HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-82-0339' , e
RESOLUTION NO, 8 2_ 3 3 9
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
COMMISSION AMENDING A DEVELOPMENT ORDER
FOR THE WATSON ISLAND DEVELOPMENT, A
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, PROPOSED
BY THE CITY OF MIAMI, LOCATED ON WATSON
ISLAND AND BAY BOTTOM IN BISCAYNE BAY,
INCORPORATING CONDITIONS SET FORTH BY THE
FLORIDA LAND AND WATER ADJUDICATORY COM-
MISSION BY ORDERS DATED SEPTEMBER 29,
1982, FINDING THAT THE AMENDMENTS DO NOT
CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION FROM
THE TERMS OF THE WATSON ISLAND DEVELOP-
MENT ORDER, INCORPORATING RESOLUTION NO.
80-525 OF THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A DEVELOPMENT
ORDER, APPROVING WITH MODIFICATIONS, THE
WATSON ISLAND DEVELOPMENT, A DEVELOPMENT
OF REGIONAL IMPACT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SOUTH
FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL,
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL.
THE "RESPONSE TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA
REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL STAFF ASSESS-
MENT OF THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT
APPROVAL FOR WATSON ISLAND", CITY OF
MIAMI (MAY 1980) INCORPORATED BY REFE-
RENCE, AND THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, AS REQUIRED BY
THE CITY OF MIAMI ORDINANCCE 8290,
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE DEVELOP-
MENT ORDER AND AFTER CONDUCTING PUBLIC
HEARING AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 380.06,
FLORIDA STATUTES AND FURTHER, DIRECTING
THE CITY CLERK TO SEND THIS RESOLUTION
AND THE AMENDED DEVELOPMENT ORDER TO
AFFECTED AGENCIES.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Administration submitted a
complete Application for Development Approval for a Develop-
ment of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida
Statutes, and did receive a recommendation for denial of a
Proposed Development Order on June 2, 1980, as set forth in
the Report and Recommendations of the South Florida Regional
Planning Council attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission considered the Report and
Recommendations of the South Florida Regional Planning
Council and each element required to be considered by Chap-
ter 380.06, Florida Statutes, the Application for Develop-
ment Approval and the "Response to the South Florida
Regional Planning Council Staff Assessment of the Applica-
tion for Development Approval of Watson Island;" and
1
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OE
APR 2 21982
82-36,
POOLM �o.».........,...asr.
it I
WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its
meeting held on June 4, 1980, Item No. 1, following an
advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 17-80, by a
4 to 3 vote recommending approval o,_ the Development Order
for Watson Island Project, a Development of Regional Impact,
in conformity with the City of Miami Ordinance 8290; and
WHEREAS, a recommendation from the Miami Planning
Advisory Board was forwarded as required by Ordinance 8290;
and
WHEREAS, the City Commission determined that all legal
requirements of publication and public hearing for the
issuance of the proposed Development Order have been com-
plied with; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Commission by Resolution
No. 80-525, dated July 10, 1980, issued a Development Order
approving with modifications the Watson Island Development,
a Development of Regional Impact proposed by the City of
Miami, located on Watson Island and bay bottom in Biscayne
Bay; and
WHEREAS, the Watson Island Development Order was
appealed to the State by the South Florida Regional Planning
Council; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Com-
mission, by Final Order, dated September, 1981, granted per-
mission to the City of Miami to develop the property known
as Watson Island, as provided for in the City's Application
for Development Approval subject to five conditions set
forth in the Adjudicatory Commission Order further esta-
blishing March 1, 1982 as a deadline for the City's com-
pliance; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Com-
mission, by Order dated March 10, 1982, granted the City's
request for an extension of time for compliance further
2
82-339
0"
establishing May 18, 1982, for compliance with conditions 1,
2, 3 and 5 and 120 days after the next election to be held
in the City of Miami for compliance with conditions 4 of
the Florida Land and Water Adjudica'Cory Commission Final
Order, dated September 29, 1981, set forth as; and
WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, per Ordi-
nance 8290, at its meeting of April 21, 1982, following
advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 25-82 by a
4 to 3 vote recommending denial of the amendments;
and
WHEREAS, the City Commission deems it advisable and in
the best interests of the general welfare of the City of
Miami to award the Development Order as hereinafter incor-
porated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The Amended Development Order for the
Development of Watson Island, a Development of Regional
Impact, as proposed by the City of Miami and bay bottom in
Biscayne Bay is hereby approved.
Section 2. The Commission finds that the Amendments
to the Watson Island Development Order incorporated herein
do not constitute substantial deviations as described under
Chapter 380.06(17) (a)-(b), Florida Statutes from the terms
of the Development Order.
Section 3. The Amended Development Order, incor-
porated as a part of this Resolution, incorporates, as a
part of the amendments, compliance with conditions of the
Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Final Order,
dated September 29, 1981. Set forth as:
CONDITIONS
a. No dredging or filling in submerged areas or
alteration of shorelines will be undertaken except in
K,
82-339
connection with installation of sewage pipes and marine
pilings. Any additional dredging or filling in sub-
merged areas that might be proposed or required will be
considered a substantial deviation from the terms of
the Development Order under the provisions of Section
380.06(17)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes.
b. The proposed marina on the west side of
Watson Island be eliminated or relocated so that it
will not interfere with the existing turning basin of
the Port of Miami, or with expansion of the turning
basin. Interference with the existing turning basin
i
or with the expansion of the turning basin by a pro-
posed marina associated with this project will be con-
sidered a substantial deviation from the terms of the
Development Order under the provisions of Section
380.06(17)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes. Further site specific
plans for any marina should be sumitted to the South
Florida Regional Planning Council, which shall review
the plans and provide comments to the City within 60
days.
The City shall consider the comments of the
South Florida Regional Planning Council and make any
modifications deemed appropriate. Plans for any marina
shall become an integral part of the application for
development approval.
c. The Florida Department of Transportation
shall conduct an analysis of the current and prospec-
tive capacity of MacArthur Causeway, I-95, and US-1 and
affected arterials and make a determination of improve-
ment needs which are likely to result from the develop-
ment of the Watson Island project.
A copy of this document shall be forwarded to
the South Florida Regional Planning Council which shall
4
82-339
review the report and provide comments to the Depart-
ment of Transportation within 60 days. The Department
of Transportation shall consider the comments of the
South Florida Regional Planning Council and make modi-
fications to the report deemed appropriate. The City
shall pay the cost of the transportation study.
The City shall improve or agree to pay the
cost of the improvements to MacArthur Causeway, I-95,
US-1 and such other affected arterials as determined
necessary by the State Department of Transportation to
adequately accommodate vehicular traffic over the pro-
jected life of the project.
d. The City shall contract with an independent
firm, acceptable to the Commission and the Department
of Veteran and Community Affairs, to prepare a new
economic feasibility report for the Watson Island
Project which (1) assesses the effects of any possible
changes to the management contract; (2) analyzes the
City's revenue base and its expenditures plan and (3)
specifically identifies revenue sources or proposed
expenditures that must be altered to insure the econo-
mic viability of the City in the event that the Watson
Island Project is an unsuccessful venture.
The City shall submit this document to the
South Florida Regional Planning Council which shall
review the report and provide comments to the Depart-
ment of Veteran and Community Affairs within 60 days.
The Department of Veteran and Community Affairs shall
consider the report together with the comments of the
South Florida Regional Planning Council and in keeping
with the provisions of Chapter 218, Florida Statutes,
review the report and be assured of the overall fiscal
solvency of the City.
5
82-339
(e� The City shall prepare plans for public
transportation facilities to transport visitors to
Watson Island to assure that projections for the number
~' of visitors who would reach the project through public
i
transportation facilities can be realized.
. i
The City shall submit the plans for these
facilities to the South Florida Regional Planning
Council which shall review the plans and provide com-
ments to the Department of Transportation within 60
days. The Department of Transportation shall consider
the plans, together with the comments by the South
Florida Regional Planning Council and be assured of
the viability of the public transportation component.
Plans for these facilities shall become an integral
part of the application for development approval.
Section 4. The Application for Development Approval
and the "Response to the South Florida Regional Planning
Council Staff Assessment of the Application for Development
Approval for Watson Island," City of Miami, (May 1980,
attached hereto as Exhibit "B") are incorporated herein by
reference and relied upon by the parties in discharging
their statutory duties under Chapter 380.07, Florida
Statutes. Substantial compliance with the representation
contained in said documents is a condition for approval
unless waived or modified by agreement among the parties.
Section 5. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to
send certified copies of this Resolution immediately to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of local
Resource Management, 2571 Executive Center Circle East,
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 and to the South Florida Regional
Planning Council, 1515 Northwest 167th Street, Suite 429,
Miami, Florida 33169.
Section 6, The City Clerk is hereby authorized to
6
82-339
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:
a. That the City Commission of the City of Miami,
Florida, as of the date of adoption below, has
issued a Development Order for the Watson Island
Development, a Development of Regional Impact,
located on Watson Island (unplatted) and asso-
ciated bay bottom lands in Biscayne Bay in the
City of Miami, Florida, more specifically
described in and attached as Exhibit "C".
b. That the City of Miami, Florida, municipal corpora-
tion, is the developer of the Watson Island Devel-
opment;
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;
it being understood that recording of this notice
shall not constitute a lien, cloud, or encumbrance
on real property, nor actual
notice of any of the same.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22 day of
ATTEST:
RAL PfrG. ONGIE, CITY CLEW
PREPARED BY:
.P P. %, I.-d
(JYEL E. MAXW LL
SISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
nor constructive
APRIL _, 1982.
MAURICE A. FERRE
MAURICE A. FERRE, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
GEO F. KNOX, JR.
CITYLATTORNEY
7
82-339
Exhibit "C"
7
A parcel of land lying in Biscayne Bay,
l
City of Miami, Dade County, Florida,
known as "WATSON ISLAND" and situated
between the Intracoastal Waterway and the
City of Miami Beach on each side of a
portion of "General Douglas MacArthur
Causeway", also known as State Road
A-1-A, as shown on the State of Florida
Right -of -Way Map, Section No. (8706-112)
87060-2117 - Road No. A-1-A, Dade County,
according to the plat thereof, as
recorded in Plat Book 68 at Page 44,
Sheet #3, of the Public Records of Dade
County, Florida, said "WATSON ISLAND"
being more particularly described as
follows:
Beginning at a point shown as P.T. Sta.
