HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-88-1174GITY nr- MIAMI, PLORIDA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
to Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
fRoM. Cesar H. Odio
City Manager
Y94
DATE , U t tr — 0 1985 FILE
Sup l.MY • Acquisition of Alfred I.
duPont Building
RFFEpENCES. Di sells sion Item for City
Commission Meeting of
immosuaES : December 15, 1988
t
a
�Y
r k i
e JaIat'�� i3 1rrG 4 Y r �r 1 ' 1 J:1i 1 Y
TAG
�. -ry
r i a ¢r ! 'ro �, e s t ci k ter
�,
own I ,�
r
r
1 the
a//���•j V tY ��y� a ay F 1�1� P
6 Y h� V.�M� 4
.�
(� a
V: a
d0i' 7r w
i9 a` h i T j y
,kd
t '' , if *-o t e e ' t,>' ..its f 4 ^d'4,+PS
�'��Y f'f k f ,' 1 ee °
-3 4
r 1 '�' tj t�� i1
G ,
� � YI w
i.tg� i>
���
/'� � h /� �t > j _p (�, a -' u 1� y,'♦ p �p i , c'�r �. q k �r ;� r �- i `4 � � i; ,� '� J r A. ,�, u,� d
Ci �V{fkt7 Mllaal cas
t
r
r r s 4� -£ a r ,�
ty caGupancy Requi
�f
• > fid's 'ask r
�. . t
x,
/� s i
loom Pa � k ing. Requ,i reme'nNs
v1R: I7 vv•wog r%o or%@ I w w rlV vwv v•�•w•s •
OF THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF
THE ALFRED I. DUPONT BUILDING
AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - PHASE 11"
December 1988
CITY.OF MIAMI
Xavier. L. Suarez,Mayor i
Victor (i. De Yurre, ;;V.ice. Mayer
Mi11er J. Dawkins, Commissioner
R�srio Kennedy, Comma sslOtlf'r -
J'. L. Plummer,, Jr , Commissioner
Cesar H. Od> o, C> ty Manager
t
Prepared by, F J
Department of: bwelopment ,
)
300.f3iscayne Boulevard Way t f
Suitc� 400_
Mi.3mi, Florida 3131
Tel. (305);372.4454 - -
��
k ;f
887711�gI
TAWA 6P coming
Oft NOVamber , 1�B8 the City Of "Miami Commission instructed
the Administration to prepare a comiserat �e anaiYsis between the -; I
proposed acquisition of the Alfred 1, Aupont Building loJX
cated at
l69 Past Plagler street for use as a City Administration z
building —Phase
It and new construction of a phase it N
Administration Building adjacent to the existing City
Adtn nistration. 8U- Iding-Phase I, also known.'' as the iVckman+x
"n t Y
Building,,located in Government Center at 273 N.i.'2 5treeti as,
shown in Figure `1. 'site Location Map." Per the Commission's {;
:x x
directive, this item;is.to be scheduled for discussion on
December 15,.1988; Commission meeting agenda.i
+
The scope of this .analysis has "been to comparative
assess,n `_ p y
he or
t`ma"
j. planning and ;economic factors, considering a move to {
K !q
the,existin'g Alfred I: duPont Building "in relation to a movertofa
proposed <, new Adnuni}stration Buldin `
g The Department ofx
;
Development, in carrying out its professional responsibilitieAk
s
response to -
,this .assignment, hasevaluated the following issues s,Y
as apart. of.,this :report. q
y' B 2I1?II7 +1'f '11*1'11-4.'R'r, -
conomic Considerations: F SS
Costs of Acquisition -,'of.,` they Alfred I : > d t UPont' Buildi
Costs of Construction` ofira' New CCity Admini`strat
Building
Impact on Current CityS.ease' Commitments
4'ss`rr..si�aF7''.y�£�r•iJ'*'°'^i�^''Wr 5
Impact on: Tax Revenues
icatonal, Considerations:' �,
:1=01111=11.'1IIMIA6INilIto] I•lylUl:
Parking Requirements
Accessibility
Day Care Facility Policy
Historic preservation Designation Status
II, CITY' S COW4I'1K&VT TO DOWNTOWN GOVERNN R NT CIO
Downtown Government Center includes City, Metro -Dade,
State governmental buildings located in one central area creating
a consolidated government seat for the various public agencies,
as shown in Figure 2. Government Center is a Development of
Regional Impact consisting of 1,409,000 gross square feet of
office use and 1,991,000 gross square freet of of ancillary use
•,:'.
within 38.19 acres located between Flagler Street, N.W. 5 Street,
the Metrorail'Rapid Transit Line, and I-95.
City facilities completed -in Government Center include an
Administration Building--Phase.I, Police Headquarters and Parking
Garage,: and Parking Garage No. S.
Construction, of the 70,000 sq.ft City Administration
Building --Phase _ I in Government Center commenced in. 19777. and was
completed in 1980 as the City's first step towards consolidation
of its City offices'. Phase I is'occupied;.`by the Department'•a of
Fire, Public• Works, _ Planning, and Building & • Zoning. ` The
facility was designed in accordance with the'bowntown Government
Center Master Plan prepared "in May1976,` by 'Connell Metcalf &
rr•
K �
Eddy for Metropolitan Dade County. Two acres of land were
r
transferred from the Count to the Cit for the express
Y Y P Purpose
s
E
of constructing a City Administration Building to consolidate
Ci.tyi'offices: within .Downtown, Governments Center.,;
f
K -* w� +:i%:?:ii.%�r,i r,s,`�` •. jcYtllff Ic ZIA
,+
j. = I�!1�;1�,'ss '+; �. it+lg #,�'���f• i1;�C.'Iclit,iF,�,•*fJ►��F•
Z
Ir1r11lr�'Ali ' J►Jflti�lf�7i l.' �=s; •: ,ti , � /;��> >
I Vf
" ''�j°+ � "•� 1111 1111111 1 IIr
Jr
J • �. lliilaifME
�r4 * s . . • • ♦ f r � t• • � 'K � • �' s ■ s • x • � • �► � . .• ':: y '' `11 1/►! ■� �i•.tir f.4-.+i_w:t'.�t
�i�>>�`i.�. 4 � aR f.t +R:► # *,}►. �_< /! •* • # :') :. :_ali!■� intu■■s�D■�
+�e�i • a • ♦ • .' L/ # �'S s ■T'L.1 .■C ■ i�d 1
61
IN
zo
me
,f'•, ._,• �I � _'`•�'_. .... � ,c• -- >< -:>F �� •tom*s¢•� ;,xv
i��s Itf�IrrUnllln .,� f►jJIy��11
I
Phase I of the City Administration Building was funded by a
$3.2 million Economic Development Administration Grant and
$800#000 from a 1976 Fire Bond issue. A program of space
requirements was prepared by the City and Connell Metcalf & Eddy
in 1977 for a City Administration Building that addressed both
Phases I and I1. Due to funding constraints, only Phase I of a
City Administration Building was constructed.
On April 23, 1981, the City of Miami Commission adopted
Resolution No. 81-343, authorizing the issuance of a Development
Order for Government Center, as proposed by Metropolitan Dade
County. Prior to Commission action, Metro -Dade County submitted
an Application for Development approval for a DRI, receiving a
favorable recommendation for the Development Order by the South
Florida Regional Planning Council. The City of Miami" Planning
..
Advisory Board unanimously
recommended approval of the
Development Order for Government'Center.
The Downtown Government Center Development Order issued by
-
the City in 1981 specifically
included a City Administration
Building --Phase II comprised of 280,000 .gross square feet of
office use.
-
The City of Miami has- been committed ` -to - the iDowntown
,.
Government Center Master Plan since 1976, as evidenced.=by its
construction of Phase I of the
Administration Building, Police
Headquarters and Police Parking
Garage, and Parking Garage No.'5
within the centralized governmental facilities complex
designated for such use, and
by the City's issuance- of a
Development Order that -included
a Phase II City Administration;
Building
R
231.1, authori zing. and directing the City Manager to enter into
an agreement with the firm of peloitte Haskins & Sells to do an
economic feasibility and an updated needs assessment study for
11
the second phase of a City Administration wilding. The
agreement is being executed.
—
on April 141 1988, by Resolution No. 88-326, the City
Commission designated the planning and design of a City
Administration Building --Phase II in Government Center a Categoy
—
"B" project, in accordance with established procedures for
contracting for certain professional services and negotiation
-`
requirements with regard to furnishing of such professional
-
services. Resolution No. 88-325 further authorized the City
Manager to solicit proposals from planning and design
professionals for Phase II of an Administration Building. The
proposal solicitation process is pending.
The City's commitment to Government Center should be
strongly considered when' weighing the alternative acquisition of
the Alfred I. duPont Building to function as Phase II`of the'Cty
Administration Building.
F
Acquisition of the A.I. duPont-Building for the purpose - of
housing those City offices not located in 'the existing Phase I
..
r�
Building would be contrary to the consolidation objectives of
�F�'%
-. - .. .
n ,ski
• ,. .. - _.
Government Center and would not be in accordance with the goals
set forth in the Downtown Government Center Master Plan. -
£�
Included as Appendix A is referenced legislation including ..
the Development Order issued for Government Center and the "City '.
v
0�
.6
1
Of Miami Administration Building Program of Space Requirements
1977-1985.°
III. ECONOMIC CONS11DERATIONS
A. Costs of Acquisition of the Alfred I. duPont Building
On June 23, 1988, Silverstein. Properties of Florida, the
current owner of the Alfred ,1. duPont Building, expressed an
interest in selling the 350,000 gross sq.ft. building to the City
for the asking price of $21,375,000. The price has been reduced
to $18,375,000.
The European American Bank, the current mortgage holder, has
indicated its willingness to provide 100% financing to the City
= over a 30-year period for its acquisition cost including
additional funds to undertake required code improvements and
space renovation of the building.
Several .other cost factors associated with occupancy of the
building are due consideration by the City, in 'addition to the
acquisition cost of 18,375,000. Specifically, these include.
capital upgrade, code improvement, and tenant improvement costs.
The A.I. duPont Building is nearly 50 years old and certain
capital upgrades appear to be necessary at this time, as noted in
the recent property evaluation report prepared by Blazejack &
Company for the owner. These upgrades include replacement of one
of the two HVAC system's original water chillers, roof
replacement, window replacement/refurbishment, common area
3
upgrades, and exterior building cleaning. Blazejack & Company
estimates the cost for these upgrades to be $1,159,840:
The City's Fire - Department has reported a number of life;
safety code deficiencies requiring remedy. Major improvements
7
_ .. .
include itstallation of a sprinkler system and coordination of
-the life safety system with the elevator switching systems.
.-._
Included as AppendiX 9 is a letter prepared by the Fire
Department noting life safety code deficiencies at the Alfred 1,
i
dupont building. Blasejack & Company estimates the cost -of life
safety improvements to be $568,000.
A third significant cost factor to be taken into
consideration is tenant improvements. Assuming the City acquires
the building and renovates the total amount of available rentable
space, 211,805 sq.ft., using a tenant allowance cost of $15 per
square foot, the estimate for tenant improvements is $3,17700750
MI __
(Should the City renovate,.only the amount of space required" to
meet its present,, occupancy requirements,.,115,563 sq..ft.,..ahe
estimate is $_l, 73,3, 445 . , ... , Should :the , City; renovate .the ,total of
"�-'--
rentable space in : ,the ::building, . 284, 000,- sq. ft. , < the estimate"` is
$4, 260, 00Q . ),
The, total cost, estimate_ for immediate -need capital,upgrades;
life, safety ._ -code : improvements:, °, and available rentable , space
tenant, improvements is._.$4,904,:915.,,,;;:,Adding the%acquisition• cost
,
of $18,375,000-to,these.required building -related occupancy costs
sy
totals ,$23, 279, 915..
_l_.
The .:_amount :.of _$23, 279, 915 does,: not take into account the .
cost of: ?ahe City,,. -potentially,'.,having..to-buy -out,. current: -;:leases,
should leased: office space:'prior to.
r
,.the.City;vacate,itsv-;privately
the,,expiration of the-lease,termseto take immediate: occupancy of,
if
more detailed discussion). Considering this as an additional
cost to be borne by the City, the cost of acquiring and occupying
the Alfred I. duPont Building becomes an estimated $26,163#241.
The amount of $26,163,241 further does not reflect the
unquantiiied costs associated with capital upgrade replacement as
the existing equipment and systems continue to age and the
maintainence costs associated with the high quality finishes
-,-
found in the Alfred 1. duPont Building including the brass
elevator doors, brass -trimmed escalator, and marble floor areas..
B. Costs of Construction of a New City Administration Building—
Phan
The City's Department of Development estimates the-
_y
construction cost of a new 150,000 sq.ft. Phase IV Administration
—
Building. on City=owned property withinGovernment .Center to.,be
�---
within the range . of -$120 to $125 per square foot.. ; . A :150, 000,
sq.ft. building has been determined to be of adequate size -.,,to
meet . both :.the present needs of : the*. City :and "allow : for; ; future a
growth,: (referto Section-_ IV.A:' ."Occupancy. Requirements
Assuming a_$122 per: aquaria, cfoot.construction =:cost , total project ..'
--
cost: for -,a Phase .11 structure :.is estimated at. $18.3. mil.lion..IorI a
1
building,,;- , comparable,"' ', in = finish, and . : material -,..:to . the.., Phasa
-
Imo"-
Administration.Building,`?
This estimate was derived from a survey of coats ;-of
construction for other municipal office buildings developed 'in
F..-
Government Center, including the City Administration` Building - ;
Phase I, the Metro -Dade Center, and the State of Florida Regional
Office. Building --Phase II summarized:as follows: T
1 4. rlv�
9 . ;
,,4
Dupont plat
Atnerifrst
�_
3191 Coral`:
i
Coconut Gro
2850 Tigert
Olympia Bu`
r F
'
yy
K
u
V,
-
so urc`e: :Th
Kit i+?r+a't
f
TABU
�•W
{- r 'fix" �t.�i M �djnN{(p.
1i*{r"��1
�it'i�V Y
kj
i "i•
����.
t.44i h..f �� .4
aed
� �
p. p3.�" tits` it
` to . bilk (MT. .
Da to,
6
1605OO
$17.93
dun 1991
$7613# 286
Ave 25,i631
$15.13'
bed' 1!!i3
$947#931
1d l,fd91
$1ul
5.49
J
$913,1J6
•' r � r {.
r '� d
�1992
t
7:
��y 3�73b
$1�.75 �`o+� 1992
$254,P1�J3
r
j }f Y 4 t
.7p:'2 '(1s'J'
��:
;-
�
_.. _ �3¢
y
,
a TAII t i (CONT I \V RY) .
J
Pius I % for Conference I
Storag' a Filing It
Reproduction Areas**
�•
Subtotal!
04t436 tr
Y
Plus 2S$ for Core Areas.
(Reception Areas, Corridors,
Circulation)**�
_ail:
Subtotals,
s 1�5,,�b3 .s� ft.
