HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-81-0036RESOLUTION NO, 81 :44
A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE SOUTHEAST BAN%
FINANCIAL CENTER, A DEVELOPMENT OP REGIONAL
IMPACT, LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 200=298 S,
BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AUTHOR-
LINO ISSUANCE OF A DEVELOPMENT ORDER POR
SAID PROJECT APPROVING SAID PROJECT WITH
MODIFICATIONS, AFTER CONSIDERING THE RE-
FORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SOUTH
FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL AND THE
PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF
tt ,r� - �
Z)U P- '.J
MIAMIy AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF MIAMI
ORDINANCE 82901 AND AFTER CONDUCTING A
D0' CU
y�
PUBLIC HEARING AS RBY SECTION
[VI E dal
S
380.06 FLORIDA =AnE= SAID APPROVAL
�f
FOLLOW
TIONSUTIOFOTHEADEVELOPMENTTORDERHATTACHED
HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A" AND THE APPLICATION
FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL;FURTHER DIRECT:
ING THE CITY CLERK TO SEND THE HEREIN
RESOLUTION AND SAID DEVELOPMENT ORDER TO
AFFECTED AGENCIES AND TO THE DEVELOPERS,
WHEREAS,
Southeast Banking Corporation and Gerald D. Hines
Interests have submitted a complete Application for Development
Approval for a Development of Regional Impact to the South Florida
Regional Planning Council pursuant to Section 380.06 Florida Statutes,
and did receive a favorable recommendation for proposed develop-
ment
order, as
set forth in the
Report
and Recommendations
of the
South
Florida
Regional Planning
Council
designated Exhibit B,
on file
with the Office of the City _Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting
held on January 7, 1981, Item#1, following an advertised hearing,
adopted Resolution No. PAB 3- gl by a 7-0 vote, recommending approval
of the Development Order for the Southeast Bank Financial Center, a
Development of Regional Impact and
WHEREAS, a recommendation from the Miami Planning Advisory
Board has been forwarded as required by Ordinance 8290; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has conducted a public hearing,
considered the Report and Recommendations of the South Florida Re-
gional Planning Council, each element required to be considered by
Section 380,06(13) Florida Statutes and considered the recommend
ation of the Planning Advisory Roard, and
"DOCUMENT INDEX
ITEM No. 2-0 ,
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF
ROWTIQN NO,::x:: �
WHMASi the City Commission has determined that all legal
requirements of ptblicatiohat the public hearing for the fsstiahee
of the proposed Development Order have been complied with, and
WRtMS, the City Commission deems it advisable and in the
best interests of the general Welfare of the City of Miami to issue
a Developrneht Order for the Development of Regional Impdot, as here-
ihafter set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 8Y THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAN110 FLORIDA:
Section 1, A Development order, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
approving with modifications, the Southeast Bank Financial Center, a
Development of Regional Impact, proposed by the Southeast Banking
Corporation and Gerald D, Hines interests for ALL OF BLOCK 5 DUPONT
PLAZA (50-11), approximately 200-298 S, 13ik,,cayne Boulevard, be and
the same is hereby granted and issued.
Section 2. The Application for Development Approval is in-
corporated herein by reference and relied upon by the parties in
discharging their statutory duties under Section 380.06, Florida
Statutes. Substantial compliance with the repi,esentnti otis contain-
ed in the Application for Development Approval is a condition for
approval unless waived or modified by agreement among the parties.
Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed
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; to the South Florida Regional Planning Council, 1515 NW 167th
Street, Suite 429, Miami, Florida; to Southeast Banking Corporation,
100 S. Biscaynce Boulevard, Miami,Florida 33131 and to Gerald D.
Hines Interests, One Shell Square, Suite 4320, New Orleans, LA,
70139,
Section 4, The recitals of fact referred to in the herein
"Whereas" clauses are true and correct and made a part hereof,
S
UPPORTIVE"'
DOCUMEN
FOLLOW 81 8 6
PASSED ANC AbOPTEE this .,. 15th dJANUARV
�, of . , 1.581,
__.._. HAMU A. _..MgR ,.._,._
MAURICE A. VE} gt� MAY01I
ATTEST:
Zc� C:7-
RAL H G. ONGIE
CITY CLEAK
PREPARED. AND APPRO� ED BY:
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW??
Jhf RK A. VALENTINE
A ST. CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
GEOR F. KNOX, JR"\
CITY TTORNRY `
1 W36,
3
t
DEVRLOPMIENT ORPFR
MWT "All
ATTACHM13NT TO
RESOLUTION NO.
Let it be, known that pursuant to Section 380,061 Florida Statutes,
the Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, has considered in
public hearing held on January 15, 1981, the issuance of a Develop-
ment Order for Southeast Bank Financial Center, a Development of
Regional Impact to be located in the City of Miami, at approximately
200-298 South Biscayne Boulevard, being
ALL OF BLOCK 5
DUPONT PLAZA (50=11)
and after due consideration of the consistency of this proposed devel
opment with regulations, and the Report and Recommendations ,of the
South Florida Regional Planning; Council, the Commission takes the
following action Approval of Application for Development Approval
with the following modif:icatinns:
FT:NDIITGS OF FACT WITH MODIFICATIONS
Development
1. The development of the 2.4 acre site is Limited to a Floor
Area Ratio of 12.75, comprised of the following elements as
specified by the Applicant in the Application for Development
Approval, as revised, and further limited by applicable pro-
visions and procedures of Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 6871:
Gross Building Area Open Space
Element (Square Feet) (Square Feet) Spaces
Office Tower
(55 stories)
- Office
1.,210,300
- Retail
10,400
- Restaurants
23,500
1,244,260
Bank Annex
�(15 stories)
- Banking Lobby
38,000
- Retail
16,200
- Health Club
22,000
- Misc.
36,000
- Parking
112,300
1,150
Pedestrian Plaza 30,100
The Applicant voluntarily represents that the scale model
presented at the City Commission meeting of January 15, 1981
accurately portrays the project. Any substantial change in
the project, as represented by the modei,must be brought back
before the City Commission for consideration and approval,
Any Variances and Conditional Uses will be brought before
the City Commission for consideration and approval, after
a decision by the Zoning Board; it being Understood that
any such City Commission approvals (or disapprovals) may
further 11MA the project (above) and are incorporated by
reference in this Development order,
2, The Applicant shall determine if a General Permit will be
required from the South Florida Water Management District
and, if necessary, apply for an obtain a permit prior to
project construction.
3, The Applicant shall apply for and receive a complex source
permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation .
4. The Applicant shall construct an emergency helicopter landing
area for emergency evacuation on the roof of the Financial
Center office tower. Further, the Applicant shall, at any
time that a feasible solution is found, provide roof space for
aerials and appurtenant minor structure for the City's com-
munication system: such aerials and appurtenances shall be
at City of Miami expense. The Applicant retains the right
of architectural review and approval,
5. The Applicant shall provide the development plans to the Fire
Department for review and comment and incorporate any other
measures which the Fire Department deems advisable to insure
that the towers can be evacuated safely in an emergency,
G. The Applicant shall notify the State Historic Preservation
Officer of the expected construction start, vacate the parking,
strip the blacktop off the site, and provide reasonable oppor-
tunity for exploration or excavation at least 30 days prior
to the start of construction.
7. The Applicant shall incorporate security systems into the
design of the development to assist in protecting employees
and patrons by discouraging crime. Security systems and con-
struction documents shall be reviewed by the Miami Police Depart-
ment prior to the issuance of a building permit.
8. The applicant shall use only native species in landscaping.
Access and Circulation
The Applicant and the City of Miami (in cooperation with County
and State agencies) recognize certain mutual responsibilities
in resolving and mitigating access and circulation problems
within, and in the immediate vicinity, of the project.
To resolve these problems:
The Applicant Shall: The City Shall:
9a. Redesign the Sh 3rd Street 9b. Consider the design of the
truck service area to in- Bank Annex/Parking structure
sure off-street loading as a conceptual building
and unloading operations envelope only, without pre -
and unobstructed flow of suming the existing internal
The Applicant shall,
traffic on St 3rd Street;
it being also understood
that trucks will not be
allowed to either Mack
from or into St 2nd Street;
it being understood that
if the egress portal for
automobiles is retained
on SF 2nd Street, , there
is a corresponding obl ga=
Lion on the part of the
Applicant to provide a
second level pedestrian
connection from the project,
across SE 2nd Street, par=
allel and adjacent to SE
3rd Avenue, returning to
grade on the north side of
SE 2nd Street,
The Applicant shall prepare
an external access and in-
ternal circulation analysis
of the garage, including the
alternatives in the SFRPC
Report (Exhibit "A"), and
submit the analyses and re-
port with any recommended
design changes within 30 days
of the issuance of this De-
velopment Order to the
agencies named in 91).
10a. Prepare, in collaboration
with the City, DDA and
Holywel.l Corporation, a plan
for an unenclosed,non-commer-
cial,publicly-owned, second
level pedestrian circulation
system as conditioned by the
attached "Conditions Related
To The Development Of A Sec-
ond Level Pedestrian Prom-
enade" dated January 15,1981,
or otherwise .submit the Plan
to the City of Miami Planning
Department for approval with-
in 30 days of the date of
this Development Order, failing
which:
The City Shall
garage design or circulation
pattern, and will a) carer
folly evaluate any applica-
tion for a z*oning variance
for off-street truck loading
bays in the context of the
provisions of the proposed
new Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance (,January 1979 Draft)
and b) insure adequate and
satisfactory access; egress
and free traffic flow through
review and approval of the
analysis in 9a., building
plans and portal locations
by the Florida Department of
Transportation, Dade County
Department of Traffic and
Transportation and the City
of Miami Planning Department
(in consultation with the
Council staff) prior to the
granting of any zoning approvals
Specifically, the Florida
Department of Transportation
shall be requested to comment,
in writing, on a) the necess-
ity for a deceleration lane
on SE 2nd Street and b) the
proposed elimination of the
egress portal for automobiles
onto SE 2nd Street within 15
days of the issuance of this
Development Order.
lob. Consult with DDA, the Council
staff and the Dade County
Department of Traffic and
Transportation prior to
approving any second level
pedestrian circulation plan
proferred by the Applicant and
Holywell Corporation, failing
which;
The Applicant Shall; The City Shall;
Recognize a responsibility to Hereby approve, in concept,
participate in the conceptual the Second Level Pedestrian
Second.Uevel Pedestrian Ci.rcu- Circualtion Plan (attached)
lation Plan in 1.0b,, as to differentiate between ped-
follows: estrian and vehicle circulation
so as to provide l greater ped=
l•und a Second bevel Pedestrian estrian safety and }security
Circulation Study for the Du- and to further free traffic
Pont Plaza Area, in an amount circulation, To implement
not to exceed $78,200, by a this Plan, the City will rely
"SUPPORTIVE
DU ENT
I
-o
I
AT LEAST ONE OF THE
TWO OPTIONS ARE MANDATED First Phase Elements
o
SOUTHEAST i
< PREFERRED OPTION SOUTHEAST HOLY;:'ELL-PREVIOUS
! ! SECOND OPTION
DEVELOP -221T ORD� !
FOR MIA�HI CEA TER I
SOLJTPIE
i
' .f• � - }4 i FIRST. .t1SE
PF �
;
h ► 0
'�-
40
• f
1 rJ S i
• MY
—
,stliiFiillTdt,
r t E F
HOLYWELL FIRST PHASE _.-%
HOLWELL FIRST PHASE
' r-- -
HOLYiTELZ FIRST PHASE VuroirT P�+zn tie-e_ DUPO.JT PLAZA HOTELCONTIN(I'MiT ON
AGP,EIIM4T
FIGURE �.� .. .• � ,
SECOND tEVEL
L1D1 CIRCULATION PLAN F
c
The Applicant Shall:
consultant to he nafned by
the 'City, for the ptitbose of
proposing plan attiend6ents
validating or fiodifvng
phasing) and preparing detailed
cost estimates and design
schetiatics, and resolving
the issues of ownership, ifiain-
tenance, insurance and
utility access:
Design, pay for and con-
struct up/down escalators
and a second level pedes
trian plaza from the project
pedestrian plaza to the mez-
zanine level of the DPM station
to include screening the
project pedestrian plaza from
St 3rd Street.
Design, pay for and con-
struct up/down escalators
and related platform within
the right-of-way of SE 3rd
Avenue to allow pedestrian
access from SE 3rd Avenue,
across the SE 3rd Avenue garage
portal to the second level
pedestrian plaza contingent
on performance by Holywell
Corporation; provided
that this liability can be
converted by the applicant
to a performance bond of one
hundred fifty (150) percent
of the estimated cost of
construction at the end of
five (5) years.
Allow Holywell Corporation to
construct a second -level pe-
destrian connection from the
Edward Ball Office Building in
Miami Center I (Ball Point)
across Biscayne Boulevard, at
the southern point of the project
office tower to connect with
the pedestrian promenade.
Be obligated to design, nay for
and construct at least fifty
(50) percent of a second level
pedestrian connection access
SE 2nd Street, between the pro-
ject Pedestrian plaza and the
north side of SE 2nd Street if an
equitable agreement can be
reached with the owners of the
existing Southeast Bank Build-
ing; it being understood, that
as conditioned by Item 9a, that the
Applicant is obligated to pro-
vide, fully .fund and construct
at hest one of the two pp-
destri.an connections across SB
2nd Street.
The City Shall!
on pudic and private part-
cipation t4ith the objective
of cotitpleting this system
expeditiously, The iecond-
level pedestrian connection
design parameters are as
follows
Covered, open at the sides to
the weather,
12' clear width with 10' clear
overhead at the second level,
16,5' clearance at the under-
side of the structure to grade,
Uniform interconnection at
approximately 27.5' - 32.5'
City of Miami datum to provide
16.5 clear height underneath.
Clear span between buildings,
Open during, normal business
hours, at a minimum.
It is understood that the Plan
may be subject to further
modifications based on the Plan
or Study in 10a.
�tSut-"rU ?TIVE
f
r
The Applicant Shall.:
Zia, Submit design parameters,
a schedule of first phase
elements and any ftppro"
priate design modifications
to development Plans within
120 days of the issuance of
this Development Order for
review and approval. by the
agencies named In 111). ,
based on either the Appli-
cants' and Holywell Corp=
oration's approved plan or
the consultant recommendn=
tion in 10a4
12a. Reach agreement with the City
concerning the remaining ped-
estri.an system issues within
210 (lays of the issuance of
this Development Order, ba.sed
on either the Applicants' and
liolywell Corporation's approved
plan or based on the report of
the design consultant in 10a.
and make a complete report to
the Council. on 10a.,11a., and
12a., as an amendment to the
Application for Development
Approval.
13. Dedicate all easements and
rights -of -way owned by the
Applicant, required by the City
County and State to implement
(or provide access to) required
transportation and second level
pedestrian system improvements.
The City 8halli
11b, Not grant a building permit
for any Portion of the devel-
opment (foundation permits
are exempted and may be pro-
cessed) until the pavarneters,
schedule and any design modi-
ficatiotis are reviewed and
approved by the bade County
Department of Traffic and
Transportation and the City
of Miami Departments of Plan"
ning and Public Works (in
consultation with the Council
staff): No final Certificate
of Occupancy will be granted
for complete operation of the
project until the required
first phase elements are com-
pleted, contingent on perform-
ance by nolywell Corporation;
it being further understood
that a Building Permit or
Certificate of Occupancy for
the project will. be processed
upon presentation by the appli-
cant of a performance bond of
one hundred fifty (150) per-
cent of the estimated cost of
the first phase pedestrian
elements.
12b. Resolve the remaining pedes-
train system Issues of con-
struction, ownership, main-
tenance, insurance and utility
access and reach agreement with
the Applicant within 210 days
of the issuance of this Devel-
opment Order, recognizing the
increased tax revenues to be
generated upon project comple-
tion.
0
14 Request a letter from Air, Rose,
Secretary of Tran�:portatioa
Florida Department of Trans
portation that commits hip
Department to:
preparing or funding enginperipg;
plan s, specifications and epti,-
mates for the Poostruction of
the T-95
ramp system in DuPont Plaga,
together 4
op;v W_
street improroment-p, within 15
"SUPPORTIVE months of the date of this
Development Order,
DOC N1 E N
U1
FOLLOW
The Applicant Shall;
The
City Shall:
15, Fund, bond, or provide a
15b,
Insure that the required fund -
letter of credit to the
ing, bond or letter of credit
County and/or the State for
has been provided prior to
$874,800 (in 1980 dollars)
issuing any building permit
for state and/or County con-
for the proposed development,
struction of surface street
improvements and $192,500
10.
Evaluate, in collaboration
(in 1980 dollars) for re-
with the Dade County Department
quired DPM modifications in
of Traffic and Transportation,
DuPont Plaza prior to ob=
the Dade County Office of Trans=
taining any building permits
portation Administration and
for the proposed development.
Florida Department of Trans-
portati.on, the recommended
Options, contained in the Report
and Recommendations of the
South Florida Regional Planning
Council (Exhibit "A"), and any
other options which may be
feasible for public sector
financing (14.6 million in 1980
dollars) of the I-95 bifurcated'
ramps to the DuPont Plaza sur-
face street system; and prepare
a report and recommendations,
to be submitted to the Regional
Planning Council, Downtown De-
velopment Authority, the metro-
politan Planning Organization
and Florida Department of Trans-
portation for review and com-
ment within one year of the
date of this Development Order
on the preferred options which
should be pursued, including
the steps necessary to insure
their realization so that con-
struction may begin immediately
after completion of the Miami
Avenue Bridge project. Con-
sideration shall be given to
the increased ad valorem rev-
enues from Southeast Bank and
Miami Center I (Ball Point) and
II in funding these necessary
improvements.
17a. Front end 20% ($2.92 million
17b
Not issue a Certificate of
in 1980 dollars) of the con-
Occupancy for the project
struction costs of the I-95
unless a) either a public
bi-furcated ramps by;
sector financing package has
been committed or b) other
a) as a preferred option,
financial arrangements have
arrange loans to or bond
been completed to finance
purchases from appropriate
construction of the I-95
governmentalagencies, based
bi"fureated ramps. The City
on an equitable reimburse-
shall also seek participation
ment agreement among appro-
from Dade County in propor-
priate parties which shall
t onal relation to the net
specify interest rates And
fiscal impact aecrueing to the
maturity dates; or
City and County from the com-
The Applicant Shallt The City Shall
b) arrange loans to or
biped Southeast 8Ahk and
bond purchases from
Miami Center projects,
appropriate government=
al agencies, to be evi-
denced by tax exempt
governmental obligations
which are eligible for
pledging (at a market
value that equals the full
purchase price) against
public deposits by the
State of Florida, as deter=
mined by the Florida State
Constitution, Florida Sta-
tutes, or the State Con-
troller, whichever is
applicable;
if a public sector finan-
cing package has not been
committed by September 30,
1982.
18a. Promote energy conservation and
18b.Shall work closely with the
the use of public transit by
Downtown Development Authority,
participating in Transportation
the Dade County Office of
System Management, coordinated
Transportation Administration
with the Dade County Office of
and the applicant to promote
Transportation Administration
transit use; shall encourage
through such measures as employ-
a downtown parking pricing
er subsidized ride -sharing pro-
policy to discourage 8-hour
grams and van pools; variable
use and shall continue en -
work hours, flex -time, and a
forcement efforts to restrict
9-day work week; employer sub-
or prohibit on -street parking,
sidized transit use cotiplod
all of which are intended to
with remote -site parking; and
maximize the use of the avail -
an on -site parking pricing
able roadway capacity.
policy to discourate 8-hour use.
The applicant shall prepare a
report for review within GO days.
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
� FOLLOW"
�tle��y �oils,er%�ati.on
10, The Applicant shall participate in the operation of a cogeneration
facility for DuPont Plaga, through the purchase of chilled and hot
water and/or electricity and the modification of the HVAC system
to assure their use to meet electrical requirements, should such
a facility be built in DuPont Plaza, The Applicant shall not be
expected to pay rates in excess of those charged by the local
public power utility for commercial customers with similar pear
demand and comparable system reliability,
20. The applicant shall incorporate the following energy conservation
measures into the project or provide. the Council a written ,jisti=
fication for their omission:
restrict water flow in lavatories to 0,8-gallons per minute:
set domestic hot water temperatures in the office building
to approximately 1050 F.
provide priority parking space for commuter van pool
vehicles in any on -site garage._
Minority Participation
21, The applicant shall work with the City to prepare a mi.nority
employment plan indicating how the maximum feasible number of
construction and permanent ,jobs resulting from the project
can be accessible and available to minority applicants, es-
pecially Blacks,
22. The applicant shall vigorously seek minority contractors,
especially Blacks, to carry out construction work, as feasible,
during the development phase of the project,
General
23. The applicant shall submit a report, twelve (12) months from the
date of issuance ol" this Development Order and each twelve (12)
months thereafter until. a Certificate of Occupancy is issued,
to the South Florida Regional Planning Council; the State of
Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Local
Resource Management; all affected permitting agencies and the.
Planning Director, City of Miami Planning Department. This
report shall contain, for the preceding twelve months
A general description of construction progress in terms
of construction dollars and employment compared to the
schedule in the applicant's Application for Development
Approval,
Specific progress in response to paragraphs 9-1.8, it being
understood that submission of this report is not a substitu-
tion for specific reports required by these or other para-
graphs.
A cumulative list of all permits or approvals applied for,
approved or denied,
A statement as to whether any proposed project oohattue=
tiot changes in the ensuing twelve (12) months are etc�
peotod to deviate substantially from the approvals in-
clucked it this Development Order.
Any additional responses requires by POW adopted by
the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs,
The Planning Director, City of Miami Planning Department, or a
project director to be named later, is hereby de8i,tated to re-
ceive this report, and to monitor and assure compliance with this
Development order.
24, The Development order shall be null and void if substantial
development has not begun in two (2) years of the recorded
date of this Development Order, Substantial development is
defined herein as the achievement of the following items:
construction of building foundations for the proposed
development;
obtaining all required permits, variances, and approvals;
preparti.tion and approval of raised pedestrian circulation
element plans;
25.
dedication of all right-of-way;
the deposit of all monies, bonds, or letters of credit for
surface street improvements with the County or the State;
finalization of a public sector financing package and/or a
private sector front -ending agreement for construction of
the 1-95 bifurcated ramps;
preparation and approval of a revised garage access plan;
construction of the drainage system for the proposed
development.
The applicant shall give notice to Richard P. Brinker, Clerk
Dade County Circuit Court, 73 West Flagler Street, Miami,
Florida, 33130 for recording in the Official Records of Dade
County, Florida, as follows:
a) That the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida has
issued a Development Order for the Southeast Bank Financial
Center, a Development of Regional Impact located at approxi-
mately 200098 South Biscayne Boulevard, being
ALL OF BLOCK 5
DUPONT PLAZA (50-11)
b) That Southeast Banking Coporation, 100 South 5ayshore Boule-
vard, Miami, 33131 and Gerald D. Hines Interests, One Shell
Square, New Orleans, La, are the developers,
Am
0 That the Development Order with any modifications may be
ekamined in the City Clerks Offices, 8500 Pan American
Drive, Dinner key,Miami, Florida, 33133,
d) That the Development Order constitutes a land development
regulation applicable to the property-, that the conditions
contained in this Development Order shall run with the land
and bind all successors in interest; it being understood
that recording of this notice shall not constitute a lion,
cloud or encumbrance on real pvopertyj nor actual nor con"
structive notice of any of the same,
26, The Applicant will. incorporate all. original and additional. re�
Visions to the originally submitted Application for Development
Approval fncluding the transportaton analysis and recommended
system into one complete document and will provide copies within
90 days of the date of issuance of this Development Order, to the
City of Miami, the South Florida Regional Planning Council and
the State Department of Community Affairs,
27, The application for Development Approval is incorporated herein
by reference and is relied upon by the parties in discharging
their statutory duties under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes,
Substantial compliance with the representRtions contained in the
Application for Development Approval is a condition for approval
unless waived or modified by agreement among the parties.
28. Nothing in this Development Order shall be construed as preventing
the Applicant from obtaining certificates of occupancy for the
Southeast Bank Financial Center if the Applicant complies with
all conditions specified in the Development Order.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Southeast Bank Financial Center proposed by Southeast Banking
Corporation and Gorald D. Hines Interests, complies with the Miami
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, is consistent with the orderly
development and goals of the City of Miami, and complies with local
land development regulations being Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
No. 6871; and
The proposed development does not unreasonable interfere with the
achievement of the objectives of the adopted State Land Development
Plan applicable to the City of Miami; and
The proposed development is generally consistent with the Report
and Recommendations of the South Florida Regional Planning Council
and does not unreasonably interfere with any of the considerations
and objectives set forth in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes.
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
dbNbftf6N§ httAttb To TRt btyt oPMtNT 6P A
S�GaMD,....b�lf;b.. �S�i.��.�)t�A�__ F•�tf��+ISi�t�,Ci�_.._v. ...
It is agteed Upon by eaoh patty wh6td sighatut6 is affixed t6
this doduifieht that a pedestrian; ptbrienade will be edhttfudted
between Southeast pihandiai oeitet and Miamii Centet phase it
btidgih§ St ltd Street, M AMi, Vlotida,
2, Thete will be no bbjection to the creation by the City of Miami
6f a Special Tani of Assessment bittrict to fund the consttuctidh
of the Pedesttian promenades
A. The entire cost of a design study for the said promenade Will be
funded jointly (So/So) by each patty with the City of Miathi's
participation in the design.
4. The upper level _ pp pedestrian promenade extending from property
line to property line over SE 3t'd Street will be publicly
owned and any right to air space above the city street which
may be vested in the existing property owners is hereby
granted to the City of Miami for the purpose of developing a
Pedestrian promenade.
S. The question of approval of the design of the pedestrian promenade
and the nature of the Asses^ment or Tax bistrict funding obliga-
tions will be worked out between the parties signing below and
the City of Miami and will be brought to the City Commission for
approval at its next meeting of aanuary 22, 1981. If both parties
cannot reach agreement, the City Commission will have final
approval:
6. The design study of the pedestrian promenade will be completed within
210 days from the issuance of the development order.
Through the signatures contained below, we agree to the above condi-
tions as part of the development orders issued for both Southeast
Financial Center and Miami Center Phase II.
SOUTHEAST FINANCIAL CENTER
(Gerald Hines Interests and
Southeast Banks)
? 3 WITNESS: .--
By
`Title
(/MI MI CEN�ER PHASE "IS
(Holywell Corp x_tion)
Hy
E�'EIB�T ri��
FILED WITTi
RtSOIXTIONA f/
DEVELOPMENT OF AM ONAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
FOP
MIAMI CENTER, PHASE 11
AND
SOUTHEAST SANK FINANCIAL CENTER
Located In the City of Miami
south florldo reglonol planning c ou,
December 17► 1ti"'
the Honorable Maurice Fe. re "SUPPORTIVE
City of Miet'i
DOCUMENTS
35G0 Pan American Drive ,
NiCf"iFlorld? 7117� FOLLOW
f;' '.
Dcnr Mayor Ferrc: j
Ths South Florida P.Egional Piahninc Courc;1 hEs officially adopted the
enclosed Miami Center 11 ant Southeest E2nk Financial -enter Developirents
of Pegional impact report anc forwarded copies to the Florida Department
of Ccomunity Affairs, and the South Florida Water Manacement District,
This report is provided for your use in reviewing the DeveIoptc.nt of
cFrioha l Impact pursuent to Chebter 3FL.06, Florida Statutes. An
omission frvr the set of cUnCitior5 eeopte(. by Council which has becr
recommended by Council cenerel cvurLcl in order to protect the interests 1
of the City would add as a Condition kz'F, for each pro,lect, the followinc
larcuece: "Provide that the concitions contained in the Development
Order shall rue: with the Ian(,, and bind all successors in interest." l
Whilc the staff of the Council is eva{!able to assist in the resolut{.}n
of any retter rpc?,rdinc the report, the Council hes no Iecai mecha~is-
hroueh which it can act on this report ecFin, except throu h aDDea1
p roccrurr•S.
r'hrptor 'rC. t'f b y HP I Z22, rnqu l r;'s that thr City rrnr!r"—
C?evr-loprr.cnt `rccr (an orcer crentinc, drnyinc, or crzrt;nc with
conditions) on the subject Application for Development Approval witnln zC
rays of the Focal Dal public heerino dete.
The Development Order must incluee F;ndincs of Fact erC Conclusions of
Lew reeardlna the extent to which: i
1(e) The development unreasonably interferes with the achievement of the
objectives of an adopted stare land development plan appllcabic to
The area; ;
(b) The development is consistent with the local land development
regulations; and
(c) The development is consistent with the report and recommendations
of the regional alannina agency."
the Honorable Paur i Ce Fer re
Page 7
becetr'b& 11, i d8O
moreoevee o as requ i red by recFht 8ihendrt+crits tc; Chapter 'Or, C;E, +h,7
of, Vr_j n ji�,r' t OrdPr 1.
ir1, shall specific the MCnitorino procedures end the loci? official
respohsibIP for assurihO the deveIopmert�s Con,!iencF wit', the
dive I0br)er+t order.
1 , V: y rstcb l i sh exo i rat i oo, dates for thy- e.cvr t C)ptent order, i nc i u� i nn
e deed i i me for comtent i nc ph ys i cp i dove 1 (_i0fr lit, for cor^p I i ancc• v.': th
cord i t i or's of approval or plies i nr, requ ; rerrents, ahe for term. i net
of the order,
? ; Shall specify the requ i remFhts for the arnua ! report des i cheti ce
under subsection. (1E) (Chapter 3EC,0E Florida Statutes amehded),
inciudinc the date of submission, parties to whor the report is
subt~itted, end contents cf the report, baser' upon the ruics tdoptrc
by the statc land planniFc agency...
4, May specify the types of changes to the development which shed(
require subtrission for a substantial deviation determination unctr
subsection. (17)(a) (ChapY�=r _1FC.C6, Florice Statutes amended).
`. Sheii inci.:d-- e Icr;eI description of the prooerty."
Cuppics of any deveiopmcnt order issued with recard to this pro,ect must
bp trensr'ittFCl to the South Florida Pr�cionel Gienninr CounciI and the
Florida br:partmrnt of Vetetrar and Corrmunity Affairs for their review.
The statutory 4r ey appeal period is tricce-red by receipt of your
rrlriOp F^` o. lrr. Pur irc this perior, the Courci i wi 11 (IC-termihr
whc * ,or -tc- S t vc! oprrent orr. er is cons i str-nt with the COitnc i I tt
report ant recor.!rcn; t lens.
Counc i i staff w'+ i i be happy to review any draft dFveloDrrert ordcr for
thacp pro!ects [prior to consiyeration by tI-e City Commission.
If we can be of further assistance, please have yc:ur staff ceii Kcvi
Fyrr,es.
�incercly,
M. Sam► Pr;torson, F ICf' V I 1 0Rr V
Exccutivc Cirectc;r DOCUMENTS
hEn tTS
MEP/rnh FOLLOW"
Enclosure
cc: Mr, Richard Fosmoen Mr. Jim Reid
Mr. Joe Rarnr. Mr. Aiex Sokolik
Mr. Ron Nester Ms. Jeanne Hall
Mr, Robert 7raurig Mr. Roy Kenzie
Mr, William Colson Mr, Lee'Rawlinson
3
TABLE CF CONTENTS
L I S OF F I GUI ES
L 1ST OF TABLES i
i (, • . Y Y i i ... . + i . i . i ► . i t. a i.
, i i
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1! MIAMI
CENTER 11 1 . . . i . . ►. i Y i . i i . i . i i . .
. 5
PART
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 5 ■
A. APPLICANT INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . .
.
B. PROJECT INFORMATION ► . . . . . . . . . . .
. 5
PART
11, SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . .
. 11
A. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES . . . . .
.
B. ECONOMY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
C. PUBLIC FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . .
. ...
D. TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER 2: SOUTHEAST BANK FINANCIAL. CENTER . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 25
PART
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . .
Z
A. APPLICANT INFORMATION . . . . . . . . .
B. PROJECT INFORMATION
t"
PART
11. SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . .
.
A. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES . .
.
E. ECONOMY. . . . . . . . . 6 .
. '?
C. PUBLIC FACILITIES . . . . . . . . .-. . . .
. _.
D. TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3E
CHAPTER 3: DEVELOPMENT ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 3;z
PART
1. INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT OF DUPONT PLAZA . . . .
. 33
PART
11. REGIONAL FISCAL STABILITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 4
"S V P PO ! \ I I V EPART
Ill. PROTECTION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC AND
DOCUMENTS
���`��w „�� S
T
PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN DOWNTOWN MIAMI BY
MAINTAINING COMPETITIVE ACCESSIBILITY . .-. . .
.- 43
FOLLOW PART
IV. PROVISION OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
IN DUPONT PLAZA OF ADEQUATE CAPACITY AND
TIMED APPROPRIATELY TO SUPPORT SOUTHEAST
BANK AND MIAMI CENTER I AND 11 . . . . . .
50
a
. .
.
PART V. PUBLIC AND M IVAtE SECTOR RESPONSIBILITIES
!N EINANCINO NECESSARY NOW PLAZA TRANS$
PORTAT I CN I MPi40AIVI NTS r . 1 . . , . . 1 . . 34
PART VI, ENEROY CONSERVATICN
CHAPItO 4: SLWARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 1 . . . . . 1 . , , , ,
MI AM I MTER I l i 1 i i i 1 i i . . . . i ♦ . i . . i i i . �� �
SOUTHEAST BANK PINANCIAL CENTER . . . . . . . . . . . . .
t�
I
LISP' bF FIGURES
ipure
Page
1
Cehibtol Location Map! Mi6MI Center 11 and Southeast
Bank F 1 nand i a 1 Center _ , _ , _ _ _ , _ + . _ . ► r
= _ _ = z
Miaml Center 11 Site Plan _ _ _ , 1 . _ • . . _ + _
6= i 6 f
Mlarrrl Center 11 South Elevation _ _ _ _ _ • _
7
4
Miami Center I Site Plan
9
5
Miami Center i Profiles = _ _ . _ _ _ _ ,
_ _ • _ 10
F
Exlstiho Average Daily Traffic Conditions . . . . • , •
. . . . 23
7
Existing (1975) AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes _ .
