HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-83-08211- 8 i- 8 0 7
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION CONTINUING THE PUBLIC BEARING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF A DEVELOPMENT ORDER
FOR THE LINCOLN/NASHER PROJECT, 623-799 BRICKELL
AVENUE, A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, FROM
THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1933, TO 2:30 PIM,
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1983.
WHEREAS, the Commission, by Resolution 83-545; June 15, 1983,
established a public hearing date to consider issuance of a Development
Order for the Lincoln/Nasher Project, a Develonment of Regional Impact,
which has been properly advertised for 2:30 PM Thursday, September 8,
1983; and
WHEREAS, the Commission, by Resolution 83-580; July 18, 1983,
changed the regular Commission meeting date from September 8 to
September 7, 1983; and by Resolution 83-673; July 28, 1983, changed the
regular Commission meeting: date of September 22 to September 29, 1983;
and
WHEREAS, further consideration of the issuance of a Development
Order for the Lincoln/Nasher Project is not timely because the Planning
Advisory Board has not made a recommendation as required by Ordinance
8290;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The public hearing date for consideration of issuance
of a Development Order for the Lincoln/Nasher Project, 623-799 Brickell
Avenue, a Development of Regional Impact, is hereby continued to 2:30
PM, Thursday, September 29, 1983,
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September , 1983.
Maurice A Ferre
MAYOR
ST:
r__,
RALPFI G. ONGIE, CITY CL
CITY COMMISSION
MEMITP4G OF
SE P 8 1983 SOLil1i01 No. 83-8214
REMARKS.
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
iv
41�
O,L E. MAXWELL DOSE R. GARCIA-PEDROSA
A SISTANT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY
r
EI
Howard V. Gary
City :tanager
i
J —
. ., .. ..�^r':. '. qr, :gip i-�, .. r Y• --:K�=n.�'tiTpi.3�+(1,.!:!,1JSKY'-'7r.��i ��-yi�`.t`.:-.. ..
6anggoDrpartrtment
iguez, Director
August 25, 1983
Continuation of Development of
Regional Impact Public Hearing
to September 29, 1983
Lincoln/Masher
Continuation of a public hearing for con-
sideration of the issuance of a Development
Order for the Lincoln/Nastier Project,
623-799 Brickell Avenue, a Development of
Regional Impact, from the special meeting of
September 8, 1983, to 2:30 PM, Thursday,
September 29, 1983, per the attached resolution.
The Development of Regional Impact public hearing date for the
Lincoln/Nasher Project, 623-799 Brickell Avenue, was properly
advertised (60-day notice) for 2:30 PM, September 8, 1983.
For the convenience of the public, the Commission subsequently
changed the Commission meeting date from September 8th to
September 7, 1983, by Resolution 83-580; July 18, 1983. The
second regular Commission meeting date was changed from
September 22nd to September 29, 1983, by Resolution 83-673;
July 28, 1983. It is recommended that the Development of
Regional Impact public hearing for the Lincoln/Nasher Project
be continued to 2:30 PM, Thursday, September 29, 1983.
Commission consideration of this item is not timely. The
Planning Advisory Board will consider their recommendations on
the Development Order and Major Use Special Permit at their meeting
of September 14, 1983. However, for the information of the Commission
the Planning Fact Sheet and recommendation and report of the South
Florida Regional Planning Council are attached.
It is further requested that this item be entered on the special
City Commission agenda of September 8, 1983.
SR/JWTM/vb
Attachments
cc: Law Department
83•-8216
y �. . •.� -
•
' .. ... .. � .. . �'1' 1 � .. ' l�� ,1 ft ' �/'. ! .1n1•.l• },f �'a -l..• , Y .-•.i,'KF'.4i.1Y77s+3i4E�:'��!;� Vi4f'.
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO Howard V. Gary
City Manager
FROM , ,
rg Rodriguez, Director
nning Department
DATE August 18, 1983 FILE:
SUBJECT. Lincoln/Nasher DRI
REFERENCES:
ENCLOSURES ••
Per the City Commission's response in conjunction with the change
of the City Commission meeting dates, and the legal notice for
the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) for the Lincoln/Nasher
Project, it is necessary that the Mayor call a special meeting
for September 8th, at the September 7th Commission meeting. A
quorum of the Commission at the September 8th meeting will be
needed to continue the hearing regarding the Lincoln/Nasher DRI
until September 29th as additional information is required.
The DRI hearing was advertised. for September 8th, 60 days prior
to the hearing date as required by state law, and neither the
Urban Development Review Board or the Planning Advisory Board
have made their recommendations yet. These two boards are
scheduled for August 24th and September 14th respectively.
SR:ROW: aw
PLANNING FACT SHEET
APPLICANT Lincoln Property Company/Raymond D. Nasher Com�any;
July 1, 1983
PETITION APPROXI.MATELY 623-799 BRICKELL AVENUE
NASHER SUB (117-90)
Consideration of recommendations concerning i8suance
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 ADA 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.
83-821
ANALYSIS
RECOHMENTDATIONS
PLANNING DEPT.
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.
83-8211
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
FOR
LINCOLN/NASHER JOINT VENTURE
Located In Mlaml, Dade County
62.22
SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
July, 1983
83-821LI
south florida regional planning council
1515 n.w. 167th street, suite 429, miami, florida 33169 305/621-5871
June 23, 1983
The Honorable Maurice Ferre
Mayor, City of Miami
P.O. Box 330708
Miami, Florida 33133
Dear Mayor Ferre:
At its next meeting, the Council will review the staff report on the
Lincoln/Nasher Joint Venture Development of Regional Impact, a copy of
which is attached.
Representatives of the City are invited to attend the meeting which will
be held on Monday, July 11, 1983 at 9:30 a.m. at the Howard Johnson's,
16500 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Miami.
If you have any questions, please call me.
Since ly,
M. arry, eterson, AiCP
Executive Director
MBP/mk
Enclosure
cc: Walter Wolfe (Applicant)
Raymond Nasher (Applicant)
Joe McManus (Miami)
Roy Kenzie (DDA)
Alan Gold (Consultant)
Harvey Bernstein (Dade DPW)
Susan Couchanhour (SFWMD)
'-Jerry Wentzel (Consultant)
James Nicholas (Consultant)
Trish Ernst (Consultant)
Rafael Rondon (Dade DERM)
Gary Kresel (DCA)
Armando Vidal (FDOT)
83-821,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LISTOF
FIGURES.......................................................
I
LISTOF
TABLES........................................................
ti
INTRODUCTION...........................................................
1
PART1.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................:
4
A. APPLICANT INFORMATION ..................................
4
B. PROJECT INFORMATION ....................................
4
PART
II. SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS
11
A. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES ......................
11
B. ECONOMY ................................................
13
C. PUBLIC FACILITIES ......................................
18
D. TRANSPORTATION .........................................
26
PART
111. DEVELOPMENT ISSUES .........................................
43
A. EFFECTIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN THE BRICKELL AREA .......
43
B. FUNDING PUBLIC FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS ...................
49
PARTIV.
RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................
