HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #31 - Discussion Item~~`
~~
- -
_i .. -
i
19
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
ro : The Honorable Mayor and Members GATE : ~ FILE
- of the City Commission 0 CT ~ 19$9
sua,ECr : City Properties
Discussion Item
FR M : Cesar H. Odl ~ REFERENCES
O
City Manager ~'
'/ ENCLOSURES : ~ Z
_ i
.For your review and discussion, and in accord with your
directive, the administration has identified City properties with
a potential for sale or for long-term lease. These properties
were selected for consideration based upon their present use.
properties which are not bein
Therefore we have included g
directly used by the City, vacant properties, and properties
which are underutilized. This review of City properties
continues and it is expected that additional small properties
will be brought for your review at a later date.
-? Attached is a list of the properties, including appraisal values.
Consistent with the General Services Administration policy of
appraisal review, difference$ in appraisal values which exceed 20
percent are under further scrutiny.
Administration staff will be available to discuss these
properties with you and to seek your guidance regarding future
actions.
~~ ~~
t~j
pR~f ~
~C A
M
~~
M
~~
y
Oli
M
a
a
a~4
a
N
~''
a
oolo
wolo
r a 1 ~n
N tt1 1 tl1
~-i N t t/}
vf. t/?~ t I
0~ 01 1 ~
O 00 I ~.
`,\ I 0~
0~ tJ~ 1
o ~o
z ~~
I
1
1
.1
1
I
~n 1 N
`~ I ~.
N I N
1 1 1
a E x
o~ooao t o0 1
i 0 - oo I
i aooooo I o0 1 a 1 oa 1
I ~.ooo0 1 0o I o I ao I
i
r
~ i `
-1OM~ui
etui
^ o ca o
I\ AO 'd' O .-F f n1 d' 1 CQ 1 O O I
I !71 N .-1 N N t t!} t!>• 1 tT 1 CD O I
I tJl~ t!A f? U} i i l l t? 1 1
I I l i l l fS (T 1 I 1 tft t4 1
I r aD UM1 O 1 CO o0 1 0~ 1 to- yr 1
I .-i '•1 '-1 N 1 ~. ~. I 00 1 I i i
~~ 1
I
I `.G 54`.f.`d. I d'' 1 Otp
I a a a a 1 1 1 `~.'~. 1
I mmmm I 1 1 mod' 1
z
~ ,.
1 1 A
H ~H ;OO
Z
I ~ I
~C LY.
~ ; y +
; ~~
1
1 1
I
H I 1 cif
O 1
1 I
1 (z7
° ; ~ 1 ~
~~ ~ A
A
m i
1 W zz
U tt1 ! ~C
~ H
~Ei
a
c
n
~
i "~ i ~
a
~ a
a
ac
1 O (
q~
CO RC f a!
~
U f ~ N 1! 1 ~
W
Z
~
x 1 ~C7
;
i I
tt1 t N I c'~}
O i *-1 i O
I
1 1 N
1
I
I M
1 H
1 U
I
H r H
a i >
'°x i a
W ~ Cpp9
O 17.
cp' i U
R'
a
H
~.
M
U
M
z
! I I
I I 1 1
o iw
~
a
~ i ~ w
I 1 1 a 1
r
I 1 1 I
i
~-+ i o~ ~
~ i ~
~ i
U
I
I A 1 1
1 U 1 1
I
I i i 1
1 1
I !
E O I v Q 1
,7,~ i
E A
~
1
1 U) M t G4 M I
mi
a
i> i M a
w
E
1 1 1
1 I I 1
1 t 1 1
is r i t
w
1 "/ I I I
ia~
~
ix
.
7
~ E
i
i
3 c
n
~
a i ~
~a
i c
n
I
H H I
9 0~ 1
V Z I
I 1 3 I I
1 .-1 t!} 1 VI I u1 I
I VAS ~ 1 ~C? t .-1 i
1 1
1 1 1
I
1 I
1 1
ep 1
1 ~
1 I H I
I M 1 I h
f ~-i 1 f~ 1
•
I
I U 1
~
i
0
+
N
i
~
o i
I tl1 1 E 1
i
1 ~.7 1 ~ U
~
i
i a ice
~p .
~ ~
~~i ia
~
3ai ~ i~
a
.
a
1
oolooi
oolooi
0 0 1 0 0 1
oolooi
O O I 1f1 O I
ut w I m a0 I
N M 1 M M I
Vf-Vf~ 1 Cif +/} 1
t71 O~ 1 T Q~ 1
:A OQ 1 CO 07 1
rn rn 1 m o 1
1 .-1 I
x
a
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
r-1 1
I1r
W Q'. I Cua I
aalaal
oolooi
C7 U ~ C7 U ~
I 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
i~ i
t ~ 1
f I
1 t4 I
~ ~ i m
M ~
~ U ~
N I 1
~ 1 ~ 1
a
I
I
I rn
1 ^-I 1 1
1 1
I r 1
1 N I
1 u5
1 H
1 1 N 1
1 ~ 1
1 I
m
E
1 Od
i ~ 1
1 tx 1
t ~ !!
r a ~ 1 V I
i s e
a U t cal 1
e pa
1 C? i z
i W I
W j U~ 1
I ~
~ 1 M I
~
i
~ ~
~.~-
y~
H '~i
E
~~
OI
MI
~~
O
N
y~
a
O
>1
H
~'
~I
~~
a
O O 1 0 0 '
0 0 1 0 0
Out 1
1 00
.