• 121
8
Final Transportation System Plan for Dupont Plaza � . .
• "
9
Southeast Bank Financial Center Site Plan and Profile
10
Commit -led and Proposed Development In Downtown Miami
11
Finai Transportation System Plan for Dupont Plaza . . .
. • . • ,.
1
Proposed Pedestrian 2rldge from Miami Center 1 to
Southeast Financial `enter . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
1�
Potential Conflicts from Southeast Garage Access . . . .
. . . . ,-
14
Pedestrian/Vehicle Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . �.
15
Stage i Surface Street improvements . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .,
16
Stage I Surface Street Improvements . . . 0-
17
Stace ? Surface Street Improvements . . . . .
. . . 65
18
1-95 Ramp Connection to Miami Center 11 Garage . . . . .
. . . . ?;
19
5cheaul in; of Privatf, De•veioprrent Proposals and
Public Sector Transportation, Improvements . . . . . . .
. . . .
«%.:)UPPOPTEVE
DOCURA
MENTS
FOLLOW??
LIST OF UtLES
table
Pale
1, i
M i alAt Center 11 Building Ato a = _ ► _ : : _ � . _
_ � : g —
1.2
Miarfi Center 11 Estimated Construction Costs ♦ : _ _ .
, 12
1,3
Miami Center 11 Construction Employment Impacts : _ :
1
1,4
Projected Labor In -Migration from Miami Center 11 . . . .
. . ,a
1.5
Miami Center 11 Permanent Employment Impacts _ , _ ,
_ _ 15
1.6
Miami Center 11 Fiscai Impact _ . , _ . _ _ . _
, 16
1.7
Miami Center it Project Generated Vehicle Trips _ •
_ _ 24
211
Southeast Bank Financial Center Building Area _ _ _ _ :
_ 27
2.2
Southeast Bank Financial Center Estimated Construction
Costs . . . . . . . . . . • ♦ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
. . 29
2.3
Southeast Bank Financial Center Construction Employment
Impacts . . . . , e . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4
Southeast Hank Financial Center Permanent Empzoyment-
Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. ?2
2.5
Southeast Bank F i nanc i a: Center Fiscal Impact . . . . . . .
. .
_.'
Combined Construction Employment impacts . . . . . . . . .
. . 41
:.2
Combined rermanant Employment Impacts . .
♦ 4' —
..3
Public and Private Capita! investment for DRIB In Downtown
Miami by Subarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 45
3.4
Combined Economic impact of Construction Employment for
Downtown Miami Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . �6
3.5
Combined Economic impact of Permanent Employment for
_
Downtown Miami Development . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.6
Southeast Bank Financiai Center and Miami Center II
Off -Street Loading Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 58
3.7
Summary of Intersection Capacity Analyses Level of
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 58
3.E
Residuai Capacity in Dupont Plaza Highway System . . . . .
. . 59
i1 "SUPPORTIVE
DOCU I`JI ENTS
FOLLOW
LIST OF TABLES
flable
page
10
Mialtl Center 11 Bui Idimg Area , _ , . . _
g
1.2
Miami Center 11 Estimated Constfuctloh Costs , , . : , , _ ,
12
112
Miami Center 11 CohttrudtIOn Employment Impacts
1.4
Projected Labor In=Migration from Miami Center 11 . . . . _ .
14
1.5
Miami Center ll Permanent Employrtoht Impacts = . _ . _ .
15
1.6
Miami Center It Fiscal impact-. . . . . . . . •
10
1.7
Miami Center 11 Project Generated Vehicle Trips . . . . . . . .
24
2.1
Southeast Bank Financial Center BulldIng Area : • . . . • . . •
277
2.2
Southeast Bank Financial Center Estimated Construction
Cos 1js . . . • . . . . ♦ . . . • . . . . • . . . s . , , , . _ .
29
2.3
Southeast Bank Financial Center Construction Employment
Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4
Southeast Bank Financial Center Permanent Employment
Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5
Southeast Bank Financial Center Fisca' Impact . . . . . . . . .
3
3.1
Combined Construction Employment Impacts .6 . 6
41
1.2
Combined Permanent Employment Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47
1.3
Public and Private Capital Investment for DRIs in Downtown
Miami by Subarea . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
3.4
Combined Economic impact of Construction Employment for
Downtown Miami Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
46
3.5
Combined Economic Impact of Permanent Employment for
Downtown Miami Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.6
Southeast Bank Financial Center and Miami Center 1I
Off -Street Loading Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . .
58
3.7
Summary of Intersection CapacityAnalyses Level of
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
3.8
Residual Capacity in Dupont Plaza Highway System` . . . .-. . .
59
i "SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW
M
bupoht Piaza 5urfaee Street- lffi0tovefiehts a Stage 1 , : a , , ,
61
3.10
bupoht P182a Surface Street Ihlproverbehts - Stage 2 , , , , : .
63
3,i1
C6tt tsttM6te of Staged Surface Street ImproveMents , . &
3.12
Summary of Tto f i c Impacts in AM Weak Hour by Project , ,
3,13
Summary of Traffic Impacts In PM Peak Hour by Project , . : , ,
6
3,14
Scheduilhg Dohfllcts Detweeh I=95 Ramp System and
Dupbht Plaza Development , , a , , . , , , + , . , ,
73
3.15
Total Cost for Dupont Plaza Recommended Transportation
'System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 , , . , , . , • , , , , ,
74
3,16
private Sector Costs for Dupont Plaza Recommended
Transportation System , , : : : . . .
�.17
Cost Allocation for Surface Street Improvements
3.18
Relative Costs to Southeast Bank Corporation and Ho i ywe l 1
Corporat icn for Dupont Plaza . . . . . : . . . . . . . . .
3.19
Ad Valorem Revenue increase from Holywell and Southeast
Bank Developments , , . . . ._ . . . . . .
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
i1i
INTRODUCTION
This report tdilWiflot and 89tOtS6t the potential Impacts Of two
difftte/tetail d6ffipl#xet - M16MI Center 11 and Southeast tank Plh6htlal
Center - which are located on 4 totlttguous blocks In the Dupont Plata
area In the City of Mtei`t. The primary impact area of both otdijettt is
presented In Pigute I. This assessment has been prepared by the South
Florida Regional PlanhIMg CouhtHi as riaoulted by the Florida
lEtiviroriffiehtal Land and Water 1018heioemeht Act (Chapter �80) for all
Develoomentt of Regional Impact, and Is based on information supplied by
each applicant, City of Miami and Dade County staff, consultants,
official plans) and field inspections. Additional research and analyses
relative to specific regional Issues identified were conducted by Council
staff at needed,
In May, 1979, the South Florida Regional Plann:rio Council reviewed the
Miami Center I Application for Deve!opment Approval, located on the
parcel of land In Dupont Plaza known as Ball Point, and recommended
protect approval, subject to 10 cord;tlons, to the City of Miami. At the
time of Council action on Miami Center 1, the applicant, Holywel!
Corporation, was also planning to deve!op the remaining four blocks of
Dupont Plaza. A primary concern expressed by Council Pembers %as that
these remaining four blocks be master planned and developed with an
Integrated, compatible design and mix of uses to Create a ouality urben
environment in the core of DownTown Miami.
Further, since public agency planning for a fina", transportaTion system
to support the full butidout of Dupont Plaza was in process at the tirre
of the review of Miami Cemier 1, the Council only required that the
applicant develop an interim traftic operations plan and implement those
roadw3y Improvements which would both support project traffic and to
compatible with whatever ultimate transportation solution might finally
be adopted for the entire area. On May 24, 19719, the City Issued a
Development Order, Incorporatino 17 conditions inclucing the requirement
for interim traffic Improvements prior to Issuance of building permits,
approving Miami Center 1.
Since that time, Holywell Corporation has secured options on three of the
four remaining blocks in Dupont Plaza. Southeast Bank, owner of the
northeastern block, had development pians of Its cwn. On July 11, 1980,
Southeast Bank submitted an Application for Development Approval to the
Council to construct a new Southeast Bank Financial Center on that block.
On July 14, 1980, Holywell Corporation submitted an Application for
Development Approval to construct Miami Center 11 on the other three
LLJ
blocks.
f... Z
Based on the Information adequacy review of the individual applications,
:io
�LLJ . 0:
it was evident that neither applicant was adequately addressing the
0
existence of the other proposed development In the Identification of
potential project impacts, particularly transportation Impacts. indeed,
Q. J
using a City of Miami study which Identified the operational constraints
o
of the existing transportation system in Dupont Plaza, Council, County
0 U..
C/)
■
"SUPPORT
D O C U E
FOLLOW
3 ,
m
x
e
k SOU'IWA5T�'
BANK
)FINANCtAL
CENTER
MIAMI CENTER it
G►1tOk
AND
v
_ ,N I • T 0'. j4A?_` M, t A'a l CENTER I
.I Ate" Sr, HE,AS T.
BANK
I%A'4CIA.L CE'JE
"SUPPOI�
DOCU M U
FOLLO
. 1
_.r w
I JLJ + i
LL
,
t I t
72
to C.i
71
j, 0
Fj
Ic
'"'"►� {" '��\ �\. ';
c . ,'s`. — -� + rc`"+="� s� S [ " I I `�_�_ irt_om�-.s.._« .„: �I _wr '�_.J�IRL�M � Y�J/' 1� t�E•t-?�- —+ 1.�= '!t",�"�� .—�—_—'�1
J
�jOU7NEAS
BANK
INANCIAL
CLNTER
r W'MUAMI o'N
CENTER 11
E �t
CLAJGMTON
I� V ISLAND
LJL�CII K'�`.1��II♦.'Sw II St Il� � 7
j 3
►r J
TI
F i SuIPE 1. r_' EtiE A' LAC-.T I i; ''-At . ►r, Ada I CENTER 1,1 PC S(_I H,'E_AST 6A.NK
i I'rA14C I AL C::IJI '
and City staff rec6ghl2td that heither deveiopffient could tndividuaily be
supported by the Oxtsting syatefr without elther thtoultabiy allocating 6t
exCeedhg Its oarryin capacity, when the c61`nb1hed IMpact of both
developrfhehts was d6h0deedi the transportatiob system slhply broke down,
Therefore, Couhctl staff strohgly urged -the applicahts to cooperate in
J01htly doveloplhp a f1h8l transportation improvement plan which would 1)
provide acceptable levels of service in Dupont Plata at full buildout,
hot only of both currently proposed projects but also of Mi&Iii Center I
and 2) be compatible with public plans for the 1-95 bifurcated ramp
extenston and the Downtown People Mover system In Dupont Plafa, The
Applicants agreed to cooperate with each other and with a task force of
City, County, and State staff to develop an ultimate roadway and transit
System to support these three developments.
As work beaah on development of a fine' transportation solution for full
build out of Dupont Plaza, Holywell Ccrporatton was ready to obtain its
buildiha permits for Miami Center I. It seemed prudent and certainly
costy-effective to wait to determthe what interim improvements should he
reauired for Miami Center l until the final transportation solution was
developed. Therefore, on September 25., 198C, the City of Miami
Commission approved an amendment to the Miami Center I Development Order,
which, amendment postpones the reauirement for interim improvements from:
prior to issuing building permits to prior to issuing certificates of
occupahcy.
In view of this postponement and the interdependence of all three
developments, several regione issues discussed in this report
necessarily ihclude consideration not only of The proposed Southeast Bank
Financial Center ant Miami Center II, but also of their relationship w'th
one another, with the previously -approved Miam; Center 1, ant %it6. other
developments underway in the rapidly expanding Downtown Miami area.
Chapters 1 and 2 of this report provide a summary description of the
Mie.mi Center Il and Southeast Bank Financial Center complexes,
respecttvely, and the impacts which are likely to resuit from each
projl ect. In Chapter 3, one local and five regional issues are analyzed.
Based on the discussion of these issues, Chapter 4 summarizes the
Development of Regional Impact evaluation and details the recommendations
rearding each proposed development
g
in accordance with Chapter 380, this assessment and report are intended
to provide an overview of the positive and negative impacts likely to
result from approval of either or both office complexes, as well as the
regional issues associated with such approvals. The recommendations art?
intended to assist the City of Miami Commission in reaching a decision on
the proposed developments which responds to both City and regional
interests. There is no intention to foreclose or abrtcge the legal
responsibility of local government to act pursuant to applicable local
laws or ordinances.`
"SUPPORTiVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW
■
■
i
Arid City staff recoghl2 ed that neither developfieht could individually be
supported by 'the exlstih§ tystelf► without either ihequitably allocating or
exceeding its carry I hg capacity. !When the co�1b I ned I M080 of both
ftveloprn0ts was d6hsld6ttd1 the transportatioh system siMply broke down.
Thtref6te, COLIMCii staff 5trohg1y urged the 80011c6nts to dooperate n
.jointly deve l op l hg a final transportation i �,prove�neht 0166 which would i)
provide acceptable levels of service in Dupont Plata at full buildout,
hot only of both currently proposed projects but also of Mlafii Center I
and 2) be Cbrgipatible with public plans for the 1i95 bifurcated ramp
extensloh and the Downtown People Mover systems in Dupont P1628. The
Applicants agreed to cooperate with each other and with a task force of
� '_
Co
ty, unty, and State staff to develop an ultimate roadway and transit
system to support these three develapfients.
As work began on development of a final transportation solution for full
build out of Dupont Plaza, Holywell Corporation was ready to obtain its
building permits for Miami Center 1. It seemed prudent and certainly
cost-effective to wait to determine what interim improvements should be
reauired for Miami Center I until the final transportation solution was
developed. Therefore, on September 25, 198C, the City of Miami
CommisSicn approved an amendment to the Miami Center I Deveiopmeht Order,
which amendment postpones the reoulrer+ent for lnterlr,- Improvements from
prior to issuing burl -ding permits to prior to issuing certificates of
occupancy. -
to view of this postponement and the interdependence of all three
developments, several regions issues discussed in this report
hpcessarily lnc+ude considera`ion not only of the proposed Southeast Bank
Financial Center and Miami Center 11, but also of their relationship with
one another, with the previously. -approved Miami Center 1, and with other
developments underway in the rapidly expanding Downtcwn Miami area.
Chapters 1 and 2 of this report provide a summary description of the
MI,i l Center it and Southeast Bank Financial Center complexes,
respectively, and the impacts which are likely to result from each
project. In Chapter 3, one local and five regional issues are analyzed.
Based on the discussion of these Issues, Chapter A summarizes the
Development of Regional Impact evaluation and detaiis the recommendations
regarding each proposed development.
in accordance with Chapter 380, this assessment and report are intended
to provide an overview of the positive and negative impacts likely to
result from approval of either or both office complexes, as well as the
regional issues associated with such approvals. The recommendations are
Intended to assist the City of Miami Commission in reaching a decision on
the proposed developments which responds to both City and regional
interests. There is no Intention to foreclose or abridge the legal
responsibility of local government to act pursuant to appiicable local
laws or ordinances.
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
-3- FOLLOW"
C601 es cif 6hy OV6180lheht 6tdet ( en 6tdet §t6ht t fig, de by t rig, 6t grant 1 hg
With C6hdItl6hS Sri 80011cetl6h f6t a deveidpft*ht peMlt) Itsued with
tO§8td to e 1 ther Pr6 jeet Mu 1 d be trehtm 1 tted t6 the t4iuth r 16r I de
1keg t6h61 PI M trig I4OC I t ettid 'the F 16r 1 da D+ep8ttftht of C&OUMIty
Affairs,
CHAPTtk 1t MIAMI CENTER 11
PART I = PROJECT MSCRIPTiON
A. APPLICANT INPORMAT16N "SUPPORTIVE
Project Narnet Miami Center Phase I I DOCUMENTS
Applicant: Holyweli Corporation)
11 Dupont Circle, Suite 100 FOLLOW
Washington, D.C.* 20056
Date of Acceptance of Application: October 30, 1980
Local Government Hearino Dater January e, 1981
Type of Development: Mixed Use Office Park/Shopping Center
Location of Development; City of Miami, Dade County
S. PROJECT+ INFORMATION
The proposed Miami Center 11 is to be constructed on three blocks
within Dupont Plaza on 7.4 acres in downtcwn Miami (see Figure 1).
The Applicant proposes to construct a mixed use development
consisting of twc high-fasF,ion retail department stores, located on
the two westerly blocks, and two office towers on the southeast
bock.
The department snores, providing 3.50,000 square feet of gross
leasable area, would `ill the first 3 stories of each buiiding en the -
western blocks over which a 4,000 car parking garage would be built.
Internal connection between the two buildings is planned above 55.0
ft. (WSL). Direct ramps from the 1-95 Connector would enter and
leave the garage structure at a 36 foot elevation.
Two office towers to be constructed on the southeastern block of
Dupont Plaza, would be P45 feet (CIA stories) and 605 feet (47
,tories) high, providing 1,566,000 gross square feet in the larger
and 984,000 gross square feet In the smaller bulidino (see flcures 2
and 3). The Applicant further proposes to construct a raised
pedestrian plaza at 27.5 foot elevation from the retail stores to the
office towers and from the towers to the DPM station, over S.E. 3rd
Avenue, south of S.E. 3rd Street, to provide amenable and convenient
pedestrian access to all portions of the Miami Center 11 development.
Beneath the plaza, S.E. 3rd Street would remain open to serve as an
access corridor for service trucks, and S.E. 3rd Avenue would remain
open to provide access for through traffic to the One Biscayne Tower
and Amerlfirst buildings as well as to other areas of downtown Miami.
-5-
E
j e
•a.6. /l/IO..0 aVYL IwCIR� _ -.-
_ f
carfw
VaTh
J
jj
N
'n r —
.� -- - — - t.. mars nc.,cc —
��O
.a,,�� rfiru-�r cFrir�r� tt lltrr E'LAri
it .
r
• +j�!l�rt+ 4 it YWt
.,.� ...,.« , � ... ,. fir- _ . - �. . ' t � t .�`�'�.:.,�i►y;�= r i .�e..�
r,E , t �� tttr �tstf♦n�1 e. t
•
9.6"-t .tstu• .r. +r ur •neir
P•i I ft",1 C;t PlTFR 11 SOUTH ELEVATION-
the pr6jedt site is !6hed C-3y Central Cortilfierciai j by the City of
Miami with h6 fIWt Brea r6t16 (FAR) restriction. Accordlhg to the
Applie$nt► the prajest w6uld average an PAR of 13 and require a
h6lIght vartafce from the 26himg Board far the offtce towers (64 and
47 s 61` 116 ) and a tohd t t I bh8 l use perthit for the parking Structure
(40600 spaoes) (see liable 1:1).
TABLE 1.11 MIMAI CEN EG 11 BUILDING AREA
Gross Bu 1 ► d 1 he Ar@e
&'Ots 1.111696b ► e AreD i
Of�fce
2,550,00C
2,1b0,b00
Fitt+ tower
1,566,00o
1,2E9,647
5etbnd TOWOr
98d,000
6106W
caffl orcIaf
i
(Rita l ► a A*g+i urel,t )
556,000
250, oo0
PtW k I hg
1, 400, WO
I N/A
TOTAL
4,300,000
2,150,000
Miami Center 11 is the second chase of Holywell'Corporation's overall -
deveiopment plan for four of the five block Cupont Plaza area. Miami
Center I, conditionally approved_by the Council in May, 1979, is
currently under construction on the Sall Point property. Miami
Center I consists of a 42 story office tower with a gross floor area
of 926,200 square feet. A hotel tower, of 550,000 square feet, will
provide 600 rooms, 30 suites, a E3,000 square foot conference center,
three restaurants, bers, and a health club. There will be 29 stories
above the podium. in addltion, there are two condominium buildings
a'ona the Miami River. Each condominium has 160 units and rises 23
stories. All buildings are supported on a 5 story podium with five
levels of parking. The top of the podium serves as a landscaped
plaza, linking all buildings (see i•igures 4 and 5).
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
the fOt6j6dt s f to It znhed Cr3, tehtra 1 CorrlriQrc a i , by +fie City of
1416mi with n6 flout afea 'ratio (FAR) restriction, Accojing to the
Applieahtj the Pt6jeet would average 6h FAR of 1S and rtouIre a
height vat t afsea ft&h the 26h i hg 808rd for the of f t ce towers (64 and
41 st6t ies) 6hd a d6hd i t i h8 l use peal i t for the pack I fig structure
(4,000 spades) (tde table 1.1).
tABLE 1,1t MiAut GEk'Ec lI BUILDING AREA
i>iti,i6r e l brnbr,+
Coss Bu i i d i rid Agee
_ i 59 �. �{ .� .,. _.. _ .
Ctdss Lbesab le Ar 68
:. ,: _ h 5c • .,� t j)
Offito
2�650,O0C
7,id0,000
r1rs+ Uwe
000
1,2e9,647
tetol)d low-
984, Od6
810,553
Oae.eercibl
I
tRe+� f 1 tie5t tiuf`ei+t)
3d, 00C
230, 00C
AWktfig
I,100,000
I N/A
11JtAl
4.3001000
+ 1135111100 I
Miami Center If Is the second chase of Holywell Corporation's overall
development plan for four of the five block Dupont Pla2a area. Miami
Center t, conditionally approved by the Council in May, 1979, is
currently under constructicn en the Ball Point property. Miami
Center I consists of a 42 story office tower with a gross floor area
of 928,200 square feet. A hotel tower, of 550,000 square feet, will
provide 600 rooms, 30 sultes, a E3,000 square foot conference center,
three restaurants, bars, and a health club. There will be 29 stories
above the podium. In atait;on, there are two condominium buildings
a'ong the Miami River. Each condominium has 160 units and rises 23
stories. All buildings are supported on a 5 story podium with five
levels of parking. The top of the podium serves as a landscaped
plaza, linking all buildings (see Figures 4 and 5).
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
f
A 1
�AV 1HIDN1' iAflk ��
turuot .SKioGE •—.. --,,�-- HOTEL I
tAby oEDrLE r►OVES _ _ _- � j ;
OFFICEGAT
g i i S�SCAtME
LANDSCAPED
j
`ram i
---- PLAZA
iUTUpE sAibG• u��..r-- -- —��
GQNOOMINIUAm
"
A
F I GORE A : ti' I A!•" ! CE14 P. 1 SITE ?LAN
DOCUfVfifENTS
FOLLOW
i
PART 11 - tuMMAPY OP PA6ACt I MPAOS -
A. ENVIRONNI Nt ANO NA"AL RESOURCES
1, Air -
Air pollutant ernssiohs are anticipated to be high enough to
require a complex source perfrAt frorr P l or i da bepat-tmtht of
€hvIt6iment6l Regulation' based on the proposed 40000 car parking
structure. Average daily ernissibns are estlfh6ted to be as
foiibws 6,106 lbs./day of carbon monoxide (CC)' 580 lbs./day of
hydrocarbons (HC)' and 020 lbs./day of nitroaen_oxides (NO).
2, Land, Water' and Wetlands
the 7.4 acres of the project site are altered )ends in urban use
(paved parklna lot). Soil on -site consists of a shallow layer of
sand fill underlain by shelty-fine sand' Miami limestone
(ooIIte), and fort Thompson iImestone on top of Tam iami
sandstone. There are no water _bodies on -site nor any wetland
associations. Ground water, as part of the Biscayne Aquifer, is
brackish to saline.
3. Floodplains
the proposed development site is classified within Zone A-14 of
the Federal Insurance Administration Rate Maps, with a 100-year
flood elevation of +11 feet NGVD. All finished floor elevations
would be above this level. All narking facilities would have a
minimum finished elevation of 5.0 feet in compliance with Dade
Coun-y 10-year storm flood criteria.
4. Vegetation and Wildlife
As altered urban land, the project site has no significant
vegetation or wildlife.
5. Historical and Archaeolooical Sites
The project site may yield significant historical or
archaeological artifacts, according to the State Historic
Preservation Officer. State authorities believe the historical
value to be in the data collected from the site rather than in
protection or preservation for public use. The application+
provides that construction would be delayed to allow state and
local historical preservation officials to survey the site,
should any significant artifacts be found.
"SUPPORTIVE
-1 i- DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
n
t, €CONOMY
The M t aln i Oehtet 11 off 1 WrOta i i comp 1 ex is est i thated to cost a
t6ta1 of which $167,434*060 would be spent to the
Pegion ttae table 1,211.
FABLE 1.2: MIAMI CENTER 11 ESTIRUTE7 CO►+ST01.0 1ON COSTS
Cat heir,
Cost
Lbad (OP60d iteht)
t 10,W1660
Lbbbl'
901127, o0G
Meteeiar5
90,12'i,00C
Ihtarett
29,282►000
Prel Irnifibry
PrahAlhg
51481i000
Other
12,411:000 I
tOTAL _._
__11$259 102,000
2, Employment
CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT AND ASSOCIATED REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACT
The Applicant estimates that 2,COO temporary construction jobs
would be supported by this project at its peak, contributing
$74,437,000 (1980 dollars) in wage and salary Income to the iocal
and regional economy upon full buildout.
The Council's computerized input-output model, developed
specifically for the South Florida Region plus Palm Beach County,
provides the capability to estimate and analyze the broader,
Indirect and Induced impact of this investment on the reglona!
economy. The Council estimates that that the construction
employment for this project would generate 5,039 new jobs, an
additional S51.7e million 1n total wages, $1117.14 million in
output value, and an increase of $64.6 million In value added to
the regional economy (see Table 1.3 A,B,C and D).
PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT AND ASSOCIATED REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACT
Miami Center 11 is expectedtoprovide office space and retail
area for 11,576 persons as permanent employees of tenant firms
and retailers locating In the complex. The Applicant estimates
that roughly 90 percent or 10,418 employees at the site will be
existing residents of the Region. Therefore this development
would induce an in -migration of 1,158 employees to the Region
(see Table 1.4).
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW
tABLt i 3
s
it, dwtkviok
DpLbfwwt
t to S
8. t+,ptoy h+
1
^Sc.
f!Cr�919
3�8c.,
4grttutture, drestr�,
A&teui+ufbI "166%
1
p
3
wrtltigg
tibtrutt 1 t'J11
6
i , #31,
iJ
i i E
1
+ 37
�i 11t
?, 494
1
72e
t+►btluiattui+ing
6
t54
1
22
53
Tpbt'; ptbi`) a wit,
32 f
161 ; l
t94 t
15
061 otb i f T�aa+e
Qe bit 1Y'ad!
1�{ ;
t12 I 12
7e
53 1
8 f
t 07 t
fp;naitce, irts�rentc a
Ei;attt
a
t2 '
67 1
10C !
t5
i9681
Slrt i cbb
tit '
270 f 3
385 i
se f
GoveenMeA+
;tAtrt
1.985 l
3.i74 ! 80 1
5.b39 j
987 i
0, total Wages (tobb 1)
Forestry,
I
tAgricuttuPe,
8
26
34
79
(Fishtho
Agrtcui+oal Servites
16
26 (
6 r
a
17
Mining
51
116 f
8 i
175
01
itbnstructton
iS,935 �
22,72i
e76
39,532
8,978
14at,utacturtng
5E5
1,Pie j
9
2.392
390
Trbnsbbr+b+ on b t}tit,
293
1,2E1
IB I
1.572
141
Mhc esblt Tobde
i 174
692
ti
877
104
,Rp+ett Trade
1.I27
1,74C
89
3,105
618
.rinbnGl, Insurance d
t
Qee! Es+ate
ME
694
11
1.011 i
10
Services
I P81
2,C2C
6C
2,961
48Q
GCve"01ment
t 27 ,t
44
2 ,
73
i6
,tV*IAL
1q,4?4
t1,209
1,088
51.781
1t,n85
C. iat ,e cf -+cu+
Acr'.'ui+,.re. Forestry,
i i
F;sh;ng
! 35
116 '
131
344
Agricut+urat Services
46
7e
17
141 jI
it i
tr;ning
165 !
372 j
27
564 I
291 f
iConstructlon
f 3P,852 f
55.396
2.136
96.384 f
21.PgC
Marufac+wring
i 3,241 1
1C.426
51 i
1*,71e
2,23e
transpor+Won a ut i l .
1, 24e 1
5, 374
77
6, 699
6C)
Trade
364
1,447
23
1,534
2le
iIMhoteseie
Retail Trade
2.739
3,995
196
6.930
1.380
tFinance, insurance a
f Rest Estate
1,232
2,800
42
t,074 i
655
Se►vices
1,949 t
4.46e '
132
6,549
1.079
Government
37
63 i
- 2
t 02
22
'C!AL
j 49,908 i
84,534 i
2,703 I
137, 145
2e. 769
;. Vetue Added t'000 S)
Apr;cutture, Forestry,
Fisnlnq
18
62
-
80
184
Agricutturet Services
27
46
10
83
30 ;
1m;n;ng
99
223
16
338
175
'Construction
17,706
25,246
973
43,925
9.976 1
Manutecturing
1,285
4.134
20
5.439
887
'Transportation a Ut11.
6e0
2.925
42
3,647
327
1whotesete Trede
228
907
15
1,150
136
Retati Trade
1,410
21057
101
3.568
710
'Finance. Insurance d
Rost Estate
811
1,842
28
21681
431
1,157
2,653
78
! 3,888
641
iservlces
Government
29
50
2
81
17
iTOTAL
( 23,450
40043
1,284
64.877
13,514
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUIAIENTS
FOLLOW
-13-
0
TAkt IA: ftJE&tb LA1 IN-M)GRAtON (he+ girth), m1Ak+1 CE4tEO 11
F466joet
i8,600'
V0,0001
315,000'
325000,;
f500Q004
TOTAL
ii6nb4bctuf-1hg
0
��
i�#
;iil�
3S
i25
tr6n5Nrt8tlan
0
15
35
61
1t
12t
t1hena1b1
0
6
i09
104
29
3ta
�vir!`s
0
�0
�e
a6
t3
16t'
MtOtAL
0
133
315
550
85
i,L197
#*+al I /RlStburbnt
O
P
14
25
a
55
Plli' k 1 A§
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
0
141
320
594
93
1,14- ,
W(ACl : EP 16648d front ADA by CWN:I I tt6f f.
This new permanent employment would provide further stimulus to
the regional economy, generating 1,770 secondary jobs, an S1$
mil Lion addition to total wages) -a$64.59 mi i,i ion increase, in
output value, and $32.7 million in value added (see Tables 1.5
A,8,C and D) to the regional economy.
3. Fiscal impact
The project would have a significantly positive fiscai impact
upon the City of Miami, Dade County, the Dade County School
District, the South Florida Water Management District, and the
Downtown Development District. According to the Dade County
Property Appraisal Department, the 1980 property tax assessment
on the site is $422,438. (Using 1980 millace rates, totailing
28.124 mills and the assumption that 10 percent (1,158) of the
11,576 jobs will be new positions, the net fiscal impact would be
a surplus of $2,228,280 for the City of Miami, $1,358,319 for
Dade County, $1,553,752 for the Dade County School District, and
$178,224 for the South Florida Water Management District and the
Downtown Development District together (see Table 1.6), for a
combined regional fiscal surpius of $5,318,576.
C. PUBLIC FeCiLITIES
1. Wastewater Management
Wastewater flows from Miami Center it would be handled by the
"SUPPORTIVE
DOM M EDIT -14
FOLLOW"
filid 13f NIANt MMO i1, KIM" OK&W110
10FA t3
A, EA1p toytfF+t
So. Ftorida
eroeaia
oaae_�
sio6rc�
Qeg.ic6
�a i3edcn
..A§6 i 6u i fui�1, Pi3i`8f>rt:y, '
�
'�
�
t
A�anicuttul'rtii tr1Ci!
�
4
6
`
inning
�1RstruCti�t
1
i1
�
i9
4b0
4
9�
MirlfMuibCtufing
117
29�
i
�
225
1,
tF8n383rtatldi'h Stir t .
��
186
l0
Nlbtet;8ie fradi
FiefiUi 1 1`ra!!i
i�
1 ib
32 +
184
�
� '�
�
30i
I 61
,
�ii;andi� in#uP$ACe d
i25
258
3
+
38b
1 5
ilea► Estate
t
1tb
269
5
384
51
ter tco
tbtAL
'Si8
1,233
t9
1,t�0
#00
i5: Total wbgo 1)
i Agr I cui fures ores rq,
Pigt,tig
3
1 i
i
14
5t �.
hgrliruttuPrli 5erviCes
8
14
3
25
51
� 9
27
I Gbi+structton
15
82 ,
34
11e
+ ?
5
205
! 46
ioierufacttill ifig
`,CSi
3,38t
16 i
3e
4,448
2,95i
726
t 765
transCortatton b Uttt.
55C
+
2,3t7
353
6
443
53 a
MhoteSaie Trade
Reta;i trade
89
617
588
48
1, 13
341 i
'
Fihahce, Insurance 9
Peat Estate
1 215
i
2,P9P
44 i
d,7'7
Va i
rvi
' Seces
1,132
2,5a;
i 11
3,P06
627 i
rioverhment
+ TOTAL
49 (
d;oc i
127
/?�ooe
2 1
i - 23 {
t t8
'?,.Se
I 28
i 21es2
Apricu,Lure, Forestry,
-
Fi5hih9
i 14
47
'•
E1
141
Anr;cuiturat Services
25
41
9
75
27
wining
i 49
1
tit
i e
168
e7
Gonstructton
530
755
{ 29
1,314
299
108nu4actur1n9
13, M
11,359
P4
27,et9
3.125
i Transpo�rtatton d Utii.