Plus City.Commission Chambars
r
�: �10000
.TOTAL:. ,
,'-j
_ a ,-_Y ..
a
f2 6
t I 3
h 1.
*Assumes 175. sq. ft• per position
*Multipliers were: taken from "City .of
Miami ,`Administration,
Building Program of Space Requirements prepared by
-,,
,1977-1985"
the City,, and„ Connel...Metcalf. &: Eddy: in June, 1197,7 r �:'y"
� s ; irk x� t �... ., ax +z•R :t` � j + y:.�Y��"i-� x ry ,
Av
p xtarti �r 'BrJ� ia'�,it.i�'��' •i� 'ar ,;,�r ,'
�: }
S ,..
tSa Yl xt49'txj�eki?-.4�$- d Eki.iF sly.1
tj
w } Jos h tK�' 2 r
r �?r r y + r b..n1: k� �� 'w'.� � � � `• 1: � �iax f �t w i��`,(., .� cam$ fi �.Sr'g�ri ram' F '. ryk.�s ,,�,,�"�^� � z,P,$P��E�y�%
��, `��'4''§I -•�
s Y Z r" i s tti'z25�� "C't G
tl '. x J^ �p�++.wFd n •t`{�,�g
4E0�'i f ti•] x r"`
- 4 3ytj� �t3
,� r'k t x a•k :r"dea'f.. v� ll1
,k''
RUA P �k�ft'" �.,ak� '^x.rk�*r3�rN`'tr?•,..�,
., �, , ....t. ...i.}-_i. Yr, ��t,., , r ... � ._ ..�. � .1 �.; •.+r-. �.. .i.. .r.: ..... ,- r J: r. r_r x ... .,.
a
the requirements of the Departments . of POU06o Piro,
Planning, Public Workso and Building and Zoning are not included
since these departments are located in the Police Headquarters
Building and* the City Administration building -Phase I in
Government Center. other departments and divisions not requiring
relocation due to the nature of their operations include General.
Services Administration (excluding Property and Lease Management
Division)* Conferences and Conventional solid Waste, and the
operations# cemetary, day care, and enterprise funds divisions
Parks, Recreation and Public Facilities.
Based on the City Is FY188-89 Annual Budgets City offices and.
departments that would benefit from consolidation, whet -her,
presently .located in other City -owned buildings, i.e. City Hall#,
the former Municipal Justice Building,; or in private office space.:
NNW
leased by the City, accounts for 451_ positions. Allocating an
average 175 sq.ft. per:1position, a.total of 78 925 net sq. ft is:,
required to house 451 employees* 'Space requirements' for,,,
conference areas, storage filing, and reproduction areas plus
,-
percentage, for 'coke areas- increase, the square footage,;
re for r a`�_.,Phase, IV'Building to sq. f to 'The
quirements
.105,563
addition ofa-.'10'000 sq'ft. city Commission Chamber (e'stikcitiid)�
ANN
-
-uar footage to:115 ,563,�Isq.fto
brings the ::to al.gross sq e
Square footage requirements "projected*over a'10-year;,period;
assuminga, conservative .growth: rate' of: 1-975% is presented -in:.._F_...
MWEI:':rs
e r 137,451
Table III.: Base on:. -th projections, approximately
d'
-
sq.ft. of gross -square footage office space is required to.
-
provide suitable .housing for., city- offices :through 1998 For the
P!777;
15
7 7
z
�.'
=�-�
�'M�T.
r, `
��
� ,w.
� .
4t
�6,
�,.�
t�#
�
!
�^'
x `� - ; ��w
�",
��
n�il�
�
t:
� e '
'tu
i �
��. h�rk'
�t� :,
3;�ii�
`,
� _ ,L � .
a
ql�r'�
'yy�y,�,'
.4 �.
t
k4. Yt�
.� i ..
r.
"�
k 4 S�'$'
�,.
y'
*h
u1 t�r�
�
z!
r � 4,
ux "g1i�'.
i� �"o
.� 5,i
i F
4
eta
��
LM1.�
purposes of this assignment, a 150,000 sq.ft6 structure is
determined a reasonable size for a City Administration Building--
ORM- Phase f , if newly constructed. An Administration Building
consisting of 150#000 sq.ft. appears sufficient to accommodate
present occupancy requirements, future growth and expansion, and
m— space provisions for other potential uses, i.e. employee child
care facility.
it is important to note that in the event the Department of
Off Street Parking proceeds with the renovation of the Olympia
----
Building, then the occupancy requirements for a Phase; II
Administration Building would be reduced by 35,000 sq.ft. under
its commitment to locate ,certain City offices in the Olympia
Building.
This preliminary analysis of City occupancy requirements•for
those offices and:.departments remaining' to . be: consolidated is .noa
intended to,be..an extensive inventory of.all present space needs,
-`-'�
but rather to provide a reasonable assumption of square footage
requirements.- upon which to evaluate ., the amount of ,, space, . offered
by the _.proposed acquisition of the Alfred, I. duPont Building and
the.City's need for such space.; `
According to a;recent report prepared by Blazejack.&.;Company,
°"--
for...duPont.,Building Associates, ;total ,gross building area of;: the
Alfred ,.I. duPont . Building is estimated to be 350,000 sq. ft. of
which,,. rentable, square footage; is estimated to be.284,000 sq.ft..
Trv-1
Of the total -space, in the building, approximately 25%, 72,195
sq.ft.,_ is: under. lease -to- tenants through the year 1993 and
h
2l l,_805� sq. ft. .is, available; for. occupancy.. Tenants - occupy space'
.:Y%
an the ground floor (street -level retail space), floors'6, 7, 8#
10, 11, 14, 15, 1 7, and 18, The blaze jack & Company report notes
that they were informed that most upper floor leases contain a
right to relocate clause. In an analysis prepared by the
Downtown Development Authority in September 1988, it was noted
—
that the lease agreement for the prime top two floors does not
include a right to relocate clause. This space would' be
!ML_
unavailable to the City until expiration of the lease term in
1993.
Available rentable space in the Alfred 1. duPont building is
estimated to be 211,805 sq.ft. Based on a preliminary analysis
of City occupancy requirements that indicated a present need of
_
115,563 sq.ft., the. available space in the duPont building is
--
more than sufficient to meet current City needs. Should the City'
--=•-
acquire the duPont building, approximately .96,000 sq.ft. would
not be needed by the City to meet its, 1988 occupancy
requirements.
gn of the;.A.I. duPont Building is a
The U-shaped desil.
=
departure from the more efficient, central. elevator core _design
found in -MO-re,,,,,modern, office structures. The building's
configuration would contribute.to a less efficient utilization of
RR WI
overall office space and .,may interfere with inter -office:`
functional relationships.
Strong,consideration;;should be given to the City's potential
x r.;
role in, leasing, managing, and marketing excess office space not
used, by.the;•City to third party tenants. According to_the
Downtown..Development Authority's Office Market Analysis,: for the.,
4919
,-
74
I ' tl Y IY
-- ..: .... F-..:.,.. • .;_ «..,r.>, ..._ .c)1 S .?..e±P ,.•v..a._ a �,.J.,�. ..Yz f.. w..r..c.m. P •.u. _ . ,.:.. _ t . rAK.�-tiA!, •'.:
third quarter of 1988, included as Appendix C, there is nearly 7
R million sq.ft. of total net leasable office space in the central
-� business district -core, The core area includes the Omni area#
but excludes the Brickell area.. The vacancy rate is 22.4% which
translates to 1,568,000 sq.ft, of available office space in the
downtown area as of September 1988.
8. Parking,_ Requirements
Acquisition of the Alfred I. duPont Building includes a 4001-
space valet parking garage located adjacent to the north of the
building, accessible from N.E. l Street. Based on the occupancy
requirements analysis included in Section IV.A# above, a 400-
space garage may be adequate to accommodate the parking needs of
r�
451 employees, assuming approximately 12%, 54 employees, do not
require a daily parking space due to public transportation
ridership and absenteeism11 . A 400-space parking garage does not
appear to be sufficient to meet both employee and visitor parking.
needs.
r
The garage" adjacent to the duPont Building is limited to
valet, service due to its one -lane access route. Conversion to
self -parking does not appear to be feasible due to the structural.
limitations,of the lane.and configuration of the..garage.:
}
.. .
Construction of a 'new Phase II Admini.stration Building =
Government Center creates an 'additional parking demand in that
_,,�,
area. , -,of 400 spaces, under the same assumptionsti
s`
stated" above, :for; employee parking only:.-. Parking Garage No,
I:Admini.stration Building
located.- .directly. ;across .from: the Phase _
with access from;.N.W..2 Street., It is .comprised of 1100 parking
�}
880-11 3 ";
`
"
C �rF
--
obaceflo Promentlyt there are 19i spaces available. The
available spaces are currently used by the City PbliCe t)6P&ttm6nt
parking and public transportation systems Must be avail -abler
convenient, and safe.
The Alfred 1. duPont Building's location on plagler Street
does not provide as high a degree of convenient accessibility to
the Metrorail rapid transit system as does a Government Center
location. Access to the A.I. duPont Su3iding by riders of
Metrogail requires a transfer to the MetroMover system, departing
at a station located two block away from the building. However,
accessto MetroBus is more favorable along Plagier; Street
Vehicular access by both visitors and employees to available
parking is more convenient in Government Center, considering the
A.I. 'duPont Building's valet garage vs. the proximity of surface:
l
lots and Garage No. 5 within Government Center.
visitor access to a proposed City Administration
'. -Building
located within the Central Business District on Flagler Street
t
could be problematic, particularly in`the event officesof.the _;ar
a
Mayor and Commissioners and City Commission Chambers locate tos°
�
the facility and City Commission meetings are held downtown twice ks�_
a month. {
'
Care-Facility,Tolicy
?The 'City;' s : Comprehensive ` Master, Plan now under reviewt,by t77,
he s, a z
t'
Lo
>State Department' 'of :;Communityj.a�Affa' rs includes as an objective, e�
encoura in the;: ex ansion of : da care faciP]�ities�, near`: major 'r y'
— -,
9 9 P y
employment 'centers, identifying Goverrunent e:Centsr ae one of}; the p
ma-jor.-employment:-•centers. The Commission .on ,the StatusHof Women, 4
r an °' advisory .'-'committee to' '-the City _Commission;: and the AFSCM nY
union _have S.voted to:.,support' the inclusion of a> child care k�'.
Cl1CL 6JiG l.l1G N411\ilily y {.V NG QiiyilJiG aVi aaio vVa. i\. �_., L+s vow. a. ��.a�avaa.
'e :i �' �'
n
r ..s R rk t b.
grants that may become'available.
S F f x " .'k f y=r h S, a i " °':'Fll 1,K
Local designation Hof the Alfred 'I. DuPont Building- vVas'
st x �._,tr;� �r; c9 �, '¢ .,: .w �-z^��s s x t:
', t
approved October 27, 1988 on First Reading by the y
. '4. }` '' , ^� f i-^ F - s � •1t c. " 7 �$:} x ,; '1 4 r.*F
Commission. On `Novemb'er 17; 1988,��the item`was coritinued� tothe
k
meeting of January 26 1989 sto' becorisdered for SecOirid: Reading
t
by the Commission:
� �S dx � � u '; re �F �'�� :� -�.w ti �� : 3.Ln to '� F�; �A� Sg£_,�, t S�• �.0 y
UW . ,i
r
As presently proposed by the City Planning Department in its
designation. report, all alterations to the exterior of the
F building as well as alterations to the lst Ploor Lobby, 2nd Ploor
Former Bank Lobby, and elevators will require review and approval
=— by the Planning Department or the Heritage Conservation Board.
Decisions of the Heritage Conservation Board may be appealed by
the City .Commission. In the event the City does not designate
the Alfred I. DuPont Building, under the Master Development
Order, Condition #11, City Resolution No. 87-1148 for the
Downtown Miami DRI, all alterations to the exterior will require
review by the State Preservation Officer.
Acquisition of the A.I. duPont Building would offer the City
an opportunity to occupy space in a prestigious historic
landmark. The building's high quality finishes and materials
could not be duplicated in construction of a new, Administration
Building --Phase II.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Based on ,an assessment of major planning,: 'economic, and
locational.factors presentedherein and summarized..in'.Table IV,
the following may be concluded:
-- Acquisition of the Alfred I. duPont Building :.for the purpose
of relocating administrative City offices not housed in the
City Administration Building --Phase I would be contrary to
the ,consolidation objectives of Government, Center and would
r+ not be in accordance with the City's commitment to the goals
set forth in the Downtown Government Center Master Plan. a
- Acquisition of the Alfred I. duPont Building affords the
I City an immediate opportunity 'to relocate those City
departments not housed in the City Administration. -Building
Phase I to one location. Development of a Phase II City
Administration Building in Government Center is
approximately a 3-year process.
23
_ .. V�_~3
Cost of acquiring and occupying the 350,000 sq.ft. A.I.
duPont Building estimated at $26#163,241 exceeds the cost of
constructing a 150,000 sq.ft. new Phase II Administration
_ Building estimated At $18,300,000 by nearly $6 million.
--- While 100$ financing offered by the current mortgage holder
of the A.I. duPont Building is favorable, the concept of the
City taking a mortgage is not a standard method of financing
used by the City and deserves further legal clarification.
Issuance of revenue bonds as a proposed financing strategy
for constructing a new Phase II Administration Building
appears feasible.
-- Acquisition of the Alfred I. duPont Building by the City
R- would remove the building from the tax base, reducing tax
revenues by $556,839 annually. The impact to the City would
be an annual reduction in property tax revenues of $267,897.
Construction of a new Phase II Administration Building on
City -owned property would not impact tax revenues.
The available leasable space in the A.I. duPont Building,
e. 211,805 sq.ft., exceeds existing City occupancy
- - requirements, 115,563 sq.ft., by approximately 96,000 sq.ft.
A new Phase II Administration Building could be built to
suit.
-- Acquisition of the Alfred•I. duPont Building includes a 400-
space -parking garage that is restricted to valet -service.
Adequate parking exists within Government Center to
accommodate the increased demand that would be created by
the construction of a new Administration Building --Phase II.
Vehicular and pedestrian accessibility to the A.I. duPont
Building located within the Central Business District is not
as,convenient as public accessibility to a proposed Phase II
Building located within Downtown Government Center.
-- Acquisition of the Alfred I. duPont Building would offer the
.; City an opportunity to occupy space in a prestigous historic
landmark. The building's high quality finishes and ;
- materials could not be duplicated 'in construction of a new
City Administration Building --Phase II building.
While.there appears to be, several advantages to the City's
acquisition of the Alfred I. duPont Building, it .is._hereby.
yr
concluded that the benefits of acquisition do not overcome the 4/
significant planning,` economic,' and locational consequences of
L,
such an action.777
4
l
- 24.}
TADLE IV
SUMMARY or FINDINGS
Acquisition of
Alfred 1. duPont
Issues Building_._...
Construction of
City Administration
--building—Phase It
Cityls
Contrary to
In accordance with
Commitment to
consolidation
consolidation
Goverment Center
objectives
objectives
Master Plan
Timing
Affords immediate
Consolidation
opportunity to
approximately
relocate
3 years away.