O '~ I O u1
OCO ( ON i
vs- I I r~ vs• ~
0
00 0
0 l 00 00
OD `~ 1 00 00
\O I ~.~.~
t0 1 t~ t~
1 z
z°
N
I
O
U
W
N
z
H
0
z
N
H
z
O
d'
z°
.~
~~
u7 u1 f O ~
000, I O~
~O~ ( O~
w • I •
n N I O i
O ~D I u1 i
~-I t/}- I N ~
v!• 1 1 tn. +
Cn 00 1 ~ +
ao \ t aD t
\ d' 1 \'
M 1_C~ i
~z
~o
z•
I ti 1 N
Imo. 1\
I th 1 N
1 1
1
V i C7 I
I 1 I
I
W I I
1 I
V 1 I
'zi 1 I
I w I Ca I
~ ~
1
I
1 1
1 I
H
W
a
E
~i
O
d'
N
N
I
C7
O
z
U z
a H
a~
I E
1 W
1
1
vi
~ I :r1
~-i I N
I
z I
I
~-~I ( r-I
~ I O
u1 I M
c~ t N
1 0 0 1 0 0
1 0 0 1 0 0
1 0 0 1
I
1 0 0
•
1 0 0 1 •
0 0
I O d' 1 0 0
I t~ t~ I N O
{ • 1
I ~I .-•I I rl '-1
I tt} cn- I th tn•
010 Oti 1 tT Q~
100 W 1 70 00
I\\1 \\
I ll1 td I
I 1 u1 u1
i
I I
I G] I i
• W ~
w cn
~ i w~
• o
I I zal
la
la
~H
U
c~
W
~i
O
O
d'
N
\
I
O
U
w I
a~
~w
3 CIS I
A
I
I
0~'. I
I
(/1 1
I
3 I
z I
I
O I
O
M I l~
N
• I
1 ~
I
i
1
N
~k
z
0
H
Q~
H
w
0
0
u1
• I d'
~ 1 u1 I N
1
I
I I u1
1
I 1
1
1 ~
1
I
I 1
I
I I
1
I
l
1 I
I 1
1
1
i 1
~ I
~
O
z 1
~ ,°a i o
i H I O
~ 1 [!1
~~ ic~
~a
Ct~ I O
RC 1 ~
i M
~z
'A
a
H
w
a
t3.
x
w
a
w
~r
a
w
H
w
a'
~'
OI
I
~ ~'
Exl
O
~~
1 0 0 1 4 I O O 1 0 0
I
0 0 1 0 0 I
I
I 1 0
I O Q
1
• •
ry o o ~
N 1 C/} l T I
I
v} tq. I 1 1 t~ t~ 1 • N-
0
0 ~ I
n I
1
1 1 0
0 Q1
C '
I t } ~
~,
n
\\ 1 0 I ~.\ I C
\ i
0~ 0~ i rl CO CO O ~
i I
i ~
1
1 1
1 I Q
I
1
I
Z I
I I
I II
1 w
I 1 ~,, ee.,
z i i~ iz
1
I 1
I 1 I
I
0
~ '
W
H '
a >:~ '
H H
H H
a¢
zwl
H
0
N
3
z
tll
t'7
O
.-i
I tD
I O
I
H
Q
t~
F
r~
~D
\
1
C7
U
a
as
J H
~a
a
~w
1 W
~z
1
I Q;
I
f t~
1 N
I ~
1 '?,
I
I ~
d'
I ~
I ~
I d'
I
a
la
~ O
I`~ 111
~0 u1
t/} tn•
~ ~ I
\\ ~
O O
w
z
z
a
a
I c.9 I C7
I ~-+ I H
~ i
~
I a
I
I
I
~ 1 r~
I
I
I
I
N
.-.
~a
~z
~a
0
clf U
~ ~
v
~ II
i •~•
X
W
~zz
Q
E
U
E+ I
¢r
N
I
I
H
H
z I
z
O
d
tJ~
a
a
a
W
Q
V
~+ d'
A
~E
a cn I
I
x~
x ~"
H D
wo
u -- I
-'
z
H
x
0
ca
w
M
~S
N
r
tD '
W
C9
H
O
w
0
W
Q
a,
~~""~ / •.7~1 i
/+
1 .r ~ ..._
i ~
zo
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
® Cesar N. Odio
City Manager
DA'E OCT i ~~ ~9~9 `~~
suEUEC- Discussion: Metromover
Extension Issues
RE=ERc~JCES
E'~C~OSUgES Agenda Item: City Commission
Meeting of October 26, 1989
The purpose of this memorandum is to a) present the recommendations of the Metro-
Dade County Manager to the Metro-Dade Transportation Committee of the County
Commission pertaining to the proposed alignment of the Metromover Extension
Project dated October 2, 1989 (attached); a letter from the County Manager dated
October 6, 1989, (attached) and City staff analysis and recommendations so that b)
the Commission can establish their policy on key issues.