1,149
1,529
107
9,385
842
' Mhotessis Trade
191 ,
759
12
962
114
+ Wait Trade
1,511
2,204
, 108
3►P23
761
ctnance, Insurance b
,
Real Estate
5,401
12,275
186
17,e62
2.873
Services
2,337 I
5,3t:0
t58
71855
11295
aovernnent
56 ;
17e
3
247
3q
TO,AL
17,269 1
46,6t8
105
64,592
t0.202
,. value added (1000 f)
ltSUPPORTRI
Aaricu,ture. Forestry,
+
y1 F%sntng
1 7
25
32
, 73
iAaricutrurai Services
14
+ 24
5
43
16
�M;n;n9
! 29
67
5
101
52
^onstruction
92
131
S
228
52
' wanufacturtng
2,291
7,370
36
9,697
10582
Transportation & Utii.
`
I 903
3,887
55
4,545
I 435
Mhotesaie Trade
1 lie
470
a
596
71
Retail Trade
( 774
1,130
55
11959
390
Finance, insurance b
t
Reel Estate
21056
6,718
107
9.776
1,572
Services
1,56?
'1596
t06
51270
$69
Gove►omen♦
53
142
2
197
31
TOTAL,
e,P07
23.559
379
32,745
5,142
. v1Y
)OCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
%I)L.E i:$3 MI 11 UM" 'f
i IScat: 1WA
f dt ck*b Ci7li" t AtOt rbft* it -
tltlt°tM PLAM
1t1� t tlil
city Atom
COIm v Ct1bE
sPEciA1. b1st61ci OWA
61st0lct cww
Or ct-Axditt f jtij•-wstt>+Ijl
+Ot dt b1b11IjjG LlOt >:1 �-F1�ifLV T1-tieilLV '�)i12-
ttiltitj€Ip tit Lelits
6
6
6
wAWR & Si'tbb&S 00 LPtIT
• 6B
66
60
NCR OF POSO11.5 %fit Il I
! eP
6 M
6 •°
t&AL MIAMI? OF LAWS •
TOT1k tu1QIo+ OF stUbMS 6
MEstDENf VObt tick •
Ni6EV OF EjVLo kxs i1Se
AMILVsts CON)LjCTED USING AYom" cap-T tctFKtS
EfKwttl0E CATTGwIE5 CITY
cnonv
SPECIAL DIstRICt
SCHOOL DISTRICT
GENEOR GO`-TVWCW / v. is.,
1 BBSei
S tG
PIABLIC yiTTv 6 TiP'i
1 1i7s^F
t A
HEILTH FM- btLFRRF • 441t
1 ? ."So
6 93
RECKATtam fe[. ul. tURF ! 144fik
1 y"3PE'
• °
T77gISrP(itiTRTlOh S G!.'�
1 : ^L9
S 8
NATIDit RE Gf� torE s • ?Pe :
i 73e
S 32
P►a I wrtn I: S 13 i1t+
1 tP F!'
6 9PA
0%1 VT LU AK 11l- • �n
l 194ti
• P
i>7L1CAT I OI. E>mT.Hb 1 t ii`E :
1
°
ED(JrAT1W I.SS.IR CIFPI
•
P
SLV*1CF AW CAF ITAL OLRi A.
SPECIAL CWITAL FACILITY
S
8
W"F* FJ0-M I TLS+F . S B
S e
S B
Prvr I CATEGORIES City
C011av
SPECIAL DISTRICT
SCHOOL DISTRICT
P•OPEWN, tooc4 L 2266?41
S 025M
F 17.12e
•
1553rs?
.OTHER trots 6 E?2w
S 64"
6 •
431vICE CHMPOIS S Slif
• 52492
• lips
OTHER HOW TAX LOCK ASWI&K F 45%
S 79Y►
S •
STATE fhrEwO0VERpCNTH 6 1121v
S P•°3
S •
VrDag 1NTE111r<TIE7l1•CHTK- • 17.26
F 261t*
• 12
itw'tE E7)LiAt IOIFL
•
°
R EPAL EtxJC1t? IClR
•
°
IIISC111./• MJS • 2+412
S 44297
• 174
•
•
O1E.T11E fwl. HES F IMW5
6 332560
S •
•
•
CITY
OOl lTv
SKCIAL 015"ICT
SCHOOL DIS7RICTF TWOL
TOTW I" 00"J l OPPO MS • liiEl2
• 1163C7
S 1?!1
S
• F iJ363e
"SUPPORTIVE
. >
...>.,`.,
. ,�,.�
a
.W S MZM
DOCUMENTSIEF
SIJA'1115 OiilCit 1 t j?2 m
a IM.719
F lam•
a
t=?W • 3710576
FOLLOW
^,�^
MtW —15Ade Water And fewer Authotityi which has suff'citht excess
taW 1 ty at the view l yaexo6hded V trg i h i a Key treattehf pi amt to
serve ail of the projected increase In demand (an average of
466,000 gallant per day), The Appilt mt will be respohsible for
all d69ts of 8h-slte utility cOnstructioh, Pieter thstallattOh,
and cohheetloh ch8tge5.
Dziria e
The dralhage plan conststs of a coilectton systet disch&-g;hd
Into grease lhtetteot6rs which overflow into 4 dratnaoe wells.
These wells will be 24 inches in dlafneter, with a design capacity
of 2,000 gallons per Minute or 4,4 cfs each, and will be drilled
into the underlying Biscayne Aquifer where chiorlde
cOncehtrat(ons Of 1,550 ppm Indicate saline conditions. The
wells are designed to provide on -site disposal for a 5 year
design storm volume of 13.9 cfs. Run off volume In excess of the
5 year design storm Will be discharged through an emergency
overfle)w Outfail to the storm sewar system. The Applicant
proposes to construct exfiltration perimeter drains which would
provide additional capacity. The project may need a General
Permit from SPWMD, pursuant to Ch. 16K-4.021 Florida
Administrative Code, which must be received prior to
construction.
With the proposed drainage plan, the existing surface parking
area will be converted to a roofed area, and polluted washdowr%
volumes from the parking structure will be cleansed by grease
interceptors. Consequently, existing po'iutant loads in surf -ace
runoff will be dramatically reduced through the well In,jectior
system by a factor, estimated by Council staff, of 71? percent.
After retention, pollutant loadings in pounds per year are
estimated by the Applicant to be 18.6 lbs. of suspended solids,
and no BOD, total nitrogen, or total phosphorus are anticipated.
3. Weter Supply
The Applicant estimates potable water consumption to averace
690,000 gelions per day, to be supplied by the Mlami-bade Water
and Sewer Authority.
4. Solid Waste
The Applicant estimates that the development would generate 37
tons per day of solid waste materials which will be collected by
a private hauling company under contract and disposed of by the
Dade County Solid Waste Disposal Division.
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
-17-
'the deve 1 oper 01'6065es to use e 1 ectr i d f ty as the Sole eflergy
`
5 ftO for this pr6JOtt. Annuai electrtc81 ehergy c6h9uffipt16h Is
i •-
tstlmated by tbumtf i staff to be 66.1 mi 1 1 ion KWH t226 bi I ! ioh
i3fiUs) • Ass uml Pig oh average c65t of five cehts per k 1 1 owatt- h6ur,
anf5u6i ofitsfte eFiergy costs to the Appiittmt are prejedted to be
j"
IM Million, P 16r i da Power a Light Cofnpany has indicated that
IJI
adequate power and voltage capacity is available for the proposed
dev,06pmeht. This oh -'site energy d6htuffiptloh corresponds to the
energy content of heariy,3roW battO is of residua! Oil, Sihde
the pr6dudtt6h of electricity oper8tet at one third efflciencyo
the equivalent of over 107,000 barrels of residual oil would be
required each year to support this pru,ject.
Off-stte energy use will also be required to bring workers and
visitors to the site. The developer estimates 16,350 daily
vehicle trips with an average trip length of 8,65 miles. Thus,
approximately �75 billion 8TU'sj or about 2/5 more than ahhuel
building energy use, will be consumed by transportation to this
site. This estimate excludes incremental energy costs for public
transit and the incremental energy costs to other passenger
vehicles due to increased traffic congestion.
6, Education
Not applicable.
7. Recreation and Open Space
The development site plan provides 320000 so. ft. of landscaped
pedestrian plaza atop the podium, with direcr access to the
Downtown Peopie Mover station and indirect access to the 16 1!2
feet lower Southeast Eank Financial Center plaza.
S. Health Care and Fire
Emergency medical service is available through the City of Miami
Fire Department Rescue Squad responcing from Rescue Unit #1
located at 144 N.E. 5th Street, with an emergency response time
to the site of 1.5-2.0 minutes. Back-up response is available
under Dade County's contract with Randle -Eastern Ambulance
Service, although recent contract disputes indicate potential for
reduced service availability.
Fire call response would also be dispatched from Station No. 1.
Back-up response is available from Station No. 2 (1901 N. Miami
Avenue). City fire officials have recently expressed some
concern that the proposed and approved development activity in
the downtown Miami area represents an additional demand upon Fire
Department and Emergency Rescue Company services without any
commitment of increased funding to assure the availability of the
"SUPPORTnecessary facilities and services,
IVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW??
ONOM the height of the 01`606W office t6wetto the A0011daht
Should be 1`04utrod to th§Uriei that the f6w6tt can be evacuated
taf§ly IM 61) offittgthdy. In addItt6h to Whatever 6thof Measures
the FIF6 Di§06ttffitht d6i§ffit advIt6bl6j "the Applte6mt Should be
tOqutt@d to construct h6llp6dt for trhttgeftY Ov6du8tf6h on the
t6dft of both towet,
0, Police
Police Pt6ttittl6h would be by the City of Mlarhi from its downtown
Station at N.W, 2nd Avenue and N,W. 4th Street, City police
officials have recently exptessed concern that the proposed and
approved development activity In the downtown area will post
problems for traffic ehf6rcomehto due to Increased pedestrian
activity attracted to the DPM station and the overall Increase of
traffic volumes in the Immediate area,
The Applicant should Incorporate appropriate Security systems
into the design and operation of all portions of the projecto
Including the parking garagest to help protect employees and
patrons. Project plans should be reviewed, by an architect
experienced in designing to discourage crime, to determine the
potential for Increasing security6
D. TRANSPORTATION
1. Existing Traffic
The Impact area of the project and exlstlno average dally traffic
conditlons are shown In Floure 6. Morning and afternoon
peak -hour traffic volumes and conditions are shown in Floure 7.
All cri-llcal Intersections in the Immediate area are currently
operating at LOS "C" or better,,
2. Future Traffic Analysis
The Applicant has prepared, in conjunction with representatives
of Southeast Bank, a recommended transportation system plan (see
Figure 8), which provides adequate service levels In Dupont Plaza
by constructing bifurcated access ramps to the 1-95 Connector,
modifying the surface street system to Increase capacity, and
relying on the DPM system to carry 50 percent of development
traffic.
The final transportation system plan Is a variation on the
State -adopted bifurcated ramp design and conceptual plan. It
differs from the State plan In four ways% S.E. 3rd Avenue and
S.E. 3rd Street remain open to through traffic; the termini of
the bifurcated ramps end west of S.E. 3rd Avenue; direct ramp
connections are provided into the Miami Center 11 garage; and the
DPM station and guideway are modified slightly to accommodate the
development and roadway plans. The transportation system plan,
as recommended and as adopted by the Dade MPO, meets all federal
"SUPPORTIVE _19-
DOCUMENT
S
i nwil
t I
r , r
IN — 5', ,AL`1k by tit E
(j
LjololJam_
LJ
E7 Oil
\, 49
cc
If
a
y
—j t r' ► t
ISLAND
O• < V ` i s. �ss1
Q
"SUPPORTIVE fl.; IRE 6; EYI',Titer, AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC C0Nr ITIO".S
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
ok
u
l
Powt
I� 9"7� �� MeCAwNt stvo. war
EXISTING 16T6 AM PEAK HOUR TRAPM
VOLUMES
BiStAv7E irLw.
3e; c e
10
,eee
'oio
so
ev
10
W
Fib iA IRD. or. fp BALL
360 j.� POINr
364 +} Si
6Q1
:
643
66310 ' / 918QAYIE BLVD. WAY
D{J'OMT PLAZAtt�+� PORT��� PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
DO U M EI YTS EXISTING 1979
VOLUMES
F LLOW"
FIGURE 7: EXISTING (? �479) A!" AND PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Q �{
-n O C
w•w yl c
HOM
itl7 °;I ._' I�rirfif F a
5 4 rx r: F
Dof f W� .. � � �i i��hEt4
cn
u SE 2ND ST. r l ' fwv Vo.
..a
_
i FROM
I
1
I I
{ { SE 3RD' Sly I
,. •fw>v .w,fw*
rouc.
t f
{
h
f I
TO
i
— -- —
t
f-lfillr?E 1C1L PLAZA
f1tJAt if•'.n':'�rfr�;Tr:Tf�+rt �••frr.t �'1f�."J. fClf'
li
G
and State safety and riperatiohal design crlterta for the
ai 19MA01'it and conf igurat Ioh of the bifurcated access raMps to the
145 oofthector system- Thus► it is W It tpeted that the State
wtli approve the pian► as recoritmended, with the possible
dxdepttoh of "the goutheast bank garage access on S,t, 7hd Street,
the Appiicaht+s future traffic ahalysts Is based oh the
redommended trahsportatioh system plan, hot on the existing
roadway systern&
In addttioh to collaborating in the development of the finai
trahsportatioh system solution for bupont Plaza, the Appiicant
has helped develop staging plans for the required surface street
Iinprovemehtsi to assist in mitigating the adverse traffic impacts
associated with the construction Of the private developrnents and
the 6PM system# prior to the opening of the bifurcated 1=45
Connector.
Although a surface street staging plan has been developed, using
current plans for construction timing to maintain acceptable
service levels while construction is underwayi it must be
unequivocably stated that, Without completion Of the 1-95
Connector, the surface street system alone, even if Improved as
proposed, cannot support the combined traffic from proposed
development in the five block area. in other words, the
bifurcated system must be completed coincident with full build
out of Dupont Plaza, If significant adverse traffic impacts are
to be avoided.
PROJECT TRAFFIC
Due to its central business district location, the Applicant
assumes that the volume of project traffic generated by on -site
development will be significantly reduced because of the
availability of an integrated public transit system, which would
serve the development and be supported by off -site parking areas
linked with the downtown area by transit. The proposed
development is expected to generate 16,350 average daily trips
(see Table 1.7). This expected vehicle trip generation is
roughly 40 percent of the normal traffic generation for such a
development. Without the supporting transit systems in place and
heavily used by project employees and visitors, the full traffic
generation potential of the proposed deveiopment, equalling
roughly 41,000 average daily trips, would totally overburden not
only the existing but also the proposed roadway network and
parking supply in the downtown area.
lisuPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW
UbLE 1, 1: * I Alf i OWM i is ft A& dtWW t6 fi w I M 'M I PS
Wpeak-pbuF
04_Nak,_%uP
bb1!_y.
I h
ot.
In
out.
(_n
00
Off t ft * 169"t
i , 646
106
05
11646
` 3i 56
5,156
0010 V I O WS
105
46
t 6
156
C 656
10056
Roo 16016viet
56
i b
56
56
#66.
566.
Well Wf6h§
_,...�0
.8
f.,tal
_i�S1
5���52
�.61
t,1 1 0 5
211 46
295
1,425
6,125
�,175
t fu*+y (46) 06ft6ht bf vbhltis +PIPS bee 6tt n6d td W66dy bb ih th#
daehf6wh arbb and bee hot *geh6P8+6d% by 013 dbvblop"ht.
Z Gatculetiai fof dettjn k6ekdby, ghtlb 6v6f6ge 066kdbq +hips eF!
6*06eted +b 6qubl fifty (56) perZbh+ 6f this hui'tbi• 6t i,BA6 taps
th and 60 bath.
S"Ct : AbA
The Applicant proposes to Construct an oh -site parkin0 parade
structure with 4,000 spaces above 3 levels of retail use oh the —
western two blocks of Dupont Plaza. Vehicle access to the
proposed garage structure 1s provided at several locations,
Including entrances along S.E. 2nd Avenue for southbound traffic,
on S.E. 3rd Street for traffic from northbound S.E. 2nd and
westbound S.E. 3rd Street, and unique direct ramp access for both
Inbound and outbound traffic on the bifurcated 1-95 connector
ramps .
The key to acceptable traffic operation In -the whole Dupont Plaza
area is the provision of the proposed direct garage/ramp
connection 'he connection will relieve the surface street
system of a morning peak hour inbound volume of 777 cars and an
afternoon peak hour volume of 926 cars. The importance of
efficient, free -flowing traffic circulation within and between
the connected garage structures should not be underestimated
The success of the direct garage/ramp connection is dependent
upon the ability of the internal circulation system of the garage
to manage the peak hour rush without tie-ups, which could cause
queing back out to the 1-95 connector.
Service and delivery truck loading operations wilt be
accommodated both within the garage on both the north and south
sides of S.E. 3rd Street and below the second level pedestrian
podium serving the office towers. As proposed, the development
plans fall to meet the off-street loading area requirements of
the City Code, which may adversely impact the free flow of
traffic on S.E. 3rd Street.
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS �24-
FOLLOW
0 f.
CHAPTER 2: 50UfiHEW BANK FINANCIAL CENTER
PART I PROJECT bEtCR I PT i CN
A. APPLICANT INFORMATION
Project Name Southeast Bank F lh6ht 1 al Center
Applicant! Southeast flanking Ccrporation & Gerald 0. Hines interests
100 S. Biscayne Boulevard One Sheli Square, Suite 4320
Miami, Florida 33131 New Orleans, La. 10150
Date of Acceptance of Application! October 3O, 100
Local Government Hearing Date! January 8, 1981
Type of Development! Office Building
Location of Development! City of Miami, bade County
B. PROJECT INFORMATION
The proposed Southeast Bank Financial Center is to be constructed
Immediately south of the existing Southeast Bank building on the 2.4
acre northeastern block of Dupont Plaza (see Figure 1). The
Applicant proposes a development Consisting of a 55 Story office
tower, a 15 story bank annex building, includino a 1,15E space
parking garage and 10,400 square feet of retail use, and a z0,00C sq.
ft. pedestrian plaza (see Figure 9), —
The office tower, providing 1,210,000 gross sq. ft. and located on
the eastern half of the block, is to be covered with off-white
granite and mirrored glass. At the northeast corner of the iot, the _
building would be set back diagonally to create a pedestrian entry
plaza oriented toward Bayfront Park across the intersection of
Biscayne Boulevard and S.E. 2nd Street. An 11 foot (MSL) plaza
elevation would serve as the base elevation for the entire site, with
exterior landscaping around the building. The tower is planned to
provide pedestrian -oriented retail activity on the first two floors,
and office use above with the exception of 3 restaurants serving
private members, office employees, and bank executives, respectively.
The glass -roofed pedestrian plaza, located through the middle of the
block at +11 ft. elevation (MSL), would be constructed of off-white
granite and landscaped with Royal palms. The plaza would also serve
as a staging area for Downtown People Mover riders, providing access,
via escalators, to the 27.5 foot DPM station platform adjacent to the
site along S.E. 3rd'Street.
"SUPPORTIVE -25-
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW''
c ; L Iy
i
f` .r
EAST SIVATION SOUTH lavAboN
• rt -
c) Q
-i
"SUPPORTIVE [AST•wEST stttwN
DOW' MENT5
FOLLOW
FIGURE 9: SOUTHEAST BANK FINANCIAL CENTER SITE PLAN AND PROFILE
A i5-t+6t'V Bak Ahmtxj l6e6t6d on the west side of the block W alto
sheathed with off-whttt gtWteo would provide r0t8oll activity
(16o466 §4 fto et the Ottf or 0162a level With adcots from the
p1b2a and ;at& 3td Avenue, bn tht t6d6hd level, 6 b6hklhg hall would
be PF60ftd) with ogdal6t6t eohWtI6Ms to +h6 Podestrtah 01626 and 6
pedetttl6fl btId§L5 over tht P16td to the office t6lilet. A 1)156 space
pekleig geap would OUUOY the third thrbugh kith stories, with a ■
health club on the 15th floor accessed via the parking g6ttl§e
dleot6r tyt+effi'
G6hsttuetl6h Of the Project Is planned to begin to 1981 and be
c6mpleted by Poll, 083 with all construction staging Occurring
oh-gite to rylthtmite, Impact on 6djateht streets The developffient
sItdp now 6 parking lot, Is toned C-3t Central CoffifnOrCiEll District,
which acdwhbdatog high land use dohsltleS (see Table 2,1), The
project would requite a height Variance for the office tower and a
conditional use perrolt for the parking garage-
tABLE 2, 1: SOUTHEAST BANK FINANCIAL aNnR BUILDING AREA
structure/Use
Tower
Gross
Squaee-Pee+
Net
Leasable Area
• Retail
100400
8,84C
• Office (Includlhg 2 cafeterias)
1,210i MO
1'02E'7`5
9 Club Restaurant
23,500
1g,975
bank Annex
a Bank Hall
3b,000
321100
• Retail
16'poo
13,170
• Parking 0,150 spaces)
502,A0C
Hea!+I, C!ub
22,000
Pedestrian P1828
Mlscelloheous
56:10C
TOTAL
1,8890000
lUsing 35% lessable ores fector.
Access to the parking structure Is proposed on S.E. 2nd and S.E. 3rd
Streets, with a small truck loading dock in the Bank Annex off of
S. E. 3rd Street.
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW
-27-
PARt 11 - SUMMARY OP PROJECT IMPAtts
A. ENVIRONPItNT AND NATiAAL 02686UACE5
ii Alt
Alt pollutaht e(fltsstons are anticipated to be high enough to
require a complex source permit froffi Florida bepartment of
Envltohlflehtal kegulatioh, based on the proposed 1,150 car parking
sttuctute. Avetage dally eflitsstons are estlrnated to be as
foilows: 3t506 lbs./day of carbon Monoxide (Cb), W lbs./day of
hydrocatbons (HC), and 222 lbs./d6y of nitrogen oxides (NO), 20
lbs./day of sulphur oxides (50), and 3$ lbs./day of particulates,
2. Lafd,.-Water, and W6t 1 ands
The 2.4 acres of the project site are altered iands in urban use
(paved parking lot). Soil oh -site Consists of a layer of fill
Sand Uhdetlalh by Miami Itmestone, carbonate sand, Fort Thompson
I11ne5t6he, and Tamtaml sandstone. There are no water bodies
on -site nor any wetland associations Ground water in the
Biscayne Aquifer Is brackish to saline.
3. Floodp_)ains
The proposed development site is within Zone A-14 of the Federal
Insurance Administration Rate Maps, with a 100-year flood
elevation of +11 feet NGVD. All finished floor elevations would
be above this level Ali parking facilities would have a minimum
finished elevation of 5.0 fee` n compliance with Dade County
10-year storm flood criteria. A service corridor Is proposed
between the Dank Annex and the Office Tower at 0.0 ft. elevation,
requiring flood proof design in conformance with requirements of
Dade County Code Chapter 11-C'. This corridor will require a
variance from Dade County Department of Environmental Resources
Management (DERM).
4. Vegetation and Wildlife
As altered urban land, the project site has nc significant
vegetation or wildlife. As a result of the interior and exterior
landscaping to be provided by the project, such plant species as
Royal Palm, Boston Fern, Peperomia, Fiddleleaf. Fig, Beauty Leaf,
Natal Palm, Rosewood, Satinleaf, Fig Marigold, Geiger Tree, and
Southern Wax Myrtle would be introduced to the site.
5. Historical and Archaeological Sites
The project site may yield significant historical or
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS -2e'
FOLLOW"
8Fth66616gIt6l 8l'tiftittto 8dt&dihg to the tt2te Htttdoric
PtbWv6tIbh Offices'. Thef`06rtj the Applicant PF606tes to al low
addW61181 0t0-,t6httrudtt6h survey testing and will delay
e6httl`udtt6h) If any discovery It Made) until state 8hd-16tal
hltt6Hd8t 0tdWv8f16M 6ffIdI61t Can suf-vey any ditt6v6ty and
record their fIhdIfigs
.
8. ECONOMY
1. pro-j L Cott
The Southeast Oamk rihahctal Center office building is estimated
to d6st a total $101,1000000s of which $83,558,000 Is estimated
to be spent in the Region (gee Table 2.2).
TABLE 2.2: SOUTHEAST BANK FIN.ANrIAL CENTER
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
(1980 Dollars)
Cost, Item
Cost
Land
S 7.000►000
Lebt)t
15,000,000
Matertals
62,000,000
Imtetest
12,600,000
Prei Ithimery
Planning
200,OOC
Other
10,300,000
TOTAL
S107,100,000
2. Employment
CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT AND ASSOCIATED REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Applicant estimates that 277 temporary construction jobs
would be supported by this project at peak constructions
contributing $15,000,000 In wage and salary income to the local
and regional economy.
Using our computerized input-output model, which allows
estimation and analysis of the broader, Indirect and induced
Impacts of this Investment on the regional economy, the Council
estimates that this construction employment should generate an
estimated 770 additional Jobs, an additional $8 million In total
wages, $21.37 million Increase In output value, and a total
increase of $10.1 million In value added to the regional economy
(see Tables 2.3 AlB.C. and D).
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW
AthANBk ftN'TO.
WLE 2.3:
9,
f t AAk
t SAL
MkOALIC Iota
tWiLtiNENt tWAC?'S
-
A, avMe�:
.11�r•IcutturE►
i3bde_M,
-.
G$;.....
fdFEt;trlr+
�i3f,i1♦�
*
'�
x
m
AOrldu140al toihltEfMINIM
e6hWuo lbh
30
#C r
►,49
i 1 } I
Mbhul6001ho
5 j
tP ►
Wh6i#WO
9
Aetbil trade
r lhbhte, (#1$urbhtL► d
W1 rotate
i9.evt6Er,
tOtAL
214
484,
12
15!
6. tow wboot: taboo tt
A "itutturti Foret3tryr
i
4
o {
S
12
•
ricultg
At7rtctultutel Sarvi6is
Mththa
2
P
4
IF
I j
1
2'1
3
t4
;
,
GlSh3trUt!tbn
2.4P±
1
3,541
its t
t
ErtFt
trice i
59 !
f ! i
�.�1
Mb�+u#bctu:inc
`Trap Ssoortbt i;t X Ut i) ,
ht.
4F
211 ,
19'
t t
f•
24f
22
Mholtsbte trb4E
21
IN ',
2
t P
If
l ....
."
nett; l Trade
Fthente, Insurance a
j 192
j
2P
14
Of
� 9'
I
i�
Rent Estate
4P
1i7
1 oe •
315
9
t 5e
4F;
2S
7E I
�
......� C)
r
TOTAL
3,034
4, e5E '
16S
B. 0s,
1.12j i
C. Vbt.,e of �Vrv�a ltv:�
i
p. Value Added (1000 9) ■
Agriculture, Forestry.
Fishing
3
9
17
7E
Agricultural Services
4
7
2
13
5
Mining
15
34
2
_5t
27
t:onstructlon
2,759
3,934
152
6.645
1,555
Manufacturing
197
635
3
e35
136
TrensWtatlon t Utli.
106
656
6
56E
51
Wholesale Trade
36
145
2
1e3
22
Retail Trade
220
320
16
1 556
111
Finance, Insurance d
Mast Estete
126
267
4
417
67
Sorvlces
180
413
12
605
100
6ovortwnt
4
a
0
12
3
TOTAL
30652
1 6.249
200
10.101
2.103
PERMANENT
The toutheast 960 Fih6hdI6 l Center would further provide office,
retail, and f1h6 idtai services space for 5,357 perscht as
pet`fiandht eAlp 16yees 6f tdh6ht f t Erns I ocat t ng I n the building,
fihe App i t aht expects t6 tFansf& 1, 500 employees from tiie
exIstlgig bahk fact'Iity. Addltlohaliy, an estitatted 3,317
ettiployees would be trahtfettod fr&h other local employers within
—
—
Cade Couhty. C&todluentl y, the actual nurnber of new permanent
jobs created by the project is expected to be less than 540,
With new per1handht employment acting at a stimulus to the
regional edonomy, fihe development Is expected to result in 661
new jobs, an additional $6 million in total wages, a t13.9
�
tnlllton increase in output value, and $8.4 million in value added
to the regional economy (see Tablet 2.4 A,P,C, and 0).
3. Fiscal I Impact_
_ _ - --
The project would have a positive fiscal impact upoh the City of
Miami, Dade County, the Dade County School District, the South
Florida Water Management District, and the Downtown_ Development
District. According to the Dade County Property Appraisal
Department, the 1980 property tax assessment on the site is
$106,951: Using 1980 millage rates, totallima 28.124 mills and
the Applicant's assumption that 10 percent (536) of the 50357
jobs will be new positions, the net fiscal impact would be a
surplus of $94 2,063 for the City of Miami, $576,579 for Dade
County, $658,049 for, the Dade County School District, and $74,1E0
for the South Florida Water Management District and Downtown
Development District together (see Table 2,5), for a combined
regional surplus of $2,250,872.
"SUPPORTIVE
C. PUBLIC FACILITIES DOCUMENTS
OCUMENi'S
1, Wastewater Management
FOLLOW??
Wastewater flows from the project would be handled by t
Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority, which has sufficient excess
capacity to serve all of the projected increase In demand (an
average of 190,000 gallons per day).
2. Drainage
The drainage plan consists of a collection system discharging
Into grease Interceptors which overflow into 4 drainage wells.
These wells wiil be 24 inches in diameter, with a design capacity
of 1,500 gallons per minute or 3.34 cfs each, and will be dr'iiled
into the underlying Biscayne Aquifer where chloride
concentrations of 1,500 ppm indicate saline conditions, The
wells are designed to provide on -site disposai for a 5 year
design storm volume of 13.4 cfs. Run off volume In excess of the
5 year design storm will be discharged through an emergency
overflow outfall to the storm sewer system. The project may need
a General Permit from SFWMD pursuant to Ch. 16K-4.021 Florida
-31-
tAbd 2 is S"4AP 6ANX hNAIVCtAL ftk-E'a,
W
w
z
ono
CL J
A:
...: �_e ,:..., �_�._., _,_ _._..:...:.,....$rota
"_ ...
b6�e . ' .►�c..oe. ',.._
..R .. o
��;v.C�z .
AOrIeuIturt► f1r'EStry►
..i..,.?d
,
A& teul+utbl W-0 tts
t
t
2
( 1
01hIfia
t`lSili:tr'Ut116h
1
{
,�
t
t i
Mi<tiuft3cfuPliic
�i
�
�
�
Tr<ilhED6rtbtioi+ I u+;, .
3 �
15;
�
tp
wh6ies8tt TFaat
1
3;
A
REtbit teat
27
411
2
72
# 1d
f1hoho, IhsurAhce b
+
i
I {
Aeti EPPe
131
#12l
4
w
_
f 1i
sewtees
24
60i
i
85
i —
GoVErtMlEht
TOTAL
= i
_ �
I
211
443!
y
661
j 16d
8. Total wages 11000 t1
Agricultuiri► ViiV'.
Fishtho
t
3
4
to
Agricut+Ural Services
2
1
6
7
MihinC
= f
eons+tuc+ioh
; 13
22;
i
3e
S
Manuf8c+u#,iha
M
itd;
1
151
+ 25
'
Transports+ion d Utii,
i 4E
197j
3
2de
' 22
{
whotesate Trade
IE
6`,
1
8?
, 1C
$10al i Trade
165
2dl
12
41E
8_`
F1n8nce, Insurance 11
i
Reai Estate
1,2E`
2.924
44
4,255
6Ee
Servites
225
515
15
756
125
Government
`
31
70 !
1
102
1 7
TOTAL
1.824
4,151'
79
6,06C
9BE
C. value of Out;.,' (1DZ'_
`:
IAgrituiture,
Forestry,
Fithing
4
14
-
1i?
42
Ag•icutturat Services
6
10
1t
f 7
Mining
t)
2'
i
3
2
Construction
99
141
5
245
36
Manufacturing
200
670
$
" I
I"
Tronspo"O lon a Util.
149
640
9
798
72
Mhotessit Trade
36
143
2
181
22
Retail Trade
381
555
27
963
192
Finance, Insurance b
Rest Estate
2,764
6,283
.
95
9,142
1,47C
Services
469
1,076
32
1,577
76C
Government
41
96
2
139
23
TOTAL
4,159.1
9,631
179
13,969
( 2,2P9
a Value Added (1000 i)
r cutture, Forestry,
Fishing
2
7
9
22
Agricutturat Services
4
6
1
11
4
Mining
1
i
-
2
1
Construction
17
24
1
42
10
Manufacturing
75
240
1
316
51
Transportation t Utli.
99
426
6
$31
48
Mholesele Trade
22
Be
1
111
13
Retail Trade
190
277
14
461
96
Finance, insurance t
Rtal Estate
3,972
60
3,780
930
Services
704
21
10032
170
Governetint
L
79
1
114
18
TOTAL
S,l2S
107
+f,430
1,3163
-32-
1 C* bt*L&*Nt SdkjT*AlSt i IKO OL dRttk
CITY Wtfril
CQ111t4 DTA_
sncisk btsuirt ow
SWIM DIST•ICt Ew"
tv" d><' DEv itlt Nt 9CH�i51DENt IAL
Tvft CA Ib&LLINIG 040
SINGLE
-rWILV HLiL t I -PFV0L V NIX IL.E-1bftMI
�
T AE.R or oftts
tf
i
i
MPNEC a %lub ItS PEA L1fIt
►
tfB
i A6
i ie
,
A&Hwb r# ohnows Pm LIN It
r
ie
r ie
i it
■
tool NLl"ki I* tufts 8
tOtft fOmp CW sTIbENTS A
RESIDENT PoLk-Atlow 6
466" If rwL&41S b26
ftftySIS COIbLrtED USING RVEkf A CbEFFICIENTS
E10-MITLAW CATEGORIES
cIty
COL16
SPECift DISTNICI
SCNUOL. OIS1RIct
_
- �1ERrt 001iEF9•EMt t
iN,+Ie
t
91QS
• 7S
RBL IC Sgiffc 1
f�.Z;
•
aff91
• r
1+EgL tN fro tEICRFE i
•. i,
•
11Ff'
• 4i
VEMATION %*A. CLA TLWI t
6. h..
f
i t7
• N
TRf►ISPCWtAT ION t
189,
•
1,. 1
f r
HATLOV& MESOL• (V ►
1.9h
i
116
• S
FI STI., 044 yf. i
,M_
f
iab
• h
rtUKAl ILIN E)4Y K.17,01 .
