HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-83-0695J-83-0A19 1
A '?I�SOLL•'I'IO:; �;�'`:C'I:°;:I.:'' �i{i: �}: -.LI, �..1.UI:':'I' ,�_':l)
DI; ELO '11-_:,'I' ()I.'Rf.'('TC1:�AT.
I''l," .CT. LOCATED AT A"""n`-iIN�ATE:L`' I1RIC[J-1I,T,
AVENUE, MIAIII, FLORID.%, AUTIi0KI','IN'G ISSUANCE 01: is
D;.%'ELOI"iI:NT
SAID PR.OJI;CI' WITH PODIFICATTONS, AFTEIP COINSID11"T';G
THE' REPORT AND ".!,CO"�"I ,NTMATI(�N�' OF Tt", 1i01''!l I'L)RIDA
REGIONAL PLANNTNG COUNCIL AND THE "LA`NING, ADVISORY
BOARD OF TIIE C; T' OF IIA:TI , AS pl.pL'I ;EJ '?�' THE'('TT�'
01' `IIAVII ORDINANCE, 8290, AND AFTER COVXICTING A
PUCLIC HEARING A:, REOL'Ii,ED 31' CHAOTER: •'80.06 FLPRIDA
STATUTES, SAID APPROVAL AND AUTIIORTZATION SUEJECT TO
THE CONDITIONS OF THE DF.V!,'LOP`TENT OpDER ATTACHED
HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A" AND THE APT'LICATIO,I FOR
APPROVAL INCORPORATED fill' REFERENCE:
FURTHER DI2ECTING THE CITY CLERv, TO SE:TD THE
HL•'REIN RESOLUTION AND SAID DEVELO"ITENIT O''.DER TO
AFFECTED AGENCIES AND TO THE DEVELODER,
.Ti-EREAS, Eauitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
and Tishman -Speyer Properties, a joint venture, has submitted a
complete Application for Development Approval for a Development of
Renional imnact to the South Florida Reoional nlannin- Council pursuant
to Section 380.06 Florida :statutes, and did receive a favorable recor-inenda-
tion for a proposed development order, June 6, 1933, as set forth in the
nenort and Recommendations of the South Florida 'regional Planning Council
designated Exhibit "B", on file with the Office of the City Clerk; and
TJIIEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting Feld on
July 20, 1933, Item 1113, followinc; an advertised hearin- adopted
Resolution No . DA3 97S3 by a 6 to I, vote, recomrlendinQ a"nroval of. the
Development Order for the SE 3th Street and Brickell Avenue Project, a
Development of Regional impact; and
WHEREAS, a recommendation from the ^-.iami Planning Advisory Board
has been forwarded as required by Ordinance 8290; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has conducted a public hearing., con-
sidered the Report and pecornrlendations of the South Florida Regional
Planning Council, each element required to be considered by Section
380.06(13) Florida Statutes and considered the recommendation of the
Planning Advisory Board; and
CITY1� c<x._:I! iUTJ
JUL 28 1983
:OLUIlUtj i,u. V ��i�✓1�
REl,^.AhKS
1.1:ii11"KEA", , the Ci t% Corrmi ws ion hj3s deLer--.t1i ned that ri I l le_,al re(tlire-
muiit-�. oi- ,)tih I i caL ion <it the puh tic heari_n,�, Co i- the i �sunnce o1 the nro-
i)O<4 (! Deve lopir ent. Order- h.i-,'e been camp li.e(t %% i th : ,end
1•.'If1:R!"AS, Lhe City Commission deems it �tdvis,3ble and in the hest
interetits or the general welF;ire o1 the Ci.t%, of "iami to issue a Develop -
merit Order for the Development of Regional Impact, as hereinafter set
forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE W111ISSION OF THE CIT.' OF
MIAMI , FLORIDA:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Section 1. The following findings of fact are made with respect
to the nroiect:
a. The Commission has determined that the project is in conformity
with the adopted Miami Comnrehensive "neighborhood Plan.
b. The Commission has determined that the project is in accord
with the district zoning classification of Zoning Ordinance
9500.
C. The City Commission finds that the project would not create
adverse impact on air quality, ground water, soils, animal
life, vegetation, wastewater management or solid waste disposal,
and further finds that it would have a number of positive
impacts includinc:
(:) Over 600 permanent new jobs would be generated by the
project with an additional 1,040 relocated from existing
office space in the Region. Nearly 1,300 additional full-
time jobs would be generated in the four county region,
with nearly $20.9 million increase in total wages and
$49.8 million in value added to the regional economv.
(2) An annual surplus of nearly $1.6 million dollars to
taxing jurisdictions with anpr_oximately $612,000 for
:Miami, $493,000 for Dade County, $391,000 for the
School District, and $72,000 for the South Florida
1•later Management District and special districts combined.
83-69'4.
(;) The (}u;Ili0 runoff free, the site should
he sI.rhst:;�nti;rl.ly ii:rnrc,ved l>1.' clir.lin,rtin t:he :;u-iace
nrrrlcin't lot .
d. The Cit•:' (.'ommission finds that the adverse impacts related to
w.3ter dem;rnd, cner�,,y demiind, solid T,;aste--eneration, demands on
nubli_c services and traffic generation will be mitiu,ated by the
conditions set forth in rxhibit "A".
Section 2. A Development Order, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
and made a ;)art hereof: by reference, anor.oving with modifications, the
SE 8th Street and Brickell .tivenue Project, a Development of Regional
Impact, proposed by Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
and Tishman-Spever Properties, a joint venture, for all that Portion of
Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, '.Jest of Ri_aht-of-`.Jav, Block 104 South,
BRICKELL'S ADDITION TO 'IIA^II, as amended, (B-113), approximately
801-999 Brickell Avenue, be and the same is hereby granted and issued.
Section 3. The Application for Development Annroval is incorporated
herein by :_•eference and relied upon by the parties in discharging their
statutory duties under Section 380.06, 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.
Section 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to send
certified copies of this Resolution immediately to the Florida Depart-
ment of Veteran and Community Affairs, Division of Local Resource Manage-
ment, 2571 Executive Center Circle East, Tallahassee, Florida, 32301;
to the South Florida Regional Planning Council, 3440 Hollywood Boulevard,
Suite 140, Hollywood, Florida, 33021, and to Tishman-Spever Properties,
777 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33131.
Section 5. The recitals of fact referred to in the herein "Whereas"
clauses are true and correct and made a Dart hereof.
83-f 9!54
ADOPTED this L i d "i%, o 1- 1983
'L, A. Forre — -
I A YO R
ATTEST.
ALPY G. ONGIE, CITY C L E IZ,-
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
JOEL E. MMXWELL/
A�SISTANT CITY/ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
c
83-694j.
i
EXHIBIT "A"
ATTACHMENT TO
RESOLUTION 83-695
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 July 28, 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 801-999 Brickell Avenue, being
All that portion of Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, Block
104 South, according to the amended map of BRICKELL'S
ADDITION TO MIKMI, a copy of which amended map is re-
corded in Plat Book "B" at Page 113, of the Public
Records of Dade County, Florida, lying West of the
Right -of -Way conveyed to the City of Miami, Florida,
for street purposes, which said Right-of-Wav is more
fully described in that certain deed dated -November 18,
1959, filed for record in Official Records Book 2076,
Page 436, May 26, 1960, under Clerk's File No. 60R-94813,
Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Section 12,
Township 54 South, Range 41 East.
ALL OF THE FOREGOING SUBJECT TO any dedications, limita-
tions, restrictions, reservations or easement of record.
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 regulations 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 755,000 gross square feet of
floor area, comprised of the following elements as specified
by the applicant in the Application for Development Approval.
Element Gross Building Spaces
Area (sq.ft.)
Office Tower (30 stories)
--Offices (29 stories)
--Retail (1st floor)
--Restaurant (1st floor)
--Lobby/Garage Access
Tower Subtotal
Parking Garage
Total
450,000
5,000
10,000
6,000
471,000
284,000
755,
1,100
83-*695
This project proposed a landscaped plaza of at least 25,000
square feet in area at ground level; the height of the office
tower proposed is an average of 390 feet above street level
(Brickell Avenue) or approximately 400 feet in elevation
(MSL) as further described and limited in Site Plan H-2, and
Elevation H-3 and the architectural model presented by the
Applicant at the City Commission public hearing of July 28,
1983.
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 Brickell-Miami River
Residential Office District, Zoning Ordinance 9500, the
Urban Development Review Board, on May 18, 1983, approved
the project, per conceptual plan and design schematic
plans on file dated May 18, 1983, with the following
parameters for the site under development, bounded by
Brickell Avenue, SE 8th Street, S. Bayshore Drive and a
private road:
Element
Office Tower (29 stories)
(exclusive of area outside
windows)
Retail
Total
Plaza (ground level):
Parking Garage (9 stories):
Open Space:
Pedestrian Open Space:
Height of Office Tower:
Height of Parking Garage:
Floor Area
(sq.ft.)
385,265
14,000
399,265
Floor Area
Ratio
2.'73
28,500 sq.ft.
841 spaces
98,176 sq.ft.
52,164 sq.ft.
+383.5 ft. elevation (MSL)
+ 96.5 ft. Elevation (MSL)
The project, as defined immediately above, meets the require-
ments of Zoning Ordinance 9500 pertaining to the issuance of
a Class C Special Permit as required by Section 1552 of the
Zoning Ordinance and this Exhibit constitutes the conditions
for a Major Use Special Permit per Section 2803 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
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 construc-
tion ordered by the Dade County Derartnent of Environmental
Resources'Management on May 18, 1983, covering, a part of the
4iar-i-Dade '-later and. Sewer Authoritv service area, including the
project site.
4. Use only native species or relocate and use plant species
existing on -site in project landscaping.
5. Notify the St.:te Historic Preservation Officer and the Dade
County Archaeologist of the expected date of construction
start, vacate the parking on, and strip the blacktop off,
that portion of the site to be developed in order to provide
at least 30 days for archaeological exploration/excavation
prior to the beginning of construction.
83-695
(- I
SE 8th Stm
0.
cl
Exary Prwle Road
01.
0 0 co
o 000
- — - — - — - — --
rasssswl
POST, BUCKLEY.
SCHUH & JERNIGAN, INC. TISHMAN SPEYER PROPERTIES (TSP) MAP:
Consulting Engineers A Planners
GROUND FLOOR PLAN H-2
MARCH 1993 SOURCE, Skidmore Owings, a MoTill
.r7+�+>�h.JYiwfwy�LeYey�+�Y�+�Y�.:lfrdiil ht�"Y2�Oir':'3r•DrN.i`':•a:.!�`�Y1S.ia'L.RJR..'f'r:tklbi:\.?'f1�.4.•�.}i!:I!.►'�•�.i.i^'X!'!!i'?"wT«Tr%•..N .. .:iC"' `.