53
83-821
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
Title
Page
1
Location Map ...... .. . . . . . • . . . .... . . .. . .. . . .... • .. . .. .. .
5
2a
Site Plan - Plaza Level ................................
6
2bSite
Plan - Grade Level ................................
7
3
Project Cross -Section .................................
9
4
Project Traffic Impact Area ...........................
27
5
Existing Peak -Hour Traffic Conditions .................
28
6
Programmed and Planned Transportation Improvements .....
30
7
1986 Total Traffic .....................................
35
8
Recommended Improvements ...............................
37
83-821!
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
Title
Page
1
Proposed Development Components ..........................
8
2
Construction Expenditures ................................
14
3
Construction Impacts . .. .. . .. . . • . . .. ... . . . . . . . . ... .. • ... ..
15
4
Project Employment .......................................
16
5
Employment Impacts .......................................
17
6
Fiscal Impacts ...........................................
19
7
Programmed Transportation Improvements Summary ...........
29
8
Project Percentage of Person -trips by Transit ............
32
9
Project Traffic Composition at Critical Intersections ....
33
10
'Under Construction b Proposed Projects (Brickell Area) ...
44
83-8211
f
INTRODUCTION
In July, 1980, the Council reviewed an Application for Development
Approval (ADA) for Nasher Plaza, a Development of Regional impact located
on the site of the currently proposed project - Lincoln/Nastier Joint
Venture. The formerly proposed project was to contain 285,570 gross
square feet of office and commercial space, and 1,592 off-street parking
spaces In a multi -level garage.
Council review of the Application concluded 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 with
four intersections in the primary impact area projected to operate at
unacceptable levels of service during the peak hour in 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 funds needed
to implement the necessary public improvements, with costs equitably
distributed among proposed developments benefitfing from and needing
expanded public facilities.
The Council recommended that the project be approved subject to 12
conditions. On October 30, 1980, the City Commission adopted Resolution
#80-791 approving the issuance of a development order with conditions.
83-821
6
5
At its December 15, 1980 Councll Meeting, the Councll recommended to not
appeal the development order. A modification to the development order
extending the deadline for substantial development from two to four years
was Issued by the City on November 10, 1982 (Resolution #82-1071) and
reviewed by the Council in January, 1983. The Councll approved a motion
to not appeal. Thus, a development order for the site is still in
effect, with substantial development required by October 3, 1984. The
current application represents a significant modification to the formally
approved Nasher Plaza development. UntlI amended by the Issuance of a
development order for the presently proposed project or a lapse of the
development order, the existing development order remains valid.
This assessment of the proposed Lincoln/Nasher Joint Venture office
complex has been prepared by the South Florida Regional Planning Council,
as required by the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act,
for all Developments of Regional Impact.
The assessment Is based 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
conducted by Council staff where needed.
in accordance with the Act, this report Is intended to provide the City
of Miami and the State of Florida with an overview of positive and
negative impacts likely to result from approval of the proposal. The
2
83-8z1
9 t
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 "aevelopment order" (an order granting, denying, or
granting with conditions an application for a development permit) Issuea
with regard to this project should be transmitted to the South Florida
Regional Planning Council and the Florida Department of Community
Affairs.
P
83-821
0
PART I - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. APPLICANT INFORMATION
Project Name: Llncoln/Nastier Joint Venture
Applicant: Lincoln Property Company/
Raymond D. Nasher Company Joint Venture
c/o Lincoln Property Company, Penthouse
777 Brickell Avenue
Miami, Florida 33131
Date of Acceptance of Application: June 9, 1983
Date of Transmittal of Notice of Local Public Hearing: N.A.
Loca' Government Hearing Date: September 8, 1983
Type of Development: Office/Retail
Location of Development: Miami, Dade County
B. 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 Bay on the east, and Brickell Avenue on the west
(Figure 1). The 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 with the existing Flagship Bank building. Development
is proposed to commence in 1983 with completion In the Fall of 1985.
4
8;3-821
L-J
f
I LINCOWMASHER .JOINT VENTURE DRI
FIGURE 1
Source: SF PC
83-821
0
�f.
YNYr
INLET
r- - - -
FIGURE 2A 4;
srTE. ".-_pLW! .
Source: ADA
WC.1—j
A
,/O•IfG• Law
11
_ I
• l '
• I
.EGEW r
'r•�fta s r,l•►
ft lft Y.
FIGURE 2s 19
SITE PLAN^GRADE LEVEL
Source: A DA
•W_
0.
0 0
The office tower is to contain 737,600 gross square feet consisting
of 690,800 square feet of office and 46,800 square feet of lobby,
retail, service, and mechanical areas ('fable 1). Reaching about 440
feet above street level, the office tower is.to contain 32 floors of
offices above a lobby and retail area (Figure 3). The attachea
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
Bank building will provide 658 spaces and be connected to the
existing Flagship Bank building via a bridge.
TABLE 1
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPONENTS
Component Gross Square Feet
Existing Flagship Building 299,840
Existing Drive -In Bank 885
Nasher Plaza Office Building 737,377
Retail 5.203
Restaurant 6,747
Flagship Garage 178,850
Nasher Plaza Garage 365,711
TOTAL 1,594,613
SOURCE: ADA
The 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
8
83-821t
0
A
*a, ITH
FIGURE 3
PROJECT CROSS SECTION
SOURCE: ADA
•
decorated, is also accessible from Brlckell Avenue via grade level
pedestrian access along the north edge of the site. Mobility
handicapped individuals could reach the 6alwalk by either 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 and restaurant areas. Service access to the retail
areas and the office tower would be from grade level In the garage.
An eight -bay truck dock, including trash storage and pick-up area,
Is proposed inside the garage under the proposed office tower while
the service area of the existing Flagship Bank building will remain.
The proposed garages, Including 111 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, Brlckell-Miami River Residential
Office District. Established under a 1982 amendment to the Miami
Zoning Text, the Special Public Interest (SPI) District for the
Brlckell area requires a special permit for construction of any new
principal structure, or modification of any vehicular way or
exterior configuration of an existing building. The uses proposed
by the Applicant - office, financial institutions, ancillary retail,
restaurants, and off-street parking - are uses permitted In the
zoning district.
10
83-821,
PART it - 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.
11
83-C 21-
0
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 wetlands
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.
Floodplalns
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,
wlth 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
83-821L
i
11
the Baywalk along Biscayne Bay, using BO percent native species
and 20 percent acceptable exotic species of trees and plants.
Existing black olive trees will be incorporated in the Baywalk
landscape.
5. Historical and Archaeological Sites
The project site, according to the Dade County Archaeologist,
is located wlth,in 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.
B. ECONOMY
1. Project Cost
As Indicated in Table 2, the project is estimated by the
Applicant to cost a total of $123 million (1983 dollars). An
estimated $108 million, or 87 percent, is to be spent to the
four -county region, including Palm Beach.
13
83-821
0
3.