47+16.98 on said State Road Right -of -Way
Map. Said Point of Beginning being also
a point of tangency on the center line of
MacArthur Causeway, whose bearing is
N 630 54' 30" W and 2,836.0 feet from the
center of the Palm Hibiscus Island
Bridge; thence along the radial line
S 260 05' 30" W 66.6 feet more or less
to an intersection with the face of an
existing sloping apron bulkhead adjacent
to the Municipal Ship Channel; thence
along said existing face of bulkhead more
or less parallel to the former State Road
A-1-A Causeway meandering 2.350 feet more
or less to its intersection with the face
8
82-339
of an existing concrete bulkhead; then
N 16° 03' 34" W along said bulkhead which
is parallel with and approximately 200
feet westerly of said former State Road
A-1-A Causeway, a distance of 1,370 feet
more or less to its intersection with the
southerly realigned right-of-way line of
said State Road Right -of -Map; said right-
of-way line being 200 feet south of the
center line of said MacArthur Causeway;
thence along said southerly right-of-way
N 880 49' 55" W 70 feet more or less to
its intersection with the face of an
existing bulkhead, said bulkhead being
also the easterly end of the west bridge,
as shown on said right-of-way map;
thence along said bridge bulkhead in a
northerly direction 300 feet more or less
to its intersection with the northerly
realigned right-of-way line and a curve
concave to the south having a radius of
1,441.69 feet; thence along said nor-
therly right-of-way curve in an easterly
direction 280 feet more or less to its
intersection with the mean high water
line of Biscayne Bay; thence meandering
along said mean high water line in an
easterly direction 1900 feet more or
less; thence continuing along said mean
high water line in a southeasterly
direction 2,300 feet more or less to the
point of intersection with the northerly
right-of-way line of MacArthur Causeway,
9
g2-339
t
i
said point also being on a radial at P.T.
.4
Sta. 47+16.98, as shown on said State Road
~ ! Right -of -Way Map; thence S 26 ° 0 5' 3 0" W
i along said radial 65.00 feet to the point
of beginning.
Containing 86+ acres; together with all
accretions however resulting.
10
82-339
-o:
Howard V. Gary
lib C17Y OF-MIAMI, -LOWDA
3NT ?-OFFiC ciA07iANDUM
LOA TE. April 13, 1982 FILE'
SUDJEC:. WATSON ISLAND DEVELOPMENT ORDER
AMENDMENTS
io E. Perez-LuWes v 17 EI?ENCF^ COMMISSIOW AGENDA - April 22, 1982
Direc or PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS
Planning and Zoning Boards _r,cu:sunES:
Administration Deparmtnet
The Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of April 21, 1982, Item #2,
will be considering recommendations for amending the Watson Island Development
Order which approved by the City Commission by Resolution No. 80-525 on July
10, 1980 (a Development of Regional Impact under Chapter 380.06 of the Florida
Statutes) to be located on City owned 'vlatson Island in Biscayne Bay adjacent
to the Intracoastal Waterway on MacArthur Causeway finding that
a) the proposed amendments do not constitute substantial
deviation under Chapter 380.06 (7) (h,i) and
b) approving amendments to paragraphs 1(2), 6, 7, 8, 17
and the addition of paragraphs 20 and 21.
The recommendations of the Planning Advisory Board in this matter will be
presented to the Commission during the Commission meeting.
A RESOLUTION to provide for these amendments has been prepared by the City
Attorney's office and submitted for consideration of the City Commission.
AEPL:mc
cc: Law Department
NOTE: Planning Department recommendation: APPROVAL.
82-319
j
i
PLANNING FACT SHEET
APPLICANT:
City of Miami, City Manager's Office:
March 31, 1982
PETITION:
Consideration of recommending approval of
amendments to the Watson Island Development
Order approved by the Miami City Commission
by Resolution No. 80-525, July 10, 1980, a
Development of Regional Impact under Chapter
380.06 of the Florida Statutes to be located
on City owned Watson Island in Biscayne Bay
adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway on
MacArthur Causeway finding a) that the pro-
posed.amedments do not constitute substantial
deviation under Chapter 380.06 (7) (h,i) and
b) approving amendments to paragraphs 1,
6, 7, 8, 17 and the addition of paragraphs
20 and 21.
REQUEST:
To amend the Watson Island Development Order
to comply with four of five conditions set by the
Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission
by order of September 29, 1981.
BACKGROUND:
The Watson Island Development Order (Resolution
80-525; July 10, 1980) was appealed to the
—
State by the South Florida Regional Planning
—
Council. The Governor and Cabinet, in their
role as Land and Water Adjudicatory Commis-
sioners, by order of September 29, 1981
allowed the development, but set five condi-
tions to be met by the City before March 1, 1982.
One of these conditions required the City to
revisit the economic impact of the project and
especially to consider any changes that would
result from a concurrent court review of the
management contract between the City and Diplo-
mat World Enterprises.
On November 16, 1981, the Florida Supreme Court
declined the City's petition to review a Third
District Court ruling that the City had not
followed proper bidding procedures in entering
into the agreement with Diplomat World Enter-
prises, thereby exhausting judicial remedy and
voiding the agreement.
By Motion 82-89, dated February 11, 1982, the
City Commission instructed the City Manager to
request an extension of the March 1, 1982 dead-
line to meet the Adjudicatory Commission condi-
tions in order that legislation might be adopted
establishing clear procedures for procurement and
82-J39
1
to allow time to rebid professional services
to provide management for the development and
operation of the Watson Island Theme Park.
By Order of March 10► 1982, an extension of
time was granted by the Adjudicatory Commission
setting a deadline of May 18, 1982 for meeting
four of the conditions which deal with water
quality and traffic and transportation and
further setting a deadline of 120 days after
the next election to take place in the City
of Miami for the conditions dealing with fis-
cal impact.
ANALYSIS: The proposed amendments to the Watson Island
Development Order incorporate conditions 1, 2,
3, and 5 of the Florida Land and Water Adjudi-
catory Commission as follows:
1) that no dredging or filling in submerged
areas or alteration of shoreline will be
undertaken except in connection with instal-
lation of sewer pipes and various pilings.
(see Article 20 of the Watson Island Development
order).
2) that the proposed west side marina at Watson
Island not interfere with the existing or
proposed expanded turning basin of the Port
of Miami. (see Articlesl and 6) .
3) that the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT) conduct an analysis of current and
projected roadway capacities and that the
City agree to improve or to pay the cost of
improvements determined by FDOT to adequately
accommodate vehicular traffic over the life
of the project. (see Article 21) .
4) that the City prepare plans for public trans-
portation facilities to transport visitors to
Watson Island to assure that projections for
the number of visitors who would reach the
project through public transportation facili-
ties can be realized. (see Article 7).
The amendments (above) are not considered to be
substantial deviations from the terms of the
Development Order as the amendments further
define and refine the project so as to reduce
the regional impact.
82-33
r
A
RECOMMENDATION
PLANNING APPROVAL, of the amendments and also recommending
DEPARTMENT: a finding of no substantial deviation.
82-33
t
f �
A
PROPOSED AMENDED DEVELOPMENT ORDER
Let it be known that pursuant to Chapter 380.0 Florida Statutes$ the Commission
of the City of Miami Florida has considered in public hearing held on June 26,
1980 and July 10, 1080 the issuance of a Development Order for the Watson Island
Development, a Development of Regional Impact, to be located on Watson Island
(unplatted) a,id associated bay bottom lands in the City of Miami, more specifi-
cally described as follows:
A parcel of land lying in Biscayne Bay, City of Miami, Dade County,
Florida, known as "WATSON ISIXID" and situated between the Intracoastal
Waterway and the City of Miami Beach on each side of a portion of
"General Douglas MacArthur Causeway", also known as State Road A-1-A,
as shown on the State of Florida Right -of -Way Map, Section No. (8706-112)
87060-2117 - Road No. A-1-A, Dade County, according to the plat thereof,
as recorded in Plat Book 68 at Page 44, Sheet #3, of the Public Records
of Dade County, Florida, said "WATSON ISUuND" being more particularly
described as follows:
..
Beginning at a point shown as P.T. Sta. 47+16.98 on said State Road
Right -of -Way Map. Said Point of Beginning being also a point of tangency
on the center line of MacArthur Causeway, whose bearing is N 63° 54' 30" W
and 2,836.0 feet from the center of the Palm and Hibiscus island Bridge;
thence along the radial line S 26° 05' 30" W 66.6 feet more or less to an
intersection with the face of an existing sloping apron bulkhead adjacent
to the Municipal Ship Channel; thence along said existing face of bulkhead
more or less parallel to the former State Road A-1-A Causeway meandering
2,350 feet more or less to its intersection with the face of an existing
concrete bulkhead; thence N 16° 03' 34" W along said bulkhead which is
parallel with and approximately 200 feet westerly of said former State
Road A-1-A Causeway, a distance of 1,370 feet more or less to its inter-
section wish the southerly realigned right-of-way line of said State
Road Right -of -Way 'clap; said right-of-way line being 200 feet south of
the center line of said MacArthur Causeway; thence along said southerly
right-of-way N 88° 49' 55" W 70 feet more or less to its intersection
with the face of an existing bulkhead, said bulkhead being also the
easterly end of :he west bridge, as shown on said right-of-way map; thence
along said bridge bulkhead in a northerly direction 300 feet more or less
to its intersection with the northerly realigned right-of-way line and
a curve concave to the south having a radius of 1,441.69 feet; thence
along said northerly right-of-way curve in an easterly direction 230 feet
more or less to its intersection with the mean high water line of Biscayne
Bay; thence meandering along said mean high water line in an easterly
direction 1900 feet more or less; thence continuing along said mean high
water line in a southeasterly direction 2,300 feet more or less to the
point of intersection with the northerly right-of-way line of MacArthur
Causeway, said point also being on a radial at P.T. Sta. 47+16.98, as
shown on said State Road Right -of -Way Map; thence S 26° 05' 30" W along
said radial 65.00 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 86= acres; together with all accretions, however resulting.
Pursuant to Chapter 380.06 Florida Statutes and after due consideration of
this proposed development with regulations, and the Report and Recommendations
of the South Florida Regional Planning Council, the Commission took the
following action: Approval of this development with modifications.
Findtnr nf Facts With Modifications.
1. The development consists of the following projects.
82-35j)
A. A themed amusement park with 40,000 square feet of shops and
.50,000 square feet of food services -
Caribbean International Village featuring ethnic foods,
crafts, products and a lighthouse.
Turn -of -the -Century Promenade featuring a cultural hall
(1,500 seats), Royal Palm IMAS Theatre (500 seats), railroad
station, tavern, shops and snack bars.
Old Florida Arts, Crafts and Amusement Area featuring shops,
boutiques and major amusement rides (railroad train, water
flume ride, hurricane coaster).
ri-v�rsterfror►t-er.+phithester-�4; 6A9-e eat9} .
Administrative and support facilities, including an
automobile service center.
B. Marina Facilities -
Expaneion-ef-the-49-ship-Eitp-ef-Hiart�-rierir�a-to-i6e-s+ors.
Expansion of the 40-slip City of Miami Marina to 101 slips.
(See Exhibit "C" attached hereto and made a part of this D.O.)
New-�98-a�tp-x►ari:�e-eat-the-eert�i-9iee.
New 267 slip marina on the north side.
A waterborne transit terminal.
Retention of the existing Miami Yacht Club and :•liami Outboard
Marine Club in their present locations.
C. International amphibious airline terminal -
Retention of Chalk's Airlines on the south side.
-4- Htinieipai-heiipert--reieeated-te- the -,to rth--sitie.