.... ♦iM'il;� • t . �i • "Sf�.: �"arr�+«K • �v}yt��a�i�w :..... �rott.:�a. �{v.ewox-t.w:4'�'�,;:;yy�r.�ua ' i•:a„'ser+�b�--•: �:c,��«�,$.�n..� ..+,••a +r .
.�••rw-�r �.. f�j, -h.+ ��r Oe.ti� 3J '�'�I� .- �a s��'�R{�-i�C•S�'y �i ���`�.
t. _ 7r3�4ra�� ..r+trr:wf.i.w•.,•et'!':...• a_:,r: sue. ziYYri:�� c.w •+n.�:r-.y,�r.•-C•�''• �
. wi..i•. •..t.:: �•w:►i.. •. �_.. ... ....'t: tY.' uLJ 2' - .:li. w.ry Y'•n..�•ri:�:i.:i"•w�irihlL'w.i►�w�.'wriri:r "•_ ••:r�.�� � _ ••`•S _� ai4i>+w .�
.. .. . . . n � .....•i. ......�ly�.�..� �w ��at.� .....�PiuMw.�-- .yr.. r+..•M..�'I'.w.•w•� 'w�w.... �!!�r..., .n.r�++�..✓+. .... .r_
�. :1. 1e/•. •au• .�...r..iv. .•. .d ••n.•••!' � a'. 1.4':•�N•;Nri .:..r.! .r,.w.aR' o/.•a.:1 •.�i•�t:.:r•.ns.:'f: ;.nr '�'.l'�''.t:"' ..
�irc.••�;••. .. J. .�r.aS4 %ti. �w e'i. iiil,':�.n4+v �:. sJ. .. ._�.... L"{�"t ii.r'r.�... wSl.: :1....�?:•i.� r•.. 'tAw r�,�..�'1..h 1t.1.G ..�::N �. .. :r.....-..... .. . .. ._
POST, BUCKLEY,
SCHIlH a JERNIGAN, INC
Consulting Engineers 3 Planners
TISHMAN SPEYER PROPERTIES (TSP)
EAST -WEST SECTION
SOURCE. Skidmore, Owings, & McMU
6. Promote energy conservation and the use of public transit
and minimize air pollution by implementing, as feasible,
Transportation System 11anagement, 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 enplovees in the
garage, variable work hours, flex -time and a 4-day work
week; and encouraging carpooling by emnloyer-subsidized
ride -sharing programs and van -pools and providing preferen-
tial parking in the garage and ridesnaring information. The
Applicant shall prepare a report wi.t-hin 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.
-- Design and maintenance of supply and return air and of
chilled and condenser water temperatures to reduce fan
and pumping horsepower.
-- Lighting systems designed to reduce wattage and lighted
areas during normal use and cleaning.
-- Chillers with increased surface to lower energy demand
to less than 0.75 kw/ton of useful output.
-- Evaluation of and use as feasible of the installation
and operation of computerized energy management systems
to monitor and control the heating, ventilating, and air
condition system and project elevators.
-- Evaluation, and use as feasible, of enthalpy measuring
systems to use minimum, variable, or 100 percent outside
air, to minimize energy used by the operating system.
-- Evaluation of operable windows, alternative glazing; systems,
exterior colors, materials, and shading to reduce overall
energy use. .
-- Open garage facades to increase natural ventilation.
-- Evaluation of the use of solar energy or waste heat to
heat water.
Safety and Security
8. DeveloD, within one year of the date of issuance of the develop-
ment 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 as shown in plans
on file. 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 theCity's emergency communication
systera; such aerial and appurtenance tona_ther 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.
83-f 95
ib
Access and Circulation
11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, dedicate, subject
to City and FDOT approval, adequate right-of-way for a Dublic
nedestrian access easement and right turn lane on the southeast
corner of the intersection of S.F. 3th 'treet and ^rickell Avenue
as illustrated in Figure 9 of the Council Impact Assessment.
12. Conduct, and complete, within 12 months of the date of issuance
of the development order, individually or in cooperation with
other consultants approved by the City, a long range transporta
tion study for an area, no smaller than the traffic impact area
for the Tishman-Speyer/Equitable Joint Venture DRI, to be
determined by the Council, City, County, and FDOT, which
incorporates 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 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 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.
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 9,
and that the publicly -programmed transportation improvements
assumed in the ADA, are compatible with the long-range improve
ments recommended by the Council, City, Countv, 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 Figure 9. The difference between the $325,000
(1983 dollars) and the Applicant's fair -share contribution.of
one-third 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.
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 estimates for, comparable improve-
ments of equal cost compatible with the recomnended long-range
improvements, atzd shall submit this information to the Cite,
County, FDOT, and the Council for review prior to arendnent of
the Development Order pursuant to Condition 20 below.
15. Prior to any development of, or modification of the existing
uses on, the portion of the site south of the north curb line
of Ambassador Drive, other than those proposed in the ADA,
and uses as staging, for landscaping, and re -configuration of the
parkin- area, submit an amended ADA. evaluating the cumulative
inpacts of develo=aent on the entire project site.
THE CITY SHALL:
16. Withhold building Permits until adequate right-of-way for a public
pedestrian access easenent and right turn lane from northbound
Brickell Avenue to enstbouna 5, 8th Street (Condition 11) has
been dedicated by the A- plicant.
83-695
k
. r•.... .-.� ..�... .... .. � '^ - • �- Ati ���."t:Jt+YNCiT+...�..:-,ii�.jfl.-r���Sf �A•'n •f�: -
u -
•!�jYlirmMYli4M•-'•�: w►�r.!Ci.�.4:fr .:.-..-�: iy' r'•f •n �•.�(+•�:;}!ais+i��c;. .°';y'
s"h'�` —---=a.s:^'sa�'. .'r�T.v"r':.an+.' � •...�....•riC'.�.' , r.•tl4lli'�4►'�'' .. -''i'_e�.+i-.
. ., .. -.., . �i'il.q'rr,•.:1•.;,.�i:�. Lt?.Vw.•C;'tni�''.li�InV±f1�;•}3!40•T.?"••tr�•!::'i'=S
FIGURE 9: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMEN'J'S
BrickelI Ave./Bayshore Dr./S.E.8th St.
1
L i nco I n/!:es` er L 6WAh BOYShO19 WIVS
Access Drive �1
Scale I r
c.
c
i,
edcken AV�nw
1 1 it
Existino,,IF f
A
' Lane Coat gu ration
L i nco I n/!Dasher
Access Drive
2
Scale
®` New Pavement
Lincoln/Nasher
Access Drive •
Signal - - - - - - - - - - - p
`_JIIIIIII!IIIIIL
I — Itllilll';
i I 1
:cY, v.J;}2,� ir,•:;:c�i� y • hh `�. •� :�aa;;•:a•ti :;`::; ::>
83-6
Proposed
. LanP C;nnfiat�r-a#inr
17. 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 `ire services
in the area.
18. 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 applicant's plans on file.
19. Complete the review of the transportation •study, required in
Condition 12, within 2 months of submittal by the Applicant.
20. In the event the transportation improvements required pursuant
to Applicant Condition 13 above are inconsistent with the trans-
portation improvements recommended in the long; -range study, the
City will review the proposed design and cost estimates for
comparable improvements of equal cost compatible with the recom-
mended long-range improvements, developed by the Applicant
pursuant to Condition 12 above, and in consideration of the
comments and recormendations of the County, FDOT, and the Council
modify the Development Order to reflect the changes in the re-
quired transportation improvements.
21. Ensure that the required funds, bond, letter of credit, or
Applicant commitment 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.
22. In the event that the Applicant provides a front -ended loan
to the City to construct the recommended roadway improvements
according to Condition 13, secure, from other devleopments 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.
23. Collaborate with the Applicant 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.
24. Determine that any development of, or :codification of the
existing uses on the portion of the project site south of the
north curb line of Ambassador Drive, other than that proposed
in the ADA and Condition 15 hereof, is a substantial deviation.
THE APPLICANT SHALL:
Minority Participation
25. Work with the City of Jr4iarn.i to prepare a Minority Participation
And EmploM.ent plan which complies with all City of Miari-
Resolutions and Ordinances concerning* minority participation
in private enterprise projects of this type.
83-695
General
26. 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.
27. 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:
Obtaining all required permits; and
Beginning construction of, or provide the funds, bonds or
letters of credit for recommended surface street improve-
ments.
23. 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 801-999 Brickell Avenue, being
All that portion of Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13,
Block 104 South, according to the amended map of
BRICKELL'S ADDITION TO MIAMI, a copy of which
amended map is recorded in Plat Book "B" at Page
113, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida,
lying West of the Right -of -Way conveyed to the City
of Miami, Florida, for street purposes, which said
Right -of -Way is more fully described in that certain
deed dated November 18, 1959, filed for record in
Official Records Book 2076, Page 436, May 26, 1960,
under Clerk's File No. 60R-94813, Public Records
of Dade County, Florida. Section 12, Township 54
South, Range 41 East.
ALL OF THE FOREGOING SUBJECT TO any dedications,
limitations, restrictions, reservations or easement
of record.
8.3--690.
b) That Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
and Tishman Speyer Properties, 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 lane.
and bind all successors in inter:st; 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.
29. 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
Cor=unity.Affairs, the Downtown Development Authority
and Dade County Public Works Department.
30. 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 SE 8th Street and Brickell Avenue Project, proposed by the Equitable
Life Assurance Society of the United States and*Tishman Speyer Properties,
a joint venture, complies with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan,
is consistent with the orderly development and goals of the City of'.Hiami,
and complies with local land development regulations being Zoning Ordinance
No. 9500; and
The proposed development does not unreasonably interfere with the achiev,
ment of the 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 Recommen-
dations of the Regional Planning Council shall not constitute a substantial
deviation; under Chapter 380 Florida Statutes, notwithstanding City
zoning approvals which may be required.
83-69
62.21
SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
June, 1983
Exhibit "B"
on file with
the office of
the City Clerk
83-695
0
0
south florida regional planning council
151-5 r) vv it7'!-� street. suite 42P* flondo 33'10y K'15
May 27, 1983
The Honorable Maurice Ferre
Mayor, City of Miam'
P. 0. Box 330708
Miami, Fiorida 33133
Dear Mayor Ferre:
At its next meeting, the Council will review the staff report on the
Tishman Speyer/Equltable 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, June 6, 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.
Sincerely►
664
M. Barry terson, AICP
Executiv Director
MBP/rnh
Enclosure
cc: Joe McManus (Miami) David Plummer (Consultant)
Roy Kenzie (DOA) James Nicholas (Consultant)
Alan Gold (Consultant) Pat Bourquin (Consultant)
Harvey Bernstein (Dade DPW) Rafael Rondon (Dade DERM)
Armando Vidal (FDOT) Gary Kresel (DCA)
Susan Couchanhour (SFMMO)
0 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LISTOF
FIGURES.......................................................
i
LISTOF
TABLES........................................................
INTRODUCTION..........................................................
1
PARTI.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................
