HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-83-085640
J-83 54
9/19/b 3
A P?I�;01,!J'1'.It,rT CONICFRN11N(; '!'PF I,Iri('C!LN/ ;j>SIIF:I:
PKUJF;r T, DRVF'L0)-3o',F,',74T vl' 111.1,,GIONAi, IMPACT,
.�PPP0XT!`11r,TFT,Y n23-799 IrFF;r.r,
drJF, NT A,11I , FL•OP.I1)A., ''Ak I^3(; PINC)IN
IiFtiC,I"C:Ittil, 1'.f'c(-jj,U'rlQf�.� P0-7('l; i�.f'•:)P'I'F'T,)f
3(, 19)=0 AIN E2-1071 AAUP=j'F0 NCIVk?YRER 10
19u2; nF A DFV1.L()PV1PN'I'
0Fi06k F 0R TALI - N4OJ1,11. APPF'()VII:C= ST',IC)
pR00H("J.' '.4YI1.0H M0DIFICA7IONS AF'TEF t OP;tiIC�'r.I?IN(
1tih "REPORT FIND FOWL 11
i LU!:II)A FtE(7lr,n"�L FI:P.tiNINC; CrU\!CI1, 4' D HP
PLANNINNG AGVISOR)c FiOAPD OF TclE; CITY OF MIAMI
AS I EF ,., JIPED 11Y C 11Y OE' iilA-`,I URiJINT�t-dCF NO.
6290, AND AFTEk CONDUCTIN:� A PU)sLIC HEARING
As 12t;�;-UII-�E1) P,Y CNAP'3 Et-, 380 .0(� FLORIDA
SIA'i'U'ThS, SAID APPROVAL, AND AU`i'HORI ZATION
SI)11JE;CT `10 THE, CONDITIONti :'!F THE 011VCLOPMLNT
ORDLk ATTACHED HFBI11 'O AS FXHI'.sI'I' "A" ANli THE
REPORT AND RE:COhit-1EMDATI0t4S OF THE SOUTH
FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL r,f:D Tt.r:
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL I13Coii—
PORATED PY RT:HEFE;INC:E; FURTHER t)IRECTiNG THE
C1TY CLEW,< TO SEND COPIES OF ').WEI HFRhIN
RESOLUTION AND SKID C,2WELOPMENT (1Rf)F P TO
AFFECTED A13ENCIE.S A.11W 1."Ph. CEVET OPER.
miEREAS, Lincoln Property Comnany and Raymond 1). flasher
Comoany, a ioint vF-nture, have suboliitte,7 a coriplete Application
l or Develoorent bcDroval. for a Develon:nent of Reni.on.al Impact to
the South E •lori,i i Rertional Plannira Council nursuant to Section
3h0.0b Florida Statutes and (lid receive a favorable recommenda-
tion for a nronoser:., 6-�,velopmcnt or,aer, J1i1v 11, 1983, as set
Eorth in the renort and Recomoiendations of the South Florida
Regional Fl,annino Council designate-3 Exhibit "B", on file with
the Office of. the Citv Cler1"-; and
WHEPEAS, the tliami Plannin�t Advisory Board, at its meeting
held on September 14, 1983, Item No. 5, Lollowina an advertised
hearing adopted Resolution Flo. hAB 109-53 by a o to 0 vote, and
RECOMMENDTNG F.PPROVAL of the Development Order for the
Lincoln/hasher Project, a Development of Regional Impact; and
UHEREA,S, a recommenriation from the 'Miami Planning A-3visory
Board has been forwardedi as require(? by Ordinance No. 8290; and
,-111P.REAS, the Cite Commission has con(incted a public hearing,
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF
SEP 249 1983
11014 83-856 _
EMARKS
'q%
At
consid--red the Fe^ort and R?co'1rnendaf-.ions of t!1(n, south Florida
R?r7ional Vlarininq Council, eatcn Qle,:P'nt to consi:lered
by Section 3tiFfori,ia FtaL'uteS - rib considered the
i:'tcomineridation of the, Pl:anninc' MvLSory 'Aoar,9; :.)nt1
WJIIF?EAi 7., the City Corrrmis;; ion ha�; that all. lenal
re:tiiir.e'r-r.ts of r,u51.i(,ntion 3t. t. uhl.ic hear.ino Cor thsF
issut�nca of t ltll= r:,roposr!J T"C%'elormont have hr.-'en comnl ipd
wJ.th; anr.
tale C i t`7 Cofrr•11 -iC ion it an(i in the
:lest interests of the ieneral. c•:Al f•nr,� of the Cite of V iarr.i to
issue a Develop, -,lent Orier for the, nevelono-gent of Rec;ional Imi.)act,
as hereinafter set Lorth;
NOW, THEREFORE, bL IT r<ESOLVE;D BY THE CO MPISSIO)N OF THE CITY
OF VIAT11, FLORIDA:
i:INDINGS OF FACT
section 1. The foll.owino findings of fact are made with
respect to the project:
.1. The Commission has aPtermined that the project is in
conformity with the arlopted Miami Comprehensive
Neirihhorhoo,i Man;
i0. The Commission has deterriined that the nroiect is in
accord with the distr_ i.ct ._onin i classification of
Zoninn Grdinance No. 9500;
C. The City Commission finds that the Project would not
create an adverse imract on air -quality, •.lround water,
soils, animal ]if(,!, vegetation, wastewater management
or soli waste dis,josal, anki furt;,er finds that it
would have a number of positive impacts including:
(1) The yen,?ration of over ROO permanent new jobs with
an anrlitional 1,800 relocatc-d f-r.oin existing: office
space in the Region. Nearly 1,750 adiitional
full-time jobs would he cxenerated in the four
county region, with nearly 530 million increase in
total wages and $71 million in value added to the
reoional economy; and.
2
83--856
I
(2) tan annlial Lii : of n •:,rLv $2.2 -iiIIion dollar~
to taxi.n,, i -ici='.ictionr, wLth. anproxirnate ly
. 717,1)t)11 for i` lr3`'•i, �,'i1 ,� I;U for 1-',adsy Count'%,
�•527,OWO 1_or th-- Scj:ool c..'Lz;trict, an(i .572,000 for
t�tC SOlatii t IOL"1�'? v.�iC�'r ii�ii':•a'1?'rEnL ► istrict 3nC3
special ,iLstrictfS conlline,i; and
(3) Improvelo.'�rit of Iccoss to Biscayne RaN7; an,-i
(4) 'f.,fle uality of storrri..ater runoff From the site
Si3Oul�j t)(, irinroverl I-)v eli.r^inatirici
the Furfac,-� parr ino lot.
-,. The City Commi^.,i.on finals that the dot'?T"SC' iir}�actS
r o I a t o d to water anc'1, Prh?r^V !it'I'13rol, Solid waste.
tereration, (7emands on nub,lic services and traffic
veneration will L-e by the condition: s?t
forth ir, ►;xhihit "A", attached herrF to.
Section 2.. Coc^r'issior: Rr-solution No. 60-790 adopted
Octotler 30, 19R0, as a,nPi►,:ied by Coirr.',ission Resolution No.
82-1071 adOPte6 Nove,nber 10, 19i?2, the existing Development
Orders for t4ashe_r Plaza, ire herehv rescinded.
Section 3. ,A Development 0rder, attached hereto as
Exhibit "W' and wade a part hereof by reference, approving with
,ihoc3ifications, the Lincoln/?rasher Protect, a Development of
Regional Impact, proposed by L•incoln Pro?�erty Com,-)any and Raymond
0. Nasher Coninuny, a joint venture, for NASHE R SU13 (117-90 )
approximately 623-799 Brickell Avenue, lae and the sane is hereby
granters and issued.
Section 4. The Application for Development Approval is
incorporated herein pv
reference
and relied upon
by three
parties
in-9ischargin.7 their
statutory
-3uties under
section
380.06,
Florida Statutes. Substantial cotkipliance with the representa-
tions contained in the Application for uevelopment Approval is a
condition for approval unless waived or modified by agreement
ainonq the parties.
L
�
83-856
!;,--Ction 5. Th, RoPort: anitl iiecoo-,endations of the SOIJth
Florida Reoional Plannimi Council, attache,i h=yreto a rxhihit
���n, are incornorateci herein 5v
Section 6. The Citv Clerk ic- here`,, authorize(l and
directe,l to son] cer_tifie-6 c:opi,—, of this Resolution immediately
to the Florida Depautoent of veteran and Community Affairs,
i,ivision of Local "<.esotirce %Ianaae-rant, 2571 F'xe(�Utive Center
Circle ?;apt, ahassee, Floriria, 32301; to tho South Florif3a
Hecional Planni.r:�a Council, 34,10 Hollvwoori Suite 14,
Holl,�cJoo7, Florid,-, 33021, anri to Lincoln Pronerty Company,
Penthouse, 777 F.ric'Kell Avenue, t'lor.ida 33131.
Section 7. The recitals of Pact referred to in the
herein clauses .are true and corY_'alct and intarie a :art
lie, reo t .
PASSE ) AND ADOPTED this 29th day of September
1963.
Maurice A. Ferre
MAURICE A. FE RRE, M!avor
ATTEST
i,
RA , P H GC./O NG I E
Cite Clerk
PF:EPARLM AD'D ANII)ROVED HY:
L h . MAXWE
A .�istant City Attorney
APPROV► D AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
A,
,a,QF R. VAMCIA-FEDWSA
ity Attornev
JEM/pb/2U7
4
..%
MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT
AND
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
EXHIBIT "A"
ATTACHMENT TO
RESOLUTION
AND
RESOLUTION
Let it be known that the Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, has considerLd
in public hearing on September 29, 1983, a) the issuance of a Major Use Special
Permit pursuant to Section 2803, Article 28 Major Use Special Permits: Detailed
Requirements of Zoning Ordinance 9500 and b) the issuance of a Development Order
for a Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Section 380.06 Florida Statutes,
said major use and development to be located in the City of Miami, at approximately
623-799 Brickell Avenue, being
NASHER SUB ( 117-90)
and after due consideration of the recommendations of the Planning Director and
Planning Advisory Board pertaining to the Major Use Special Permit and after due
consideration of the consistency of this proposed development with pertinent regu-
lations and the Report and Recommendations of the South Florida Regional Planning
Council pertaining to the Development of Regional Impact takes the following
actions:
Authorization to Issue a Major Use Special Permit
and
Approval of Application for Development Approval
both subject to the following modifications:
FINDINGS OF FACT WITH MODIFICATIONS
Development
1. The development proposed 1,594,813 gross square feet of building area,
comprised of the following elements as specified by the applicant in
the Application for Development Approval:
Element
Flagship Office Building (existing)
Flagship Drive -In Bank (existing)
Nasher Plaza Office Building
Retail
Restaurant
sub -total
Flagship Parking Garage
Nasher Plaza Garage
Total
Gross Building
Area (sq. ft.)
Spaces
299,840
111
885
737,577
5,203
6,747
1,050,252
178,850
658
365,711
1,308
1,594,813
2,077
83-856
11
I
This project proposes a landscaped plaza and publicly accessible Baywalk.
The height of the office tower proposed is an average of 440 feet above
street level or approximately 451 feet in elevation (MSL) as further described
and limited in Site Plans (Figures 2A and 2B) and Section (Figure 3).
The existing Flaqship Office Building and Drive -In Banks were previously approved
(by building permit) by the City of Miami.
The project is further limited by applicable provisions and procedures of City
of Miami Zoning Ordinance 9500, as follows:
Per Section 1552.3.1 Section 1550 SPI-5 Brickell-Miami
River Residential Office District, the Urban Development
Review Board on August 24, 1983 approved the project per
conceptual plan and design schematics plans in file dated
August 19, 1983 with the following parameters:
Element
Office Tower
Retail
sub total
Existing Development
Total
Floor Area (s.f.)
737,577
11,950
7-
300,725
1,050,352
Floor Area Patio
1.75
.70
2.45
The project requires certain variances in order to conform to the SPI-5
district which were recommended by the Planning Advisory Board:
Ground Level Pedestrian Open Space: 71,251 s.f. proposed;
(115,789 s.f. required.)
Urban Plaza Space: 64,366 s.f. proposed;
(83,056 s.f. required.)
Penetration of Light Plane by 76'0" (no penetration allowed)
The project also requires approval of modifications of the requirements of
the Waterfront Charter Amendment; proposing 40' yards;(118' required)
which were recommended by the Planning Advisory Board.
63~85f
••v..■ my
rj
Ow
rAwrw now.
m • t
••n•e•a•we.n• •
t --`_�•.t••aiur ---- I--• i ----- ��
li
i w w•r �.a•
U
' • c
c-- r
c �
LEGEND
wc.ss•w «..«
""am
•eJw• M•
FIGURE 2a
WE PLAN -GRADE LEVEL
Source: ADA
,wk—%— r
J#
rl
I
&LOTH STOWZY
PLAGOW CD(M Krak—
PLAMW CENTER GARAGE
WASHM PMZA sLrow
LEVEL
LEVEL
LEVEL b
I ON ---------
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 3
OEM M
is
MAerEw PLAZA GARAGE
FIGURE 3
PROJECT CROSS SECTION
SOURCE: ADA
S3-85C
=1
snwd w
FIGURE 2A
Source: ADA
W .%-r
I
4
THE APPLICANT SHALL:
Conservation and Environment
2. Obtain any permits from the South Florida Water Management District
required pursuant to Ch. 16K-4.021, F.A.C.
3. Conform to all requirements, if any, of the moratorium on construction
ordered by the Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Manage-
ment on May 18, 1983, covering a part of the Miami -Dade Water and Sewer
Authority service area, including the project site.
4. Use only native species or acceptable non-native species and relocate
and use plant species existing on -site in project landscaping.
5. Notify the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Dade County
Archaeologist at least two weeks prior to the expected date of construc-
tion start, allow the site to be monitored during construction, and
coordinate and/or reasonably delay construction to allow for removal of
any significant remains.
6. Promote energy conservation and the use of public transit and minimize
air pollution by implementing, as feasible, Transportation System Manage-
ment, coordinated with the Dade County Transportation Administration,
including traffic flow improvements pursuant to Condition 13 below;
encouraging the use of mass transit, bicycles, and ridesharing through
such measures as provision of schedule and route information within the
project lobby or plaza, public seating near bus stops adjacent to the
project, and secure and convenient bicycle storage for project visitors
and employees in the garage, variable work hours, flex -time and a 4-day
work week; and encouraging carpooling by employer -subsidized ride -sharing
programs and van -pools and providing preferential parking in the garage
and ridesharing information. The Applicant shall prepare a report within
120 days from issuance of the Development Order.
7. Incorporate into the project the following energy conservation measures:
-- Air conditioning zoning to permit operation of single floors or
multiple floors as a function of occupancy.
-- Evaluate, and use to the extent feasible, individual metering of
electricity for each floor.
-- Minimum use of incandescent lighting in the building.
-- Insulation equal to or exceeding building code minimum.
-- Highly reflective exterior glass and light colored walls.
-- Limit water flow in lavatories to 1.5 gallons per minute.
-- Domestic hot water temperatures set no higher than 1050F.
-- Reduced wattage lighting in corridors and restrooms.
-- Encourage use of task lighting by tenants.
-- Open garage facades to increase natural ventilation.
-- Evaluation of using kitchen waste heat to heat water.
-- Computerized energy management system to limit HVAC and lighting
system electrical demand.
-- Evaluate the feasibility of a computerized elevator control
system to improve demand response and energy efficiency and use
of local lighting switches to reduce lighting of unused space.
83-856.
ILI
Safety and Security
8. Develop, within one year of the date of issuance of the development
order, a fair share agreement with the City to provide a contribution
to support necessary capital improvements in police and fire service
in the area.
9. Construct the building to allow for emergency hovering helicopter
evacuation from the roof of the office tower. Further, the Applicant
shall, at any time that a feasible solution is found, provide roof
space for an aerial and its appurtenant panel housing for the City's
emergency communication system; such aerial and appurtenance toqether
with necessary services shall be at City of Miami expense. The Applicant
retains the right of architectural review and approval.