Cost:
Building:
$18*375*000
.$18* 300, 000,
Capital Upgrades:
11159,840
Code Improvements:
568oOOO
N.A.
Tenant Improvements: 3,177,075
N.A.
Lease Buyouts:
2-,883,326
N.A.
Total:
$26,163,241
$18,300,000
Aft
Financing
1001% as offered by
Proposed revenue
mortgage holder at
bond issue.
19.8%, for 30 years
Impact on -
$267,897.loss to City,
. :�,
TaxRevenues
A51661 loss to County.
13 7lose to School
-:
Board & State,
ota
$556,-839.loss in revenues;
Sq.,
264j'rentable sq-ft..
suit000
B14 ",lt to
-195 leased sq.ft.
.:.accommodate -pro.
available sq. ft.
nee d,
other uses, 1,i- e.m . ri
Exceeds City's s,q.ftol_
d facility;
a care
ssr
requirements by
ry
sq.ft.
M,
Y
TADL2, 1V (CONTINUO)
AggUisitioh Of construction bf
Alfred 1. duPoftt city Administration,
le irii �r. AD3lding"phase 1#
Parking. 400spade valet servio+ d 90 spaces available
jarage in Garage No. 5
313 spaces available
under I-95 overpass
340 potential spaces<
in Garage No. 5
LA' Accessibility" 2 bks " from Metro �.o ver 1 block from Metro' f r
a'tatio, h ` rail station
vl�icular 'access via,. vehicular access X�rr
dtwritown arterials' via I-95 exit
t
congested CBD location.
Historic Eiigible for listing None
Significance ' " on .National Register;
local designation�y x`
A 4- Ft
-. pending
y
1i z ° iec k x
rvvt,"d`"=r S
tk
!' ctl ' 1
10-
1 t
eLr r < J s r. staq a 1` 4 P Y3s.i a i'rrir._ rhhars 'S 'U"�"�
�. i e�4K}'tx' + 3k a` h _
s } E i t �I
'�' ht�� Z h � a wry{ 1 it 1 t - C��� D � 7 w i• ixibY' {y ''v,• s* { 'S-k ."� al`i '� 'Jb T� �. ''Si 1 ' ' im
,'py.�,ftt°3a
TZF.x
r
sar6L s . `�''�-a'�f 3r' yu r.� _
ww
, � � �4}c MT jM�, �diR��, w✓,,'[h2kt5{L
�r
tax
. i k
_ -
Mfl �..
i�ee�t��u�a.r5�i a $i_w343
;Mmtyibrc Nb 86+ 311.1 326
y �
�.. ® ,M�#t► �tdmi.rlit3tk'+h 8_i tt73�ri8 P1r6att t�
paw: qua rererit�i.=77 `.3 r�
': ,' .. .. -:. � .ram x ✓. g,..s.�,�S - y % e
REIOLbTtON NO.
A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE DOWNTOWN
GbftkgMENT CENTER, A DEVELOPMENT Of
REGIONAL IMPACT, LOCATED IN DOWNTOWN
MIAMI, AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE Of A DEVEL-
_
OPMENT ORDER FOR SAID PROJECT APPROVING
SAID PROJECT WITH MODIFICATIONS, AFTER
i.
CONStOERING THE REPORT AND RECONMENDA-
TtONS OF TUB SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLAN-
1IN9 COUNCIL. AS REQUIRED 3T SECTION
380.06 (13)(c) FLORIDA STATUTES, AND
THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, AS REQUIRED IT THE CITT OF MIAMI
ORDINANCE 8290, AND AFTER CONDUCTING
A PUBLIC HEARING AS REQUIRED BY SECTION
380.06 FLORIDA STATUTES; SAID APPROVAL
AND AUTHORIZATION SUBJECT TO THE CON-
DITIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER TNCOR-
PORATED BY REFERENCE AND ATTACHED HERETO
AS EXHIBITS "A", AND THE APPLICATION FOR
F
AEVELOPt�NT APPROVAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
ATTACHED %12AET0 AS EXHIBIT "B",FURTHER DIR-
ECTING THE CITT CLERK TO SEND THE HERE-
IN RESOLUTION AND SAID DEVELOPMENT ORDER
TO AFFECTED AGENCIES AND TO METROPOLITAN
DADE COUNTY.
WHEREAS, Metropolitan Dads County has proposed the Down -
Elk
town Government Center, A Development of Regional Impact, to
defined by Chapter 22-F, Rules of the State of Florida Depart-
ssnt of Administration to be located in Downtown Miami on
a site totalllog 38.19 acres comprised of 1,059,250 gross
square feet of office use and 1,782,000 gross square feet of
ancillary uses of new constructiont totalling 19409,000 groom
square Ifeet of office use and 1,991.000 Sross square feet of „
ancillary use upon the completion of Phase 1= and
WHEREAS, Katropolitan Dade County .has submitted a can -
plate Application for Development Approval for a Development
of Regional Impact to the South Florida Regional Planning
Council pursuant eo.Seetion 380.0E Florida Statutes, and did
t:
receive a favorable recomsendatioe for a. proposed development
order, as set forth in the Report and Recommendatiots of the
ilk
South Placid& Regional Planning Council designated Exhibit C
on file vith'the Office of the City Clarks and
WHEREAS# the Application tot Development Approval,
as reviewed by the South Florida begional planning Council,
tefetted to phase i (new construction) as 1,610,250
gross aquate feet of office use and the phase i total upon
completion as 1,360,000 gross square feet of office use,
which specifically Included a City of Miami Administration
building Phase 2 of 210,000 gross square feet of office use,
which, at the request of the City Administration has been
increased to 280,000 gross square feet of office use, which
does not amount to substantial change from what is now proposed;
and
WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its
meeting held on April 15, 1981, item 12, following an adver-
tised hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAS 16-82 by a7.to 0 vote
recommending Approval of the Development Order for the Downtown
Government Center, a Development of.Regional Impact; and
WHEREAS, a recommendation from the Miami Planning Ad-
visory Board has been forwarded as required by Ordinance
8290; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has conducted a public
hearing, considered the Report and Recommendations -of the
South Florida Regional Planning Council, each element -re-
quired to be considered by.Section 380.06.(13),Florida
Statutes,and
considered the recommendation of the Planning
Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, the City Cox,4;ssion has determined that all
k `
legal requirements_of publication at the public hearing for
._. '.-..
the issuance of the proposed Development Order have been.
4 } 3 CT!'fiP
compiled with; and
,-
WHEREAS,
Y
the City Commission deems It advisable and
..z
in the best interests of the general welfare o8 the City
�x
y,r
1fpy� FF.k}'
of Miami to issue a_Development Order for the Development
C�
j 1 iVV.
a6 r
fi �2
j
i<
i R. - ii.> i,£�'..Vd.. Y{'.. V, n.�ti_.':".._ta...d_�:�cxi.-�....�.......!c,
�.�._ __• •--..,- 2_�.`) '(5.
r
of kaSiottal Vopatt, as hereinafter set forthi
NOV, TIMAEFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED kit "M COMMON OP THE
CITY 01` MIAM, FLMDA:
Section 1. A Development Order ineorporated by rotor -
ants and attached hereto as Exhibit •'A" apprbving
with modifications. the Downtown Government Center, a Develop -
"at of Regional impact, proposed by Metropolitan Dade
County to be located in Downtown Miami for all of Stocks 7511,
76N, 76E, 87N, 87E, 88N, 95N, 96N. 96E. 107N. 101E. 108N,
113N and 114 N; A.L. KNOULTON'S MAP OF MIMI (8-41), be and
rlaa.i4.2.�_ d f 4x f^ 2 1
9
r5Y
x PAISM AX ib6"1b fh1t &y at � ���i.t s, r t s ij a `: .x,.+4V
}
F
t,. i
Awn
..I • µ
yR� SF n44j
v
�KAY
J
r...
jT CLnj
§ar 34xk *fit 1
N i
i$i
� � r ajt 4
71
ot dr s w
PREPARED AND APPROVED 44
R(y i
.Yd 1 k LN Y x.1�t
CSS fy(
-7t_-TPP_
K A. VALENTINE �k
A ISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
Aw
.a •�`.':.-.� r 'i r M ti a # x�t'kt�I 'roT�i °-.0 ' e4 s S p y ' ^ 'r y ;"ac it d °'
- '-,' 8 �R � yt -07_' +,� ra } .tzi � r� �'�'��a' � p�, v v '}° ✓,''+-izt#'°d"'1��.
APPROVED AS TO PO p
RRECTNESS
. :
t
--'�'',�
71'i.:a.r.n,r �I.v { t 'r a,,: yt
—� "ORU• t • tATTOXNET
j.� }N
lips
XY
try AIM
J S � > t w � i- p' ,ya s�j +. 5 x{' � •*y��k e �?�t .4riy� 3`F��sC r fK�° %�+" i 4 i ^enk
-' � �f �'y�t � '^-�..n,.-.'" •tiy ;st r �::t '��° �`'�` r, r�zr' �'�,�* Fn ��' �P ! � �YS � t��'�.�+j.'��,3.„x'�"-}� �',,�,` r
�.-#.3�
,n, ✓ r �, a� 3 r 3 } NF,1 "p+y S tYi`� YrS'e j`�rAi
i. rj`` v u F 4i A 4 J RY�Y L Yk f 5' ft�
.5 a t`z :: it 2 x� t s n.�: k r s st salt ar ,�c .w >! .t 5t'.Y 7 �..rv➢^'� .s ?x o. a �,,,..`.
a^r:. Fs ) }nf+ey'i? xa� � is ypshtit yr �r q '�ti,1007
'-'�
i
�t a ...
EXHIBIT "A"
ATTACil4EM TO
RESOLUTION NO.:
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
Let it be known that pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida Statutes,
the Commission of the City of Miami Florida, has considered in
public hearing held on April 23. 1911, the issuance of a Devel-
opment Order for the Downtown Government Center, a Development of
'Regional impact to be located downtown, being
All of Blocks 7SN, 76N, 76E 87N, 87E, 88N, 9SN, 96N, 06E
107N, 107E, 108N, 113N and 114H
A.L. KNOWLTON MAP OF MIAMI (3-41)
and after due consideration of the consistency of this proposed
development with regulations, and the Repor
t and Recommentions
of the South Florida Regional Planning Council, the Commission
takes the following action: Approval of Application for Devel-
opment Approval with the following modifications:
FINDINGS OF FACT WITH MODIFICATIONS
Development
1. The development of the 38.19 acre site is comprised
of the following elements as specified by the Appli-
cant in the Application for Development Approval
for Phase 1, as revised, and 'shown in Figure 1,
and further limited by applicable provisions and
procedures of Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 6871:
COMPLETED COMPONENTS OF DOWNTOWN GOVERN-
MENT CENTER, PHASE 1
Gross Area in Square Feet
Government Designation Office Use Ancillary Usefrarkina)_
State of Florida Reg. Service 1S0,000 18,750
Center Ph. 1
City of Miami Police Head- 129,7SO 190,2SO
quarters
City of Miami Adm. Building 70,000
Phase i
EXISTING/PHASE 1 SUB -TOTALS 349,7SO 209,000
PROPOSED COMPONENTS OF DOWNTOWN GOVERNMENT
CENTER, PHASE 1 TO BE COMPLETED IN 1987
Gross Area in Square Feet
GovernmentDesianation Office Use Ancillary Use
Metro -Dade Cultural Center 43,000 29S,000
Metro -Dade Support Fact 20,000 26S,000
Garage
Metro -Dade Adm. Bldg. Phase 1 S60,000 178,000
City of Miami Adm.-Bldg. Phase 2 Z80,000 20,000
City of Miami DGC Garage 2 320,000
State of Fla. Res. Service 1S6,2SO 280,000
Center Phase 2
City of Miami DGC Garage 3 - 424,000
PHASE 1 (NEW CONSTRUCTION)' 1,059,2SO 1,782,000
PHASE 1 SUB -TOTAL 1,409,000 2,991,000
S
A-5
C3 tP�'f•t0 �R' ... +• _.�"
N`t,IN X 1 '
wit
om
:
` 00
❑ 0 �.
DOWNTOWN
GOVERNMENT CENTER
PHASE ONE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN j
• er+1 aN.r ttlwl taulg at •YW t Nt to1w. r.rwrrY. rw `" t`
• tr
a1. to ww r t
a Iron a..+»nr. t...as...wt tw
s
{�
nWOW$to.Pw t wrtt.l{tt
to Ma.M•tr•g, "I Mlwa on
•N
oM1./ M. M./.MNY. &AS". wY t1{
• i7MN1 tRitN1 v.gt.
{N
p..yr.tN.1A. M.t....MIt.t.•
• tMrM fta... ~0"Lm
-
i
ton1.. M. Nle1 ./.MY/ton
M IMIM{ Ion w. IMfI t/NINf.f
i•
t.ngr twg .M.0 t....t
of go".., gM w. t•.et n w�1..1..
as
Mr tgt I..W .• t
to am'", "m Mt. Mal 00.t1IM..
- -
tt
NY.rtt..t.trMl GMBwAW Nt
t. nlf**$ no Vd wa nN.rN.1
•
W" .t1{." nowt a.N.•..." tr
t• wr.w{ No w. t.at nwtra.g
N
"01 "Le." UP." a.tP....n I"t
me Wt.MN g""m pH4.
It
•{YMt /M gtrt" YM..t1.t 1{I
{I It long.* sport.. Mont. .out {I►i1tiiv
Q C0MPLETED IBUILDR/Ot
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
QQ-
FIGURE 1
A-6
V_ -
The Applicant has. requested a change of toning classification
to GU -Governmental Use for all public property in the Down—
town Government Center. Should this request be granted by
the City Commission, the CU zoning district requires a Planning
Advisory board recommendation and City Commission approval of
new uses, rebuilding of an existing facility or major adds -
Lions to an existing facility. it is understood that any such
City Commission approvals (or disapprovals) may further limit
the project (above) and are incorporated by reference in this
Development Order.
2. The Applicant. Metropolitan Dade County, is the prime mover
for the Downtown Government Center project and coordinator of
the orderly development of the Downtown Government Center. The
Applicant shall file an Application for Development Ap roval
for the Final Phase Development Plan (1987-2000) (see Rgure 2)
including a traffic and open space alternatives analysis of the
closing of NW 2nd Avenue and NW 3rd Street within the project
to the South Florida Regional Planning Council pursuant to
Chapter 380.06 F.S. The City recognizes that the Final Phase
Development Plan (see Figure 2) forma a reasonable frame of
reference for planning purposes,but shall not grant a Devel-
opment Order for any Application for Development Approval for the
Final Phase Development Plan until receiving the report and
recommendations of the South Florida Regional Planning Coun-
cil on the Final Phase Development Plan, pursuant to Chapter
380.06.F.S.- The City will consider requests for rezoning
approval for GU --Governmental Use for the area covered by the
Final Phase Development plan.
3. The Applicant shall determine if a General Permit will be
required from the South Florida Slater Management District
and, if necessary, apply for and obtain a permit prior to
project construction.