4
A. APPLICANT INFORMATION ..................................
4
Be PROJECT INFORMATION ....................................
4
PARTII.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS .................................
10
A. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES ......................
10
Be ECONOMY ................................................
12
C. PUBLIC FACILITIES ......................................
17
D. TRANSPORTATION .........................................
24
PARTIII.
DEVELOPMENT ISSUES ....................................sees.
46
A. EFFECTIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN THE BRICKELL CORRIDOR ...
46
Be EQUITABLE FUNDING PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC FACILITY
IMPROVEMENTS.........................................so
52
PARTIV.
RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................
55
83-6951
0 •
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page
1 Location Map ........................................... 5
2 Ground Floor Plan ............................... 0..... 6
3 Project Cross -Section ................................. 8
4 Project Traffic Impact Area ........................... 25
5 Existing Peak -Hour Traffic Conditions ................. 27
6 Programmed and Planned Transportation Improvements ..... 29
7 1986 Traffic Without Project ........................... 34
8 1986 Total Traffic ..................................... 37
9 Recommended Improvements: Brickeli Avenue ............. 38
83-6951
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
Title
Page
1
Proposed Development Components ..........................
7
2
Construction Expenditures ................................
13
3
Construction Impacts .....................................
14
4
Project Employment .......................................
15
5
Employment Impacts .......................................
16
6
Fiscal Impacts.....................................0.....
18
7
Programmed Transportation Improvements Summary ...........
28
6
Project Percentage of Person -trips by Transit ............
33
9
Project Traffic Composition at Critical Intersections ....
36
10
Under Construction b Proposed Projects (Brickell Area) ...
47
83-6951
INTRODUCTION
In February, 1980, the Council reviewed an Application for Development
Approval (ADA) for Nasher Center, a Development of Regional impact
located on the site of the currently proposed project - Tishman
Speyer/Equitable Joint Venture. The formerly proposed project was to
contain 237,960 gross square feet of offices, a health club, and
off-street parking.
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 8rickeil 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 benefitting from and needing
expanded public facilities.
The Council recommended that the project be approved subject to 12
conditions. However, prior to review by the City Commission, the
Applicant withdrew the Application and, therefore, no development order
was issued.
83-6951
The current Tishman-Speyer/Equitable Joint Venture application proposes
first phase development on the northern portion of the site, leaving
Ambassador Drive and the parking lot to the south unchanged. The
Applicant has Indicated intent to develop the southern portion with open
space, access, and structures Integrated with the currently -proposed
phase of development, but has not completed a development plan for these
subsequent phases. However, prior to any future development on -site,
submittal of an ADA, evaluating the cumulative Impacts of the initial and
subsequent phases of development, to the Council and the City, is
required.
This assessment of the proposed Tishman-Speyer/Equitable 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
83-6951
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 South Florida
Regional Planning Council and the Florida Department of Community
Affairs.
q
83-6951
11
PART I - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. APPLICANT INFORMATION
Project Name: Tishman-Speyer/Equitable Joint Venture
Applicant: Tishman -Speyer Properties
777 Brickell Avenue
Miami, Florida 33131
Date of Acceptance of Application: April 19, 1983
Date of Transmittal of Notice of Local Public Hearing: May 3, 1983
Local Government Hearing Date: July 14, 1983
Type of Development: Office Park
Location of Development: Miami, Dade County
B. PROJECT INFORMATION
The Tishman-Speyer/Equitable Joint Venture proposes a mixed use
development on the north portion of a large block on Brickell Avenue
bounded by S.E. 6th Street on the north, S.E. 12th Street on the
south, South Bayshore Drive on the east, and Brickell Avenue on the
west (Figure 1). The site is currently used for surface parking and
an existing private road (Ambassador Drive) connecting Brickell
Avenue with South Bayshore Drive.
The Applicant proposes development only on the northern halt of the
site, leaving the private road and south parking area for, as yet
undetermined, future development (Figure 2). The project consists
of a single structure containing offices, retail activities, and
parking, surrounded at street level on the south, west, and north by
4
83-6951
9
• � wf4 Yitf.11 MR N10...-_Y�-- r _
TISHMAN-SPEYER/EQUITABLE
�; FIGURE 1
LOCATION MAF
JOINT VENTURE AR
IIIIIIIwwIIV*I
wlu- to Iaso 1;soo It,o*. YN1,
Source: ADA
m
tD
Vi
Tishman bP.UYUI
SOURCE: ADA
- Brickell AemR. "a"
r-imi t~
soum enmm o%e
Pa�wrg La
.I
0
&2r Floor Plan
J SCALE
a partially -covered, landscaped plaza. Development is proposed to
commence In 1983 with full occupancy expected by 1986.
The office tower Is to contain 450,000 gross square feet of office,
5,000 gross square feet of retail space, and restaurants containing
a total of 10,000 gross square feet. Table 1 outlines development
components. Reaching an average 390 feet above street level
(approximately 400 feet (NGVD)), the tower is proposed to contain 29
floors of offices above a lobby and retail area (Figure 3).
TABLE 1
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPONENTS
Component
Gross Square Feet
Office
450,000
Retail
5,000
Restaurant
10,000
Lobby/Garage Access
6,000
Tower Subtotal
471,000
Garage Subtotal
284,000
Landscaped Plaza
25,000
Unmodified Portion of Site
96,000
TOTAL
876,000
SOURCE: ADA
Direct access at plaza level would be provided between the garage
and the lobby. Service access to the retail areas and the office
tower would be from the below grade level garage, allowing for
off-street storage of small service vehicles. A two -bay truck dock,
Including trash storage and pick-up area, is proposed inside the
garage with four additional bays outside the building adjacent to
7
83-695,
0
FIGURE 3
PROJECT CROSS-SECTION
1
6noi„ n,e �� c �• - - — o s aw s►gre Or
SCALE: "" SOURCE: ADA
83-6951
the south wall of the garage at street level, with access from South
Bayshore Drive.
The nine -story parking garage, plus basement and roof level parking,
Is to contain parking for approximately 1,100 cars. The roof level
would be visually screened In conformance with City requirements.
Under a 1982 agreement with owners of the Four Ambassadors Complex,
227 garage spaces would be for the exclusive use of the Four
Ambassadors. Approximately 60 existing off-street parking spaces on
the southern portion of the site and 24 spaces on the private
roadway would remain.
The site is currently zoned SPI-5, Brickell-Mlaml River
Resldential-Office District. Established under a 1982 amendment to
the Miami Zoning Text, the Special Public Interest (SPi) District
for the Brickell 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 consistent with the uses
permitted in the zoning district.
E
83-6951
10
PART II - SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
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 (on the Flagship Bank site at S.E. 8th Street and
Brickell Avenue) and Knight Convention Center, the Applicant
estimates a 1986 concentration of carbon monoxide of 14.1
mg/m 3 and 8.5 mg/m 3 for the one -hour and elght-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 best management practices to
minimize air pollution, including traffic flow Improvements,
encouraging the use of mass transit through provision of
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 incorporated.
10
83-6951
5v r
2. Land, Water, and Wetlands
The 4.83 acres of the project site are altered lands in urban
use (paved roadway and parking lots). Soli on -site consists of
a shallow layer of sand underlain by moderately -hard to soft,
slightly porous, oolitic limestone on top of quartz fine sand.
There are no water bodies on -site nor any wetland associations.
Groundwater in the vicinity is brackish to saline.
3. Fioodpiains
The proposed development 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 which
is four feet below Dade County criterion. To compensate for
this, the garage will have entrances above 5.0 feet and pumps
will be provided to remove water that enters the area.
4. Vegetation and Wildlife
As altered urban land, the project site has minimal amounts of
vegetation and wildlife with several Sliver Buttonwood,
Pongams, Black Olive, and Seagrape trees. As a result of the
landscaping to be provided by the project, additional native
plant species such as Pidgeon Plum, Mahogany, Gumbo Limbo, and
Cabbage Palm trees; St. Augustine grass; and miscellaneous
11
83-6951
ground cover would be Introduced to the site. Viable, existing
trees that are not compatible with plaza landscaping would be
relocated to the southern portion of the site. The City should
ensure that only desirable native species -are relocated or
preserved.
5. Historical and Archaeological 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.
B. ECONOMY
1. Project Cost
As indicated in Table 2, the project is estimated by the
Applicant to cost a total of $89.7 million (1983 dollars). An
estimated $81.6 million, or 91 percent, is to be spent In the
four -county region, Including Palm Beach.
12
83-6951
TABLE 2
CONSTRUCTION EVENDITURES
Percent
Expenditure Item Cost In Region
Land 30,000,000 100
Labor 30,768,000 100
Material 20,512,000 70
Interest 4,769,000 80
Preliminary Planning 1,026,000 50
Other 2,564,000 100
TOTAL 89,658,000 91
SOURCE: ADA
2. Construction Emplovment and Associated Realonal Economic
Impact
The Applicant estimates that about 1,660 temporary full-time
equivalent (FTE) construction Jobs would be supported by the
project over the two year construction period. Construction
wages are projected to total $30.7 million (1983 dollars) with
an average $18,500 per employee -year.
Using the Council's computerized input-output model, developed
specifically for the South Florida Region plus Palm Beach
County, the cumulative effect of project construction is about
5,170 jobs in the four -county area, representing $53.1 million
In total wages, and $145.2 million in output value, of which
$66.8 million is net value added to the regional economy (Table
3).
13
83-695,
0
TABLE
3
CONSTRUCTION
IMPACTS
A. EMPLOYMENT
BROWARO
DADE
MONROE
SO. FLA.
REGION
PALM
BEACH
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
2.
3.
1.
6.
2.
MINING
4.
8.
1.
12.
0.
CONSTRUCTION
205.
292).
9.
3136.
113.
MANUFACTURING
52.
133.
1.
186.
44.
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
25.
125.
1.
151.
12.
WHOLESALE TRADE
14.
57.
1.
71.
7.
RETAIL TRADE
178.
282.
11.
470.
94.
FINANCE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE
91.
188.
2.
282.
43.
SERVICES
134.
328.
6.
468.
70.
GOVERNMENT
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
TOTAL
705.
4045.
32.
4782.
385.
B. TOTAL WAGES (1000 S)
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING
7.
24.
0.
32.
72.
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
13.
22.
5.
40.
15.
MINING
30.
67.
5.
102.
53.
CONSTRUCTION
2302.
33681.
127.
36110.
1297.
MANUFACTURING
465.
1496.
7.
1968.
321.
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
268.
1153.
16.
1438.
129.
WHOLESALE TRADE
156.
621.
10.
787.
93.
RETAIL TRADE
1085.
1553.
78.
2746.
547.
FINANCE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE
809.
1838.
28.
2575.
430.
SERVICES
1061.
2433.
72.
3566.
588.
GOVERNMENT
30.
62.
2.
93.
17.
TOTAL
6227.
4298).
349.
49557.
3562.
C. VALUE OF OUTPUT (1000 S)
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING
34.