10. Collaborate with the City to evaluate and incorporate security measures
and systems into the design and operation of the project; security systems
and construction documents to be reviewed by the Miami Police Department
(at their option) prior to the time of issuance of a building permit.
Access and Circulation
11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, dedicate, subject to City
and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) approval, adequate right-
of-way for an additional lane of traffic on the east side of Brickell
Avenue from the northeast corner of the intersection of SE 8th Street and
Brickell Avenue tapering northward as illustrated in Figure 8 of the
Council Impact Assessment (attached).
12. Conduct, and complete, within 10 months of the date of issuance of the
development order, individually or in cooperation with other consultants
approved by the City, a long range year 2000 transportation study for an
area, no smaller than the traffic impact area for the Lincoln/Nasher
DRI, to be determined by the Council, City, County, and FDOT. All
study parameters, i.e., car occupancy, mode split, direction of approach,
trip generation and development scenarios would be subject to review and
approval by the Council, City, County, and the FDOT prior to authorizing
the Applicant to proceed on the study. The study will incorporate pro-
jections for growth in background traffic; ultimate development traffic
within the traffic impact area, based on existing and proposed zoning;
transit ridership; pedestrian movements; programmed and planned transporta-
tion improvements; evaluation of alternate improvements and their estimated
costs; and transportation system management strategies, including on -site
and remote parking policies and standards. The study will also include
recommended improvements and their costs, recommended land use regulations,
and any necessary changes in the City zoning, or identify limitations on
ultimate development imposed by the capacity of the transportation system,
and submit to the Council, City, County, and FDOT for review.
13. Within two months of a determination by the City, County and FDOT that the
transportation improvements recommended as a condition for approval of this
development order, illustrated in Figure 8, and that the publicly -programmed
transportation improvements assumed in the ADA, are compatible with the
long-range improvements recommended by the Council, City, County, and FDOT,
the Applicant will design, with FDOT, County, and City approval, and within
six (6) months of that approval, start construction of, or provide a bond
or letter of credit for $325,000 (1983 dollars) for the construction of
the recommended improvements illustrated in Fiqure 8. The improvements
illustrated in Figure 8 are further described in Figure J-1 of the ADA
including re-signalization at the SE 7th and SE 8th Street intersections
with Brickell Avenue and a new signal at SE 8th Street and S. Bayshore
Drive. The difference between the $325,000 (1983 dollars) and the
Applicant's fair -share contribution of two-thirds of the cost of both
improvements to construct the recommended improvements is a front -ended
short term loan to the City, repayable under terns of maturity dates and
interest rates jointly agreed to by the City and the Applicant. The
Applicant may proceed to construct recommended improvements at the inter-
section of S. Bayshore Drive and SE 8th Street, at its own financial risk,
83"" 85 C
Is
4
FIGURE 8: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
BrickelI Ave./Bayshore Dr./S.E. 8th S
L i nco I n/Nasher L touts earNwr• o+l.•
Access Drive —N, r--r=_
li tt o
0
r ? s
a Scale
L i nco I n/I:asher
Access Drive
u �I,
— &iCkN
Existing
I I' Lane Configuration
>n
It tit fi'9°'s4a
r
• Dr Iv
O � Moor
san e• tr _ —
lOodh+9..4reo — — — — — — — — — — — — — Signal
I
1
I
111 I
II 1
v
I I
I
I o
1 (
1
r 1
1 I
I
I
1
t
t
1 1 I
e
L
1
•
•
r
1 • • •
1 I I
I W
•
I I i
Sc
ale
le
1
1 1
1 1
................:.:.::::.:.:.::.:::.::.::::.::.:::......... i
v e
Ne
w a
Y•:::
1
I I e Pavement
t`
t
�rlcA•� Avi.�• (Us
l
Proposed
Lane Configuration
prior to the determination of consistency by the City and Council as
required above, in order to facilitate access to the site during_
construction of the project.
14. In the event the transportation improvements required pursuant to
Condition 13 above are inconsistent with the transportation improvements
recommended in the long-range study, the Applicant will design, and provide
cost estimated for, comparable improvements of equal cost, compatible with
the recommended long-range improvements, and shall submit this information
to the City, County, FDOT, and the Council for review prior to amendment
of the Development Order pursuant to Condition 24 below.
15. Accept a left -turn prohibition from the 7th Street access drive to south -
bound Brickell Avenue, a PM peak hour left turn restriction from southbound
Brickell Avenue to the 7th Street access drive and a right -turn prohibition
from the Bayshore access drive to westbound SE 8th Street, if conditions
warrant.
16. Within three (3) years of the date of issuance of this Development Order,
submit landscape plans for a Baywalk for review and approval of the Planning
and Public Works Departments; provide and construct a Baywalk per approved
plans; dedicate a public easement within the 50 foot baywaik setback imme-
diately upland of the mean high water line; provide for perpetual maintenance of
the Baywalk at his own expense. In the event that the City is able to
obtain permits to fill the Bay inlet pursuant to Condition 28 below, the
Applicant will fill the inlet, subject to the requirements of the permits
and complete compatible Baywalk development on the fill within one year of
notification by the City. Furthermore, the Applicant shall bear all costs
involved in the City's attempt to obtain the permits and shall cooperate
with and support the City in said attempt pursuant to Condition 28. The
Applicant will provide public access along the north property line from
Brickell Avenue to the Baywalk. Further, the Applicant shall extend a
compatible Baywalk across the bayfront property of the First Presbyterian
Church within three (3) years of the date of issuance of this Development
Order contingent on agreement with Church; this requirement is waived if
the Church property is developed or conveyed during this period.
Minority Participation
17. Work with the City to prepare a minority employment plan indicating how the
maximum feasible number of construction and permanent jobs resulting from
the project can be accessible and available to minority applicants,
18. Vigorously seek minority contractors to carry out construction work, as
feasible, during the development phase of the project.
THE CITY SHALL:
19. Withhold building permits until dedication of adequate right-of-way for the
additional right line north of SE 8th Street along Brickell Avenue as shown
in Figure 8.
20. Enter into, within one year of the date of issuance of the development order,
a fair -share agreement with the Applicant to ensure the provision of those
capital improvements (found to be necessary in Condition 8) in the police
and fire services in the area.
21. Review final building plans, prior to the issuance of building permits, to
ensure emergency hovering helicopter evacuation from the roof of the office
tower (in Condition 9), as shown in the applicant's plans on file.
22. Complete, within one year of the date of issuance of this development order,
a public facility and service study for the Brickell area with particular
emphasis on water and sewer planning.
23, Complete the review of the transportation study, required in Condition 12,
within 2 months of submittal by the Applicant.
83-85C
24. In the event of the transportation improvements required pursuant to
Applicant Condition 13 above are inconsistent with the transportation
improvements recommended in the lonq-range year 2000 study, the City will
review the proposed design and cost estimates for comparable improvements
of equal cost compatible with the recommended long-range improvements,
developed by the Applicant pursuant to Condition 12 above, and in consid-
eration of the comments and recommendations of the County, FDOT, and the
Council, modify the Development Order to reflect the changes in the
required transportation improvements.
25. Ensure that the required funds, bond, letter of credit, or Applicant commit-
ment to construct the recommended roadway improvements required in Condition
13 has been provided within two months of the determination by the City that
the recommended improvements referenced in Condition 13 are compatible with
the recommended improvements of the long-range study.
26. In the event that the Applicant provides a front-end loan to the City to
construct the recommended roadway improvements according to Condition 13,
secure, from other developments in the Brickell area or from City funds,
reimbursement for that 2/3 portion of the cost determined to be in excess
of the Applicant's fair -share.
27. Collaborate with the Applicant to ensure incorporation of security measures
and systems into the design and operation of the project. Security systems
may be examined by the Miami Police Department (at their option) and, if so,
a security report will be issued within 60 days of the issuance of this
Development Order.
28. Use its best efforts to obtain all permits necessary to fill the Bay
inlet and, when obtained, notify the Applicant to complete Baywalk improve-
ments in the area of the inlet consistent with Baywalk design standards.
(See Condition 16)
General
29. 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 a final Certificate of Occupancy is issued; to the South Florida
Regional Planning Council; the State of Florida Department of Community
Affairs, Division of Local Resource Management; all affected permitting
agencies and the Planning Director, City of Miami Planning 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 schedule in the applicant's
Application for Development Approval.
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.
The Planning Director, City of Miami Planning Department, or a project
director to be named later, is hereby designated to receive this report,
and to monitor and assure compliance with this Development Order.
30. The Development Order shall be null and void if substantial development
has not begun in three (3) years of the issuance date of this Development
Order. Substantial development is defined herein as the achievement of
the following items:
83-85C .
. Obtaining all required permits; and
Beginning construction of, or provide the funds, bonds or letters of
credit for recommended surface street improvements.
31. The Applicant shall give notice to Richard P. Brinker, Clerk, Dade County
Circuit Court, 73 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida, 33130, for recording
in the Official Records of Dade County, Florida, as follows:
a) That the City Commission of the City of Miae►i, Florida, has issued a
Development Order for the SE 8th Street and Brickell Avenue Project,
a Development of Regional Impact located at approximately 623-799
Brickell Avenue, being
HASHER SUB (117-90)
b) That Lincoln Property Company and Raymond D. Nasher Company, a
joint venture, are the developers with offices at 777 Brickell Avenue,
Miami, Florida, 33131.
c) That the Development Order with any modifications may be examined in
the City Clerk's Offices, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami,
Florida, 33133.
d) That the Development Order constitutes a land development 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.
32. The Applicant will incorporate all original and supplemental information
into 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, the State Department of Community Affairs, the
Downtown Development Authority and Dade County Public Works Department.
33. The Application for Development Approval is incorporated herein by reference
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.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Lincoln/Nasher Project, proposed by Lincoln Property Company and Raymond D.
Nasher Company, a joint venture, complies with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood
Plan, is consistent with the orderly development and goals of the City of Miami,
and complies with local land development regulations being Zoning Ordinance
No. 9500; and
The proposed development does not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of
objectives of the adopted State Land Development Plan applicable to the City of
Miami; and
The proposed development is generally consistent with the Report and Recommendations
of the South Florida Regional Planning Council and does not unreasonably interfere
with any of the considerations and objectives set forth in Chapter 380, Florida
Statutes.
Changes in the project which do not exceed development parameters set forth in
the Application for Development Approval and Report and Recommendations of the
Regional Planning Council shall not constitute a substantial deviation; under
Chapter 380 Florida Statutes, notwithstanding City zoning approvals which may
be required.
83-n56
c: -7.- r
62
Howard V. Gary
City Manager
r
riguez, Director :.
g Department
September 21, 1983
Lincoln/Nasher Project Issuance
of a Development Order
City Commission Meeting of
September 29, 1983
The Miami Planning Advisory Board by Resolution PAB 109-83; September 14, 1983,
by a 6 to 0 vote; no members absent, recommended that a Development Order be
issued, approving with modifications (as amended), the Lincoln/Nasher Project,
a Development of Regional Impact, to be located at approximately 623-799 Brickell
Avenue. The Board recommended the Development Order as presented by the Planning
Department including the modifications of the Waterfront Charter Amendment and
variances requested except as to the variance regarding the light plane, which
the Board recommended. The Board also amended Conditions 16 and 28 to require
the applicant to bear all costs in the City's attempt to secure permits to fill
an inlet.
SR/JWil/111
83-856_
A
PLANNING FACT SHEET
APPLICANT Lincoln Property Company/Raymond D. Nasher Company;
July 1, 1983
PETITION 5, APPROXIMATELY 623-799 BRICKELL AVENUE
NASHER SUB (117-90)
Consideration of recommendations concerning issuance
of a Development Order for the Lincoln/Nasher Project,
a Development of Regional Impact, proposed to be
located at 623-799 Brickell Avenue, per Chapter
380.06 Florida Statutes.
REQUEST To grant a Development Order for a Development of
Regional Impact so that construction documents can
be processed by City Departments.
BACKGROUND Lincoln Property Company and Raymond D. Nasher
Company, a joint venture, have proposed the
Lincoln/Nasher Project, which qualifies as a
Development of Regional Impact (DRI) under Florida
administrative rules. Per Chapter 380 F,S., the
developer has submitted an Application for Develop-
ment Approval (ADA) to the South Florida Regional
Planning Council (SFRPC) for their review and
recommendation. Before granting a Development
Order, which is a pre -condition to a building
permit, the City must consider the extent to which:
a) The development unreasonably interferes with the
objectives of an adopted state land development
plan applicable to the area;.
b) The development is consistent with local land
development regulations; and
c) The development is consistent with the report
and recommendations of the regional planning
agency.
The sequence of events to this point is as follows:
June 8, 1983 South Florida Regional Planning
Council notified the City that
the A.DA, was complete and that a
local public hearing could be
scheduled.
June 15, 1983 By Resolution 83-545, the City
Commission established September 8,
1983, as the DRI public hearing
date.
83-856:
}
.. .-r"•.. ^', K-.ac1-.1-"'�.'.�.""�. i• ..�. .. � .- f _. , ......,.�: ..sir �..�cw.r'�►tr...a. �...�! �-y::t.: a.. ♦..::+�.h;:.,.r�
ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATIONS
PLANNING DEPT.
PLANNING
ADVISORY BOARD
July 11, 1983 South Florida Regional Planning
Council recommended approval,
with conditions (see enclosed
report).
September 8, 1983 The City Commission is to con-
sider rescheduling the DRI public
hearing date to September 29, 1983.
September 14, 1983 Miami Planning Advisory Board was
to consider'a recommendation for
approval, with conditions.
ft
Approval, with conditions and exceptions.
Approval, as amended, by a 6 to 0 vote on September
14, 1983, recommending all variances and modifi-
cations to the Waterfront Charter Amendment,
amending Conditions 16 and 28 to obligate the
applicant to bear all costs in the City's attempt
to obtain permits to fill an inlet.
9
m ) /-10
w_ �
• _Mi�;�f,�i:Yi Aia��a'FY+C"v ♦t:r: ,. h� .-
PAB
MCC September 14, 1983 8 3-85
EXHIBIT "A"
ATTACHMENT TO
RESOLUTION
AND
RESOLUTION
MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT
AND
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
Let it be known that the Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, has considered
in public hearing on September 29, 1983, a) the issuance of a Major Use Special
Permit pursuant to Section 2803, Article 28 Major Use Special Permits: Detailed
Requirements of Zoning Ordinance 9500 and b) the issuance of a Development Order
for a Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Section 380.06 Florida Statutes,
said major use and development to be located in the City of Miami, at approximately
623-799 Brickell Avenue, being
NASHER SUB ( 117-90)
and after due consideration of the recommendations of the Planning Director and
Planning Advisory Board pertaining to the Major Use Special Permit and after due
consideration of the consistency of this proposed development with pertinent regu-
lations and the Report and Recommendations of the South Florida Regional Planning
Council pertaining to the Development of Regional Impact takes the following
actions:
Authorization to Issue a Major Use Special Permit
and
Approval of Application for Development Approval •
both subject to the following modifications:
FINDINGS OF FACT WITH MODIFICATIONS
Development
1. The development proposed 1,594,813 gross square feet of building area,
comprised of the following elements as specified by the applicant in
the Application for Development Approval:
Element Gross Building Spaces
Area (sq. ft.)
Flagship Office Building (existing) 299,840 111
Flagship Drive -In Bank' (existing) 885
Nasher Plaza Office Building 737,577
Retail 5,203
Restaurant 6,747
sub -total 1,050,252
Flagship Parking Garage 178,850 658
Nasher Plaza Garage 365,711 1,308
Total 1,594,813 2,077-
83-85C
This project proposes a landscaped plaza and publicly accessible Baywalk.
The height of the office tower proposed is an average of 440 feet above
street level or approximately 451 feet in elevation (MSL) as further described
and limited in Site Plans (Figures 2A and 2B) and Section (Figure 3).