D. Gardens and Landscaping -
Retention of existing Japanese Gardens in the present location.
Extensive landscaping in all park and parking areas.
E. Parking Facilities -
Parking for 3,000 vehicles plus 75 tour buses.
Vehicular and pedestrian bridges crossing McArthur Causeway.
F. Infrastructure -
Relocation of the principal water main.
Water, sewer and other utilities on the site.
Transbay sewer utility.
NOTE: The designation of Exhibits "C" and "D" in this Amended Development
Order is correct. There is no Exhibit "A" or "B" in the Amended
Development Order.
1
- 2-
w 82 - 3 39
2. The South Florida Regional Planning Council has recommended that
.debt service for all project bonds be paid from project revenues,
not involving pledges of City of Miami governmental revenues, as
a condition for project approval. The Commission finds that this
recommendation goes far beyond the charge given to the Regional
Planning Council in Chapter 380 Florida Statutes; that said pledge
of City of Miami governmental revenues are the minimum necessary
to back the revenue bond issue, relying on the advice of the
revenue bond underwriters, Prescott, Ball and Turbin, and on the
successful bond validation by a court of competent jurisdiction.
3. The South Florida Regional Planning Council has recommended that
the Developer - Operator Agreement be modified so that all
management fees are paid from project revenues without pledging
or obligating that the City is subjected to by the Agreement, as
a condition for approval. The Commission finds that this
recommendation goes beyond the charge given to the Regional Council
in Chapter 380 Florida Statutes; that said pledges or obligations
of City of Miami governmental revenues are the minimum necessary
to induce the Developer - Operator (Diplomat World Enterprises,
Inc.) to enter into the Agreement with the City, relying on the
advice of Peat, Firwick and Mitchell, charged with review and
evaluation of the Agreement.
4. The South Florida Regional Planning Council has recommended that
the master development plan be modified to eliminate or mitigate
the negative impacts identified in the Report and Recommendations
of the South Florida Regional Planning Council, as a condition
for approval. The Commission finds that the Application for
Development Approval, the "Response to the South Florida Regional
Planning Council Staff Assessment of the Application for Development
Approval for Watson Island," City of Miami (May, 1980), and
further Conditions in this Development order will eliminate,
mitigate, or modify, so far as feasible, the negative impacts
identified in the Council Report.
5. The South Florida Regional Planning Council has recommended that
the Application for Development Approval be modified to provide
"adequate consistent information accurately reflecting the project
and its impacts to serve as an adequate legal basis to protect
. and bind the City, the Region and the State," and be re -submitted
3_ 82�N
-.
M
6
to the Council for DRI review, as a condition for approval.
.The Commission finds that the Application for Development Approval,
together with the "Response to the South Florida Regional Planning
Council Staff Assessment of the Application for Development
Approval for Watson Island," City of Miami (May, 1980), contain
adequate and sufficient information about the project and its
impacts at this conceptual stage and together with further
conditions in this Development Order, form a sound legal basis
which affected agene'ies can rely upon in their discharge of
statutory duties.
6. The Applicant recognizes the potential conflict between the
proposed expansion of the west side marina to 46; slips and
101
proposals to expand the north turning basin. give-=+flp�=cazt-9ha;�
re se4ve-the- =s 5ee- with- the -BiseayRe-iinp--ftzsociIdtior. 7- 4-, he
Bade-Eeeintp-5eepert-9epartze-st-ane-ei=eeted-ertiise-;uses-se-ns-to
a� --a=iew-tke-west-side- slayiria-te-be-eie+leiepee-Gs-prOp0@eC-3 "--the
Ac�eiteatien-fer-7e•!eieplrse�:t-=�ppreYsi-er7-b� --ire-esppropriate�p
:neei=i�ti---eke-appi;ce!te-ferthey-o tiptiiatCe-tSlAt-witkia-�a--senths
e=-t!�e-daee-ef-#9aesfls�ee-e±-ek�a-fee+e�epMe:it-6raer-anei-yrior-we
eeetting-perpnite-mer-Nest-Side-rnarime-exgans 4-ers-the-re904ntiOn-vi
tki9-:sstse- wil-1-be-reperted-te- the- Setith--lerida-Regiestal
P�af:rt}rye-Eeesrseii. As mandated by the Florida Land and Water
Adjudicatory Commission by Final Order dated September 29, 1981,
the marina on the west side of Watson Island as proposed in the
Application for Development Order has been modified so as to
not interfere with the existing or with Proposed expansion of
the Port of Miami turning basin. (See Exhibit "C" attached hereto).
7. The Applicant shall undertake studies to provide alternate means
of access to Watson Island including, but not limited to:
increased mass transit, remote off -site parking with shuttle
service to the Island, flat -rate limousine service from downtown
Miami and Miami Beach, waterborne transportation, and an
information system via radio and highway enunciator signs to
notify in -bound motorists when Island lots are full. As mandated
by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission by Final
- 4-
82 -33g
ON
8.
M
Order dated September 29, 1981, the City has prepared plans for
.public transportation facilities to transport visitors to
Watson Island to assure that projections for the number of
visitors who would reach the project through public transportation
facilities can be realized, and further; plans for these
facilities are an integral part of the application for development
approval. The Applicant further stipulates that within 24 months
of the date of issuance of this Development Order an implementation
program and schedule'will be reported to the South Florida Regional
Planning Council. (See Exhibit "C" attached hereto) .
The Applicant shall undertake a mitigation plan for replacement
of mangroves and seagrasses within 6 months of commencement of
construction (as defined subsequently). Recognizing the removal
of 470 square feet of red, black and white mangroves, the
Applicant will revegetate Picnic Island in Biscayne Bay by
planting mangrove seedlings in the ratio of four seedlings for
every mangrove eliminated on Watson Island, utilizing the
services of the Dade marina Institute. The Applicant has
previously agreed to move one arm of the north side marina due
to the ecological restraints to the Holodule seaqrass bed and
to med-►-fy the helipad to reduce the impact in seagrass beds.
Moreover, the Applicant stipulates that, despite all these
mitigating measures, 10,000 square feet of Thalasia seedlings
will be planted elsewhere in north Biscayne Bay as a further
mitigating measure.
The Applicant recognizes that key permits or approvals must
be obtained prior to commencement of construction (as defined
subsequently) as follows:
a) Complex source permit from the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulations;
b) Surface Water Management Permit from South Florida Water
Management District pursuant to Chapter 373, Part IV,
Florida Statutes;
c) Approval of re -platting of Watson Island per Article IV,
Section 10 of the City of Miami Comprehensive Zoning
i
Ordinance 6871 from the Miami City Commission;
M&'fl
.82-jatl
G
l=
10.
d) Approval of construction and operation of additional
recreational facilities in a P-R zoning district per
Article XVIII-I Section 4 (1) of the City of Miami
Comprehensive Zoning ordinance 6871 from the Miami
City Commission;
e) Approval by the Miami City Commission of a negotiated
sale of the bond package to bond underwriters;
The Applicant further recognizes that additional permits or
approvals must be obtained prior to undertaking certain aspects
of the project, as follows:
a) Building permits from the City of Miami, which review will
include conformity to federal, state and local laws and
land development regulations including the South Florida
Building Code and Federal Insurance Administration rate
maps (for flood hazards);
b) Conditional Use approval of docks in excess of 25 feet by
the Miami Zoning Board;
c) Approval by the Director of the Florida Department of
Natural Resources of marine -related aspects of the project
in conformity with Chapter 16C-17 FAC Biscayne Bay Aquatic
Preserve Rules; and
d) Permits from Corps of Engineers and Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation for marina, transbay utility
- pipelines and heliport construction, which review will include
conformity to the Chapter 16C-17 FAC Biscayne Bay Aquatic
Preserve Rules.
11. The Applicant shall:
a) Maintain the Japanese Gardens intact in its present location;
b) Where possible, maintain existing ornamental trees and shrubs
in their present location or as an alternative, existing
ornamental landscape material will be moved to other
locations on Watson Island;
c) Where possible, use predominantly native species as additional
plant material in the park and parking areas; and
11
• -6- %92-zs39
• �82-.,��
e
d). Eliminate two existing undesirable exotic species
(Australian Pine and Brazilian Pepper);
e) Obtain tree removal or relocation permits from the Miami
Department of Building and Zoning Inspection.
12. The Applicant shall coordinate the future development of Chalk's
Airlines with the development plan for Watsun Island, shown in
the Application for Development Approval.
13. The Applicant shall assure adequate fairway (minimum 150.feet)
between the proposed north side marina and any proposed marinas
on the south side of Biscayne Island by reviewing applications
for docks or marinas under the City of Miami Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance and also by evaluating leasing proposals for City -owned
bay bottom between Watson Island and Biscayne Island.
14. The Applicant shall designate a professional, experienced in soils,
to personally supervise, select from and approve the use of fill
materials to be used on the Watson Island Development in order to
reduce potential pollution hazards.
15. The Applicant is directed to consider wind orientation and solar
radiation in site design, building placement and roof slopes in
final design to achieve energy efficiency. The Applicant is also
directed to review security aspects of the project with the Miami
Police Department, in final design.
16. The Applicant shall submit a report, 12 months from the date
of issuance of this Development Order and each 12 months thereafter
until project completion, 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 12 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;
— Demonstrated compliance with the City of Miami's Affirmative
Action program for minority construction employment and
construction contracts;
u
-7-
S2-4319
- Any unforseen environmental impacts and the applicants'
efforts to mitigate these impacts;
Specific progress response to paragraphs 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15 and 17 of this Development Order, it being understood
that submission of this report is not a substitution for
specific reports required by these paragraphs;
- Accumulative list of all permits or approvals applied for,
approved or denied, including but not limited to paragraphs
9 and 10 of this Development Order;
- A statement as to whether any proposed project construction
changes in the ensuing 12 months are expected to deviate
substantially from the approvals included in the 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 is hereby
designated to receive this report, monitor compliance and assure
compliance with the provisions of this Development Order.
17. The Development Order shall be null and void if the construction
has not commenced within 24 months of the date of issuance of the
Amended Development Order. "Commencement of Construction" is
defined as follows:
a) Filling, grading and compaction of the entire site to within
6 inches of final grade;
b) Installation of underground utility infrastructure throughout
the entire site, i.e. water, sanitary sewer and gas lines, and
completion of driving of piles to final refusal depth for
all large buildings and rides.
18. Documents which have been supplied to the South Florida Regional
Planning Council and any additional information requested
subsequent to the Council hearing will be incorporated into a
complete document and supplied to the Regional Pli-s.ning Council,
City of Miami, Dade County and the State within 6 months of the
date of the issuance of the Development Order.
19. The Application for Development Approval shall be incorporated
by reference into any Development Order issued by the City of
Miami, as follows:
WE
1 82--;i39
.(*S
"The Application for Development Approval is incorporated
herein by reference and relied upon by the parties in
discharging their statutory duties under Chapter 380,
Florida Statutes. Substantial compliance with the
representation contained in the Application for Development
Approval is a condition for approval unless waived or
modified by agreement among the parties".