115.
0.
149.
341.
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
39.
66.
15.
120.
43.
MINING
96.
216.
16.
327.
169.
CONSTRUCTION
6067.
88754.
334.
95155.
3418.
MANUFACTURING
2649.
8522.
41.
11213.
1829.
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
1054.
4535.
65.
5654.
507.
WHOLESALE TRADE
314.
1247.
20.
1551.
188.
RETAIL TRADE
2413.
3519.
172.
6104.
1216.
FINANCE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE
2060.
4682.
71.
6813.
1096.
SERVICES
2333.
5349.
158.
7839.
1292.
GOVERNMENT
40.
07.
2.
130.
24.
TOTAL
17099.
117093.
$93.
135085.
10123.
0. VALUE ADDED (1000 S)
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING
16.
$4.
0.
70.
161.
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
23.
38.
9.
70.
25.
MINING
57.
129.
9.
196.
101.
CONSTRUCTION
2551.
37317.
140.
40008.
1437.
NANWACTURING
1029.
3309.
16.
4354.
710.
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
617.
2657.
38.
3312.
297.
WHOLESALE TRADE
203.
605.
13.
1021.
121.
RETAIL TRADE
1245.
1817.
89.
5151.
628.
FINANCE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE
1413.
3212.
49.
4674.
752.
SERVICES
1425.
3267.
96.
4788.
789.
GOVERNMENT
32.
71.
2.
104.
19.
TOTAL
0611.
52677.
461.
61749.
5040.
-91 vll VW s M" UOT TUT41 Otte To rOYntl l ng .
SOURCE SFRPC
14 63-ss5
0 0
3. Permanent Employment
The Applicant projects about 1,650 permanent employees at
project completion with nearly 40 in retailing and personal
services and over 1,600 in office activities typical of
Brickell Avenue (Table 4). Based on the results of the
Applicant's market study of firms occupying offices on Brickell
Avenue, only an estimated 608 (37 percent) employees would be
new to the Region.
TABLE 4
PROJECT EiPLOY►ENT
Act IvIty
Transportation, Communication,
b Utilities
Wholesale
Retail
Finance, insurance b Real
Estate
Services
TOTAL
SOURCE: ADA
Number of Employees
47
47
39
901
610
1,644
Council estimates for the four -county area Indicate that new
employment in the project would generate an additional 674 net
new jobs (with 182, 390, 8, and 95 in Broward, Dade, Monroe,
and Palm Beach, respectively), $20.9 million in total wages,
and $77.5 million increase ire output value, of which $49.8
million Is value added to the regional economy (Table 5).
15
83-6951
TABLE 5
PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT
A. EMPLOYMENT
BROWARD
DADE
MONIROE
SO. FLA.
REGION
PALM
BEACH
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
1.
1.
0.
2.
1.
MINING
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
CONSTRUCTION
8.
13.
0.
21.
4.
MANUFACTURING
7.
19.
0.
26.
6.
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
7.
51.
0.
58.
3.
WHOLESALE TRADE
4.
15.
0.
18.
2.
RETAIL TRADE
52.
91.
3.
147.
27.
FINANCE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE
57.
468.
1.
526.
27.
SERVICES
46.
340.
2.
389.
24.
GOVERNMENT
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
TOTAL
182.
998.
8.
1187.
95.
B. TOTAL WAGES (1000 S)
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING
3.
it.
0.
14.
32.
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
9.
16.
4.
29.
11.
MINING
1.
3.
0.
S.
2.
CONSTRUCTION
152.
217.
8.
378.
86.
MANUFACTURING
96.
309.
2.
407.
66.
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
177.
1104.
11.
1292.
85.
WHOLESALE TRADE
66.
264.
4.
334.
40.
RETAIL TRADE
511.
641.
36.
1388.
257.
FINANCE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE
596.
8522.
21.
9138.
317.
SERVICES
647.
5826.
44.
6516.
358.
GOVERNMENT
39.
38.
2.
129.
22.
TOTAL
2298.
17201.
132.
19631.
1276.
C. VALUE OF OUTPUT (1000 S)
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING
15.
51.
0.
66.
151.
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
26.
44.
10.
80.
29.
MINING
5.
12.
1.
18.
9.
CONSTRUCTION
977.
1393.
54.
2425.
551.
MANUFACTURING
595.
1914.
9.
2518.
411.
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
531.
33tO.
33.
3874.
256.
WHOLESALE TRADE
133.
530.
9.
672.
80.
RETAIL TRADE
1172.
1930.
84.
3156.
591.
FINANCE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE
3028.
43303.
104.
46436.
1611.
SERVICES
1349.
12152.
91.
13593.
747.
GOVERNMENT
55.
125.
3.
165.
N .
TOTAL
7889.
64765.
397.
73050.
4466.
D. VALUE ADDED (1000 S)
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING
7.
24.
0.
31.
70.
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
15.
24.
5.
44.
16.
MINING
3.
7.
1.
it.
6.
CONSTRUCTION
169.
241.
9.
420.
95.
MAMJFACTURING
210.
674.
3.
$87.
145.
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
377.
2347.
23.
2747.
181.
WHOLESALE TRADE
85.
339.
5.
430.
51.
RETAIL TRADE
587.
966.
42.
1595.
2% .
FINANCE. INS. AND REAL ESTATE
2082.
29764.
72,
31917.
1107.
SERVICES
902.
8119.
61.
9082.
499.
OOVEPOWNT
43.
99.
2.
1".
24.
TOTAL
4478.
42605.
224.
47308.
2491.
P-T•: MWOWa "y noT TOTal cue To rounding.
SOURCE: SFRPC
16 83-6951
0
•
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 miscel_laneous (Library and
Downtown Development Authority) taxing districts. Using 1982
mlllage rates and an assumption that 37 percent (608) of the
1,644 Jobs will be new positions, the net fiscal impact would
be an annual surplus of $612,000 for the City of Miami,
$493,000 for Dade County, $391,000 for the Dade County 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 $1,568,000.
C. PUBLIC FACILITIES
1. Wastewater Management
Wastewater flows from the project would be handled by the
Mlami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority, which has indicated It
has sufficient capacity to serve the projected average of
60,000 gallons per day and 240,000 gallons at peak flow.
2. Drainage
The drainage plan shows collection systems discharging into
detention tanks that would retain the first inch of stormwater
runoff, reducing total runoff from the site and pollutants in
the remaining runoff by about 80 percent. Runoff due to storms
17
83-695
0
r�
TABLE 6
FISCAL IMPACTS
NAHf ;.t CAE �•, „F ME N' IIiWAh-e FE iEF,• 01I TALLE .IOINT VENTiIAE
i lil Mf AMi
C Cy w T . DAME
SbEi IAt 1.1t IR I L I
SC w,o.
1YI1 hr OEVELGPMF.N' NOHFESIOENTIk
T VFE r--F EIWE LL INO UNIT
SINGLE-FMILr
MULL I-F AM I L v ,MOB 1LE-NCWW
NUMEEF LPV L►rlli
0
0
O
NUMIEA OF STUDENTS PER UNIT
0
00
O 00
0 00
NUMEEF OF PEFiON$ PEF UNIT
0
00
O 00
0 00
TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS
0
T•:.TAL NLIMMLEF Cs STUGENIS
0
RESIDENT POPULATION
0
Mt1bEF OF EMPLOYEES 606
ANALYSIS CONDUCTED USING AVERAGE COEFFICIENTS
EIP'ENDSTUFE CATEGOR IEE
CiTY
COUNTY
SPECIAL DISTRICT
SCHOOL DISTRICT
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
•
M26
•
9904
• IB
PUBLIC SAFETY
s
25012
•
10743
• 0
HEALTH AND WELFARE
•
6949
•
11047
• 35'
RECREATION AND CULTURE
S
9720
•
4449
• O
TRANiFrcTATION
•
585�
•
16775
• 109
NATURAL RESCl1FCEi
•
216t•
•
10190
• 18
F4.11.1 It W01F14
0
12626
S
7667
6 2456
MISCELLANEVIS
•
1448:
4
23074
• 9147
LLKICAI IGN FIFENE-ITUFF`.
• 0
FI-. AI ILIN Awo" DEE I
SERVICE ANI L&FIIAL UL;TLA%
• U
i FF: IF,I OAF IIAI FA-. II ITT
HRLr.I EFFFNLI riIFE
•
u
•
O
• n
• O
REVENUE CATEODRIES
CiTY
COUNTY
SPECIAL DISTRICT
SCHOOL DISTRICT
PROPERTY TAXES
•
GA5031
•
406378
• 80257
• 390764
OTHER TAXES
•
99,36
•
9503
• 0
SERVICE CHlROES
•
4609
6
53996
• 724
OTIEF MN -TAX LOCAL IIEVENUE
•
4103
•
2520
• 0
STATE iNTEROOYE"01ENTAL
•
9127
•
136M
4 0
FEDERAL INTE"GOVETMENTAL
•
14102
•
33511
• 61
STATE EDUJCATiONAL
• 0
FIZDERAL EDUCATIONAL
• 0
RliCELLAFEOUS
S
24404
•
6404t
4 1962
• 0
ONE-TIME RENEMES
•
O
•
0
• 0
• 0
CITY
couwrY
SPECIAL DISTRICT
IiDOOL DISTRICT
TOTAL
_ TOTAL 1EL 4111114011. EWPEMITlItS
4
99341
6
93/99
• 111011
S 0.
S 2on49
TOTAL NEW AIM.JAL W4EN ES
4
710393
4
I3416929
4 63023
• 1007M.
S 1771109.
MET SURPLUS 1 DEFICIT 1
S
412O52
•
4►3030
• 71915
S 190744
S 1567760
83-6951
18
83-695
a
4
exceeding the design storm of 4.4 Inches per hour would be
disposed of In on -site retention wells. The project will
require a General Permit from South Florida Water Management
District pursuant to Ch. 16K-4.021, Florl-da Administrative
Code, prior to commencement of construction.
The existing northern surface parking area on -site will 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 from the developed area of 6 lbs./year of
suspended solids. in contrast, the undeveloped area that will
remain open parking is projected to produce 1,706 lbs./year of
suspended solids. 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
60,000 gallons per day, to be supplied by the Mlaml-Dade Water
and Sewer Authority, with a peak demand of 240,000 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 Tishman -Speyer
19
83-6951
83-695
0
4
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, if the Dade County
Commission approves the expansion project in the near future.
The peak potable water demand of this project would be 0.625
percent of proposed water treatment capacity Increase.
4. Solid Waste
Solid waste generated by the project Is expected to consist
primarily of packaging and other paper waste, with some organic
waste produced by project restaurants and occasional
landscaping debris. The Applicant estimates a total of 2.3
tons, or 8.1 cubic yards, per day of solid waste materials,
which would be collected by a private hauling 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 restaurants. Annual
20
83-6951
83-695
4b
4
electrical consumption is estimated by the Council to be 10.2
million KWH (34.8 billion BTUs). This corresponds to the
energy content of approximately 5,500 barrels of residual oil.