The existing Flagship Office Building and Drive -In Banks were previously approved
(by building permit) by the City of Miami.
The project is further limited by applicable provisions and procedures of City
of Miami Zoning Ordinance 9500, as follows:
Per Section 1552.3.1 Section 1550 SPI-5 Brickell-Miami
River Residential Office District, the Urban Development
Review Board on ;August 24, 1983 approved the project per
conceptual Man and design schematics plans in file dated
August 19, 1983 with the following parameters:
Element Floor Area (s.f.) Floor Area Patio
Office Tower 737,577
Retail 11,950
sub total 749,527 1.75
Existing Development 300,725 .70
•Total 1,050,352 2.45
The project requires certain variances in order to conform to the SPI-5
district which were recommended by the Planning Advisory Board:
w
Ground Level Pedestrian Open Space: 71,251 s.f. proposed;
(115,789 s.f. required.)
Urban Plaza Space: 64,366 s.f. proposed;
(83,056 s.f. required.)
Penetration of Light -Plane by 76'0" (no penetration allowed)
The project also requires approval of modifications of the requirements of
the Waterfront Charter Amendment; proposing 40' yards;(118' required)
which were recommended by the Planning Advisory Board.
83-85C
Cr
W
Col
t
100.
i
3,
• yy l
•
�' • iT
.' '1� jjE• �•
FIGURE 2a �► ,F +.. '
stn_PLAN GRAM LMk
Source • A DA
f�; r..
• 'r L• ..tf My' -
V all ,�
111fi P1-f ( lfift l`i�°11TI � T.
s w& Y; {
E-!�!�{i�EIINI�N+EN i
_ ......�. - --- EEII�E-�IE III-EEI!{�i • _ - f;��:: - E ; ..
/flyamalmew
ip-
I, t. �(f�•
-
1:D
_ _ rII�I��III{��III����I�� iMljT sr ,�h•,�. t , �
Jill III 1 I 111 11 I I -I -IC
FIGURE 2A �► err ; ..
WE PLAN -PLAZA LEVEL
Source: ADA
�?;bi�r�t�+t�s s•,:�%+isb� r!��tthr, :i-`:3eaur..u='r��i• =�i-�w::: � �,�.�, ,..x::.:.�.•_4: %� '�� a�:..e-%s'�,�h. pia►-'ri:L�r�.sZ`!8fis�5C 3_ ��f#�i�r
.�..: r �. 'L.. .c. _ . :1 :K tY- f.r`i`:�.:::�;;h:+irry�.•:q;P�i....:c.,,say.�: �.ri:�:Gr�CgPC�ir� •i '� j�Q'�3+
4..•t!'.�m'ta�r+5'�'�7iR - .. �,.��...�w...�........nrr...lrry.���.'pst•'n�3Tt�.�.`�T'i"'i`�.' .....��34`nr�! ^�j��. ..
., ... - .- .... � .'.��'=: n'-«.wiC: :•ice rJ.ti:r.�...•L:....L^.i.�:34ai.• ..�.... � ... .��.:•a
�'lr ,' '_. .. .�<: __.::.L. {'. .... oil. .+t ,4}. -.r �. .. �r�..�ro » ..._.�.F�.o ... L ..,i.�•. .... .:.. . riY .•cLr.. _'4.' a-2i=. N`.:Ti(•.
FIGURE 3
PROJECT CROSS SECTION
SOURCE: ADA
THE APPLICANT SHALL:
Conservation and Environment
2. Obtain any permits from the South Florida Water Management District
required pursuant to Ch. 16K-4.021, F.A.C.
3. Conform to all requirements, if any, of the moratorium on construction
ordered by the Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Manage-
ment on May 18, 1983, covering a part of the Miami -Dade Water and Sewer
Authority service area, including the project site.
4. Use only native species or acceptable non-native species and relocate
and use plant species existing on -site in project landscaping.
5. Notify the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Dade County
Archaeologist at least two weeks prior to the expected date of construc-
tion start, allow the site to be monitored during construction, and
coordinate and/or reasonably delay construction to allow for removal of
any significant remains.
6. Promote energy conservation and the use of public transit and minimize
air pollution by implementing, as feasible, Transportation System Manage-
ment, coordinated with the Dade County Transportation Administration,
including traffic flow improvements pursuant to Condition 13 below;
encouraging the use of mass transit, bicycles, and ridesharing through
such measures as provision of schedule and route information within the
project lobby or plaza, public seating near bus stops adjacent to the
project, and secure and convenient bicycle storage for project visitors
and employees in the garage, variable work hours, flex -time and a 4-day
work week; and encouraging carpooling by employer -subsidized ride -sharing
programs and van -pools and providing preferential parking in the garage
and ridesharing information. The Applicant shall prepare a report within
120 days from issuance of the Development Order.
7. Incorporate into the project the following energy conservation measures:
-- Air conditioning zoning to permit operation of single floors or
multiple floors as a function of occupancy.
-- Evaluate, and use to the extent feasible, individual metering of
electricity for each floor.
-- Minimum use of incandescent lighting in the building.
-- Insulation equal to or exceeding building code minimum.
-- Highly reflective exterior glass and light colored walls.
-- Limit water flow in lavatories to 1.5 gallons per minute.
-- Domestic hot water temperatures set no higher than 1050F. -
-- Reduced wattage lighting in corridors and restrooms. ,
-- Encourage use of task lighting by tenants.
-- Open garage facades to increase natural ventilation.
-- Evaluation of using kitchen waste heat to heat water.
-- Computerized energy management system to limit HVAC and lighting
system electrical demand.
-- Evaluate the feasibility of a computerized elevator control
system to improve demand response and energy efficiency and use
of local lighting switches to reduce lighting of unused space.
Safety and Security.
8. Develop, within one year of the date of issuance of the development
order, a fair share agreement with the City to provide a contribution
to support necessary capital improvements in police and fire service
in the area.
9. Construct the building to allow for emergency hovering helicopter
evacuation from the roof of the office tower. Further, the Applicant
shall, at any time that a feasible solution is found, provide roof
space for an aerial and its appurtenant panel housing for the City's
emergency communication system; such aerial and appurtenance together
with necessary services shall be at City of Miami expense. The Applicant
retains the right of architectural review and approval.
10. Collaborate with the City to evaluate and incorporate security measures
and systems into the design and operation of the project; security systems
and construction documents to be reviewed by the Miami Police Department
(at their option) prior to the time of issuance of a building permit.
Access and Circulation
11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, dedicate, subject to City
and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) approval, adequate right-
of-way for an additional lane of traffic on the east side of Brickell
Avenue from the northeast corner of the intersection of SE 8th Street and
Brickell Avenue tapering northward as illustrated in Figure 8 of the
Council Impact Assessment (attached).
12. Conduct, and complete, within 10 months of the date of issuance of the
development order, individually or in cooperation with other consultants
approved by the City, a long range year 2000 transportatiorr study for an
area, no smaller than the traffic impact area for the Lincoln/Nasher
DRI, to be determined by the Council, City, County, and FOOT. All
study parameters, i.e., car occupancy, mode split, direction of approach,
trip generation and development scenarios would be subject to review and
approval by the Council, City, County, and the FOOT prior to authorizing
the Applicant to proceed on the study. The study will incorporate pro-
jections for growth in background traffic; ultimate development traffic
within the traffic impact area, based on existing and proposed zoning;
transit ridership; pedestrian movements; programmed and planned transporta-
tion improvements; evaluation of alternate improvements and their estimated
costs; and transportation system management strategies, including on -site
and remote parking policies and standards. The study will also include
recommended improvements and their costs, recommended land use regulations,
and any necessary changes in the City zoning, or identify limitations on
ultimate development imposed by the capacity of the transportation system,
and submit to the Council, City, County, and FOOT for review.
13. Within two months of a determination by the City, County and FOOT that the
transportation improvements recommended as a condition for approval of this
development order, illustrated in Figure 8, and that "the publicly -programmed_
transportation improvements assumed in the ADA, are compatible with the
long-range improvements recommended by the Council, City, County, and FOOT,
the Applicant will design, with FOOT, County, and City approval, and within
six (6) months of that approval, start construction of, or provide a bond
or letter of credit for $325,000 (1983 dollars) for the construction of
the recommended improvements illustrated in Figure 8. The improvements
illustrated in Figure 8 are further described in Figure J-1 of the ADA
including re-signalization at the SE 7th and SE 8th Street intersections
with Brickell Avenue and a new signal at SE 8th Street and S. Bayshore
Drive. The difference between the $325,000 (1983 dollars) and the
Applicant's fair -share contribution of two-thirds of the cost of both
improvements to construct the recommended improvements is a front -ended
short term loan to the City, repayable under terms of maturity dates arid
interest rates jointly agreed to by the City and the Applicant. The
Applicant may proceed to construct recommended improvements at the inter-
section of S. Bayshore Drive and SE 8th Street, at its own financial risk,
83-856 .
ao't.1��^'Taw•�?a:a;.��"'��w-Zr���•'M.•L^'G•1 .:'..t "t::�. .'Sa'•'yi`� .. �►MSt�S �`.+4'�."t+�e r*Y� !r��j'!3��C
- . �•.... {ii.,' • .•�^l�: ". '. .:rc�r.y ?+ h �� s : % a .. 'a.�```t{''M.*r't'i/ y���i4il '�.i.�S•y=ti 4 r��-..'r�.'.� � � �•�z ;<�i^"��-y��+���•Sw�
FIGURE 8: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
BrickelI Ave./Bayshore Dr./S.E.8th St.
--j
L i nco I n/Nasher y am..._ %Dinh earanw. Dtfv*
Access Drive "',
s
". Scale
L i nco I n/l;asher •
Access Drive �
u
eKG�N A.«w 'us
Existing
' Lane Configuration
.........
sa"nwra,w•o*_• �-
.\9
loodi.•..orto
--------------Signal-
- - - - -
...O
I
I
.--
I
I II
I I 1
1
I 1 t
I 1 1
w
a
1 1 1
I 1 1
1
I i
•
0
•
•
11 1
1
s
•
it 1
II 1
•
11 1
1
•+ — -
1
0
I e
Scale a
I / i
1
f
� I
I
OrO vement
w Pav n f
ae e
}
l
1
:>
1+1 FS 3 -85(i
i Proposed
11 Lane Configuration
prior to the determination of consistency by the City and Council as
required above, in order to facilitate access to the site during
construction of the project.
14. In the event the transportation improvements required pursuant to
Condition 13 above are inconsistent with the transportation improvements
recommended in the long-range study, the Applicant will design, and provide
cost estimated for, comparable improvements of equal cost compatible with
the recommended long-range improvements, and shall submit this information
to the City, County, FDOT, and the Council for review prior to amendment
of the Development Order pursuant to Condition 24 below.
15. Accept a left -turn prohibition from the 7th Street access drive to south -
bound Brickell Avenue, a PM peak hour left turn restriction from southbound
Brickell Avenue to the 7th Street access drive and a right -turn prohibition
from the Bayshore access drive to westbound SE 8th Street, if conditions
warrant.
16. Within three (3) years of the date of issuance of this Development Order,
submit landscape plans for a Baywalk for review and approval of the Planning
and Public Works Departments; provide and construct a Baywalk per approved
plans; dedicate a public easement within the 50 foot bayfront setback imme-
diately upland of the mean high water line; provide for perpetual maintenance
of the Baywalk at his own expense. In the event that the City is able to
obtain permits to fill the Bay inlet pursuant to Condition 28 below, the
Applicant will fill the inlet, subject to the requirements of the permits
and complete compatible Baywalk development on the fill within one year of
notification by the City. Furthermore, the Applicant shall bear all costs
involved in the City's attempt to obtain the permits and shall cooperate
with and support the City in said attempt pursuant to Condition 28. The
Applicant will provide public access along the north property line from
Brickell Avenue to the Baywalk. Further, the Applicant shall extend a
compatible Baywalk across the bayfront property of the First Presbyterian
Church within three (3) years of the date of issuance of this Development
Order contingent on agreement with Church; this requirement is waived if
the Church property is developed or conveyed during this period.
Minority Participation
17. Work with the City to prepare a minority employment plan indicating how the
maximum feasible number of construction and permanent jobs resulting from
the project can be accessible and available to minority applicants.
18. Vigorously seek minority contractors to carry out construction work, as
feasible, during the development phase of the project.
THE CITY SHALL:
19. Withhold building permits until dedication of adequate right-of-way for the
additional right line north of SE 8th Street along Brickell Avenue as shown.
in Figure 8.
20. Enter into, within one year of the date of issuance of the development order,
a fair -share agreement with the Applicant to ensure the provision of those
capital improvements (found to be necessary in Condition 8) in the police
and fire services in the area. .
21. Review final building plans, prior to the issuance of building permits, to
ensure emergency hovering helicopter evacuation from the roof of the office
tower (in Condition 9), as shown in the applicant's plans on file.
22. Complete, within one year of the date of issuance of this development order,
a public facility and service study for,the Brickell area with particular
emphasis on water and sewer planning.
23. Complete the review of the transportation study, required in Condition 12,
within 2 months of submittal by the Applicant.
83-85C
24. In the event of the transportation improvements required pursuant to
Applicant Condition 13 above are inconsistent with the transportation
improvements recommended in the long-range year 2000 study, the City will
review the proposed design and cost estimates for comparable improvements
of equal cost compatible with the recommended long-range improvements,
developed by the Applicant pursuant to Condition 12 above, and in consid-
eration of the comments and recommendations of the County, FDOT, and the.
Council, modify the Development Order to reflect the changes in the
required transportation improvements.
25. Ensure that the required funds, bond, letter of credit, or Applicant commit-
ment to construct the recommended roadway improvements required in Condition
13 has been provided within two months of the determination by the City that
the recommended improvements referenced in Condition 13 are compatible with
the recommended improvements of the long-range study.
26. In the event that the Applicant provides a front-end loan to the City to
construct the recommended roadway improvements according to Condition 13,
secure, from other developments in the Brickell area or from City funds,
reimbursement for that 2/3 portion of the cost determined to be in excess
of the Applicant's fair -share.
27. Collaborate with the Applicant to ensure incorporation of security measures
and systems into the design and operation of the project. Security systems
may be examined by the Miami Police Department (at their option) and, if so,
a security report will.be issued within 60 days of the issuance of this
Development Order.
28. Use its best efforts to obtain all permits necessary. to fill the Bay
inlet and, when obtained, notify the Applicant to complete Baywalk improve-
ments in the area of the inlet consistent with Baywalk design standards.
(See Condition 16)
General
29. 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 a final Certificate of Occupancy is issued; to the South Florida
Regional Planning Council; the State of Florida Department of Community
Affairs, Division of Local Resource Management; all affected permitting
agencies and the Planning Director, City of Miami Planning 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 schedule in the applicant's
Application for Development Approval.
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.
The Planning Director, City of Miami Planning Department, or a project
director to be named later, is hereby designated to receive this report,
and to monitor and assure compliance with this Development Order.
30. The Development Order shall be null and void if substantial development
has not begun in three (3) years of the issuance date of this Development
Order. Substantial development is defined herein -as the achievement of
the following items:
83-856
. Obtaining all required permits; and
Beginning construction of, or provide the funds, bonds or letters of
credit for recommended surface street improvements.
31. The Applicant shall give notice to Richard P. Brinker, Clerk, Dade County
Circuit Court, 73 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida, 33130, for recording
in the Official Records of Dade County, Florida, as follows:
a) That the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, has issued a
Development Order for the SE 8th Street and Brickell Avenue Project,
a Development of Regional Impact located at approximately 623-799
Brickell Avenue, being
NASHER SUB (117-90)
b) That Lincoln Property Company and Raymond D. Nasher Company, a
joint venture, are the developers with offices at 777 Brickell Avenue,
Miami, Florida, 33131.
c) That the Development Order with any modifications may be examined in
the City Clerk's Offices, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami,
Florida, 33133.
d) That the Development Order constitutes a land development 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.