Expenditure Item
Land
Labor
Material
Interest
Preliminary Planning
Other
TABLE 2
CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES
Cost
t 28,000,000
34,500.000
34,500,000
25,000,000
690,000
613,000
1123,304,000
Percent
in Region
100
t00
70
80
50
90
87
Construction Empioyment and Associated Regional Economic
Impact
The 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 (1983
dollars) with an average $23,600 per employee -year.
The Councils input-output model, developed specifically for
the South Florida Region plus Palm Beach County, projects a
cumulative effect of about 3,160 jobs in the four -county area,
representing $56.0 million In total wages, and $70.8 million in
net value added to the regional economy (Table 3).
Permanent EmployMent
i(pproximately 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 with about 30 of
14
83-821
TABLE 3
CONSTRUCTION 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.
MINING
2.
5.
0.
8.
0.
CONSTRUCTION
135.
1708.
7.
1870.
85.
MANUFACTURING
33.
86.
0.
120.
29.
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
16.
79.
1.
95.
7.
WHOLESALE TRADE
(RETAIL TRADE
9.
109.
35.
172.
0.
7.
44.
287.
4.
57.
INS. AND REAL ESTATE
56.
116.
1.
173.
26.
(FINANCE,
SERVICES
86.
211.
4.
301.
45.
GOVERNMENT
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
TOTAL
467.
2413.
21.
2901.
256.
B. TOTAL WAGES (1000 S)
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING
8.
26.
0.
33.
76.
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
14.
23.
5.
43.
15.
MINING
34.
76.
5.
115.
59.
CONSTRUCTION
2734.
34553.
150.
37437.
1540.
MANUFACTURING
518.
1668.
8.
2194.
358.
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
290.
1248.
18.
1555.
140.
WHOLESALE TRADE
168.
666.
11.
644.
100.
RETAIL TRADE
1145.
1670.
$2.
2898.
577.
FINANCE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE
864.
1963.
30.
2856.
459.
SERVICES
1163.
2667.
79.
3908.
644.
GOVERNMENT
33.
67.
2.
101.
19.
TOTAL
6970.
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.
76.
7280.
1171.
SERVICES
2545.
5836.
172.
6554.
1410.
GOVERNMENT
45.
94.
2.
141.
26.
TOTAL
19974.
132225.
1044.
153243.
11794.
b. 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.
1915.
94.
3327.
662.
FINANCE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE
1510.
3431.
52.
4993.
803.
SERVICES
1562.
3581.
106.
5249.
$65.
GOVERNMENT
35.
77.
2.
114.
21.
TOTAL
9597.
55068.
513.
65178.
5625.
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
SOURCE: SFRPC
15 83-821
0
these in retailing and personal services (Table 4). The
Applicant estimates only 800 employees (31 percent) would be
new to the Region.
TABLE 4
PROJECT EWLOYMENT
Activity
Transportation, Communication,
b Utilities
Wholesale
Retail
Finance. Insurance & Real
Estate
Services
TOTAL
SOURCE: ADA
Number of Employees
67
67
30
1,610
847
2,621
Council estimates for the four -county area indicate that new
employment in the project would generate an additional 1,735
net new Jobs (with 248, 1,347, 11, and 130 in Broward, Dade,
Monroe, and Palm Beach, 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, and the miscellaneous (Library and
Downtown'Development Authority) taxing districts. Using 1982
mlllage rates and an assumption that 31 percent (800) of the
tL
83-821
TABLE 5
EMPLOYMENT 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.
MINING
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
CONSTRUCTION
It.
18.
0.
29.
6.
MANUFACTURING
10.
25.
b.
35.
8.
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
9.
71.
0.
80.
4.
WHOLESALE TRADE
5.
20.
0.
25.
2.
RETAIL TRADE
71.
114.
4.
189.
38.
FINANCE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE
78.
623.
2.
704.
37.
SERVICES
63.
474.
3.
539.
33.
GOVERNMENT
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
TOTAL
248.
1347.
it.
1605.
130.
B. TOTAL WAGES (1000 S)
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING
4.
15.
0.
20.
45.
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.
6.
473.
56.
RETAIL TRADE
727.
1067.
52.
1845.
366.
FINANCE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE
829.
11891.
29.
12749.
441.
SERVICES
910.
8393.
62.
9364.
504.
GOVERNMENT
53.
123.
3.
179.
30.
TOTAL
3238.
24244.
186.
27668.
1798.
C. VALUE OF OUTPUT (1000 S)
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING
21.
72.
0.
93.
212.
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
37.
62.
14.
112.
41.
MINING
S.
17.
1.
26.
13.
CONSTRUCTION
1401.
1998.
77.
3476.
789.
MANUFACTURING
839.
2609.
13.
3551.
579.
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
7!)i.
4798.
46.
5596.
362.
WHOLESALE TRADE
189.
749.
12.
949.
113.
RETAIL TRADE
1655.
2430.
its.
4204.
634.
FINANCE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE
4292.
61538.
148.
65978.
2283.
SERVICES
1905.
17571.
129.
19605.
1055.
GOVERNMENT
76.
174.
4.
254.
43.
TOTAL
11174.
92107.
562.
103843.
6325.
D. VALUE ADDED (1000 S)
AGRICULTURE. FORESTRY, FISHING
It.
35.
0.
46.
105.
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
20.
34.
8.
62.
23.
MINING
5.
11.
1.
16.
8.
CONSTRUCTION
242.
345.
13.
601.
136.
MANUFACTURING
296.
951.
5.
1251.
204.
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
535.
3415.
33.
3983.
258.
WHOLESALE TRADE
121.
480.
8.
608.
72.
RETAIL TRADE
836.
1227,
60.
2122.
421.
FINANCE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE
2946.
42237.
101.
45284.
1567.
SERVICES
1272.
11738.
$6.
13096.
705.
GOVERNMENT
59.
137.
3.
199.
33.
TOTAL
6342.
60610.
317.
67270.
3532.
Note: Numbers may not total aue to rounaing.
SOURCE: SFRPC
17 83-821-
0
2,620 Jobs wlII be new positions, the net flscat 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 District and special districts
combined (Table 6), for a cumulative annual regional surplus of
$2,241,000.
C. PUBLIC FACILITIES
1. Wastewater Management
Wastewater flows from the project would be handled by the
Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Authority, which has indicated it
has sufficient capacity to serve the projected average of
90,000 gallons per day and 360,000 gallons at peak flow.
2. Drainage
Existing on-slte drainage discharges into detention tanks that
retain the first Inch of stormwater runoff, reducing total
runoff from the site and pollutants in the remaining runoff by
about 80 percent. The proposed project would provide further
retention of runoff in on-slte wells for a 5-year storm of 6
Inches over a 12 hour period, required by the Dade 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
Adminlstrative Code, prior to commencement of construction.