Three times this amount of energy, or over 16,600 additional
barrels of residual oil, will be consumed at the power plant to
provide this energy to the site. Restaurant use of natural gas
woud amount to about 3.6 percent of the total on -site project
energy use (1.2 billion BTUs).
Both Florida Power and Light Company and People's Gas System
have Indicated that adequate power and facilities are available
to serve the proposed development. Emergency power will be
supplied by a 1000 KW standby diesel generator.
The developer has proposed the following energy conservation
measures:
e Air conditioning zoning to permit operation of single floors
or multiple floors as a function of occupancy.
e Proper design and maintenance of supply and return air and
of chilled and condenser water temperatures to reduce fan
and pumping horsepower.
e Minimum use of outside air to reduce cooling loads.
e Evaluation of enthalpy measuring systems to use minimum,
variable, or 100 percent outside air, to minimize energy
used by the operating system.
21
83-6951
83-695i
0
s Lighting systems designed to reduce wattage and lighted
areas during normal use and cleaning.
Evaluation of operable windows, alternative glazing systems,
exterior colors, materials, and shading to reduce overall
energy use.
9 Consideration of open garage facades to increase natural
ventilation.
• Evaluation of the use of solar energy or waste heat from
kitchens to heat water.
• Use of chillers with Increased surface to lower energy
demand to less than .70 kw/ton of useful output.
• Evaluation of computerized energy management systems.
Furthermore, the Applicant should evaluate the feasibility of
installing a computerized elevator control system to Improve
demand response and energy efficiency.
6. Recreation and Open Space
The site plan provides for a landscaped and partially covered
pedestrian plaza surrounding the office tower and garage that
will contain trees, fountains, low plantings, and public
seating.
22
83-6951
83-695
0 4
i Health Care and Fire
Emergency medical service is available under Dade County's
contract with Randle -Eastern Ambulance Service, the closest
branch of which is near S.W. 1st Street and S.W. 27th Avenue.
Average response time of Randle -Eastern is estimated at 8
minutes; the fastest time at 3 minutes. Their contract with
the County requires minimum response times no greater than 15
minutes. Also, the City of Miami Fire Department Rescue Squad
will respond in both nonemergency and emergency situations,
with an emergency response time to the site of approximately 2
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 2-3 minutes of the development site. City fire
officials have recently expressed some concern that proposed
and approved development In the downtown Miami area represents
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
services.
Given the height of the proposed office building, the Applicant
should insure that the building can be evacuated in an
emergency. in addition to whatever other measures might be
required by the Fire Department, the Applicant should ensure
23
83-6951
83-695
a
LI'm
that the office tower allows for emergency helicopter
evacuation from the roof.
S. 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 development activity in the downtown area
will pose traffic enforcement problems due to increased
traffic. Also, the Applicant indicates that a representative
of the Police Department will meet with the project architect,
review the plans and make recommendations for security
measures. These recommendations should be incorporated in the
project design.
D. TRANSPORTATION
1. Existing Traffic
The project's primary 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"
for peak -hour traffic.
24
83-6951
83-695o
FIGURE 4
Project Traffic impact Area
looniest
Source: SFRPC
0
lC
I L
RISC ILVD w:
litriallsrll",Is
83-6951
83-695
4
in urban areas where frequent signalization controls 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 were
projected to operate below LOS "C" In 1986: 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 these currently experience
undesirable levels of service during the PM peak -hour:
Brlckell Avenue/S.W. 7th Street, LOS "D"; and Brlckell
Avenue/S.W. 8th Street, LOS "D."
2. Programmed and Planned Roadway improvements
Numerous transportation improvements (Table 7), 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, in cooperation
with the developer of an adjacent Development of Regional
Impact proposed by Lincoln/Nasher, has agreed to undertake a
Year 2000 transportation analysis for the Brlckell Avenue
corridor to identify necessary Improvements to accommodate
26
83-6951
83-69S
A FIGURE 5 AM
Existing Peak -Hour Traffic Conditions
2WWu�lU_ .. 111 �l� kJtE6M — Source: AD
.0 1982 AM Flak --Hour LOS Cep G- AM ita -Hour W5 83-695,
C 1982 ' PM Fta f=-flour LO5 %le- Hour IA5
-VirecAion of P,ok Flow All ofhm evlfic4l iv+tovxd'iorK are, opmr+11,11 fit
83-695,
44
41
anticipated development within the area. When the analysts 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
Cost*
S. Miami Ave. Bascule Bridge Structure
1982-83
$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 & Right of
May Only)
1985-86
1,100,000
S.M. 7th St./S.W. 8th St. Widening &
Reconstruction
1983-84
3,306,000
S.W. 8th St./1-95 Interchange Reconstruction
1984-85
476,000
S.W. 10th St./S.W. list St. Transit Mall
1984-85
483,000
Metrorall, Rapid Transit (Brickell Service)
1982-83
N/A
Metromover, Downtown People Mover
(Brickell Service)
1986-87
N/A
TOTAL $23,827,000
w 1963 Dollars.
SOURCE: ADA
The most significant roadway improvement programmed in the area
is reconstruction of the Miami Avenue Bridge and approach
ramps, anticipated to be completed In 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.
28
83-6951
83-695
0 FIGURE: 6 A#
Programmed and Planned Transportation Improvements
Source: SFRPC
83-6951
5�y
A�MIWT��I!.'F.�`+�-�N.ff�ii'.i.�rT�K:..�4:iaabJ�i"n•C-7-`�t "^"'�I�i ! �: t # .. '�3:
83-695
a
0
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 Brlckell area access over the next five years.
Metrorali is expected to begin revenue service from Dadeland
south to the Government Center Station, Immediately north of
the traffic impact area, 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 Brlckell Station, two blocks west of the project
at S.W. 1st Avenue and S.W. 10th Street, is the Metrorall stop
closest 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 Brlckell Station.
In addition, completion of Phase II of Metromover (the Downtown
People Mover) is estimated for 1988, which will provide the
project with convenlent access to many points downtown, as well
as the Omni area, from two stations located on Brlckell Plaza,
30
83-695,
83--695
4
one at S.W. 10th Street and another immediately north of S.W.
8th Street.
3. Future Traffic Analysls
a. Background Conditions
instead of adding background traffic growth extrapolated
from historical trends to existing counts, projected
background traffic was assumed to consist of existing 1982
counts (adjusted to account for the reopening of the Miami
Avenue Bridge), plus traffic generated by other
development forecast for the area. In this manner,
normally anticipated growth in background traffic was
estimated by balancing both committed and uncommitted
development traffic with an unknown percentage of existing
and future background trips which are expected to divert
to transit. This approach is appropriate In view of the
significant Impacts of Metrorall operation and the scale
of anticipated development in the area.
b. Committed Development Traffic
Based on the results of multi -agency discussions with the
Applicant during preparation of the ADA, the Miami
Planning Department provided the Applicant with a 1986
development forecast that projected 1,427,726 square feet
of office space, 794 dwelling units, and 305 hotel rooms
in the traffic impact area.
31
83-6951
83-695
L]
61
Using the results of the Applicant's survey of two similar
adjacent projects, Flagship Bank and Barnett Centre, and
adjusting the findings as necessary for retail,
residential, and hotel uses, committed development traffic
Is projected to reduce levels of service below "C" on
three roadway segments during the AM peak -hour and on two
segments during the PM peak -hour; Brickell Avenue from
S.E. 6th Street to S.E. 7th Street is reduced from PM
peak -hour LOS "C" to "D"; Brickell Avenue from S.E. 7th
Street to S.E. 8th Street Is reduced from PM peak -hour LOS
"D" to "E"; S.W. 8th Street from S.W. 2nd Avenue to S.W.
3rd Avenue is reduced from AM peak -hour LOS "C" to "D";
S.W. 8th Street from S.W. 1st Avenue to S.W. 2nd Avenue Is
reduced from AM peak -hour LOS "C" to "D"; and S.W. 8th
Street from S. Miami Avenue to S.W. 1st Avenue is reduced
from AM peak -hour LOS "B" to "D."
Committed development also has a substantial Impact on the
four intersections critical to project traffic, reducing
levels of service below "C" at Brickell Avenue/S.E. 7th
Street, from PM peak -hour LOS "D" to "F,"-or Brickell
Avenue/S.E. 8th Street, from AM peak -hour LOS "C" to "F";
Brickell Avenue/Coral Way, from AM and PM peak -hour LOS
"C" to AM peak -hour LOS "D" and PM peak -hour LOS "E"; and
32
83-6951
83-695
4
61
S. Bayshore Drive/S.E. 8th Street, from AM and PM
peak -hour LOS "A" to "F." Signallzatlon of the latter
intersectlon, currently not programmed, would improve its
level of service to "D" during both,peak-periods. Figure
7 illustrates 1986 peak -hour traffic without the project.
C. Project Traffic
1. Trip Generation
Based on the project's proximity to the Brlckell
Avenue Metrorall Station, 25 percent of dally trips
and 30 percent of peak -hour trips in 1986 were
assumed to use transit (Table 8). Remaining are 456
AM and 450 PM peak -hour vehicle trips, approxlmntely
13 percent of total dally trip ends for each
peak -hour period.
TABLE 8
PROJECT PERCENTAGE OF PERSON -TRIPS
BY TRANSIT
Year
Oally
Peak -Hour
1986
25
30
1990
30
35
2000
40
45
SOURCE: ADA
2. Trip Assignment
The distribution of the 3,468 dally, 456 AM
peak -hour, and 450 PM peak -hour vehicle trip ends was
based on the results of the Applicant's
33
83-6951
83-695
FIGURE: 7
I
0
Projected 1986 'Traffic Without Project
0
@C 19b& AM ftk-dour L05 c,_ G- AM &4k-Hour L S
19bc. PM Ftaic- Kour Los " 0- PM Rolf - Hour LDS
Direction of Flak Now All vWw Gritk4l irrtwmctivn
LDS •a' m beAef dwina
J<R�l
Source: ADA
83-695,
are. vo&afim ar
83-695
4
01,
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 only from South Bayshore Drive
midway between S.E. 8th Street and Ambassador Drive.
3. Future Traffic
With the addition of project traffic, the Applicant
projects that, for the 13 study roadway segments,
peak -hour levels of service will deteriorate below
LOS "C" on only two additional segments: Brlckell
Avenue from S.E. 12th Street to S.E. 13th Street from
PM peak -hour LOS "E" to "F". and S.E. 8ih Street from
Brlckell Plaza to Brlckell Avenue from AM peak -hour
LOS "C" to "D."
The project comprises from one to eight percent of
peak -hour traffic at the twelve critical
intersections. Table 9 shows the percentage
attributed to project traffic at each Intersection.
Although the letter designation of Intersectton
levels of service would not change, percentages of
saturation at each of the Intersections would
increase.