4. The Applicant, City or State, as the case may be shall apply for
and receive a complex source permit from the Department of Environ-
mental Regulation. The applicant, City or State. as the case may
be, will concurrently submit the application to the Council.
Further, the applicant agrees to develop an on -site air quality
monitoring program to provide base data to evaluate the accuracy
of the air quality projection method used in the complex source
application
s• The Applicant shall notify the State Historic Preservation Officer
of the expected construction schedule for .the Downtown Government
Center and provide reasonable opportunity for exploration or
excavation at least 30 days prior to the start of construction.
6. The Applicant shall prepare, in collaboration with the City. Council
staff, and State an Open Space Plan together with an analysis of the
on -site and off -site energy and drainage impacts related to its imple-
mentation to the Council for review and comments; comments to be re-
ceived within 60 days from submission. The applicant shall then sub-
mit this Plan and related impact analyses to the City as changes to
the present Application for Development Approval, pursuant to Chapter
380.06(17)(a) F.S., within two years of the date of issuance of this
Development Order. The City shall review any changes described on the
Open Space Plan, as compared with Figure 1. and make a substantial de-
viation determination. If appropriate. and required, the City shall
amend this Development Order to reflect these changes and notify the
South Florida Regional Planning Council of amendments to the Develop-
ment Order and provide a copy of the City's substantial deviation
findings to the Council pursuant to Chapter 380.06(17)F.S.
Traffic and Transportation
The Applicant and the City of Miami (in cooperation with State
agencies) recognize certain mutual responsibilities in resolving
and mitigating traffics and transportation problems within, and
in the immediate vicinity, of the project.
To resolve these problems:
88,.A.174
A-7
DOWNTOWN GOVERNMENT
CENTER
FINAL PHASE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
,fty"
a
11161 s!1
few" "oft" awaw ataaftt as Na.tf
Ittlfm �.
a W. f.t•.• ow�t"~ Matta
Pa
lift fog W.ff ty a
As ff.f•t fa.f fNNa. ttw.w. Mw toa
9a
nK�u srlrl.ras-sr�c
&N..e
u MIUM• W&PIAr.rrs M
oft
AM
fowuN owl aatrtttNq• M loft I awmtt ftal..ff awes
l.t. ftwlH.•w .rz. fr. .. tr a goal" @omit M.ttwt
a
taftr •tt fwaf lo•aaatfN
M affwlof oat tala frill rwurgw
N
awWta fa• ff►wt •foam
/a "Wolof fNr Plot/q.t
as
Mt off rail aft
It @oralof Pr olo. l.."rnftwtN
Sa
tl��L� lJt'!'{Jtl�'!t4 QI
•4 tlftMf tot ftp a"" rlolftafw
f
hilt.• aYtl aw-ft 01 . 4 "We. ar@o
low of @orolof wa OM fir! fllotwfw
of
a," "fa.ft floral ff.l. •. taut ftw
f tl..f"wn tali.. loos••
L
tw.f Mfat� W.RI @oftfa. a"W *—a
ft►t aoawm /mme awfW mt ovm
Q OMPLtTED IN HIASE 1
PLANNED COMPONENTS Of DOWNTOWN GOVERMWNT CENTER - FINAL PHASE ,.
M f s taat th Inw 9►ar.
M/a►MMt
Rrfna fa
DatIS"atto" Office U"
A atrKa
A"lIll Yta "a Sy9•
State of 91ar11a
twoop
Saralla CMfK 3M.000
1119?
1999 2000
mtra}DHa
Alal". •IIS.
Maas t 100.000
19M
1990 1M1
is be dowel"@
*warr@oa"f
or Rfaal4e/t.
off less 900.000
710.000 t!M
Mt Mt.
SII•TOTALS
t.s00.000
310.000 1"?
not IM9
ROC Mt, OWMIT TVALs 2 .909r 000
t.M.000 I9»
"Of MG,
The Applicant Shall!
sla.
Is.
Prepare, in collaboration with
the City and State, a Downtown
Access and Mobility Study, which
study should identify current
conditions, and short- (5-10
yeah) and long-range (year 2000)
plans for maintaining and im-
proi�'ag vehicular access and eir-
culihon to and through the Do.ntoen
MiaO area. Further, the study
shall address financing require-
ment= and mechanisms to im-
plemsnt both short-term and long-
term improvements. The Appli-
eans:further agrees that this
study will be provided to the
South Florida Regional Planning
Council and the City within 1.5
yea** of the date of issuance of
this Development Orden for re-
view and comment, and may be
subject to further study di-
rection from the Council and
City at the time of review, which
shall be binding upon the Appli-
cant with appropriate Lime ex-
tensions, to be mutually determined
council and City, to complete such
additional study.
Undertake, and complete in timely
fashion, those roadway improve -
men zJunction
proposed for NM 3rd Street
and1st, 2nd and 3rd Avenues;
in with the street
vac'kiion plan for NM 2nd Street.
The City Shall:
7b. participate, in a cooperative
manner, with the Applicant in
the Downtown Access and Mobility
Study in 7a, and upon completion
of its final draft, not imple-
ment any portion of the study
report or its recoarnendatien• for
roadways under the City juris-
diction until receiving and con-
sidering the South Florida Re-
gional Planning Council's re-
view and comments on the study
report; Council comments to be
received within GO Asys of sub-
mission.
by
8b. Not issue a certificate of oc-
cupancy for the new County Admin-
istration Building and subsequent
proposed construction in Phase 1
until all street improvements
referenced in Condition 8a are
completed and open to.the pub-
lic; except that certificates
of occupancy will be issued, if the•
right-of-way acquisition by the
County for the widening and im-
pprovement of NM 3rd Street and
NN 1st Avenue extends beyond April
23, 1982 and is not the fault
of the County; an appropriate
time extension will then be given
by the City.
9a..$eview the terms of,the Tripar- 9b.
tits: Parking Agreement between
Ci,tr}; County, and State and ensure
full:compliance by the County with
the terms upon the County contained
therein.
20. Review the adequacy of transit ser-
vice-1rom areas of Dade County un-
served by a direct express link (by
rapid rail or bus) to the Downtown
Government Center and., if appropriate,
develop routes and schedules to en -
Sure -the availability of prompt pub
liceaecess to the Downtown Government
Center. Further the Applicant agrees
to ensure the adequacy of the site
Review the terms of the Tripar-
tite Parking Agreement between the
City, County, and State'for ap-
proval of the Regional Services
Center Phase i building and make
available the appropriate amount of
parking necessary to comply with
the terms of that agreement prior
to the issuance of any certificate
of occupancy.
The Applicant Shall:
The City Shall:
Plan for convenient bus stops of
appropiate site and location to
#upppart total project demand for
park'n ride, shuttle and express
transit service.
11a; Promote energyconservation and
the use of puic transit speci-
fically related to the Downtown
Government Center by participating
In Transportation System Manage-
ment, coordinated by the Dade County
Office of Transportation Adminis-
tration through such measures as
ride -sharing programs and van
pools= variable work hours, flax -
time, and a 4-day work weak; tran-
sit.use coupled with remote -site
parking and ppublic actions to be
recommended by the Downtown Miami
Interim Parking Study in llb.
lib. Work closely with the Downtown
Development Authority. the
Dade County Office of Transper-
tation Administration and the
applicant to promote energy con-
•srvation and public transit opt
ifically related to the Downtown
Government Center as outlined in
Ila and shall continue enforce-
nent efforts to restrict or pro-
hibit on -street parking, all of
which are intended to maximize
the use of the available road-
way capacity. Further, the
City is currently preparing a
Downtown Miami Interim Parking
Study to address parking short-
agas until July, 1984, which
study is to be completed in 90
days, which study recommendation
if approved by the City will for
a basis for public actions in 11
and llb.
Energy
The Applicant and the City recognize that the Downtown Government Center
provides an opportunity to explore the concept of co- generation.
with the objectives of a) conserving energy and b) reducing energy
costs for the projects. To further explore this concept:
The Applicant Shall:
12a. Prepare a technical and fiscal
feasibility analysis for con-
struction and operation of a co-
generation facility, which ana-
lysis must address the alter-
natives of joint County -City
ownership andaint public and
private owners ip, as well as
other cogeneration. conditions
enumerated in 13a thru 15a. and
submit the analysis to the Coun-
cil and the City for review and
approval, within two(2) years
of the date df issuance of this
Development Or -der. In the event
that the County is unable to
settle a price schedule agree-
ment with Florida Power and
Light Company for the sale of
surplus generated electricity.
the County may obtain a one year
extension of this deadline. If
the results of the analysis Indi-
cate that such a facility, under
single or oint ownership, is
viable wit in the Downtown Govern-
ment Center. the Applicant will
develop and operate it in a manner
consistant with sound fiscal mam-
agement, subject to agreement
with other end users.
A-10
The City Shall:
12b. Consider its option to partici-
pate in the joint development
of -an on -site cogeneration
facility and to review the CLty's
land use approval and develop-
ment review criteria for poss-
ible amendments providing
Incentives for development, in
locations adjacent to the Down-
town Government Center. of
compatible land uses to compIL-
ment the technical and fiscal
feasibility of a cogeneration
facility installation in the
Downtown Government Center.
The Applicant 3h111:
13s. Reevaluate the existing City
Police Department Headquar-
ters for connection to the
chilled water system of the
proposed cogeneration facility,
and if found to be compatible
and fiscally feasible, to the
satisfaction of the City, con-
nect the building to the system
through an agreement provid-
ing an equitable arrangement of
coats between the City and the
County.
The City Shall:
13b. Review the equitable arrangement
of costs between the City and
County to be proposed by the
County for connection and supply
of chilled water from the pro-
posed cogeneration facility to
the existing City Police Depart -
meat Readquarters in the light
of fixed chiller equipment
which would become obsolete,
and if found to be fiscally
feasible to the satisfaction
of the City, to subsequently
enter into an agreement with the
County for connection and supply
of chilled water to the City
Police Department Headquarters.
14a. Require all future Downtown 14b. Require all future Downtown
Government Center buildings Government Center buildings to
to be connected to the be connected to the chilled
chilled water system under an water system, under an equitable
equitable cost schedule, satis- cost schedule, satisfactory to the
factory to the end -users, as end-usere,as presently contem-
presently contemplated by the plated by the County.
County.
15a. Evaluate, in cooperation
with the City, all future
development adjacent to•the
Center, such as the Overtown
area. for compatibility with
the cogeneration facility and,
if found to be compatible and
fiscally feasible through an
equitable arrangement of costs
satisfactory to end -users.
provide for connections':to-the
cogeneration facility.
16a. Continue to evaluate those
energy conservation recommenda-
tions incorporated by reference
and attached hereto as Attachment
"I" and those incorporated in
the New County Administration
Building design, and wherever
technically feasible, to incor-
porate these measures into sub-
sequent County buildings
15b. Evaluate. in cooperation with
'the County, all future devel-
ovment adjacent. to the Center,
much as the Overtown area. for
codbalibility with the cocene-
ration faefiity and. if found
to be compatible and fiscally '
feasible through an equitable
arrangement of costs satisfac-
tory to end -users, foster
connection to -the cogeneration
facility.
16b. Evaluate those energy conser-
vation recommendations incor-
porated by referenda and at-
tached hereto as Atts i , t IT'
and wherever technically feasible
to incorporate those measures
Into subsequent City buildings
and recommend to the State
similar evaluation and imple-
mentation in subsequent State
buildings.
17. The Planning Director, City of Miami Planning Department is hereby
designated to monitor and assure compliance with this Development
Order and to receive the annual report in paragraph la.
Mr. Stephen C. Little, Downtown Government Center Development Coor-
dinator, County Manager's Office (or a designee to be named
by the County Manager) is in charge of day-to-day development co-
ordination of the Downtown Government Center.
8&-1.173
88--i�1'74-
A-11
A Downtown Government Center Design Review Committee is hereby ap-
pointed to review and a rove architect- al desi n
pp r g , •pact use, site
planning, and pedestrian circulation and open spec* elements for
all aspects of the Downtown Government Center with the objective
of achieving superior urban design. Members of the Committee are:
Hr. Stephen C. Little, Downtown Government Center
Development Coordinator (or a designee to be
named by the County !tanager).
Mr. John Gilchrist, Assistant to the City Manager,
(or a designee to be named by the City Manager).
Mr. Wayne F. etta. Assistant Director, Division of
Construction and Property Management, State of
Florida Department of General Services (or a designee
to be named by the other two memebers).
The Committee is also charged with investigating air quality emanat-
ing from Phase 1 to 1987. If problems axis ..to define those pro-
blems and propose solutions including equitable cost sharing
N.
in a report to be supplied within 6 months of the date
of issuance of this Development Order.
General
18. the applicant shall submit a report, twelve(12) months from the
date of issuance of this Development Order and each twelve(12)
months thereafter until Certificates of Occupancy are issued
for all buildings in Phase 1 to the South Florida Regional
Planning Council; the State of Florida Department of Com-
munity Affairs, Division of Local Resource Management; all affected
permitting agencies and the Planning Director, City of Miami Plan-
ning Department. This report shall contain, for the preceding
twelve months: '
* A general description of construction progress
in terms of construction dollars and employment
compared to the scl-mdule in the applicant's
Application for Development Approval.
* Sppecific progress in response to paragraphs 6. 7,
10, 11. and 12, it beingg understood that sub-
mission of this report is not a substitution for
specific reports required by these or other paragraphs.
A cumulative list of all permits or approvals
* applied for, approved or denied.
A statement as to whether any proposed project
* construction changes in -the ensuing twelve(12)
months are expected to deviate substantially from
the approvals included in this Development Order.
* Any additional responses required by rules adopted
by the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs.
19. The Development Order shall be null and void if substantial
Development has not begun in two(2) years of the recorded date
of this Development Order. Substantial development is defined
herein as the achievement of the following items:
* Obtaining the requested rezoning approval for the
entire site (paragraph 1).
* Preparation of an Open Space Plan and its submittal
to the City as a proposed change requiring a substan-
tial deviation determination (paragraph 6).
* Preparation of the Downtown Access and Mobility
Study report and submission of recommendations to the
Council and City (paragraph 70.
Construction of all roadway improvements identified in
* the ADA. except that approppriate time extensions,may
be granted as conditioned by paragraph 8b.
88-1173
88-�•1`74
A-12
Preparation of the technical feasibility analysis for
—� 1oint development of the cogeneration facility and its
submittal to the Council and City for review and
approval (paragraph 12a).
Completion of on -site storm water drainage facilities
associated with the Cultural Center and County Admin-
istration building - Phase 1 and completion of construc-
tion documents for on -site storm drainage facilities for
County Support Facility/Carage and City Garage 2.
20. The applicant, City and State of Florida, shall give notice to
Richard P. Brinker, Clark Dade Count; Circuit Court, 73 West
Flaglar Street, Miami. Florida, 33130 for recording in the
Official Records of Dade County, Florida as followas
a. That the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida
has issued a Development Order for the Downtown Government
Center. a Development of Regional Impact located in
downtown Miami, being
All of blocks 75N, 76N. 76E, 87N, 87E, 88N, 95N,
96N. 96E, 107N, 107E. 108N, 113N and 114N
A.L. KNOWLTON MAP OF MIAMI (B-41)
b. That Metropolitan Dada County. the City of Miami and
State of Florida are the developers.
