HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #14 - Discussion ItemPZ•
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
to Honorable Mayor and DATE : JUN 13 1989 FILE
Members of the City Commission
SUE►ECT : Item PZ-A City Commission
Agenda of June 22, 1989
Cesar H. Odi Proposed Area -wide DRI:
FROM City Manager REFERENCES Key Biscayne
ENCLOSURES:
RECOMMENDATION:
For your information, the Metro -Dade County Commission on June 6th
established a public hearing date --July 119 1989--for the purpose of
deciding whether to authorize the preparation of an Application (ADA)
for an Area -wide Development of Regional Impact (DRI) for Key
Biscayne, including that portion of Virginia Key under County
ownership or jurisdiction. The Administration is opposed to this
proposal but if the Board of County Commissioners decides to move
ahead on this proposal, on July 11th, then it might be prudent on the.
City's part to join in as an active participant and enlarge the study, _
to include the City -owned portion of Virginia Key. (See map attached)
BACKGROUND:
Two large Key Biscayne DRI Applications are now moving through the
regional/county decision process--Hemmeter and 'VMS. In an-effort`to;
exert greater control over the future development of Key Biscayne,""e {
citizen's group has proposed to Metro -Dade County that an Area --wide.
DRI be undertaken for Key Biscayne. An Area -wide DRI would be similar
to the Downtown Miami DRI.
The two large developers--Hemmeter and VMS --are opposed to an Area
wide DRI because it could potentially delay their projects, could
possibly alter their projects and would represent a duplication of
effort. The Metro -Dade County Planning Department held a workshop on
June 1st and expressed opposition to the proposal as being unneeded,"a
duplication of effort and unlikely to achieve the objectives that
citizens sought.
ANALYSIS
-The City's interest lies' in assuring that the' traffic -carrying
capacity of the Rickenbacker Causeway is appropriately apportioned
r'
between Virginia Key and Key 'Biscayne so that City projects ,caa ` be`
Page 1 of 31
r
L
�f %v�
r�
R3 tk t rr�
r
J}
0
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Commission
implemented. Conversely, the City has no particular interest in
promoting an Area -wide DRI for Virginia Key/Key Biscayne; The City's
Virginia Key Master Plan is barely a year old and serves us well.
If the County Commission decides to move forward with an Area -wide'
DRI, the following factors would argue for City participation:
1. Preparation of an Area -wide DRI Application including all of
Key Biscayne and Virginia Key could coordinate the VMS and -
Hemmeter developments, the Lipton Tennis Tournament and
Seaquarium developments, and the City's Virginia Key Master -
Plan with the need to manage this growth consistent with the -
traffic -carrying capacity of the Rickenbacker Causeway.
2. The aggregation of all proposed City projects on Virginia Key
might conceivably meet Florida DRI aggregation criteria and'
require the City to initiate a DRI Application for Virginia Key
(only). In such an instance, an Area -wide DRI might make
sense --both from a cost standpoint (shared) and a coordination
standpoint.
3. The citizen's group on Key Biscayne- may be- successful in'
forcing an analysis of future peak weekend traffic conditions
when all the projects in 1 (above) are operating, together ',,with t`
the unlimited hydroplane races at Miami. Marine Stadium,:and=
weekend travel to the beaches at Crandon Park and Bill Baggs
State Park. Under these extreme peak traffic conditions, when
most 'of the traffic would be generated by the attractionsand"
projects on Key Biscayne and the portion of Virginia Key under
County jurisdiction, it would be increasingly- difficult' to
retain a City share of causeway traffic capacity. ;
• f
4. The County might take the position in a Development Order to be
_ issued at the completion of the Area -wide DRI that if all the
projects in 1 (above) are to proceed, then a) the Causeway;
must be improved and/or b) mainland arterials must be
improved in which instances the City might be asked to bear a' t"
fair share of the cost of these improvements (the coneurrency
argument) .
5. Assume, for argument, that following issuance of a Development
Order for an Area -wide DRI that incorporated the.-,City's F}
projects on Virginia Key into the parameters fpr Rickenbacker
Page 2� of 3 .
fh
< - i t It attriic i
t
# 'y'4 tS
f t k2 '�it '� kZtaY
,"..T...�xraFln?:,��.a
t
b
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Commission
Causeway# the City then wished to dramatically increase the
type and amount of development on Virginia Key. The County
might then take the position that the City could not
unilaterally increase these projects, but must undergo
"substantial deviation" hearings and findings
(§§380.06(19)F.S.) pertaining to the development scenario and
traffic projections in the already then -approved Area -wide DRI
Application.
Arguing against City participation are the following factors:
1. Preliminary cost estimates for preparation of this Area -wide
DRI Application are $500,000 over a 1 112 to 2-year period.
2. Per §1380.06(25)F.S., the City -owned portion of Virginia Key
can only be included in the Application for an Area -wide DRI�if
the City agrees to hold a public hearing jointly with_the
County to resolve conflicting ordinances or comprehensive
plans.
3. The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan.1989-2000, including`
the future level of service on Rickenbaeker Causeway, -coupled
with the projects shown on the Virginia Key.,Master Plan should,
in themselves, be sufficient to guarantee the City, an
appropriate allocation of Causeway traffic capacity, during the
preparation of an Application.
4. Preliminary traffic projections of peak hour traffic (in the
VMS DRI Application) shows that, given the level of service,
there is sufficient traffic -carrying capacity on Rickenbacker
Causeway to accommodate all future planned City projects on
Virginia Key.
Attachment ='
g
Page 3 of 3nx.
t
t f 3f-
{ 1
i {
t
Yt 3
RR
r 1 s �r t•�ssi�
00
SEAQUARIUM
Biscoyne �.
B o y �!
Q•
KEY
LI M ITS :_ _�= ''�•••=
CITY LIMITS
BISCAYNE�;l
J/
/I
MQUARiUM
Biscayne �.
B a y!
Q•
KEY
LIMITS
CITY LIMITS
BISCAYNE,'%
J/