32. The Applicant will incorporate all original and supplemental information
into 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, the State Department of Community Affairs, the
Downtown Development Authority and Dade County Public Works Department.
33. The Application for Development Approval is incorporated herein by reference
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.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Lincoln/Nasher-Project, proposed by Lincoln Property Company and Raymond D.
Nasher Company, a joint venture, complies with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood
Plan, is consistent -with the orderly development and goals of the City of Miami,
and complies with local land development regulations being Zoning Ordinance
No. 9500; and
The proposed development does not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of
objectives of the adopted State Land Development Plan applicable to the City of
Miami; and
The proposed development is generally consistent with the Report and Recommendations
of the South Florida Regional Planning Council and does not unreasonably interfere
with any of the considerations and objectives set forth in Chapter 380, Florida
Statutes.
Changes in the project which do not exceed development parameters set forth in
the Application for Development Approval and Report and Recommendations of the
Regional Planning Council shall not constitute a substantial deviation; under
Chapter 380 Florida Statutes, notwithstanding City zoning approvals which may
be required.
83- 856...
f
Mr. Michael Garretson,. Dire:,_
Florida Department of Communi
Division of Local Resc—ce 16'•
2571 Executive Center .;.:cl
Tallahassee, Florida 39'
RE: Lincoln/hasher ,
of Regional Imp -
Dear x. Garretson:
4,nclosed herein please find
lution No. 83-856, passed anr�
Miami Commission at its meet"
1.983, which is self-exnlanatt
RGO : smm
Fnc. a/s
RALPH G ONGIE
City Clerk
MATTY HIRAI
Assistant Cm Clerk
DEPUTY CITY CLERKS
Robert E. Tinsley
Georgia M. Little
SylviaM. Mendoza
Evelio Rizo
Sylvia Lowman
STAFF SUPPORT
Lillian Dickmon
11, 1983
s
7levelopment
ad copy of Reso-
by the City of
)n September 29,
ily yours,
�• ONGIE
ERK
a" FnviJ., 33:3r0'lk i3C6 5'9-b1W.i
U
RALPH G. ONGIE
O
�I I II II I I
City Clerk
M4TT1 HIRAI
Assistant Pity Clerk
DEPUTY CITY CLERKS
:
Robert E. Tingley
Georgia M. Little
Sylvia M. Mendoza
Evelio Rizo .
Sylvia Lowman
STAFF SUPPORT
Lillian Dickmon
October 11, 1983
Mr. Barry Peterson, Director
South Florida Regional Planning Council
3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140
Hollywood, Florida 33021
RE: Lincoln/Hasher Project, a Development
of Regional Impact
Dear Mr. Peterson:
Enclosed herein please find a certified copy of Reso-
lution No. 83-856, passed and adopted by the City of
Miami Commission at its meeting held on September 29,
1983, which is self-explanatory.
RGO:smm
Enc. a/s
o
truly yours,
t
PH G. ONGIE
CITY CLERK
OEiIC Ui THE (_0y CLERK Cr., H, 601JJ`a' Ar NCB H ++ E ti1,m Flonaa 33:33.07406 005 5'19.6M5
Pxh hit
on1e with the 017=ice o, the City
c
..eoteTber•
DEVELCP'AENT CF ?.EG i CNAL I WA.CT
ASSESSMENT
FOR
L I NCOLN/NASHER JOINT VENTURE
Locatea In Mlam!, Dace ;,aunty
:2.22
SCt:TN FL CR I OA REG I OVAL ?L.ANN I NG CCUNC I L
July, 1933
83-856...
E
Eli
south ficrida regional planning council
1515 n.w i67thh street. suit- -429, micmi, flcrn :�e 33169 305 621-5871
July 11, 198x
The Honorabie Maurice Ferre
Mayor, City of Miami
P.C. Box 330708
Miami, Florida 33133
Dear Mayor Ferre:
The South Florida Regional Planning Council has officialiy adopted the
enclosed Regional Impact report for the Lincoin/Hasher Joint Venture and
forwarded copies to the Fiorida Department of Community Affairs, and the
South Florida Water Manaaement District. This report is provided for
your use in reviewing the Development of Regional Impact pursuant to
Chapter 380.C6, Florida Statutes.
While the staff of the Council is available to assist in the resolution
of any matter regarding the report, the Council has no legal mechanism
through which it can act on this report aaain, except through appeal
procedures.
Chapter 380.06, amended, requires that the City render a Development
Order (an order granting, denyina, or granting with conditions) on the
subject Application for Development Approval within 30 days of the iecai
CRI public hearing date.
The Development Order must include Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law regarding the extent to which:
"(a) The deveiopment unreasonably interferes with the achievement of the
objectives of an adopted state land deveicpment plan appiicabie to
the area;
(b) The development is consistent with the local land deveiopment
regulations; and
(c) The development is consistent with the report and recommendations
of the regionai pianning agency."
Moreoever, as required by the 1�-80 amendments to Chapter 380.06, the
Development Crder:
83-85E.
FI-_3
The Honorable Maurice Ferre
Pace 2
July 11, 19,.
"1. Shall specify the monitoring procedures and the local official
responsible for assuring the development's compliance with the
development order.
2. May establish expiration dates fcr the deveiooment order, including
a deadline for commencing physical ,deveicpment, for compliance with
conditions of approval or phasing requirements, and for termination
of the order.
3. Shall specify the requirements for the annual report designated
under subsection (16) (Chapter 380.06 Florida Statutes amended),
including the date of submission, parties to whom the report is
submitted, and contents of the report, based upon the ruies adopted
by the state land planning agency...
4. May specify the types of chanaes to the development which shall
require submission for a substantial deviation determination under
subsection (17)(a) (Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes amended).
5. Shall include a legal description of the property."
Copies of any development order issued with regard to this project must
be transmitted to the South Florida Regional planning Council and the
Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review. The statutory
45 day appeal period is triggered by receipt of your development order.
Durina this period, the Council will determine whether the City's
development order is consistent with the Council's report and
recommendations.
if we can be of further assistance, please have your staff call the
Council's DRI Coordinator, Martin Singer.
Sin rely,
M. Barry Peterson, AICP
Execut i/ e Director
MBP/rnh
Enclosure
cc: Mr. waiter Wolfe
Mr. Raymond D. Nasher
Mr. Joe McManus
Yr. Harvey Bernstein
Mr. Armando Vidal
Ms. Susan Coughanhour
Alan Gold, Eso.
Ms. Trish Ernst
Mr.Jerry 'Nentzei
Mr. Raphael Rodon
Mr. Gary Kresel
Mr. Roy Kenzie
83-85E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LISTOF
FIGURES.......................................................
i
LISTCF
TABLES........................................................
ii
INTRODUCTION..........................................................
'
PART
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................
a
A. APPLICANT INFORMATION ..................................
.1
g, PROJECT INFORMATION ....................................
4
PART
11. SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS .................................
"I
A. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES ......................
?. ECONOMY ................................................
r,. PUBLIC FACILITIES ......................................
18
D. TRANSPORTATION .........................................
26
PART
III. DEVELOPMENT ISSUES .........................................
::
A. EFFECTIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN THE BRICKELL AREA .......
43
B. FUNDING PUBLIC FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS ...................
49
PART
... ... ... .....
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... .....
83-85C
0 0
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page
1 Location Map ........................................... 5
2a Site Plan - Plaza Level ................................
2bSite plan - Grace Level ................................ 7
3 Project Cross -Section ................................. 9
AProject Traffic Impact Area ...........................
5 Existing Peak -Hour Traffic Conaitions .................
6 Prcgrammea ana Plannea Transportation Improvements ..... T
7 1986 Total Traffic ..................................... 35
8 Recommenaea Improvements ............................... 37
IS3-85C.
• a
LiST OF TABLES
Table No.
Title
Page
1
Proposea Developmenr Components ..........................
9
2
Construction Expenalrures............................0...
11
3
...
Construction Impacts ......... ........
.. ....
... ........
15
4
Project Employment .......................................
16
5
....
Employment Impacts ............ .........
........... ...
1'
6
Fiscal Impacts ...........................................
19
7
Programmea Transportation Improvements
Summary ...........
79
A_
Project Percentage of Person -trips by Transit
............
32
e
Project Traffic Composition at Critical
Intersections ....
33
10
Unaer Construction b Proposea Projects
(Brickeil Area) ...
44
83-SSC -
i
n
INTRODUCTION
In July, 1980, the Council reviewed an .Application for Development
Approval (ADA) for Nastier Plaza, a Development of Regional Impact locatea
on the site of the currently proposed project - Lincoln/Hasher Joint
Venture. The formerly proposea project was to contain 2°5,570 gross
square feet of office and commercial space, ana 1,592 off-street parking
spaces In a multi -level garage.
Council review of the Application concludea that the project would have
had a positive fiscal impact on local taxing Jurisdictions, but would
have added project traffic to an already overburdened roadway system wltn
four intersecYlons in the primary Impact area projectea to operate at
unacceptable levels of service during the peak hour to 1984.
The Council's impact assessment report noted that the primary issue
raised by the proposal was the lack of an effective growth management
process in the Brickell area to ensure preservation of the desirable
qualities of the district, to program the maintenance or expansion of
transportation and other public facility infrastructure to maintain
adequate levels of service, and to determine the sources of funas neeaea
to implement the necessary public Improvements, with costs equitably
distributed among proposed developments benefitting from and needing
expanded public facilities.
The Council recommenced that the project be approved subject to 12
conditions. On October 30, 1980, the City Commission adopted Resolution
180-791 approving the Issuance of a development order with conditions.
83-SSC
0 0
At its December 15, 1980 Council Meeting, the Council recommenaea to not
appeal the development order. A modification to the development order
extending the aeadiine for substantial development from two to four years
was issued by the City on November 10, 1982 (Resolution #82-1071) ana
reviewea by the Council in January, 1983. The Council approvea a motion
to not appeal. Thus, a development oraer for the site is still in
effect, with substantial aevelopment required by October 3, 1984. The
current application represents a significant modification to the formally
approves Slasher Plaza development. Until amenaea by the Issuance of a
aevetopment order for the presently proposea project or a lapse of the
development oraer, the existing development oraer remains valia.
This assessment of the proposea Lincoln/Hasher Joint Venture office
complex has been preparea by the South Florida Regional Planning Council,
as required by the Florida Environmental Lana and Water Management Act,
for all Developments of Regional Impact.
The assessment is basea on information supplied by the Applicant, by
Miami and Dade County staff, official plans, consultants, and field
inspections. Additional research relative to specific Issues was
conauctea by Council staff where neeaea.
In accordance with the Act, this report is intended to provide the City
of Miami ana the State of Floriaa with an overview of positive ana
negative impacts likely to result from approval of the proposal. The
2
83-85E-.
0 0
recommendations are intended to assist the Miami Commission in reaching a
decision regarding the proposed development. They are not intended to
foreclose or abridge the legal responsibility of local government to act
pursuant to applicable local laws or ordinances.
Copies of any "development order" (an order granting, denying, or
granting with conditions an application for a development permit) Issued
with regard to this project should be transmitted to the Soutn Florida
Regional 'fanning Council and the Florida Department of Community
Affairs:
3
83-SSE..
I& 4h
PAR' I - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. APPLICANT INFORMATION
Project Name: Lincoln/Nasher Joint Ventre
Applicant: Lincoln Property Company/
Raymona 0. Nasner Company Joint Venture
c/o Lincoln Property Company, Pentnouse
'177 Brickell Avenue
Miami, Florida 33131
Date of Acceptance of Application: June 9, 1983
Date of Transmittal of Notice of Local Public Hearing: N.A.
Local Government Hearing Date: September 8, 1983
Type of Development: Offlce/Retall
Location of Development; Miami, Daae County
S. PROJECT INFORMATION
The Lincoln/Nasher Joint Venture proposes a mixed use development on
a large parcel on Brickell Avenue bounded by S.E. 8th Street on the
south, Biscayne Say on the east, and Brickell Avenue on The west
(Figure 1). Tne site is currently used for surface parking and the
existing Flagship Bank building.
The project (Figures 2a and 2b) consists of two structures
containing offices, retail activities, and parking connected by a
raised plaza and Integrated functionally, structurally, and
aesthetically witn the existing Flagship Bank building. Development
is proposed to commence In 1983 with completion in the Fall of 1985.
4
El
li
LINCOLUMASHER JOINT VENTURE DRI
SITE
FIGURE
LOCATION MAP
KALI 10 1250 1500 Inoo,
Source: SFRPC
83--85C .
# �� � � # � 4- • # � � � # ilt � fir- Ik �It � gib # �t • M� +r� � � �_ #. �M' #
�i Ir ill � ,:�: r • �`" ii �_ w . •. • • � • • +# #� � ,,�
... � . (]m� • • '�" f I{II-IIIfI IEIIIfllll� - �.,
IL�1LLJ � a. � �1.� • • r.r.•r n •�
Fill f I I I I -I I I f I fl I I fl I III .
I I I I I I I I 11111jjL 11 1 LI i-
A • 46
IllflifiliElliElll�lll� -
rNtNA•11•I
-,—,--�,-� III,IIIIIIIIILII�IIIJIIialII
I �
I FIGURE 2A
SUE PLAN - PLAZA LEVEL
Source: ADA
•a.�4 Yr
4
--
m -- v-on . - - .-
rf 7
YOW.tJI NW.
I wl
17,
1 LEGEND FIGURE 2a
=6-- SffE PLAN
--- - GRADE LEVEL
C-,9M ------
Source ADA
;Wf 1..�i
40
0
Tne office tower is to contain 737,600 gross square feet consisting
of 690,800 square feet of office and 46,3C0 square feet of lobby,
retail, service, and mechanical areas (Table 1). Reaching about 440
feet above street level, the office tower is to contain 32 floors of
offices above a lobby and retail area (F-Igure 3). The attacned
seven -story parking garage will contain a restaurant with about
6,750 gross square feet of floor area facing the Bay and parking for
1,308 cars. A second parking garage primarily serving the Flagship
?arK building will provlae 558 spaces and be connected to the
existing Flagship Bank building via a bridge.
TABLE 1
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPONENTS
Component
Existing Flagship Building
Existing Drive -In Bank
masher Plaza Office Building
Retail
Restaurant
Flagship Garage
masher Plaza Garage
TOTAL
SOURCE: AD►
Gross Square Feet
299,840
885
737,377
5,203
6,747
175,850
365,711
1,594,813
Tne two garages, each accessible from either project driveway, are
separated above plaza level to allow views of the Bay. The plaza,
at an elevation of 14 feet above street level, will contain terraced
planters, seating, commissioned art, special pavings, and a
monumental staircase to the Baywalk. The Baywalk, landscaped and
0
83-85F
suoErr cEr+rEll �Er�.oi
1
MAWS PLAZA 8"010
1 r' t: - —• LEVEL
1 i + LEVEL E
i
LEVEL a
LEVEL
i . LEVEL a
t_m
i VIEW IACCEss
FL AOMP CE)(Fn GA11AdE COwwOm ql MASHM PLAZA OAAAGE a+VIALKWA Y
as ..
FIGURE 3
PROJECT CROSS SECTION
SOURCE: ADA
I V
decorated, is also accessible from Brickell Avenue via grade level
pedestrian access along the north edge of the site. Mobility
handlcappec individuals coula reach the Balwalk by elther the grade
level pedestrian access or, from the plaza, by an elevator located
In the eastern end of one of the project garages.
Direct plaza level access would be provided among the garage, tower
lobby, retail ana restaurant areas. Service access to the retail
areas and the office tower would be from grace level In the garage.
An elght-bay truck cock, including trash storage and pick-up area,
is proposed inside the garage unaer the proposed office tower while
the service area of the existing Flagship Bank building will remain.