C. That Ithe Development Order with any modifications may be
examined in the City Clark's Offices, 3500 Pan American
Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida 33133.
d. That the Development Order constitutes a land develop-
ment regulation applicable to the property; that the
conditions contained in this Development Order shall run
with the land and bind all successors in interest; it
being understood that recording of this notice shall not
constitute a lien, cloud or encumbrance on real property,
nor actual nor constructive notice of any of the same.
21. The Applicant will incorporate all original, and additional
revisions to the originally submitted Application for Development
approval into one complete document and will provide copies within
90 days of the date of issuance of this Development Order, to the
City of Miami, the South Florida Regional Planning Council and the
State Department of Community Affairs.
22. The Application for Development Approval is incorporated herein by
refersnce'and is relied upon by the parties in discharging their
statutory duties under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Substantial
compliance with the.representations contained in the Application for
Development Approval is a condition for approval unless waived or
modified by agreement among the parties.
23. The Development Order shall expire on April 23. 1987 unless super-
seded by a Development Order for the Final Phase of the Downtown
Government Center which may incorporate all or some of the provi-
sions of this Development Order.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Downtown Government Center proposed by Metropolitan Dade County
complies with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. is consistent
with the orderly development and goals of the City of Miami. and com-
plies with local land development regulations being Comprehensive.
88--11173
88-1174
A-13
61•"=sit.
�• S
c ,
I 4* r r 1 FA.
� €ra sa x5
wM a
'�bM�h� il�dinanee Nli+ dbyl and A�
'fhe pl000sed development does sot unleatconebly interfea e►iih `ihd '' p
iehievemoht of the objeatives tf the idapted State Land bevai®p-
eient Alae.applicable to the City of Miami: and
�.s
The proposed development is generally consistent with the Report
and Reeommendation6 of the South Florida Regional Planning Council
and does not unreasonably interfere with any of the considerations
and objectlyes set forth in Chapter 380, 1'lorida Statutes.
404
w,,i'F.fi3' a, ,�±'r' r s. n e ♦ I '' 1 p r`t i ry
.#
%,.">:s��)1 tYf }� 'h a�, '.'R`%''it h s"f. 7&�v
ys 7 7 acregi ,r ,4 r,,K �`t "',CFi I.�+tj .fl.>3a ; yY e I-zx'IF p�,�y +^•
f '3
4.a
M to
J - ° 041INts, ;'f4i'ES'.`'7� 'xf i+�9F,.'�5r-�y &l�i�� i'z"d'fi.+af 2'Pi'y��
0 man
n
'r,
( 'A,
, s Y �CM e r
s zF r' + a,. �. I t € y I x ,t n. yA N
Mons si ns ' �ti s*�>. }'� �}.0 "A�'W "- �F + x'w,rr,
"1
�rd 6
J *3 i - `iM, z1
t' : u �` a a-.�4{"r�2F'��'�`e�,:-��, � i�� �.�Kl n`�y:� �.x�t� �e �x Fib %'+�'' � `s'" ,�v�,'' f � X`Z �',�tyty ;I'•Sl i l £ .Y K 1F� f��#�y � V;�
a k 7 a ij
`ac
CA.
,• ti A t t.. � y x x + f i t v d :. �..'�. T A } 1 K' `+' r i f �li 's, is
5 Y h p�
r s ``- .fit' ET.Z'I'ra�.^1 +:`.' y.A c A,
{ x c� J ,,♦, i. "vyw-,
...��..�. s+yl�Y ye�E_✓";i '^'Ck�'h } iP+$'rt Y'.1� r�. +H'tr'�t'.
t-
F ZT .'.'yyi2 n� gym- ria
t 1 .1,w "L :' �4 .yk r aw .r t x -ei. s ,�ri r g { ,y ul ,i.t u�Li, sx .T
7..,<tlx^ +„✓ A ' �w, 4, 4^r,. r•`` f -� "Pk'rs�
v 't 7tct i ",pi 4 Sad `i��. ��'q"`.k��:Hy`�i•.
`� Fys^ 1 `, V � �,4
a vi
day Z.iT t' rk rs �.r',.
yX x'�)fyr >Y�X+e S`.j`+$i Fia'1+�1 -1- �'}
w��
Ron
�r C �'y��� �,a '� � tt t 1 h3°�� L, �' �. r S t=•. *� , i'��' �( a"s,..�,.?�.iC� �' � �`
e rt £g5Fe:I .c' i a.,,f�'1'*jj,,,C���€ `,£ '' d x^ p t,tZ e� x'y, 3 ; 'S3:i' �+a•,'xs.., y�, p �.ik,-,rC<'-'':',.
,71'r: ._.O-A,
AT rACi EW "I"
ENUCY CONSUVATtON 11:CMENDATIONS
(fro' pages 46 and 47 of the Council Report)
-� ".... it is in the interest of the Region as a whole to reduce
the energy consumption and increase the energy efficiency of new
users in the Region as a way to retard the increase in and control
energy costs.
One way this can be done is to require all new construction, large
or small, to meet ninimum energy efficiency standards implemented
through building codes. Additional measures proposed for this
project include:
. minimization of east and west window exposures in the Dade
County buildings,
. shading of ground level windows and walkways with eollonades,
porticos, and other sunshade devices,
. extensive solar shading on east and west window exposures
on the City and State buildings,
operable windows on about one-third of all glazed openings,
computerized energy management systems for start/stop, night
set -back, demand forecasting, load shedding and load cycling,
optimum start and chiller utilization, chilled water pumping
and controlled air volume, fan speed, and blade adjustment, -
restriction of water flow in lavatories to 0.8 gallons
per minute,
reflective and/or solar limiting glass used wherever a
glazed surface is exposed to direct sunlight,
all transformers sized -to expected demand rather than
connected load,
power factor connection devices integrated with all large
motor control systems,
light coloring used for all building exteriors,
computerized elevator system for the new County Administration
Building and the City Administration Complex office tower, and
tasklighting installed where financially feasible and con
patible with employee and public tasks.
In order to maintain a consistent package of energy conservation
measures used within the project. it is recommended that both the
A-15 rt
A
! I 5wz , -
1 r„i > 3�T�„Fr "it >`L rr (✓ h� "nfih rd "5ifh x 'Rr L '+�i d+ y�d'{ti �' J d>x - 'vt sb kit �'3r>`>r`F" krrA°'�r,Y! N'3nvt!*
,wdkf
y '.} i � r r � S + t ,✓ .4,s, 1 '�. "' ri3..r S e"M,
-' a [ �, r``z 1 � 7" ° t c ,a � r• � rF � r ?� T � til�ue.
IT
Or;,tw
}rar3,`ti�ia;'[r.
( 1�7 i....W� 1
- �s v� � �r
r Y �` c t d ait ifv 7.F`� a 1—'r ps �� �� < zr • S! jj
.!� 1 $ 1 t f A fy� .� -$ 'N� S'Y Z �ri'� a5'. '1%� ,�' 1:••' 71 ) 5t�r
J+88=3i6
oa/oale� RE$0111TIoli N0* t119'~32G
• i1 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING AS A CATEGORY "Il"
PROJECT Tur PLANNING AND ossiuN of Tne CITY
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING PHASE III AUTHORIZING
TILE CITY MANAGER TO ADVERTISE FOR WE
REQUIRED PROFESSIONAL PLANNING A140 DESION
SERVICESi APPOINTING A CERTIFICATION
COMMITTEE OF NOT LESS THAN TFIRZK
APPROPRIATELY LICENSED PROFESSIONALS FROM THE
CITY'S STAi•F# AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
APPOINT A FOURTH CERTIFICATION COMMITTILE
MEMBER.FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR SUBSEQUENT TO
RECEIPT OF TIiS PROPOSALU; AND APPOINTING JOHN
so GIL•CHRIST; DIRECTOR; DEPARTMENT ' OF
DEVELOPMENT AS CHAIRMAN OF THE COMPETITIVE
SELECTION COMMITTEE* ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH
FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 207.055; AND CITY 010
MIAMI ORDINANCE NO. 9572; ADOPTED FEBRUARY
10, 1993; WHICH ORDINANCE ESTABLISHED
PROCEDURES FOR CONTRACTING Foil SUCH
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND ALSO ESTABLISHED
NEOOTIATIOU REJUIREMENTS WITH REGARD TO THIS
IPURNISHING (jr SUCH SERVICES.
WHEREAS, in 19nio tilt City of MlaRli completed construction of
the lidministraLion Building in Government Center; located on
Blnek No.95N, Lots 5 through 16, bounded on the south by NW 2nd
Street, on the west by NW 3rd Avenue and on the north by NH 3rd
Street, comprising an approximately 2 acre City -owned site# and
WHEREAS, this building; which presently houses part of the
administrative offices of the City of Miami is considered Phase i
of the City's Administration Complex in llovernment Contort and
WHEREAS, in order to improve City services and consolidate
all of the administrative offices of the City of Miami at
Government Center; a Program Development and Needs Assessment
Analysis is currently being conducted to determine the site and
development program for a second city Administration Building`,
referred tows Phase II# and
WNERFAS, upon colnplet•ion of tile aforementioned Analysis, the
City will be seeking the professional services of an.
I
ppropriately qualified and experienced architectural consultant
CITY O M SS10N
MEETWO
�•y-
L1
OF -
!i
i
APR 14 Igoe
A-18
rsonuran No" ;Z�'i .
•t►u�.r
i
to provide, along with sub-consultinq engineers ana landscape
architects complete design and construction admihietration
services for the planning; design and construction of the City
Administration Building Phbss III and
WHEREAS# the City Manager recommends that the planning and
" d*Wign of the City Administration building phase 11 be designated
` a Category "g" project in accordance with Cite provisions of
- ordinance, No. 9572' adopted February 10, 19631 and
_ WHEREA8, Ordinance No. 9572 also require* the establishment
_ of a Certification Committee -of not less than three professionals
_ qualified in the fields of endeavor or practices invbived in the
project, to review the qualifications; performance data and
related information provided by those responding., to the city's
Request for Professional Rervictel and
' WHEREAS, in order to enhance the expertise of the
Certification Committee it is desirable to appoint an
appropriately qualified professional from theprivate sector as
the fourth Certification Committee Member; subsequent to the
receipt of the proposals, to participate in the Certification
'
Committee's required activitie81 and
WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends that John E• Gilchrist
- Director of the Department of Development, be appointed as
chairman of the Competitive Selection Committee; in accordance
�.
_ with .the provisions of ordinance 110.9572t
a
NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED BY 791E COMMISSION Or THE, -'CITY
� f
OF . MUMI, FLORIDAt
Section 1. 1'hs ' planning and design of the City
3�
Administration Building 'Phase Ir is hereby designated a Category.:,
"B" project, -,in accordance with the provisions of City Ordinance
>r„ f
No. 9572, adapted February lU, 1963, which Ordinance establiahed
4w
procedures for contracting' for certain professional services anti
also-establiehed competitive negotiation requirements with regard
to: the Ito rnisit Ing o! such services.
Will z,
fx
Settio>w 36 Mh! city Mahagar is hereby authbritod to
advsittiie tot the 6totWnanti6h*d professional plbnning and desigh
OttVidOdt and to issue a itequest for Proposals for professional
Gervites Document teiated to the procurOmOtht of such eerviaas, in
accordance with Grdinshea NO-, 0572•
Section 3. A certification Con"ittee la hereby appointed
consisting of the following City Staffs Allah t. POMa,
registered Architect, Member, American Ynstituts of Architect'"
.lames t<ay. registered engineer. ..Mambere f'lorida Pngiheerinq
- 4t
IN
Societyl Juanita D. Shearer, registered t.andscaps Architect, a;
t
r i
Member, American Society of Landscape Architects. 5
Section 4. 'cite City Manager is hereby autheriked,
'subsequent to receipt of the responses to the City's Request For
i
Proposals for Professional Services Document, to appoint a fourth
member to the Certification Committees with said person being a
-1
Lr
registered architect working in the private sector with no vested!
;2
interest and /or financially remunerative relationship with any
.of the firms or individuals being considered during the
Fr
Certification and aeleati.on process.
Section S. John C. Gilchrist, Directors Department of �+
e
Development is hereby appointed as Chairman of the Compet~it2.ve
1
Selection Committee, 'in accordance with this provisions of s ,
i
ordinance No. 9572 and Section 287.055.F .s• •
Aril4
PhssED AND ADOPTED this 14Lh day of
r
-:
AT?XAVIER L. SUAMAYOR
RATTY NIRAI, CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BYt APPROV t►S`TO EORH AND CORRECTNESst
ROBERT F. CIARK tUCT A. DOUG ERTY i
CNIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY `AT'CORK
rZr r
5
1s?y} 1
city of miami
arlminiStrBtI0C1
building
including
sta e one
9 F
advance roiect
p
analysis r
Utj(4UIF t:::r I IcI ILO .
9
.197
71
A-21 88-11'7
a
Y
s}i
fry �
TALE DP CONTSHTS j
ii� ��ggp rri�pp {y � e
i�����YVcTiVNi i i♦♦ i i i i i i "i i i i i 'i i i' i +4i'"� f"x�
•7�y
J
�i
',. • i i i ♦ i ii i i i i i
�y � � {� fir' };* �j� _ �r � a
.♦ PWOPAH OP SPACE ASQU1RRME T•7
:46 PROGRAM ANALYSIS. • •
• i • • i i i ♦ • t ♦ i i f i`�` � � ri. '` .: c } i� i v �.s ..
SUPPLEMENT. STAGE ONE• -ADVANCE PRBJECT fALYRIS i` i�.'„'tyz, i
56 PLANNING & DESIGN CRITERIA • • • • •
APPENDIX - A. Methodology Ail
• • • • ♦ • • i • • • . i
H. Space Standards • • • •
C. Questionnaire • : 3 �£ �� ,
w r'm v.4
ti
�t rtv � { 4 r
�� .• f( 4j J4%JW� 4
err w� i r�p�'zrt2 a4 j i`3r
'7 } i
4Nt
r
r
3"4-r ptiy tti J
r 9a �� i + f i c '✓�� �1 r �1 t`��x�� iF'-�J i ss�'t �y. Si
gr...._ rz A'a s 'r}s t x+�.w+'c Ji # t,��. N c ♦s
J i '.+ z. �a:. a rgrt•'�. { n
m.. 1 Rs: " d � .4 r. � ♦♦ r fg P Ft?,t�t,C4.