It is important that these key issues be resolved by November 1, 19$9, so that
Metro-Dade County can present a final alignment by that date per the Metro-Dade
CountyiUMTA funding agreement.
The Commission is invited to make motions on each of the five issues on page 2 (as
underlined). If necessary, a formalizing resolution will be prepared.
BACKGROUND
On August 31, 1989, an interim alignment was designated and presented by the
County's consultant engineers for the project, which minimizes the need to acquire -
private properties by maximizing the use of public rights-of-way for locating the
guideway and stations. This proposed alignment has been used by the County, City,
DDA and consultant staff in discussions with property owners located adjacent to
the proposed alignment to confirm any interest on the part of the private sector
in zoning considerations, easement dedications, station connections, and air
rights to develop the stations.
The County has received 12 written proposals which will impact the original
alignment as delineated in the Metromover Environmental Impact Statement (see
attached report).
AnalXsis and Recommendations
On October 2, 1989, the County Manager presented a report to the Transportation
Committee of the County Commission regarding the impact of the proposed alignment
on properties surrounding the Metromover Extensions.
Page 1 of 3
~G - ~
~~>,~' SSA ~~
R9-~
~ -
• •
On October 9, 1989, the County Manager transmitted a letter to the City Manager
enumerating several key issues s ti 1 1 unresolved reoui red City
- Commission action. (See letter attached.) These issues are as follows:
_, 1. j~icentennial Park Station - The proposed alignment locates the Bicentennial
~ Park Station within the City-owned park. The Public Works Department is in
-~ the process of platting the park which will include approximately 50 feet of
dedicated easement for the Metromover. The County is reauestina that this
- ~ Unless an agreement can be reached between the City and County on this issue,
~ the County may decide to remove the station from that location. In order to
enhance the future development potential of Bicentennial Park, it is
imperative that we have a station located near the Park. Also, please note
that the City encouraged the County to locate the proposed station at
Bicentennial Park.
i
2. SEOPW - N.E. 2nd Avenue. including N.E. 11th Street and Freedom Tower
Statiop,~ - The City Administration and surrounding property owners have
expressed objection to the County's proposed reduction of traffic lanes on N.
E. 2nd Avenue alignment from three to two lanes. In order to maintain three
traffic lanes, the County has indicated that property would have to E~
acquired at the Park West Station. Proposals by private property owners were
received by the County to dedicate the easements. The County is in the
- + process of negotiating the dedications with the adjacent property owners.
However. if no agreements are achieved. the City Administration would
recommend the following option: The City would participate monetarily on a
,50-50 basis for acquisition of properties needed at that station site and that
- the County would participate 100 to acpuire other dedications south of N E
8th Street and north of N. E. 9th Street. The County have requested that the
City commit to this proposal through City Commission action.
3. Zoning Considerations - Several adjacent property owners have requested zoning
bonuses and other considerations prior to proffering commitments for _
dedications to the County. The City administration have indicated that
certain land development incentives have been proposed in the Downtown Master
Plan, July, 1989, i.e. Park West bonuses for residential development, and -
proximity to proposed stations. The County would like to know what is the
City's oolicv reaardina these issues in order to finalize negotiations with
the propgr~y owners.
4. Municipal Railroad - The City presently owns the abandoned railroad right-of-
way between N. E. 10th and N. E. 11th Streets near N. E. 2nd Avenue. A
property owner has requested fee simple ownership of a portion of the railroad
right-of-way as part of their joint development proposal to the County. (See
page 7 - N.E. 11th Street Station.) Further direction is needed re9ardino
this issue.
Page 2 of 3
2
~ • -
5. c E. 1st Avenue extension - The City Administration has proposed an extension
of S. E. 1st Avenue along the Metromover Alignment from S. E. 6th to S. E. 8th
Streets. (See page 16 - Eighth Street Station.) Further direction is needed
regarding this issue.
It is my understanding that these issues must be resolved before November 1, 1989,
due to the County's funding agreement schedule with the Urban Mass Transit
Administration (UMTA), in which the County is required to submit its final
alignment.
Attachment
Page 3 of 3
~:
::
METROPOLITAN OADE COUNTY, FLORIDA •~' r ~•
~:
,~~ METRO•DAUE CENTER
'-" _ --- OFfIC! OF COUNTY M/1NA0l~
lUITE 2~to
111 N.W I~t STREET
YIAY1, ft.O111DA 51~4{•IM~
~) »~~t l
v;.toaer 6, :989
Mr. Cesar c~dio
•: ~ y Manager
.it ~.• .-.f M~~mi
~. -. box ?3:: r~8
''.-~
~.~1~~~
i` J
~'~~ 9 1989
7~~(J5!7 F: NGINE ERtNu
~~n ~~r". •~ber 2 , ) 9P? , the F3uard ~~f County Commissioners'
ri c,ispl~t tat i on :.omnittee reviPwect the enclosed staf f
f CC.'V'IUItCl:ljBtlOnS `or t~1e Metromover extensions and granted
are] in~:ffaf y apptrval .~f thr proposed alignment. These
c~~.urt'mFnda~lons ore based on several factors, as well as
~~rocosa:.s-ec-Pi ved From property owners and developers fvr
'c:n: development projects el v~tluus station sites.