The proposed garages, including ill spaces currently provided under
the Flagship Bank building, contain parking for 2,077 cars. The
roof levels would be visually screened In conformance with City
requirements. All open levels would incorporate planters in the
exterior walls.
The site is currently zoned SPI-5, Bricked -Miami River Residential
Office District. Established under a 1982 amendment to the Miami
Zoning Text, the Special Public Interest (SPI) District for the
Bricked area requires a special permit for construction of any new
principal struc,Nre, ormodification of any vehicular way or
exterior configuratl;in of an existing building. The uses proposea
by the Applicant - office, financial institutions, ancillary retail,
restaurants, and off-street parking - are uses permitted In the
zoning district.
10
83-856 .
IS 1
PART If - SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS
A. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
1. Air
Complex source air permits are no longer required by either the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation or Dade County
Department of Environmental Resources Management. Using the
results of previous DERM ambient air quality monitoring and
complex source permit applications for the 1980 Nasher Plaza
project and Knight Convention Center, the Applicant estimates a
1986 concentration of carbon monoxide of 14.1 mg/m3 and 8.5
mg/m3 for the one -hour and eight -hour analysis periods,
respectively. These values are within the Florida ambient air
quality standards for one -hour and eight -hour maximum
concentrations of carbon monoxide of 40 mg/m3 and 10
mg/m3, respectively.
The Applicant proposes several management practices to minimize
air pollution, including encouraging the use of mass transit
through provision of transit information to project employees
and visitors, and encouraging carpooling by providing special
parking in the garage. Public seating near bus stops adjacent
to the project and secure and convenient bicycle storage areas
In the garage for use by project employees and visitors should
be included.
s3-SSE .
1
2. Land, Water, and Wetlands
The 3.86 acres of the project site are altered land used mainly
for parking. There are neither water bodies nor weTianas
on -site. Groundwater in the vicinity is brackish to saline.
Approximately 20,000 cubic yards of material will be excavated
and a small amount replaced during construction. Shallow
spread foundations or mats are expected to be used to support
the parking garage, while driven piling or drilled
cast -In -place caissons established in the underlying Fort
Thompson formation will be necessary for the office tower.
3. Flooaplains
The site is classified within Zone A-14 of the Federal
Insurance Administration Maps, with a 100-year flood elevation
of +11 feet NGVD. All finished floor elevations would be above
this level and the parking garage would have a minimum finished
elevation of 5.0 feet NGVD.
4. Vegetation and Wildlife
As altered urban land containing only landscaped parking lots,
there is no existing natural vegetation or wildlife on -site,
with the exception of some black olive trees along the
bayfront. The project landscaping will Include terraced
planters in the pedestrian plaza and on the roofs of the
parking structures, and grass, palms, and flowering trees in
12
83-85C-
the Baywalk along Biscayne Bay, using 80 percent native species
and 20 percent acceptable exotic species of trees and plants.
Existina black olive trees will be incorporated in the Baywalk
landscape.
5. Historical and Archaeoloalcal Sites
The project site, according to the Dade County Archaeologist,
Is located within an area that Is part of a recently recognized
zone of potential archaeological sites along Biscayne Bay. It
Is recommended that a professional archaeologist be on -hand
during initial ground breaking and subsurface construction, and
that if any historical or archaeological finds are made,
construction should be delayed so that County historical
preservation officials can survey the discovery.
S. ECONOMY
1. Project Cost
As indicated in Table 2, the project 1s estimated by the
Applicant to cost a total of $123 million (1983 dollars). An
estimated $108 million, or 87 percent, is to be spent in the
four -county region, including Palm Beach.
13
n3-S56 .
0 is
TABLE 2
CONSTRUCTION E)TEND;TURF:
Percen+
Exoendi+ur• item
Cos*
In Regi_n
Land
S 28.000,000
100
Le001
3A,500,30C
1:,-
Materia,
34,50C,000
70
in+e'es'
25,OCC,000
80
a-eiinlna-y Punning
690,OCO
50
Otne^
613,000
90
'07AL
S123,304,000
87
SOURCE: ApA
2. Const-uctfon Employment ana .Associated Regional Economic
Imcact
Tne Applicant estimates that about 730 temporary full-time
equivalent (FTE) construction Jobs would be supported annually
by the project over the two year construction period.
Construction wages are projected to total $34.5 million (1963
dollars) with an average $23,600 per employee -year.
The Council's input-output model, developed specifically for
the Soutn Florida Region plus Palm Beach County, projects a
cumulative effect of about 3,160 jobs In the four -county area,
representing $56.0 million to total wages, and $70.8 million in
net value added to the regional economy (Table 3).
3. Permanent Employment
Approximately 1,100 employees are currently employed on -site in
the Flagship Bank building. The Applicant projects about 2,620
new permanent employees at project completion wltn about 30 of
14
83-856
TAeL_ 3 16
Z.-NSTPUCTICN I►PAC73
A. EIAPLOYMENT
--
SO. FLA.
PALM
13ROWARD
DADE
MONROE
REGION
BEACH
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
1.
2.
0.
3.
1.
MINING
2.
5.
0.
8.
0.
CONSTRUCTION
155.
1708.
7.
1870.
95.
MANUFACTURING
33.
86.
0.
120.
29.
TRANSPORTATICN AND UTILITIES
15.
79.
1.
95.
7.
WHOLESALE TRADE
9.
35.
0.
44.
A.
RETAIL TRADE
109.
172.
'.
28T.
57.
FINANCE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE
56.
116.
1.
173.
26.
SERVICES
86.
211.
4.
301.
45.
GOVERNMENT
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
TOTAL
467.
2413.
21.
2901.
256.
9. TOTAL WAGES (1000 S)
AGRICULTURE. FORESTRY, FISHING
8.
26.
0.
33.
75.
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
14.
23.
5.
43.
15.
MINING
34.
76.
5.
115.
59.
CONSTRUCTION
2734.
34553.
150.
37437.
1540.
MANUFACTURING
518.
1668.
8.
2194.
338.
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
290.
1248.
18.
1355.
140.
WHOLESALE TRADE
168.
666.
11.
844.
100.
RETAIL TRADE
1145.
1570.
82.
2898.
577.
FINANCE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE
864.
1963.
30.
2856.
459.
SERVICES
1153.
2667.
79.
3908.
644.
GOVERNMENT
33.
67.
2.
101.
19.
TOTAL
5970.
44627.
390.
51986.
3989.
C. VALUE OF OUTPUT (1000 S)
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING
36.
121.
0.
157.
359.
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
41.
70.
15.
127.
46.
MINING
108.
244.
18.
370.
192.
(CONSTRUCTION
8025.
101410.
441.
109876.
4521.
MANUFACTURING
2948.
9484.
46.
12479.
2035.
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
1141.
4914.
70.
6125.
550.
WHOLESALE TRADE
336.
1335.
22.
1692.
201.
RETAIL TRADE
2546.
3714.
182.
6441.
1283.
FINANCE. INS. AND REAL ESTATE
2201.
5003.
75.
7280.
1171.
SERVICES
2545.
5836.
172.
8554.
1410.
GOVERNMENT
45.
94.
2.
141.
26.
TOTAL
19974.
132225.
1044.
153243.
11794.
0. VALUE ADDED (1000 S)
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING
18.
60.
0.
78.
178.
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
24.
41.
9.
74.
27.
MINING
65.
147.
11.
222.
115.
CONSTRUCTION
3038.
38394.
167.
41599.
1712.
MANUFACTURING
1147.
3690.
18.
4855.
792.
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
666.
2868.
41.
3575.
321.
WHOLESALE TRADE
217.
861.
14.
1092.
130.
RETAIL TRADE
1315.
1918.
94.
3327.
662.
FINANCE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE
1510.
3431.
52.
4993.
?03.
SERVICES
1562.
3581.
106.
5249.
865.
GOVERNMENT
35.
77.
2.
114.
Z1.
TOTAL
9597.
55068.
513.
65178.
5625.
...iv. nUMWWFa ma) nVT TVT41 UYO TO rounaing.
SOURCE: SFRPC
1c�
S3-85f
IV
V
these in retailing and personal services (Table 4). Tne
Applicant estimates only 900 employees (31 percent) would be
new to the Region.
TABLE 4
PROJECT EWLOYMENT
Activity
Transportation, Communicatlon,
& Utilities
Wholesale
Retail
Finance, Insurance d Real
Estate
Services
TOTAL
SOURCE: ADA
Number of Employees
67
67
30
1,610
84?
2,621
Council estimates for the four -county area indicate tnat new
employment in the project would generate an additional 1,735
net new jobs (with 248, 1,347, 11, and 130 in Browara, Dade,
Monroe, and Palm Beacn, respectively), $29.5 million in total
wages, and $70.8 million in value added to the regional economy
(Table 5).
4. Fiscal Impact
The project would have a net positive fiscal impact upon Miami,
Dade County, the Dade County School District, the South Florida
Water Management District, ana the miscellaneous (Library and
Downtown Development Authority) taxing districts. Using 1982
mlllage rates and an assumption that 31 percent (800) of the
16
8a3-8JC .
10 TASLE 5 is
EMcL:vMENT IMPACTS
A. EMPLOYMENT
BROWARD
DADE
MONROE
SO. FLA.
REGION
PALM
BEACH
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
1.
2.
0.
3.
1.
W1414G
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
CCNSTRUCTION
II.
18.
0.
:9.
6.
MANUF ACTURING
10.
25.
0.
35.
8.
T-4ANSPORTAT10N AND UTILITIES
9.
71.
0.
90.
4.
WHOLESALE TRADE
5.
20.
0.
25.
2.
RETAIL TRADE
71.
114.
4.
189.
38.
F14A4CE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE
78.
623.
2.
704.
37.
SERVICES
63.
474.
3.
339.
33.
GOVERNMENT
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
TOTAL
248.
1347.
11.
1505.
130.
B. TOTAL WAGES (1000 S)
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING
4.
15.
0.
20.
43.
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
13.
23.
5.
41.
15.
MINING
2.
4.
0.
7.
3.
CONSTRUCTION
218.
311.
12.
540.
123.
MANUFACTURING
136.
436.
2.
574.
94.
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
252.
1609.
15.
1877.
121.
WHOLESALE TRADE
94.
373.
5.
473.
56.
RETAIL TRADE
727.
1067.
52.
1843.
366.
FINANCE. INS. AND REAL ESTATE
829.
11891.
29.
12749.
441.
SERVICES
910.
9393.
62.
9364.
304.
GOVERNMENT
53.
123.
3.
179.
30.
TOTAL
3238.
24244.
196.
27668.
1798.
C. VALUE OF OUTPUT (1000 S)
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING
21.
72.
0.
93.
212.
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
37.
62.
14.
112.
41.
MINING
8.
17.
1.
26.
13.
CONSTRUCTION
1401.
1998.
77.
3476.
789.
MANUFACTURING
839.
2699.
13.
3351.
379.
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
752.
4798.
46.
5596.
362.
WHOLESALE TRADE
189.
749.
12.
949.
113.
RETAIL TRADE
1655.
2430.
118.
4204.
834.
FINANCE. INS. AND REAL ESTATE
4292.
61538.
148.
63978.
2283.
SERVICES
1905.
17571.
129.
19605.
1055.
GOVERNMENT
76.
174.
4.
254.
43.
TOTAL
11174.
92107.
562.
103843.
6325.
0. VALUE ADDED (1000 $)
AGRICULTURE. FORESTRY, FISHING
11.
35.
0.
46.
105.
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
20.
34.
3.
62.
23.
MINING
5.
11.
1.
16.
8.
CONSTRUCTION
242.
345.
13.
601.
136.
MANUFACTURING
296.
951.
3.
1251.
204.
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
535.
3415.
33.
3993.
258.
WHOLESALE TRADE
121.
480.
8.
608.
72.
RETAIL TRADE
836.
1227.
60.
2122.
421.
FINANCE. INS. AND REAL ESTATE
2946.
42237.
101.
43284.
1367.
SERVICES
1272.
11738.
86.
13096.
705.
GOVERNMENT
59.
137.
3.
199.
33
TOTAL
6342.
60610.
317.
67270.
3532.
Note: Numbers may noT Total cue to rouncing.
SOURCE: SFRPC
17
�a3r�J(;
1
20620 jobs will be new positions, the net fiscal impact would
be an annual surplus of $727,000 for Miami, $915,000 for Dade
County, $527,000 for the School District and $72,000 for the
South Florida 'Water Management 01strict and special districts
combinea (Table 6), for a cumulative annual reglonal surplus of
$2,241,000.
r, PUB,.IC FACILITIES
1. Wastewater Management
Wastewater flows from the project would be nanalea by the
Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Authority, which has indicated it
has sufficient capaclry to serve the projected average of
90,000 gallons per day and 360,000 gallons at peak flow.
2. Drainage
Existing on -site drainage discharges into aetention tanks that
retain the first Inch of stormwater runoff, reducing total
runoff from the site and pollutants In the remaining runoff by
about 90 percent. The proposed project would provide further
retention of runoff in on -site wells for a 5-year storm of 6
inches over a 12 hour period, required by the Daae County
Public Works Manual. This will increase pollutant removal.
The project will require a General Permit from South Florida
Water Management District pursuant to Ch. 16K-4.021, Florida
Administrative Code, prior to commencement of construction.
du-
83-85C,
TABLE 6
FISCAL IMPACTS
NA-E OF OEVELOPMEN' L'NCDLN/NA W P JOINT MVELOPMENT
LOCH' 1 ZA
'Y MIAP;
COUNT♦ DALE
SPECIAL DISTRICT
SCHOOL DISTA3CT
TYPE OF DEVELOPIEv' NONRESIDENTIAL
TYPE OF DWELLING UNIT
SINGLE-FAMILY
MUL'I
-FAMILY
MOB ILE-HOK
NLPW P OF UNITS
0
0
0
NLPtBEF OF STUDENTS PER UNIT
0
00
0 00
0 00
NUNBEF OF PERSONS PER UNIT
0
00
0 00
0 00
TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS
0
TOTAL NUMBER OF STUDENTS
0
RESIDENT POPULATION
0
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 2620
ANALYSIS CONDUCTED USING AVERAGE
COEFFICIENTS
EXaEND11URE CATEGORIES
CITY
COUNTY
SPECIAL
DISTRICT
SCHAOOL DISTRICT
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
f
9275e
s
4266o
•
79
PUBLIC SAFETY
•
107761
s
46295
s
0
91EALTh AND WELFARE
s
2994!
s
4760!
•
1546
RECREATION AND CULTURE
•
41be6
6
1938E
•
0
TAANsPCATATION
6
=50
s
?::at
•
472
NATLAAL RES•ULIFIC E :
•
91:10
t
43S 11
•
7,7
FUILIC WOPI B
s
!J4415
s
32.C�8
t
101,43!
MISC•ELLANEous
s
62406
s
99429
•
?St OP
EDUCATION EXPENDITURES
t
EDIK AT 1 DNI ANNUAL DEB'
SERVICE AND CAPITAL OUTLAY
• 0
SPECIAL CAPITAL FACILITY
ANNUAL EXPENDITURES
s
0
s
0
6
0
t n
REVENLE CATEGORIES
CITY
COLINTY
SPECIAL
DISTRICT
SCNOCIL DISTAI�l
PROPERTY TAXES
4
669t62
6
MZLC14
s
108145
s 526!-40
OTHER TAXES
s
42818
f
40951
f
0
SERVICE CHARGES
f
19861
f
222682
f
3118
OTHER HON-TAK LOCAL 1EVEHIE
f
18027
f
13170
f
0
STATE INiTERODWRpSeNTAL
f
35021
f
58950
S
0
FEDERAL INTE710OWERMQfTAL
f
6076E
f
14569E
f
262
STATE EDUCATIONAL
6 0
FEDERAL EDIU AT IOMAt
s 0
MISCELLANEOUS
f
105162
f
275965
6
8541
• 0
ONE -TINE REVENSIS
f
0
f
0
f
0
s 0
CITY
COLWTV
SPECIAL DISTRICT
SCHOOL DISTRICT
TOTAL NEW ANNUAL, EXPENDITURES
f
423772,
s
404633
f
47867
s 0
TOTAL NEW ANNUAL IIEVENES
•
1150020
f
13197M
s
1200"
s T26549
NET SURPLUS ( DEFICIT )
f
72704E
s
915067
f
72199
6 526549
TOTAL
6 876272
6 3127:25
s 224086:
83-85f
IP
3.