Vr'^'�XtYi�}i
�' t+,r.7+.-r�-y,�tr�';
S
IN
rx��
".?,
48t�syf�& 4�vc
1 -- �, r a s r n - ..' s{ '}t r {: t 3'^.tasd'lu v. k f n 3r'
a" vet'•T k t"`C cC b}'�l'v rx n,J j,.+<{ l `F" 3 % '1 .$'t* 3 J � + .'�k'n"
c. a r••� na 1. 3 r> 5 a'4. t Sxt < �: +,� ir. g �; ` Pw:}- wi±ty�'r +t'�k"
e tr k .. J x s �, ec ; } '.+ } -:' } '?,. 7:.1rz Ya`'r+, .. ''"��Y ,+� vl� 'i r'a.•�4
i 3 rfla L:vd.; r "k�r �r•rp #M'�'...n.�y T�h. '"��t`q.,.,xi y.,.+.,.'a ,. `D t tY �k'".�`.:1€'s•F� w
i, •. C::1s4 � a',� �.r , ^� � ^� k. f.v �` }... Ff .a...J. s .+' .:;G r�J 4 �. �y:+ d p'-�.5��`.#k"'`.`+�':� �� �.'1F'-u`x�^� ayt, ,. T �ts+�'!�'2r v8�.+...�
777777
IL,,:..,,
I. INTRODUCTION
This report contains a Program of Space -Requirements for the proposed City
of Miami administration building In the Downtown Government Center, Miami.
When first Incorporated as a City in 1896, Miami's administrative offices
were casually scattered on 2nd floors of buildings, In back storerooms, and
in merchant quarters. The first City Hall was not erected until 1908. Con-
taining the police station, it was a 3-story high rock building that remained
in use until 1928, when city officials moved their offices to the Dade County
Courthouse. City government was situated there until 19540 when the present
Dinner Key facility became the home for City government.
Dinner Key was chosen only as a temporary site for City offices until better
arrangements could be made. There was talk of buying an existing downtown
structure, or building a new City Hall, which taxpayers rejected on a pro-
posed bond issue. Built originally as Pan American Airways terminal for
flying boats in 1934, the facility was abandoned in 1945. Since then, three
tenants have tried operating restaurants in the facility and failed. it be-
came a 'white elephant' for the City. However, its appearance in a marine
setting was thought to be representative of the area. What was originally
viewed as temporary housing in 1954 is today the City government offices, for
In 1956 voters defeated a proposed bond issue of $3.5 million for a new City
Hall. In 1970, the voters said no again to a $10.5 million City Hail in-
cluded in a.bond proposal.
In 1976, City of Miami built the Miami Modern Police Headquarters Building
in the Downtown Government Center to house the police department. Majority
of the remaining City of Miami administrative offices are located in several
2-story old structures at Dinner Key. Dallas Park.Hotel, Watson Building,
and the Olympia buildings in downtown Miami also house some of the City
offices.
The Program of Space Requirements for the proposed City of Miami administr-
tion building is composed of 4 basic elements. Summary (Section 2) contains
a cumulative summary of the Program of Space Requirements 1977-1985. The
detailed elements of the Program are presented in Section 3 - Program of
Space Requirements. An analysis of interdepartmental proximity matrix and
diagrammatic relationships are illustrated under Section 4.- Program Analysis.
A manual of planning and design criteria to control the design process of the
building is included in Section 5.. This is followed by the Appendix contain- .
Ing the -Programming methodology, space standards and a sample questionnaire.
A-25
... ) •Aa ,•. ♦•. � I III
ORGANIZATION CHART
CITY OF MIAMI
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK i
LAW I COMMISSIONERS
CITY MANAGER
.-.--
ASST
ASST
ASST
ASST
CITY
CITY
CITY
CITY
MANAGER
MANAGER
MANAGER
MANAGER
FOR
FOR
FOR
FOR
COMMUNITY
PLANNING/
PUBLIC
ECONOMIC
AFFAIRS
BUDGET
SERVICE
DEVELOP-
MENT
i
N:
C{TIZENS
PUBLIC
TRADE 8
FIRE
POLICE
SERVICES
=PLMN
WORKS
COMMERCE
PLANNING b
SOLID
TOURISM
FINANCE
LABOR
RELATIONS
RECREATION
ZONING
BOARD
WASTE
CONE /
COMPUTER
PARKS
CONVENTIO
MANAGEMENT
BLDG./
STADIUMS/
HUMAN
CIVIL
MEDICAL SERVICES
SERVICES
VEN MA{NT.
MARINAS
RES.
1
f.a
CREDIT UNION
tA[CONVENTION
BUILDING
CENTER
WATSON
ISLAND
aao5 ,„j3rc"x3 ti 5 z _
•.� 4''vhr...�
$r.
{
4
T {y�
Z�
^ �r
Yam,
xry �,
2. SUMMARY
This section presents a general summary of the program of Space Requirements
for the City of Miami - Administration Building.
The general purpose of this study was to project the required type and amount
of space for various departments/divisions of the City of Miami. Most of
these departments are now located in several old structures at Dinner Key.
The remaining departments are scattered throughout the city at various loca-
tions. The requirements of the Department of Police are not included, since
they have already moved to a new Miami Modern Police Headquarters Building
16 the Downtown Government Center. The proposed city of Miami Administration
Building is an integral part of the Master Plan developed for the Downtown
Government Center by Metropolitan Dade County.
The space requirements projected as a part of this study were developed as a
result of an extensive inventory of all present space of these departments,
an interview with a key person of each of these departments, preparation of
standards of space use for levels of positions and specific functions in
the departments, and projection of the number of personnel by department and
by position for the planning years 1977, 1980, 1985.
The space requirements are presented in detail in Section 3 - Program of Space
Requirements. Table i on the following page, presents a Summary of the ex-
isting areas and the space requirements for 1977, 1980, and 1985 for the 32
departments and 3 common services. This table shows that the total area re-
quirements for the City of Miami admins-tration building are projected to be
as follows:
AREA
IN SQUARE FT.1
YEAR
NET - AREA
GROSS AREA
CHANGE %
Existing
114,900
143,600
1977
131,200
164,000
+14.2
1980
150,700
188,400
+14.9
1985
154,800
193,500
+ 2.7
1. Rounded
to the nearest
hundred
These figures indicate an increase in requirements of about 4.7% per year
until 1980 and then tapering off to about 0.55% per year in 1985. If the
0.55% per year increase in space requirements stays steady after 1985, the
gross area figure will be 210,000 square feet for the year 2000.
The detailed program in Section 3, describes the program of space require-
ment by staff work space, assembly workspace, file space, support space
and special furniture space. The employee lounge facilities have been elim-
inated from individual departments and are included in a separate employee £_
loung category. Certain conference area and reproduction area facilities
also have been centralized to affect space economies of shared facilities.
�Cf
A-29
887-1173
5i
�R
e. �3y
An interdepartmental proXimity MAtrla is included in section 4 Program
Analysis. This matrix was prepared based on individual departmental response
to its affinity with each one of the other'31 departments. Results of this
.matrix are synthesized In a number of clusters comprising relationships wifli
One another, fhls grouping should be a strong factor In determining the phases
,no program for this facility,
"4
IL
r}
M x
all
Wat
VIA M
Of-
WQ
•, ,mac q t � 3 ... .y �c � 4���
'�'. ',� n £,•, rx i p r •�"� "}} t y0 "Woof an
g4�1 y�-i uu1T`
h S Ys J
" r -3r'�
( 1 ayye�, bf
a+'�i
41
'TMAGSKYWAi s
i_e 'f 5'g,
. }�'
• { x„ a� �'� ��`s r 'F zf p"`!F'„F� ,. �:,h� r xs j '� -{ re i^F 4 znW�'"
/ kP i X
�44 t '` ! i'rl ra tx•" 4 S '.
.,:1 j of s �' '� `k MONA �
P'�a b 7'4,FF,
"MANs'i� Kf
{ "� • + i�* i
ERNs ^,U ff f
,fir vy a_'�tali,s ? �, t -'°or r✓ a " k�," "4i a�n
itsd �- F�Fr�'7` 5 }t -!, v7# r rti—t•S x.
1,�num r ,
rr ;
yy yy
I qi'- {, it�'7K. I r�"X�3f { aR 1 br{t� ti�4 }¢, r, r'a a.. rY r� YR<-f(r�f
� <3Ftyj` ,,��..^q i t 4 .N t F Yt. ��kk r �y a d - "� 'r ' S;-0 r ! m'',Cri'•'Sk
{QXRg r s +%��A'Ij
T•
'y��6.�'y. A �5 ! 'W "• R C�� 4 � h fi'F r 3_ ! t i �F� r rS t l � �+ (�'7 � �l {. );4Ylk"�S2�Y f ���1� 1. {Y�i'k. ^..�� �.n
:.-�,.✓• : a `'� '.� c� �rc�'w'RF..�x tl �4�' a 1 s s r�?.�N� irr� i�t4,tkr.�•r"�., 'yV'ey�u,�w+n�}�'�'nivfi�7{,e�'`�i�"�°Z����'�'�� �'�
-f`yS , !lH,,;
M- T
n r n }
s c i + 1 tzE.:7 r filvt�k i F.r`L �.§Y�tr arr3 "yv„Z3•grKCx'�Y��
,g t 3 Y R�� $ C1 4Ei a3}-s' 'i ri>•
+ +x{ _rj��**',x y v r ta'1^C +5'�!`� *F "a{ psi ='�"?,"+s ,c. i .s.sfi' y 'lar
!Er'_n %�fF4N,��w'I..{-13b'F 5 '�w3?1:'�k' ���d;
'"ki'i r • i'xSt�,`i3.a•3,r,tKt4 i 3 .^ e f `af- ,.f„ny ,t`r`` ? C-,i""" k+��`$'.�a l"-
`�* v- u�1'^g'{f. : + ".'L'
7i' *t'i. c .
' ,. ;z�4 ,t ,t. .`.i 8.:� y...,.%„ ,....; s. ..t ,.'_ ..., � '' ._S.:�i±.,Fsm3%'�•i?b K.��.��.rc»eanxy'4��� �as`tbf�y _
Ll
F
�. TABLE I SUMMARY OF SPACE REQUIREMENTS - ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
EXISTING - 1985
r7
EX i ST.
1971
_
1980
AREA
NO. OF
AREA
NO. OF
AREA
NO. OF
AREA
CODE
r
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
S.F.
PERSONS
S.F.
PERSONS
S.F.
PERSONS
S.F.
1
Mayor and Commission
4,300
18
7,779
18
8,002
18
8,002
r'.7.2
City Manager
3,800
17
4,197
18
4,571
18
4,571
3
Citizen Services
6,400
1b9
8,540
147
8,951
161
10,166
4
Labor Relations
40o
4
721
5
817
5
817
5
Building
7,400
87
7,352
89
7,509
90
7.911
6
City Clerk
1,200
8
1,596
8
1,596
8
1,696
7
Human Resources
9,600
51
7,036
73
9,184
79
10,472
8
Finance
11,100
79
9,516
76
8,922
78
8,825
9
Law
6,000
38
3.937
48
4,633
56
5,221
10
Parks
2,800
11
1,419
21
3,018
11
1,868
it
Recreation
3,600
8
1,397
8
1,403
12
Ping. 6 Zon. Board
1,500
6
1,672
6
2,052
6
2,102
- .. 13
Planning
4,400
35
4,276
40
4.851
40
4,951
e 14
Stadiums 6 Marinas
1,800
4
871
4
879
4
887
15
Public Works
16,400
129
19,391
150
21,999
150
22,079
16
Tourism 6 Promotion
3,600
38
.7,426
42
8,164
47
8,558
o .17
Management Services
3,400
36
4,804
64
8,045
73
9,151.
18
Trade 6 Commerce
1,600
9
1,422
15
1,974
19
2,360
19
Medical
2,800
7
1,250
8
1,499
8
1,640
�Y 20
Fire/Administration
2,200
14
3,016
16
3,278
17
3,334'.
21
Fire/Prevention
4,8o0
31
4,204
38
5080
40
5,516
21A
Fire/Rescue
400
3
432
4
572
7
888 "
22
Fire/Training
300
2
444
2
452
2
470
22A
Fire/Communication
1 600
1
1,086
11
2,579
11
2,605
- 23/24
25
26
27
28
29
Computer/Op.6 Tel.
Computer/Computer
Credit Union
Convention Center
Watson Island
Bldg. 6 Veh. Maint.
Civil Service
5,000
36
5,330
37
5.526
3,300
55
8,417
61
9,071
600
5
868
5
882
300
3
491
6
791
300
3
491
6
791
1,600
3
1,960
3
1,960
2.400
7
1.626
7
1_,776
SUB -TOTAL
114,900
916 122,600
1,036 14o,goo
COMMON SERVICES
Conference Areas
'
2,140
2,64Q
Reproduction Areas
300
300
Employee Lounge
6,120
6,900
SUB -TOTAL
8,600
90800
TOTAL NET AREA
114,900
131,200
150,700
CORE AREA(25%)
28,700
32,800
37 700
GROSS AREA
143,600
164,000
1 , 00
38
5.722
53
8,393
5
882
0
104 `
0
104
3
1,960 " 5
A-31
dram an
t
s
4. PROGRAM ANALYSIS
This section analyses the program of spate requirements for the proposed
City of Miami administration building in terms of interdepartmental
functional relationships. The main objective of this analysis is to
identify a number of functional clusters of departments according to
their mutual affinity. The phasing and space planning of the new
facility should be done according to this grouping in order to facilitate
increased efficiency due to the capability of direct (face to face)
meetings, of easy referrals to complementary departments, of reduced
communication time, etc.
The programming questionnaire distributed to each department included
a question asking them to rate the desirability of their proximity to
the other departments (see Appendix C - Sample Questionnaire - Question
No. i1). Responses to this question have been synthesized in the
Interdepartmental Proximity Matrix on the following page. For ease in
Interpretation during the design stage, the matrix has been scaled down
to three simple categories of relationships - Essential, Desirable and
Neutral.
Analyzing this matrix carefully, it becomes evident that certain groups
of departments clearly show a very strong affinity to one another than
others. As far as possible, these groups should be planned in close
proximity to one another and be moved as a unit. In some cases, it may
be possible to integrate the public service counter areas for better
overall service to the taxpayers. This becomes very evident in case of
Planning and Zoning Boards, Planning, Public Works and Building depart-
ments.- It will also be easier and more efficient to share the common
services such as conference rooms and the reproduction areas at multi -
departmental cluster level:
Seven groups of departments are proposed as clusters. All of these
clusters show the highest degree of relatiorship among the departments
in them. Most of these clusters can be considered relative independent
and do not require very high degree of proximity to departments in other
clusters. One exception Is the Building department in Cluster 'B'
showing an important need for proximity with the FIRE/PREVENTION of
Cluster 'C'.
These clusters are illustrated in sketches on pages 4.5 to 4.6
and are described as follows:
CLUSTER 'A' -
This cluster comprises of the Mayor and Commission Section, City Managers
Office, the departments of Law, Finance, Management Services, Labor
Relations, and the Convention Center and Watson Island projects. The
City Clerk's department desires proximity to three of these departments
and should, therefore also be included in this group.