18
83-821
r
TABLE 6
FISCAL IMPACTS
NAME OF DEVELOPMENT LINCOLN/NASHER JOINT DEVELCINENI
LOCATION
CITY MIAMU
COUNTY DADS
SPECIAL DISTRICT
SCHOOL DISTRICT
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT NONRESIDENTIAL
TYPE OF DWELLING UNIT
SINGLE-FAMILY
MULTI -FAMILY MOBILE -HOME
NUMBER OF UNITS
0
0
0
NUMBER OF STUDENTS PER WIT
0 00
O 00
0 00
NUMBER OF PERSONS PER UNIT
0 00
0 00
O 00
TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS O
TOTAL NUMBER OF STUDENTS 0
RESIDENT POPULATION O
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 2620
ANALYSIS CONDUCTED USING AVERAGE COEFFICIENTS
EXPENDITURE CATEGORIES
CITY
COUNTv
SPECIAL DISTRICT
SCHOOL DISTRICT
GENERAL GOVERNMENT •
92758
• 42"0
• 79
PUBLIC SAFETY •
107791
! 46295
• 0
HEALTH AND WELFARE •
2994S
• 4760S
• 1546
RECREATlOW AND CULTURE •
4188E
• 1938E
• 0
TRAN&PORTATION •
25250
• 7226t
• 472
NATURAL RESCIURCES •
93"sO
• 435,11
• 79
FULLIC WCd:YS •
54415
• 3:103F
• 105B5
MISCELLAEEOOUS •
6240E
• 996:9
• 104
EDUCATION EXPENDITURES
• p
EMICATiON ANNUAL DEPT
SERVICE AND CAPITAL OUTLAY
• 0
SPECIAL CAPITAL FACILITY
ANNUAL EXPENDITURES •
0
• O
• O
• C'
— REVENUE CATEGORIES
CITY
COUNTY
SPECIAL DISTRICT
SCHOOL DISTRICT
PROPERTY TAXES •
969162
• 550204
! 10814s
• 5261;4v
OTHER TAKES •
42918
• 40051
• 0
SERVICE CHARGES •
IVS61
! 232692
! 3119
OTHER NO -TAX LOCAL REVENUE •
19027
• 15170
! O
STATE INTEROOVERDRENTAL !
35021
• som
! 0
FEDERAL iNILROOVETSOIENTAL 0
60765
! 1456"
! 262
STATE EDUCATIONAL
! 0
FEDERAL EIOU"TtONAL
• 0
MISCELLANEOUS 0
105162.
! 275965
! 0541
• 0
ONE-111E REVELS 0
0.
! O
• 0.
! 0
CITY
COUwTY
IPECIAL DISTRICT
SCHOOL DISTRICT
TOTAL
TOTAL NEW WdUAL EIPENOITLNtES !
423772.
• 404633
• 47867
! 0
• 976272
— TOTAL NEW ANNUAL IIEVEWMS 0
11506"
• 1319700
• 12006E
! 526549
! 3117135
8 3 -8 2
NET SLMPLUS 4 DEFICIT 1 !
72704E
0 915067
0 721"
6 $26549
! 2240663
Existing surface parking area wlII be replaced by the parking
garage, plaza, and office building. Runoff from roofed areas
Is significantly less polluting than runoff from open parking
areas. The Applicant projects pollutant loads of 816 lbs./year
of suspended solids, comparea with 4,078 lbs./year before
retention. Pollutant retardant structures would be installed
in the collection systems and regularly maintained, to remove
pollutants from washdown water.
3. Water Supply
The Applicant estimates potable water consumption to average
90,000 gallons per day, to be supplied by the Mlami-Dade 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 would be served by the Alexander Orr Water
Treatment Plant. This moratorium applies to the Lincoln/hasher
project. DERM is administering this moratorium and has
Indicated that projects that would not be occupied 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 mgd capacity, is
expected -to be completed in 12 to 18 months. The peak potable
water demand of this project would be 0.937 percent of proposed
water treatment capacity increase.
20
83-821
Ll
Solid Waste
Solid waste generated by the project is expented 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 hauling company under contract
and disposed of by the Dade County Solid Waste Disposal
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
83-821I
The developer has proposed the following energy conservation
• Air conditioning zoning to permit operation of single floors
or multiple floors as a function of occupancy.
• Evaluation, and use to the extent feasible, of individual
metering of electricity for each floor.
• Minimum use of incandescent lighting In the building.
• Insulation equal to or exceeding building code minimum.
• Use of highly reflective exterior glass and light colored
• Limit water flow in lavatories to 1.5 gallons per minute.
• Domestic hot water temperatures set no higher 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 Ilght V)g system electrical demand.
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
83-8211
0
Recreation and Open Space
The Appilcant proposes to carry the tropical nature of BrIckelI
Avenue landscaping into the project by providing palm and
canopy tree plantings along the Brickei•I frontage leading to
pedestrian access to Biscayne Bay. This access is prov)aed by
two routes, along the north boundary of the site, ana 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-toot wide, lighted walkway, lined with
Royal Palms and seating areas along the water. The southeast
portion of the existing bayfront contains an excavated and
seawalled water intrusion area. Although the Appilcant 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 imprc,� inlet edge and extend
the Baywalk along it to S.E. 8th Avenue. The Applicant also
proposes to extend the Baywalk 85 feet to the north of the
site, and is holding discussions with the adjacent property
owner to gain permission. This would also provide a 'IT" to
facilitate turn around of emergency vehicles.
23
83-821,
7. Health Care and Fire
Emergency medical service is available under County contract
with Randle -Eastern Ambulance Service, the closest branch of
which is near S.W. ist Street and S.W. 27th Avenue. Average
response time of Randle -Eastern is estimated at eight minutes;
the fastest time at three minutes. Their contract with 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. Back-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 office bullding, the Applicant
should Insure that the building can be evacuated in an
emergency. In addition to whatever other measures might be
24
83-821
required by the Fire Department, the Applicant should ensure
that the office tower allows for emergency hovering helicopter
evacuation from the roof.
8. 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.
�R
83-821I
D. TRANSPORTATION
1. Existing Traffic
The traffic impact area (Figure 4) is bounded by the Mlaml
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 dally traffic (ADT) flow in Dade County) on
a dally 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:
Brlckell Avenue/S.W. 7th Street, Brlckell Avenue/S.W. 8th
Street, S. Bayshore Drive/S.W. 8th Street, and Brlckell
Avenue/Coral Way. Figure 5 Illustrates 1982 peak -hour levels
of service on the twenty-one study roadway segments, and at
four intersections near the project. Two of the latter
currently have undesirable levels of service during the PM
peak -hour: Brlckell Avenue/S.W. 7th Street, LOS "D"; and
Brickell.Avenue/S.W. 8th Street, LOS "D."