35
83-685
83-695,
1 11
TABLE 9
PROJECT TRAFFIC COMPOSITION AT CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS
AM Percent
PM Percent
Intersection
of Total
of Total
Brickell
Avenue/S.E. 7th
Street
4
6
9rsckell
Avenue/S.E. 8th
Street
7
6
8rlckell
Avenue/Coral May
4
5
S. Miami
Avenue/South 7th
Street
1
5
S. Mleml
Avenue/South Bth
Street
6
1
S.W. 1st
Avenue/S.M. 7th
Street
5
5
S.M. 1st
Avenue/S.M. 8th
Street
5
1
S.M. 2nd
Avenue/S.W. 7th
Street
1
4
S.M. 2nd
Avenue/S.W. 8th
Street
4
1
S.M. 4th
Avenue/S.W. 7th
Street
2
2
S.M. 4th
Avenue/S.M. 8th
Street
3
1
S. Bayshore Drive/S.E. 8th
Street
8
3
SOURCE: ADA
Figure 8 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
result from the project. Brickell Avenue from north of S.E.
7th Street to south of S.E. 8th Street (Figure 9) should be
widened from 4 to 6 lanes, with double left -turn lanes at both
S.E. 7th and S.E. 8th Streets. This would require removal of
36
83-695,
83-695
0
0% FIGURE: 9
Projected 1986 Total Traffic
WITHOUT RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Rid
►.Z E R
011
I SO M
Source. Al
19b& AM Reek -Hour L05 CEO C- AM leak-Oowr Ws $3"6 ow
1411wN rt
Pak-ttmw L05 G- PM ire-%pw LOS
T D+rerfim nc F-n le p rrw Al I ftlki .. P"& 1, w :r.►......�-�,,.,� ,w. ,,.,..,,,.a t.,q
83-69s,
FIGURE 9i%,RECOMMENDED IMN qhM NTS
BriChalI Ave./Bayshore Dr./S.E.8 St.
� I
L i nco I n/'d=_sher-
Access Drive Sam "polo a*»
Signal - - - - - - - - - ---
Scale
I — I I� � I ; I F• '
® New Pavement
L i nco I n/Nasher
Access Drive 1 � +� •• ;•�::�:;:•
r
83-695
W,
W
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 southeasterh corner of Brickell
Avenue and S.E. 8th Street, which would be dedicated by the
Applicant. 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: Brickell Avenue/S.E. 7th Street, from AM
peak -hour LOS "C" to "B" and PM peak -hour LOS "F" to "D"; and
Brickell 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
adequate length to provide access to both the project and the
Lincoln/Nasher development. South Bayshore Drive should be
restriped to 4 lanes, with parking removed adjacent to the
project. An exclusive left turn lane would be needed for
39
83-6951
83--695
63
northbound to westbound movement at the intersection, with
slgnalization 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
tic It
According to the Applicant, the extension of South Bayshore
Drive to the Brickell Avenue/S.W. 7th Street intersection would
not improve levels of service at Brickell Avenue and S.W. 7th
and 8th Streets enough to warrant a public street through the
proposed Lincoln/Nasher project. City officials, who once
favored such an extension, recently concurred with this view.
In conjunction with the 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.
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
40
—`11}: u:.�*e:��a•t�:,r-�raer-r.ctRa�eF:.��4:Gt!�6'�+.•±�!�.`1d�4rN'at.16+.:».`.:=a�:s`. �uk5s�,.teki�4;rleibuieq'sal.*E.,'...,,:. _.. ,� --�. -
83-6951
83-695
W
`l
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) an intercept parking lot
(310-340 spaces) under 1-95 between S.W. 6th Street and S.W.
8th Street. The latter, estimated to initially cost between
$90,000 and $130,000, plus $35,000 per year for operating
costs, could remove up to 100 AM and 100 PM peak -hour trips
from S.W. 7th and S.W. 8th Streets, and reduce peak -hour flow
at the Brickell Avenue Intersections by approximately 2
percent. Although a number of operational questions have not
yet been answered, shuttle bus service, preferably with
ten-minute headways, could link the project with the parking
area.
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
41
a��FN.i''.�4�:7r.�F,.�....,:•...s.�..x4�"s=`.:nro-*:&tvPa#:�::�.`h:,i.:4 w,5`-.s akn z:.;r. �.,;.>.r. coy y.e„:,.;.a�r..r.s.,..»...:�vstim. ,-d5�'wd:7f, `..
83-6951
83-695,
zoning over the long-range. The Applicant is to undertake, In
conjunction with consultants for the Lincoln/Nasher development
Immediately to the north, 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
a transit mail 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 activity is certain to 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
42
83-6951
...,.�.t�et,r2osis3soK,�,.s:.�v�us�a�+.w�S E�,;sz,ti.;,�:>•ra:.v!'.c.5a.,a,rr:,.�a��x.x3�s�:tiz�?ar.`.:�.�a i.'�=`�M.e.��,��M:,ea.�-k �"�.a�lst�e-,e. _., , ..._—_ __._�
83--695
r�
pedestrian volumes crossing Brickell at that time may require
an above grade crossing, especially if the proposed transit
mall along S. 10th Street is successful.
5. Parking and Service Deliveries
The Applicant will provide 1,100 parking spaces, of which 227
would be reserved for use by the Four Ambassadors complex. The
remaining 873 spaces provide approximately one space per 533
square feet of project gross floor area, which exceeds parking
requirements specified in the September 23, 1982 City Zoning
Text. In addition, 60 at -grade parking spaces exist on the lot
owned by the Applicant between Ambassador Drive and the south
property line of the site, and a potential 310-340 spaces could
be provided under 1-95 between S.w. 6th and S.W. 8th Streets.
Adjoining the proposed parking structure on the east side near
the garage entrance/exit are two internal and four external
service and delivery vehicle loading docks. These docks are in
conformance with the requirements of Section 2023.4 of the 1982
Miami Zoning Text, which requires four for office buildings
between 200.000 and 500,000 square feet, and two for retail
space between 10,000 and 25,000. The Text does not address
stall requirements for mixed -use projects.
43
83-6951
83-695
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 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
service into unserved areas of the County. A 25 to 33 percent
increase in local and express service by 1986 Is envisioned for
the Brickell area.
As discussed previously, Metrorall should open on December 25,
1983 between Dadeland and the Downtown Government Center and be
extended north to Hialeah by December, 1984. Service to the
project will be provided two blocks west at S.W. 10 Street and
S.W. 1st Avenue. The system, which will operate 20 hours per
day, is currently planned for three minute headways in the
peak -hour and fifteen minute headways during off-peak periods.
Patrons of the Metrorall station are projected to arrive
primarily by foot (48 percent), with the remainder split almost
equally between those coming by auto and by bus. No parking is
proposed at the Brickell transit station.
In addition, Phase Il of Metromover (the Downtown Component of
Metrorall) will connect the project with many points In
44
'ys+ns+a nv.'+rru�w:.�s.✓z+:rt.x.aar,+:*5 st�::a.Tmx..a�:axa�rPuw �,r;x,s�+sarna�rvvrttFn.neri.ektic�:�,cef�wd'�i.r, •.,.. _.... •., ,• �,�" ".
83-6951
83-695,
.0
downtown, as well as the Omnl area, from two stations located
one block from the project - Brickeli Plaza at S.E. 10th Street
and Immediately north of the intersection of Brickell Plaza and
S.E. 8th Street. Metrorail and Metromovgr combined provide the
Brickell area with a potential high level of transit service
and use.
45
83-6951
83-695
04 A:
PART III - DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
A. EFFECTIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN THE BRICKELL CORRIDOR
The past several years have seen unprecedented development in the
vicinity of Brickell Avenue as well as in other subareas of downtown
Miami. A significant 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.
According to the market study conducted for the Applicant,
absorption of office space on Brickell 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 rapid
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 Brickell area, nine are located on Brickell Avenue or South
Bayshore Drive. Only one project is proposed for the Immediate
vicinity of the Brickell 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 of development proposed or under
construction In the area when the Council reviewed the Development
of Regional impact proposed for this site in 1980.
M.
-v.'MMw�cuvw�.uW.i+u.;a:•.:.t�sa.w'.:.;A++r.,....v'.;.+�:.n.. a..a....::.,.-.:iw'a<,_....�.,u:,.�:�sv—.v.,y,.��:.+M^M•r.:tt+ax.iwa-...ww�..a.wa�' i�:.a..infix:i.+.�.ir*.L"3.'d','.4..6ti1.ui'R'J h.: .s._.:seaa•.w
83-6951
83-695
^i
TABLE 10
UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND PROPOSED PROJECTS
BRICKELL AREA
Estimated
Project
Completion
Name/Location
Type
Size*
Status
Date
1101 Brlckell Avenue
Office
140,000
U/C
Dec., 1983
sq. ft.
Brlckell Bay Office Tower
Office/
316,000
U/C
Oct., 1984
1101 S. Bayshore Drive
"Corporate
sq. ft.
Suites"
Brlckell Key (Claughton
Residential
375
U/C
March, 1985
island)
units
Tishman Speyer/Equitable
Office/
465,000
ADA
1986
S. 9ayshore Dr. E 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.
Granvlew
Residential
67
Proposed
N/A
1100 S. Bayshore
units
Interbank Center
Office/
185,000
Proposed
1985
1177 Brlckell Avenue
Retail
sq. ft.
One Brickell Station Plaza
Office/
329,000
Proposed
N/A
S.W. i Ave. b S.W. 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: DDA
47
83-6951
83-68S
004
W
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 private investments and realization of
the beneficial returns that these projects represent to the Region
in temporary and permanent 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 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 adoption of 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 which
development will have on the character of the area or on the balance
between the capacity and use of public facilities.
48
83-6951
83-695
All
City police and fire department officials have expressed a similar
concern that, while the Tishman Speyer/Equitable Joint Venture
itself will have little effect upon the departments' ability to
provide adequate service, the collective number of
individually -approved projects pose an adverse impact upon both
department'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 infrastructure serving the development, was recognized by the
Council and the City during review of the 1980 Nasher Plaza DRi. A
condition to the still active Development 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 growth management study to balance the desired use
of the Bricked, 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
mandatory procedures to evaluate the comprehensive and
collective impacts of development occurring within the
Brickell/Mlaml Avenue/Dupont Plaza Area.
49
83-6951
83-695
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, Council, City, County, and State staff, In consultation with
the Tishman Speyer/Equitable Joint Venture and Lincoln/Nasher
developers, have agreed that a long range transportation analysis is
necessary. This analysis wlII be based on the amount of development
permitted under existing and propose zoning within a suitable area
(no smaller than the traffic impact area used In the ADA for this
project), growth in background traffic, projected transit ridership,
pedestrian movements, programmed and planned transportation
improvements, and management strategies Including on -site and remote
parking. The study will include recommended feasible transportation
improvements and their 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 the maximum extent feasible.