^~] •.~~PC3 t :, the reCOmmendat 1 ons are several issues that must
~e de:ert~:ned t-y !:he c::y and will require City Commissior.
Mr~r~~-!'~ac3e Cvu::ty staffi is recues.ing City Commission action
r. t -,P t -~ : 1 caw ~ :: 1
.•
. ':' k WP.ST.
~n SPI7tember ) 3 , 1989, Courit~~ staff met with Assistant City
Ma^ayer Herb Bailey, City Planning Department and Downtown
~evPlopment Authority st?:f".` to review plans for the Park
west Metromover Station. Mc. Bailey proposed that tt".e City
would be willing :v par t. is i;,ate fttot~etar ily on a 50-50 basis
for ttie acquisition of properties needed at that station
~~:P_.
Acquisition of the rleeued parcels would maintain three lanes
of rT•arfic on N.E. 2ncl Avenue. It would also allow the City
:o i!itecface strftiun ~xcr_ess ar,:~ design with the Southeast
~v~~-town/Park wPSt. Redeveicpmer.t Program. A City Commission
~PS!7)1~r:0.^. that conm:ts the ^itys to a 50-SJ property coat
~aTt't~::,at!on for the Park west ~tatiur. is required.
g9~-917~. ~ ~
,,,
K
~~
5
- x~F
'~
Nr. iaSaC r~diU
'! PaSP Two
uctUt~t~c b, 1999
~'.A.R. FUfI:JS
Several of tF:e p:u~:~ert.y awners adjacent to the Metromover
alignment Are r~!yursl;ny that zoning bonuses be incorporated
in the negot iatiorr~ wit.ll tt:r- County foc the dedication of
easements and other joint development considerations.
_ Recognizing :hat, the r_i~y of Miami is offering zoning
bonuses under c-erta i ii ~~r1d1 t i ons , it is unclear what the
- City's policy is at this limo. This information is cruoial
to the point development cieyvtiatian p:-ocess. A written
exr: gnat ion o.` t!~e zc~n :ng t,~onuses that would be offered 5y
•.he ~~~ ty tc ;,rc:l,~c ~•, ~,wners part lcipacir.g in point
'~PVp.nFi:Tlen? .~n~ [:r~.~~•: y ~lcd.catiar.s is necessary in order
It ~s o•~r unc:ers;ardin5 that the City of Miami owns the
abanaor.ed rail r~~~d :rac;cs between N.E. 10th and 11th Street
on N.E. ~ Aver;ue. A fee si(t;ple ownership of a portion of
the :ail read right-of-way has been requested by the adjacent
iropert~,~ rwr:er ,~s ?art of their loin' development propo5a:.
A ~ec~s:a^ nn tMe ~ytspos~tion of tl:e City-abandoned railroa~3
t-•~`cn'cn-:: 31 I'a~k
- - - - - --
'rhp r~;-)~pr;1VP ~f both the r~ity and the County is to ~.ocate
t.ne Me: L :~~r.ovPr :tat. ~ r~n~ :i: such a manner ms to serve
RicertPnn~ai ~~7rk and the proposed waterfront Park
devclopme:~t. T:~ u. der `o locate the station at the north
eno ~f the park, 'he dedication of a 50 foot easement from
the ^ity would be :eqt:fired as part of the platting of the
perk whic:: is underway by the City. we are, therefore,
reeuAst ~ fit c'crrr^, r •~. ~ rn r a comma is the
C ty to nrwidircr ~.re 5u foot dedication wittiC~uL any
carr.Fe.^.sa .on w. atrnever .
Modifications to the Metromover system alignment and station
rotations require that the County prepar+s and submit an
amendment to the Environmental Impact Statement (EZS). The
Metromover proiect schedule under the County's funding
ac~reemen: with the :Jrban Mass Transit Administration
-equ:res *.hat a final alignment for tl:e extensions be
deterT e~ h'; hovemher 1 1999. Therefore, tt is essential
'.hat •.he ('::v pct w r t hi n e next two weeks an t esa
__.
~!9~9'~~i ~ ~
C
C
Mr. .:esar ~~dio
F Page 'Cnree
J~Lc;r~r 6, 198y
i~
T :~t'•prECiste ycur _ontinur:l support and cooperation in this
p,: c~ er, .
l,:r.ere.y,
,..~r~,,
~.ll~i~.
•r
" ,:c~Tqui.^. r. l+vir~c:, P.E.. P.L.S.