Existing surface parkins area will be replaced by the parking
garage, plaza, ana office building. Runoff from roofea areas
is significantly less polluting than runoff from open parking
areas. The A.ppilcant projects pollutant loads of 816 Ibs.yyear
of suspended solids, compares with 4,079 lbs./year before
retention. Pollutant retardant structures would be installed
in the collection systems ana regularly maintained, to remove
pollutants from washaown water.
Water Supply
The Applicant estimates potable water consumption to average
90,000 gallons per day, to be supplied by the Miaml-Daae Water
and Sewer Authority, with a peak demand of 360,000 gallons per
day. A moratorium was recently implemented by the Dade County
Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) on all
development that woula be served by the Alexander Orr Water
Treatment Plant. This moratorium applies to the Lincoln/Nasher
project. DERM Is administering this moratorium ana has
Indicated that projects that would not be occupiea before May,
1984 may be able to receive a conditional building permit
subject to an estoppel, in that certificates of occupancy will
not be issued until the water treatment facility expansion is
completed. This expansion, from 120 To 160 mga capacity, Is
expectea to be completea in 12 to 18 months. The peak potable
water aemana of this project woula be 0.937 percent of proposea
water treatment capacity increase.
20
83-85L
.14 i
4. So!id Waste
So!id waste generated by the project is expected to consist
primarily of packaging and other paper waste, with some organic
waste produced by the restaurant and occasional landscaping
debris and wood crating. The Applicant estimates a total of
5.3 tons, or 18.6 cubic yards, per day of solid waste, which
would be collected by a private hau!ing company under contract
and disposed of by the Dade County Solid Waste Disposal
Division.
5. Energy
The developer proposes to use electricity as the primary energy
source for this project, although natural gas may be used for
cooking and water heating in the on -site restaurant. Annual
electrical consumption is estimated by the Council to be 10.2
million KWH (53.8 billion BTUs). This corresponds to the
energy content of approximately 8,550 barrels of residual oil.
Three times this amount of energy, or over 25,650 additional
barrels of residual oil, will be consumed at the power plant to
provide this electricity. Restaurant use of natural gas would
amount to about 1.5 percent of total on -site project energy use
(0.8 billion BTUs). Emergency power will be supplied by a 500
KW standby diesel generator.
21
a3-85C
The developer has proposed the following energy conservation
measures:
• Air conditioning zoning to permit operation of single floors
or multiple floors as a function of occ-ipancy.
Evaluation, and use to the extent feas:bie, of individua
metering of electricity for each floor.
• Minimum use of incandescent fighting In the building.
• Insulation equal to or exceeding building code minimum.
• Use of highly reflective exterior glass and light colored
walls.
• Limit water flow 1n lavatories to 1.5 gallons per minute.
• Domestic hot water temperatures set no nigher than 105°F.
• Reduced wattage lighting in corridors and restrooms.
• Encourage use of task lighting by project tenants.
• Use of open garage facades to increase natural ventilation.
• Evaluation of using kitchen waste heat to heat water.
• installation of a computerized energy management system to
limit HVAC and Ilghting system electrical demana.
Furthermore, the Applicant proposes to evaluate the feasibility
of Installing a computerized elevator control system to Improve
demand response and energy efficiency, and use of local light
switches to reduce lighting of unused space.
22
g3-856
4 i
6. Recreation and Open Space
y The Applicant proposes to carry the tropical nature of Brlckeil
Avenue landscaping Into the project by providing palm and
canopy tree plantings along the Brickell frontage leading to
pedestrian access to Biscayne Bay. This access is provided by
two routes, along the north boundary of the site, and the other
through the plaza between water cascades, reflecting pools, and
landscaping (see Figure 2b). Another waterfall and pool
extends along the entire Bay frontage.
The Baywalk is designed with a 40-foot wide lawn between the
buildings and the 16-foot wide, lighted walkway, lined with
Royal Palms and seating areas along the water. The southeast
portion of the existing bayfront contains an excavated and
seawallea water intrusion area. Although the Applicant does
not own the Inlet, it proposes to assist the City to obtain
permission and the necessary permits to fill this area and
continue the Baywalk along the entire frontage. If this is not
possible, the Applicant would improve the inlet edge and axtena
the Baywalk along It to S.E. 8Tn Avenue. The Applicant also
proposes to extend the Baywalk 85 feet to the north of the
site, and Is holding discussions with the aajacent property
owner to gain permission. This would also provide a 'IT" To
facilitate turn around of emergency vehicles.
23
83-856
7. Health Care and Fire
Emergency medical service is available under County cont-act
with Randle -Eastern Ambulance Service, the closest branch of
which is near S.W. 1st Street and S.W. 27tn Avenue. Average
response time of Randle -Eastern Is estimated at eight minutes;
the fastest time at three minutes. Their contract witn the
County requires minimum response times no greater than 15
minutes. Also, the Miami Fire Department Rescue Squad will
respond In both nonemergency and emergency situations, with an
emergency response time to the site of approximately two
minutes.
Fire response would be from Station No. 4 located at 1000 S.
Miami Avenue. flack -up response is available from Stations No.
1 and 3 within two to three minutes of the development site.
City fire officials have recently expressed some concern that
proposed and approved developments In the downtown Miami area
represent an additional demand upon Fire Department and
Emergency Rescue Company services without any commitment of
increased funding to assure the availability of the necessary
facilities and equipment.
Given the height of the proposed offica building, the Applicant
should insure that the building can be evacuated in an
emergency. in addition to whatever other measures might be
24
33"SJf;
1* 0
required by the Fire Department, the Applicant should ensure
that the office tower allows for emergency hovering helicopter
evacuation from the roof.
3. Police
Police protection would be provided by the City from its
downtown station at N.W. 2nd Avenue and N.W. 4th Street. City
police officials have recently expressed concern that the
proposed and approved developments in the downtown area pose
traffic enforcement problems due to increased traffic.
The Applicant proposes to implement a number of security
measures in the project design and operation, including:
• 24-hour lobby security desk;
• limited access after normal business hours, with electric
locks at building entry points and strategic security
cameras controlled from the security desk;
• card or code controlled access to elevators and stairwells;
• manned controlled entry from the garage during business
hours;
• lighting and strategic cameras in the garage; and
• an after hours patroling guard in radio contact with the
lobby desk.
25
b3-856
D. TRANSPORTATION
1. Existing Traffic
Tne traffic impact area (Figure 4) is bounded by the Miami
River on the north, Biscayne Bay on the east, South 15th Road
on the south, and S.W. 4th Avenue on the west. Of the
twenty-one major roadway segments studied, three are operating
below level of service (LOS) "C" (the minimum level of
acceptable average daily traffic (ADT) flow in Dade County) on
a daily basis, and eleven are operating at or below LOS "C"
during the peak -hour.
In urban areas where frequent signals control roadway
operation, ADT levels of service are generally less meaningful
than peak -hour conditions. Of the eleven critical
intersections in the traffic impact area, only four are
projected to operate below LOS "C" after project completion:
Brickell Avenue/S.W. 7tn Street, Brickell Avenue/S.W. 8th
Street, S. Bayshore Drive/S.W. 8th Street, and Brickell
Avenue/Coral Way. Figure 5 Illustrates 1982 peak -hour levels
of service on the twenty-one study roaaway segments, and at
four Intersections near the project. Two of the latter
currently have undesirable levels of service during the PM
peak -hour: Brickell Avenue/S.W. 7th Street, LOS "D"; and
Brickell Avenue/S.W. 8tn Street, LOS "0."
'6
83-85G._.
FIGURE 4
Ptject Traffic Impact Aa
,
'�rirr •
�.,,, ��rr+riatrrrr+��rnr
r
SSC lYD ►rt
�rrar�r���r�rrr
^`' as
'v.
LINCOLN/
HASHER
Ift" Aft.. _ I
0
Source: SPRPC
t33—S5f
0 FIGURE 5 i
Existing Peak -Hour Traffic Conditions
jQ -198Z AM Peak -dour LOS
C -1982 PM Ptak -Hour L05
�`� 'Direcfion of Peck Flow
Disc 9LY0 �M'=
RSV
410
as
fq k j
4/f
COLN/
aSHER
Inier;5i✓ -Wl ► Source : $FRPC
C/ C- Aak-0OVV Las
D M i�j"} PM ;7ccv liver L{xr S3-85C
All akinev Grttic4t rv+#erxct-tort" are operc+1n .ir
405 •C" tar Ve4ier dvvltl j both Peaty +� rvrs
0 0
2. Programmed and Planned Roadway Improvements
Numerous transportation improvements (Table 7), estimated to
cost $23,827,000 (1983 collars), are eltner programmed or
planned within the traffic Impact area, the majority of which
have been budgeted. As most of these improvements were
ieentifled on an ae-hoc basis and not through a coordinated
transportation plan for the area, the Applicant and the
developer of the adjacent Tishman-Speyer/Equitable Development
of Regional impact nave agreed to undertake a Year 2000
transportation analysis for the Brickell Avenue area to
identify necessary improvements to accommodate anticipated
development within the area. When the analysis Is completed,
both currently programmed and recommended roadway improvements
illustrated In Figure 6 must be reviewed In terms of their
consistency with necessary long-range improvements.
TABLE 7
PROGRAMMED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY
Year of
Iflproyement
Construction
Cost•
S. Miami Ave. Bascule Bridge Structure
1982-63
$8.910,000
S. Miami Ave. Bridge Approaches
1983-84
7,840,000
S. Miami Ave. Bridge Approaches
1984-85
1.710,000
S.M. 2nd Ave. Bridge (Design d Right of
Way Only)
1985-86
1,100,000
S.M. 7th St./S.M. 8th St. widening 6
Reconstruction
1983-84
3,308,000
S.M. 8th St./1-95 Interchange Reconstruction
1984-85
476.000
S.M. 10th St./S.M. list St. Transit Mail
1984-85
483,000
Metrerall, Rapid Transit (Brickell Service)
1982-83
N/A
Metromover, Downtown People Mover
(Brickell Service)
1986-87
N/A
TOTAL
S23,827,000
• 1983 Dollars.
SOURCE: ADA
29
83-85E;
S FIGURE : 6 0
Programmed and Planned Transportation Improvements
it
!I g -
w,oen,n : (-t
----xrt� tttitttI rot rtuitttt2trt
ttii �' .way �5L)r*ac,I I
ean, ' ut+ttttutc3wtitent�ti
— acation
wto°,f�°°n5�
L
j
S �
Source : SFRPC
DSG Lv^ +
Lane "e
Lane
a wc•�7 '! i
a 3 Lanes
j ' n
ju W
�
SW L
TPAN51T-J / Ir
IiZ STV 1 tinttrse. Lion `,
Sr
4
0
Tne most significant roadway Improvement programmed in the area
is reconstruction of the Miami Avenue Bridge and approach
ramps, anticipatea to be completes in FY 1984-85. More
Immediate improvements, scneculea for FY 1983-84, are the
widening and reconstruction of S.W. 7tn Street to 3 lanes,
one-way westbouna, Brickell Avenue to S.W. 12 Avenue and tie
resurfacing of S.W. Stn Street from I-95 to Brickell Avenue.
This will improve access to 1-95 northbouna from the Brickell
area.
Peak hour reversal of the direction of traffic on S.W. 7tn ana
Ph Streets has been recently analyzea by the Applicant as a
means of increasing peak -hour capacities for AM peak -hour
eastbouna and PM peak -hour westbound flows. Joint meetings
were held with City, County, and State transportation staff,
who concluded that such operation is not feasible given the
one-way cross streets and numerous ariveways.
Transit improvements and increased patronage are critical to
improving Brickell area access over the next five years.
Metrorall is expected to begin revenue service from Daaelana
south to the downtown Government Center Station, to December,
1983. The north leg is scheduled to begin service during
December, 1984, connecting the Government Center Station with
the Okeecnobee Station in Hialeah. The Brickell Station, three
31
83-85L
4 0
blocks southwest of the project at S.W. 1st .Avenue ana S.W.
10th Street, is the Metrorall stop closest to the project. A
transit mall, along S.W. 10tn ana 11tn Streets, is programmea
for FY 1984-85 to provide feeder bus service to the Brickell
Station.
In aadltion, completion of Phase II of Metromover (the Downtown
People Mover) is estimated for 1988, which would provide the
project with convenient access to many points downtown, as well
as the Omni area, from a station locates on Brickell Plaza
Immediately north of S.W. 8th Street.
3. Project Traffic
a. Trip Generation
Based on the projectIs proximity to the Brickell Avenue
Metrorali Station, 25 percent of Bally trips and 30
percent of peak -hour trips in 1986 were assumed to use
transit (Table 8). Remaining are 779 AM and 724 PM
peak -hour vehicle trips, approximately 13 percent of total
dally trip ends for each peak -hour period.
TABLE 8
PROJECT PERCENTAGE OF PERSON -TRIPS BY TRANSIT
Year
Deily
Peak -Hour
1986
25
30
1990
30
35
2000
40
45
SOURCE: ADA
32
83-856
0 0
b. Trip Assignment
The distribution of the 5,485 gaily, 779 AM peak -nor, ana
724 PM peak -hour vehicle trip ends was basea on the
results of the Applicant's orlgln/destination survey for
office uses conductea during July, 1982, and adjusted
projected population growth rates in Dade and Browara
counties. Unaer the proposed plan, vehicle access to and
egress from the site would occur from the intersections of
9rickell Ave./S.E. 7tn Street and S.E. Sth St./S. Bayshore
Drive.
C. Future Traffic
With the addition of project traffic, the Applicant
projects tnat, for the 21 study roadway segments,
peak -hour levels of service will deteriorate below LOS "C"
on only two additional segments: Brickell Avenue from
S.E. 12tn Street to S.E. 13th Street from PM peak -hour LOS
"E" to "F", and S.E. 8tn Street from Brlckell Plaza to
9rlckell Avenue from AM peak -hour LOS "C" to "D."
The project comprises from one to thirteen percent of
peak -hour traffic at the twelve critical intersections.
Table 9 shows the percentage attributed to project traffic
at eacn intersection. Due to project traffic, peak -hour
levels of service will deteriorate below LOS "C" at
33
0
Brickell Avenue/S.E. 8th Street, from AM peak -hour SOS "E"
to "F"; and S.E. 8th Street/South Bayshore Drive, from AM
and °M peak -hour LOS "E" to "F".
TABLE 9
PROJECT TRAFFIC COMPOSITION AT CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS
AM Percent
PM Percen`
intersect!on
of Total
of Total
Brickell
Avenue/S.E. 7th Street
13
11
Brickell
Avenue/S.E. 8th Street
9
1
Brickell
Avenue/Coral way
S
6
S. Miami
Avenue/South 7th Street
1
12
S. Miami
Avenue/South 8th Street
12
2
S.M. ist
Avenue/S.M. 7th Street
9
8
S.W. 1st
Avenue/S.M. 8tn Street
12
3
S.M. 2nd
Avenue/S.W. 7th Street
1
7
S.M. 2nd
Avenue/S.M. 8th Street
9
1
S.M. 1th
Avenue/S.M. 7th Street
5
3
S.M. 4th
Avenue/S.M. 8th Street
7
1
S. Bayshore Drive/S.E. 8th Street
12
12
SOURCE: ADA
Figure 7 illustrates 1986 peak -hour traffic with project
traffic added (unfunded roadway Improvements are not
considered In LOS calculations). The following section
delineates improvements necessary to offset project
Impacts and the extent to which they would achieve this
end.