•
e
E ttCF1! I C•. /iii ft MIT
%rPv1[F Wit, (AP11% CAITL.kV
f
6
-Imt lfc ewltff FFr It 1!v
F644ifY E^T4.K.tTtiES t
r
•
e
• r
t
6
' PEW" CATE"IFS
cIT�
COL•CT%
SMCIFIL DI$TkJET
SCKAI DIVVICT
MAT Tv TF{' s t
959624
•
3611?b'
• Ff122
•
656"9
OTH P Tp1E'�. •..
56W
t
24e4
• i
wpvtC'E c"MRGES •.
2268
•
24297
• 541
OTHM ►OO-TIR LOCNL UEdEKE t
2669
•
Is"
• r
STATE 1MTE Kd0YLP%@"TFI •
9696
•
2141
•
fuavfR IMTfRCiDvEla•ENTFi. •
r1f6`
•
tiles
• S
STATE 111"TIOit
•
•
Filcm rsarATILMt
•
i
" EL.wmamn r
"SUPPORTIVE
113"
•
nl v
• IN
•
i
DOCUMENTS 04-Tlft rtlwtwm5 •
UFO"
•
144ow
• r
•
r
FOLLOW
t
MC11r. DISTRICT
TOTOL
EITv..
caws
SCHI..OIST*ICT
TOTFt fEo A•RA [WEIOtTLARES •
sugs
•
52061
• DF9
•
i r $AftM
TOM Who WLPL MFVP"S •
994FK
•
63"41
r romw
6
47ii49 M 23mosi
NET SLMW%.U$ c PUICIT + •
94ROO
t
"6579
• t9980
s
6mwv • i?7Mrn
32J�
AdffiIhtstt atIve Code, which thust be received brio to
construct 16h,
With the proposed dr8ih6ge plan, the existing surface parkIng
area will be converted to a roofed ateaj acid polluted washdown
vol urle5 froth the park 1 rig structure will be cleansed by grease
1flterceptor9. Cohsegue-fitly, existing pollutant loads In surface
runoff will be reduced through the well injection system by a
factor) WIffiated by the Applicant, of 80 berceht. After
retention) pollutant loadings In pounds per year are estimated by
the Applicant to be 6 ibt, of suspended solids. No 800-5, total
nitrogonj or total phosphorus are anticipated. I
water 5u.ppi Y
The Applleaht estimates potable water consumption to average
260jO00 oalions per day, to be Supplied by the Mtaml=Dade Water
and Sewer Authority, with peak demand equalling 650,bOb pallons
per day.
4. Solid Waste
The Applicant estimates that the development would generate 12.64
tons per day of solid waste materials, which wiii be collected by
a private hauling company under contract and disposed of by the
Dade County Solid Waste Disposal Division.
5. Energy
The developer proposes to use electricity as the primary energy
source for this project, although cooking energy gill primarily
be supplied by natural gas from People's Gas System. Annual
electrical energy consumption is estimated by Council staff to be
31 million KWH (106 billion DT.U's). This corresponds to the
energy content of nearly 16,80C barrels of residual oil. Since the vast majority of this energy Is In the form of electricity,
three times this amount of energy, or over 50,000 additional
barrels of residual oil, will be consumed at the power plant to
provide this energy to the site. Florida Power b Light Company
has Indicated that adequate power and voltage capacity is
available for the proposed development. Emergency power will be
supplied on -site by a 1,800 KW generator.
Off -site energy use wili be required to bring workers to the
site. Assuming that 2,700 persons, at 1.6 persons/vehicle, will
travel one-way an average nine miles each work day, approximately
80 billion BTU's, or about 80 percent of the annual on -site
energy use, will be consumed annually for transportation. This
estimate exciudes incremental energy costs for public transit and
the incremental energy costs to other passenger car vehicles due
to increased traffic congestion.
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
34
6, EdueattLion
Not 60PIItab It.
Recreation afid by space
The deve i 6mot Site Plat, prov i des for a 3b,100 sq. ft , landscaped
pedestrian plaza between the office tower and the bank-parklhg
annex, adjacent to and connected with the DPM station.
8, Health Care and Fire
Emergency medical Service is available through the City of Miami
Fire Department Rescue Squad responding from Rescue Unit #10
located at 144 N.E. 5th Street, with an emergency response time
to the site of 1.5-240 minutes. Back=up response is available
Under Dade County's contract with Randle -Eastern Ambulance
Service, although recent contract disputes would Indicate
potential for reduced service availability,
Fire call response would be also dispatched from Station No. 1.
Back-up response is available from Station No. 2 (i503 N. Miami
Avenue). City fire officials have recently expressed some
concern that the proposed and approved development activity in
the downtown Miami area represents an additional remand upon Fire
Department and Emergency Rescue Company services without any
commitment of increased funding to assure the availability of the
necessary facilities and services.
Given the height of the proposed office building, the Applicant
should insure that the bullding can be evacuated in an emergency.
In addition to whatever other measures might be required by the
Fire Department, the Applicant should construct a heiipad,
suitable for emergency evacuation, on the roof of the office
tower.
9. Poiice
Police protection would be provided by the City of Miami from its
downtown station at N.W. 2nd Avenue and N.W. 4th Street. City
police officials have recently expressed concern that the
proposed and approved development activity In the downtown area
will pose problems for traffic enforcement, due to increased
pedestrian activity attracted to the DPM station and the overall
increase of traffic voiumes in the immediate area. in addition,
given the City's increasing crime rate, the Applicant should
protect employees and patrons by incorporating appropriate
security systems throughout the development, as well as having
development plans reviewed, for security considerations, by an
architect with experience in designing to discourage crime.
"SUPPORTIVE
FOLLOW
TRAN9150AUTION
i, Wolmd Ttaffle
The Impact area of the project and oxtltthrag average dally traffic
c,Ohdttt6hs are Shown In Figure 6, Morning and 6fterh6bh
peak -hour tt-i§ff td v6luMet and cord Itt6Ms are shown it, Plguto 7,
All dtItical Iht&,9ettI6ht for evaluating project tropacts IM the
Immediate area are Current ly operating at L6S "C" Ot better
durtho both Morning and evening peak h6uts,
2. Puture Treff It AOpj_ysls
The Applicant has prepared, in conjunction with t0pteseritatIves
of Holywell Corporation, a recommended transportation system plan
(see Figure 8)# which provides adequate service levels in Oupoht
Plaza by Constructing bifurcated access ramps to the 1"95
Connector, modifying the surface Street system to Increase its
capacity, and telyihg on the DPM system to carry 50 percent of
development traffic.
The final transportation system piano as recommended by the
applicants and adopted by the Dade MP0j is a variation on the
State -adopted bifurcated ramp design and conceptual plan, It
differs from the State plan in four ways: S.E. 3rd Avenue and
S.E. 'xrd.Street remain ope'r to through traffic; the termini of
the bifurcated ramps end west of S.E. 5rd Avenue; direct ramp
connections are provided Into the Miami Center 11 garage; and the
DPM station and guideway are modified slightly to accommodate
development and roadway plans. The recommended plan meets all
federal and State safety and operational design criteria for the
alignment and configuration of the bifurcated access ramps to the
1-95 connector system. Thus, It is anticipated that the State
will approve the plan, with the possible exception of Southeast
Bank's garage access on S.E. 2nd Street. The Applicant's future
traffic analysis is based on the recommended transportation
system plan, not on the existing roadway network.
In addition to collaborating In the development of the final
transportation system solution for Dupont Plaza, the Applicant
has helped develop surface street Improvement staging plans,
which will assist In mitigating adverse traffic impacts
associated with the construction of private developments and the
DPM. system, prior to the opening of the bifurcated 1-95
Connector.
Although a surface street staging plan has been developed, using
current plans for construction timing to maintain acceptable
service levels while construction is underway, It must be
unequivocably stated that, without completion of the 1-95
Connector, the surface street system alone, even If Improved as
proposed, cannot support the combined traffic from proposed
development In the five block area. In other words, the
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
F01 I nIA111
A
blfurdated systO must be c6+pieted eoiiicident with full build
out 6f Cup6mt Plaid, If sighificant adverse traffic Iripacts are
to be Avoldeds
Rf OACT TRAFFIC
The Apoltdaht, In support 6f the City+s "TFahsit i=irst" 06ltcy,
pr6p6ses to d6htttuct ah oreslte parking garage structure with
aml y 1i156 spaces, which is expected to generate roughly 4,875
aveFage daily auto trips Expected vehicle trip generation is =
roughly one-third of the h6tM61 traffic genetatioh by such an
office devei6oieht. Without the supportifin transit systems In
place and heavily used by project employees and visitors, the
full traffic generation potehtia! of the proposed develclOMeht,
ranging from 15,000 to 20,000 trips per day, would totally
overburden not only the existing but also the proposed roadway
hetwork as well as the pat -king supply in the downtown area.
The Financial Center will generate rough!y 460 Inbound and 40
outbound trips In the morning peak (rush) hour. Moderately
heavier traffic Is expected in the evening peak hour as -the
project will generate 590 outbound and 40 inbound vehicle trips
Access to the oh -site garage is proposed along hoth S.E. 2nd and
3rd Streets.- Potential adverse impact on the roacway system
occurs at both proposed driveway locations. On S.E. 2nd Street,
the combination of a t'garage signal" and a second traffic signal
only 125 feet east of the existing signal at 3rd Avenue obstructs
the flow of afternoon peak hour traffic.
The traffic conflicts at the S,E. 3rd Street garage access result
from the need for commuters in the AM peak hour to make a left
hand turn into the garage, against opposing traffic, within
approximately 175 feet of the S.E. 3rd Street and 3rd Avenue
intersection. It is anticipated that this opposing traffic'
volume will be relatively light, consisting primarily of service
and delivery trucks. However, since the garage structure does
not provide an adequate truck loading area In a docking bay off
S.E. 3rd Street, an obstruction of traffic flow will probably
result, as trucks are forced Into loading operations on the
street.
0 a
CHAPttk 3! 0tVEL6PMtNf it8u> s
PAIN it INTEGIRATEb bUtLOPMENT OF DUPONT PLAZA
The PtetehtlY Vbttht, f6Ut block, +eM acre 06ttt6h of Dupont P1826 has
Uhtqut potehtlal for +he creation of 6 Vtt6lo th8j6r downtown focus and
e6re activity tohttt, DutlMg tovltw of the Miami Center I bAlt the
C-6uhttl requested that Holywbll devote particular attention to an
integrated plan 6f development for the four block area and the Ott) Point
pt6oertY, Subsequehtlyt Southeast announced its intent to Proceed
Independently with dovelbprfteht of One Of the four blocks. Eorly this
year, both Southeast and H61ywell expressed Intent to file Applications
for Development Approval for one block and three blocks, respectively, Of
Dupont Plaza. Council staff then requested a joint meeting with both
parties and Invited City and County representatives to attend.
The joint meeting was held on June Ili at which time Council staff
requested both applicants to collaborate in preparing an Integrated plan
for the four block area and for the necessary access Improvements, as
well as for linking Dupont Plaza development with adjacent developments.
With furtherp subsequent encouragemento the applicants cooperated In
Identifying access improvements which have now been reviewed and approved
by the Dade County MPO.
Unfortunately, the two developments remain just that - two developments
on adjacent blocks without Integration of structures, activities, or
circulation. They could be on opposite sides of downtown or in different
cities. This is extremely unfortunate for Miami and for the Region
� o
because, unless Dupont Plaza development 15 fully integrated, an
absolutely unique opportunity to Put a new economic heart into Downtown
0
Miami will be lost forever. No other major American city has some ten
C:
contiguous acres of prime, vacant land In Its core, and Miami never will
R: c
again.
The present proposal includes three separate parking garages, with some
retail space at lower levels and three office towers with some retail In
the base. One office tower has a pedestrian plaza at 11 feet, which
faces directly Into the truck service area of the other two, which have a
plaza at 27 112 feet. Prevailing wind direction and speed, combined with
the location and shape of the Miami Center 11 office towers, may, as
reported by the Applicant, create a I'venturl effect", causing negative
pressure on the Southeast Bank office tower which could result In damage
to the Financial Center.
Above -street pedestrian circulation would link some buildings but not
others, and pedestrian circulation to Miami Center 1, the Dupont Plaza
Hotel, the Convention Center, or the rest of the Downtown has not been
worked out on other than a short term basis. A primary question Is when
and what part of Downtown should be connected by an upper level
pedestrian system, which would provide more direct access to the downtown
people mover and minimize vehicle/pedestrian conflict, thereby Improving
8-
pedestPian safety while thcre8§thg roadway effieiencya
Neither the arrangement, the 16c6tt6hj hot the probable uses of the
WucturLst gives fief I Md t d6t i on that the area will attract People
outside n6rM81 bfftce hours: Thus# the bowntowh five PM exodus is
uhitkely to be chahgdd by the developftehts as proposed, which m6ahs that
public safety will d6ht1hue to be ah Issue of concern. The City also
nedds to evaluate whether the proposed devel6offtehttj as presently
desighedo ehcourage or dtscourade criffies against persons and property
Other ttttes have acted to achieve the fullest economic and social
potential of their downtowns with ah integration of structures, Uses, and
activities that support evening and nighttime, as well as dayttKle, use,
Miami has the potential to at least rival, If not exceed, the benefits of
developments like the Galleria In Houston or the IOS-Crystal Court in
Minheapolis+ However, this can only be done if the City requires
Holyweil and Southeast to collaborate In planning a Unified development with an Integrated array of uses, activities, and structures, which add
up to a vibrant, fully productive downtown tore before this chance i5
lost forever.
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW„
-39-
PARt Ili A i (ANAL P 186AL STAO i L I tY ANO EtONOM 1 C b VEL.OP_MENT
Undet the collib t ned appl i Cat i 6ht of Southeast gank and Ho I ywe l i
O$rpbPatibnj a total of 1.76 M11116h gross tOuate feet of office space
acid 1661466 gross sduare feet cif recall space ate proposed fbn
t6htttUdt 16h i n Dupont P1616. The proposed deye l opf>ients, cons l dered
together, rept6ttht the largest single 8dditl6h In office floor space
ever e*per i Ohedd in Miami and the final deve i opmeht of the most valuable
urban teal estate In the RegloM, �etween the two appllcationsj the
developers propose to Invest 334E million dollars. Such an investment
will have long term ecohomte impacts on the City, the Region, and the
States These economic lntpacts include the fiscal impact on lbcai
govet wittts of the Region) the direct; Indirect, and Induced Impacts on
the regional et6h6My and the Impact Gf the proposed office space on the
local real real estate market.
The fiscal impact of proposed development on local governments of the
Region is an Issue of long-standing reglohal concern In South Florida.
Southeast Bank Pinanclal Center and Miami Center 11 will have strong
positive fiscal impacts, providing a combined estimated annual surplus
(In 1978 dollars) of $5.17 million to the City of Miami, $1.95 million to
Dade County, $2.21 million to the Dade County School District, and $0.25
) -
million to the South Florida Water Management District and Downtown
-n 0
Development combined. This estimated surplus, while based on past
o
revenue and expendlture patterns which are subject to possible change,
fiscal be
r
suggests that local governments` stabi►ity will greatly
enhanced by these proposed developments.
^ � c
Of broader regional concern is the stimulus which the proposed
developments will have on the local and regional economy. Input-output
modelling is a technique used in estimatino the inputs and outputs of
each industry and their Inter-relationshlps with other Industries in the
regional economy. In South Florida, where econoric diversification is a
common goal of business, industry, and Government, these
inter -relationships, although difficult to monitor, have been presumed to
have multi -county and muiti-regional impacts. The Council's recently
completed Input-output model provides a means to quantify these
interactions among industries which occur across county and regional
lines. The regional input-output model generates, for each of the
Regionts three countles as well as for Palm Beach County, four indices of
economic Impact from a specific stimulus to the regional economy. These
indices include employment, total wages, value of output, and value added
to the regional economy. In order to appreciate the impacts projected by
the model from the proposed developments, a brief discussion of each of
these indices and their implication for the regional economy follows.
"Employment" is simply the projected number of jobs created to response
to product demand to increase output supply. "Total Wages" is the sum of
wage and income earnings in all industrial sectorsgenerated in the
production of the output stimulated by _demand from project employment
Income earnings. The derived "Value of Output" is a measure of the value
of production output induced by the increased demand for goods and
-40-
service§ fPM the d6httructt6h and P&1111866ht 001oyfllent provided by the
0F6J@dt, the fF6jedt16h of OValue Addedil Fepresefitt the amount paid to
the f60 fdcfent of 0F6duttl6nt 16b6F (which retbtvet wages and
W&IO)p laud (Fedetving Fent)j oepitai (which redeives tlhterestl, afid
Wreproundurthip (which it paid a profit), the flValue Added" table
th6wt the feet Cash retuPh to eadh county resulting froffi ihtreated output
st i mu I ated by dothafid OW project efhp t oyrn6ht, and tam be coht t dered a
basic Mdature 6f the ddd i t i on to grott lireg t ofla i " product.
C6f1 Btrutt ion erAp I oyiflent and demand for d6httrudt l on fflater i a 1 t create a
terhpotey dewd for goods and services ices throughout the l2eg iofl. While the
trnpaCt of cohstructton employment for these two developments would not be
tlMuitaneous due to the phased construction schedules, the cumulative
effect sari be seen by an aggregation of Impact indices (see liable �,t)
for both deve1OpMeflts. Clearlyy the tt1truius given the constructloh
Industry by these two developments has signtficaitiy positive
Multi -County and Multi-regtonai Impacts.
'TABLE 3.1: COMBINED CONSTRUCTION EMPLCYMEN1 IMPACTS
Bro%8rd
bade
Mon roe
So. rla.
Pair Bea.'
Employment
2,059
3,65E
92
5.809
1,'3c
Total wa4_es (1000 1i)
22,516
36,oE5
1,257
59,64.
'" "' «,r
value of Output (1000 S)
25,047
59,79,
1.126
85,96z
14,E(
value Added (1000 Sl
27,102
46,392
1,484
1 74,Q7E
15,E15
Upon project completion, permanent employment provides a more consistent
stimulus to assess the cumulative effect of the proposed developments.
From Table 3.2 it is clear that this permanent employment wi!i also have
extremely positive multi -county and muitt-regional economic impacts, by
stimulating demand for goods and services produced in other counties and
thus, creating employment opportunities throughout the Region (and Palm
Beach County)
n
TABLE 3. 2: COMBINED PEWANENT EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS —n 0 t....
Bro•ard
Dade
Monroe
So. FIa.
Pale Beach
C
Employment
Total wages (1000 S)
1,029
6,757
1,676
13,303
26
2,431
404
0 RZ c)
316
24.118
31818
rn
Value of Output (1000 S)
21.428
56.249
884
78,561
12,491
value Added (1000 i)
11,305
29,384
486
41.175
6,5;;°.
"" )
h
An issue of local concern is the impact of the proposed developments on
existing office space supply. The demand for high -quality office space
in downtown Miami and along Brickell Avenue is currently very strong in
the face of a very limited supply. Local office space market experts
estimate the current vacancy rates for such top quality office space at
-4t-
I.� percept th dowhtown Miami and 3.1 perceht alohg B3 iekelI Avenue
Coft i hod with flits limited supp i y It Mi OM I r s ewgehte as an IMPWo tart
interftiattohal trade and flh6hdo center. Growing trade ties with Mbhy
L-at t m Aker I dah hat l ohs, wt Ich have st I tau i ated recent air a6d seaport
xpahsioh progratflsj and the approval of International bahking th P16rtda
have served to st Itnu 1 ate office spade delhand,
txist►hg condltlohs of high deriand for and a limited supply of
high=quallty office space have stimulated the durreht boors in office
constructlon In downtown MIMI, Market analysts have projected a
potential glut of office space If ali of the planned dovelopr,ents are
added to the Several bulIdIhgs approved or under- coh9tructl6h. Miami
experienced a t1mil ar glut during the Mid-70's from whtch it has only
recehtiy recovered: A surplus of office space tends to drive down space
leasing rates, while providing the City a resource to attract flew flrins
into the area, Carefully piahned staging of the proposed development
would be best for the area so that supply does not unduly out -strip
demand.
PARt I I I PR6ttCt i ON CP THE SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC ANb PR'I WE I NVESNW IN
bOWNTOWN MiAMI BY MAINUINiNG COMPEL'IflVE ACCESSIBILITY
b6*ht wh M18MI cul`Ftntiy is the focus of extraordinary public and private
chipIt61 Ihvestlhe6t, as the City cohtihues to exbOhd its role as the U.S,
d6hhedtioh to the profitable Latin Americah th&ket, the rapid
l*evitalliatton of th6 Miami downtowi area is evidenced by the t6MMItted
and planned development in the following three subareas:
i the Brlckell Avenue Corridor,
e Dupont plaza, and
e The area north of F l ag l er Street to Cyan l .
Etgure 10 graphteolly displays many of the larger proposed and planned
projects in "these subareas. At the heart of both public and private
Investment 19 the Increasing demand for downtown office space. In the
$rickell Avenue Corridor, almost 1.4 million square feet of net rentable
-
office space is planned for construction by 1983. in Dupont Plaza,
Southeast Bank Financial Center and Miami Center will add another 3.2
million square feet of office space. Further, the City of Miami's
proposed Trade Center may provide ah additlonal 450,000 net square feet
of leasable Space. Finally, the Downtown Government Center, aimed at
-
housing County, State, and federal offices in a Single complex, will
provide an estimated 2.8 mi1116n gross square feet of public office
Q
space.
-n 0 C
While construction and occupance of this amount of office space alone
I —C
would insure the downtown area's emergence as a strong business and
Investment has also been directed
financial center, pubilc and private
-
0
toward provlding a mix of uses, which supports a broader -based
revitalization.
Z «�
<
Bringing City residents back downtown to live is a goal of Plaza Venetia,
Claughton island, Miami Center's condominium construction, the C1ty+s
in
plans for redevelopment of the Park West and Overtown areas, and the
recently announced conversion of the Pour Ambassadors/Interconttnental
Hotel to condominiums.
At the same time, the Port of Miami's expansion program, coupled with a
renewed interest in developing and renovating downtown hotels, supports
the City's Increasing tourist trade. Commercial and retail development
are, of course, similarly expanding to meet the additional demand for
goods and services 1n the Clty.
To achieve a better understanding of what this amount of public and
private Investment means for the economies of the City and the Region,
the Council analyzed six projects in Downtown Miami which have previously
been or are In the process of being reviewed as Developments of Regional
Impact. (A seventh-DRI, Ciaughton Island, was excluded from this
analysis since project modifications since the time the ADA was submitted
render the economic data useless). Table 3.3 presents the total public
and private capital committed to construct the six DRIB.
-43-
pip
y .yamkit.` • , + v
pit
.r
�� Ib Uw�11.y�11.11aatliM' ptp�IOMIF
•+ tro....wll.+r•a' atwirrr w».c
w'ar.aa»0•�*wtM�.. .M w•rt•.w� �; .r"'r �, /.ADYMflw/�> �
»ar•.anrww.sw „,r+».pay..11a.++ It Chi '�`� sr a. arw.a+nlw' ar ���ww..�.r+n ��' 1�4 HI�A1!•. !i"per .� rfr..t. ���pt. ate.
1 d.nMM� alr.�a.a.a. 1. C.PII� �• IMYMw.1.Ml. 1*r...+..•"��""" ���'••' .r tw•MSvpp•••w�R."^� .r ��t„•...r�du..,' f2etM••a••�•°•" tMwaM•. crr
•?W M . 1M.! O Mw1+Fw syt. Pi a�M+
/Moh—�Gt� bP 11WvwM:AMtt MI'pJ�b���.Cr��3w'
a I. a..re!•*e• - G.K^ "'+'^^•M•'• i. f•.gaOw+�M st rc... [•.n• W b.wwt Sy MwwwsOM�M•�t°1•'
t ya1�.1.1A11• 70 tFMMc"+Ib/J M.oMwiM. C"V.....—Ba »I+W'^•�Cnlw » tt pnlr{Ca•pVe•.•'
i.uM 1w+.. YeM.1uM'1 )t IIgM•�`In)O. waYtgO. LwiM.MMt.��M.
avow .. a,,,,,,,p.p.re..• We. p.rya.ar. n a...o.
�.� r !4(YFTrIr,•4r1T fN; (1{�1ttiTr'':Ml.!•rnk+�
T-1'''�i'E Ttl Ct��•r.ETTT "
Ukt 13 t IOIIBLIC AND OPIWE CAPItAL INVESTMENT FOR
GIs IN bbAtOWN MIAMI Bt SUBAREA
t Its C,0h§+ahf 1980 D611616§)
Bn 1 Cke i I 46huts COttih i doF
Nasser 016fa
Dupont 0161at
46fni Cehter I
MiAmi Cehtee 11
southe$st Blink Fihancial Cehter
Plaglet Stree' North tO Orn^i:
boWhtowh GoveehMeht Centel,
Port of Miami
TOTAL
Il • 39,060,000 1
130, n7, 890
239,192,000
167,100,606
3AC.268,200
208.0 1.160
%1,11C.919.250
The direct, indirect, and Induced Impact of this S1.1 billion investment,
in terms of employment, wages, output value, and value added to the
regional ecomomy is itemlred, by county, in Tables 3.4 and 3.5 for _
construction and permanent employment, respectively. Between 1981 and
19860 the value added to the regional economy, from permanent employment
added by these six developments, Is estimated to be 19.6 million, in
addition, 9,832 new jobs will be created in the Region, representing
additional wage and salary income of 1120.2 million, during the same five
year period. Since DRIs represent only a small fraction of the total
development occurino in the City, this economic benefit is only the "tip
of the Iceberg."
Despite this significant capital investment and Its related direct,
Indirect, and induced impacts on both the loca'. and regional econorry, the
City of Miami is still operating with one primary access point to the
entire downtown area - into and/or through Dupont Plaza via the 1-95
Connector.
The longterm security of major capital investment and the beneficial
returns which such projects represent to the Clty and the Region can only
be assured If adequate public services and facilities, particularly
transportation Infrastructure, are provided to support existing as well
as to accommodate future development. In other words, the competitive
accessibility of major projects must be maintained, and, if possible,
enhanced to Insure that both employees and patrons are not unduly
burdened in getting to the projects. Otherwise, If critical travel time
and cost thresholds are dramatically exceeded, patrons will find more
convenient locations to purchase goods and services, and employers will
tend to reiocate to more accessible areas.
«SUPPORTIVE
_45- DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW
UbLt 3,3 OUSI-It AND FOIVAtE cWtAL INVEStMENT FOR
CAls IN bOWNtOWN 41AMI BY SUBAREA
(1h bdht+Ah+ 1086 DoIW0
ttltkasli Avelhu@ toH-1416e:
Ntthee PIA16 1 35,000,060
buooh+ 01816:
Mi8rhi Cehtee I 130,381,890
Wal%i Cehtee, 11 219,192,000
Southeast BAhk Financial Ceh+et tol,ioojob
1 ag I er S+r-ee* North to 0Mn i :
Dowhtowh Goveenment Center 346,268,200
Pott of 416m; 208,031,160
TOTAL tI,11C,9*79,250
The direct, Indireett and Induced impact of this $1.1 billion Investment,
In terms of employment, waces, output value, and value added to the
regional economy Is itemized, by county, in Tables 3.4 and 3.5 for
construction and permanent employmento respectively. Between 1981 and
1986, the value added to the regional economy, from permanent employment
added by these six developments, is estimated to be $9.8 million. In
addition, 9,832 new jobs will be created in the Reclon, representing
additional wage and salary income of $120.2 million, during the samefive
year period. Since DRIs represent only a small fraction of the total
development occurina In the City, this economic benefit is only the "tip
of the Iceberg,"
Despite this significant capital Investment and its related direct,
Indirect, and Induced Impacts on both the local and regional economy, the
City of Miami Is still operating with one primary access point to the
entire downtown area - Into and/or through Dupont Plaza via the 1-95
Connector.
The longterm security of major capital Investment and the beneficial
returns which such projects represent to the City and the Region can only
be assured if adequate public services and facilities, particularly
transportation Infrastructure, are provided to support existing as well
as to accommodate future development. In other words, the competitive
accessibility of major projects must be maintained, and, If possible,
enhanced to Insure that both employees and patrons are not unduly
burdened in getting to the projects. Otherwise, If critical travel time
and cost thresholds are dramatically exceeded, patrons will find more
convenient locations to purchase goods and services, and employers will
tend to relocate to more accessible areas.
"SUPPORTIVE
—45— DOCUMENTS
FOLLOWY1
broord
bbde
5pc�Fior;de
P61h.. beach
Agriculture, f&es+rq,
Fightho
85
2e3
$
361
SA(l,
Agricul+ur81 Services
113
190
42
345
125
M161hc
463
906
65
I,376
112
00h W uc+lon
94,e39
135,223
5,214
235,275
53, 4t�
Mdflufhe+0169
7,9i4
t5,459
i24
33,497
12,065
tehfitportb+idn a Ut't,
3,648
13)121
lee
16,357
1,466
Wh61ebble tPAdt
00
3,532
57
4,476
532 t
fit@+ail tease
6,6eF
91752
47e
16,916
30369
F1hAhte, 165urbhce &
kebl Estate
3,00e
6,✓m
104
{ 9,947
1,599
$erylces
4,75E
M 909
323
15,985
2,635 j
06vernraent
91
15d
5
2zl0
5'
.121.832
1206,M61
. 597
334, 795'6,
830 l
b. tots Wages (i00t 31
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fishing
19
64 -
83
192
Ag-lcutturrl Services
3P
641 15
lie
43
Mihing
125
2E3; '0
422
222
Construction
3e,903
f 55.et,1 2,'"9
96,517
<1,419
Mahufac*uring
1037°
f 4,432" 21
51?3l
951
Transportetlon d Ut'!.
716
3,019! 44
3,83E
344
Wholesale Trade
425
1.69C 27
2,'42
254 j
Retail Trade
2,94E
i 4,373j 2:5
7,58`
1151C
Flnahce► thsurance b
Rea' Estate
7a,
1,694. 27
1,4E7
:9,
Servlce5
Y, " i
4,9.4f 14E
10231
1,1g2
Government
TOfiAt•
66
t Q',56E
1 C7 4
76,19 2,E55y
4 1 77
1Z6,410
�F
27,061
C. value of Output c10CC $1
Ag•=tv"ure, Forestry,
Fi5^:n0
45
151 -�.'a�
44F
RSrlcultura. Services
66
112! 25
11 2C2
74
MlnIng
2d1
i 543- 39
' en
42E
Construction
41.,232
' 61,6421 2,377
1C7,251
24,?tl9
Manufacturing
% 136
1G,090, 49
13,275
211E5 +
Transportation 6 Ut11.
1,660
7,14)j 102
, 6,902
795
Wholesale Trade
558
2,2211 35
2,e15
334
Retail Trade
3,444
5,0231 247
6,714
1,73E
I
Finance, Insurance b
Real Estate
1,979
i 4,49i? 68
61545
1,052 ;
Services
2,824
j 6,476i 191
5,49t
1,565 i
Government
TOTAL•
It
I 51, 258
I 1231 4
9Ei, Cl 71 3, t 36
197
'. `.Y., 411
41
1 32,99E
v!
in D. Value Added (IOOC S)
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fishing
-
-
-
Agricultural Services
7
9
2
18
7
Mining
15
34
2
51
2
Construction
3,225
5,166
139
e,531
1,777
Manufacturing
151
W
2
539
129
Transportation b Ut11.
78
393
3
414
3E
Wholesale Trade
37
149
2
167
19
Re+aII Trade
495
705
30
1,310
261
Finance, Insurance 6
Real Estate
7e
162
1
242
36
Services
270
659
13
942
141
Govermmnt
TOTAL.
4,355
7,74
19S
12,291
2,408
Ukt M. kIN[b tbOOlt IWA& Or OtWKENt 110LONt tdo
6doftdik4 MIAPI DEVEL0N*ENt
A. tmoi6$ tpht
_
atcise a
bade
Monroe
ro. f,ortce
0.e91a0
pit+ i*Acn
Agricultui:6, rota trq,
Eishl'ng
$6
287
=
577
854
Agridultuebt Servlce3
its
231
51
420
15t M
MIh1ho
98
223
16
337
115
Co69tPud+I6l
10,31i
t4,691
56e
25,568
5,806
Mahufecturlfig
8,937
28,149
09
37,825
6,110
tebA%0& t8tloh is Utl(,
10,584
45,558
649
56,791
50096
Wfhdteseie Trade
965
3,832
61
4,858
577
Retali Trade
8,554
12,01
611
21,642
4,31D
pihahte, lht 0 fince A
Rett tstate
22,015
50,037
158
72,810
11,710
Services
25,893
59,477
1,152
87,022
14,344
Government
15,i85
29,999
615
46,609
8174?
Toth#
102061
24,545
5,441
3531659
51,934
8. Total wages i mot 1)
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fishing
19
66
-
85
i94
Agricultural Services
47
19
t?