F:vunty Man3gvr
M: . ~~eCG;N: ~ g3iicY
•
M E M O R A N D U M
f ~ Trans ortation Committee
T0: Hon. C ar es Dusseau, Chair
Hon. Harvey Ruvin
~ Hon. Jorge E. Valdes
H ~ r ry H ~rjt 1A~~c""
FROM : 1~.,,• /~ ~ s~
a~{xin G. Avino, P.E., P.L.S.
ounty Manager
DATE:
SUBJECT: Metromover Joint
Development Report
October 2, 1989
Attached for your review is the report pertaining to the joint
development presentation on today's Transportation Committee
agenda. This report has been prepared to show the impact of the
interim alignment on the properties surrounding the Metromover
Extension. The report also outlines the property owners who
were contacted and the proposals that have been received from
several of those property owners. The recommendations contained
in this report were summarized in the memorandum which was
previously forwarded with the Transportation Committee agenda
package.
Attachments
~;
~9~-9'79.• i
Q/~
N.E. 16th 8t.
MIRAMAR STATION
t
~~
school board
v
v
ri
s
MZRAMAR STATION
i
s
t
s
i
ui
z
1. Joint Development Opportunities
a. Shift guideway and station into the N.E. 15 Street
right-of-way to reduce the acquisition of private
property.
b. Interface station with a proposed municipal intercept
parking garage, bus terminal and air rights development.
(An alternative to the Omni Station site for this
facility. ~
2. Property Owners Contacted (Refer to Above Map)
a. D. F. Horsfall Estate - residence.
b. Mary F. Fleming - residence.
c. Jose Sanchez - residence.
d. Samuel S. Forman (Trusteed - vacant lot.
e. Ben Pumo Building Corporation - warehouse.
3. Proposals Received
No joint development proposals have been received for this
station.
4. Issues
Proposed for bus terminal; however, this is under review by
Metro-Dade Transit Agency due to additional operational
considerations.
};
•
5. Recommendations
a. Station should be as close to the School Board building
as possible, within the four-black area, to serve the
largest employment center in the area.
b. Proposed storage track and car wash should be located at
this station. ~,~,.,~~,~
c. Acquire Parcels a, b, and portions of parcels c and d. /~
1.
i ~
i ~
~ O
{ y
V
i r~-;
N.E. 14 8L
~ !'
O
~'
OMNI STATION
1
2.
Joint Development Opportunities
a. Shift guideway and station more into the N.E. 15 Street
right-of-way to reduce the acquisition of private
property.
b. Direct connection to Omni Mall via an overhead walkway.
c. Interface station with a proposed municipal intercept
parking facility, bus terminal and air rights
development. (The Miramar Station may be an alternate
location for this proposed facility).
Property Owners Contacted (Refer to Above Map)
a. Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc. - parking.
b. Florida East Coast Properties - parking.
- Roy S. Evans, c/o Florida East Coast Properties -
service station.
- Bessemer Properties, Inc., c/o Cousins Property, Inc. -
office building.
3.
c. Equitable Real Estate Investment Management, Inc. - Omr.:
Hotel and Mall.
Proposals Received
^ F'_orida East Coast (FEC) Properties Proposal -
Request:
i
N
t
J
d
J
Q
W
- Maintain existing traffic pattern on N.E. 15 Street. ,
;~~' - Connection rights to Omni Station at a 40 foot level. ~_
~' Private structure would envelope station - similar to
Centrust. -_
c'~~-9'7~ • ~ _
,.
r
}
j3
4.!
i.i
{
¢;
3 __._
Offer:
- Easements necessary for construction of Omni Station and
guideway.
^ Equitable Real Estate Investment Management, Inc. -
Request:
- Exclusive connection rights to Omni Station by way of
pedestrian bridge.
- Review and Analysis of impact of traffic changes on Omni
garage.
Offer:
- Cost of construction of pedestrian crossing.
4. Issues
a. Interim alignment reduces N.E. 15 Street from two-way
traffic to two lanes, one-way, westbound.
b. Accommodate the required number of bus loading bays
without significantly impacting the Omni Station area.
5. Recommendations
a. Accept easements from FEC to move station and leave
N.E. 15 Street unchanged.
b. Evaluate cost impact of elevating Omni Station as
requested by FEC.
c. Accept Equitable proposal with the exception that
connection rights be granted, but not exclusively, to
the Omni.
d. Further study of bus loading areas at the Omni Station.
/4)
E
HERALD PLAZA
HERALD PLAZA STATION
[A Proposed Station not Shown in the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS))
i
- i
1. Joint Development Opportunities
a. Additional station in the Miami Herald Plaza.
b. Station may serve as an intermodal station with proposed
Miami Beach Light Rail.
2. Property Owner Contacted (Refer to Above Map)
a. Knight-Ridder, Inc.
3. Proposal Received
Request:
- Make the necessary provisions to accommodate a future
station currently not included in EIS to serve the Miami
Herald building and to act as a multi-modal station to nk
with uture light rail system.