4. Recommended improvements
Various roadway improvements In the Immediate vicinity of the
project, where the lowest levels of service would occur,
combined with several transportation systems management (TSM)
strategies, can reduce the adverse impacts that would otherwise
34
83-85C
0 FIGURE: 7 0
Projected 1986 Total Traffic
WITHOUT RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
! ,06 R
I
I
r
g--�'
eg ,"n� a n r
Q 19&6 AM Frok-hour L05 c C- AM ft� -hovv W5 Source: SFRPC
C l9blo PM ftmc- ttovr L05 Ip D- PM Pi a1944 W LDS, 83-85C
T D►Ytctlor of Pik Now lilt aFhev �itic4l irtevxctiorn nra q�e,•ctino) ar
LOS `C` ov ft4tev cluving both Rom, eaK hours.
10 0
result from the project. Brickell .Avenue from nortn of S.E.
7tn Street to south of S.E. 8th Street (Figure 8) should be
wlaenea from 4 to 6 lanes, with double left -turn lanes at both
;.�. ?TM and S.E. 9tn Streets. Tnis would require removal of
the existing median on this one block with the 6-lane
cross-section tapering to 4 lanes immediately north of 7th
Street and south of 8tn Street. Tne only necessary additional
right-of-way would be on the southeastern corner of Brickeii
Avenue and S.E. 8tn Street, which would be dedicated by
Tishman-Speyer/Equitable Joint Venture Development of Regional
Impact. In addition, an exclusive right -turn lane should be
provided for eastbound to southbouna movement and left turns
for westbouna to soutnbouna movement prohibited at S.E. 8th
Street.
These improvements, estimated to cost $260,000 (1983 dollars),
would significantly Improve levels of service at these two
Intersections: Brickell Avenue/S.E. 7tn Street, from AM
peak -hour LOS "C" to "B" and PM peak -hour LOS "F" to "D"; and
9rickell Avenue/S.E. 8tn Street, from AM peak -hour LOS "F" to
"C" and PM peak -hour LOS "D" to "A.'t
To improve the Intersection of South Bayshore Drive and S.E.
8th Street, the existing median along S.E. 8tn Street snoula be
removed and striped to allow for exclusive left -turn lanes of
36
83--85C
FIGURE 8% RECOMMENDED IMP JVEMENTS
BriCKeI I Ave. /Bayshore Dr./SIE- 8th St.
� ;'t i T�4v anrnoe
l
loodiftq area
III
�� ti0U111 SfYNw• OrNN �—
r
11f li
e
I�op=
` a
I }
Scale
firlek�f Ar�e+tN t uH - + �
Existing
Lane Configuration
tieut++ tt '1~9 prove
Signal - - - - - - - - - - -
.
I
I;-
uate length to provl:,e access to both the project ana the
man-Speyer/Eoultable development. South Bayshore Drive
la be restriped to 4 lanes, witn parking removed from the
hbound lanes between S.E. 8th Street and Ambassador Drive.
!xciuslve left turn lane would be neeaea for northbound to
bound movement at the intersection, with slgnallzatlon
�ssary by 1986. These improvements, estimated to cost
000 (1983 dollars), would improve levels of service from AM
-hour LOS "F" to "B" and PM peak -hour LOS "F" to "C."
w ding to the Applicant, the extension of South Bayshore
,e to the BrickelI Avenue/S.W. 7tn Street Intersection would
nor improve levels of service at Brlckell Avenue ana S.W. 7tn
and 8th Streets enough to warrant a public street through the
project. City staff, who once favored such an extension,
recently concurred with tnis view.
In conjunction with reconstruction of the 1-95/S.W. 8th Street
Interchange, It Is necessary to change S.W. 3ra Avenue between
S.W. 7th and S.W. 8tn Streets to two-way operation so that
traffic westbound on S.W. 7th Street may turn left at S.W. 3rd
Avenue to reach the interchange immediately south of S.W. 8tn
Street. The Council recommends a 3-lane cross-section for S.W.
3rd Avenue between S.W. 7th and 8tn Streets, with left -turn
lanes provioea at botn S.W. 7tn and Btn Streets.
t8
83-856
Brickell Avenue and Coral Way (S.E. 13tn Street) will continue
to operate at AM peak -hour LOS "01' and PM peak -hour LOS "E" due
to the physical constraints to any further improvement at that
intersection. The intersection should be monitored for any
sldnai rephasing that may be necessary as new projects are
aeveloped in the area.
The Applicant proposes several traffic management procedures
that can reduce peak -hour traffic flow: (1) preferential
and/or low-cost parking areas for high occupancy vehicles, (2)
participation in a car pool program for the entire Brickell
corridor with ride snaring Information boards conveniently
located within the project, and (3) shuttle bus service to the
Metrorall station.
With the increased amount of development that is allowed by the
revised City zoning, it is uncertain whether or not the above
improvements, though they be minor, would conform with those
necessary to serve the increased intensity allowed by the new
zoning over the long-range. The Applicant is to undertake, In
conjunction with the Tlshman-Speyer/Equitable development
Immediately to the south, a long-range study of the
transportation needs of the 1-95/Brickell Avenue area. Before
any of the publicly -programmed or developer -proposed roadway
improvements witnln the study area are consrructed, location of
39
83-85f
0 0
a transit mall determined, or plans to extend Brickell Plaza to
S.E. 7tn Street rejected, it Is in the best interest of all
parties involved, both public and private, to have an approvea
long-range transportation plan for the area which analyzes the
need for and timing of Improvements, Including tnose currently
Drogrammea. This study should also provide for maintenance of
traffic for roadways whose service is reduced or removed from
the system during construction.
Wltn the proposed construction of this and other projects east
of Brickell Avenue, pedestrian traffic will Increase. However,
until both the transit Improvements ana the planned
developments are In place, pedestrian volumes at particular
crossings are difficult to project. For this analysis, only
at -grade pedestrian movement was considered, with pedestrian
volumes estimated for the intersection capacity analyses. With
thirty percent of all trips and thirty-five percent of
peak -hour trips generated by the developments planned for the
Bricked corrdor expected to be transit trips by 1990, the
pedestrian volumes crossing Brickell at that time may require
one or more above graae crossings, especially if the proposed
transit mall along S. IOtn and 11th Streets is successful.
5. Parking and Service Deliveries
The project site currently provides parking for 737 vehicles
40
11 0
uding 111 under the Flagship Bank building. The 626 spaces
ing the Flagship Bank building in the surface parking lot
be replaced by 658 spaces in the Flagship garage resulting
net Increase of 32 spaces serving the existing office
ping. The nortnern garage will provide 1,308 parking
as, approximately one space per 573 square feet of gross
r area, which exceeds parking requirements in the September
1982 City Zoning Text.
aen the proposed office tower and parking structure are
t service and delivery vehicle loading docks. These docks
conform with the requirements of Section 2023.4 of the 1982
Miami Zoning Text, which requires five for office buildings
between 500,000 and 750,000 square feet, and two for
retail/restaurant space between 10,000 and 25,000. The Text
does not address stall requirements for mixed -use projects.
6. Mass Transit
The Dade County Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) currently
provides bus service to the project site witn four local and
six express routes. However, before Metrorall begins
operation, the entire MTA bus network will be redesigned and
redistributed to provide feeder bus service to rail stations,
improve service in areas already served by MTA, and expand
41
83-85C
0
service Into unserved areas of the County. A 25 to 33 percent
Increase In local and express service by 1986 Is envisioned for
the BrickelI area.
42
83-85C
... ..VMf
FAR' i, - Dt'.=LGPMENT ISSUES
A. EFFECTiVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN THE BRiCKELL AREA
Tne pas; several years have seen unpreceden+ea development In +ne
viclnl+y of ?rickell Avenue as well as In other subareas of aown+cwn
M►ami. A slgniflcan+ portion of aevelopmen+ Is a direct response +o
+he scheduled opening of Me+rorall and the proxlmlty of Me+rorall
s+a+Ions which permit and encourage higher density developmen+.
Absorp+lon of office space on Brlckell Avenue from 1965 through 1979
averaged only 86,000 square feet per year. The rate for the last
tnree years has been over 12 +Imes greater, with an average of over
356,000 square feet per year. Yet, in spite of more rapid
absorp+Ion, the vacancy rate in July, 1982 was only 0.8 percent,
which represents an extremely tight market.
Of the ten major projects (Table 10) proposed or under construction
in the Brickell area, nine are located on Brlckell Avenue or Soutn
Bayshore Drive. Only one project Is proposed for the Immediate
vicinity of the Brickell Metrorall Station. Altogether, over
2,818,000 square fee+ of office and retail use, and 1,115
residen+lal or hotel units are under construction or proposed. Tnis
is over twice the amount of development proposed or under
construction In the area when the Council reviewed the Development
of Regional Impact proposed for this site in 1980.
43
83-85C
TABLE 10
UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND PROPOSED PROJECTS
BRICKELL AREA
Estimated
Project
Completion
Nacre/Location
Type
Slze
Status
Date
1101 Brickell Avenue
Office
140,000
U/C
Dec., 1983
sq. ft.
Brickell Bay Office Tower
Office/
316,000
U/C
Oct., 1984
1101 S. Bayshore Drive
"Corporate
sq. ft.
Suites"
Brickell Key (Claughton
Residential
375
U/C
March, 1985
island)
units
Tishman Soeyer/Equitable
Office/
465,000
ADA
1986
S. Bayshore Dr. b S.E. 8 St.
Retail
sq. ft.
Lincoln/Nasher
Office/
750,000
ADA
1986
Brickell Ave. b S.E. 8 St.
Retail
sq. ft.
Helmsley Center
Office/
342.000
Proposed
1986
S. Bayshore between S.E. 12
Retail/
sq. ft.
and S.E. 14 Streets
Residential/
346 units
Hotel
285 units
Brickell financial Center
Office/
291,000
Proposed
1985-86
1301 Brickell Avenue
Retail
sq. ft.
Granview
Residential
67
Proposed
N/A
1100 S. Bayshore
units
Interbank Center
Office/
185.000
Proposed
1985
1177 Brickell Avenue
Retail
sq. ft.
One Brickell Station Plaza
Office/
329,000
Proposed
N/A
S.M. 1 Ave. b S.M. 8 St.
Retail/
sq. ft.
Residential
42 units
TOTAL
2,818,000
sq. ft.
1,115 res./
hotel units
Note: Status: U/C - Under construction
ADA - DRI Application for Development Approval Submitted
SOURCE: ODA
44 Q
The cum,jla+ive ana collective impacts of developments In the
arickell Area are of regional as well as local concern. The
Iona -term sec-jr►ty of major private investments ana realiza+ion of
+ne beneficial returns that tnese projects represen+ to +ne Region
In temporary and permanen+ employmen+, cons+ruction expenditures,
economic diversification and stabilization, and property +axes for
essen+lal services, all aepena on +ne avallabllity of adequate
public services and facllities, including transportation facilities
that provide the competitive accessibility neeaea to sl.,pport
existing development, as well as to attract and accommodate fit -ire
development. Tne importance of competitive accessibility to
regional activity centers is unaerscorea by the following Council
policy:
Competitive accessibility within ana between regional activity
centers, as measured by acceptable levels of service on local
and regional access routes, and provision of adequate parking,
should be maintained and, where possible, enhanced. (Section
29J-2.045(5), F.A.C., Policy 2).
The distinctive character of the Brickell corridor is being changea
by aevelopmen+s that nave received local approval without a full
assessment of the individual and collective Impacts that the
development will nave on the character of the area or on +he balance
between the capacity ana use of public facilities.
City police and fire department officials nave expressea concern
that, while a project Itself will have little effect upon the
departments' ability to provide adequate service, the collective
45
83-856'...
0
of individually-approvea projects pose an adverse Impact upon
?partmen4-'s service capability.
?a for the City to undertake a growtn and lnfras+ructure
ry s+uay, focussing on balancing +ne amoun+ of developmen;
hea wl+n the exls+ing and feasible expanded capaci+les of the
infras+ructQre serving +ne development, was recognizea by the
and the City curing review of the 1980 Nasher Plaza DRi. A
ion in +ne s+Ill active Development Order for Nasner Plaza
?a the City to:
—prepare, in conjunction with the Miami Accessibility and
)biltty Study, wltnin twelve months of this Development Order,
small area growth management study to balance the eesirea use
_f the Brickell, Miami Avenue, ana Dupont Plaza area as a major
business activity center with the public infrastructure
improvements necessary to support such use. The stuay must
result in recommenced land use plan and a program to support
the intensity of activity tnat will be permitted In the study
area. These recommendations shall be transmitted to Dade
County Department of Traffic and Transportation and the
Regional Planning Council for review and comment, prior to
their adoption by the City. Further, to implement the adopted
plan and program of Improvements, the City will formulate
mandatory procedures to evaluate the comprehensive and
collective impacts of development occurring wltnin +ne
Brlckell/Miami Avenue/Oupon+ Plaza Area.
To date, tnis study has no+ been undertaken. However, recognizing
the massive growth occurring In +he area and the Ilmltations to
aeslrabie development created by an overburdened transportation
system, Council, City, County, and State staff, in consultation witn
the Lincoln/Nasher Joint Venture and Tisnman-Speyer/Equitable Joint
46
83-856 .
Ven+ure developers, nave agreed +na+ a long range transpor+ation
analysls is necessary. Tnis analysis wili be based on the amo,.,nt of
aevelopmen' permitted under exis+ing and proposea zoning wi+nln a
ssjitable area (no smaller tnan +ne traffic Impact area used In the
sCA nor this projec+), grow+n In background +raffic, projec+ea
+ransl+ rlaersnip, penes+rlan movemen+s, programmed and planned
+ransporta+lon Improvemen+s, ana managemen+ s+ra+egles Including
on -site and remo+e parking. The study will incluae recommended
feasible transportation Improvemen+s and their cos+s as well as any
cnanges in land use regula+tons or zoning needed to maintain
competitive accesslbllity of the area and acceptable levels of
transportation service, or laen+lfy limitations on ultima+e
development imposed by the transporta+lon system when expanaea to
+ne maximum exten+ feasible.
Transportation improvements sufficlen+ to support currently proposed
and committed projects may no+ be able to support ultimate
development allowed In the area under Curren+ zoning. it is also
conceivable +na+ transportation Improvemen+s proposed to provide
t
needed capacity In 1986 may be incompatible with the +ransportatlon
system necessary to serve the area when it aevelops to the limit of
existing or proposed zoning.
The +wo Applicants, however, no+ wishing to postpone submission and
review of tneir ADAs until the longer range stuay was completed,
agreed to assist the public agencies by funding consultants to
47
83-85C -
the long range s+uay, ana to modify any transportation
amen+s required by +netr projects to conform with the long
+,jav recommenaa+tons.
review of the Tishman-Speyer/Equitable Joint Yen+ure AD.A in
983, the Council recommenaeo that 1) the long range study
be completed witnln one year of issuance of the aevelopmen+
ina s,.,bmittea for revlew ana approval to the Council, City,
and FDOT; ana Z) any transportation improvements required In
,elopment oraer that conflict wltn those recommenaea in the
Inge s+uay be moaiflea by Development Oraer amenament for
bill+y with necessary long range Improvements.
it was furtner recommended that the City take aavantage of the long
range access s+uay by determining current capaclties and capacities
after optimum expansion of all other public facilities and services
neeaea to support developmen+ in the area. This information would
allow the Clty to manage the amount of development permitted by its
plan and zoning to ensure that the level of service proviaea by
public facilities does not Impair the economic vltality ana
competitive aavantage of the Brickell area.
48
83-85C .