A-35
MAYOR - COMMISSION
1
CITY MANAGER
2
CITIZEN SERVICES
3
LABOR RELATIONS
4
BUILDING
5
CITY CLERK
6
HUMAN RESOURCES
7
FINANCE
8
LAW
9
PARKS
10
RECREATION
11
PLNG.SZONING BD.
12
PLANNING
13
STADIUMS/MARINAS
4
PUBLIC WORKS
is
TOURISM
16
MANAGEMENT
17
TRADE s COMMERCE
18
MEDICAL
19
FIRE/ADMIN.
20
FIRE/PREVENTION
21
FIRE/RESCUE
A
FIRE/TRAINING
22
FIRE/COMMUNICATION
22
A
COMPUTER -OP
23
COMPUTER-TEL
24
COMPUTER -COMP
25
CREDIT UNION
26
CONVENTION CTR.
27
WATSON ISLAND
28
BLDG. & MAINT..
29
CIVIL SERVICE
30
A-36
The gross spate requirements of this cluster will be 480100 sq.ft. in
19A5.
CLUSTER 'B'
The Building department, Public Works, Planning and Planning and Zoning
Board are the constituent elements of Cluster 'B'. In several instances,
a taxpayer wants to go to all these departments in one visit. The
Building department, however, does additionally relate with FIRE/
PREVENTION of Cluster 'C' and COMPUTER/OPERATIONS of Cluster 101. This
cluster comprises of 1985 gross space requirements of 46,300 square
feet.
CLUSTER 'C' -
The 5 divisions of Fire department easily form the Cluster 'C'. Ail
of these divisions have a strong, interrelationship to one another.
Cluster 'C' accounts for 16,000 sq.ft. of the 1985 gross space require-
ments.
CLUSTER 'D' -
The Operations, Telecommunications and Computer divisions of the
Computer department are in Cluster 'D'. The Building department also
have a strong relationship with the Operations of Computer department.
The Computer will require a gross space of 17,600 square feet in area.
CLUSTER '.E' -
Cluster 'E' is a group of Human Resources, Civil Service and Medical
departments: This group will require 17,400 sq.ft. in gross area in
1985.
CLUSTERS 'F' 6 'G' -
Departments of Parks and Recreation form an Integral group of their own.
.They do, however, relate to Citizen Services and Stadiums and Marinas
in a limited way. Their requirements are projected at 4,100 sq.ft. -
gross in 1985.
Similarly, the departments of Tourism and the new department of Trade
and Commerce Promotion have a strong affinity. These two departments
_- will, together, require 13,700 sq.ft. of gross area in 1985.
Y
The four remaining departments could be considered basically independent.
l
The common employee lounge facilities, conference areas and the re-
production rooms relate to almost all the departments. They should be
phased according to their proportional need until all the requirements
have been met.
l
A-3.7
7'
CONFORMANCE __WITH__ DOWNTOWN GOVERNMENT_ CENTER _MASTER PLAN
77 The new City of Miami Administration building will be located
in the Downtown Government Center. The design of this facility
Should be in conformance with the DOWNTOWN GOVERNMENT CENTER
707- Master Plan of May 1976 prepared by Connell Metcalf 6 Eddy for
the Metropolitan Dade County. This aspect was highlighted at
the recent board of County Commissioners meeting approving in
principle the transfer of 2 acres of land in the Downtown
--- Government Center to the City of Miami.
Following is an
excerpt from the minutes of the board of County Commissioners
77-
"essoitfor the zoning meeting held on July 7, 1977:
is understood that City of Miami will use the site to
construct a City Administration Building and possibly a City
77, Fire Administration Building in conformance with the -master
plan for the Downtown Government Center".
The following page illustrates the site plan envisioned in the
77master plan for the year 2000. Complete details of the Master
Plan are contained in the report mentioned above.
s
li
N
)N TO
E
_ W
El
6E CT ( NW 51n
i
POLICE
PARKING
GARAGE
95
SPACES
PARK
CITY
-)F
'AIAW
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
i
' `V
1
PARKING GARAGE
600 S-
E
u
DADE COVNIY
PRECINCT
'I- - - 4i—:-.
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN
year 2000
A-39
I 1
I RANSIT
AXD
FIGHTS
V W
a
3
z
a N
LxF-SITE
PA RK MG
N W 41h STREET
I�
i
I --
NW 2md STREET
w Ist STREET
COURTHOUSE ;
EET MALL
1 ! �
_ ...— L. �.._._.
SW Ist STREET
88-117-73
0 s ! It ?i ISO 0
88-I 1r7,1.
„�,
�.
r.
k'”
�ji
._ f.
■ .. . .i t . T ..J
lesign crate
'.
..._ .J .,.....,
5. PLANNING AND DESIGN CRITERIA.
This mannual of planning and design criteria is excerpted from "Downtown
�- Government Center Master Plan" (May 1976, Metropolitan bade County,
Florida) prepared by Connell Metcalf 6 EddyThese criteria were developed
to serve as guidelines for the design of Individual facilities in the Down-
town Government Center Complex. The new City of Miami Administrative
Building should adhere to these design directives.
Additionally, the new administration building should be designed to conserve
energy. The energy conscious design approach should include the following ;r
factors:
r
A. Optimum orientation of the building for minimizing cooling and/or
i
heating loads. z
B. Optimum orientation of the building for maximum solar radiation
intake, if a solar collector system is used.
r
C. Optimum orientation of the building for maximum use of wind dir-
ection for natural ventilation.
flr
D. Efficient building configuration for minimizing heating and cooling
loads and to maximize use of natural ventilation and light.
E. Proper use of materials, textures, colors and finishes.
.� F. Proper placement of insulating materials, ventilated cavities, glass
Ir' windows, overhangs, etc.
G. Use of passive solar heating, at no cost, during winter by proper
placement of walls and glass areas.
Other energy conservation techniques should include more control -zones to,
eliminate non -essential service and programmed control for night, holiday
and weekend setback or cut-off of'systems.
s
1=
e
t �
r
MANUAL
1.0
GENERAL
OF
2.0
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
3
PLANNING
3.0
URBAN FORM
4
4.0
FACILITY PLANNING
NNW-
AND
5.0
CIRCULATION AND
_
�-_
DESIGN
MOVEMENT
6.0
COMPATIBLE DESIGN
CRITERIA
ELEMENTS
9
7.0
PUBLIC USE SPACES
11
w
8.0
SECURITY AND SAFETY
12
9.0
FACILITIES FOR THE
HANDICAPPED
13
10.0
SITE LIGHTING
�s
11.0
LANDSCAPING
+7
.12.0
GRAPHICS/SIGNAGE/
FURNISHINGS
18
13.0
PARKING FACILITIES
�s
14.0 COMMERCIAL FACILITIES zt
15.0 AUXILIARY FACILITIES 22
1
1.0 019MERAL
1.1 FOrewerd
In order to maintain a high level
of order and consistency among all
the elements of the Downtown Govern-
ment Center, it is imperative that
certain planning and design criteria
be established to implement the
Design Plan and to serve as tools
for evaluating the design of indi-
vidual buildings and facilities.
These criteria, along with the
Design Plan, will guide the develop-
ment of the Downtown Government
Genter.
General Policy statements are
expressed herein as objectives.
The guidelines that follow meet
these general objectives and will
serve to evaluate specific plans.
Recognizing that guidelines need
not preclude the creativity of
individual facility.designers, it
Is important nevertheless, that
individual plans reflect adherence
to'certain essential guidelines for
the purposes of Design Plan con-
formity, efficiency, and main-
tenance of a unified character.
P. Develop a plan that Is Inte-
gral with the overall develop-
ment plans for downtown Miami.
G. Develop a plan that encourages
the use of mass transit and
modes of transportation other
than the private automobile.
H. Develop a Plan that has flexi-
.bility and allows for modifica-
tion if the spatial requirements
change.
I. Develop a plan that provides
for economy by efficiently
combining common facilities
and functions.
1.3 Design Philosophy
The experience of a consolidated Govern-
ment Center, housing many levels of -
government agencies and services in _
one complex, will be relatively new to
Dade County. It is important, there-
fore, to create a sense of familiarity
and involvement to this new part of
the community by giving the Center,
as a whole, a character of unity, _
and a sense of belonging.
Public -use environment is important.
1.2
Objectives
Downtown needs to rema i n active for
a longer period at night to deter
A.
Create a consolidated Govern-
crime and to attract more people.
mental Seat for the various
The DGC, therefore, must encourage
-public agencies in one central
public usage by Incorporating
area.
plazas, landscaped open spaces,
retail commercial facilities,
i
B.
Create a unified organization
cultural facilities, and other
of components so as to effectu-
public -congregation facilities.
ate a harmonious and a well -
functioning plan. _
C.
Create a public -use environ-
ment true to the principle of
6
democratic government.
r
D.
Create a symbolic public
center in downtown Miami.
`
E.
Use.the Government Center as a';
catalyst to enhance the 'quality
of downtown Miami.�73
A-43
2.0 PLAN iMPLEMENTATION 6, The Math plaza level at .-
20r=0".
2.1 Introduction
7. The planned 'Open Space
This Section deals with the criteria system.
for Plan Implementation. Plan
implementation involves the meth= 9. the following components of
anism for besign Plan implementa the Design Plan are viewed as
tion, revision, funding criteria, somewhat flexible and are
administration of the Plan, staging adaptable to change as mare
and the review process. information becomes available.
2.2 Design Plan Objectives
I .
The precise footprint
i
that each facility makes
The basic goal of the Design Plan
on the site.
is to guide the implementation of
" the DGC, so the resulting physical
2.
The exact number of
environment is consistent with the
stories In each building.
fundamental concepts of the Plan.
3.
The final shape of each
A. The integrity of the Design
building.
_
7Plan is to be preserved and
" the fundamental concepts of
4.
The location and number
the Design Plan will not
of vertical circulation
change unless there are major
elements along the People
.� program or objective revisions
Mover System.
-_ to the Master Plan.
.,�
5.
The location and size of
I-. B. ..The Design Plan is a living
structural elements such
document that allows for
as the columns under the
_
revision and minor adjustments
transit lines.
as certain parameters change
-
=" and more information becomes
C. The
Design Plan should be'
available.
modified to reflect minor
adjustments for the following
,. 2.3 Design Plan Guidelines
reasons:
_A A. The following constitutes the
I.
If the east -west line of
fundamental concepts of the
Rapid Transit system
the Ra P
-u" Design Plan and should not be
is;deleted through the'
changed:
DGC.
_
1. The major central park.
2.
If the vertical alignment
of the north -south Rapid'
2. Location of building
Trans It'line is altered
precincts.
through the DGC.
3. Vehicular circulation
3.
If there is any shift in
system.,
traffic flow projections
'in the downtown area
4. Pedestrian movement
affecting DGC.
system.
4,
If there Is a "M l nor
5. Relationship of building
-
change In the program not
masses to one another.
affecting the basic
<.
concept of the plan.
a-4
5. If the parking system for
2.5
Development Staging ... Guldelifts
the major structure on
the site Is changed from
A.
the initial stage should be
mechanical to conveh=
planned for completion In
tionai type.
1980. This stage should
satisfy space needs for 1985..
6. if there Is a change in
the alignment of existing
13.
Certain facilities will need
utilities.
to be constructed during
Intermediate stages prior to
D.
The Design Plan should be
the ultimate stage, accom-
reviewed and changed, if neces-
modating year 2000 require"
sary, if the following happen:
ments. —
1. A major new facility is
C.
Staging has been planned so
added to the DGC program.
vertical expansion is not
required. As much as pos-
2. A major planned facility
sibie, each stage should be a
Is deleted from the DGC
separate building.
program.
D.
The plan provides for construc- —
3. The horizontal alignment
tion road access during all
of the Rapid Transit
construction stages.
system is altered within
the DGC area.
E.
A basic design vocabulary -
should be followed through all
4. A major change In the
the stages in a building
.
Rapid Transit system
precinct. This continuity is
affecting D%C is made,
extremely important.
such as moving the DGC
station.
F.
The ground footprint that Is
planned for later construction
2.4 Development Staging —Objectives
stages should be nom i na I I y
landscaped during Stage One -
A.
The DGC should be designed to
construction. -
include the spatial require-
ments for the Initial stage-
2.6
Funding Objectives
1980, intermediate stages and
the year 2000 ultimate stage.
A.
The funding alternatives _
selected should be the ones
B.
Construction should be staged
that are most economical and,
so disruption to existing
acceptable to the public.
facilities is minimized.
8.
The selected funding should -be
C.
The plan should bn staged so
ejasy to secure on a continuing
that the major features of the
basis during the development
Design Plan, such as the OGC
of the project. ?�
Park, appear in the initial
construction stage.
C.
The basis of funding should
facilitate single ownership,
construction and maintenance
of all common facilities such
as the park, people mover
system, etc.
be the responsibility of a
public official who would be
advised by a General Consul-
_
tant.
U.
The administrator should seek
public participation through*
an information program to
achieve wide acceptance of the
Design Plan.
C.
The project should utilize the
most advanced techniques
available to monitor the
scheduling of the project.
_
D.
The administrator should
assist with.required Inter-
governmental approvals for all
the proposed facility plans.
• E.
The facility plans of all DGC
tenants shall be reviewed and
approved by the administrator
for compliance with the Design
Plan.
2.8
Review and Approval
All
facility plans for the DGC must
he
reviewed and approved by a DGC
Administrator or Coordinator. The
following
aspects of the facility
Jusign
should be particularly
'
reviewed•
A.
The major objectives of the,
Master Plan are met.
B.
The facility designs are{Y-
F
consistent with the funda-
mental concepts of the DGC
i, 'tea s `•
Design Plan.
The different i ove I s of pedes-
C.
trlan interface with other DGC,-
facilities are well coordi
y ih r J
p t
hated.Rr
Y
t R
1 a
A
}, .!
oi
C► i#fir 0 Aiallti
e ».... b tier Moe:ster
December 17, 1981
Ns. Judy. Evans
C/O Alfred L. DuPont Building
169 East Flogier Street- Suite 01523
Miami, Florida 33131'
Dear He. Evans:
Res Alfred t:: Dupont Imildint
17 stories. sited oecu}aoey
The State of Florida has under Florida State Statute 633.05
promulgated the State of Florida Fire Code, Chapter 4A-30 which
adopts. NFPA Life Safety Code 0101, 1985 Edition of the Life
Safety Code for new and existing buildings.
A recent inspection of your day care center has revealed the
following deficiencies:
DEFICIENCY Ol. Hose cabinets installed in corridors are of such
s nature that they are not eany to identify as such, making said
cabinets accessible, but not visible.
CORRECTIVE ACTION ORDERED: Within ten (10) days, you must either
paint the hose .cabinets red or label them with the caption
"fire", so as to make them easy to find in case of fire.
AUTHORITY: NFPA Life Safety Code 0101, 1985 edition, Section 7-
7.4.2, referring to NFPA 14, Section 4-l.l.
DEFICIENCY 02. There are certain areas that for lack of
directional exit signs within the entire building, would sake -
evacuation, in case of an emergency difficult.- The following
areas lack said directional signs:
(1) At the 15th floor, in front'of Suite 01525
(2) At the 14th floor by Suite +11425
(3) At 11th floor, inside Suite 11125
(4) At 10th floor, in front of Suite 01027
(5) At 8th floor by Page and Page in corridor,
and outside. Suite 0827.