26
83--821,
FIGURE 4
Prftect Traffic Impact A*3
I�
iSC �vD wr
r•aa*a_•
LINCOLN/
NASHER
'fir
Source: SFRPC 83-�32i
FIGURE 5
Existing *eak-Hour Traffic Cottions
lop, 0- 99 140609 CO �C Source : FR C
-1982 AM Peak -Hour LOS C- AM fta -Hvuv WS
C
C 19B 2 � PM Ptak -Hour LO5 �p C- PM PcoK- %ow Los 83-821
-Direclion of pGa1c Flow All vWtw (rific4) irtcvxctiom arc ojxra+i►� of
or-,,L05or-,,OY WicY dvvinD bath pep 1'►�urs
a 0
2. Programmed and Planned Roadway Improvements
Numerous transportation improvements (Table 7)0 estimated to
cost $23,827,000 (1983 dollars), are either programmed or
planned within the traffic impact area, .the majority of which
have been budgeted. As most of these improvements were
identified on an ad -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 have 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
improvement
Construction
lost•
S. Miami Ave. Bescule Bridge Structure
1982-83
S8,910.000
S. Miami Ave. Brl.j)e Approaches
1983-84
7,840,000
S. Miami Ave. Bridge Approaches
1984-85
1,710.000
S.W. 2nd Ave. Bridge (Design 6 Right of
May Only)
1985-86
1,100,000
S.M. 7th St./S.M. 8th St. Widening 6
Reconstruction
1983-84
31308,000
S.W. 8th St./1-95 Interchange Reconstruction
1984-85
476,000
S.M. 10th St./S.W. fist St. Transit Mail
1984-65
463,000
Metrorall, Rapid Transit (Brickell Service)
1982-83
N/A
Metromover, Downtown People Mover
(Brickell Service)
1986-87
N/A
TOTAL
$23.827,000
0 1983 Dollars.
SOURCE: ADA
29
83-821
lb FIGURE: 6 0
Programmed and Planned Transportation Improvements
4 Lane
pria9e
ca A aro
IW ohs)
W
Widtninq : 10 31Anf9
7wq-
woy
• Rt,g�r4ac
2211111S nBS2 0
aat�on5
-o
Source : SFRPC
(c-lane "p-
7
MIp"1
a to w
O
4!
S
TRANSIT
MALL w,
u
Isw lz 5�
i5C LVO M
Recommen4ea
vowwav /�1
Imprmement4
:C1Csea IWO)
q W
Q N�
to
r
v
� Mtersecti or►
cdificaticn
.1
Q
83-821
0 a
The most significant roadway improvement programmed In the area
is reconstruction of the Miami Avenue Bridge and approach
ramps, anticipated to be completed to FY 1984-85. More
immediate improvements, scheduled for FY 1983-84, are the
widening and reconstruction of S.W. 7th Street to 3 lanes,
one-way westbound, Brickell Avenue to S.W. 12 Avenue and the
resurfacing of S.W. 8th Street from 1-95 to Brickell Avenue.
This will Improve access to 1-95 northbound from the Brickell
area.
Peak hour reversal of the direction of traffic on S.W. 7th and
8th Streets has been recently analyzed by the Applicant as a
means of increasing peak -hour capacities for AM peak -hour
eastbound 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 driveways.
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 Dadeland
south to the downtown Government Center Station, in December,
1983. The north leg is scheduled to begin service during
December, 1984, connecting the Government Center Station with
the Okeechobee Station in Hialeah. The Brickell Station, three
31
blocks southwest of the project at S.W. 1st Avenue and S.W.
1Oth Street, is the Metrorall stop dlosest to the project. A
transit mall, along S.W. 10th and 11th Streets, is programmed
for FY 1984-85 to provide feeder bus service to the Brickell
Station.
In addition, 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 located on Brickell Plaza
Immediately north of S.W. 8th Street.
3. Project Traffic
a. Trip Generation
Based on the project's proximity to the Brickell Avenue
Metrorall Station, 25 percent of daily 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
daily trip ends for each peak -hour period.
TABLE 8
PROJECT PERCENTAGE OF PERSON -TRIPS BY TRANSIT
Year Dally Peak -Hour
1986 25 30
1990 30 35
2000 40 45
SOURCE: ADA
32
83-821.
6
it
b. Trip Assignment
The distribution of the 5,486 dally, 779 AM peak -hour, and
724 PM peak -hour vehicle trip ends was based on the
results of the Applicant's orlgln/destination survey for
office uses conducted during July, 1982, and adjusted
projected population growth rates In Dade and Broward
counties. Under the proposed plan, vehicle access to and
egress from the site would occur from the intersections of
Brickell Ave./S.E. 7tn Street and S.E. 8th St./S. Bayshore
Drive.
C. Future Traffic
With the addition of project traffic, the Applicant
projects that, 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. 12th Street to S.E. 13th Street from PM peak -hour LOS
"E" to "F", and S.E. 8th Street from Brlckell Plaza to
Brickeli 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 each intersection. Due to project traffic, peak -hour
levels of service will deteriorate below LOS "C" at
33
83-821
Brickell Avenue/S.E. Sth Street, from AM peak -hour LOS "E"
to "F"; and S.E. 8th Street/South Bayshore Drive, from AM
and PM peak -hour LOS "E" to "F".
TABLE 9
PROJECT TRAFFIC COMPOSITION AT CRLTICAL INTERSECTIONS
AM Percent
PM Percent
Intersectlon
of Total
of Total
Brickell
Avenue/S.E.
7th
Street
13
11
Brickell
Avenue/S.E.
Sth
Street
9
1
Brickell
Avenue/Coral
Way
5
6
S. Miami
Avenue/South
7th
Street
1
12
S. Miami
Avenue/South
Sth
Street
12
2
S.M. 1st
Avenue/S.W.
7th
Street
9
e
S.W. 1st
Avenue/S.W.
8th
Street
12
3
S.W. 2nd
Avenue/S.W.
7th
Street
1
7
S.W. 2nd
Avenue/S.W.
Oth
Street
9
1
S.W. 4th
Avenue/S.W.
7th
Street
6
3
S.W. 4th
Avenue/S.W.
Sth
Street
7
1
S. Bayshore Drive/S.E. Oth
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,
cort::ined with several transportation systems management (TSM)
strategies, can reduce the adverse impacts that would otherwise
34
83-82i
Gl
O
C
i FIGURE: 7 0
Projected 1986 Total TratTlc
WITHOUT RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
196(o AM kok- ttovr L05
lgblp PH R;ak- }tour 1.45
Jr
M� AM I R_.
E R
G
CIE) C- AM Ptak-ticvy Los
D- PM iea(- wuv LOS
M
• •
LINCOLN/
NASHER
07
Source: SFRPC
83-821
T Direction of Fhak now Al dhp, lriot4l w4avxd-iom arm o%1 ar
LOS'r-` or bc+tcr duvinq both peak hours.
4
0
result from the project. Brlckell Avenue from north of S.E.
7th Street to south of S.E. 8th Street (Figure 8) should be
widened from 4 to 6 lanes, with double left -turn lanes at both
7th and S.E. 8th Streets. This 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 8th Street. The only necessary additional
right-of-way would be on the southeastern corner of Brlckell
Avenue and S.E. 8th Street, which would be dedicated by
Tishman-Speyer/Equitable Joint Venture Development of Regional
In addition, an exclusive right -turn lane should be
provided for eastbound to southbound movement and left turns
for westbound to southbound 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: Bricked Avenue/S.E. 7th Street, from AM
peak -hour LOS "C" to 118" and PM pear• -hour LOS "F" to "D"; and
Brlckell Avenue/S.E. 8th Street, from AM peak -hour LOS "F" to
"C" and PM peak -hour LOS "D" to "A."