144
52
Mlnlno
28
63
4
94
50
Construction
1,60C
2,28E
89
3,9'72
902
Manufacturing
t,629
5,238
25
60892
1,125
Transportation d Utli.
3,325
14,329
205
17,862
11603
Mhoiesele Trade
456
1,813
30
2,299
' 2?'3
Retail Trade
3,793
5,534
271
91598
11911
Finance, Ir.surahte L
1
Rea' Estate
4,29'
9,153
i 146
14,t91
2,26,
Services
13,C21
( 29,859
881
43,760
7.213
�
Government
6,e3B
14,100
409
21,347.
3,865
TOTAL•
35,054
63,117
2,079
12C,249
190469
C. Value of Output (1000 S1
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fishing !
a
4,
153 -
19P
I a5d
79
133 29
241
8F
Agriculturat Services I
(
Mining
I1 60
135 1G
205
1CF
Construction
1,779
2,537 98
4,414
Manufacturing
3,555
11,433 56
15,043
2.454
Transportation & tail.
5,679
24,230 345
30,204
2,711
Wholesale Trade
612
2,429 39
3,G8C
366
Retail Trade
4,381
6,391 313
11.08`.
2,20e
Finance, insurance tl
Reef Estate
12,001
27,274 4tS
39,68e
6,383
Services
18,249
41,848 1,235
61,332
10,109
Government
7,170
16,7E2 403
23,834
4,132
TCTAL*
1 53,560
132,825 2,941
189,326
30,011
J
vLi
0. Value Added 11000 1)
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fishing
-
-
`
Agricultural Services
8
11
2
21
8
Mining
4
7
-
11
-
Construction
140
225
6
371
78
Manufacturing
182
466
2
650
155
Transportation & Util.
259
1,305
12
1,575
122
Wholesale Trade
41
163
1
205
20
Retail Trade
630
998
39
1,606
331
Finance. insurance b
Reel Este+*
455
938
11
1,404
214
Services
1,i25
2,753
53
3,931
587
Government
TOTALS
2,541
1 6.865
1 126
9,832
1,517
#Total; Pay not equal cotuMn or row eus due to rounding.
-47-
While thb COUAdIl end ft9t 16d8l g6vetmifidhts in the (deg ioh hove
16hg-i8d6Pt6d 061ldlOt that any deval'piheht which creates direct# adverse
6n Pubilt ffttlttlet Aridservices thould bear the ma-Glhai Costs
8tt6dI8t#d WIth uPgt8dIhg this f6ttlitlet to supp,itt the prood-ted
d6vd16Pfh6hf0 It It 6190 true that local g6Y0th1fe,)t het a res06nSIbiI:ty
glth6e to Ih9ut# that al I dovolibprnehts approved tbhtribute to necessary
IffiPt6vdM#htt of to fund thote facilities with public fevohuet, If one or
th(3 other of those Options it not 1holelbeht0d# existing and future
devol6pitoht of an area Is Pahallted by the extethaliti-es# or adverse
SPHIOV& IMP8&t, associated with proposed projects.
What has happened In the City of Miami downtown area It that the public
sector response has hot kept pace with developm6ht. In the Council's
JUlys 1080 teview of the Nather Plaza office developmerito the Council
expretted concern that the City was approving major office projects along
8tickell Avenue iti, "without requiring adequate traffic impact studiesi
tecurtmg commitments from the developers to provide necessary access
improvements, or preparing a capital improvement's program to Insure that
the necessary improvements would be Provided by the public sector."
C6uhctl approval of Nasher Plaza was conditioned upon the City developing
6 Program of Infrastructure Improvements to support the intensity of
activity being permitted in the 8rickell Avenue/bupo6t Plaza area,
Since the time of the Nesher Plaza review, the Southeast Bank Financla!
Center and Miami Center 11 have been proposed. As discussed previOLSIY
under project Impacts and more fu;ly discussed under Part IV of this
section, the existing transportation network in Dupont Plaza stmolv
cannot Support the addition of the proposed intensity of activity on the
four block area. The Applicants, therefore, In co!laborat;on wtth Cl*y,
County, regional and State staff, oeveloped an ultimate transportation
solution for Dupont P!eza development.
One conclusion of this Intensive transportation p:annina prccess is that
Dupont - Plaza can no longer be the only or even the pr;ma-ry access to the
entire downtown area, A transportation system can be designed to support
the additional deve?opment oroposed In the imied;atle five block area. A
small reserve margin can also be achieved, but only by se-;ously
compromising pedestrian access and safety.
However, It Is evident that Improving the Dupont Plaza roadway system
alone will not resolve or mitigate the adverse transportation impacts of
the significant public and private Investment In Downtown Miami's other
two subareas. Indeed, If immediate steps are riot taken to improve the
transportation system In the Brickell Corridor and from Flagler Street
north to Omni, the benefits to be derived from the Dupont Plaza
Improvements will be substantially reduced, If not totally eliminated as
traffic from developments in these other subareas Is forced to use the
1-95/Dupont Plaza access to Downtown Miami.
-48-
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW
Given these c6ilstt6tnts eveh assuming the ih,proved roadway network and
ah operatonat bpM, it becooea i+hperative that the City and Ciuhty
idipIOoent attennatIve access dorytdots to 1owntown M1oftt 4ppropfiate
and acdeptabtd aceess corridors tv the three subareas of the downtown
atea can be athieved as foIiows
i Given the substantial private investment in the 8eickeil Avenue
Cotrtdot, SA, nth and 8th Streets should be widened and their
Interchange with I-0 (Motoved to serve as primary access to the
8r t ckel l of efl. Furthat, irhorovement of the er i ckb l I Avenue br i dgO and
north approach to the bridge may be required.
e eased on substantial public Investment In and redeveiopment plant for
the area north of Flagler Street (Downtown Government Center, Port of
1+►1afni Expohtton) and Park West and Gvertown redeveiopment areas), N.W.
5th and 6th Streets and their interchange with 1=-95 and access to 836
should be improved.
• to support Miami Center I and 11 and `outheast Bank Flnancial Center,
the recmmended bifurcated ramp system to the 1-95 Connector and
assoctated surface street Irrproverrents must be 'Implemented coincidient
with the development of these projects.
Since the primary obstacle to imp!emert'ng these viable a'ternate access
corridors to Downtown Miami is fundlnrq, it is necessary or ytie club—;,
sector, Including to Ct+y, the County, and the State, to develloo
innovative financing solutions. The City of Mferr! and 'he County si^+o'y
can no !onger afford to rely prtmariiy on inadequate federa! and State
funding, if they expect to protect existl^c and encourage
and private Investment In the Downtcwn area. To ma'^fain its ccrr;,et t+tie
accessibility, upon which the viability of major deve;opment Dro ects
depend, the City must accept its responsibility as a locei gcvernment to
ensure that required transportation Improvements, which cannot be brought
on line In a timely fashion with federal and State funds, are funced
through a combination of local revenues and private sector ccntribu+'crs.
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCU NAA P. rf\11TS
FOLLOW
-.49-
PA`P.T i v3 PPOVi S I ON OF TRANSPORTAt I ON INFRASTRUCTURE IN DUPONT PLAZA. GF
AlOEWACY CAPACITY AND T IMEO APPkoPR I ATEI:Y to SUPPORT SOUTHEAST
BANK AND M! I AM i CENTEk I AND !
Apprbpriatety tified developmeht of adequate public transportation
infrastructure to support Miaflt Center i end it and Southeast 13ar*
F1hdh cia1 Center, while cohtinulhc to provide access for existino
traffic, Is a critical Issue of regional concern. As previously
discussed, the public and private investment in Downtown Mlatl provides
significant regional economic benefits. Only through the timely
provision of adequate transportation facilities can the competitive
accessibllltyof that lhvestment be maintained
At approximately the same time at the two applicants expressed their
Intention to file DRI Applications for bevelop-ent Aparoval to construct
3,76 million gross square feet of office space and 422,00gross square
feet of retail space In the four remaining blocks of Dupont Plaza, a
report was released by the City of Miami and the Downtown Development
Authority which Identified the maximurn carrying capacity of an improved
Dupont Pia2a roadway syster, at 2.2 million addltlonai gross square feet
of office spacc- and 240,000 additional gress square feet of retail. it
was, therefore, clearthatthe proposed developments could not be _
supported by the existing roadway network. indeed, they could not be
supported by any improved roadway plan previously prepared by public
sector transportation specialists or by private sector encineers servino
as consultants to the City.
Uncer these :ircurrstances, options were :Imitedt
• The public agencies involved In approving the proposed aevelopmeni
could cateooricaily recom►rend cenial of the proects, as far exceecing
the carrying capacity of even an improved roadway network. This
op7lon, however, would fail to take advantage of the sigriflcant
positive benefits which such projects would represent tG the ioca' anc
regional economies, through continued vitalization of Downtown Miami.
• An attempt could be made to approve one proposal and reject the other;
which, of course, would probably teac to substantial ccurt challenges
since, in effect, virtuaily the entire carrying capacity of the
transportation system would be allocated to one developer, at the
expense of the other.
9 Each Applicant could have been required to reduce the intensity of Its
development, proportionately, until the combined total square footage
did not exceed the identified carrying capacity. While this is
certainly a viable approach, dlfticuittes would arise in attempting to
decide what each devetoperts proportionate share of the total should
be.
P� 7"1 V
OCU[W
E;VTS"
FOLLC „
it the two Appilcants could pool their resources and, working together,
devise a tr'6htoortation Systefii which would have adequate tapa-Ity tc
support the proposed Intensity of development in the four block area.
Couhcli staff believed the last option, if feasible, to be the most
beheficial In terms of the local and regional public Interest, as Weil as
for the developers, as It would allow the greatest positive economic
beheflt while simultaneously insuring that acceptable levels of service
were ffialntaihed on roadways In the regionally slgniflcant downtown area
of Miami.
Thus, through a series of joint meetings with both applicants and City
and County staff, as well as meetings with individual project
representatives, Council staff encouraged the applicants to collaborate
Ih designing an ihtegrated, final transportation system plan to support
both proposed developments at full build out. Through this impetus, the
applicants jointly began to work on developing an appropriate solution.
As the need for further, detailed attion on the Dart of public sector
transportation panning agencies was identified, a task force of Gity,
County, and State staff was formed tt work with the applicants in
addressing Dupont Plaza traffic problems and desiarinc an effective
solution.`
The complexity of the problem of developing a transportation system to
support Southeast Bank Financial, Center and Miami Center ll was
compounded by their Interrelationship with one another as well as with
the previously approved Miami Center 1, for which supporting Interim
transportation Impro�.ernents, oricina'ly required for Implementation prior
10 issuance of building permits as a condition; to the deveiopment orcer,
were postponed pen40ng development of the ultimate transportation systerr
plan for the entire Dupont Plaza area.
As previous y noted, a recommended transportation system, which will
UJ (�
support bo-h Holyweli developments, Miami Center I and ii, and the
> �---
Southeast Bank Financial Center, was developed by the applicants and
approved by the Dade County MPO on i43vember 24, 1980 (see Figure 11).
l.0
The final system relies on the integration of three facilities:
0
• the Downtown People Mover system, Including a station located on S.E.
C J
3rd Street between the Southeast Bank Financial Center and the Miami
1CL� 0 Q
Center 11 office towers,
• an improved surface street system built to ultimate cross sections,
Q
with associated Intersection and sionalization improvements, and
• bifurcated access ramps from the 1-95 Connector to surface streets in
Dupont Plaze and to the private Miami Center ll garages.
It must be emphasized that the success of this recommended system depends
on all three -facilities being operational prior to fu!l buiidout of the
area. If any component is not achieved on schedule, the entire system
will break down, creating significantly adverse regional impacts.
o i4 CHOM
d i cc;
IUY PLAr t Ate
VVV
N ; Nt
w I t SE 2ND ST.
N
( p,
yL .,...e �
M 1
a
1 i �
I
• A •f �alr � � ...r.
I1
�;; _ 1 ` .-. ��` f 1 t 1,. � r .f •mot• �r.•rr' - _. --j f 1 � (' u....-
�-,
j
Ito
— —-$IS61WNE-E3L-VB-WAY:
"'01101
c t, rn• �c TE'' F'1 r1.F1 Fop f)iIFOI`1T — I rm
FI A7/4 ' I �`„ 1lt
FICIJRF li: !-INAl_ Tn�r,fFI;fz,3, a —
.. � � IIIIIIII�II
!i
C
0
the b6wht6wh P66ble Mover SYtteh
To lht0e 8teeptabit operation of the 145 C6hhedtbt bifurcated ramps and
the tutfbee sheet tytteth IfhPf'6vLSfhehts proposed, fifty percent transit
ridership mutt be achieved by the develooffiehtst Without the supporting
ftahtlf tytttstht Ih place Ohd heavily used by b6th effipl6yets 6hd visitors,
the Pr6p6ttd roadway network would be totally bvetburdehed* Thus) all
P6stlble effort to thture successful op&8ttoh of the DOM, ty0Vh Mutt be
uhdOttakoh,
Unfortunately, the final transportation system Plan, as recommended by
the 6ppilcants and adopted by the MPO, s1destepped those Issues where
Conflict between the developers has hot yet been resolved, One of these
areas of disagreement telates to access to the Dupont Plaza OPM 06t1oh,
this Oatloh was originally planned to be located along the west side of
elstayne Boulevard, directly across from Miami` Center Its Edward Ball
Suildtho, Holywell Corporation is currently required, by condition on
Its dev;lopfneht order, to provide 8 pe&-strlah bridge across Siscayhe
Boulevard to link with the Dupont Plaza DPfA station.
Since approval of that development order* the station location has beer,
chanoed, and It Is how planned to be located at Levels 2 and 3 along S.E.
Ird 5troet between Biscayne Bou!cvprd and S.E. 5rd Avenue, that Is,
between the proposed Southeast Bank Financial Center and the M'aml Center
11 office towers. Holywell Corporation currently has the Edward Ball
Building under construction, Including the pedestrian bridge at a 401
elevation.
Constructing the bridge directly across Eiscayoe wili require its
connectlon to the Southeast Bank building. In other words, pedestrian
access from Miami Center I to the DPY station would be Indirectly t161
rout
the Southeast Center, rether than directly to the station Itself (see
Floure 12).
Southeast Bank is opposed to providing this access for Miami Center I
patrons and employees, as they believe that another building entrance on
the Boulevard will create security problems. Their position Is that
non -tenants should not be allowed any access to their building Interior,
other than through normal passageways.
Holywell Corporation believes that It acted In good faith to comply with
a development order condition and, thus, the bridge, currently under
construction, should not now be modified, since design changes at this
point would create unwarranted expense and time delays for Its Miami
Center I project. Further, since the pedestrian bridge serves to
Integrate the various Dupont Plaza projects, while promoting transit use,
Holywell believes that Southeast Bank should modify Its design to
accommodate the pedestrian overpass.
>� II Iullf
lltl
I U 11t t1 j P!1Zd
y; lilt
rt{
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE TO FORMER
i ............a. ...... ,. 1 ! . .... DPM STATION LOCATION
RD S------r f !1 ( . i
i j [ (� �j
:Its SE 3 s u i k✓ i E-
DOCUMEN I
STpT oN 1 i: i i
1
. a..,. �.. LOGA7tON 1't� � �
i IIII'�
i' .,.M.....».✓ fill,
f I GURF 17 nr�itT 0�•f O pF pp;Tr I A!, �'Q l t �,t}"• I A rFh1"TI f Ti
EP1Tf.'7
,OlTT11FA T Tr .TdF: IT1A"!!;IAL C
this A1`6P6tbd pedestrian bridge, at It relates to pedestrtan c!rcu:ation
And ttahttf rid&0110 is jisc a matter of -erj;c)'n.;-j
The htdetSlty of 8de'quate Ptdettrtah access to and through +',-- various
ddv06PfMhtt In bupbht plaza it etso-hti8l to the viability of the DPM
§V00h), If Ot6j6dt Ofhpl6yett and patrons have difficulty getting to the
tt6tt6h) they will be lott Ilkely to use It. And, as Previously stated,
if the DPM system do6t not t8f4ry 50 percent of the development trafflcj
the f=68dway hotwotkp ever when IMPt6ved) will not be adequate to support
the OMPb9ed devel6pffithts-
Both applicants are rece;vlhc ttememdous benefit from the DPM system.
Without the Syttefrq helther applicant would be able to'conterrDlate
devel6pihd anywhere hear the amount of space currently Oroposed4 In
other wor;s, +he proposed developments depend on the roadway network not
being adversely affetted, To Insure that acceptable levels of service
are maintained on the "roadways, the OPM systecl tiust carry 50 percent of
their pro'ect's traffic. To achieve that high level of ridership, the
DPM system mutt be assured good pedestrian access.
This Interrel8tonthip becomes more apperent when It is noted that the
capacity of the ultimate roadway plan to adequately meet traffic demand
It dependent, along. Biscayne Boulevard, upon the functlona! design and
Implementation of the pedestrian overpass frorr, Miami Center I to the
OPM. station. Without this btitac-, pedestrians would be forced to Cross
at street level, requiring "oreen time" to be aliocated to serve
Pedestrian demand; thereby, reducing the green time for northbound
through traffic on the Boulevard an; resul-ing in deterioration of
service levels.
That the applicants have been unable to resolve this conflict to their
mutual salisfaction provides further evidence of the fallure of the
proposed developments to create the type of Inteorated, compatib!e) and
mutually supportive urban environment so necessary In Downtown Miar-:. It
appears that the applicants stlll fall to understand that The viability
of one depends, In a large measure, on the viabtlity of the other and on
the synergistic effect which could be created with greater collaboration
in and Integration of their developments. As discussed more fully below,
appropriate pedestrian access throughout Dupont Plaza, required to ensure
0
the successful operation of boll) the transit and roadway system, has not
0- Z)
yet been adequately resolved.
CL 0 0
The Surface Street System
C) G.
The recommended transportation system p!an for Dupont Plaza Includes
constructing the surface streets to their ultimate cross sections, with
associated Intersection and signalization Improvements. The complexity
of attempting to design a roadway network, which would support the high
-intensity of uses proposed In the area with minimal Integration among the
structures within the two developments, resulted In the development of a
surface street improvements plan which, while significantly Increasing
capacity, may still be Inadequate due to a few problem areas yet to b;
positively resolved.
-55-
a Sauthea§t Bank Einahtl6 l Center Garage
Access to the on -site g etlgei iocated on the westerh end of the
h6l'theastitth bloek) is proposed both along S:E. 2nd and II"d Streetso
with roughly 88 percent of Morning Inbound traffic accessing the
garage frol', the Slit. Ord Street entrance and 56 percent of outbound
traffic using each exit in the evening, With the proposed driveway
locations, traffic conflicts are apparent along both S.E. 2hd and S.E.
3rd Streets (see Flgure 13),
On S.E► 211d Street, a second traffic siahal Is proposed roughly 125
feet east of the existino sianel e! S.E. 2hd Street and S,E, 3rd
Avenue In an attempt to accommodhte pedestrian traffic which could hot
be accommodated at the existing signal, due to inadequate crossing
time, if the necessary roadway level of se`vlce Was to be malntal:led.
These two signals on S.E. 2nd Street would be synchroni2ed to
operate as aVthree phase system, whereby afternoon. peak hour traffic
may exit from the Southeast garage freely on the green phase and,
travelling west, directly access the ramps west of S.E. 3rd Avenue.
Meanwhile, westbound through traffic is delayed and pedestrian traffic
Is allowed to cross S.E. 2nd Street behind the exiting stream of cars
fr th ara oe In sec
ond cond phase garage traffic is halted for
Will e g .. ,
westbound through traffic on S.E. 2nd Street; while, in the third
phase, both these flows are controlled to allow northbound S.E. 3rd
to
lC,�
Avenue traffic move,
crosswalk
The location of the "garage signal" and the S.E. 2nd Street
cl:� LLJ ,
would obstruct the free exit of afternoon peak hour traffic from the
r:
existirc Southeast Bank garage on the north side of 2nd Street, es
for Biscayne Boulevard traffic
_
well as reduce the weaving distance
westbound on S.E. 2nd Street, with turning options to the proposed
garage or northbound onto S.E. 3rd Avenue.
11..-
Although the Applicant believes that this proposed garage exit will
not create any conflict, the Council has learned that the Tallahassee
Office of FDOT may prohibit this exit on S.E. 2nd Street, a State
road, during its review of the recommended roadway plan.
Traffic conflicts also result from the garage driveway along S.E. 3rd
Street; although, if S.E. 3rd Street functions, as intended, primarily
as a truck service corridor to both the Financial Center and Miami
Center 1i, these conflicts will be less pronounced. The greatest
potential conflict would occur in the morning when arriving commuter
vehicles (0 3) must turn left into the gal -age against opposing truck
traffic within roughly 175 feet from the S.E. 3rd Street/S.E. 3rd
Avenue Intersection.
While the opposing traffic volume Is anticipated to be relatively
light and to consist primarily of service and delivery trucks, the
potential for significant bottlenecks in this area results from the
inadequacy of the Southeast Bank and Miami Center 11 truck service
areas. Since the number of docking spaces is below City Code
requirements (see Table 3.6)0 on -street truck loading and unloading-
-5G-
11suppoIR IDiv
DO tyf r S
ml I n.14
11
I Z`
w t > ,
o �1� a ( ¢ PLAYA
t c;
Z t;` I ! h 6 p r i �.
1
N 11 SE ?ND ST.
11ii t 1. `ya fr
i z�
•SOY /� � � I I r i p -� j
•� � I w .. vV..f.�. .v...tU 1' F
j �i � yiO »y.. r I ` 1 1 F y�»•1 • � UIT• � ` �' � M
FI�I
SE IRn
rr
do
—
- �- /- -. —_-_. iI 1. 4---• n.lA •#•*lij;
I 4
e
46
.`....—►/J7 i a i.• 1 � r/ � cV 11 lit
i S e
% -WA1f— — -� -� - -- ----- i _
NE �
> � I KIPllf
j
LEGEND: RP.;FC:CE`
PASSENGER VEHICLE MOVEMENTS i r ;: f �TEr•JT I'n (:�)ti� L I'GTS F RnM S;ot)TNF rT
!.. TRUCK MOVEMENTS
AREAS OF CONFLICT I
600016itis) and a related obstruction of traffic flow to and frog the
garage 65 fllell bt for through traffic, can be expected. these
canf l icts wI l l be exace"bated if her'v i&-tF r1,mi— ht i c i pates auto traffic
chooses to use 5,t. Ord Street,
TABLE 3.E: soUtHEA-_' BAN`- PINAN,,AL CFN?EZ t VIW' CEO+":= 11
OFr=StREE* LoAC14% REQ. IREMi,,-.r
L" Ce O*E`: an� rIC4a* �
Acc.eptat.le Levels of Service as a Function of Pedestrian Access
7atle 3.7 illustrates that similar peGestriar;vehicie conflicts occu-
at other areas within Dupont Plazd, with an exclusive sional phase
it
eacl-+ cycle for pedestrian crossing time, S.E. 3rd Avenge at Biscav*
e
Boulevard Way, In the morning, and Sit. 2nd Avenue and Biscayne
Boulevard Way, to the afternoon peak hour, are expected to operate
at
service level "D" In 1984. By activating the exclusive pedestrian
phase only half the time at these two tntersectlons,-i.e. on alternate
cycles throughout the peak hour, service level "C" can be maintained. —
TAE,Z 7.1. SLM AP, Or IN7ERSEC-ia, CACA:'71 LEvE. _,F S-s:.fCE
' ! AVh.-
!n�- LC _ iC`
S.i . 2n: Ave. d
BisCat^E EIvC. MBT AA' Q1f"C2
S.E. 3rc Ave. Mctc' E,.. {
—
r
b AIIA:
S.E. 2nd Ave. d 1-9`
....�. f
Connector I
S.E. Ave.
3rd d
3rd SS. A
f J
At
Biscayne Blvd. L S.E. 3rtl
St./Ball Point Ent. A* C+1 �
ALL_
S.E. 2nd Ave. & S.E. }
inc st. A'.
_.J0^G.
A;
!tJ
S.E. 3ra Ave.IS.E. Elan:
Ent. d S.E. 2r.d St. Al Cl I
Biscayne blvc. t S.E. I
2nd St. A'
Biscayne 91vd. a chopir. i
Plaza AI Al
Includes exclusive peaes'ri n phase - 1001 ac. at +or
?
Incluoes exclusive peoestrien phase - 50% act„arfor
PUtUre growth ih the area will require areater roadway c pacity+ which
eah oft i y be provided by s Ifn i I ctr cotptor1 i ses of pedestrian crossing
tithe at tither ihtersecft6hs in the area or the development of a
set6hd*Ievei Pedestriah circulation tyttefil throughout buponf Piaza
(sea table 1.8)
TAi3 E x.E: RE, ';1UAL Lar'z: "` I! �'c' '.' ��� A= -A HI3.41A4
• u�re' ,.� a' tie. � _ `
UJ
I
`�•.. �.%� berecfiio^. 0 Travel � A'•'
,J Biscayne Bo,levarc fc
aricketl Avenue I t,QS: 52`• i
brickelI Avenue tc
-'� Oiscayne io levar� 42`, 1 70
....
... � "� Note: Residual capacity celcuia+ao^.s were tasec upon 501 actua'.ar. c'
✓ 6hy 9uclusive pedes'riar, phase (e.g. activate or: alte-nat;ve sig,a'
cycles!
' + SOURCE: Rscoet -ides Hialma) Plat-, tar bupoo,! Plaza, octoter 1,, 193-
Previous discussion emphasized the Importance of appropriate
pedestrian access to ensuring the viability of the DPM and Its ability
to handle the required 50 percent of project traffic. the preceding
capacity analyses emphasize that pedestrian access is also essential
to the maintenance of accep'�able levels of service on the surface
streets, as *ell as to the creation of reserve roadway capacity.
It is clear that pedestrian access must be compromised al some
locations, In order to gain the green time necessary to maintaln
acceptable service levels for vehicular traffic through the Dupont
Plaza area. And yet, the recommended surface street plan merely
accepts the S.E. 2nd Street at grade pedestrian crossing and the
Biscayne Boulevard Way street -level crossing. Further, as previously
noted, a conflict between the applicants over the pedestrian overpass
from Miami Center i across Biscayne Boulevard to Southeast Bank
Financial Center and, through the Center, to the DPM station has not
yet been resolved. These and other areas of potential
pedestrian/vehicle conflict are shown on Figure 14,
For overall improvement to surface street operations, to Insure the
success of the DPM system, and to provide reserve capacity for future
growth, staff recommender.that a second level pedestrian circulation
system be designed and constructed by the applicants which removes all
at grade crossings and which links Miami Center 1, Southeast Bank, and
Miami Center 11, as an integrated development, not only to the DPM but
also to the City's Convention Center, the Dupont Plaza Notel, anz the
r th f S E 2
a ea noo . nd
r ,treet, east of 3rd Avenue, as well as providing
for extension into adjacent areas if and when necessary.
``Sty PPOR �V
DOCD M ENTS
ntRlrr
TOLL If
Zi
uj
11:
1' mom
cc( t u I'. I rx
vli PLAZA
o i W�
_ — ,, ,, 16
s
w 1 t l SE 21ND ST. -
_
I I
I I i PEDESTRIA':
v I BRIDGET
qwI l
,
•, i i t_. i`v .,.. SE G 'RD' S
o � I
27
,� r• M»w, k �, »" l I I I I' `i
To
JA
lk-
8-joh'1'NE-13I_-vB-WILY-
LEGEND:
SURFACE STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING DEFINITE pFDE3TRMN'1YEF:ICLE CONFLICTS
PROBABLE AREAS FOR ADDITIONAL, PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLE CONFLICT
8+6ging 64 Suf fact ttreet IMpr6vefnent5
96+h appllcantsi workthdi WI th the public sector task force, developed
a stag l ng P l aft for tthp l eifientat i6h of the requ i red surf ace street
ftrovefltehttj +o support "the Cutrehtly proposed phased constructlon,of
pr lvate dove I opmorit5 I h the Dupoht Plata area and the DN systerfi, in
ah+lelpatl h of the timely t6ltipletl6n of the blfurcated system, in
other words► the staging plan for Surface street improvements is aimed
pril`nel ly at mitigating construction impacts and does not support
total developlhent proposed on the five blocks, until the 1-95
connector tamps are completed.
The first stage of improvements consists of two phases. Stage 1,
Phase 1 ifnproVeMOhts are untended to serve project Construction
traffic from Southeast Bank Financial Center, Miami Center 1, and
initial work on the Dupont plaza OPM station and related track
alignhlent (see Figure 15 and Table 3,9)i as Weil as maintaining access
for background traffic, The major components of this phase include
closing S.E. 3rd Street to all but construction traffics lncreasing
the capacity of Biscayne Boulevard Way to carry heavier volumes as
result of the S.E; 3rd Street detour, and laneage and median
modifications to S.E. Ind Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard to prepare for
the DPM construction,
TABLE 3.9: DU;V.-T PLA7A SOPtA--E STREr' +Mact::wi+✓ r;'_ p
STAGE 1 - PHA5E t
1
Ite? DescriE!io� i
1
UJ
1 Res*-;; a 1-95 Connecter - Res.:,face
2 Signin: for 1-95, Brickeii d 6isCayne E1ivc.
(severa, ►oca'ions)
3 Construct additional lane on S.E. 2na Ave.
beh+een S.E. 3rd St. and Biscayne Bivd, wa-
4 Construes temporary lane on Biscayne Blvd. May {
+
between Brickell and S.E. 3rd Avenue `!
_
' �
5 Construct additionai lamN anC median on S.E.
2nd Ave. betweer S.E. 2nd and S.E. 3rd Street
..
6 Install traffic signal at S.E. 2nd St./S.E.
2nd Avenue
I
1 Construct Biscayne Blvd. and ynedian to ultimate
i
highway plan Including resurfacing and stripin;
6 PAmove parking on Biscayne Blvd. May - resurface
end stripe from S.E. 3rd Avenue to Biscayne
Blvd.
PHASE 2
9 Install traffic signal at Miami Center Pnese 1
Garage Access
Maintenance of Traffic Barricades, Fences b Gates
-61-
'SUPPORTIVE
' DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW
A �tlp
III v p
jtI �
116
�
f 1 I
i t eP� * »t y
— _ .,.. � / �. e+a+ sr v' .. .. ti 'y u<ert [,.r* a• T it
Whose 21
Cn ~ NOr11e,u.� aNw: ` I i yYlOE P COPY/''.. cY OM
MVP WAY
wl
Q
STAGE 1 SURVACE STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
� ` I
V �.GGGJ¢
'IT'
i `>: rt
...
UJ
Z
U 0
0
CL
LL- U 0
0 Lit..
LMdbt 9thp i j Phago 2j the bui- f Aide street ty9tet ftd If t tat'i oht are
WOW to sub 06ft tip! 604h1h§ 6f Wthffil Gjhtot I while t6hWuttion
tohtthuet on the Southeast �ahk Site and the bPM. station and alignment
(gee Table M), this phase tee ultes oily the installation of 6
ttaffid 91ghal 816hg 8t9d8yMt you lovatd, South of S,E. 3rd Street , to
e6h+1461 becott to the Miami ceniter I garage,
Stage 2 imptoyalnott sto Intandod to 9UPPW the opening of the he*
Southeast 68hk butidthgo the beginning of tofisttuttl6h for Miami
Cthttt llo (thtludilho the garages and the test tower), the thItIal
e6fi5truttloh of the bifurcated ramps, and tobt1hued t6httructtoh of
the DPM ttatfoh and tt8dk 811ghmeht* the Major c6fnoohehts of this
IffiOtbvefrOht Phase thtlude the flea) IffiPr6verneht of 5,E, 3rd Avenue for
Southeast Park tt6ffltj the tecohtttutiloh of 8.t, 3rd Street to its
u It I mate it rots-ttcttom set v I he) M I afti I Center II t6MStf-utttoh tt6f f It
duting the interim) and several trOffit stphol thgtallatloht in the
area to control traffic from Simultaneous initial ottuoahty of the
8,E, tilh8hCI61 Center and Mlotnt Center 11 construction (see Figure 16
and Table 3.10).
TABLE t. 10-. b~ P" SUPrACE STREET IW4�OVEW14TS STAGES 2 & t
Iter, Desco-ip+ion
I Resurface & Res'tripe 1-95 Conne:to-
2 lNbdify Ireific Signai - 1=95"S.E. 3rd St./S.E.
2nd Avenuc,
3 Construct S.E. 3rd Ave. to Ultimate Cross
Section - Resurface
4 Construct S.E. 3rd Street to UltiMa+e Cross
Section - Resurface
5 Wcify 'traffic Signal at S.E. 3rd St./S.E.
3rd Avenue
6 Install traffic signal at S.E. 3rd St./Biscayne
Boulevard
7 Install traffic signal at S.E. Financial Center
garage on S.E. 2nd Stree*
8 Resurface and Restripe S.E. 2nd Street tram
Otscayne Blvd. to S.E. 3rd Avenue
9 Remove parking on Biscayne Blvd. north of
S.E. 2nd Street
STAGE 3
10 Revise S.E. 2nd St. at S.E. 2nd Avenue & sign modifications
General maintenance of Traffic Barricades, Fences & Gates
stage 3 requires PociticaTion of b.t. ZnO bTreeT ana b.t. zno Avenue
with traffic signing changes to direct local traffic until the
bifurcated ramps are finished (see Figure 17).
-63-
0
N
ODas
NIA
Far
IPIlPi �tfpp
r<
� N emAr+r csmmR
•- . � ` (undelconstructwn)
trwKr�4• .. ft y_.__.� •�• l 1WMrr
I I t f 4 s Y t r.. Ml►lml COW(f W
.,•ec
,-.. I� (under conatruc►ianj
(under construrfion} I �:
tewoo•.r•nwr. r j
aevj? WAY
f
1 I STAGE 2 SURFACE STREET IMPROVLmr-FvTS
Y�G,Ln►�
r"Vr'
t.