Offer:
-'value of the easements for the construction of the guideway
and the future station to offset the cost for the
provisions to be made to accommodate a future station.
4. Issue
Future station construction funds must be identified.
,_ ,
i I
5. Recommendations
a. Accept proposal pending evaluation of estimated land
value in comparison to the estimated costs of providing
for future station.
b. Future station should be funded by others. ~~""'`~~7~'.~~
C5)
N.E. !!AY SHORE CT.
t=
L..---~~ ',rpM
~~'~ ~~
~N~`~` P
.~ e`G~M
N.E. 11 TR.
-:
i
i
1.E. 11 8T.
i
- ~
i
i
a
.r
O
W
t
0
,~ Od
r ,~'~
/ ,~o
i / ~Q
/ ~`'
i
1ICENTENNIAL PARK
WATERFRONT PARK (PROPOSED)
BICENTENNIAL PARK STATION
1. Joint Development Opportunities
Interface with Bicentennial Park and the proposed waterfront
Park Development Plan.
2. Property Owner Contacted (Refer to Above Map)
a. City of Miami
3. Issues
a. Requires platting of park (underway).
b. May require Environmental Impact Statement/4F Statement.
c. Requires easements from City.
4. Proposals Received
No written proposals have been received; however, staff ::as
been working with the City of Miami to locate the station ~n
such a manner as to serve Bicentennial Park and the proposed
Waterfront Park development.
5. Recommendation
Finalize negotiations with the City of Miami f or the
necessary easement dedication.
~c3~-c)-7~ `
L~~
~ i~
iii.
N.~. ~ o sT.
s
H
t
a .
to ~
•- ~
a
111
11TH STREET STATION
-7-TTTT
---- - --~ I ~ ~ ~ -
1. Joint Development Opportunities
a. Interface access and design with the Southeast Overtown
Park/west Redevelopment Program.
b. Interface with proposed municipal intercept parking
facility.
c. Direct connections with properties adjacent to the
station.
2. Property Owners Contacted (Refer to Above Map)
a. Fred and Ida Zisquit - wholesale/retail outlet.
b. Tom Post for Henniker Enterprises.
3. Proposals Received
• Zisquit Proposal -
Request:
- CBD zoning.
- Fee simple ownership of a portion of the abandoned
railroad track adjacent to his property.
- Air rights to any station constructed on or contiguous to
his property.
Offer
- Easements necessary for construction of 11th Street
Station and guideway.
4. Issues
Property acquisition of Parcels a and b is re uired
O
J
m
W
Z
y
V
M
q ~ ~9^-9~~' •
~„~
i
i
a. Accept proposal with the understanding that coning
matters and the abandoned railroad right-of-way must be
resolved by the City of Miami.
b. Air rights can only be granted for property dedicated by
owner.
t
'~
a
W
Z
a
.,
i
s
Q
a
s
1~
F
N
it
R
a
0
m
w
z
}
PARK WEST STATION
1. Joint Development Opportunities
a. Shift guideway and station into the N.E. 2 Avenue
right-of-way to reduce the acquisition of private
property.
b. Interface access and design with Southeast Overtown/Park
west Redevelopment Program and the proposed North Ninth
Street Mall.
c. Direct connections with properties adjacent to the
station.
2. Property Owners Contacted (Refer to Above Map)
a. Harrington and Company, Inc. - office building. -
b. Marjorie F. Harrison and James F. Harrison - industrial.
c. Thomas R. Post TRS - vacant land.
d. Fred and Ida Zisquit - bus terminal.
3. Proposals Received
Messrs. Thomas R. Post and Neal L. Harrington propose
providing to the County certain portions of their property
necessary for the station so that N.E. 2 Avenue will not be
reduced from three to two traffic lanes. In exchange for t^e
property, proposed are:
- Exclusive connection rights to the station.
- Development rights above and access right below the
Metromover system.
- Joint development lease with optimum access.
- FAR bonus . ~'!9"'~"7 ~t • l w
C~)
s •
- Credit against any special assessments for the Metromover
extensions.
! - Payment for out-of-pocket expenses for building
+ alterat;.ons, business relocation and attorneys' fees.
( 4. Issues
Z
a. The Park west Station requires land acquisition and
! business relocation at an approximate cost of S3 million.
1
~ b. In order to maintain three lanes of traffic instead of
two _anes, additional properties need to be acquired
~ along N.E. 2 Avenue at an additional cost of about
S2 million.
c. Reduction of traffic Ianes on N.E. 2 Avenue could have a
negative impact on future development potential in the
area due to reduction in accessibility.
5. Recommendation
Maintain three traffic lanes on N.E. 2 Avenue by accepting
proposals for the dedication of property with the following
modifications:
- Grant exclusive connection rights for a certain amount
of time, after which rights could be granted to others.
- Perpetual easement instead of lease.
- No credit against any special assessments.
If properties are not dedicated, then accept City's proposal
to share the cost of the right-of-way acquisition 50-Sn.
~;
,~ ,,
In the event that the County
dedication or in cooperation
staff recommends implementati~
which reduces traffic to two
acquisition.