To Improve the Intersection of South Bayshore Drive and S.E.
8th Street, the existing median along S.E. 8th Street should be
removed and striped to allow for exclusive left -turn lanes of
36
83-821'
FIGURE 8: RECOMMENDED IMF' OVEMENTS
th t.
Rricl� I I Ave. / Eayshore Dr./.. _. 8 S
II!
II
I
—
0
food, n9 ores
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
6wh So shW 011VO
Signal - - - - - - - - - -
i
I I I
II i
I I I
I I I
I I
t
I
I
a
i S
t
i -
I I I
I
I
2
s
II I
i I i
I
i
1 Scale e t
f
I
1
J
1
I New Pavement
�r1ekN A•�ew t Nd - �
� 1
8a7�C7A
I��
,
Proposed
+�
Lane Configuration
0.,1 1r,i► • CCIDQ
Recommendation
Based on constderatlon of the above specified positive and negative
Impacts, it is the recommendation of the Council to the Miami City
Commission that the Application for Development Approval for
Lincoln/Nasher Joint Venture be APPROVED subject to incorporation of the
following conditions Into the 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 South 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 Miami -Dade Water
and Sewer Authority service area, including the project site.
3. Use only native or acceptable non-native species and relocate and
use plant species existing on -site 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
Il
construction, and delay construction to allow for removal of any
significant remains.
5. Implemen+ best management practices to minimize air pollution,
including traffic flow improvements pursuant to Condition 12 below;
encouraging the use of mass transit, bicycles, and ridesharing by
provision of schedule and route information within the project
lobby or plaza, public seating near bus stops adjacent to the
project; secure, convenient bicycle storage for project visitors
and employees in the garage; and preferential carpool parking in
the garage and ridesharing information.
6. 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 hlgher than 105°F.
56
83-8211
0
174
7
a Reduced wattage lighting in corridors and restrooms.
Encourage use of task lighting by tenants.
• Open garage facades to Increase natural ventllatlon.
• Evaluation of using kitchen waste heat to heat water.
Computerized energy management system to Ilmit HVAC and Ilghting
system electrical demand.
Evaluate the feasibility of a computerized elevator control
system to Improve demand response and energy efficiency and use
of local fighting switches to reduce fighting of unused space.
7. Develop, within one year of the date of Issuance of the development
order, a fair share agreement with the City to provide funding for
police and fire capital improvements needed to serve the project.
8. 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 the design and operation of the project.
10. Prior to the issuance of building permits, dedicate, subject to
City and MOT approval, adequate right-of-way for an additional
lane of traffic on the east side of Brlckell Avenue from the
northeast corner of the intersection of S.E. 8tn Street and
57
83-821
lk
Brickell Avenue tapering northward as illustrated in Figure 8 of
the Council impact Assessment.
11. Conduct, and complete, within ten (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
transportation study for an area, no smaller than the traffic
impact area for the Lincoln/Nasher Joint Venture DRI, to be
determined by the Council, City, County, and FDOT, Incorporating
projections 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 transportatlon 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 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 and approval.
12. Within two months of a determinatlon by the City and the Council
that the transportatlon improvements recommended as a condition for
approval of tnis development order, illustrated in Figure 8, and
58
83-821,
tnat 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 Appllcan+
will design, witn FDOT, County, and Cit,,,, approval, and within six
(5) months of that approval, start cons+ruction of, or provide a
bond or letter of credit for $325,000 (1983 dollars) for the
cons+ruction of the recommended Improvements Illustrated in Figure
8. 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 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 financial risk, 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.
13. 'in the event the transportation Improvements required pursuant to
Condition 12 above are inconsistent with the transportation
Improvements recommended In the long-range study, the Applicant
will design, and provide cost estimates for, comparable
improvements compatible with the recommended long-range
Improvements, and shall submit this Information to the City,
59
83-821,
County, FDOT, and the Council for review and approval prior to
amendment of the Development Order pursuant to Condition 22 below.
14. Implement all improvements to the Baywalk within two (2) years of
the date of issuance of the development order. in the event 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 the requirements of the permits, and complete compatible
development on the fill within one year of notification by the
City.
15. Consolidate ail original and supplemental Information submitted to
the Council into a revised ADA, and submit the document to the
City, the Council, the Downtown Development Authority, the County
Department of Public Works, and the State land planning agency
within 90 days from the date of issuance of the Development Order.
THE CiTY WILL:
t
16. Rescind the existing development order for the Nasher Plaza DRI,
City Resolution 80-791 as amended by City Resolution 82-1071.
17. Issue a speclai permit pursuant to Section 1552.1 of the Miami
Zoning Text for construction of the project as proposed In the ADA.
83-821,
18. Withhold building permits untll dedication of adequate right-of-way
for the additional right lane north of S.E. 8th Street along
Brickeil Avenue, as shown in Figure 8 of the.Councii's Assessment
Impact.
19. Enter into, within one year of the date of Issuance of the
dcvelopment 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. Comple+e, within one year of the date of issuance of the
developmen+ order, the public facility and service study described
on page 48 of the Council Impact Assessment.
22. In the event the transportation improvements required pursuant to
Applicant Condition 12 above are inconsistent with the
transportation Improvements recommended in the long-range study,
the City will review the proposed design and cost estimates for
comparable Improvements compatible with the recommended long-range
improvements, developed by the Applicant pursuant to Condition 13
above, and In consideration of the comments and recommendations of
61
83-821,
0
the County, FDOT, and the Council, modify the Oevelopmen+ Order to
reflect the changes in the required transportation improvemen+s.
23. Ensure that the required funds, bond, letter of credit, or
Applican+ commitment to construct the recommendea roadway
improvements required in Condition 12 has been provlaed within two
months of the determination by the City and the Council that 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+ that the Applicant provides a front-end loan to the
City to construct the recommended roadway improvements according to
Condition 12, secure, from other developments in the Brtckell area
or from City funds, relmbursement for that portion of the cost
determined to be in excess of the Applicant's fair -share.
25. Collaborate with the Applicant to ensure Incorporation of security
measures and systems into the design and operation of the project.
26. U^.e Its best efforts to obtain all permits necessary to fill the
Bay inlet and, when obtained, notify the Applicant to complete
Baywalk improvements in the area of the inlet consistent with
Baywaik design standards.
Cy,
83-821
,W
0
4r
27. Incorporate the Application for Development Approval, as revised
pursuant to Condition 15, by reference into the Development Order
for Llncoin/Nasher Joint Venture as follows:
"Tne Application for Development Apprcticl is lncorporateld
herein by reference and relled upon by the parties in
dlscharging 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."
28. Incorporate the Council DRI Assessment by reference Into the
Development Order.
29. Provide that the Development Order shall be nut and vold if the
following activities are no+ completed within two (2) years from
the date of issuance of the Development Order: ob.`aining all
required permlts; and begin constructlon 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 Developmen+ Order.
32. Specify requirements for an annual report In accordance with
Chapter 380.06(14)(c)(3).