20. As mandated by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission
by Final Order dated 'September 29, 1981, no dredginq or filling
in submerged areas or alteration of shorelines will be undertaken
except in connection with installation of sewage pipes and
marine oiliness.
21. As mandated by the Florida Land and Water Adludicatory Commission
bbv Final Order dated September 29, 1981, the applicant agrees to
the findings of the Florida Department of Transportation recardinq
current and prospective capacity of MacArthur Causewav, I--95, and
US-1 and affected arterials as a result of the development of the
Watson Island Project that the applicant i.nnrove or oav for the
cost of imnrovina MacArthur Causewav from an existing 30 to 35
foot width to a full 36 foot roadwav with 4 foot paved outside
shoulders within the limits of the Watson Island Development in
order to meet current Florida Department of Transportation
standards for a six -lane divided highway. (see Exhibit "D" attached hereto).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Watson Island Development complies with the Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, is consistent with the orderly development and goals
of the City of Miami and is consistent with, and will comply with,
local land development regulations, being Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance 6871.
The proposed development does not unreasonably interfere with
the objectives of the adopted State Land Development Plan applicable
to the City of Miami.
The proposed development does not unreasonably interfere with
any of the considerations and objectives set forth in Chapter 380,
Florida Statutes.
-9-
A
F
The proposed development is inconsistent with the Report and
Recommendations of the South Florida Regional Planning Council which
recommended denial of the project.
The Report and Recommendations of the South Florida Regional
Planning Council specifies changes in the Application for Development
Approval that would make it eligible for approval, pursuant to
Section 22F-1.23, Florida Administrative Code.
The City Commission desiring to overcome the objections of the
South Florida Regional Planning Council has addressed said specific
changes, thereby bringing the development proposal into consistence
with the Council report and making the project eligible for approval.
-10-
82-339
f ' i.i.::D ;.�� rir► �?, R- Co.
VS. )
r
)
Respondant. .)
D�AH Cr.SE r.C. SG-1843
• : i:::zL C .y�R
T us is cause cause be_ore `l,.e _F_,_ ida Lard and Water
;,d ju�icatory Cc—, 4 ssioz for +i.-al dete=inat_on on S_atw_:er I,
iz Tallahassee, Flow zda. Oral arg=ents we_e p_esented and. va_
interested citizens provided public cc,,. ent. -he parties were
rapresented by:
For Petitioner: Allan .-Milledge and
De -hie � al:r.skY
• %q"_1sd=e s Hermelee
2599 South Bayshore D_i:re
.'`.3. ^4 , Florida =3133
lore Reszonde.nt.- Stuart L. Sir n
„pec:a3 Ccu::se3 to Cy c= :::a,mi
' Fi...ne, 3acohson, Blcck, Main,
'Cola i & Sinon
2401 Dcu«ias Road
Post Office. Bcx 24080C
.l" .�1, F=tii=:dS 31134
�
W_lliam 7. Moore
Pr•:ant, Mille_ and Clive
70G BG=vm Bank B:::i::in c
Tallahassee, Flcri�a 3Z30?
C; d_ T:' �'.' �S'
This case is an appeal under Section 32SO.07, Ficr _da S-a
_Y South Florida Re Tonal Planning Council i5:PAC; to t :e
Zand end Water Adjudica; :ry Cc,.rjssica (ndjudicMtcry Cc:.=issior-
o" a Develop-,ne-t Order issued by the City of Miami :City) .
r 82-�
D.. JL+_� , +: a 0, Abe G:.ty a a_ A�,i reader 3 2t D2rel .o.-
C ^ter oe=ta:zn_r.9 to the ne•:elop rent of 7,eca ^tial `�-- ..-M a
i ...._ _ _ __+.,. - ..pact .c- •
Watson Island, an =a--Y_,
a On Auc•.:st 12, 1920, riled a Notice of Appeal with
Flcrida Land and ;dater Ad4ud4catcry C=Missiot pursuant to
C :spier-80.07, 71crtda Statutes- The appeal :.as referred to '
or r.d.-ninist+a_i,�e 82ar:::ys and assigned to a hearing
aZZ-car.
z'Hearing Officer ccnduc ted de novo Near i n; s an
m a_-c . 3 and 4, 19e1. On VI-u:le 3, 1981, a _-4ec=-. _ceded Order issi
cc.nta'_ nine c_ndinus of ;acts and conclusions of law, with two
a_ perdices. • On July 23 both ,a_ ties st::pu_l=a ed for a naive: a
A.;.. 90-day pe.. cd under Sec ion, ...:0.59 (1) (b) , c da 5 at -e
OZ ER
The Beari: c Officer's t ind n ^y s of '- ac t, as set '!or
:le R c ZenSlec Gi CS .. i J;.+.e 3 , ca _, E' .1. hereby
and incorporated by reference.
2. The Cfficer's Conclusions of Law, as set ro
is the �ec%-I=ended Order dated June 3, 1981, a=e hereby adcpte
and inccrpera_ed by refe=enca hsrei= eXcept as fallowsr
A. The accept:. Co..nalusior. of :zw Na. 5
its eati.-. a ty but a:?ds additional lace trace (underlined' tc -
o-1 i--acts o= t::e proposed deve? o__,ent that
have been shown to extend beyo^d the Cit_► of mianl axe the :W =
upon t: a::spor tation facilities, upc•.Z water cual:ts , and uoen
econ:.
1�
It82i389
r
l a �. T!.e *•c: r:,:ssion rejects t::e final two sentences o
j .. _
lCCMClusiOn o_ La:. No. 7.
?' C. M:;e CC=_; Ssion ada=ts the =oilC::i c Conc_uai=n c
T.,!_ project t.�ese':ts a S_C:11r---,n . ecV::e�•.0 _..5i:
,.o the +cCal government by L tue of r;e ,.ac. _.'1a she City of
1S res`.C:1S:b"e +Ci the bond de'.--, -'OrvZ=-o::s s%^lices rendered
the park, plus the City must c-aa_Tantee a mana7erent fee for the
operation cf the project. The general reverses of the City are
pA.edced i:� the event'the prc;ecl does not make a profit.
Sbculd the project fail, the fiscal sclver.;.l c_ =." s =4— Of
Gcverr^e: t would be in jeopard -r an-' under t::e provisions of
C::apter 210.50, at sec., ^Icr iva Sta =_*tes. the = cblem would
th.en he a state problem. tinder the eymress !acts of t :is case
as found by thee3_-M3 Of_icer remit:ve tc -:lz i15Czl aspects
o= is a=osec:,, trere exist su=-"icient cry' mds to ca•Cse this
Cr -. issi n to conal::de as a natter of taw that in vr.ew of
Cnapte= 218, and =ore specifically '212.50, et sec., there is as
inherent stare irpacl.
:.ecamni, the Ccr _ss? on also takes ad_�i: is r: a:
i
seer c: e= -h e 3 c -_on frc.:. ...he _..__.. Dis....ict ..a•.tr t o! hc: eal
in G?atste_n v- vity of M an ;Case No. 80`57 / M.av 26, 19S1) •
r The cc;;: t ^el d that the =amaae_me+ cc..t_act •1or he =51a
t.^.eme var."'. was :11111 a;.M t1Gld. The man acement =--act was an
C
integral part of the fisca- .:�act,.. st::dy pr pa-ed by 'the -,•..._a:
'• In its review o.- the n,ro4 ect. The City' s ccnst: act=-- cost
esci-a_es, t!-&e ecozoric feasibility
repo --by t e C:=;" s
,.82-a
�1
,c:.su'_=ants grid :.e Land -:alida'- are! � .-sed •spo � the cent+ ac=
Mors
r
.�
which- :.as now been declared ru.l and -:oic. ; s causes t::j s
,,
:
- of t-
c ce _v afis..=
,••.•• .,r T = y .► Y.1. M i.. ^a ee=l" 1 ra+1. 5oii�ea^y
C ;
_ f
D. :he Co=i.ss,.on rejects Co nc'_•.asio:I of Law :ice. o
an.•'. the folloki ;Q Ian;,:a-e:
Based upon the �•ecca.d of : hi.s case :: arid ap-lica*-: a la-t
�.._s Co:r--.issicn ccn eludes -Chat fire project, as proposed, ::i:.'_' . -
adverse i.�.pac is upon public tr ansporta t_on °acilities, water
cjality, and the ecor_cmy of the region.
In dete=in ng whether to a.tiz;z, reverse, or a;_ rcJ_-
with conditions a lccal develor=ert order , the Cc::W iss:e:z is = a-
to weich and baia :ae the various =.:,.,pacts cf the crcaose,_4 projec=
'Czc.n review of the evidence, t::is Ccr.=.ission is sari -
that adequate raeasvres can be taken to in"ticate cr el:L ira to th-
addease i^pacts t:^.-oug?a the T:OSition o: reasc.^.able conCitic .s.
t.
ific charges da :.fled by Ch
Lac.. cE the spec r L �..: n ` • � � e :ea. ing C`f:.Cr.r
his Co^clus_on cf Law No. 8 can be a=d are subst: rt_a? 1y :d�
by sceci_ic conditionns attacrsed to this order. Each of these
cc:. :tons must be sarisfactor is= =e t prier to aperc•: is g iss;:a:
o-f the -Development order. his Cc=1SSwon believes t::a.t satin
of these coed:tions will ade=zL-.elv arotec t the interests of t..:
w• �
^-' Q __=ission also rec: grin -hat tiZe a^�.i_ a Dev e_c
es _ : -
of ?e_ional 2.-,._ act review process rust :reach a definite pc:n.t
The Aeari.^g Ofrices recc.-"mended a denial wit;:
specific changes. under the facts of this case, it is o•:- juc
a J/_
s2-339
: a = aFi.=r .rid: al -W ..h -the c vec r.f - er c'J^C { t+�.�.7� l:f ZCG+ r.►�r:: to $Zl
••
♦.y_ri.. i .1i t ~ .�i
C� ^'� the State :� eres..s, �111 a..s pr....eC.. the deve_=oer
i��•�l s potential 4r.evv it si *ration.
3. Based Uptn tiie forescimg Findings cs, Fact and C-enc.'u;
C :���►, the Ce- ission hereby giants pe wissioa to the City of
to develop the nrcper =�; 'rno»m as W'a tson =sla :d as : rov..de-
+: its : ppli-c.a`,icn subject to the adopted by and set.
`o_ th in this order.
F ailU a to comply k i :.h Stch conditions by March 1, 1982,
shall. result in a ternina tion a." the Cit ' s rw7 t to proceed
with" project under S380. 07, r 1c, iaa Statute, and shall
h t
c ~ft•-te a der.ial o_ pernissac;3 t the C�'-. to develop -he
C�.J V.. i V
Pr=ar V. P�oViC@.^. thE'r, �.be Cst
..ry shall be Cant d leave to
• 1.�
petition the Ccz=issior_ -far an exters:.en of the arch 1, 1982
date ; &=n a shoving o: good cause.