Transportation improvements sufficient to support currently proposed
and committed projects may not be able to support ultimate
development in the area. 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 limit of existing or proposed zoning.
50
83-6951
83-69S,
The two Applicants, however, not wishing to postpone submission and
review of their RDAs until the longer range study was completed,
agreed to assist the public agencies by funding consultants to
conduct the long range study, and to modify any transportation
improvements required by their projects to conform with the long
range study recommendations.
Therefore, it Is 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 recommended In the long
range study that conflict with transportation improvements required
In this development order are a substantial deviation from the
development order that require review and modification of
transportation -related matters and amendment of the Development
Order for compatibility with necessary long range improvements.
The City should 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 will allow the
City to manage the amount of development permitted by its plan and
zoning to Insure that the level of service provided by public
facilities does not impair the economic vitality and competitive
advantage of the Brlckell area.
51
83-695,
83--69S4
S. EQUITABLE FUNDING PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
The Council has consistently held that responsibility for financing
required transportation improvements should be shared between the
public sector and private development interes+s. Council policy is
that:
The public sector should fund those improvements which support
the general welfare of its citizenry; promote public goals,
objectives, and plans; are required by existing or anticipated
traffic from previously -permitted development; or that result
from normal growth in "background" traffic (Section
29J-2.045(5), F.A.C., Policy 74)
Whlle
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
..assign 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 in the traffic Impact area are programmed, not
including public funding for 14etrorail construction and operation.
52
83-6951
�. ....a.. u.n..: .:... . �..:�..- .. .,.. ......-... .. ...... _.. ... _...... .... .. .... ... ... .. _. _ ....,.... .. .... _.. _.__..._ ,....s..-.. ... .... ��1_.i .1 ..:.:' .if :t�.5'�mi!!i%��......,..._. _..... _...
83-695,
fi
Additional transportation improvements necessary to mitigate the
cumulative impacts of project and proposed development traffic
projected for 1986 have been estimated to be $65,000 (1983 dollars)
for restriping and signalization of the intersection at South
Bayshore Drive and S.E. 8th Street (Figure 9), and $260,000 (1983
dollars) for the improvements to Brickell Avenue from north of S.E.
7th Street to south of S.E. 8th Street. The still active
Development Order (City Resolution 80-790, as amended by City
Resolution 82-1071) for Nasher Plaza requires improvements similar
to acid consistent with those recommended here. Under the conditions
of that 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 intersection
improvements by the developers of the Tishman Speyer/Equitable Joint
Venture and Lincoln/Nasher DRIB 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
53
83-695,
83-69S,
City and the developer, or other financing arrangements) until the
City would be repaid by other developments contributing to the need
for the improvement. This should be extended to include the $65,000
cost (1983 dollars) of improvements to the S.E. 8th Street/South
Bayshore Drive intersection. The Applicant's traffic analysis shows
that the Tishman Speyer/Equitable project contributes one-third of
the combined traffic and Lincoln/Nasher two-thirds.
Additional right-of-way is necessary on the east side of Brickeil
Avenue from north of S.E. 7th Street to south of S.E. 8th Street.
Both the Applicant and the developer of the proposed Lincoln/Nasher
DRI have indicated that the areas adjacent to their projects would
be dedicated to the City. No additional right-of-way is necessary
to construct the right turn lane from eastbound S.E. 8th Street to
southbound Brickeil Avenue on the southwest corner of that
Intersection; however, plaza and landscaping of the building at 800
Brickeli Avenue, on the southwest corner of Brickeil Avenue and S.E.
8th Street, extends into the road right-of-way and would have to be
reconstructed.
54
83-6951
83-69S,
4
I
PART IV - SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The Development of Regional Impact assessment for Tishman Speyer/
Equitable Joint Venture indicates that the project would have a number of
positive regional impacts:
• Over 600 permanent new jobs would be generated by the project with an
additional 1,040 relocated from existing office space in the Region.
Nearly 1,300 additional full-time jobs would be generated in the four
county region, with a $20.9 million increase in total wages and a
$49.8 million in value added to the regional economy.
• An annual surplus of nearly $1.6 million dollars to taxing
Jurisdictions with approximately $612,000 for Miami, $493,000 for Dade
County, $391,000 for the Dade County School District, and $72,000 for
the South Florida Water Management District and special districts
combined.
• The quality of stormwater runoff from the northern portion of 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,
55
83-6951
83-695
vegetation, wastewater management, or solid waste disposal. In terms of
adverse regional impact, the project would:
e Increase potable water demand by an average of 60,000 gallons per day.
e Increase annual energy demand within the Region by the equivalent of
16,600 barrels of oil.
e Generate an average of 2.3 tons, or 8.1 cubic yards, of solid waste
per day.
e Place additional unfunded demands upon police, emergency rescue, and
fire services, although the public agencies responsible for providing
these services have indicated capability to serve the project.
e Generate nearly 3,500 daily vehicle trips on the downtown street
network and, along with other development traffic, reduce levels of
service to "F" at three critical intersections, where project traffic
comprises between 3 and 8 percent of total traffic, and below "C" on
two regionally-stgntficant roadways in the traffic Impact area.
However, Applicant participation In funding intersection improvements
will maintain service at an acceptable level.
56
83-6951
83^-69S
f�
Recommendation
Based on consideration 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 Tishman
Speyer/Equitable 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 species or relocate and use plant species existing
on -site In project landscaping.
4. Notify the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Dade County
Archaeologist of the expected date of construction start, vacate
the parking on, and strip the blacktop off, that portion of the
57
83-6951
83-695
site to be developed in order to provide at least 30 days for
archaeological exploration/excavation prior to the beginning of
construction.
5. Implement 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, and secure and convenient bicycle storage for project
visitors and employees in the garage; and encouraging carpooling by
providing preferential parking in the garage and ridesharing
information.
6. Incorporate into the project the following energy conservation
measures:
e Air conditioning zoning to permit operation of single floors or
multiple floors as a function of occupancy.
e Design and maintenance of supply and return air and of chilled
and condenser water temperatures to reduce fan and pumping
horsepower.
e Lighting systems designed to reduce wattage and lighted areas
during normal use and cleaning.
58
83-6951
83-695
• Chillers with increased surface to lower energy demand to less
than 0.70 kw/ton of useful output.
• Evaluation, and use as feasible, of computerized energy
management systems to monitor and cont-oi the heating,
ventilating, and air condition system and project elevators.
• Evaluation, and use as feasible, of enthalpy measuring systems
to use minimum, variable, or 100 percent outside air, to
minimize energy used by the operating system.
• Evaluation of operable windows, alternative glazing systems,
exterior colors, materials, and shading to reduce overall energy
use.
• Open garage facades to Increase natural ventilation.
• Evaluation of the use of solar energy or waste heat to heat
water.
7. 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 improvements in police and fire
service in the area.
S. Construct the building to allow for emergency helicopter evacuation
from the roof of the office tower.
54
83-6951
83-695,
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 FDOT approval, adequate right-of-way for a public
pedestrian access easement and a right turn lane on the southeast
corner of the intersection of S.E. 8th Street and Brickell Avenue
as illustrated in Figure 9 of the Council Impact Assessment.
11. Conduct, and complete, within one year 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
Tishman-Speyer/Equitable Joint Venture DRI, to be determined by the
Council, City, County, and FDOT, which Incorporates 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
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 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
.E
83-695,
83-69S
system, and submit to the Council, City, County, and FDOT for
review and approval.
12. Within two months of a determination by the City and the Council
that the transportation improvements recommended as a condition for
approval of this development order, illustrated in Figure 9, 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 Figure
9. The difference between the $325,000 (1983 dollars) and the
Applicant's fair -share contribution of one-third 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.
13. Prior to any development of, or modification of the existing uses
on, the portion of the site south of the north curb line of
Ambassador Drive, other than that proposed in the ADA, submit an
amended ADA evaluating the cumulative impacts of development on the
entire project site.
3
83-6951
83-695
14. 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 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:
15. Issue a special permit pursuant to Section 1552.1 of the Miami
Zoning Text for construction of the project as proposed In the ADA.
16. Withhold building permits until adequate right-of-way for a public
pedestrian access easement and the right turn lane from northbound
9rickell Avenue to eastbound S.E. 8th Street has been dedicated by
the Applicant.
17. 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 necessary improvements in the police and
fire services in the area.
18. Review building plans, prior to the issuance of building permits,
to ensure adequate allowance for emergency helicopter evacuation
from the roof of the office tower.
62
83-6951
83-695
19. Complete, within one year of the date of issuance of the
development order, the public facility and service study described
on pages 51 and 52 of the Council Assessment Report.
20. Ensure that the required funds, bond, letter of credit, or
Applicant commitment to construct the recommended roadway
improvements required to Condition 12 has been provided 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,
PDOT, and Council.
21. in the event that the Applicant provides a front -ended loan to the
City to construct the recommended roadway improvements according to
Condition 12, secure, from other developments in the Brickell area
or from City funds, reimbursement for that portion of the cost
determined to be in excess of the Applicant's fatr-share.
22. Collaborate with the Applicant to ensure incorporation of security
measures and systems into the design and operation of the project.
23. Determine that any development of, or modification of the existing
uses on the portion of the project site south of the north curb
line of Ambassador Drive, other than that proposed in the ADA, is a
substantial deviation.
83-6951
83--695,
24. Incorporate the Application for Development Approval, as revised
pursuant to Condition 14, by reference into the Development Order
for Tishman Speyer/Equitable Joint Venture as follows:
"The Application for Development Approval is incorporateld
herein by reference and 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."
25. Incorporate the Council DRI Assessment by reference into the
Development Order.
26. Provide that the Development Order shall be null and void if the
following activities are not completed within two (2) years from
the date of issuance of the Development Order, whichever is later:
obtaining all required permits; and begin construction of, or
provide the funds, bonds, or letters of credit for recommended
surface street improvements.
27. Specify monitoring procedures in the Development Order to insure
compliance with all specified conditions.
28. Designate an official to monitor compliance with all conditions of
the Development Order.
64
83-695,
83-695
29. Specify requirements for an annual report in accordance with
Chapter 380.06(14)(c)(3).
65
83-695,
83-69!js
El
OV'
t\� ` r
�e•�•e',f t � l f 'i
DFPt_ T1 i
September 29, 1983
5' 4FF s� rrc�P }
�I .Ldr U1.�V, UT
Mr. Michael Garretson, Director
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Division of Local Resource Management
2571 Executive Center Circle East
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
RE: Southeast 8th Street and Brickell Avenue
Project, a Development of Regional Impact
Dear Mr. Garretson:
Enclosed herein please find a certified copy of Resolution
No. 83-695, passed and adopted by the City of Miami Com-
mission at its meeting held on July 28, 1983, which is
self-explanatory.