63
83-821:
adequate length to provide access to both the project and the
Tishman-Speyer/Equitable development. South Bayshore Drive
should be restriped to 4 lanes, with parking removed from the
southbound lanes between S.E. 8th Street and Ambassador Drive.
An exclusive left turn lane would be needed for northbound to
westbound movement at the intersection, with signall'zation
necessary by 1986. These improvements, estimated to cost
$65,000 (1983 dollars), would improve levels of service from AM
peak -hour LOS "F" to "B" and PM peak -hour LOS "F" to "C."
According to the Applicant, the extension of South Bayshore
Drive to the Brickeli Avenue/S.W. 7th Street intersection would
not improve levels of service at Bricked Avenue and S.W. 7th
and 8th Streets enough to warrant a public street through the
project. City staff, who once favored such an extension,
recently concurred with this view.
In conjunction with reconstruction of the 1-95/S.W. 8th Street
interchange, It is necessary to change S.W. 3rd Avenue between
S.W. 7th and S.W. 8th 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. 8th
Street. The Council recommends a 3-lane cross-section for S.W.
3rd Avenue between S.W. 7th and 8th Streets, with left -turn
lanes provided at both S.W. 7th and 8th Streets.
38
83-821
0
Brickell Avenue and Coral Way (S.E. 13th Street) will continue
to operate at AM peak -hour LOS "D" 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
signal rephasing that may be necessary as new projects are
developed 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 sharing 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 Tishman-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 within the study area are constructed, location of
39
83-821'
0 0
a transit mall determined, or plans to extend Brickell Plaza to
S.E. 7th Street rejected, it Is In the best interest of all
parties involved, both public and private, to have an approved
long-range transportation plan for the area which analyzes the
need for and timing of improvements, Including those currently
programmed. This study should also provide for maintenance of
traffic for roadways whose service is reduced or removed from
the system during construction.
With the proposed construction of this and other projects east
of Brickell Avenue, pedestrian traffic will Increase. However,
until both the transit Improvements and 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
Brickell corrdor expected to be transit trips by 1990, the
pedestrian volumes crossing Brickell at that time may require
one or more above grade crossings, especially If the proposed
transit mall along S. 10th and 11th Streets Is successful.
5. Parking and Service Deliveries
The project site currently provides parking for 737 vehicles
40
Including Ill under the Flagship Bank building. The 626 spaces
serving the Flagship Bank building in the surface parking lot
will be replaced by 658 spaces in the Flagship garage resulting
in a net increase of 32 spaces serving the existing office
building. The northern garage will provide 1,308 parking
spaces, approximately one space per 573 square feet of gross
floor area, which exceeds parking requirements In the September
23, 1982 City Zoning Text.
Between the proposed office tower and parking structure are
eight 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 with four local and
six express routes. However, before Metrorail 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
83-821-
0 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 Brtckell area.
42
83-821-
PART lii - DEV=LOPMENT ISSUES
A. EFFECTIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN THE BRiCKELL AREA
The pas+ several years have seen unpreceden+ed development in the
vicinity of Brlckell Avenue as well as in other subareas of down+own
Miami. A significan+ portion of development is a direct response to
the scheduled opening of Metrorail and the proximity of Metrorail
stations which permit and encourage higher density development.
Absorp+Ion of office space on Brlckell Avenue from 1965 through 1979
averaged only 86,000 square feet per year. The rate for the last
three years has been over 12 times greater, with an average of over
356,000 square feet per year. Yet, In spite of more rapla
absorption, 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 Brlckell area, nine are located on Brlckell Avenue or South
Bayshore Drive. Only one project is proposed for the immediate
vicinity of the Brlckell Metrorail Station. Altogether, over
2,818,000 square feet of office and retail use, and 1,115
residential or hotel units are under construction or proposed. This
is over twice the amount oi development proposed or under
construction in the area when the Council reviewed the Development
of Regional Impact proposed for this site In 1980.
43
83-821
0 0
TABLE 10
UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND PROPOSED PROJECTS
BRICKELL AREA
Estimated
Project
Completion
Name/locatlon
ape
Size
Status
Date
1101 Brickell Avenue
Office
140,000
U/C
Dec., 1983
sq. ft.
Brickell Say 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 Speyer/Equitable
Office/
465,001)
ADA
1986
S. Bayshore Or. d S.E. 6 St.
Retail
sq. ft.
Lincoln/hasher
Office/
750,000
ADA
1986
Brickell Ave. & 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. i Ave. 8 S.M. 8 St.
Retell/
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% DOA
44
8:3-821
a 40
The cumulative and collective Impacts of developments In the
Brlckell Area are of regional as well as local concern. The
long-term security of major private investments and realization of
the beneficial returns that these projects represent to the Region
In temporary and permanen+ employment, construction expenditures,
economic diversification and stabilization, and property taxes for
essential services, ail depend on the availability of adequate
public services and facilities, including transportation facilities
that provide the competitive accessibility needed to support
existing development, as well as to attract and accommodate future
development. The importance of competitive accessibility to
regional activity centers is underscored by the following Council
policy:
Competitive accessibility within and 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 Brlckell corridor is being changed
by developments that have received local approval without a full
assessment of the individual and collective impacts that the
development will have on the character of the area or on the balance
between the capacity and use of public facilities.
City police and fire department officials have expressed concern
that, while a project itself will have little effect upon the
departments' ability to provide adequate service, the collective
45
83-821
The cumulative and collective Impacts of developments In the
Brickell Area are of regional as well as local concern. The
long-term security of major prlvate investments and realizatlon of
the beneficial returns that these projects represent to the Region
In temporary and permanen+ employment, construction expenditures,
economic diversification and stabilization, and property taxes for
essential services, all depend on the availability of adequate
public services and facilities, including transportation facllltles
that provide the competitive accessibility needed to support
existing development, as well as to attract ana accommodate future
development. The importance of competitive accessibility to
regional activity centers is underscored by the following Council
policy:
Competitive accessibility within and 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 changed
by developments that have received local approval without a full
assessment of the individual and collective impacts that the
development will have on the character of the area or on the balance
between the capacity and use of public facilities.
City police and fire department officials have expressed concern
that, while a project itself will have little effect upon the
departments' ability to provide adequate service, the collective
45
83--821
0 44
number of indlvldually-approved projects pose an adverse Impact upon
both departmen+'s service capability.
The need for the City to undertake a growth and infrastructure
capacity study, focussing on balancing the amount of development
permitted with the existing and feasible expanded capacities of the
public infras+ructure serving the development, was recognized by the
Councll and the City during review of the 1980 Nasher Plaza DRI. A
condition in the stIII active DeveIopment.Order for Nasher Plaza
required the City to:
...prepare, in conjunction with the Miami Accessibility and
Mobility Study, within twelve months of this Development Order,
a small area ggrowth management study to balance the desires use
of the Brickell, Miami Avenue, and Dupont Plaza area as a major
business activity center with the public infrastructure
improvements necessary to support such use. The study must
result In recommended land use plan and a program to support
the Intensity of activity that 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
mandltory procedures to evaluate the comprehensive and
collective impacts of development occurring within the
Brickell/Miami Avenue/Dupont Plaza Area.