At suc a t:zne as ail of the ecrdit_ans in this Oder
are co-n=Iately sa "isf.,ec and U= . _ ea-zes i of -he City Y , ..he __v,
:he : lcrida Depa==ent cf ':ransportat_cn- and the Oepa :_-e_^.t of
Veteran and Cc=u::ity Af a4,rs shall ccne•.:rrently rerc= : bad to
4. The parties' E.yceptiors to the Reec= nended Order are
re-J ected to the extent they are is ccnsiste~t W:.t:: the find ..:os;
conclusions and condit ions contained in :his crde.-.
$2-J 9
CC. Cv^ ^�
No dredging or fi:._ing j.-% su=erzed areas or
elterat_c n of shorelines will be -undertaken except is connection
installation of sewa-e -•izes and marine gs Any
i MMrtic.^.al dred7ing or :ill ng in sa merged areas that :nip:_. be
rc_csed or :eazired wi31 be considered a sub—stantiai deviatiOn
_:zcm zhe to -s of the evelon=,e nt Order . nder un -.yx.-isionS of
Section: Ficrida
{4, The proposed marina on the west side of Watson
Tslan4 be el_ :mated or relocated sc t -t _; t willnot interfere
withthe existin t;2rning bas:.n c_ the Part o` '.ia=i • or with
ex sans-: on of --he tsrni :g basin. Interfe_enze with the existing
_.r-:.y 7ZSl2 or S1..; eXpaTS1C1 of the ttr:_; :y hasin .I-v a
rcp•csed r<a:ina associated with this project kill be cons: asred
subst.�_...4_al deviation _r= the terns Q.. ...Je Development Qrdsr an
e provisions of Section 3E0. 06 (1 i) (a) , r? c_ _ da Statutes.
s`u:t er site specific plans ,cr any manna should '>e su:;.m..it-ed t
the Scut_`: _ lc_ ida Res cna? Plan�zi.:a Courc:.+, whic.. shall rev..iW
and prCV4-de CC:3.:+e :t.' -a the City 'w2..: is 54 days.
• .he Litt' shal+ consider r.::e ec^,:en:_ of the South = 2
_. onal P a....+..g ..cz:.-n.... a -.%A Hake ...r:Y r...._ �cs�icas ,...e. sd
.� •�.. �'✓_ ra ��• P13..s for any marina SI131l Jec v...8 an .. i1ze.'r al part
of t: s appl .cstion for develo=, snt approval.
., ...e _o__wa t:epa_-t:.-.P_nt of Txans=ortazicn s..el..
........:....._ : f ..:. v..rM .•.I p—ent: 7....� i
{ �............ an a.-�alys_s o.. ....e .... _ e ... and pros...... _..ve c��..c: _: c.
I -
:}.acArtir:x Casseuay, and US-1 and affec:.ea arterials and .,a
of .=-_-oy em.eneeds which s r.. v j 4 ke: -_ LD result
_rcm the d:: e : ,.-meat of -.':a Watscn is_3 d p=-ciect.
A copy c_ this docurer_t -shall be fo_.:a_»ed to t..e Sc
r _crida Rec::c .al P3 sn^..i: g Co=c:l which stall _eviv. ti:e _c_ ort
�• tC r��.. •A iY •i.•
u = V L•' z.y �i rr�. �• � `• �� • � iCe w./.-�JE� .r7 `.o the :�G•.711r��....�.. � :•iJ .io4
i
3
1W- s • Thae vema. � ent o: _rans,crtatitn shall consider the
tand �.a ec,_o_is o. h-z
I
cations to the rerc:-t dee-:e3 City shall
�a .�'le cos.. o� the .._�spor a��J:7 Jl.uQV.
y t r t= .. -tu
+11•► C4 . J{�•!i � rvt a or agree 1..' rd1 a cost .. of
..
:To:cveaeats to :�!acArt::;:r CaLse•�►ay, I-9S, �S-: and such other a_
a_te=:aia as deterrl.ined necessary by the State pep=: tm.eat oa
•
Tra:.s:,cr..a..._o.. ..o ad2gt,a..eil ac..;....=zdate 4en..cciar t_aff_c over
. p r o 4 e c e&- li`e cf t a project.
T J- • 1 •• L �. .. i. f .� .: .�.. a• w , f �:...
(4) ..he City shall cc.....ac_ 'sal.._. an _. de_ e..den.. __r
acceptable to t1he Co=. issicn and the*-Departrent cf Veteran and
Affairs, to prepa-re a nest ecV,'icY.rY feasil" 1ity repot
for t a Ratscn 2siand project Which. ,2) assesses s e!'.ects of
any POssible Changes :.o she =anagemuant co -= act; (2) anal— zes th
Cat_+' `s rave.^ue -hsse and its experdi _;;res p3ar. and (3)
iden;.i=_es revenue so::=ces or prcposed expandi •Yss that .waist 'be
altered :.e ias;:_e t;:e ecca•�:..ic cia?�ii:. tz of the C:. ty in trhe even
t:^.ac t:.e 'Aa�son lswaad Psojec:. is an u..s;:ccessf l venture.
o'�:e City shall sub --it :his doc;— nz tc tIhe
i lcrida Regional Planning ^c 1 which 4 ha '_, _er:DW :,,le ra*crt
1
and rrcvide cc.=e:t is to the Depca� tment o� Veteran and Cow::; _ ty
s__c rs w zhi n 60 days. The Depart went of Ve`eran a :d
:►�: s s..ail the ep..rt t ge—h.._.. he cot a r_s or
= a.. t = �c.=:.w,s RQgicr.31 P.ar.ni::g Cos: cil a..^.3 ':: i2@ping w i .h
rovisicas e: Chapte_ 218, Florida 5t3t•,:tas , review the Xe orr a
be ass: --red c_ the overall ,fiscal so' :*e_-icy o_ t e
DSO
The 'City shall prepare plans :cr pablic
t:ar,sx=
•1
-,c- facia 4 t es
to :ransper . v,sitcr_ to atsen Is_an-A
to assure
' =_-cA a ..; r
that . �.,,..c..�o,.s
r t er r i i t.•_ wt wo•_-Id
..c be �L,�.o o� v s� ....s ,tc
reach the
protect t reuch
A.
pudic transpertaticn faC414-:,;os can
be rea_-sbd•
The
%r-z-.y S••a+' sML w.-it ..e vYv...s iri 1. _ �ese
_a `iiitle
to the Southevie--
ioriGa Reg=eaal Pla:.rinc, C.-•�.^ci1 w:.ich
,Nall r
the rIar-s and provide co.;.::.en=s to -he Department o�
.... �^ -` --
n O V c .. 3
withi.^. 60 days.
,. +, t �r ,.......,..t.,ti�,.
The De�ar�..:.e:�t o_ 1 �..a: �.. � .... shall
sider
co:. a
the plans, toceCher with the c0—«enis by the South Flo-rida Regio:
P-1Z.-Mina '.Ounail and be assumed of t.ie vlabili y c! the D:•b lic
t_anspQr;.stic:: ecnponent. Plans For th,ase :ac:l:_ies shall
beccme a.: _nzegral part of the application :�d= develo= ent apprcl
:. n -ez;ed at zalla%Zssee, : lo= da, se : l ar'da Land an:
ti\ate: .--.. jL.►....3 mac_ C'.`Z-a- S a:.O.,j 'Q!1 �s:.. SeC.� L` ..� to
the
Cc.:.-aiss_on :his«� day c= Sep _e ber 2.
SecraZa_--y to the : icr ida Lmn
and Z$a teS
j Copies to:
:ez,h-er s
c
-...1
a C�:..:.:Ss�..•
COumsel
of
Record
ij
=ow adz
D'Epar:r o^t o_
^ransporta.t:on
j Depa_=er t
of Vete=am
and C:..: man i t. Affair s
g . &.82-4a.
STATE OF FLORIDA
LAND A:;D WATER ADjUDIC�,AORY C-OA MIS IO`i
SOUTH FLORIDA REG310NAL
PLAN:iING COUNCIL,
Petitioner,
VS.
DOAH CASE 210. 80-1843
CITY OF MI AMI ,
Respondent.
ORDER GF--%:7TING E.{TE:1SIOlJ
This cause came before the Florida Land and Water
Adjudicatory Commission on March 2, 1932, on the cetition of
the respondent, City of Miami, for an extension of time
within which to comply with the conditions for development
approval set forth in this Commission's Final Order of
September 29, 1981.
For good cause shown, the petition is hereby granted,
• as follows:
1) No later than May 13, 1982, the City stall present
to the Cor.•.mission Evidence of satisfactory co:^�liance with
conditions 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Final Order; and
2) No later than 120 days after the date of the next
regularly scheduled election in the City, the City shall
present to the Commission evidence of satisfactory compliance
i with condition 4 of the Final Order.
Entered at Tallahassee, Florida, by the Florida Land and
Water Adjudicatory Commission through the Secretary of the
Commission this I 0 -k day of March 1982.
JOHN T . HER..ND N ,
Secretary to the Florida Land
and Water Adjudicatory
Commission
copies to:
Members of the Commission
Counsel of Record 1�
Florida Department of Transportation
Department of Veteran and Community Affairs
JAPA
EXHIBIT licit
n .
t
t
1
March 15, 1982
i
Mr. M. Barry Peterson,-AICP
Executive Director -
South Florida Regional Planning Council
1515 N.W. 167th Street Suite 429
Miami, Florida 33169
Dear Mr. Peterson:
on September 29, 1981, the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory
Commission granted permission to the City of Miami to develop
the property known as Watson Island as provided for in the
City's Application for Development Approval subject to five
conditions set forth in the Adjudicatory Commission Order.
Additionally, the Order took administrative notice of the
decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Glatstein v.
City of Miami, May 26, 1981, in which the court held that the
management agreement between the City and Diplomat World
Enterprises for the development and operation of a theme park
on Watson Island was null and void.
The management agreement was an integral part of the City's
construction cost estimates, economic feasibility report and
bond validation as well as the fiscal impact study prepared by
the South Florida Regional Planning Council.
on November 16, 1981, the Florida Supreme Court declined to accept
jurisdiction and denied the City's Petition for Review thereby
exhausting legal remedy for the City.
The City then requested an extension of time to comply with the
five conditions set forth in the Adjudicatory Commission Order
which had set a March 1, 1982 deadline. Specifically, the City
stated the need for an extension in order to re -bid and put in
place a new management services agreement to aid the City in the
development and operation of the proposed Watson Island theme park.