FIGURE 17: STAGE SURFACE STREET IMPROVEME'JS
"SU PPOR i iVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
U06h tdhPl6t16h of Stage 3j the turfate street system It ready to
itiOtjblvt the btfutdottd t6thP§ to acid from the 145 t6hhett6r, the
t6ttg att6ttated with thotb t+6§ed Surface tfetet lrhpr6verhohtt are
OtoWtOd In Table �.il.
However) several further ?h6dlf llt8+16hs to adjacent roadways thust be ih
place to 8116W d6h9trutt I ioh of the btfuf-cat6d ramos, In order to
6690-bff the 145 Connector f6t the eohttruttioh of the blfurttted
ramps from the C6hhettot I hto the Wades and down to street I eve I )
the Miami Avenue bridge IfhPr6verhe,1tt Must be completed and the bridge
Made bott6fl6hal to provide 8 detour for traffic to and from, the
tapIdly-devt1oP1hg 8rlekell Avehue/Pi8m! Avenue Corridor, This
project It Presently planned, with desigh and engineering work nearly
Complete,, however, tbhttruttloh fuhdlhg It currently uncommitted.
Upon completion of the Miami Avenue btldgeo the 1-05 Connector Can be
closed off and Construction On the ramps may begin, In the final
stage, the bifurcated tamp connections Into the garage and With S.E.
2nd Street and Biscayne Boulevard Way are completed. Also, +he
Intersectlon of S,E. 2nd Street and S.E. 2nd Avenue needs to be
re -done to modify the stage 3 design.
This final 61teratl6m Involves removing channelization islands and
restr1pina S.E. 2nd Street to remove the Southernmost left -turn tane
(east leg), redirecting the directional lane turn arrows, and removing
channelized lone striping. Finally, the 1-95 connector down to S.E.
2nd Avenue at 5.15, 3rd Street can be re -opened, with right -turn on!y
restrictions Improved for eastboumd 1-95 Connector to southbound S.E.
2nd Avenue traffic flow.
1-95 Connector Bifurcated Access Ramps
The preceding discussion provides a clear Indication of the obstacles to
approving the Southeast Bank Financial Center and Miami Center II. The
summary of the relative contribution of both Holywell developments and
the Southeast'Bank proposal to the total traffic Impact on the surface
street links and intersections In Dupont Plaza, provided in Tables 3.12
and 3.13 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, cleary underscores
the Interrelationships among the three developments In creating the
traffic problem. Similarly, the need to Implement the ultimate
transportation system, including the 1-95 Connector ramps, to support
these developments Is evident, a position reinforced by the construction
staging plan for the surface street improvements. If, for example, the
timing of any of the private developments or the DPM Is moved forward, as
could happen If favorable financial arrangements were realized sooner
.than anticipated, the staging plan no longer effectively mitigates the
combined Impacts of simultaneous construction and serial openings of
various project components. Thus, It becomes clear that the only
reasonably safe solution to the traffic Impact problems Is to Insure that
the bifurcated ramp system Is Implemented prior to or coincident with
full buildout of Dupont Plaza.
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW
fi?,BLE 3,1 i . C�') C '' ti -
STAGE
i = PHASE 1
..err
Des.c1= i_pf_io_`f
st Cps,
l
i
aestripe 1=95 Connector Res -face
f 4 i 2-D
2
Sionirig for 1=95, Fricke I Giscaine 4lvu:
a
(several Iocatiors)
3
Construct additional lane c)r, 2nc Ave,
between S,E, 3rc St. and 6i5eayrie Blvd, Wa>
4
Gons'ruct temp;,rer y I ahe n^ rb i s_a, r c P I ,-d, Via,,
between Erickell ano 5,E. 3rd Avenj
1E,,G0v
i
Construct additional lane ahn : mew i an or. S . E ,
i
2nd Ave. between S.E, 2nd and S.E, 3rd Streets
z`,OOv
E
Install trdl`ic signal at S.E, 2n11 St./S.E.
2nd Aven,,e
t
i
Construct Riscay-ie &Ivc, a,., mE'�iar -tc u1+.,na+t
+
highway pla , inc lu.i-_ re�,urfaciro an-. strip in
t
6
Remove parking on EiscaynE resu-face
f
and fror• ',.E. 3rd A%,en,,e to Eiscayn;e
'
:& v
E
Phase 1 Suttota i
i3 ,
T A;. _
I PHA _ 2
U
Install traffic signal at k,iar,i Center Phase T
Garage Acce-�s
35,C".
i
Phase 2 Subtotal
S 35,00::
Phase 1 Subtotal
303,00
"SUPPORTIVE
�335,000
i
Maintenance of Trat{is
Barricades, Fences & Gates DOCUMENT
Jy S
T0,000
10,00t
FOLLOW)y
$355,000
Engineering & Contingencies (25%)
90,00"
$345,000*
* These
current est iniale, . are approximate and may be higher to accomm�da�c
utility
relocation, drainagr.structure changes and modifications
to sidewalks.
-67-
Sib
e
TABLE 3.11 (Cont1hued)
STAGES 2 8 3 -
Ite�rDescF i,pf i,oh
1 Resurface & Restriae 1-95 Connector
2 t&dify 'gaff is Si shal y i=?S,�S.E. 3�c E;.'S.E.
lhd Avenue
3 Construct S.E. 30-d Ave. to Ultimate Cross
Section Resurface
4 Construct 5.E reet to Ultimate Cross
3rd �t
Section = Resurface
5 Modify Traffic Signal at S.E, 3rc St./S.E.
3rd Avenue
6 Install trzfjic signal at S.E. 3rc St./Biscayne
Boulevard
7 Installtrafficsicn�i at S.E. Financial Center
garage on S.E. 2nd Street
B Resurface and Re -.tripe S.E. gin; Street fror.
Biscayne Blvd. tc S.E. 3ra Avenue
9 Remove parkin; or Eiscayne E+vc. north of
S.E. 2nd street
1L Revise S.E. 2nd St, a� S.E. 2nd Avenue E
sign modifications
Maintenance of Traffic
Engineering E Contingencies
Es', Cost
S 5,000
5, DV- :;
10, 0"
Total $395,000
10,000
100,003
$505, 000*
*These current estimates are apprQximate and may tie higher to accpm^cdaie
utility relocation, drainage structure changes and modifications tc s;dewalks.
i
SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
t-OLLO 11
tABi t Ij:1Z1 k*k" & %"It IWA&S IN AA, PtAk 1bffi Cif ftA&
k ieks
1111aF.i
t+litrt :
S6u4hOASt..
to
-VO I U t?.,:.,
V01. Jf4?'.
..._
Vp t.;.�P+re
_. _.
VO.I urn
..::... ,...,.
SE 2Fd St,
Biscayne Blvd.
3ed Ave.
365
97
26.51
120
12.81
14E
A3 35
Sfd Ave.
= 2nd Ave.
24;
97
46.25
120
49.19
14
09.96
SE 3ed St,
BisCayh@ Blvd.
= 3ed Ave.
508
C
-
43
08.46
465
9t.54
#P'd Avd.
= 2hd Ave:
39A
0
=
286
IMOt
108
21.41
his. Blvd, Way
6igeayhe Blvd,
= led Ave,
522
522
10G-X
0
L !
0
Seed Ave.
= 2nd Ave,
451
119
26.0d
0
= I
338
7:.96
5E 2Ad Ave.
SE 2nd St.
SE 3ed St.
20C
74
25.52
216
74.48
C
=
SE 1fd St,
- Bit, Blvd. Way
425
74
11,41
243
51,19�
108
25.41
SE 3'rd Ave.
SE 2nd St:
a SE 3rd St,
6
0
-
0
=
0
SE 3ed St.
- Sit. Blvd. Fay
f3?
0
-
C.
Bis.Bvne Blvd,
SE 2nd St.
= SE 3rd St,
373
32t
8F �c
,_
43
11.53,
9
C[ 4r:
SE 3ed St.
i Bis, Blvd. Way
623._
E2{
r,"
Link
Total and Ave; -age Percentage
E 53E
1 92'
.42,dE
0?'
23.61.
.1 53e_.
Intersections
Biscayne Blvd.
and SE 2nd St.
86E
5'*:
65.82
163
18.8.
133
15.35
SE 2nd St, and
SE 3rd Ava:
20
97
44.70
120
55.29
0
-
SE 2nd St. inn
5E 2nd Ave.
290
24
25.52
216
74.48
0
Biscav-,a elv .
hmc St led St.
37"
324
e5.94
43
SK 3rc Ave. a^d
SE 3rd St.
48+
0,
- i
?
pe.?y
44E
9 ,2t
SE Ave. a-d
SE arc St.
425
74�
I.t.V
24�
`.", 7
tOc
-!.41
S;scav^e Blvd,
and Biscay^e Blvd.
wav
0
b
- j
t^
_
r
B.scav^e clv�.
we,,a^d SE 3rc
Ave.
B?`
%�
6'. ?
33r
i s g,
a s
,.�_cav�e c'vc.
wav a^c SE Zn
t.e.
�._ea;
•4 �
F F
` .6
N,21
t- t4
I
In'e%sell, v, Tote a^,' Ave -ace ce.>e..np
4 2t1
t E111
i
4° 1-
�.C7:
^ 2f.5'
1 14,
TOM 3 t3: St1N A CK TP.trr it 1WAC75 IN P.M. PEO H;c e`
r
is ...
"a'
F rOrr
tE 2n: E- .
Biscayne
3rd Ave.
- 2r.,; Ave.
SE 3rd St.
Biscayne Blvd.
- 3rc Ave.
6+5
3rc Ave.
- 2nc Ave.
6.5
Bit. Blvd. Way
Biscayne Blvd.
- 3rd Ave.
106
3rd Ave.
- 2nd Ave.
2;0
SE 2nd Ave.
SE 2nd St.
- SE 3rd St.
lie
SE 3rd St.
- Sis. 9cvd. Way
466
SE 3rd Ave.
SE 2nd St.
- SE 3rd St.
123
SE 3rd St.
- Sis. Blvd. Way
24
Biscayne Blvd.
SE 2ne St.
- SE 3rd St.
Bel
SE 3rd St.
T
- Sis. Blvd. way
534
^�
2 " 4, 7; 5c f
199 96.60 0 - 7 03.40
199 86.52 0 - 31 13.AS
73 61.86 45 3e.i4 0
70 14.9E 29; 6;.39 106 22.f5
0 0 - 123 `i 0 0;,
0 0 - 24 ,0 .oa
47? 53.57 22`, 25.54 184 2C.86
376 1 70.41 1 151 2E.26 7 0'.31
link otat and Average PercentagE 0,,1 1,936 3e.15 t 57^ 3G.94 1 569 3:9',
rote-se^*ions
B'scayne Siva. and SE 2nd St,
SE 2nd St, and SE 3rd Ave.
SE 2na St, and SE 2nd Ave.
Biscayne Blvd, and SE 3rd St,
SE 3rd Ave. and SE 3rd St.
$E 2nd Ave. and SE 3rd $t,
Biscayne Blvd. and Biscayne Blvd. Kay
Biscayne Blvd. May end SE 3rd Ave.
61sceyne Blvd, Way and SE 2nd Ave.
Intersection Total and Avargag Nrcentj
-69-
1'153
705
61.14
2G5
22.11
W
le.74
652
269
41.25
30
04.6C
353
54.14!
118
73
61.86
45
38.13
0
-
BB9
321
36.11
406
45,89
160
ii
18.01
510
0
-
257
50.39
253
49.61
468
70
14.96
29,62.39
10f
22.65
0
0
0
0
23C
489
199
1 84
86.52
17.1El
0
1 291 1
0
59.71 1
31
113
13,461
23.111
4 509 1
1 721`
38.17
1 579
35.02
1 209
26.e1
the 145 bifurcated ramp extehsion concept) oridlhated in 1910; was
#or•ffially adapted in 1g16- by the Mtamt New World Actior Cainrnittee in
fesponse tt ob ject l6ht raised by the downtown Warr! business t6MMuh i ty
vet the Fiol`lda bepartftht of Ttansportation+s plan for a direct ralrp
e6hhect16h +6 811dayhe Boulevard over SA, 3td Street. the bifurcated
reMp extension concept was adopted as a means to preserve the development
integrity of the Dupont P1816 area and to support the approval of Miarri
Center 1. It is how apparent that full development of the Dupont Plaza
area Is not enhanced by, but rather is totally dependent upoh, the tifriely
designj thgIneeringj and constructioh of this expressway connection.
The final transportation system Plan for Dupont Plaza, as recommended by
the applicants and adopted by the MPO, is a variation on the
State= -adopted bifurcated raihp desigh and conceptual plan, differing from
that plan in four ways:
• the DPM system is Incorporated as an thtearal component of the plan*
with Its station and guideway being modified slightly to accommodate
development and roadway plans;
i S.E. 3rd Avenue and 3rd Street remain open to through traffic;
• the termini of the bifurcated entrance rarnP is west of c
• direct ramps fror, t�!Er 1-9' C4r _. ':, to the V.iam*, C;erte- l 1 garage are
provided.
Since the recommended plan meets federal and State safety and
operational design criteria for the alignment and configuration of the
bifurcated access ramps to the 1-95 Connector, It is anticipated that the
State will approve the plan, with the possible exception of the S.E. 2nd
Street driveway access to the Southeast Bank Financial Center garage.
One eiement of particular note in .the recommended plan Is the direct ramp
connection from the 1-95 Connector Into the Miami Center li garage (see
Figure 18). This unique connection between a public road and a private
development is key to acceptable traffic operations on the surface street
system. The connection will relieve the surface streets of an AM peak
hour Inbound volume of 777 cars and a PM peak hour volume of 926 cars.
Local FDOT officials met with Federal Highway Administration and
Tallahassee FDOT representatives on October 8, 1980 to ensure that this
connection would not be opposed. Both agencies expressed their
•willingness to approve the direct ramp connections if all acceptable
design standards are met and if the "stacking" for vehicles coming off
the distributor ramp occurs within the garage and on the garage ramp,
-without backing up onto the distributor ramp which would Impede the free
flow of eastbound vehicles. Thus, appropriate design and engineering can
Insure the success of this connection.
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
�70T
FOLLOW„
the 145 bifurcated f6ip extehtloh cohr_ept, originated in 19lo, was
fbtfially adopted Ih WO by the Mtarnt New World Action tormnittee in
fesp6h§d to ob j#et 15hs raised by "the downtown M 1 a(n i business comntun i ty
over the Eibriba bepartffieht of trah906rt6t'I6h1s plan for a direct tW
Connect i 6h to Md8yhe 86u I evard over SA, 3rd Street, the bifurcated
raFilp extehstoh cohdept was adopted as a Means to preserve the devei6pmefit
lntegrity of the Dupont P1616 area and to support the approval of Mlaitl
Center 1. It Is how appareht that full development of the bupont Plaza
area is hot ehh6heed byr but rather It totally dependent upon, the timely
detlgh, engineering, and e6httructioh of this expressway conhectl6h4
The flhal trahsportation system plan for bupont Plaza, as recomfnehded by
the appltcants and adopted by the WO, is a variation on the
State -adopted bifurcated ramp design and conceptual plan, differing from
that plan In four ways:
i the DPM system 15 incorporated as an thtedral component of the plan,
with Its station and guideway being modified slightly to accommodate
development and roadway plans;
e S.E. 3rd Avenue and 3rd Street remain open to through traffic;
• the termini of the bifurcated entrar,c- rarer is %ec4 o` ?rc Ave.; an,
• direct ramps frog t`!E- 1=9' tC) the M i drn 7 Certer 11 garage are
provided.
Since the recommended plan meets fl ejera l and State Sa`E'tY an:,
operational design criteria for the alignment and conflpuration of the
bifurcated access ramps to the 1-95 Connector, it is anticipated that the
State will approve the plan, with the possible exception of the S.E. 2nd
Street driveway access to the Southeast Bank Financial Center garage.
One element of particular note In the recommended plan Is the direct ramp
connection from the 1-95 Connector Into the Miami Center It garage (see
Figure 18). This unique connection between a public road and a private
development is key to acceptable traffic operations on the surface street
system. The connection will relieve the surface streets of an AM peak
hour inbound volume of 777 cars and a PM peak hour volume of 926 cars.
Local FDOT officials met with Federal Highway Administration and
Tallahassee FDOT representatives on October 8, 1980 to ensure that this
connection would not be opposed. Both agencies expressed their
•willingness to approve the direct ramp connections If all acceptable
design standards are met and if the "stacking" for vehicles coming off
the distributor ramp occurs within the garage and on the garage ramp,
without backing up onto the distributor ramp which would impede the free
flow of eastbound vehicles. Thus, appropriate design and engineering can
Insure the success of this connection
i
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
T70- FOLLOW„
i --- {
`• v t � y
t
.dot
-.nRur �
• 1 � '� DU Onr� EtR2Jt.. NCTEL_ �` �. �.
"SUPPORTIVE �, R,� rr, ,�;r CT ,n•,, Tn n�tl cF N T F t I �ApA,-,E
F1r:lanF is: t—
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW -
i
i I
li
I
A Otte& OF615 I On for the V16b I I tty of the entire transportation tys+etj
at ftd6ffi?hebhd6d) It buliditid the bifurcated tamps to the 1435 C6hhecttor
wtthth the teoultod tithe d6httrblhts 16 support full oevtlopffieht In
bUp6ht Plata,
the FbOT 01tttitt 6 office tetehtly tellt6std 6 teouest for proposals ftoft-,
e6htult6hts to prepare t6httruttloh pl6ht ehC6(h06s5thg the final detldh
and ehdi Bering of the bifurcated extension ramps and tel6ted surface
street tthptov0;ehtS In Dupont Plate, Standard FbCT adfrio-itttative
procedures applied to the bifurcated raf.op extension ptojectt, howevert
will hot effect this Improvement at an appropriate time to support the
proposed developments In Dupont P182a. Following the release of the
request for pt6p6Salsj the State fray take 6 to 9 months for consultant
selection and, If Consultant selection Is completed before July 1) 1981
and S0lbctlbh approval given by this date, a notice to proceed may be
Issued.
A standard design contract would take 24 rron-Ihs, and an additional 12 to
18 months would be required for right-of-way acquisition (even with
tlbht-of-way dedication where necessary). Final construction Is expected
to take 18 to 24 months tc complete; thus, according to Florida DOT, the
bifurcated ramp system will take between 5 to 6.25 years to complete,
even Under the most optimistic circumstances and scheduling. And this
optimistic schedule depends 'upon the selection and approval of a desiam
consultant and State Issuance of a notice to proceed by July 1, 19FI, so
that monies budgeted In the current State fiscal year may be expended on
the design and enalheerlho contract. Table 3.14 demonstrates the
simultaneous sche;ullha of the proposed developments in Dupont Plaza
compared with Florida bOT'-- projected schedule for compiption of the
bifurcated system.
Current State priorities for Miar; area irnproveinerlt5 are as follows:
1) Miami Avenue Bridge and approaches, 2) S.E. 7th/Bth St met,
3) 1-95 Bifurcated Ramp Exlemslon, 4) Easterly Miami River Bridac-
Crossing, and 5) Brickell Avenue Bridge replacement. Since the Miami
Avenue bridge Improvement Is presently unfunded and the S.W. 7th/8th
Street Improvemneot,, are currently under design by the State,
It would appear that reliance on the State to design and fund the 1-95
Bifurcated Ramp extension, will not allow the proposed developments in
Dupont Plaza to proceed as schediled. Only a dramatic change in public
sector transportation Improvement programming priorities and funding
commitments, combined with private sector financial par-ricipation, could
overcome this obstacle.
S , Uppv�r-1
-72-
It r
1AALE S.11: 04EWLIWG MINI'00t bttkEw 1-45 0' FLatC►tEC SYStFLI
ANt 01UO N1 PLAtA DEVELOOV:N-Z
co'ec>'s
tar-1 i'L'S' Late:'
1:
145 Bifurcatad
Raft
6:
Ra$uest 46P Proposal: litued 6n: (ktober M , 1198�
Prbobth l s Due!
146v&+ t.e- 11, 198_
b:
C6fi&uttAh4 561ectf6n: 6 = 9 Months
May, 1981 . Augus4, 19E'
c:
N6tice to Proceed: k6nirad by Jul%
1, W ' for t 0 rei+Iy
budge+e: 5+8te furd�^
d.
Design Pldn Po6e,ar61io-: 16-24 tor°"s
No::, 19E: - Auyus.' IyE3
e,
Righl of Way Acquisitio': 12=le fho
Now.. 0e3 x Nov:, 19E-
f:
Project cons+ruction: 18-24 r,or.'},",
May, i985 y Nov.. 198E
Project CWle'ioh: 6605 Mo+`•'hs
2:
Miar,i
center 11
cons' utt.ior 5tL
Escbe_'ec.a-:le'io�_ba'e
a.
last Tower one Retail
Janue-Y, 19E7.
octoce�' 19S4
b:
56% Garage and Retail
Janus-y, 19E,
October, 1964
c:
West tower, Retail and 50S Gbrege
January, 195t
December, 19E-
3.
Southeast
BAni, Irinar,clal Certe►
a.
Office tower
February, 19E'
Mai, 19E'
b:
Garage
FebFuao-y, 19EZ
flay, 1982
Other.DeveloDfnen+s
4,
Miour. i
Center I
9,
tdward A%+I Office Building
Uhde-vas
Ac-il, 19E.
b.
PAS- ,IA^ hc+e
Dece—e-, 198:
Se +e-ber, 19E:
c.
' Pavilion Condor:niur s
Dece-be-, 19e,
October, 19E:
5.
James
L. Knight Convention Gente-'
Underway
February, 1981
6.
Miar,.i
(World) trade Centerl
a.
Office Buildinc
Oecemt-e-, 19EI
December, 198?.
b.
*Garage
January, 1981
Februa,N, 196
7.
ifolide, Inn (Brickell Ave,)
Underwa,
September, 19F
8.
Miair.i
Avenue Bridge and Approaches
a.
Design Pion Preparatior
Unde-way
April, 19E'
b.
Right of Way Acquisition
April, 19e,
July, 1991'
c.
Construction ($15.1 million")
July, 19e:
December, 19E3
i
9.
Downtown People Mover
a.
Design Pion Preparation
Undervay
December, 1981
b.
Construction
December, 1961
May, 198Z
1D.
Brickell Avenue Bridge
a.
Design Plan Preparation
July, 1981
June, 1981,
b.
Right of Way Acquisition
June, 1983
July, 1984
c.
Construction ($12.0 million")
July, 1989
January, 1991
••
Unfunded
1 Traffic generation not Included In Impact assesssant.
i
pPPO
RTIVE
�n UMENT
S
PAPt v t PURL I C AND PR I VAtt ttMk RFSPONS i 8 I L I T i tS IN P I NANC I NC NFCE SSAI'Y
bUPW PLAZA TPANSPOOATION iMMOVILMENtS
The tl=6ft9p6Ft6tl6fl systeM for Dupont Plata is estimated to Cost 118,7
Ittiltdlh, a5 ltOilted In table 5 15, The only funds durrehtly available
to Support these tffiprovefnehts arze 11 thi l l ian doi t ars of State funds which
dah be dlverted to pay for design and engiheerina In this fiscal year, If
d0fl9uitaht selecttbh and approval are cofnpleted prior to July 1, 1W 1.
tA?LE 1,t5: tOTAL COST FOP jJbONT PLAZA PECOWE CED tRANSPC4401'I0N SYSTEM
(19ac k i(arsl
Design and Engineering Costs i 1.Ooc,joo'
Surface Street 1fhproven+e^.ts 1,187,500
Surface Street to 1=95 Connector Rarnps 14,600,000
G 6ge to 1-95 Connector RaMps 1,50C,,ON,
bowntowt. People MoveP Modifications. 585,00^
tbtAL, ihc!uding cohtinoehcies S18,E7r,�0C
As previously noted, Construction Of the 1-95 Connector ramps is also
dependent upon the Miami Avenue bridge replacement being camp!eted.
White design and engineering for the -Miami Avenue bridge are essentially
complete, construction of this project, estimated to cost $12.625
million, Is stIll unfunded.
The FDOT District 6 office receives only $9.9 million dollars a year in
CP funds, its only source cf funds for primary road projects, incluoina
required improvements in Dupont Plaza. Thus, if traditional funding
arrangements are relied upon, the required roadway improvements in Dupont
Plaza will compete wlth a number of other significant primary road
projects In Dade, Including US 1, 7th and 8th Streets, US 27, and the
Golden Glades Interchange, as well as with US i Improvements in the
Florida Keys, for the annual allocation of State funds. Further, as
currently planned, certain portions of these State funds are being
allocated to slgnalization Improvements on and transit stations adjacent
to primary roads.
Thus, competition for this smail allocation is intense, both among
projects in Dade and those in Monroe County. Of course, there is also
competition between the Broward County District and the Dade/Monroe
District, as weil as between these two districts within the Region and
other areas of the State, in obtaining an appropriate allocation of the
funds available statewide. South Florida officials have long maintained
that this Region should receive a more equitable allocation of funds,
.based on the amount of taxes generated 1n the Region.
i1suppo cilVE
DOCUMENTS
r
South P161' I da 6f f It It 151 but I httt leaders, 8hd trahsporta+l6n Spec t a! I tts
were h6ptful that 6 P16hhed Special session of the Ledisiatute)
ot1g1h6liy scheduled to occur in November, would result not only In
Ihtftated fuhdihg for ft6hsp6tt6tloh projects tut also in a (note
fdvottble all6eati6h f6trhula for Its dlsttibutloh within the State.
Unfortunately, h6wovet) the Proposed Special t6ttll6h was d8hCellod,
The tWellattbM of this testl6h, d6ftlhOd with the overall thomae in the
ft6d of hati6hal and State cltl2ehty regarding tax burdens, Indicates
that already inadequate State and federal transportation fundiho sources
may even be redutedo rather than increased, In the future. Thus, local
governments mutt develbo Creative and innovative fIhahe:1hq so!utloht# If
required roadway projects supporting major` developoehts are to be
Insured,
Overreliance on State and federal funding Is Oattitu!arly risky In an
area, such as Downtown Miami# which Is both experlenclho and encouraging
rapid development. If alternate sources for f1hanCind appropriate
transportation infrastructure are not found, the private Investment
creatina the revitalization will be severely constrained and, eventually,
elfmihated due to accessibility problems which cannot be overcome.
This hoed for creative, Innovative financing Solutions, which combine new
Initiatives froii, the public sector with private sector pn-flcipatIon in
bearing the marginal costs associated with development p!-oposals, Is
nowhere better evidenced than In the current development plans of
Southeast Bank and Holywell Corporation for Dupont Plaza, Without
assurance of funding belho available to construct all cotrponents of 1ht,
recommended transportation system, the Financial Center and Miami Center
11 could not be approved, alven the intensity of activity proposed. The
roadway system simply would be so overburdened as to make reasonab!c
accessibility Impossible.
Responsibility for financing the required improvements Should# however,
be shared between the public sector and private development Interests. A
general guideline for determining an equitable allocation of costs
between the public and private sector Is that the private sector should
pay the marginal costs of upgrading existing transportation facilities to
support, or the full cost of constructing new facilities required by, a
specific development proposal. On the other hand, the pub!lc sector
should fund those Improvements which support the general welfare and
safety of Its citizens; promote public sector goals, objectives, and
plans; are required by existing traffic from previously-permItted
development; or result from normal growth In "background" traffic.
An equitable allocation of costs between the public and private sector
for required Dupont Plaza transportation system improvements requires
-that:
"SUPPORTIVC
DoculAhEt'-_
'N J S
-75- FOLLOWY
• bMbN AND tNbINtWN6 POP THE 8iPUPtATEb RAMP SYSTEM TO THE 1-95
CONNECTOR ANb ALL SURFACE STREET IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE THE
IkESPNSI81LITY OF THE APPLICANTS
Alth6ugh VbOT can divert the required $1 Million frorn the current
fl§t6l Y66t budget to support this work, they are operating Oder
t&etie +IM6 t6h9tr6Ifits for selettlrig and heg&16ting flhaht!61
61`1`6h�40(rnehtg with a t6htultaht. If final arrangements have not been
8grttJ upon thd approved by July It 19811 the diverted funds would no
161194�t be available, Simte PbOT'S normal tiffiefratne for consultant
telthe+loh it between 6 and 0 months) it is quite Possible that the
July I deadline will Mot be met, and the Intervening time would be
I e)st,
Fut-ther, Since PDOT normally allows a consultant two years to complete
dotigh work, final design and ehgtheertho piang would hot be available
for 2 1/2 years, seriously jeo08rdlZthg required scheduling of surfa'e
Street Improvements and the opening of the bifurcated ramp system, At
least 1 112 years could be cut from FOOT's timeframe, If the
OpplIC811tS conduct the design and engineering work.
In additlonj the applicants and their Consultants are already familiar
with the transportation systern, plan for and needs of Dupont Plaza
developments. Economies of effort would be realized -)vsr attemoting
to bring in a new consu! tant not f am I I or with the dt*.% e I optent
proposals. Also, the need for the surface street Improvements and the
required timing of the bifurcated ramps to the 1-95 Connector are a
direct result of the development proposals.
Further) since the ramp system design is Intimately related to the
desian of the Miami Center 1; garage, given the direct connection
between the two, It Is only lqplcal that the same group design both..
If PDOT were to undertake the eesign workp the garage ramps would be
excluded Since their authority stops at the western right-of-way along
S.E. 2nd Avenue. Since S.E. 3rd Street and 3rd Avenue are both City
streets, they would also be excluded from the design work, despite
their Integral role In the effective functioning of the surface street
system.
• THE APPLICANTS SHOULD CONSTRUCT OR FUND STATE AND CITY CONSTRUCTION
OF ALL SURFACE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
As previously noted, the surface street Improvements were desIcned
specifically to meet the needs of Southeast Bank Financial Cent-.!r and
Miami Center I and 11. While the Improvements also encompass
background traffic and DPM requirements, It remains the appllcan'-s who
derive the primary benefit of the proposed surface street system.
* HOLYWELL CORPORATION SHOULD CONSTRUCT OR FUND STATE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE RAMPS WHICH DIRECTLY CONNECT THE MIAMI CENTER 11 GARAGE TO THE
1-95 CONNECTOR
SUPOORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW
1
Tw�Y
i%
w
LLJI
V 0
MO
U.
Although Soutfieasf Dal`ik C6r46r6ti6n derivet substantial beliefit from
thbtt rampsj s lice they tighificantly reduce the volum- of traffic or
the turfece ttreet system, thus 61lowthd Southeast to develop a
gt(a6ter I hteht t ty of use on Its I and o the -#mps Tema l h part of the
Miami Center 1I garage strueture and all parking revenues *111 accrue
t3 WI ywei
o THE APPLICANT SHOULD PAY FOR ANY MARGINAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH DPM
MODIFICATIONS RE¢UIRED AS A RESULT OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS OR
THE ROADWAY SYSTEM. DESiCN WHICH SUPPORTS THEN!,
6 THE APPLICANTS SHOULD DEDICATE ALL RIGHT-OF-wAY REQUIRED BY THE
BIFURCATED ACCESS RAMPS) SURFACE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, AND DPN
ALIGNMENT, AND THE PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM
THE PUBLIC SECTOR SHOULD FUND ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE BIFURCATED
ACCESS RAMPS WHiCH CONNECT 145 TO THE SURFACE STREET SYSTEM.
Although both the Holywell and Southeast developments are dependent on
the access provided by the bifurcated ramp connections from 1-95 to
the Surface streets, the need for such Improvement has Iona bee
nrecognized by the public sector as a means of manaoing existing
traffic volumes and normal growth In this traffic as well as to
promote new development, such as currently is proposed by the
applicants, in Dupont Plaza.
Further, the City of Miami and the County directly benefit from the
proposed developments and the previously approved Miami Center I
through an annual Increase in ad valorem taxes totalling $3.7 million
and $1.9 million, respectively. The City further directly benefits
from the Improved transportation system since it provides better
access to the City Convention Center, currently under construction.
Although the Convention Center itself was exempted from DRI review,
0 the State specified that any additional development on the City
property could trigger the DRI process. Since current City plans —
Include adding a world trade center, a hotel, and retail space to the
Convention Center development, any transportation improvemements In
the area which may serve to Increase roadway capacity directly benefit
the City.
Finally, the City, the County, and the State will derive substantial
economic benefit from the employment generated by the S477 million
capital Investment whichSoutheast Bank Financial Center, Miami Center
I, and Miami Center it represent. The Indirect and induced economic
impacts promote the general welfare of South Florida residents and
should be supported by the public sector.
Given this allocation of costs between the public and private sectors, a
number %J issues remain, including the division of the private Sector
allocation between the two developers; the Identificationofpossible
public sector financing options. -and provisions for insuring that the
bifurcated ramps to .the 1-95 Connector are provided to support the
proposed developments, should public funds not become available within
-77-
It t
tequited tiffi6ftaffio.
tault6ble Ailftatl6h 61 private tettlblr tb§t
T&61 d609 611gated +6 the 8pplIcahtt f6r the 1`64ulred tFaA§P6tt6ttbh
bytt#fh I M01`6veffitfitt I h DuP6ht P 1826 ate S4, i fn 11 1ion, as I teffi I 20d I h
Fable L16. Equitable 8ttIghlbeht of these costs to Southeast Bank acid
Wlywoll Opprftlfhat6t the actual ttbpatt of each project In itte6tifid the
ttafflt lh Dupbht Plata, 89 tottift6d below,
FABLE 3,16: POWE SWOC C051: F60; DUPONt PLAZA
OtCOWENbEZ. tRANSMO:.7A-ION 5vStEM
(iW'� Dollars)
Desigh bhd Ehgimeel'ing 31,Onj
Surface Street lmpO-ovehe�is
Garage to 1-05 connector kaNCs
Downtovrf-. People Mover Modif icai ions
TOTAL
Since both developments are dependent upon the final roadway network
being Improved, design and -engineering work should be divided between
applIcal"ItS. Holywell Corporatlon should undertake the design of the
bifurcated ramp access to the 1-95 Connector, Since two of the ramps
connect to the Miami Center It garage, Southeast Bank should fund the
design and engineering for all surface street improvements. Assuming
that the design costs are proportlona+e to construction costs, Holywell
Corporation would pay 92%, ($921,800), of total Dupont Plaza design and
engineering costs. The cost to Southeast Bank should be 8%,
approximately $78,200 (1980 dollars). Final costs are, of course, a
matter for the applicants to negotiate with their consultants.