0 9
FUND I NG PUBL I C FAC I L I TY I MPROVDAE`JTS
The Council nas consis+en+ly held +ha+ financing required
transpor+a+ton improvements should be shared between the public
sector and priva+e developmen+ In+eves+s. Council policy Is that:
While
The public sector shoula f-ina +nose improvements which support
the general welfare of Its citizenry; promote public goals,
objectives, and plans; are reaulreo by existing or anticlpa+ea
traffic from previously-permlttea development; or that res,;It
from normal growth In "background" traffic (Section
29J-2.045(5), F.A.C., Policy 74)
Development sponsors should pay the marginal costs of upgrading
existing transportation facilities, or the full cost of
constructing new facilities, required by a specific development
proposal. (Section 29J-2.045(5), F.A.C., Policy 73).
in fulfilling its policy to
.,.recommend to local governments funaing arrangements for
transporta+ton improvements needed to maintain or restore
appropriate levels of service... (Sectlon 29J-2.045(5),
F.A.C., Policy 66),
the Councll's adopted policy is to
..assign Improvement costs and the responsibility for their
impiementa+lon to the public or private entity responsible for
creating the need for the improvement. (Sectlon 29J-2.045(5),
F.A.C., Policy 66).
As previously noted (Table 7), nearly $24 million of publicly-funaea
roaaway improvements are programmea In the traffic impact area, not
including public funding for transit construction and operation.
Additional transportation Improvements necessary to mitigate the
cumulative Impacts of project traffic projected for 1986 nave been
W]
83-85E.
00 9
es+ima+ed to cos+ $65,000 (1981 dollars) for res+rlping and
signaiizallon of the in+ersection at Sou+n Bayshore Drive and S.E.
8tn Street (Figure 8), and 1260,000 (1987, dollars) for improvemen+s
+o Brickell Avenue from north of S.E. 7tn -tree+ to sou+h of S.E.
Btn Stree+. The still active Developmen+ Orcer (City Resolution
80-790, as amenaea by City Resolutlon 82-1071) for Nasher Plaza
requires Improvements similar to ana consistent with +nose
recommended here. Under the conditions of tna+ development order,
the Nasher Plaza aeveloper was requlrea to pay an unspecified "pro
rata" snare for improvements +o Brickell Avenue, a signal at S.E.
8tn Street and South Bayshore Drive, and for an "advance signal" at
the exit of the Four Ambassadors Complex, provided con+ributions
from other developers or property owners in +ne area could be
obtained.
Recognitlon of the need for the recommended intersec+lon
improvements by the developers of the Lincoln/Nasher Joint Venture
and Tishman-Speyer/Equltabie Joint Venture DRis has resultea to both
parties offering to provide 50 percent of the cost of the Brickell
Avenue improvements and, In the event that a development oraer for
one project is Issued prior to the Issuance of a aevelopment order
for the other, to loan the unfunaea cost of the Improvements to the
City (which could be arranged through the purchase of bonds under
terms with Interes+ rates and maturity dates mutually agreed to by
the City and the developer, or other financing arrangements) until
the City woula be repala by other aevelopments contributing to the
50
83-856 .
0
9
need ;or the Improvemen+. Tnts snould be ex+ended +o include the
555,C00 cost (1983 dollars) of Improvemen+s +o +ne S.E. 8+n
S+ree+/Sou+n 9ayshore Drive In+ersectlon. The Applican+'s +raf`ic
analysis shows tna+ the Lincoln/Nasser Joint Ven+-jre project
con;ribu+es two-thirds of the combined traffic and
Tishman-Speyer/Equitable one-third. In Its review of the
Tishman-Speyer/Equitable DRi In June, 1980, the Council recommended
+o the City that the developer of tna+ project con+ribute one-tntra
of the cos+ of the improvements, witn the remaining two-thirds being
a front -ended loan to the City, reimbursable to the developer from
contributions from the developers of other projects in the area or
from City funds. It is recommended that the Applicant for the
currently proposed Lincoln/hasher Joint Yen+ure contribute the
remaining two-thirds of the cost of the transportation improvements.
Additional righ+-of-way is necessary on the east side of Brickell
Avenue from north of S.E. 7tn Street to soutn of S.E. 8tn Street.
Both the Applicant and the developer of the proposed
Tishman-Speyer/Equitable DRi nave indicated that the areas aajacen+
to their projects would be dedicatea to the City and the Council
did, in fact, recommend such dedication to the City in its review of
the Tishman DRi In June, 1983. No additional right-of-way is
necessary to construct the right turn lane from eastbouna S.E. 8tn
Street to soutnbouna Brickell Avenue on the soutnwest corner of that
in+ersectlon; however, plaza and landscaping of the building at 800
51
83-85C
Brlckell Avenue, on +ne sou+awes+ corner of Brlckell Avenue ana S.E.
S+n Street, extenas Into the roan right-of-way ana woula have to be
reconstruc+ea.
52
83-85E _
PART IV - SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The Developmen{ of Regional Impact assessment for Lincoln/Nasher Joint
Yen+ -ire indicates +na+ the project would nave a number of positive
regional impacts:
• Over 800 permanent new jobs would be generated by the project with an
additional 1,800 relocated from existing office space in the Region.
Nearly 1,750 additional full-time jobs would be generated in the four
county region, with a nearly $30 million Increase in total wages and
$71 million In value added to the regional economy.
An annual surplus of over $2.2 million dollars to taxing jurisdic+ions
with approximately $727,000 for Miami, $915,000 for Dade County,
$527,000 for the School District, and $72,000 for the South Florida
Water Management District and special districts combined.
e Improve public access to and quality of the Biscayne Bay Baywalk.
• The quality of stormwater runoff from the site should be substantially
improved by eliminating the surface parking tot.
Council evaluation indicates that the proposed project should not create
aaverse Impact on air quality, ground water, softs, animal life,
53
JB3.-8
5
V
vegetation, wastewater manaaement, or solid waste di=_oosal. In terms of
adverse regional Impact, the project would:
• Increase potable water demand by an average of 90,000 gallons per day.
increase annual energy demand within the Region by the equivalent of
25,650 barrels of oil.
• Generate an average of 5.3 tons, or 18.6 cubic yards, of solid waste
per day.
• Place additional demands upon police, emergency rescue, and fire
services, although the public agencies responsible for providing these
services have indicated capability to serve the project.
• Generate nearly 5,500 daily vehicle trips on the downtown street
network and, along with other development traffic, reduce levels of
service to "F" at three critical intersections, Inhere project traffic
comprises between 1 and 13 percent of total traffic, and below "C" on
two regionally -significant roadways in the traffic impact area.
However, Applicant participation In funding transportation
Improvements should maintain service at an acceptable level.
54
83-856.
1 it
Recommendation
Based on conslaera+ion of the above specified positive and negative
impacts, it is the recommendation of the Council to +ne Miami City
Commission +ha+ the Applica+ion for Development Approval for
Llncoln/Nasher Join+ Yen+ure be APPROVED subject to incorporation of the
following conditions into +ne Development Order to increase the
probability of realizing the positive regional Impacts and to reduce
adverse regional impacts:
THE APPLICANT WILL:
1. Obtain any permits from the Sou+n Florida Water Management District
required pursuant to Ch. 16K-4.021, F.A.C.
2. Conform to all requirements of the moratorium on construction
ordered by the Dade County Department of Environmental Resources
Management on May 18, 1983, covering a part of the Miaml-Dade Water
and Sewer Au+nori+y service area, Including the project site.
3. Use only native or acceptable non-native species and relocate and
use plant species existing on-slte In project landscaping.
4. Notify the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Dade County
Archaeologist at least two weeks prior to the expected date of
construction start, allow the site to be monitored during
55
83-856
E
cons+ruction, and delay cans+ruction to allow for removal of any
significant remains.
5. lmplemen+ best management practices to minl-nize air pollutlon,
Including traffic flow improvements pursuant to Condition 12 below;
encouraging +he use of mass transit, bicycles, and rldesharing by
provision of schedule and route information within +ne project
lobby or plaza, public seating near bus stops adjacent to the
project; secure, convenient bicycle s+orage for project visitors
and employees In the garage; and preferential carpool parking in
the garage and rlaesharing Information.
6. Incorporate Into the project the following energy conservation
measures:
• Air conditioning zoning to perm)+ operation of single floors or
multiple floors as a function of occupancy.
• Evalua+a, and use to the extent feasible, indivlaual metering of
electricity for each floor.
• Minimum use of Incandescent lighting in the building.
• Insulation equal +o or exceeding building code minimum.
• Highly reflective exterior glass and light colored walls.
• Limit water flow in lavatories to 1.5 gallons per minute.
• Domestic hot water temperatures set no higher tnan 105°F.
56
L73-85G .
1
E
• Reduced wattage Ilghting in corridors ana restrooms.
• Encourage use of task Ilghting by tenants.
• Open garage facades to increase natural ventilation.
• Evalua+lon of using kitchen waste nea+ to heat water.
• Compu+erized energy managemen+ system to limit HVAC and Ilgh+ing
system electrical demand.
• Evalua+e +he feasib111ty of a compu+erized elevator control
system to Improve demand response and energy efficiency and use
of local Ilghting switches to reduce Ilghting of unused space.
7. Develop, witnin one year of the date of iss,.:ance of the development
order, a fair share agreement wttn the City to provide funding for
police and fire capital improvements needed to serve the project.
S. Construct the building to allow for emergency hovering helicopter
evacuation from the roof of the office tower.
9. Collaborate with the City to Incorporate security measures and
systems into +he design and operation of the project.
10. Prior to the Issuance of building permits, aealcate, subject to
City and FOOT approval, adequate right-of-way for an addltlonal
lane of traffic on the east side of Brickell Avenue from the
northeast corner of the intersection of S.E. 8tn Street and
57
83-856.
1 'a
Brickell Avenue tapering ncrthward as illustrated in Figure 8 of
the Council Impact Assessmen+.
11. Conduct, and complete, wlthln ten (10) mon+ns of the date of
issuance of the development order, Individually or in coopera+ion
with other consultants approved by the City, a long range
transportation study for an area, no smaller than the traffic
Impact area for the Lincoln/Nastier Joint Venture DRi, to be
determined by the Council, Cl+y, County, and FOOT, incorporating
projections for growth in background traffic; ultimate development
traffic within the traffic Impact area, based on exis+ing and
proposed zoning; transit ridership; peaes+rian movements;
programmed and planned transportation Improvements; evaluation of
alternate Improvements and their estimated costs; and
transportation system management strategies, including on -site and
remote parking policies and standards. The study will also Include
recommended Improvements and tnelr costs, recommended land use
regulations, and any necessary changes in City zoning, or identify
limitations on ultimate development imposed by the capacity of the
transportation system, and submit to the Council, City, County,
and FOOT for review and approval.
12. Within two months of a determination by the City and the Council
tnat the transportation improvements recommended as a conaltlon for
approval of tnis development order, illus+rated in Figure 8, and
58
16
tna+ the publicly -programmed transportation improvements assumed in
+he •ADA, are compatible wltn the tong -range lmprovemen+s
recommended by the Council, City, Co.,n+y, and FOOT, the Applican+
will design, wl+n FOOT, Coun+y, and city approval, and within six
(5) mon+ns of tna+ approval, start cons+ruc+Ion of, or provide a
bond or letter of credl+ for $325,000 (1983 dollars) for the
cons+ruction of the recommended improvemen+s illustrated in Figure
8. The difference between +he S325,000 (1983 dollars) and +ne
Applicant's fair -share con+ribu+Ion of two-thirds of the cost of
both improvements to construct the recommended improvements Is a
front-enaea short term loan to the City, repayable under terms of
maturity dates and interest rates jointly agreed to by the City and
the Applicant. The Applicant may proceed to construct the
recommended improvements at the intersection of South Bayshore
Drive and S.E. 8tn Street, at its own financlal risk, prior to the
determina+ion of consistency by the City and Council as requlrea
above, in order to facilitate access to the site during
construction of the project.
13. In the even+ the transportation Improvements required pursuant to
Condition 12 above are inconsistent wl+n the transportation
improvements recommended In the long-range study, the Applicant
will design, and provide cost estimates for, comparable
improvements compatible wltn the recommended long-range
Improvements, ana snail submit tnis information to the City,
59
W-85C
0
16 V
County, FOOT, and the Council for review and approval prior to
amendment of the Development Order pursuant to Condition 22 below.
14. implemen+ all improvements to +he Baywalk within two (2) years of
the date of issuance of the development order. in +he even+ that
the City is able to obtain permits to fill the Bay inlet pursuant
to Condition 24 below, the Applicant will fill the Inlet, subject
to +he requirements of the permits, and complete compatible
development on the fill within one year of notification by the
CI+y.
15. Consolidate all original and supplemental information submitted to
the Council into a revised ADA, and submit the document to the
City, the Council, the Downtown Developmen+ Authority, the County
Oepartmen+ of Public Works, and the State land planning agency
within 90 days from the date of issuance of the Development Order.
THE CiTY WILL:
16. Rescind the existing development order for the Nasher Plaza ORi,
City Resolu+ion 80-791 as amended by City Resolution 82-1071.
17. Issue a special permit pursuant to Section 1552.1 of the Miami
Zoning Text for construction of the project as proposed In the ADA.
Ati
83-856
�, . A s
r ti is 4,
19. Wltnhold building permits until dealcallon of adequate right-of-way
for +ne additional rlgh+ lane north of S.E. 9tn Street along
erlckell Avenue, as shown in Figure 8 of the Councii's Assessmen;
Impact.
19. Enter into, wlthln one year of the date of issuance of the
development order, a fair -share agreement with the Applicant to
ensure the provision of any police and fire capital Improvements
needed to serve the project.
20. Review building plans, prior to the Issuance of building permits,
to ensure adequate allowance for emergency hovering helicopter
evacuation from the roof of the office tower.
21. Complete, within one year of the date of Issuance of the
development order, the public facility and service study described
on page 49 of the Council Impact Assessment.
22. In the event the transportation Improvements required pursuant to
Applicant Condltlon 12 above are inconsistent wltn the
transportation improvements recommended in the long-range study,
the Clty will review the proposed design and cost estimates for
comparable improvements compatible with the recommenced long-range
Improvements, developed by the Applicant pursuant to Conaltlon 13
above, and in conslaeratlon of the comments and recommendations of
61
83-856
I
.: tr`..t 3
the County, FDOT, and the Council, modify the Development Order to
reflect the changes in the required transporta+lon Improvemen;s.
23. Ensure that the required funds, bond, letter of credit, or
Appllcan+ commitment to construct the recommended roadway
improvements required In Condition 12 has been provided within two
months of the de+erminatlon by the City and the Council tnat the
recommended Improvements referenced in Condition 12 are compatible
with the recommended improvements as approved by the City, County,
FDOT, and Council.
24. In the even+ tna+ the Applicant provides a fron+-end loan +o the
City to construct the recommended roadway improvements according +o
Condition 12, secure, from other developments in +ne Brickell area
or from City funds, reimbursement for that portion of the cos+
determined to be in excess of the Applicant`s fair -share.
25. Collaborate with the Applicant to ensure incorpora+ion of security
measures and systems into the design and operation of the project.
26. Use its best efforts to obtain all permits necessary to fill the
Bay inlet and, when obtained, notify the Appllcan+ to complete
Baywaik improvements in the area of the Inlet conslsten+ witn
Baywalk design standards.
211
93-856.
27. Incorporate the Application for Development Approval, as revised
pursuant to Condition 15, by reference Into the Development Order
for Lincoln/Nasher Joint Venture as follows:
"Tne Application for Development Approval is incorporateIa
herein by reference and relied upon by the parties to
discharging their statutory au+les 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."
28. Incorporate the Council DRi Assessment by reference into the
Development Order.
29. Provide that the Developmen+ Order shall be null and void if the
following activities are no+ completed within two (2) years from
the date of Issuance of the Development Order: obtaining all
required permits; and begin construction of, or provide the funds,
bonds, or letters of credit for recommended surface street
improvements.
30. Specify monitoring procedures in the Development Order to insure
compliance with all specified conditions.
31. Designate an official to monitor compliance with all conditions of
the Development Order.
32. Specify requirements for an annual report In accordance wltn
Chapter 380.06(14)(c)(3).
63
f33-856 ..