To date, this study has not been undertaken. However, recognizing
the massive growth occurring in the area and the limitations to
desirable development created by an overburdened transportation
system, CouncI4, City, County, and State staff, in consultation with
the Llncoln/Nasher Joint Venture and Tlshman-Speyer/Equitable Joint
46
83-821
0
0
Venture developers, have agreed that a long range transportation
analysis is necessary. This analysis will be based on the amount of
development permitted under existing and proposed zoning within a
suitable area (no smaller than the traffic impact area used in the
ADA for this projec+), growth In background traffic, projected
transit ridership, pedestrian movemehts, programmed and planned
transportation Improvements, and management sera+egies Including
on -site and remote parking. The study will include recommended
feasible transportation improvements and tnelr costs as well as any
changes in land use regulations or zoning needed to maintain
competitive accessibility of the area and acceptable levels of
transportation service, or identify limitations on ultimate
development imposed by the transportation system when expanded to
the maximum extent feasible.
Transportation improvements sufficient to support currently proposed
and committed projects may not be able to support ultimate
development allowed In the area under current zoning. It is also
conceivable that transportation Improvements proposed to provide
needed capacity In 1986 may be Incompatible with the transportation
system necessary to serve the area when it develops to the ►imlt of
existing or proposed zoning.
The two Applicants, however, not wishing to postpone submission and
review of their ADAs until the longer range study was completed,
agreed to assist the public agencies by funding consultants to
47
83-821,
conduct the long range study, and to modify any transportation
improvemen+s required by their projects to conform with the long
range s+udy recommendations.
In Its review of the Tishman-Speyer/Equitable Joint Venture ADA In
June, 1983, the Council recommended that 1) the long range study
should be completed within one year of Issuance of the development
order and submitted for review and approval to the Council, City,
County, and FOOT; and 2) any transportation Improvements required in
the development order that conflict with those recommended In the
long range study be modified by Development Order amendment for
compatibility with necessary long range Improvements.
it was further recommended that the City take advantage of the long
range access study by determining current capacities and capacities
after optimum expansion of all other public facilities and services
needed to support development in the area. This information would
allow the City to manage the amount of development permitted by its
plan and zoning to ensure that the level of service provided by
public facilities does not impair the economic vitality and
competitive advantage of the Brickell area.
48
83-821
B. FUNDING PUBLIC FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
The Council has consistently held that financing required
transportatlon improvements should be shared between the public
sector and private development interes+s. Council policy is that:
While
The public sector should fund those Improvements which support
the general welfare of its cittzenry; promote public goals,
objectives, and plans; are required by existing or anticipated
traffic from previously -permitted development; or tnat result
from normal growtn 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 funding arrangements for
transportation Improvements needed to maintain or restore
appropriate levels of service... (Section 29J-2.045(5),
F.A.C., Policy 66),
the Council's adopted policy is to
..asstgn improvement costs and the responsibility for their
implementation to the public or private entity responsible for
creating the need for the improvement. (Section 29J-2.045(5),
F.A.C., Policy 66).
As previously noted (Table 7), nearly $24 million of publicly -funded
roadway improvements are programmed In the traffic Impact area, not
Including public funding for transit construction ana operation.
Additional transportation improvements necessary to mitigate the
cumulative Impacts of project traffic projected for 1986 have been
49
83-821
4
estimated to cost $65,000 (1983 dollars) for restrlping and
slgnallza+ton of the intersectlon at Sou+h Bayshore Drive and S.E.
8tn Street (Figure 8), and $260,000 (1983 dollars) for improvemen+s
to Brtckeii Avenue from north of S.E. 7tn Street to south of S.E.
8tn Street. The still active Development Order (City Resolution
80-790, as amended by City Resolution 82-1071) for Nasher Plaza
requires Improvements similar to and consistent with those
recommended here. Under the conditions of tha+ development order,
the Nasher Plaza developer was required to pay an unspecified "pro
rata" share for improvements to Brickell Avenue, a signal at S.E.
8th Street and South Bayshore Drive, and for an "advance signal" at
the exit of the Four Ambassadors Complex, provided contributions
from other developers or property owners in the area could be
obtained.
Recognition of the need for the recommended intersectlon
improvements by the developers of the Lincoln/Nasher Joint Venture
and Tishman-Speyer/Equitable Joint Venture DRis has resulted in both
parties offering to provide 50 percent of the cost of the Brickell
Avenue improvements and, in the event that a development order for
one project is issued prior to the Issuance of a development order
for the other, to loan the unfunded cost of the Improvements to the
City (which could be arranged through the purchase of bonds under
terms with interest rates and maturity dates mutually agreed to by
the City and the developer, or other financing arrangements) until
the City would be repaid by other developments contributing to the
50
8 3-8 1
need for the improvement. This should be extended to include the
$65,000 cost (1983 dollars) of Improvements to +he S.E. 8tn
Street/South Bayshore Drive Intersectlon. The Applicant's traffic
analysts shows that the Lincoln/Nasher Joint Venture project
contrlbutes 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 recommendea
to the City that the developer of tnat project contribute one-tnird
of the cost of the improvements, with 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/Nasher Joint Venture contribute the
remaining two-thirds of the cos+ of the transportation improvements.
Additional right-of-way is necessary on the east side of Brickell
Avenue from north of S.E. 7th Street to south of S.E. 8tn Street.
Both the Applicant and the developer of the proposed
Tishman-Speyer/Equitable DRI have Indicated that the areas adjacent
to their projects would be dedicated 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 eastbound S.E. 8tn
Street to southbound Brickell Avenue on the southwest corner of that
Intersectlon; however, plaza and landscaping of the building at 800
51
813- S- 21
11
0
Brickell Avenue, on the southwest corner of Brickell Avenue and S.E.
8tn Street, extends Into the road right-of-way and would have to be
reconstructea.
52
83-821,
E,
PART IV - SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The Developmen+ of Regional Impact assessment for Lincoln/Nasher Joint
Venture Inalcates that the project woula have a number of positive
regional impacts:
e Over 800 permanent new Jobs would be generated by the project with an
additional 1,800 relocated from existing office space to 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.
e An annual surplus of over $2.2 million dollars to taxing jurisdictions
with approximately $727,000 for Miami, $915,000 for Dade County,
$527,000 for the School District, and $72,000 for the South Florlaa
Water Management District and special districts combined.
e Improve public access to and quality of the Biscayne Bay Baywalk.
e The quality of stormwater runoff from the site should be substantially
Improved by eliminating the surface parking lot.
Council evaluation indicates that the proposed project should not create
adverse Impact on air quality, ground water, soils, animal life,
53
83-821
vegetation, wastewater management, or solid waste disposal. 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 dally vehicle trips on the downtown street
network and, along with other development traffic, reduce levels of
service to "F" at three critical Intersections, where project traffic
comprises between 1 and 13 percent of total traffic, and below "C" on
two regionally-signtftcant roadways in the traffic Impact area.
However, Applicant participation In funding transportation
Improvements should maintain service at an acceptable level.
54
83--821