Table 3.17 apportions the costs of constructing surface street
Improvements, based on the actual traffic Impact of Miami Center 1, Miami
Center 11, and Southeast Bank Financial Center on each link and
Intersection In Dupont Plaza. Holywell Corporation should fund 68.4e% of
the total, ($813,200, In 1980 dollars) with Southeast Bank funding the
remaining $374,300 (1980 dollars). As previously noted, Holywell
Corporation should pay the entire $1.5 million cost associated with
providing the direct ramp connection from the Miami Center 11 garage to
-the 1-95 Connector.
Finally, the $385,000 marginal cost for DPM modifications should be
-divided equally between the applicants, even though use of the DPM1 by
employees and patrons of Southeast Financial Center will be considerably
less than by persons accessing Miami Center I and it. The equal
allocation of $192#500 to each applican+ Is considered equitable, since
Southeast Is deriving substantial benefit from, without bearing any cost
of, the direct ramp connections to the Miami Center 11 garage. Table
"SUPPORTIVE
-78- DOCUMENTS
It
FOLLOW
m
tMA #,11: b6tt ALLOWIOIN >tOl� SUOA;.E StiREEt IWkOvEMENtS
Vie- V ao-,;
b 1 .62?. 79 "- c,c
5u*f6ce._514 Type of
IA+pP6ve= tos+
5tace..t, tease...] hre(+ ._... Es+Ihate_. 1. Res'i-;De t-95. ;ornector and Resurface L d,00 I.f12 6C i 1,Oc1.Q: ' 1,2oc•dr.
2. S c` nc for 1=95, Brickelt and 5iscayne L 10,001C d,03',5C 2,727.5E t,24-00
I. Add lane �n SE 2nd Ave., Sed St. = W'A 1 25,0 t,� tO,078.75 E,EtE.75 B,, Y.SC
4. Add lane BBw, 2nd Ave. : 3rd Ave. I L 16,00C 1 6,45_.e
5 Adz lane L Ihed. 2ne Ave., 2nd 3rd Sis. L 25,00C 1C,C'S.�S f 6,81E.t`
6. Sic"e' a' 2^d St anti 2hd Ave. 1 3C. 1c,AF .00 I 9,239 E
7 Biscayne E'vc., 3rd St. = 2nd S+. l i 13�:r 52,d.�.5.5C 35.b` .5C 42,133.0G
E. 4ekzc ng Parking on BB% L 60,00C j 2b, 189.0E ' 16, 35` .O i 19,bbe.00
�•
'z" 5�g^a' �
Gates, Maintenance, and C,pntingenc es
i
_ L
z Ct�;; ' 1b,5Fr.5^
1IC 0G _4434E._50_.
� 1G,778 5'
3C OL2.5 . ._35
9,E:r. -ti
65 .OG
A4.5 000
180246.50
Stage 1 Sub-+O+al
123,662,50
14l.091.00
'
Resurface and Res+ripe -9`
L
f 5,00C
2,01.5.75i
�.
1oc-1fv Sipnel arc St J2n_' Ave.
I
; 15,00
6:2d!.0+:
4.62 v
4 +, t'
'.
3rc Ave 2^,C S'. - 3rc S-.
t
i 9f, ,00 E
36,2E-_'.`_•C
' 24,54
3r� St.,�2n: Ave. - Bis.a.-A
L
145 GC.
5e.45..75
39,54E 75 '
4E,954
°.
Mr_,; fy sighal 3f-c st e3`c Ave.
15,0_,h i
6.244 rC
4,619.J_
E.
New Signa: 3rd St./Biscayne
i
35,000
14,56 .0--
tit,7'6,OC
1.
New 5'gnal - SE Garage
t
35.0''C !
14,569,OCi
10,776.00
6.
Resurface and Restripe 2nd Si.
L
4G,000
16,126.00
In 910.0C�
12,964�01
9.
Remove Pa►king
L
S,OOC
2,015.75
1,3E�..7;
1,6r^ 5"�
t"I
SE 2nd St./2nd Ave.
I
10,000 i
to v.002,
Saes, Martentn e, and Curt naen; es
L
^�44,34t,
`
+a -es L S D-to•a
5„ 0 ' ;
20` Vt_
' 41 .'C.^�
15E 3�
P•c�et' '^ta
95C,000
38.,278,75
265,172,7a
29c,a45 5, -
Co�tinge -v t25t
50^
9E.31Q.f?
6t ,115.. 1C
_ 74,11;
1,187,50E
� 4E ,598.44
CAAN:: tGTAi
331.590.93
Proioc+ Percer+boe
100.00
40.56
27,92
31.52
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
tr18 suffh&1 es the coats +o each applit8nt fdr Dupont Piaia
ti=ahspoi=tat i�ih s�r�te�i i�rbroverielits
UsLt 3.18: RELA.'t4[ TG' SC, -.Ee: 3A`+ AN --
top, DUPV' OL 2A tRAY—"Or-t-ION SvstEi!
t195:; d_-1lbrs� y
1
�
s
besi6h bnd thoineeiinp
Surface Sttee?
8
145 $ifuFc$ted Ral"ps
-
-
92.,81i
92
Suffifbbe Street Itovivveinehts
514,111
12
913,184
68
Ramps fPcr- 1�9s tc Ga eae
-
-
t,SG^,�
1C
(?orntosn Deciple Move-
19;"
5C
19n,;`'�'
_5-.
Estima'ed To'at
84
Public Sector Financing Options for the 1-95 Bifurcated Ramps to -the
9urface`Street ystern
Whl_le the construction of the 1-95 Connector ramps to Du cnt P;aza shcu!d
be the responsibility of the public sector, there 1s no ques"tion that
finding the required Si4.6 million, within the necessary timeframe, will
demand IhhoVatIve solutions and a strong Commitment to the City+s
revitalization. To assist in Identifying resources which public agencies
could use to finance the bifurcated ramps, Council staff Investigated a
number of possible sources for the required funds. The following
options, singly or In varying combinations, could be used to obtain the
funds. Each option would require different degrees of administrative,
legal, and political commitment and action to effectuate. While such
constraints are often difficult to assess, an attempt has been made to
order the options from the least feasible to the most feasible, in order
to assist the appropriate public agencies in their decision as to which
can most profitably be pursued.
1 FDOT could reallocate State primary road funds from other areas in
the State, given the significant economic benefit accruing to the
entire State from the infusion of capital Into South Florida.
Z. The City and/or County could establish, under Chapter 163, s
Downtown Redevelopment Area and use tax increment financing to
provide necessary Infrastructure and improvements.
3. FDOT and the County MPQ could give priority attention to the 1-95
bifurcated ramp project under its lapsed funding program.
ttSU
PPV
O A /i r'
Fr.J L.j'�VVY1
4.
The City and/of County could 'issue gehetai oblIgatith bonds for the
regu 1 red ifflprovefients.
5.
The City acid/or the County, collaborating with the applicants, could
prepare ail app) ication to the State Departlhent of Confierce under —
their program to fund transportation irhprbvements required for
ecohoric development (Rule gtPj 2.(?i=2.11). While W tt pt6or&-
currently has no funds available, further appropriations will be
reauested during the next Legislative Sessicn.
6,
The Downtown Development Authority+s boundaries could be eh►arced to
Include Rricke!I Avenue and its millece cep lncrersed, over an-d
above the proposed 1/2 Ril Increase scheduled to be used for be -ter
police protection, to provide funds for Downtown transportation
projects.
7.
The City and County could establish a 7:,ansportatlon Authority,
under 163.510, which could tax up to 3 mils and issue bonds.
8.
The City and County should lobby extensively for passage of
whichever transportation package, under consideration In the next
•� w.
Legislative Sesslon, would result in the greatest Increase of funds
to the Staters urban areas.
1=DCT and the County could earmark any increased funding resulting
from the next Legislative Session to the 1-95 bifurcated ramp
'.�
project.
w) 10,
f DOT and the County NTO should revise the 11F ; u a+cvti c.�ns7 ruct i on of
the 1-95 ramps forward and reallocate previously programmed funds
for ROW acquisition and desion, which will not now be necessary
since the applicants are payina these costs, to ccntruction of the
ramps. —
11.
The City and/or the County could commit the Increased ad valorem
taxes resulting from Miami Center 1, Miami Center ii, and Southeast
Bank to fund the 1-95 bifurcated ramps.
12.
The City could .issue tax anticipation bonds to fund required
construction and, pay off the bonds within 5 years from ad valoren.
taxes from the proposed developments.
13.
The County could include the bifurcated ramps, as well as the S.W.
7th and 6th Street parallel pair, the N.W. 5th and 6th Street
parallel pair and Interchange, and the Brickeii Avenue bridae and
Street widening in the proposed 1980's Decade of Progress bond
Issue.
While local and State officials must necessarily be the ones to decide
which of the above options are apropriate to the task of bringing the
bifurcated ramp system on line within required timeframes, assurance that
the
ramps will be provided prior to or coincident with the projected
buiidout of Dupont Plaza Is necessary to mitigate the adverse regional
-81-
AWN
i
IMP act of the proposed dev06pfh6ht9t
Recogr,121hg that the pubitt adehtltt and officials lhvoived in a final
decision On funding souttes f6v the bifurcated ramps, cannot provide such
an 8SSUtthte Ott6t to 19SU611te of deveioptnehi orders for the proposed
Pt6jetts) the 06uht1l recommends that -the 80011donts be required to
"ft6ht #hd" the Capital for C6htttucti6h of the raffio syttemp should all
public sector efforts fail to 6btalh fuhdthd withth the required
tiffi0ft6me.
Private Sector of Funds To Construct the Eifutqat(id Ramps
Figure 15 C6fhpares the Currently planned scheduling of privane
development in Dupont Plata with the most optimistic scheduling of
required public sector transportation Improvements, rt6m the figure, It
can be seen that the tirnina of the construction of the Miami Avenue
■
bridge Is Critical to the scheduling of the 1-95 bifurcated ramp
Coh9trUCtI0h. Every effort must be made by PDCT, the City, and the
County to obtain the required 112.625 million for the Miami Avenue bridge
Construction and, If possible, to reduce Its ROW acquisition and
construction tImeframt In order to allow construction of the 1-95 ramps
to begin In 1983.
Secondly, the flaure Illustrates that, for construction of the 1-95
Connector ramps to begin In 1983, a public sector financing package for
the $14.6 million should be finalized no later than the 4th quarter of
1982, Thus, If a public sector financing pacKage has not been committed
to this project by September 30, 1982, the applicants should be required
to front end the funds for Construction.
A number of options for private sector front ending and public sector
reimbursement existo Including:
• FDOT could enter Into an agreement with the applicants, specify!nc
appropriate reimbursement schedules which would be based on an annual
programming of State primary road funds for this project.
C,
• The applicants could put together a consortium to guarantee the
Z
purchase of State -issued bonds, at an appropriate tax-exempt interest
rate, to cover the costs of constructing the 1-95 ramps.
0 0
J
ICL
• Similarly, the applicants could purchase short term City tax
CL
anticipation bonds, Issued to cover the construction costs of the
ramps - a which also supports the City's Convention Center,
0 0
0 UL.
project
proposed World Trade Center, and proposed hotel In addition to the
proposed private development In Dupont Plaza.
♦ The applicants could enter Into an agreement with the City and FOOT,
wherein the City would commit the Increased ad valorem tax revenues
resulting from Miami Center I and 11 and Southeast Financial Center to
reimburse the applicants for front ending the construction costs.
ilk
FIGURE 19: SCHEDULING OF PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC SECTOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMEI%TSK
9 e If so --so
IO 2Q 30 4
30 40 10 20 30 40 ' 10 20 3Q 40 10 20' 30 40 10 20 30' �i0 10 2f1: 3Q 40„ 0;
i;
r � 1
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
MIAMI CENTER 1. PHASE I ; ( , `..' �•t` 1 I
' _!
EDWARD BALt BUILDING L�—�__.T�. — ------ —_ —__ Dok"lu
'PAVILLION HOTEL 1_� _ _—__._ ___. FLL'.
MIAMI CENTER I. PHASE 2
PAVILLION CONDOMINIUMS r r
1 , ;
LEGENDt
,MIAMI CENTER It, PHASE ! '
CON.S.TP'ICTIONE
EAST TONER AND RETAIL
BNGINEEpINOa
f�RIGHT CF` 1NllY
GARAGE AND RETAIL ___ ___ ._ ^_ .._. •�• a-:uwS1:T►O*
MIAMI CENTER 11. PHASE 2
WEST TOWER AND RETAIL '
GARAGE AND RETAIL � _ �__ _.. ._. _._
r
1
SOUTHEAST BANK FINANCIAL CENTER
OFFICE TOWER
GARAGE AND RETAIL L___.. _.___ ...__T—
1 r I
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
A$ 12-625 MILLION' (U4FUNDED)i
MIAMI AVENUE BRIDGE 1
,
��iill'Fi lil+'ill !I 1 79' MILLION
WMNTOMIN PEOPLE MOVER , i l 11 . , i.11 ( —J DEL&. IW CONSTRUCT104 DUE
. _. , Tp M+4M1' VENUE R$IfoGr
1-95 CONNECTOR RAMPS
I
IIIIIIIIII III III IIIIII III
the 6156V6 IiS+ It ttrtalhly hot exhaustive of 81l pcsslbijitiet, As is
clear 06M in the RogIbbs If the oubitin a^d private sectors
att c6MMItted to fildlho 6 tolultdh to 8 transportation lffipt6veMeht
iptibibleffit fIhand1hg packages d6h be developed to insure successful
rot6lutl6h, The key empoMeht It the rec6dhitl6h by Oil Oattles Involved
of the Mutual b0hoflt to be derived from successful tollab6t6+10h in
fuhdlhg the IMPI-6veUnitht.
As previously emohast2ed. It IS only thtough the construction of the
bifurcated t8fhps to the 1,05 Connector) that Southeast Bank and Hbtywe!l
Corporation can even contemplate develbpInd any where- close to the amount
of office and retail space being proposed d Thus, their expected
financial returns are dIrectly dependent on their Insuring that a viable
financing package It developed, if public funds alone are not available,
To Insure their commitment, certificates of occupancy should be dependent
on fihall2ttlon of funding for all necessary roadway improvements.
MOT and the County, since they are responsible for effecting t-equ:reG
fr8ritP61-tatl0h Improvements, would certainly welcome the opportunity to
develop Innovative financing arrahoemehtt which relieve) if only
temporarily, the competItIon for available funds.
Given current responsIbitlitles for transportation planning, the City is
accustomed to relying on County, State, and federal funds to cover the
costs of required Improvements within the City. With ;he City's rapid
.development, however, they can no longer expect that these sources will
be adequate to maintain and enhance the City's competitive accessibility.
A portion of the Cltyfs ad valorem tax revenue will be required to assure
Improvements for which alternative funding Is not available.
The use of ad valloretp, tax to support those developments which generate
the revenue Is, of course, a traditional responsibility of any 10C.al.
government. Jus, as South Florida officta;s fight for State re -venue
which Is generated In this Region to be returned to this Region, the City
must begin to Implement this principle for Its Downtown area. Ad valorem
tax revenue generated by the substantial private developments In Downtown
Miami should also be devoted to providing public facilities and services
to support those developments.
Table 3.19, which compares pre -development with post -development ad
valorem revenue accruing to the City and County from Miami Center I and
11 and Southeast Bank Financial Center, demonstrates that tnese
developments will generate enough additional revenue In City taxes alone
to fund the construction of the bifurcated ramps to the 1-95 Connector In
3 1/2 years. "SUPF)IORTIvE
DOCU/WtNTS
FOLLOW
TABLE 3.19: AD VALOREM REVENUE INNEASE PROM HbLYWF LL AS 50U7NEAS1 IANX UVELOPMEWS
(1960 bollw s)
Pre=Oe�elo
. _n .Rwehur
Po54.Cipvet,�
�' RQvenue
— Ne` Pevenue
._..
Oft.V.
County
T"
Cmou t.)
L
5o0hi§ o Blink
t 46,267
3 17,20
'� 95904
i 561,282
E Olt 167
3 534066
Miss! SAW 1
207,689
122,171
1,548,7f9
11,652
1,3d1,09C
789,8Qi
1Arem! Center II
i$2 7d6.
i0149,9
2 26f 24;
3d3e,702
5256,89E
34,774,644
0 ,?97;6le
j4j 0 ,94r`
3.".,5d;;,730
10?AL
S.
W
OF
(CART v i i €NtkOY CONStPW I ON -
The heed f6F eh&gy cohservation ih 56uth Flor,do Is evidenced by seve;t-al
f606r5, PIfttj the Pegion c6MtIhues to Import ever-lhcreasihr-,
quantities cif energy. Florida Power At Light Company's Ten Year "e_r
Plant sgite_Ptah, (198b-191?9) shows 'that, in spite of an adtlltional
huciear steam generator in St. Lucle County, two coal fired plants in
Martlh County and Clay Couhtyj and the Dade County Waste recovery Piantj
the ehtlre PP$L system will consume 75 percent more residua! oil in 19109
than t h 108► - Thus PPU and the other electric utilities in the aeG ion o
as well at all reglohal electric Consumers, are becoming lncreastng?y
depepdent on uncertain Imported energy supp'tes.
In addition to the uncertainty In the supply of imported petroleum,
greater uncertainty surrounds the price. A recent Congressiona! Budget
Office report conservatively estimated the average price of Imported
petroleum crude oil 1n 1985 at $54 per barrel, versus 131 today and $4 In
1975. The increasing dependence of the regional Economy and energy
Supply system on imported petroleum wilt place greeter strains on the
regional economy than on the Nation as a whole.
While the most appropriate Mays to reduce this dependence are to minimize
consumption and maximize the use of alternative energy ;qu"ces, a
specific effort to reduce peak elecirical demand resuits 'n the greatest
savings to the non-residential consumer and the utility company., This Is
due to the fact that the equipment necessary to meet the peak electrical
load is less efficient thermodynamicaliy than base load generators. For
example, the heavy oil consuming generating facilities at Turkey Point
require 9,150. t3 T Us (at 75% capacity) to generate one k': I cw3tt hour of
electrical energy, while the Itght oil pcaklnc turbines at Port
Everglades require i5,500 BTUs (also at 75f capeclty) to produce the same
electrical eneray. In 1979, the estimated hourly average enemy cast for
FP$L averaged sixty percent higher during the daily peak hour fcr each
month then the lowest use daily hour. Furthermore, the peak demand
determines the need for additional generators and, thus, Is more direct►y
responsible for expansion of the system than Is the non -peak demand.
Non-residential consumers are, therefore, charged for their peak demand
each billing period as well as the absolute quantity of energy consumed.
FPU is in a particularly tight situation regerd!ng its peak load.
Actual reserves for the Florida Coordlna*Ing Group to "power brokerage"
arrangement among several Florida utilities including FPLt) will dip to a
low 5.5 percent in the Winter of 1982 and Increase to 8.5 percent in the
Winter of 1984 before leveling off to more than 20 percent In 1985 and
beyond. Thus a very slight reserve margin will exist for several years
(to cover unscheduled maintenance, exceptionally high demand, etc.).
-Demand limiting measures, whenever technically and economically feasible
among the customers of FP&L, will not only benefit the individual user
through lower demand charges, but also all users in the Region.
i l rN n 0^
� .i it R I
DOCUMEiNTS
FOLLOW
Putthdtfhot6j fuel Costs are projected to increase frotr the 1979 a,leraae
6f 3,06 temts/KWH for the 6ff-0eak hours to an average of 4,M tents/RW�l
for the OePl6d from 10§ through M4, Peak -hour energy d6t:J5 are
projected to Increase from 5,46 cehts/KWH In 109 to an average of 5.0t
cotg/01-1 between 19761 and 1084. These Costs d6 not thtlufth the Costs of
energy l6ttet In transmission and distribution which add bhother 12
percent to all of the above figures.
Thus marginal energy costs art higher than average energy costs and,
furthermore, the matolhal costs for hew generatina facilities are higher
than the average COSTS of existing facilities. For example, the total
capital Cost per kilowatt for the Turkey Point ht nuclear units (Numbers 3
and 4) was 1187.15, For the Planned 'St. Lucie Number 2 nuclear
generator) the total capital cost per kilowatt Is projected to be S1,372,
over seven times as high at for the ex1ttlho facilities.
Hence, the costs of providing additional eiectric-Ity to regional users
will be significantly hither than the typical costs today. However,
those electricity consumers whith contribute to the need for increaslnc
generation capacity do not pay the true marginal costs fo.o the services
provided to them. Rather, the average cost to all consumers Increases to
cover the marginal cost of serving new cuttomersp while the new customers
pay only the average cost.
This implies that all electricity users In the Region subsidize the costs
of new or expanded electrical generating facilities and the maralhal
energy costs Incurred by the utility due to new consumers or Increased
use by existing Consumers. 1hus, it Is In the interest of the Region as
F, whole to reduce the eneray consumption and increase the energy
efficiency of new users in the Region as a way to control their own
energy costs.
One way this can be done Is to rea ' ulre all new construction, 13rce or
small, to meet minimum energy efficiency standards implemented through
building codes. Among those measures appropriate for developments of any
scale, Flolywell Corporation proposes to:
• restrict water flow in lavatories to 0.8 gallons per minute,
9 set domestic hot water temperatures In the office building to
approximately 1051 F,
o use reflective glass wherever feasible, DT, IVE ,
U M E
0 limit Or
use of Incandescent lighting and exterior glass, tAT6
e encourage tenants to use task lighting, FOLLOW
* provide self-contained air-conditioning units on each floor to permit
tenants to cool their spaces efficiently after hours,
-8-1-
M ind1vIduzlIy theter oath tena?t in order tc thaxir+ize their incent1vh to
conserve, and
4 provlde priority perking spates for van poy's (tor corn�uter
trahtportatioh),
Southeast Batik Corporatioh proposes to:
• site power tWOahy trah5fol'Mers closer to demand ra+he- than connected
load,
• use fluoresceht lighting control within buildings controlled by local
swltthes,
lt4vestigate various lighting alternatives, Including task lighting,
energy saving fluoresceht, and combined return air=lighting to
determine which is more energy efficient,
• add power factor capacltor correction devices for improved power
factor on large motors and dete�-mihe most feasib!e Installation
location,'
• use energy efficient electric drive centrifuged water chilling units
with apCrox imate i y a Q. 70 KW 'tc)n energy rate,
• provide butidihc wa!l, duct, and plolhg lnsul?tion which exceeds the
energy code requirements,
• use hiohly reflective dual pane insuletino class In the tower exterior
facade,
• allow natural ventilation in the roofed p!aza,
• minimize the surface area of the west facades to reduce solar loading,
• allow the parking garage to be open to facilitate natural ventl!atior,
• use a light color for the building to reflect the sun's rays, and
• provide pedestrian shade by extensive planting
Among those conservation measures more appropriate for large. -scale
development, Hoiywell Corporation proposes:
• computer -controlled lighting and heating, ventilating and air
conditioning (HVAC) systems to turn lights on and off automatically,
and, to optimize performance of the HVAC system, the control of
start/Stop, demand -limiting, and duty cycling functions; and
DocuiviiENT
�8� FOLLOW„
i computer=controlled systeli+s for the elevators in the office towers.
Southeast Bank Corporation proposes to
6 provide central energy management system with the capability to
control the aft- cohdit16ning systerhs on a pr6prafted strheduIe, to
provide load shedding to limit peak power, mohifor the central plan',
etc.
6 use a variable volume chilled water pumping system to reduce pumping
horsepower, and
use individual air handling units on each level to reduce fan _
horsepower and provide good air transport factors:
In order to maintain a consistent package of energy conservation Measures
used by both applicants, It is further recommended that each applicant
adopt those measures proposed by the other that have not been initially
proposed and which are not Inconsistent or incompatible with such initial
measure5b
These measures, however commendable, only maintain a dependency Can the
essentially lhefficient structure built Into the electrical generation
system. The efficiency of the electric utility system Is less then
one-third, l.e. about 66 percent of the primary energy entering a power
plant leaves the plant in the form of waste hea+. This heat is actually
an environmental pollutant and is, for examp!e, one of the reasons why
the single -most prominaht man-made feature In the Region, from a high
altitude view, is the cooling canal system at Turkey Point.
The method of using this heat, generated in the production of
electricity, Is called cogeneration, and is currently viewed as the
single most effective way to increase energy efficiency, with the
potential for overall efficiencies exceeding 60 percent. Since the
regional climate Is semi -tropical, direct use of this heat is not needed
throughout most of the year. however, absorption -chiller air
conditioners can convert this "waste" heat into chilled water for air
conditioning. The lower -temperature waste steam or hot water from the
chillers can be passed through a heat exchanger to provide domestic hot
water.. Thus, a "cascade" of energy derivatives: electricity, air
_conditioning, and domestic hot water can be obtained from a single energy
source, contributing to exceptionally high overall efficiencies.
The two principal drawbacks to this scheme are: 1) high Initial cost for
on -site electric generators, and 2) finding compatible users for the
steam, chilled water, and hot water by-products. Some institutions, such
as large hospitals, need sufficiently diverse energy sources and in such
-quantities as to warrant on -site cogeneration facilities for their own
exclusive use. however, most single -use developments must find sultable
uses for the by-products or risk becoming as Inefficient as the existing
utility network.
«UPS'/
DOCUN1EINTS
-89_ FOLLOW
t
While the techhical feasibility for codoh& atlon has been we!
established for decades, economic feasibility of an individual
6pp!icati6n depehds on Mahy lhterrelaced factors, including!
e kilowatt detiand of the project
6 oh=site kilowatt production
6 Sale price of excess electricity
a purchase price for supplemehtal electricity
6 avoided electric cost for A/C and hot water
o marketability of chilled water for A/C and hot water
r primary energy cost for fuel
a availability of Iona term fuel contracts
e equipment, operating, and maintenance costs
• hourly and daily need profiles for electricity) air conditioning, and
hot water by ali users.
Generally# once a decision to invest in a cogeneration facility has been
made, it is advantageous to produce enough power to meet or exceed the
maximum power requirements of the project. Durlho the off-peak periods,
electricity can be sold to the electric utility company. Public Utility
Regulatory Poiicy Act of 197e (PURPA)'estab!ishes that 1) the utility
must pay for this electricity at a rate equa! to Its "avoided cosy-," I.e.
the cost the utility would have incurred to produce the equivalent power
and energy,, and 2) the utility must provide supplementary service, if
needed, to the site under terms equivalent to -those of other customers.
Thus, it is entirely possible that a cogeneration facility could se!I
electricity to the regional power grid at prices 'nigher than the facility
would pay for the same quantity of electricity from the utility.
in order to maintain its technical efficiency advantages, cogeneration
facilities must have uses for their by-products during most hours of
their operation. Thus a mix of land uses which have a demand for air
conditioning, space heating, or domestic hot water when the prima~y
project does not, is needed. These Land uses must be physically rear the
-
cogeneration site since heat losses and transmission costs are strongly
dependent on distance. Thus a high density, mixed use area is a
prerequisite for the successful operation of cogenerating plzntS. The
cogeneration facility itself becomes the heart of a distinct cooling
network.
Such a mix of land uses exists in Dupont Plaza. Given the scale of Its
Miami Center I and 11 and the mix of uses controlled, l-olyweli
Corporation Is in a unique position to develop and operate a cogeneration
facility for Dupont Plaza. The proposed Miami Center 11 project consistsl__
of 2.55 million square feet of office space and 350,000 square feet ofP.
retail and restaurant use. Adjacent to Miami Center iI are: the
Southeast Bank Financial Center, with 1,210,300 square feet of officel.•*
total feet
ruse; Miami Center I, with a of 2,414,000 square of office,
hotel, retail and residential uses; and several existing office and
retail buildings. More important, from the standpoint of determining..';
cogeneration facility feasibility, the hotel and residential uses at the
Howard Johnson's and Dupont Plaza hotels, the Bail Point hotel, and
ZD 0
residential condominiums offer a potential market for air conditioning,
Q
-qn..
19
gpace heating, and dwestic hot Iwater With negllgible trznsttitsion losses
and Costsx
the developer` d6u i d operate a l l or pol't i ons c, 4 the cbaderierat i on facility
throughout the year, use Its e 1 ecte ld l ty, chilled water, and hot water as
MOM $ and thoh, dur l hg periods when on -site demand for these products
Is 16wi sell suttplus elertriclty to PP&L and hot and chilled water to the
adjacent hlgh denslty rotali, hate! and residential land uses at prices
which may be advantageous to these buyers due to the efficlency of
productloh and transfilssioh from the cogeneration source. Given the 13:3
mlltlon annual operating cost for electrical service proJected for
Hol ywe l l t s Ml ahi l Center Ili it Is qu l t a possible that deve l oprr�eht and
operatlon of a cogeneratioh facility would not only effectively implement —
County, regional, and State doa!s for reduced dependence on Imported oil
but alto work to the financial advantage of Holywell Corporation and
surrounding developments Ill Dupont plaza:
Slhce the scale, mix of land uses and operef'nq procedures for the Miaml
Center II development as proposed indicate that cogeneration I5
technlcally and fthanclally feasible, Councl1 staff recommends that a
technical feasibility analysis be performed for the Miami Center 11
project, which analysis should include the foliowing elements:
• A cogeneration facility with a natural gas driven turbine, or
equivalent electric generator, scaled to meet three possible loads for
the entire project: base load, peak load, and 60 megawatts (the
maximum size permitted under PURPA for cogeneration facilities tc be
exempt from Federal utility regulations).
• Absorption chiller air conditioners to provide air conditioning for
the entire project, and during off peak hours, for adjacent hotel,
mote':, residential and retail land uses, specifically, Miami Center,1,
and the Dupont Piaza and Howard Johnson's hotels. _
• Use of hot water for domestic purposes on -site and by adjacent sites —
identlfied above, including hot water for use by restaurants, cleaning
facilities, swirtming pools, if any, etc.
• Life cycle costing procedures for an economic evaluation including, at
a minimum, each of the ten factors listed on page 9C.
• A minimum of four alternative schedules to evaluate the benefits and
costs of generating power 1) only during the primary hours of office
building use, 2) an extended period of 10 to 14 hours per day, and 3)
24 hours a day including, and 4) excluding weekends.
• Physical design requirements for the facility, and to particular, how
It may fit in structurally with the garage structure and the main
oftice and retail buildings.
Its U
DOCURTNTS
-91 FOLLOW
� �'reiih;lnary systeti design and equipment specifica�'ions.
+ Letters 64 ihterest frog owners or thohagers cf adjacent properties
ldehtifled above.
6 Estitiated 6hviF6hfheht6l Ifhpacts of hoise, physical vlbratlon, heat,
bit and water pollutioh,
This evaivatioh should be presehted to the Council, the Dade County
Office of Ehttgy Manageffient, acid City of Miami for review and approval,
prior to Issuance of building perfiits* if the feasibility analysis
indicates that togeher e l on is v l ab l e i M 6upoht Piano Ho l ywe i i
Corporation should be required to Incorporate such a facility into its -
deve I opmtht,
While the scale of Southeast bankts proposed Financial Center does not
warraht their joint participation ih the development of such a
cogeheratioh facility# the Bank should be required to participate In the
operation of the facility, through purchasing the chilled end hot water
generated by the facility and modifying Its HVAC system to assure their use, should the feasibility analysis warrant Its development.
' f t, .
SLOW
I
CHAPTER 4i 9LJMmAky ANb RECOMMENOAt I O'6
the develoOMW of kegloha! Impact Attos5m&it for Soiatri Center- 11
Indicates that the Pf606sed develop(nent would create a number of Positive
teglbhal IMPatts, 10116trit Center 11 w6u!di
1. Provide 2,5 mil I 16h square fee' of office space and 350o 000 s(iuerc
feet 61 ttttll space in Downtown Yi&-,1 where the is a strotha detrant
for such uses.
2. Create 2,006 ternporary construction 'Obs which wculd directly
contribute S744A37 million In wapp and salary lricoft'e and Indlt'ectiy
generate 5,09 new jobs, ' 51.7e. fir, 1!jton In wages, f.137.1 thlilloh In
output value, and an Increase of 164.8 trillion In value added to the
regional ecbhoffiyi EL
3. Create 11158 new permanent jobs which wou:: generate 11170 secondary
jobs, an $18 trillion addition to total waces, a 164.59 millior
lhcretse in output value) and $32.7 million In value added to the
reglopal economy.
4. Create a regional f:scal surplus of S5,318,576p Wahcin; the f!sca:
stability of the City of Wam;, Dade Courty, the DadF County Schoo'
District) the South Florida W.-_tcr Manece:rerl D;s'rict, anc the
Downtown Development Authority.
5. Reduce existing pollutant loads in surface runoff by a faCTor of 78
percent.
E. Provide a raised peteslrian p!azc! ever S.E. 3i-a Street and S.F. 3rd
Avenue, integrating the development components and the Duport Plaza
OPM staticr.