The Adjudicatory Commission, on March 10, 1982, granted the City's
request and set a new deadline of May 18, 1982, for the City and
the other public agencies involved to comply with conditions one,
two, three and five and a deadline of one hundred and twenty days
after the next election to be held in the City of Miami for
compliance with condition four. +
C:T1 U. N11A.t11i L.',1%-'R�1TY CE 1041 11`1E5 L. N\:GHf INTERNA1:UNAL CENTER
:V �.E. ."lJ A�d.+ue, �::R F'Ovf �1Wf:11..:Q(i,.d 33131: I;U�1 574-.iu::
i
82 39
Mr. M. Barry Peterson
Page 2
March 15, 1982
Conditions two, three,
that must be submitted
Council for review and
are submitted to you in
four and five include certain materials
to the South Florida Regional Planning
comment. This letter and accompaniments
compliance with the following conditions:
CONDITION (2) The proposed marina on the west side of Watson
Island be eliminated or relocated so that it will not interfere
with the existing turning basin of the Port of Miami, or with
expansion of the turning basin. Interference with the existing
turning basin or with the expansion of the turning basin by a
proposed marina associated with this project will be considered
a substantial deviation from the terms of the Development Order
under the provisions of Section 380.06 (17)(a), Florida Statuteb.
Further site specific plans for any marina should be submitted to
the South Florida Regional Planning Council, which shall review
the plans and provide comments to the City within 60 days. The
City shall consider the comments of the South Florida Regional
Planning Council and make any modifications deemed appropriate.
Plans for any marina shall become an integral part of the applica-
tion for development approval.
CONDITION (3) The Florida Department of Transportation shall
conduct an analysis of the current and prospective capacity of
MacArthur Causeway, I-95 and US-1 and affected arterials and make
a determination of improvement needs which are likely to result
from the development of the Watson Island project.
A copy of this document stall be forwarded to the South Florida
Regional Planning Council which shall review the report and provide
comments to the Department of Transportation within 60 days. The
Department of Transportation shall consider the comments of the
South Florida Regional Planning Council and make modifications to
the report deemed appropriate. The City shall pay the cost of the
transportation study.
The City shall improve or agree to pay the cost of the improvements
to MacArthur Causeway, I-95, US-1 and such other affected arterials
as determined necessary by the State Department of Transportation
to adequately accommodate vehicular traffic over the projected
life of the project.
CONDITION (5) The City shall prepare plans for public transpor-
tation facilities to transport visitors to Watson Island to assure
that projections for the number of visitors who would reach the
project through public transportation facilities can be realized.
The City shall submit the plans for these facilities to the South
Florida Regional Planning Council which shall review the plans and
provide comments to the Department of Transportation within 60 days.
82-889
,'
Mr. M. Barry Petez- .)n
Page 3
March 15, 1982
The Department of Transportation shall consider the plans, together
with the comments by the South Florida Regional Planning Council
and be assured of the viability of the public transportation
component. Plans for these facilities shall become an integral
part of the Application for Development Approval.
As set forth in CONDITION (2), we herebv submit site specific plans
for modifications to proposed marina facilities for the Watson
Island development -so that the marinas will not interfere with the
existing Port of Miami and port turning basin nor with future port
or turning basin expansion.
Enclosed are a detailed marina plan and an aerial photo with the,
Watson Island marina drawing superimposed showing the relationship
of the proposed turning basin expansion, the Port of Miami and
surrounding islands in scale relationship to the proposed marina
development.
This modification to the marina facilities proposed in the
February 1980 Application for Development Approval also resolves
Item 6 of the City's Development Order as issued July 10, 1980:
Item (6) The Applicant recognizes the potential conflict
between the proposed expansion of the west side marina to
165 slips and proposals to expand the north turning basin.
The Applicant shall resolve the issue with the Biscayne Bay
Pilots Association, the Dade County Seaport Department and
affected cruise lines so as to, a) allow the west side
marina to be developed as proposed in the Application for
Development Approval, or b) be appropriately modified. The
Applicant further stipulates that within 24 months of the
date of issuance of this Development Order and prior to
seeking permits for west side marina expansion, the resolution
of this issue will be reported to the South Florida Regional
Planning Council.
Additional impacts on the Watson Island Development which result
from these modifications are:
1. The elimination of the proposed 4000 seat Bayside Amphitheater,
the floating stage and the protected fairway which was to
accommodate aquatic performances.
i
2. hiodification of the site to be occupied by Chalk's Air Terminal,
allowing them to remain at their existing location for ramp
and runway areas.
3. Elimination of the heliport proposed in the A.D.A. to be located
on pilings at the northeast water edge of Watson Island.
82-885
Mr. M. Barry Peterson
Page 4
March 15, 1982
Additionally, we submit, as a part to this item, a letter from
Carmen J. Lunetta, Director of the Port of Miami, regarding the
impact of these modifications.
As set forth in CONDITION (3) of the Adjudicatory Commission Order,
{ the Florida Department of Transportation was to conduct an independent
i analysis of the capacities of MacArthur Causeway, I-95 and US-1 to
determine any improvement needs likely to result from the development
of the Watson Island project.
A copy of their analysis and findings dated February 4, 1982, has
been submitted to the South Florida Regional Planning Council for
your review and comments, to be returned to the Department for their
consideration and modifications to their report as deemed appropriate.
We enclose a copy of the F.D.O.T. document along with this submission.
The City agrees to include in the Watson Island Project the cost of
any improvements determined by F.D.O.T. and will formally act upon
such an appropriation by Resolution of the City Commission after
consideration of the S.F.R.P.C.input. This condition, as well as
all others, will, upon conclusion of these issues, be incorporated
into an amended Development Order.
For CONDITION (5), we submit three plan documents as follows:
1. A central Miami area map depicting Phase I of the area mass
transit (Metrorail) route and station locations now under
construction, the proposed people mover (D.C.M) route and
stations and the public bus routes which interface the
people mover and mass transit systems and cross Watson Island.
2. A Metro -Dade area map showing existing public bus routes which
j access Watson Island via the MacArthur Causeway, proposed
charter bus and limousine routes to be incorporated into the
operation of the Watson Island Theme Park and various tour
packages, location and connecting routes for remote off -site
parking and shuttle service to the Island and the locations
i for enunciators to be placed along I-95 as a part of a radio
and signage information system, an integral part of the park
operation, used to inform inbound motorists of current
parking conditions and accommodations.
3. A Watson Island site plan indicating accommodations for charter
bus parking and access, public bus access lanes and drop off
facilities, valet parking access accommodations and the
proposed water transportation terminal.
r82-339
602
Mr. M. Barry Peterson
Page 5
March 15, 1982
Transportation to the Watson Island Theme Park will be multimodal
using systems in use at the present time, now under construction
or proposed.
Metro Dade has formulated a transportation system which encompasses
a bus system, a people mover known as the Downtown Component of
Metrorail (DCM) and a rapid transit system known as Metrorail.
This transportation system is designed to handle 500,000 passengers
daily.
The Metrorail' System now under construction, with a projected
completion date of 1984 for Phase I, will comprise 21 miles, with
its northwestern point at the Okeechobee Station near the western
edge of Hialeah and its southern terminus at the suburban Dadeland
area. The route alignment comes eastward from Hialeah then south,
and serves the communities of Northside, Model Cities Brownsville,
Allapattah, Civic Center, Culmer and downtown Miami. It then
crosses the Miami River, running parallel to U.S. 1 and serves the
Brickell, Coral Gables and South Miami communities. Twenty
passenger stations are being constructed for the Phase I system and
they will be approximately one mile apart along the alignment.
The DCM will be a people mover, its alignment as an initial stage
will start at Government Center Station loop downtown and return
to Government Station with additional spurs north to Omni and
South along Brickell in later development.
Dade County has planned a bus feeder system to the major Metrorail
stations. Metrorail will have buses coming directly to the
Metrorail station so that passengers from remote areas can continue
their trip on Metrorail and the people mover (D.C.M.). Scheduled
shuttle vehicals would be provided as a part of the theme park
operation to meet both access and egress demands.
Future expansion of Metrorail is planned under Phase II of Dade
County's transportation system. This expansion will have the
following alignments:
From Overtown station northeast to NE 203rd Street
aionc the FEC•Railroad Right -of -Way.
. From Government Center Station due West along West F1acler
Street to the Palmetto Expressway.
. From N.W. 79th Street due north along N.P. 27th Avenue
to the vicinity of N.W. 131 Street.
From test Flagler Street at N.W. 37th Avenue due north
along N.W. 37th Avenue to Miami International Airport.
In addition, Dade County plans to expand the Metrorail fleet to
225 cars from the present 136 cars.
11r
Mr. M. Barry Peterton
Page 6
March 15, 1982
The Metrobus fleet will consist of 1,000 buses in 1984. These buses.
will be stored and maintained in existing facilities and in new
facilities now under construction. As stated before, the buses will
be components of transportation facilities that will serve 500,000
passengers a day in Metropolitan Dade County.
Chartered and tour buses will also be an operational part of the
Watson Island Theme Park. As a part of the feasibility study
produced by Economies Research Associates they concluded under
Parkinq and Related Transportation Sv"stems, "Hotels in Miami Beach
and the City -are quite concentrated in their locations which will
facilitate bus and limousine service, and we believe that
approximately 30 percent of all admissions will be generated by
package tour programs arriving by bus."
There are several charter bus companies in Dade and Broward Counties
that would be available to provide contractual service to the
theme park and area hotel facilities.
Bus tours of Florida from northeastern cities are currently operating
and typically include, along with hotel stays in the Miami Area,
stops at small area attractions. A day at Watson Island would be
marketed thru both these touring programs and typical hotel tours.
The Theme Park operation would as well provide shuttle service to
locations including the Bayfront people mover station, Miami
International Airport, area hotels, and the Port of Miami
passenger terminal.
Typically, a large percentage of cruise boat passengers using the
Port of Miami arrive the previous day prior to an extended cruise
and are housed overnight in area hotels or arrive the morning of
a cruise that leaves late afternoon.
The Watson Island attraction is designed for both the short time
visitor, shopping and dining or an evening of entertainment, as
well as the full day stay. Shuttle service to the port will be
provided by either charter bus or ferry boat to the Watson Island
Waterborne Terminal.
There are six public bus lines currently traversing Watson Island.
Primarily they connect downtown Miami and downtown Miami Beach;
however, they also include one line which runs to Broward County.
These lines also include interfacings with the proposed D.C.1•1.
people mover and Metrorail mass transit system stations.
• The February 1980 Application for Development Order included in
the Transportation Section the following information:
82-339
g-z - - . - - 7.1
Mr. M. Barry PeterLon
Page 7
March 15, 1982
As mentioned above, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) currently
provides several regularly scheduled bus routes on MacArthur Cause�day
through Watson Island between Miami and Miami Beach. The MTA
crossings of MacArthur Causeway are shown on Table 31-8 with the
number of crossings and time of headway. These buses can provide
transportation both for patrons and park employees. The routes
and geographical area served are shown on Figure 31.29.
The majority of the routes indicated traverse the streets of Miami
• Beach with transfers required in the -Miami central business district
for most connections on the mainland. Only Route dumber "27"
provides any length of service from Miami and Miami Beach. Route "D"
provides service to Stra.nham Park in Broward County. The MTA bus
stops at Watson Island will be provided via exclusive bus lanes
off MacArthur Causeway zor departures and loadings."