O
J
W
Z
}
V
•
N.E. T 3T.
W
N
... ...... . . . .
RAILROAD
3
0
•
::;:'
~~ o
~
::~::
• _
~
N
e
ST
E ~ a
,
.
.
e.
FREEDOM TOWER STATION
1. Joint Development Opportunities
a. Shift guideway and stat ion more into the N.E. 2 Avenue
right-of-way to reduce the acquisition of private
property.
- b. Direct connection to proposed Freedom Tower project.
• c. Direct connections wit h properties adjacent to the
station.
2. Property Owners Contacted tRefer to Above Map)
a. Enrique Zuleta
b. Florida East Coast Railroad
c. Lee and Francien Ruwitch
d. Thomas R. Post
t
e. Zaminco Development Co.
f. Mateo and Nesina Chediak
3. Proposals Received
Messrs. Lee Ruwitch and Thomas R. Post propose providing to
the County certain portions of their property necessary for
the station so that N.E. 2 Avenue will not be reduced from
three to two traffic lanes. In exchange for the property,
proposed are:
- Exclusive connection rights to the station.
- Aevelopment rights above and access rights below the
';' Metromover system. `i9"`9`7~r•~
a
- Joint development lease with provision for optimum access.
- - FAR oor.LS . ~~/~
• •
- A credit for the right-of-way against any special
assessment for the Metromover extensions.
- Payment for out-of-pocket expenses for demolitions,
business relocations and attorneys' fees.
4. Issue
Freedom Tower Station requires acquisition of property at an
approximate cost of S1 million.
5. Recommendation ,
Maintain three traffic lanes on S.E. 2 Avenue by accepting
the proposals for the dedication of property with the
following modifications:
- Grant exclusive connection rights for a certain amount
of time, after which rights could be granted to others.
- Perpetual easement instead of a lease.
- Not permit credit for the right-of-way against any
special assessment for the Metromover extensions.
0
~~~
- --_ _.e,___
•.w. a •T.
W
s
3
~'.
RIVERWALK STATION
1. Joint Development Opportunities
Station platform would be about 60 feet above the ground and
requires approximately a 50 foot easement from the property.
The station could either be constructed later when
development on the property occurs, or designed to permit
future integration with a removable canopy. Dedication of
easements would be sought in exchange for exclusive direct
connection of the station with future development of the
property. Development rights by the property owner could be
maintained above and below the system.
2. Property Owner Contacted (Refer to Above Map)
a. The Codina Group- parking lot.
~ 3. Proposals Received
None, however, verbal requests to shift the station as far
north and east as possible and to incorporate a mezzanine and
escalators to facilitate future interconnection with private
development have been made. The County would receive
necessary easements in exchange for the requested station
modifications.
4. Issues
Requires property easement from Parcel a.
5. Recommendations
In the event the verbal proposal cannot be confirmed in
writing the station should be constructed as previously
planned without the additional modifications requested by
owner.
~'
R.
c~..-q~7 ~ . ~
!3~
•
~J~~
~~~
~~~
111
a
a
y
r
1.
2.
3.
,~.
~. .
s.E. s sT.
NORTH HRICKELL STATION
~ Np R~'1; 1ilt~C'
s~xtb~+t~..
Joint Development Opportunities
a. Station platform would be about 50 feet above the ground
and requires approximately a 50 foot easement from the
properties. The station could either be constructed
later when development on the property occurs, or
designed to permit future integration with a removable
canopy. Dedication of easements would be sought in
exchange for exclusive direct connection of the station
with future development of the property. Development
rights could be maintained above and below the system.
b. The City has proposed a new street construction within or
near the Metromover right-of-way from S.E. 8 Street to
S.E. 5 Street. Possible joint use of right-of-way.
Property Owners Contacted (Refer to Above Ma )
a. Marvin S. Cassell and The Codina Group - vacant land.
b. Inmobiliaria Bilcar S.A. - duplex apartments.
c. J.H.w.R. Allen and U.L. wellenhofer - vacant land.
d. Peter Cassidy and Associates for Estate of Peter J.
Sanders.
Proposal Received
'chile we have not received a written proposal from the Codina
~r.oup, the following requests were made verbally:
- Minimize amount of private property necessary by mov~r.g
station as far east as possible.
- Incorporate additional mezzanine level and escalators into
station design to interconnect with future private
development.
'~~~-9'7~ ~ ~
~~~~
i
In exchange for these considerations, the Codina Group would
provide the necessary easements for the construction of the
station and guideway.
4. iSSUe
Station may be located between S.E. 5 and S.E. 6 Streets if
easements from Parcel a, as per Environmental Impact
Statement, are not dedicated.
j 5. Recommendation
In the event the verbal proposal cannot be confirmed in
writing, the station should be constructed as previously
planned without the additional modifications requested by the
owner.