Verb truly yours,
RALPH G. ONGIE
CITY CLERK
RGO : smm
Enc. a/s
OFFICE Of THt CM Cif RK ( ih Hall 35(N) Pan Amr•ri+dn Dme fkrndo Sal0 i'9 60(,'
83-695
September 29, 1983
Mr. Barry Peterson, Director
South Florida Regional Planning Council
3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140
Hollywood, Florida 33021
RE: Southeast 8th Street and Brickell Avenue
Project, a Development of Regional Impact
Dear Mr. Peterson:
Enclosed herein please find a certified copy of Resolution
No. 83-695, passed and adopted by the City of Miami Com-
mission at its meeting held on July 28, 1983, which is
self-explanatory.
Vgr'V truly yours,
MPH G , ONGIE
CITY CLERK
RGO: smm
Enc. a/s
Of IICE OF THE CIT1 CEIRF.'Cit) Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miam:. Florida 311.i3 579-0, 7
83-695
Id
0
Tishman -Speyer Properties
777 Brickell Avenue
Miami, Florida 33131
September 29, 1983
r C .
Df�,
R,...... i 1,
t,
E,t c
�til.r� lr(N n,d,
RE: Southeast 8th Street and Brickell Avenue
Project, a Development of Regional Impact
Gentlemen:
Enclosed herein please find a certified copy of Resolution
No. 83-695, passed and adopted by the City of Miami Com-
mission at its meeting held on July 28, 1983, which is
self-explanatory
ve truly yours,
PH G. ONGIE
C TY CLERK
RGO : smm
Enc. a/s
OFFICE Of THE ( 111 CIIRK ( it% HMI iiUU Pan Arnwi(an DrnF• 'Ai.(rn. Flnno., ai?ii 5 4-Fi�t�=•
.k. 'IL:r
83-695+
Q. i
49 CITY OFM1.1h11. FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE 'MEMORANDUM
TO Howard V. Gary
City Manager
Sergio Rodriguez, Director
Planning Department
UgTk July 21, 1983 FILE.
su,4._u SE 8th Street and Brickell AveinTe
Project Issuance of a Deve'iopmeili-
Order
City Commission Meeting of
July 28, 1983
F:N f:L O'iV Fi is S.
The Miami Planning Advisory Board by Resolution PAB 97-83;
July 20, 1983, by a 6 to 0 vote; no members absent, recommended
that a Development Order be issued, approving with modifications
(as amended), the SE 8th Street and Brickell Avenue Project
(Tishman -Speyer Project), a Development of Regional Impact, to
be located at approximately 801-999 Brickell Avenue. The Planning.
Advisory Board accepted clarifying language to the Development
Order offered by the Planning Department during the staff pre-
sentation and accepted clarifying language proffered by the appli-
cant during the public hearing. The Planning Advisory Board, by
motion, amended the Development Order to delete Conditions 25 and
26 and insert, in lieu thereof, a new Condition 25 pertaining to
minority participation and employment in private enterprise projects
of this type, and re -numbering subsequent Conditions.
It is requested that this item be entered on the City Commission
agenda of July 28, 1983.
SR/JWM/vb
83-695,
:•a4i�:,r.:7'!i�Ant," 1.J.'S'c�'�:' •!'3►34•:"�s:mrK:•rro : - , _ . � • .
+�' �c7C•.MS�t'��-'+': f'�...: ��]i•=L9�:YiE� :�s� �: Wv. �i.y<::.'� '9:+:-,r��''. ' . F :.. ..iQ•... ,: a.F+'#�ti]• 1'w.:��'R,�... �: ..t.aa:'r l�r•{...
l
.... ,. :.Y•. w - ,..: r;vr-.. -. .. '-s� �rs�=+rs>aisc•Y`f�:a:i::�. - -•..� - - -
... .. . . .. �. .. •.. .. .. .. ... ... .i ....•.. �. i'�r.tLi1L N+..41�rrr�-rrr.w r •.... - . '� .c.T�:.:%..:•- ✓ti �e.�..•s.�r u... .w.
.. _ ..,...' � _ r. 'i..r.�.14.�.+iY�iil'.►VRi�i/.1.i.�j'i1Z'.`-"y�Cr.'�"�'..'�r��.
... .�. .. � .. ...-. rL.�.r t..l.AI�.urA �.a.-.... � 'W.. Y. ...... ... �.r..•. .. .•.•V .-��•.... I...+. . rY.. w..ti+rw..-.: .w.. r. ., r.•... �...
PLANNING FACT SHEET
APPLICANT Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United
States and Tishman -Speyer Properties, a Joint
Venture: July 1, 1983
PETITION 13. APPROXIMATELY 801-999 BRICKELL AVENUE
Portion of Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
and 13, Block 104 South, according
to the amended map of BRICKELL'S
ADDITION TO MIAMI (B-113)
Consideration of recommendations concerning
issuance of a Development Order for the SE 8th
Street and Brickell Avenue Project, a Development
of Regional Impact, proposed to be located at
801-999 Brickell Avenue, per Chapter 380.06 F.S.
REQUEST To grant a Development Order for a Development of
Regional Impact so that construction documents can
be processed by City Departments.
•BACKGROUND Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United
States and Tishman -Speyer Properties, a joint
venture, have proposed the SE 8th Street and
Brickell Avenue Project, which qualifies as a
Development of Regional Impact (DRI) under
Florida administrative rules. Per Chapter 380,
the developer has submitted an Application for
Development Approval (ADA) to the South Florida
Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) for their review
and recommendation. Before granting a Develop-
ment 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 develop-
ment 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:
April 20, 1983 South Florida Regional Planning
Council notified the City that
the ADA was complete and that a
local public hearing could be
scheduled.
s3-695
-c�9..<'„r_R.'«.._:rc.:.. n..r. � 'Y'. 7f'o::1sr;:�'...�.!:tl'�'�Fi!��-'a^.:.C!"l+..a�rf?�.e.rT+ ��• -✓+r �i �kS•, a.� .� j`w ., �;.• . .. ... c.+ .
l
_... .. ... . _. ....«.wwu w. �.. •.... ....�..r..• Li i'L ...si. .. :L.-...:w�.r... .... ..-........... ..... r+r. .. .. ... r... LC..• .... ........i..�.iL`r.rLai.Mit.M.wi•41i`�� ii+:wiw.:r
ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATIONS
PLANNING DEPT.
April 28, 1983 By Resolution 83-359, the City
Commission established July 14,
1983, as the DRI public hearing
date,
June 6, 1983 South Florida Regional Planning
Council recommended approval,
with conditions (see enclosed
report).
July 18, 1983 The City Commission is to con-
sider rescheduling the DRI public
hearing date.
July 20, 1983 Miami Planning Advisory Board was
to consider a recommendation for
approval, with conditions.
(See Analysis attached.)
Approval, with modifications.
e3-695
"Y,-: '.�_�.... +ia :.TTri_11. �.. �;tt.s.. � . �;:. ',�::. .. q;...via •i.' ::. ;+l: r.». iwY?.::I''. � .i'�a�.�"del`;.d�jyi�l•.^i�l���z�,p�c+'!�t.•3'M4:. = .Jrc'.
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
INTER-OFF'ICEE MEMORANDUM
TO Planning Advisory Board
DATE: July 20, 1983 FILE:
SUBJECT Analysis and Recommendation. -
SE 8th Street and Brickell
Avenue Project
FRG $ glo R guez, Director REFERENCES:
anning Department
ENCLOSURES:
Project Description
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States and Tishman -
Speyer Properties, a joint venture have proposed the SE 8th Street
and Brickell Avenue project to be located at 801-999 Brickell Avenue.
The Project includes:
--one 29-floor building of approximately 450,000 gross square feet
of office use and 15,000 gross square feet of retail area;
--a parking structure for approximately 1,100 cars; and
--a 30,000 square foot ground level plaza.
This project meets the criteria for a major use; being in excess of
200,000 square feet of floor area of office and commercial uses and
including in excess of 500 offstreet parking spaces. The project
also meets the criteria for a Development of Regional Impact, under
Florida administrative rules, being in excess of 300,000 square
feet of office use.
Analysis
Economy and Net Fiscal Impact - This $89.7 million project will
erectly provide about , temporary full-time equivalent construc-
tion jobs over the two-year construction period. Over 600 permanent
new jobs would be directly provided by the project with an additional
1,040 jobs relocated from existing office space in the region.
Through a multiplier effect, the South Florida Regional Planning
Council estimates that 674 additional new jobs would be generated
indirectly throughout the region. In summary, nearly 1,300 additional
full-time jobs would be generated, directly and indirectly, in the
region with a $20.9 million increase in total wages and $49.8 million
in value added to the regional economy.
The project will have a net positive fiscal impact on local units
of government, according to the South Florida Regional Planning
Council. The project generates an annual net fiscal surplus for
local units (expenditures for services are less than revenues from
ad valorem taxes, fees etc.) of nearly $1.6 million, with approximately
83-s9
Page 1 of 2
= C� di. . - w � � Y . `; 7•'�: �: v?ifK1-�'%�1 :�' .. i7iniw. v..:.i.d !�Y.ti:,4�ii E:,iu�.�.: G' �'�!h'�L{•Si t.Yi+.'Y.��4.�T•: Q.^�}L 1?V.�i�'•"
r..
Li
Planning Advisory Board July 20, 1983
$612,000 for the City of Miami; $493,00 for Dade County; $391,000
for the Dade County School District, and $72,000 for the South Florida
Water Management District and other districts.
Conditions 25 and 26 are recommended to include minority participation
in construction jobs.
Environment - The proposed project should not create an adverse
impact on the environment and natural resources of the City, i.e.
air quality, ground water, soils ,animal life, vegetation, wastewater
management and solid waste disposal. Conditions are recommended in
the Development Order to assure a) traffic management to minimize
air pollution and b) building design to minimize energy consumption
and c) address other environmental issues (see Conditions 2-7).
Public Facilities and Services - Municipal services are adequate for
the Brickell area. However ,as the Brickell area continues to develop,
there is a concern about the future provision of fire, emergency
rescue and police services. Conditions are recommended to include
a) a one-year study of police and fire services in the area and b) to
address any potential future deficiencies. (see Conditions 8-10)
Access and Circulation - Projected 1986 traffic in the area without
this project will result in minimum levels of service at two
critical Brickell intersections: Brickell/SE 8th Street (F/D)and
Brickell/SE 7th Street (C/F). With the completion of this project
in 1986, these intersections will have the same level of service,
although the intersection of SE 8th Street/S. Bayshore deteriorates
to level of service F/F. With traffic improvements mandated, the
levels of service are improved to: Brickell/SE 8th Street (C/A);
Brickell/SE 7th Street (B/D) and SE 8th Street/S. Bayshore (B/C);
only slightly less than the levels of service today. (see Condition
11-15)
Land Use - The project is consistent with the Miami Comprehensive
Nei— g Eorhood Plan and with the SPI-5 Brickell-Miami River Residential
Office District.
Recommendation - The Planning Department recommends approval of this
project.
SR: JWM:dr
Page 2 of 2
83-695