(6) At 6th floor, outside Suite 1627
(7) At Sth floor, outside, Suite 0525
(8) At 4th floor, nutside Gene's Office 6 Mr. Osteen's
Office.
CORRECTIVE ACTION ORDERED: Within thirty (30).days, you must
provide illumination at all exit signs where there is no
illumination, and provide illuminated exit signs 'where .they are
missing.
AUTHORITY: NFPA Life Safety Code 1101, 1985 editions, Section. ,
27-2.10, 5-10.1.1 and 5--10.3.1. $�
orrict OF Tilt FIRE MARSHAL
BUREAU AF FIRE PRrvrmt1AN Ps * PK•vA#5t4md fAix G Flit ilt?R / (NtSj S7�•6�1q $�-+��► (
MAILING: AUIWSS F 0 Ib+r tNlleM / Mlsnel, IMHda !�1)J
B-1 t
Me. Judy Evans
Re: 169 East Flagler street
Alfred L. Dupont Building
Dee:ember 11, 1981
DEFICIENCY #3. There are exit signs mtsstng and there are some
that are not illumtnated to the building. No illumination at
exit signs on llth floor by Smite 111n1,.and at 3rd floor. Rniet
sign missing at llth.floor above exit door to stairwell.
CORRECTIVE ACTION ORDERED: Within thirty (30) days, you suit
provide illumination nt all exit signs where there Is no
illumination, and provide itlumi•nated exit signs where they are
missing.
AUTHORITY: NFPA Life Safety Code #101, 1985 edition, sections
27-2.10, 5-20.2.2 and 5-10.3.1.
DEFICIENCY 04, Flammable storage in house cleaning closets
(paints, etc.) at 15th floor. On the 4th floor, in the Zerox
Room we found a one-half. gallon can of direct process fluid on
the floor and the container opeped. The pr.ac.tice of storing or
handling flammable materials, if done without reasonable care wily
cause fires.
CORRECTIVE ACTION ORDERED: Immediately, you must remove all
flammable materials from the cleaning closets, and store in a
protected area equipped with veptilation, and away from the
public areas. If more than one (1) gallon is kept, you Suet
provide metal cabinets at the Zerox Room on the fourth floor, to
store all flammable, and you'must enforce better practice in the
handling of flammables.
AUTHORITY: City of Miami Fire Code, Section 19-42(1)(2)..
DEFICIENCY 05. Fire exit doors into stairwells are`not fetching
due to air pressure. This condition exists in a major part o,f
the building. It is conducive for smoke- end fire to spread and
$lock exiting in case of fire.
CORRECTIVE ACTION ORDERED: Within thirty (30) days, you must
correct the deficient latching at exit doors due to air pressure.
Doora must self -close and self latch..
DEFICIENCY 06. Fire hoses hive not been checked (ins'pected),
since February 1974.
CORRECTIVE ACTION ORDF.RF.D: Within t'en "(10) days, you.,'must have
fire hoses serviced. Fire hoses must be' maintained in operable
condition, and must be inspected annually.
AUTHORITY: City of Miami Fire Code,, Section'.197,193. and,NPPA
Life Safety Code #101, 1985 edition, Section 31-103.2•. 8�...
B-z
1173
88=1174
r
Ns. Judy Evans December 110 1991'
Re: 169 Fast Flagler Street
Alfred L. Dupont huild.tng
D.EFICIF.NCY 07. There*are unprotected npeninRs (chases), from top
upper Ttv'v?"-to the ground floor at plumbing ciosetx, in all
floors.
—
CORRECTIVE ACTION 0R9RRFD: Within thirty (30) days, you Must
seal All unprotected verticnl openings in plumbing closets to
prAvent Amoke and fire from spreading in the building in else at
fire.
AUTHORITY: NFPA Life Safety Code 1101, 1985 edition, Section 27-
3.1. —
DEFICIENCY #8. There are obstructions in the path of egrets in
certain areas in the building; inside Suite #1125, (computer and —
other equipments), Secretarial desk on the 4th floor, outside _
Cehe's office; boxes and other•tresh inside stairwells.
CORRECTIVE ACTION ORDBRFO: You shall immediately clear any and
all obstructions in the path of egress on that evacuation of the
building in case of an emergency is easily accessible.
AUTHORITY: NFPA Life Safety Code 0101, 2985 edition, Sections 5- _
1.3.2 and 31-1.2.1, and City of Miami Fire Code, Section 19-
DEFICIENCY 09. Interior• stairwell exit doors at all floors
locked and the key is needed to reach exit stairs. There are
locked doors at 4th floor, leading to exit from Commercial Loan
Department. At same 4th floor, there are separation doors -
- - between sections leading to exits, and these doors are equipped
with locks. At 4th floor, northstde exit door jammed closed. —_
—�" CORRECTIVE ACTION ORDERED: You must immediately unlock all exit`
doors and remove any locks or devices that will prevent free
access to exits from building in case of an emergency. Exit _
doors shall be so accessible that these can be opened without the
use of any tools or devices or special knowledge. - _—
AUTHORITY: NFPA Life Safety Code 0101, 1985 edition, Section 5- -
2.1.5.I.
DEFICIENCY #10. Hand System'nver cooking area.tn kitchen at 4th
floor to not maintained in safe condition. It has not been
serviced.. Hood systems are required to be serviced by a license-d
company every six months and dated tag attached, verifying that
it has been serviced.
CORRECTIVE ACTION ORDEREn: Within ten 110) days, you must have
hood system , over cooking area, serviced and properly tagged.
AUTHORITY:NFPA 96,.Section 8-2.1..
B-s • 88'1173
88-1174 <`
Re! 169 East Flagler Street
Alfred L, Dupont Building
DEFICIENCY #11, Fire alarm system does not meet the requirement
of code for existing buildings and panel shows trouble with the
system as it is.
CORRECTtVE ACTION ORDERED:
(1) You must immediately have troubled condition on the existing
fire alarm► system corrected. The work must be done by a licefiied
contractor, and the Fire Prevention Bureau must be furnishld
with a fire alarm report, (form enclosed), signed by a licensed
serviceman. a
(2) Within ninety (90) days, you must upgrade the alarm system
to the 'requirements of the cede. f
A. A fire alarm control panel located at or near the main
entrance, or in an area monitored when occupied and having
phone immediately available
B. The control panel shalt have.secondary power capable of _—
maintaining the fire alarm system: operational for twenty-
four hours.
C. Automatic smoke detectors, spaced thirty (30) feet 6n
center, with no detector further than 15 (feet) frog any —
partition.
D. A manually activated pull station, located at or near re-
quired exits. E. The sound level should he adequate to perform its intent and function. —
AUTHORITY: NFPA Life Safety Code 0101, 1985 edition, Section 25
3.4.1, 27-3.4.1, 21-4.2.1 and 31-1.3.1.
DEFICIENCY '012. Building is over 75 ieet in height, (1� —
stories). At ground floor there are mercantile occupants, _
(retail stores), 'over_15,000 square feet, with glass show windows
in corridor, thus creating no fire protection between public
areas and individual mercantile units. Building lacks the
protection of an automatic sprinkler system.
CORRECTIVE ACTION ORDERED: Within ninety (90) days, you must
Install a complete fire extinguishing system, (sprinkler system)
for the entire building, to meet the minimum requirements of the
Life Safety Code.
AUTHORITY: NFPA Life Safety Code 0101, 1985 edition, Sections
25-3.5.1(b) and 27-4.2.1. .—
fG i
me. Judy Evans
Ret 169 last' Flh let Street I
Alfred L. Dupont Noilding
nEf'1CtENCY 013. The eievatore in the building are not elf4tp'ped
with recall, activated by choke detection, therefore creating the
danger of elevator doors opening at the floor of the fire in cese
of -fire emergency.
Vithin nlnet (90) da
y ys• YOU Moat '
CORRRCTtVR ACTtt1N ORnr#fKnt
provide elevators with recall capebilitios, in case of fire.
AUTHORITY: NFPA Life Safety Code 1101, 1985 edition, Section f-
4.6.
*90TIt This, section refers to Ansi/Asme Safety CodA fat
Elevators and 8scalatorn, Rule 211.3 - Operation of 8levatorA.
under Fire or other Emergency Conditions.
City of Miami Permits, when requited, shall be obtained _for the
aforementioned work.
Fetl��re to comply with these requirements Vili neceNsitete
I'Mprosecution in the Metropolitan Court of Dade County ie=.
accordance with the law.
Sincerely yours
oneart
Vb
Fire inspector
Fire MarChief. RoNor< v L
Chief of Fire Prevention
AM: RBR
cc: Supervisor k f 5 r kr� . t•
t FPA Chron File
Building
Control'
+'y'•w_77c
■7 inspector, ti �t �If / M4 pfuCMs �cp �� ray
•{' Pi j r "lF j�fi
- Z .' t .� z*..c�bz wB•�! �n tj41i. t, r•4�;'ku i
W
,} % :. 1 �[•x •,--k2 77- t r. ?s �r` air {..> d r Vy?t��'� y
�Eer
l �, , - � � -; + � , '" lt• x _ fi 'Y 4-. t � l�i {`"h `. +� '+ � ,�4�'��'75r'z'-'�`r.�
.. : .; f .;, � � ,1; .y 'r• rs">x'reYg riS ei f ..
1 '*�' Y X '• 1 Lam'{„
1 , � J� a t, 4 'fir �+ M �. s , �z , �3�� } r� ; z.� i L✓�;-z
I f Jti,�rt'.1>•�h
t r t 3 y r �" r 5 a `' j "' 71� � {nr {rt`,�•y P u: a t—
�
• � }; 5 .� u, .. v 7 i � 4 if re} � "+ai �.r �1'r �! .Ji �..� �v�,?S �,
r
•r 5 1 , of i + i a l w .° kr ytx.,• P5 r+"'t 4i��k a z �� ¢. ' `.
:j,th
d..c.>f +4?FE. i5z+. . �,•.;_t�'.y ._. :.ire r: a� �'.�_
7twk
- > -s y. ��• ; � �12� h,� S i r.-ui+. .'ter
r
�;�►� t
fist] a,f..-i a� rxrc
r rc ,V t 'iy
r
r
-:
k
OMNLCORE OFFICE MARKET ANALYSIS
THIRD QUARTER 1988
TOTAL NET
CHANGE IN
MEAN RENTAL
MEAN RENTAL
CHANGE IN
LEASABLE
% LEASED/
RATE RANGE
RATE AS
QwnV
CATEGORY BY
NUMBER OF SPACE
9j LEASED / PRE -LEASED
-LEASED +�.
AS QUOTED
QUOTED
se($)
AEN'IA iNIrTE
s#e$
BUILDING SIZE.
BUILDINGS (Sq.`ft.)
PRE
($)
;Existing Space - By Size,,
{ '
1 `Less than 50,000 sq.ft:
Y
5 171,327
63.8: 0.7
11.00-13'..OG
$12.62
.4
50,00o to 100,00o sq.tt.
9. 643.371•
56.7x t.1:
tt.oa-17.o0
$12.gg
-2.4
100,000 to'250�000 sq:ft.
13..' 1,899r734
64:2x 1.4
13.50-27.50
$16.29
-W•5'
250,000 to 500,000 sq ft.
4 1,199,744, ,
'617 -0.6
21.00-30.00
$23.4C
0�.2f
More than 500,000 sq:ft:
h u J 3,o4q,772
-0.7 ,
23.00-3o.oa
$28.25
$•9>t
k TOTAL EXISTING
�35 ' >f 6,958,948
?7 6x o.1
t1:oo-3a.00
$2t.rt
2".4>
7
` a r
TOTAL UNDER CONSTRUCTION!
0. x
_-
-
TOTAL EXISTING UNDER
;`� F 35; ~ 6,9,58,94'
77.6x 0 t
1t:00-30.00
$2T.2Z'.8')
CONSTRUCTION
,;.
Change in % leased/pre-leased 1s the difference,betwea,the present; quarter's and the previous
(� Quarter's
Mean rental rates for totals are wefghted by total
available space.
Y - Rt�auri6e inquot ed .rental rates is the difference betwen the present quarter's mean rental .
`
gate and the previous`quarter
mean rental rate.
-Sj•)p ,
i '.�1 h ����.�"1 ".•'K'r'''�.�. ._'i ?..I57+^ t_t ..�.. i � .x .,'S , - n. .: .:
I'
,.
11011.0tNV18 11A ITIC:L'IiATTNG tN f1FptcE stIR1 y
RRICKRI.L AREA
ONNt100RE- ARI&A
-
1 .
1000 BR I CKELL
1 .
330 BISCAYNE
110 lilt I CKE:LL
2 •
14411 BISCAYNE
3 .
1,?s 1 I�R 1 t:KN:i,I,
3 •
ALFRED I. DUPONT
AN
11.
1390 I;1I11,I)ING
11.
AMERIFIRST
` -
►►t1ERI CAN BANK,E-,RC; III!; III,
AMERtFIRST BUILDING
6.
BARIII:TT BANK CENTIIL
6.
ATICO .
76
13ARNETT TOWER
7.
BAYStDE OFFICE CENTER
.,�
3.
Is.I.V. OFFICE Town
S.
BISCAY
9.
BItICKELI, BAY OFFICE TWk
9 •
BISCAYNE
�-
10.
BRICKELI. CENTIIE
10.
CENTRUST
11.
ItItICKE:Lt. CONCOIIII;i
11.
CENTRUST TOWER -
"-
12.
It141 CKEl. 1. ISXECU TI VE: 1'WIi.
12 .
CITY NATIONAL BANK
13. •
CARIDANK
13.
CONCORDE
14.
CITI'ZENS FL1)ERAL
Ill.
COURTHOUSE CENTER
15.
COURVOISIEM CENTRE
- 15.
COURTHOUSE TOWER
16.
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
_ 16.
FLAGLER FEDERAL
17.
INTERTERIIA
17.
HARBOR PLACE
18.
NORTH ItN Tion-'1'
Ill.
INGRAHAM
-_
19.
RIVERGATE PLA''a"A
19.
ISRAEL DISCOUNT BANK
20.
SUN BANK
20.
McCORMICK
21.
ONE BRICKELL SQUARE
21.
METROMALL
22.
WORLD TRADE CENTER
22.
MIAMI FEDERAL SAVINGS -
23.
MIAMI CENTER PHASE I
24.
MUSEUM TOWER
25.
NEW WORLD TOWER
26.
NCNB -
27.
OLYMPIA -
28.
ONE BAYFRONT.PLAZA. -
29.
ONE BISCAYNE 13WER
30.
PROFESSIONAL SAVINGS BK=
31.
ROBERTS
-32..
REPUBLIC NATIONAL BK.
33.
SOUTHEAST BANK
3111.
SOUTHEAST FINANCIAL CTR y
'.
35.
U.S. JUSTICE DEPT. 75
r
r h:.
c z'
n -
Fawn-