names. Ambiguity is likely to create confusion during future Board meetings and technical discussions. To simplify, we suggest including I-95 and 1-395 as given in all the boundary options, and assigning descriptive names to each option. 01OU -R A :. �- SE®PW/CR�1 ` A19, M M Specific Revisions These are suggested revisions to the specific boundary options. A plan has been included to point out revisions. 4. Naming the Options To follow are suggested names, we consider these draft labels and encourage refinement: The Highways — the area beneath I-95 and I-395. Overtown — the area west of I-95 to and including NW 51h Avenue, the southern boundary being NW 5'h street Overtown by the River — the area west of NW 51h Avenue and south of NW 5th Street to the Miami River and NW 71h Avenue The Waterfront — the areas east of the CRA; including Biscayne Boulevard from Port Boulevard to I- 395, Bicentennial Park and the slip, reaching approximately 250 feet east the bulkhead. The intent is to include dockage and waterfront activities. The Arts District — the area currently in the Omni CRA, this is an additional option, which we are recommending. We suggest including 13`h Street with the exception of the Performing Arts Center. The Highways /II{/Ili '�'' i1�1= ■��' I11�111:�• � -� 11s111 n1111 !111111Z /11s�t 11111111M 1{111111+ 1 111111115 `!111115 u11111— '111i1i+i 611 211111111! !111I11' !1'11111 . �► it K1111111111 g111isin 1i11i11 1l111~wi+� {s{tilloil :IHs! 1111L�t�rM+ � 11 1r :. w � w ■IIIS1 . 11111115 111~ � 1111i� 1115111{1 Alilfiall OMNI/CRA SEOPW/CRA 5. Fine-tuning of Boundary Locations These are the recommended location specific revisions. The boundary options plan included in this memo reflects those revisions. The Highways — the portion of I-395 east of Biscayne Boulevard and North of Bicentennial Park and the People Mover was not previously included. This segment is currently the eastbound onramp to I-395. However when I-395 becomes reconfigured this property can be redeveloped. Overtown — the boundaries of NW 5 h Avenue, NW 5 h Street and NW I It" Street are no longer drawn on the centerline. This option now includes the properties on both sides of the street. Overtown by the River — the boundaries of NW 7"' Avenue and NW I lth Street includes the properties on both sides of the street. The Waterfront — the option now includes waterfront east of the bulkhead to be used for waterfront related activities. 6. An Additional Option: The Arts District We recommend considering an additional option we are calling The Arts District— this is the area currently in the Omni CRA. We are suggesting including 131h Street, with the exception of the Performing Arts Center. The reasoning behind this alternative is to prepare for the inevitable redesign of I-395. Whether rebuilt following Barnett's proposal for an elegant elevated span, or the Center for Urban and Community Design's proposal for an at -grade Boulevard, the quality of the urban setting would greatly improve. In either scenario, design efforts will increase property values, improve the streets adjacent to the Performing Arts Center and prepare the area for redevelopment. The intent is to have Tax Increment Financing available to help redevelop this strategic locale between the Performing Arts Center and the Cultural Park. In speaking with David Cardwell, it is our understanding that all increment financing in the Omni Redevelopment Area has been committed to the PAC. We would propose this alternative as a "win -win" opportunity, benefiting both the Omni Redevelopment Area and the Southeast Overtown/Park West CRA. As planners, we have applied basic urban design principles to delimit this boundary. We recognize this option may spark a lively dialogue. We also recognize that the economic analysis may actually recommend a larger area. It is worthwhile to have the CRA Board and stakeholders discuss and explore this option. Expediting the Study We understand the need to expedite this study. We have included as page 4, a suggested boundary adoption timeline, as an organization tool. The boundary options plan has been produced in GIS so that any future modifications need not be time consuming. We can produce the final document in our offices quickly once we have all the language from the sub -consultants. We suggest that Mr. Judy and Mr. Olmedillo should contribute the necessary descriptions for the boundary options as mentioned in item #1, and provide us with a file of the initial draft language from September 2001 memo and the new language. We would like ZHA's input prior to the releasing a final version of the boundary study. Including the economic aspects will creates a more comprehensive approach and enhances the credibility for our presentation to the County Commission and other audiences. In the meantime we can provide Mr. Cardwell and Mr. Zuchelli with a copy of this memo and seek further input. Once we have received the final language we can provide you and Mr. Cardwell with a complete draft for final review so that you may place the Boundary Study on the CRA Board Agenda. ONII T/CRA SEOPW/CRA • Olmedillo / Judy provide descriptions • Cardwell provides further input • Lewis provides input • DKP Revises docu- ment based on input L Cn Suggested Boundary Adoption Timeline March 2002 • ZHA provides pre- liminary economic analysis • Olmedillo / Judy, provide data for pref- fered options • Cardwell provides further input • Lewis provides input • DKP refines options and revises docu- ment based on input April 2002 • Lewis provides input • DKP refines options and revises docu- ment based on input June 2002