WATSON ISLAND
MTA BUS CROSSINGS OF MACARTHUR CAUSEWAY
(BOTH DIRECTIONS)
S U N
D A Y
M O N-
S A T
Number of
(a)
_
Number of
Route
Crossings
Headway
Crossinas(a)
Headwav
C
69
20 min.
94
20 min.
D
36
60 min.
34
60 min.
K
74
30 min.
101
20 min.,
30 min.
after 7 PM
M
64
30 min.
88
20 min.,
30 min.
-
after 7 PM
iS
84
30 min.
112
20 min.,
30 min.
after 7 PM
27
31
60 min.
66
WEEKDAYS
30 min.
27
47
SATURDAYS
t
40 min.
(a)
Per 24 hour
period.
Source: MTA rotary schedules and route maps. (This information
supplied by MTA).
r
Mr. M. Barry Peterson
Page 8
March 15, 1982
The Watson Island project includes separate on -off lanes in
both directions for public transit buses and drop-off stations.
Parking is provided for 75 tour and charter buses. A waterborne
transportation terminal is provided as a part of the westside
marina. Highway enunciators will be provided to notify in -bound
motorists when island lots are full. Shuttle bus service can be
provided to existing park and ride lots. (The Golden Glades park
and ride lot currently -provides some 1,500 parking spaces and is
highly underutilized).
Provision of -these facilities is necessary to the successful
operation of the Watson Island Theme Park as in any visitor
attraction where the convenience of the visitor's experience '
is vital to the viability of the project.
Submitted here also is a letter from Peter N. Weiner of the Dade
Countv Tourist -Development Council regarding the available trans-
portation facilities.
Condition (4) of the Adjudicatory Commission Order also requires
submission to the S.F.R.P.C. for comment and will be so submitted
in a timely fashion in order to comply with the specific deadline
as set by the March 10, 1982 extension.
This letter and the accompanying documents are submitted here in
compliance with conditions set forth in the Adjudicatory Commis-
sion Order which specifically required that the Regional Planning
Council provide comments to the Florida Department of Transporta-
tion and the City within 60 days. By this letter, we respect-
fully request the Regional Planning Council review and comments
to be incorporated in the May 18, 1982 report to the Florida Land
and Water Adjudicatory Commission.
All items contained herein that are a part of the
forth in the Adjudicatory Commission Order will be
into an amended Watson Island Development Order by
City Commission.
Sincerel
Howard V. Ga-,
City Manager
...r.o}, ,{�: �� - •ter.-f _ _ _�C°� <-• .�
conditions set
incorporated
action of the
. 82-b43V
Mr. M. Barry Peterson
Page 9
March 15, 1982
cc: Joan Heggen, Secretary,. Dept. of Veterans and Community Affairs
John T. Herndon, Secretary to the Florida Land and Water
Adjudicatory Commission
Robert Churchill, Deputy Director Division of Pre -Construction
and Design., Dept. of Transportation
Enclosures:
1. Watson Island Marina Plan
2. Aerial photo with Marina Plan superimposed
3. Letter from Port of Miami Director
4. F.D.O:T. analysis report from Secretary Pappas
5. Public and private transportation plan
6. Metrorail, D.C.M., Metrobus interface. plan
7. Watson Island transportation plan
8. Letter from Tourist Development Council Executive Director
9. Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission September 29, 1981 Order
10. Adjudicatory March 10, 1982 Order
11. City of Miami Watson Island Development Order and Resolution
82-339
BISCAYNE BAY PILOTS
P O. BOX 190710 • MIAMI BEACH FLORIOA 33119 - TEL 13051 672-7643 • CABLE MIAMIPILOT
April 6th, 1982
Mr. R. Falkey, Project Manager
Greenleaf-Telesca
2650 South West 27th Avenue
Miami, Florida 33133
Mr. Falkey, the Biscayne Bay Pilots Association has been most
concerned and in active opposition to the transient Marina
proposed in the Watson Island theme park plan. That Marina
plan with its extensive breakwater would have created a serious
safety hazard to the Harbor Pilots day to day operation. The
revised Marina plan as presently proposed resolves out
primary objections to the original plans. The new plan ac-
comodates future port expansion with proposed construction
setbacks outside the proposed 20001 diameter turning radius.
Although we still have concerns with additional small boat
traffic in the port area, we find the preliminary plan to be
appropriate and in concept, is a plan that the Pilots Asso-
ciation can endorse.
Sincerely,
BISCAYNE BAY PILOTS
/4. W ,� u
Clpt. J. M. FernaR ez
Chairman
JMF/ j b
82 -339
s t - tom--�.t►:, �."'► /.w r......of
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTCR61015 NORTH AMERICA WAY•MIAMI. FLORIDA 331320(305) 579-5252
ti
Mr. R. J. Falkey, Project Manager
Greenleaf-Telesca
Planners -Engineers -Architects
2650 S. W. 27th Avenue
Miami, Florida 33133 .
Dear Mr. Falkey:
Re Watson Island Marina
January 12, 1982
We have reviewed the Greenleaf-Telesca preliminary design and plan for
the proposed "Watson Island Marinas Master Plan" which you presented to
us on October 22, 1981.
As a major user of the Bay, with already permitted future expansion
plans now underway, we have a vital interest in any development plans
proposed in this area which affect the operation of the Port of Miami,
directly or indirectly. As you are aware, our future plans include
maintenance dredging in the turning basin west of Watson Island.
Your plan, as presented to us, does not conflict with -future j�TTg-,
projects by the Port of Miami.
CJL:mfd
11
Sincerel
Carmen �?: LutRtta
Port erector
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY FLORIDA SEAPORT DEPARTMENT
82-339
Florlda
SOS GRAHAM
§`. GOVERNOR
t
-EXHIBIT "D't
Department of Transpo rtatlo
t+sreon Burn) Sunainp. 6M Suwinn06 StNft tdnnn+ar Florid@ 22bt•t fi 4. taMOAewa 19%14964LUt
PAUL N. rA►*AS
SECwETARY
February 4, 1982
Mr. John T. Herndon, Secretary
Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission
Executive Office of the Governor
Room 404, Carlton Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Dear Mr. Herndon:
DOAH Case No. 80-1843
The Department of Transportation has reviewed
the Final Order dated September 29, 1981, relative to the
proposed Watson Isl;; Develocment of Regional Impact.
Specifically, the Department was required to
analyze the capacity of MacArthur Causeway, I-95, U.S. 1
and other affected arterials in conjunction with the Matson
Island Development. We have accomplished this analysis .
using, and based upon, the data in the DRI dated September
1979 prepared for the City of Miami.
Obviously, any increase in traffic has an impact
and when a transportation facility is approaching desirable
capacity, an increase of any magnitude has a negative effect.
I-95 and U.S. 1 are currently operating above de-
sirable capacity and MacArthur Causeway is approaching the
limit of desirable capacity.
The Watson Island Development is projected to
generate a total of 4,444 additional vehicle trips in 1982
and 5,556 additional vehicle trips in 1985. This is a con-
tribution to MacArthur Causeway traffic or just over 10
percent in 1982 and just over 12 percent in 1985. The im-
pact of this traffic is significantly reduced as to the
affect on I-95, U.S. 1 and all other arterials as it is
distributed to these other routes, whereas all vehicular
traffic must use MacArthur Causeway to reach the proposed
development.
- Continued -
82-339
r� Mr. John T. Herndon
DOAH Case No. 80-1843
February 4, 1982Page Two
A review of the proje,ted traffic indicates to
the Department that the only concern that merits addressing
is the impact directly upon MacArthur Causeway.
The Watson Island Development Report indicates
that the additional trip generation is oriented to an 80
percent west - 20 percent east split. Obviously, the in-
crease east of the Watson Island Development is of nominal
impact as this increase in traffic volume is in the magni-
tude of approximately 900 (1982) to 1,100 (1985) vehicles
per day. The increase west of Watson Island, some 3500+
(1982) to 4400+ (1985), can reasonably be accommodated
although at a slightly lower level of service. MacArthur
Causeway vest of Watson Island has in recent years been
improved to meet acceptable current standards. The roadway
on Watson Island is slightly below the Department's normal
standard for a six lane divided roadway, especially in the
westbound direction. The Department believes a reasonable
trade off would be for the Watson Island Development in-
terest to commit to improving MacArthur Causeway to full
36 foot roadways (the current roadways vary in wid;:h from
30 to 33 feet approximately), with 4 foot paved outside
shoulders (current roadways have sporadic shoulders) within
the limits of their development.
Sincerely,
Paul N. Pa s
Secretary of Transportation
PNP:cic
C South Florida Regional Planning Council
*t_�ohn Goodknight, D.O.T. District Engineer
Jere Moore, Cabinet Aide, E.O.G.
82 -339
'3 f, Mr. John T. Herndon
:= DOAH Case No. 80-1843
February 4, 1982
Page Two -
A review of the proje,-ted traffic indicates to
the Department that the only concern that merits addressing
is the impact directly upon MacArthur Causeway.
The Watson Island Development Report indicates
that the additional trip generation is oriented to an 80
percent west -- 20 percent east split. Obviously, the in-
crease east of the Watson Island Development is of nominal
impact as this increase in tra-ffic volume is in the magni-
tude of approximately 900 (1982) to 1,100 (1985) vehicles
per day. The increase west of Watson Island, some 3500+
(1982) to 4400+ (1985), can reasonably be accommodated
although at a slightly lower level of service. MacArthur
Causeway %,:est of Watson Island has in recent years been
improved to meet acceptable current standards. The roadway
on Watson Island is slightly below the Department's normal
standard for a six lane divided roadway, especially in the
westbound direction. The Department believes a reasonable
trade off Toould be for the Watson Island Development in-
terest to %ommit to improving MacArthur Causeway to full
36 foot roadways (the current roadways vary in wid'L-.h from
30 to 33 feet approximately), with 4 foot paved outside
shoulders (current roadways have sporadic shoulders) within
the limits of t'ieir development.
Sincerely,
Paul--N. Pa i ; s
Secretary of Transportation
PNP:cic
c� South Florida Regional Planning Council
ohn Goodknight, D.O.T. District Engineer
Jere Moore, Cabinet Aide, E.O.G.
LO
82 -339
I
KOGER EXECUTIVE CENTER
8675 NW 53 STREET. SUITE 201
MIAM1, FLORIDA 33166
TELEPHONE 13051 592-0350
DEPARTMENT OF TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION -
October 11, 1979
Mr. Gary Roberts
Post Buckley Schuh - Jernigan
7500 N.W. 52 Street
Miami, Fl
Dear Gary:
Re: Watson Island DRI
To confirm our conversation on October llth, please utilize procedures
in the TRB Special Report 87 "Highway Capacity Manual" for more refined
determination of practical roadway capacity for the Mac Arthur Causeway
and other segments being analyzed as part of the traffic analysis for
inclusion in the DRI statement.