-~--~--r--~- -T-
~ s
i --
---- - s.E. 'r sT. ~
W
~~
EIGHTH STREET STATION
d
s$r.' ~ /
~_8r~ r~oN
W
r
1
~ ~. Joint Development Opportunities
_- The City has proposed a new street construction within or
near the Metromover right-of-way from S.E. 8 Street to S.E. 5
Street. Possible joint use of right-of-way.
2. Property Owners Contacted (Refer to Above Ma
a. Lingnan Industrial Corporation, Ltd.
b. Rosemary E. Wickenheiser - residence.
- c. Mental Health Association of Dade County, Inc.
d. The Doran Jason Group
e. Gulf Bank
f. American Lung Association
g. Physician's Pharmacy
h, world Union I.~dustrial Corp., Ltd. - vacant land.
3. P~ovosals Received
Although the interim alignment shows the station ^orth of
S.~c. 8 Street, proposals have been received on beha~f of
`~ property owners on the southwest corner of S.li. a Street
mental health building situ . The proposals offer cert3_^
- portions of the property necessary for the s'~ation and, i:'
exchange, request:
~~
ITS %
s.s. s sT.
s r
- Exclusive connection rights.
- Development rights and access to development.
- FAR increases.
- Credit against special assessments.
- Payment for expenses and fees.
Discussions have taken place with property owners for the
dedication of property for the proposed street, in exchange
for air rights development over the street.
4. Issues
a. Interim alignment requires acquisition of Parcels a and
b.
b. City to fund and construct street extension next to
Metromover. Street extension may require dedications of
easements from Parcels d and e.
5. Recommendations
- Reject proposals for the mental health site.
- Coordinate street construction with Metromover
construction. Street funding by others.
- Continue discussions with adjacent property owners.
1 n
3~
r
ctc~...t~-7~ ,~
~~~
~ ~~ .~
s.~. • •T.
s
r~
~.E. 10 ST.
a
a
s
2
O
~~
a'
~e
0
w
TENTH STREET STATION
~~
.~
W
Sd~`
i ~
1. point Development Opportunities
a. Interface of station access and aesthetic treatment with
proposed Tenth Street Promenade Project.
b. Connection of station with 1000 Brickell Building and
parking garage.
2. Property Owners Contacted Refer to Above Map)
a. Allen Morris Co.
3. Prot~osal Received
Letter of no interest received from the Allen Morris Co.
4. Issue
Right-of-way required from Parcel a.
5. Recommendation
Acquire needed property.
t
s.E. > > sT.
BRICKELL STATION
1. Joint Development Opportunities
Direct connection with Brickell Metrorail Station.
2. Property Owner Contacted (Refer to Above Map)
a. Allen Morris Co.
3. Issue
The Brickell Metrorail and the Metromover stations do not
align for direct connection. The station is as close as
possible in the current alignment.
4. Proposal Received
Letter of no interest received from the Allen Morris Co.
5. Recommendation
Obtain easements on Parcel(s) a.
g9''""9'7~'~
Cam)
_~
3
4
~~
~4~
~~
- ~~
s.E. ~ s sT.
~!
8.E 14 8T.
~. ~ w.
IY
3
':.:.E:
8.M-. 14 TERR.
CORAL WAY STATION
1. Joint Development Opportunities
a. Shift the guideway and station into the S.E. 14 Street
right-of-way to reduce the acquisition of private
property.
b. Consideration of a municipal intercept parking garage and
private air rights development on property adjacent to
the station.
2. Pro erty Owners Contacted (Refer to Above Map)
a. Richard I. Furman TR - bank parking.
b. Southeast Mortgage Company - parking lot.
c. Phoenix Investments Company
d. Transal Corporation for Richard O'Connell Trustee, c/o
Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. - office building.
e. American venture Corporation
3. Proposals Received
^ American venture Corporation -
Request:
- Necessary provisions for a future pedestrian bridge to
connect station to Brickell Gate development
Offer:
- Fair-share contribution toward the cost of the bridge
construction. ~~....t~~s.~
- Necessary r~.ght-of-way on private property for access ~c
the bridge.
~~
~._~,
0
n
H
O
W
Cr!
N
O+
r
ro
0
b
O
v
H
#-+
°z
r
O
9
H
H
O
z
H
ro
n
yN
+~:
O
K7
crs
t*1
A
C
tl
r-3
a
H
H
°z
H
H
"y
ro
2
C
H
O
rs
,3
CJ~
9
H
H
C
O
y-+
O
~ O
C'~
a
r- ro
m ~
0
w
0
a
~~
,~~~ \ ~~
~~
9,~,
3 .'.
rnr
--1':
N ~:.
A 3~
O GH
Z
~G
~c
`.:xr
-~C_ti
i
3
,._ ~;'
O.
3
O
me
A 7::
:. ;.`. ';
A ...
cs
z t
3
m
z
ro=
r- ~
r3~•, a
ao
S
CtI d
k+7
O H ~ O
~zzr
Ot+fHH
~'z~~
ra c~ rody
HQ^C~J t7
z ca ~r-+ ca
m cs t~ c~
H z cs
O Cl~Ey Cyy
~ C 7C ~C
H ~
H
°z
~'9~-9`7'a• 1