As you know, highly generalized daily capacity values must be assumed in
our long-range system level transportation planning. These should not be
used for detailed planning analyses. For example, the Mac Arthur Causeway
was assigned a daily capacity of approximately 40,000 vpd throughout its
entire length for some of our long range studies, whereas we estimate the
capacity to be in the neighborhood of 60,000 vpd in the vicinity of Watson
Island, with due consideration of bascule bridge operations. (More detailed
figures can be derived, we are sure).
Very truly
I
Eugene L. Simm
Director
ELS/DR/ld
cc: Miles Moss
Harvey Bernstein
1"k
iup 82`339
MACARTHUR CAUSEWAY,
WATSON ISLAND DEVELOPMENT
TRAFFIC REVIEW
FEBRUARY 1978
DADE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION
82 -338
MACARTHUR CAUSEWAY, WATSON ISLAND DEVELOPMENT
TRAFFI
C REVIEW
This Department has reviewed the potential traffic impact on MacArthur
P P P
Causeway associated with the proposed development on Watson Island.
This review began a year ago when a conceptional plan was presented, be-
came more detailed recently as the preliminary site plan was developed
and will, of course, become quite specific as the final designs are pre-
pared.
The present plan provides an interchange to accommodate entering and exiting
traffic. There will be no median openings as traffic will reach the over-
pass lanes via additional decelaration lanes in both directions of sufficient
length to preclude delays to the three through lanes.
Our analysis of the traffic qeneration data prepared by the developer's
consultants finds the estimated volumes to be consistent with the travel
generated by similar activities elsewhere.
` The greatest entering volume will occur between 10:00 and 11:00 AM. On
a peak day (weekends and holidays) it will normally range between 550 and
600 vehicles and should not exceed 860. (80% from the west and 20a from
the east.) Directionally this would mean eastbound entering volumes ranging
from 440 to 480 vehicles not exceeding 690. The exiting heavy period will
be late in the day with a 500 vehicles per hour rate between 9:00 and
11:00 PM (projected park closinq is 10:00 PM). An earlier evening exodus
will occur between 7:00 and 8:00 PM with an estimated volume of 445 vehicles.
The roadway capacity of the causeway in the area influenced by the develop -
merit would be 3,450 vehicles per hour for each direction without interrupt-
ions for bridge openinqs. The 15 bridge openings per day could mean two
in each busy hour. Considering approximately five minutes of bridge opening
and traffic interruption per opening, this would indicate a reduction of
L 17 percent in usable capacity which sets the capacity of the roadway at
2,865 vehicles per hour in each direction. This level of capacity is at
least 41 percent greater than the current volume and the added Watson Island
traffic. There is, therefore, no projected congestion or overloading problem
conceived in this area.
LPresently, the MacArthur Causeway experiences an eastbound peak traffic flow
of 1,725 vehicles between 8:00 and 9:00 AM. During the 10:00 to 11:00 AM
eastbound park entering peak of 690 vehicles, present volume on the Cause-
way is 1,335 vehicles eastbound. Combined park traffic and Causeway traffic,
(1,335 plus 690) would be 2,025 consuming but 71% of capacity.
The State Department of Transportation plans to improve MacArthur Causeway
by widening the present 10' wide lanes east of Watson Island to 12' and
provide a shoulder area on the side of the roadway for improved safety.
t The Causeway west of Watson Island now has 12' lanes. This change in lane
#L width will increase the Causeway traffic -carrying ability by more than 10
percent east of the attraction.
s2-33y
n
- 2 -
It is projected that this development will generate minimal traffic on
Biscayne Boulevard since the average patron will travel to this attraction
by expressway. Recent traffic signal timing improvements on Biscayne
Boulevard and the improved roadway capacity created by the development of
separate bus pullout bays, will accommodate any nominal increase in traffic
generated by the Watson Island development.
The existing expressway ramp from the Causeway to northbound I-95 contains
two lanes serving the ramp and provides excess capacity over existing demand
and the potential increase generated by the attraction.
It is, therefore, concluded that this proposed development of Watson Island
will have no adverse traffic impact on the roadways serving the area.
Dade County Department of
Traffic and Transportation
82-339
TRAFFIC REVIEW OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS IN THE BISCAYNE
BOULEVARD - MACARTHUR CAUSEWAY AREA
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
FEBRUARY, 19711
82 -3 39
t...v r,.� t ..._.. f»... t....._, r.,,r~ �..., r........,. .-..�.., u.,,,,n.,q ••--- ---•1 ....., ..--5 """1 w,.n�
N _!
W >n��
z W 1 r
c—C7MNI
PLAZA VENETIAN CAUSEWAY ! I 1
FTIA i_INCOLN F
yMAC ARTtIUR:
CAUSE WAY
I WAT5 1 ..::iStAN
cc
0 I 4J
�l
. _ ::;.}pR...w!,w:. :'.lam'•
S. BEACH
'— REDEVELOPMEN'
ANON MARINA
�`` DADE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF < ;�S��i��< ``::'
F
1
This Department has reviewed I.1w irtential imparts on hL1cAr1h1jr Causeway,
Venetian Causeway, and Biscayne Boulo-..rrd associated with proposed new devel-
oprnr.nts in the surrounding area. The principal developments now operating or
under consideration are shown on the attached map. This review berian several
years ago as conceptional plans for these developments wore presented. It has
become more detailed for some as preliminary site plans are presented, and
specific for others as the developments such as OMNI are implemented. These
developments would produce their greatest impact on three roadways; MacArthur
Causeway, Venetian Causeway, and Biscayne Boulevard, thus these three roadways
were examined in greatest detail.
MacArthur Causeway is a six lane limited access facility and has a road-
way capacity of 3,450 vehicles per hour for each direction without interrup-
tions for bridge openings. The 15 bridge openings per day could mean two in
each rush hour. Considering approximately five minutes of bridge opening and
traffic interruption per opening, this would indicate a reduction of 17 percent
in usable capacity which sets the capacity of the roadway at 2,865 vehicles per
hour in each direction.
The Venetian Causeway is a two lane limited access facility and has a road-
way capacity of 1,150 vehicles per hour in each direction without interruptions
for bridge openings. The numerous bridqe openings occurring on this roadway
would reduce the usable capacity by 40 percent which sets the capacity of the
roadway at 690 vehicles per hour in each direction.
Biscayne Boulevard is a four lane arterial roadway containing left -turn
bays and bras pull out areas at intersections. Recent traffic improvements such
as these bus pullout bays and traffic signal timing have developed a present
roadway capacity of 1,650 vehicles per hour in each direction with at least
65 percent of the green time on Biscayne Boulevard at each intersection.
0'.1111 International - Miami is a mega -structure containing 1.5 million sq. fi
of shopping area and a 600 room hotel and generates 411,700 trips daily. It is
estimated that 8 percent utilize MacArthur Causeway, A percent Venetian Causeway,
and 50 percent Biscayne Boulevard. Twenty percent accesses I-95 via 15th Street
and 2nd Avenue. The capacity of MacArthur Causeway is at. most 5,11 percent greater
than the existino volume which includes the 014111 development. The capacity of
the Venetian Causeway is 118 percent greater than that volume, and the capacity
of Biscayne Boulevard is 29 percent greater.
The present plans for Fisher Island indicate 1,200 multi -family or single
family cluster residential units and a 200 room hotel, and would generate 3,280
trips daily. One -hundred percent of these would utilize MacArthur Causeway with
16 percent also utilizing Biscayne Boulevard. It is estimated that a very nomin
,jmount would utilize Venetian Causeway. The level of capacity of MacArthur
Causeway would be at least 53 percent nreat.er than the existing volume plus the
Fisher Island development. The capacity of the Venetian Causeway would be 118
percent greater than that volume and the capacity of Biscayne Boulevard would be
29 percent greater.
82 -:3 39
Watson Island development traffi! (jeneration should not exceed 0,000 trips
daily with the greatest periods of traffic generation occurring during the
hours of 10:00 A.M. to 11:00 A.M., and 9:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. One -hundred
percent of this traffic would utilize MacArthur Causeway and minimal traffic
would be generated on Venetian Causeway or on Biscayne Boulevard. The level
of capacity of MacArthur Causeway would be at least 45 percent greater than
the existing volume plus the Watson Island development. The capacity of
Venetian Causeway would be 118 percent greater than that volume and the capa-
city of Biscayne Boulevard would be 29 percent greater.
r
Plaza Venetia consists of two separate phases of development. Phase I
would contain 299 multi -family residential units and Phase II, 810 units.
This development would generate 6,210 trips per day. Seven percent of these
would utilize MacArthur Causeway, 77 percent Biscayne Boulevard, and 16 percent
Venetian Causeway. The level of capacity of MacArthur Causeway would be at
least 56 percent greater than the existing volume plus the Plaza Venetia devel-
opment. The capacity of the Venetian Causeway would be 106 percent greater than
15
that volume and the capacity of Biscayne Boulevard will be percent greater.
r
The South Beach Redevelopment and Marina consists of 4,578 new and improved
mr►lti-family units. There now exists in the area 4,200 and would be modified,
thus a gain of 378 units would be realized in the project. The marina would
contain 852 boat slips, an 800 room hotel, two shopping centers containinq
60,000 sq. ft., and 70,000 sq. ft. for other uses. This (Development world gener
ate 15,117 trips per day. Fifty percent of these would utilize MacArthur
Causeway, 3 percent Biscayne Boulevard, and 3 percent Venetian Causeway. The
tha
level of capacity of MacArthur Causeway would be at least 28 percent greater
the existing volume plus the South Beach Redevelopment. The capacity of Venetia
Lgreater
Causeway would be 11P percent than that volume and the capacity of Bisca
Boulevard would be 29 percent greater.
If all of these developments were completed, 30,607 additional trips WOUld
be generated on roadways in the surr•nunding area but most trips would occur duri
the off-peak hours. The level of capacity of MacArthur Causeway would be at
least 38 Percent greater- than the existinq volume plus the traffic from all five
developments. The capacity of Venetian Causeway.would be 46 percent greater tha
that volume, and the capacity of Biscayne Boulevard would be 14 percent greater.
This is summarized in the table on the following page:
t
f
L
-2-
i
82-3
A..",
Exist-
ing Vol
Incl.
Facility
OHNI
Biscayne
1,277
Blvd.
(N'Bnd.
MacArthur
1,809
Cswy.
(W'Bnd.
Venetian
316
Cswy.
(E'Bnd.
PEAK HOUR VOLU14E & CAPACITY COMPARISON
VolumesGenerated By Total Capacit_
S. Beach Exist- W/0 Roa•
Watson Plaza Redev. & Fisher inn & Gen. Improve
Island Venetia Marina Island [TotaliTra'ffic ments
0
156
5
5
166
1,433
1,650
167
23
428
60
678
2,487
2,865
0
19
0
0
19
335
690
There is, therefore, no projected congestion or overloading problem conceive,
on MacArthur Causeway, Venetian Causeway, or Biscayne Boulevard associated with
or generated by these developments. Improved traffic signal progression and a
minimum of 65 percent, green time would retain a safe and efficient level of servil
on Biscayne Boulevard. Other facilities would operate well without changes other
than those planned and financed as part of the individual project.
- 3 - -
82-339