7. Provide a direct ramp syster., from the proposed Miami Center 11
oaraces to the 1-95 Connector, +hereby rotleving the -:urface street
W
system of 777 autos In the AM peak hour and 926 autos In the PM peak,
hour.
z
Council eva!uation Indicates that the proposed project shcu)d not create LLJ
any adverse Impact on so!ls, animal life, vegeta*lon, hist:irical or 0
archaeological sites, water supp!y, wastewater managemerl, solid waste 0
disposal, or recreation and open space In the Region.
0
In terms of adverse regional Impact, Miami Center 11 would- C)
1. Require 66.1 million KWH of electricity annually or the energy
content of nearly 36,000 barrels of residual oil; however, ' since the
production of electricity operates at one-third efficiency, -the
equivalent of over 100,000 barrels of residual oil would be required
each year to support this project.
-93-
91
24 Create bn Additl6hal demand on police, fl,e, ar,d emercency medical
sery i des for wh i Ch there has been no cufrirri 1 trfent of i nceeased funding
3. Dreate a substantial adverse impact on the existing highway system;
fer 3vdbeding Its capacity with a resuItinq eomhlete breakdown in
i
traffic access to Downtown MItrnI un!ess all three cclInponents of the
ree6mmended trarsportatioh system for Dupont plaza are Completed
pr i or to f u i I bu I I dout of the proposed devt i op'»n+�,.
4. Fail to Meet the off street Ioaaiha and docking space requirements of
the City Code, which flay adversely affect traffic flow on S.E, 3rd
Street, even with proposed surface street system improvements,
5. Rely on at grade pedestrian access aiono critical corridors,
hindering the viability of the DPM, the maintenance of acceptable
levels of service on the proposed surface Street system, the
realization of roadway reserve capacity as needed, and the safety of
pedestrians in Dupont Plaza.
6, aequire the expenditure of $18.1 million, within the next five years,
to provide the transportetior� Infrastructure recessary to support the
proposed development, Southeast Eank financial Center, and Miami
Center l; of which 14.6 million must come from pubilc sources.
The Development of 1?egional impact Assessment for Southeast Banc
Financial Center indicates that the proposed development would create a
number of positive regionai •rnpacts. Southeast Bark Financial Center
would:
1. provide 1.2 mi I ion soua"e feet of office space Arid 27,000 square
feet of retail space io Downtown Miami where there is strong demand
for such uses.
2. Create 277 temporary construction jobs which would directly
contribute $15 ml!l ion In wage and saiary income and indirectly
generate an additional 770 jobs, an $F million increase In wages, a
121.37 million Increase In output value, and S10.1 million in value
added to the regional economy.
3. Create approximately 540 new perrranent jobs which would generate 661
secondary jobs, an additional $6 million in total wages, a $13.9
million increase in output value, and $8.4 million In value "added to
the regional economy.
4. Create a regional fiscal surplus of $2,250,872, positively enhancing
the fiscal stability of the City of Miami, Dade County, the Dade
County School District, the South Florida Water Management District,
and the Downtown Development Authority.
"SUPPORTIVE
FOLLOW
t ...,.,.::z .a..n...;:..r
a
: k0duce a*istlhg pbi 106ht loads in surface ruh6ff by a factor of 80
Ael tw
6, Pt6v'ide a 10,160 square foot landscaped ped=striai O aia adjace t to
Od d6hhadted with the Dupont Plaza DPM s#atioh,
t".ouhcll Ovaluat16M ihd1c6tet that the proposed deveIoptient thouId hot
adversely affect Witt animal life, ve6Ot8+ion, historical or
archi#eologicai sites, water sUpply, wastewater M801ader*ett, or so' id waste
disposal ih the Reoioh,
in ttstft of adverse teoiohal lfipatt, Southeast Bank Financial Center
would:
i. Create an additlonzl demand for police) fire, and emergency medical
services for which there is no commijment of increased fundino.
2. Create a Substantial adverse impact on the existing highway system,
with a resulting complete breakdown in traffic access to Downtown
Mlafnl unless ail three components of the recommended transportation
system for Dupont Plaza are completed prior to full buildout of the
proposed developments.
3. Fail to meet off street loading and docking space requirements of the
-City Code, which may adversely affect traffic flow on S.E. 3rd
Street, even with proposed surface strept System Improvements.
4. Obstruct the flog of PM peak hour traffic on S.E. 2nd Street due to
the proposed garage access driveway and pedestrian signal east of the
S.E. 3rd Avenue Intersection.
5. Fail to adeauately lntearate Its function and design with the
iiolywe'i developments on the other four blocks in Dupont Plaza.
6. Compromise pedestrian access to the Dupont Plaza Downtown People
Mover ste+ton, upon which the viability of the proposed
transportation system, and, thus, the Financial Center depend.
7. Rely on ot•grade pedestrian access throughout Dupont Plaza which
hinders the viability of the DPM, the• maintenance of acceptable
levels of service on the proposed surface street system, the
realization of roadway reserve capacity as needed, and the safety of
pedestrians in the area.
8 R 1
equ re the expenditure of 3)i8.7 million, over the next 5 years, to
provide the transportation Infrastructure necessary to support the
proposed development and Miami Center i and 11; of which $14.6
million must come from public sources.
Its Ur ' ? "EV
a s
.95� FOLLOW
Ih add i t ion to the project specific itrpacts of MiarI i Cenje- i i ah
toutheast 98nk tih thclal Cehter, the Council, Ir Its deliberet;ons, also
identified ohe local and fire regional Issues associated with these
deve i opfttient pl`oposa l s
integrated development of Dupoht Piaza was identified as ah issue which
Should be cohstdered In depth by the City of Miami prior to issuahce of
ahy devalopMeht order for these two projects, the Appllcants+ failure to
Inte§tate the design of their proposals, in order to create a viable
urban core, has longterm consequences for City+s future. An unparaileled
opportunity for integrated and cothpatibie develoomo-n1 of 10 acres of
prune downtown property is being lost, and the City should evaluate
whether these projects, as currently deslgned, create the type of urban
ehvlromment which the City has envisioned for Dupont Plata,
Reglonai fiscal stability and economic development would be significantly
enhanced by the proposed projects. Because 04 the regional economic
consequonces of the substantial public and private investment in Downtown
_
Miami, the public sector, particularly the City of Miami, trust insure
that the competitive accessibility of this development, including
proposed Miami Center it and Southeast bank Flnanclal Center as well as
the previously approved Miami Center 1, is maintained and, if possible,
enhanced. This can only be accomplished if the City, in collaboration
with theCountyand the State, ensures that the necessary transportation
infrastructure and improvenen+s in Downtown Miami are funded, through a
combination of public and private resources, prior to permitting
LU
development proposals.
Since the proposed developments would totally ovc^.rburden the existing
highway system and even far exceed the carrying capacity of previously
recommended Improvements to the system, the Applicants ioh.tly deve'oped
a Dupont Plaza transportation system plan which relies on three mutually
Interdependent componr-W s: the Downtown People focvFr, a
51gnlflc,::Ntiy
Improved surface street system, and bifurcated access ramps from the
--
Miami Center iI garage and the surface streets to the 1-95 Connector,
"°�
V)
The Councii idertlfle-d a number of problem areas in the proposed plan
which compromise DPM usage, pedestrian access, and acceptable levels of
service on the roadway network; however, recommendations to resolve these
regional concerns are provided.
Finally, a significant regional Issue is whether funding for the entire
transportation system, particularly the proposed bifurcated ramps to"the
1-95 Connector, can be obtained In time to insure Its completion
--' coincident to project impacts and prior to full buildout of the proposed
` developments. Given the complete dependence of the proposed projects on
the recommended transportation system, the Council Identified an
.equitable allocation costs among Holywell Corporation, Southeast Bank,
and the public sector to fund required improvements. However, .given the
complete dependence of the proposed developments on the operation of the
recommended transportation system, the Applicants should front end
identified public sector costs, if public funds are not available to
Insure timely completion of the system.
-96-
66sed on t6h5iderat1oh of the above specified positive and negative
iffipacts and regional issues and in recognition of the joint responsibility
of the App l i taht, the City, the County,
and the State - in resolving an C
uni t i gat i hg advef'se ft6g i oha l i fnpacts, it
is the recommendat i oh of the
Couhei1 to the City of Miami Cofftissioh
that the Application for
bovolopmnt Approval for MIAMI CENTtP II
be APPROVED "subject to
1ht6rPorati0h of the following tohditiohs ihto the Develiptnent Order:
THE APPLICANT WILL:
THE CITY WILL:
1. Determine if a General Permit
will be required from the SFWMZ'
and, if necessary, apply for
and receive the permit prior
to project construction.,
2. Apply for and receive a complex
source permit from the Depart-
ment of EhVironmental ReoulatiOr,
3. Construct a helicopter landing
area for emergency evacuation
on the roots of both office
towers
4. Provide the development plans
for Miami Center 11 to the
Fire Department for re d ew anC
comment and ;ncorporate intc
the project oe>ign any other
measures which the Fire
Department deems necessary
_
ttc'
for safety.
�3i.; 1 :.�► �,} �.,
C' EINT
5. Incorporate security systems
! "' t4
Into the design and operation
FOLLOW.
of all portions of the project,
including the parking garages,
to assist in protecting
employees and patrons by
discouraging Crime.
6. Notify the State Historic
Preservation Officer and the
Dade County Historic Survey
of the expected date of
construction start,` vacate
the parking on, and strip the
blacktop off the Miami Center
11 site in order to provide
-97„
r
a reasonable 6000"uhity of at
least 30 days for exploration or
excavation pr-ibr to the
beginning of. Construction.
7. Use only native species for
landsczyinc.
8a. Ex, -art the tuck service area
to irsure off=Street loading are
unloading operations and to in-
sure unobstructed flow of traff c
on S.E. Srd Street. The Applicant
will submit revised plans to the
Council, the City, DoTT, and the
DDA within 30 days of the date
of issuance of the Development
Orde r.
7. Prepare, in coIIaboraticn wits
3:. Not grant a bu Icit,-
perr,t
for the proposec devei0prier`
withoj+ insuring that free
traffic flow may be maintained
as evidenced by Council, City,
DOTT, and DDA approval of the
design submitted by the
Applicant The City will con- _
vene one or more meetings as
ne.:es5ary among the parties
Specified to insure that
approval of a revised design _
is obtained w i t t, i;: 30 days from
the date of Applicant submittal
o' the puns specified in 8a.
the City, DDA, and $oUthec-,i
Bank, a plan for a second level
pedestrian circulation system
which removes all at -grade cross-
ings and which links Miami Center
1, Southeast Bank Financial
Center, and Miami Center 11, as
an integrated development, not
only to the DPM but alst, to the
_
City's Convention Center, the
Dupont Plaza Note!, and the
area north of S.E. 2nd Street
as well as providing for
extension into adjacent areas,
if and when necessary.
10a. Submit the second level pedestrian
10b. Not grant a building permit
circulation system plan to the
for any portion of the develop -
Council, the City, the DDA, and
meat until the required plan
DOTT for review and approval within
Is approved by all parties
30 days of the date of the Develop-
specified in 10a and appro-
ment Order,
priate design modifications are
incorporated..Into development
itS t1
plans. The City will convene one
or more meetings as necessary
ppr(
►^
,.�
among the patties specified to
DlJ1,j
�-rEE4
insure that approval of a
Ij
revised design is obtained within'
�f
("� {
30 days from the date of Applicant
V�
submittal of the plan specified
In 10a.
-9 B-
11aa
G6h0f-uet those port iohs of the 11b.
Not grant a certificate of
pedestrian circulation plan, as
occupan >y for the deve l oprne-nt
approved ih 10b above, which Iinw,
until the tequired co�7onents
101161hi Center I and 11 with the
of jhs Second level pedestrian
,DPM, the Dupont Plaza Hotels and
System are bompletedi
the Citylt Convention Center as
well as whatever additional p!a3A
area on Ho I ywe I l property is re�
quited to integrate the pedestrian
systefi with Southeast Bank,
bedioate all dasefAehts and rightc,.
of way required by the City,
County, br State to implement
required transportation improve=
merits, inciudino the second level
pedestrian system.
13:
prepare, according to FDO1
specifications, and obtain final
FDOT approval on the design and
engineering for the 14
bifurcated ramps to the surface
streets and Miati Center 11
garage,within one yea, frc.- tr)e
date of obtaininc the speciflce,-
t i on s from FDOT.
14.
Coordinate the design and engineer-
ing specified in #13 above with
Southeast Bank's design any engineer-
ing work fcr the surface street
system. Any conflicts and/or
problems in the coordination should
be submitted to FDOT for resolution,
15a.
Fund, bond or provide a letter of 15b.
Insure that the required funds,
credit to the County and/or the
bonC, or letter of credit has
State for $813,200 in 198G'
been provided prior to issuing`
dollars for State and/or County
any boi'lding permit for the
construction of surface street im-
proposed development or certi-
provements in Dupont Plaza, and
ficates of occupancy for any
$192,500 in 1980 dollars for
portion of Miam+ Center 1.
required DPM modifications, prig
to obtaining any building permits
for the proposed development.
16. Construct or, at the option of FDOT,
fund State construction of the
direct ramps from the Miami Center (is U
11 garage to the 1-95 Connector at
an appropriate time, to be deter- �` t� �1' /
E
mined by FDOT, to insure simultaneous
completion of the 1-95 bifurcated `�l`'l �y`}•�
system. 1
L{„� V"
-99-
1, Eva I uaye, 1 n co I i aborat i on w i th
the CoLliv ai~:d 'he State, the -
f ecofPlnended O-t i OnS contained
in the bRl assessment, and any
tither options wh i &! tea / be
feasible, for public sec+or
financina (114.6 rf.i 11 ion ih
198E doilars)_of the 1=9r,
bifurcate', rates to the Duaont
Plaza surface street sys+er,
and prepare a report ant
recommendations, to be submitted
to the Council, 'he DDA, the
County MPv and DOTT,_and FDOT
for review and comment, on the
preferred combin.:;tion of funding
options which shooed be pursued,
including the steps necessary
to insure their realization so
that construction May begin
immediately upon completion
of the Miami Avenue Bridge pro-
ject. Particular attention -
should be devoted to deterTr.ininc _
the -ways in which increased ad
ve;orerm revenue from Miami
Center I and 11 and Southeast
Bank could be directed to funding
required improvements.
180. Suppc.rt efforts to ubta i r. fund i n,
1 8t . Lotby to otta i n f and i n_q for the
for the Miarni Avenue Eridge pro-
Miami Avenue Bridge project, in -
,ject, in order to insure its
order tv insure its timeiy _
timely completion, anc to
completion, ant to increase
Increase State transportation
Mate transportation funding -
funding to South Florida.
to South Florida.
19a. Front-end, which may include
19L. Not issue any certificates of
arranging loans to or bond put-
occupancy for the proposed
chases from appropriate gcvr- rn-
deve i oprrent until either a
mental agencies, 80 percent
public sector financing
(S11.68 million in 1980 dollars)
package has been committees or
of the construction costs of the
an agreement for Hoiywell
1-95 bifurcated ramps, based on
tront-ending of 80 percent of
an equitable reimbursement
the capital for construction
agreement among appropriate
of the 1-95 bifurcated ramps
parties which shall specify
has been finalized.
interest rates and maturity
dates, if a public sector
financing package has not been
committed by September 30,
1982.
]'�"
��S U O l�� O t j! I V E
DOCU r
-
FOLLOW"
R o
1 0
20a: Ptrepare a technical feasibility
20b. Not issue any building pertrit
ahaIysis for cahsttuctior and
uhtiI a decision is made o-,
cpefation of a cogehefation
whether a codenerat ion faciIity
facility, which analysis must
should be included in the prc-
include those elements
pose a deve l optneht .
specified in the bPI Assessment,
and sub(ni t the analysis to the
Council, the Dade County Office
of �hergy Nklahaoemeht, and the
City for revie% and aporova!,
prior to applying for any
building permits. If the results
of the analysis indicate that such
a facility is viable in Dupont
Plaza, the Applicant will
develop and operate it as an
integral part of the develop-
went proposal.
21. Incorporate the following energy
conservation measures into the
project or provide the Council
a written justification for
their ommission:
• size power transforr-*-.
closer to demand rather
than Connected load
• add power factor correction
devices for improvec power
_
factors on large motors and
determine w-,st feasible
Installation location
• provide building wall,
_
duct and piping insulation
which exceeds the energy
code requirements
"SUPPORTIVE
• use a light color for the
D('�( } E�� ^
V t,1t' � Y1
building to reflect solar
�,„,11
radiation
'
1 OLLO ��
• provide pedestrian shade
by extensive planting,
22a. Incorporate all new material and
22b. Incorporate t-he Application
revisions to the originally-
for Development Approval by
submitted Application for
reference Into the Development
Development Approval, Including
Order of the City of Miami as
the transportation analysis and
follows;
-101�
25. Spec ; f v b--)r i tc,;• i ny c.roce-jures
to i nsu re ccr,p I i ante w i ti i a! I
-cn it 'it ions of the Deveioprneat
0rde
2h. N�;ignate a City off icial to
monifor c_)tpliance with aii
cort_itions of the
Gr -,
k
2?. Spec ; y requireme7,*,s for an
annual report in ar_cordance
with Chaptcr 380+06(1,1)(c)(3).
Based on consideration of the above specified
positive and negative impacts
and regional issues and in recogniticr, of
thu join- responsibility of the
Applicant, the City, the County, and the State
in resolving and miti-atirg
regional impacts, it is the recommendation
of the Council to the City of
N,iami Commission that the AppIication for
Development ApprovaI for SOUTHEAST
BANK FINANCIAL CENTEP. be APPROVE, subject
to incorpo-ation cf the frllawin
conditions into the Development Order;
THE APPLICANT WILL:
THE C I T" Y, I L L
1. Determi ne i f a Genera I Per•r,i t w i l l
be requl red f rorr. the SFMV_- and,
if necessary, apply for arrd obtain
a permit priJ~ to project cor:struc-
tion.
2. Apply for an, receive a comt,le>,
source pe-mit from the Department
of Envirronmentai Regulation.
Construct a helicopter landing
area on the roof of the Financial
Center office tower for emsr,e;,:y
evacuation.
4. Provide the development plans to
the Fire Department for review
--�- and comment and incorporate an,
ttSU�n-t--(,
other measures which the Fire
�..r►R t t �
Department deems necessary for
.0.,S
safety.
I.it.,,i�.1 :J`ai
�..
Fr LLOW".
Notify the State Historic Pre-
nervation Officer and the Daoe
County Historic Survey of the
expected date of construction
start, vacate the parking on,
and strip the blacktop off
•103-
M
the Southeast site in order to
provide a reasohabie opportunity
of at least 3O days for exnlcra-
tiara or excavatioh prior to the
begihhing of ooilstruction.
6.
l ncOrporate se .ur i ly systef'ris i h4, c
the design of the development tc,
assist in protecting emF.Ioyees ar;
patrons by discouraging crime.
7:
Use only native species for
landscaping.
Be.
Redesign the S.E. 3rd Street
83 . Not grant a building pertr *, t for
truck service area to Insure off-
the proposed deve'opmer�t without
e
street loading and unloading
insuring that free tra`fis flow
operations and unobstructec flow
may be maintained as evidenced
of traffic on S.E. 3rd Street;
by Council, City, DOTT, and
and eliminate the truck service
DGh approval of the design sub-
area which requires trucks to
minted by the Applicant. The
back from or into S.E. 2nd street
City will convene one or more
or redesign it to e i i rr, i nate bacr.-
'neet i r-gs as accessary a-q:)r:c the
ing movements into or from S.E.
part=.es specified tc insure tra{
•._.,h
2nd Street. As one design option
approval of a revised design
the Applicant should consider a
is obtained within 30 days f rorn
drive -through truck service cor-
the date of Applicant submittal
ridor from S.E, 2nd Street to
of the plans specified in 8a.
S.E. 3rd Street within the Annex
t are _.i
Bu i I d i nc. P l ar.s for -the reties + cr,
-'
of the S.E. 2nd anc* 3rd Streets
service areas must be submitted
to the Counci I, the Ciiy, U)TT,
and DDA for review and approval
within 30 days of the date of
issuance of the Development
Order.
9a.
Conduct analyses and prepare a
9b. Not grant any building permit
report on.the off -site traffic
for the proposed development
impacts from alternative project
until final portal locations
access portal locations for the
are approved. The City
Bank Annex building, whicr,
will convene one or- more
alternatives should include:
meetings as necessary among
the parties identified in 9a to
• one access portal on S.E. 3rd
Insure that approval of one of
Avenue near 3rd Street and one
the alternatives is obtained
on S.E. 3rd Street,
within 30 days from the date of
Applicant submittal of the
• two access portals along S.E.
analyses and report.
3rd Street,
t 104-
tom+
a
—
i one portal," larger than prC?=
posed, on S,E, 3rd Street,
i the ex i st i ho portal con- f i au ram
tlon,
The Applidaht should prepare these
ahalyses without presuming the
existing internal garage design
-
or circulation pattern and assu!-`,
prevision n? a deceieration lane
along SA, 2nd Street for any
v& i c l e entrance and subtr i t th..
analyses and report, within 3O
days of the issuance of the
Development Order, fcr review any
approval of a single alternative
by the Council, ODA, DOTT, FOOT,
and the Citv.
10. Prepare, in collaboration with the.
City, ODA, and Nolywe!! Corpr)ration,
a second level pedestriar circula-
tion system which rehove-, ail at -
grade c ress i rigs and which
Miami Center 1 Southeas'
i=inancial Center, and Miami Center
11, as an integrated development,
not only to the DPM but also to the
City's i:,onvent ion Center, the
Dupont Plaza Hotel, anc, the area
north of S.E. 2r � ;tree as wi,- i 1
as providing for e>:'er.=ion in"c
adjacent areas, if arc whr-tr-:
necessary.
Ila. Submit The secr.^d level pede,-�%-
11t. Not grc;nt a building permit
trian circuIatior, system plan
for any portion of the develop -
to the Council, the City, the
ment until the required plan
ODA, and DOTT, for review anJ
is approved and appropriate
approval within 30 days of the
design mod i f i cations; i ncorpor-
date of the Development Order.
ated into dove i op"nt p l ar►s.
The City wi I I convenes one or more
meetings as necessary among the
parties identified in 11a to
-�—�
insure" that approval of a se;-:ond
level pedestrian system and a
revised design is obtained within
30 days from.ihe date of AppI icant
`�-
submittal l of the plan � p specified.
«..
In Ila.
FOLLOW
-105-
S
r
12a.
Construct ar elevated aedesxria'
12t. N„t grant a certificate of
bridge, as approve," in 11b above,
occupancy for the development
which links the Financial Center
until the required cofnponents
to development on the North sic&
of the second level pedestrian
of Sit, 2nd Street and whatever
system are completed,
portions of a second level pedes-
trian syster, are required on
Southeast Bank property to inte-
grate and provide access to and
among the Holywel I developments,
the OPM, and the Financial Center.
13,
Dedicate all easements and right,
v
of way required by the City,
County, and State to implement
required transportation improve-
merits, including the second level
pedestrian system.
14.
Prepare, according to FDOT, UOT7,
and City specifications, arC
obtain final PDOT ap:) -oval on
the design and engineering for all
surface street improvements in
Dupont Plaza, as described n
pages 55 to 68 of the GR!
Assessment and as modified by the
revised garage access, truck service
area, and pedestrian sy_.te7 cep, i cr�s
specified in 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12
above and by Holyweil's revise:
truck service area plans, w'lthin
one year from obtaining the
_
specifications from FACT.
-
t
tt [� iP - ��
- 15.
Coordinate the des gn and enn i nee, _
i ng specified in 14 ebcly M i th
D'
�
•;y
N 1
Holywell's design and enginee! ng
►0i. v
of the 1-95 bifurcated ramps.
FOLLOW
Any confIicis and/or problems
in the coordination of the
design should be submitted -to
FDCT for resolution.
16a.
Fund, bond, or provide a letier of
16b. Insure that the required funds,
credit to the County and/or the
bond, or letter of credit has
State for $374,300._ir, 1980 doilars
been provided prior to issuing
for State and/or County-construc-
any building permit for the pro-
tion of surface street improvements
poseddevelopment.
and $192,500 in 1980 dollars for
required DPM modifications in
Dupont Plaza prior to obtaining
any building permits for the pro-
posed developmeni.
-tOb-
Uri
DO
FOLLOW"
18a. Support efforts to obtain tundinc:
for the Miami Avenue project, in
order to insure its timely com-
pletion, and to increase State
transportation funding to Sot. th
Florida.
19a. Front-end, which may include arrang-
ing loans to or bond purchases from
appropriate governmental agencies,
20% ($2.92 million In 1980 collars)
of the construction costs of the
1-95 bifurcated ramps, base: on
an equitable reimbursement agree-
ment among appropriate parties
which shall specify interest rates
and maturity dates, if a"public
sector financing package has not
been committed by September 30,
1932.
-107-
17. Evahiate, in collaboration with
the County and the State, the
recoftitt ended opt i ors, contained
in the Assessment, and any
other options Which may be
feasible for public sector
financing ($14,6 million in 19$^
d:)liars! of the 1=95 wifurcated
,he Duoc nt rlaza surface
street system; and prepare a
report and recommendations, to
be submitted to the Council, the
DDA, the County MPG and DOT7,
and rDOT fcr review and comment
within one year of the date of
the Development Order, on the
preferred options which should
be pursued, including the steps
necessary to insure their
realization so that construction
may begin irmediately upon
comr, I et i on of the M i am, i Avenue
eric,•ae project. Particular
at-ention should be devoted to
determining Mays in which the
increased av valorem revenues
from Suu+heart Bank and Miami
Center I and 11 co_ -Id be
directed to funding necessary
improvements.
18b. Lobby to obfa l n funding for the
Miami Avenue Bridge project, in
order to insure its timely com-
pletion, and to increase State
transportation funding to South
Florida.
19h. Nut Issue any certificates of
occupancy for the proposed
development uniil either a
public Sector financing package
has been committed or an
agreement for Applicant front -
ending of 20 percent of the
capital for construction of the
1-95 bifurcated ramps has
been finalized.
20, Participate in the operation of a
Cogeneration facility for bupont
Plata, through the purchase of
chilled and hot water and/or
electricity and the modification
t
of the HVAC system to assure
their use to meet electo-ica►
requirements, should such a
fatuity be built in Ductont Piaz .
21, Incorporate the following energy
conservation measures into the
project or provide the Council
a written justification for their
omissior) :
9 restrict water flow in lavator-
ies to 0.8 gallons per minute,
• set domestic hot water tempera-
tures in the office buiidirig
to approximately 1050 F.
a provide priority per inc -space
for commuter van poc.: vehicles
in any on -site garage.
22a. Incorporate all nee material and
22b. Incorporate the Apalicaiion for
revisions to the originally-
Develop"�nt Approval by reference
subritted Application for
into the Development Order of the
Development Approval, inciudin;,
City of M;ami as follows:
the transportation analysis and
recommended system^, into one
"The Application for Ueve 1 opment
document and provide the
Approval is incorporated herein
revised ADA to the City, the
by reference and relied upon by
Council, and the State within
the parties in discharging their
90 days of the issuance of the
statutory duties under Chapter
Development Order.
380, Florida Statutes. Substan-
tial compliance with the
ropresentations contained in
the Application for Development
Approval is a condition for
—�
approval unless waived or
ttC%
'
modified by agreement among the
�'st.r; t t �.,
parties."
1..I V E✓# n ` �
23. provide that the Development
V
L Ll 0IN?
Order shall be null and voia if
substantial development of , the
project is not completed within
two (2) years from the date of
Issuance of the Development
Order.Substantial development
-IOB-
r.; t
will be defined as obtaining
all required pertoits, variances;
and epp�-cvals; pre��e!-ation of
and approval on a raised pedes-
-man circulation plan, dedica=
tion of all rights-cf�way;
preparation and FDOT approval of
the design and enaineeriho for
?
the Dupont Plaza surface street
-
improvements; the deDcsit of al
Y
f
monies, bonds, or letters of
credit for surface street i in=
provements with the County or
the State; completion of a
public sector financing package
and/or a private sector front -
ending agreemeht for construction
of the 1-95 bifurcated ramps;
preparation and approval of a
revised garage access plan;
and construction of the drainage
systeir, for the proposed develop-
ment.
24. Provicc that nothing in this
Develoorrnt Order shall be
construeu as preventing the
Applicant from obtaining —
cert i f i cafes of occupancy for
the Southeast Bank Financial
Center if the Applicant complies
with ali conoiiions specified
in the Development Order.
25. Specify monitoring procedures
to insure compliance with all -
conditions of the Development
Order.
26. Designate a City official to
monitor compliance with: all
conditions of the Development
`Order.
27. Specify requirements for an
annual report in accordance
with Chapter 380.6(14)(c)(3).
FOLLOW"
-109-
�4
t t )O�,EPN P. (, 55IE
January 20 , lJ8l'
w I
o n - : ti
Mr, Michael Garretson, Director
Division of Local Resource Management -
Florida Department of Community Affairs ,
251 Executive Center Circle Fast r :_.
Tallahassee, Florida 82501
Dear fir, Garretson:
Re: Southeast Bank Financial Center
Development Order
Miami Center It Development of Regional
Impact
Per Resolution 81'-36 dated January 15, 1981, the Miami City Commis-
sion issued a Development Order, approving with modifications, the
Southeast Bank Financial Center, a Development of Regional Impact
(see attachment). By copy of this letter, the South Florida Regional
Planning Council and other interested parties have also been supplied
copies of the resolution.
For your further information, the City Commission also considered
in public hearing on January 15, 1981 the issuance of a Development
Order for Miami Center II, a Development of Regional Impact. By
Motion81-37; January 15, 1981 the Commission deferred consideration
until January 22, 1981. At the City Commission meeting of January
22, 1981, the applicant requested deferral, which was granted. -
This item will be scheduled for the next City Commission meeting
on February 11, 1.981.
Sincerely,
tt�
Jim Reid, -Director
Planning Department Doi
Fi � t j � a
JR:JI411:dr LL-'Vfig
cc: Mr. Barry Peterson, Exec. Dir., S. Fla. Reg, Planning Council
Mr. Reginald Walters, Dir. , Metropolitan D.C. Planning Dept. '
Ms. Jeanne Crows, S. Fla. Water Management District
Mr, Michael
Garretson, Director January 261 i981
Vloridttt
Dept, of Community Affairs
Page
co-:
bir,
Roy Kenzie, exec, Dir., DDA
Dr,
John Dyer, Dade County Transportation Coordiitn.tor
Mr,
Dugene Simm, Director, D,C, Dept, of Traffic and Transp, -
Mr,
Armando Vidal, Fla. Dept, of Transportation
Mr,
Alex Sol{olio , Div, of Local Resource Management
MP,
Richard L, Fosmocn, City Manager
Mr,
George P. knox, Jr,, City Attorney - Attn'. Mr. M, Valentine
Mr.
Ralph G. Ongie, City Clerk
Mr.
Aurelio Perez=hugones, Dir., Planning and Zoning-Adm. Boards
lir,
Robert Traurig, Greenberg, Tratrig
Mr.
Bill Colson, Colson and Hicks
Mr,
Gordon Wyllie, Southeast Hanks
Mr,
J. J, Ranna, Gerald D. Hines Interests
Mr.
Ron Nestor, Holywell Corporation
Mr,
Ted Gould, Holywell Corporation
Mr.
Doyle Clear, Barter -Ashman Associates
Mr,
Carl J, Murphy, Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan
?sir,
John K. Aurell, Mahoney, Hadlow, Adams
.
tr
.....y tl•. •". Y .:• ck's .t l.::.'. .. * , :'... .: '' -.. .. 'SL'..f . ..?1t.. :"Y.IYfij�y1r41»4 '!. .. .. N•: i�� . i•y,'. -
Richard L. Fasmoen January 21, 1.981
City
,tanager -
Southeast 13ank Financial. Cents
Development Order
>•/
,'R M Jim Reid, Director
Planning Department
Attached, for the information of the City Commission is the
Southeast Bank Financial (;enter Development Order.
It is requested that this Development Order be included, as
information, in Item G - Miami Center II public hearing - on
January 22, 1981.
Attachment;
R
imam nm,n smerne n+nm �eoa emneeg
EXH 11 I T 11811
ATTACII%ENT TO
RtSOLUTION NO,
MVELOP1tLNT ORDER
Let it be known that pursuant to Section 380.06, rlor da Statutes,
the Commission of the City of. Miami, Florida, has considered in
public hearing held on January 15, 1981, the issuance of a Develop
ment Order for Southeast Bank Financial. Center, a Development of
Regional Impact to be located in the City of Miami, at approX'imately
200-298 South Biscayne Boulevard, being,
ALL OF BLOCK 5
DUPONT hLAZA (50-11)
and after due consideration of the consistency of this proposed devel-
opment with regulations, and the Report and Recommendations of the
South Florida Regional Planning Council., the Commission takes the
folloiving action: Approval of Application for Development Approval
with the following modifications:
FINTDINGS OF FACT WITH MODIFICATIONS
Development
1. The development of. the 2.4 acre site is limited to a Floor
Area Ratio of 12.75,- comprised of the follonving elements as
specified by the Applicant in the Application for Development
Approval, as revised, and further limited by applicable pro-
visions and procedures of Comprehensive Zoning; Ordinance 6871:
Gross Building Area Open Space
Element (Square Feet) (Square Feet) Spaces
Office Tower
(55 stories)
Office
- Retail
- Restaurants
Bank Anne
(15 stories)
Banking Lobby
Retail
- Health -Club
Mise,
- Parking
1,210,300
10,400
23,500
1,244,200 -
39,000
16,200
22,000
36,000
12300
1,150
,. Pedestrian Plaza 30,100
,
The Applicant voluntarily represents that the scale model
presented at the City Commission meeting of ,Tanury 15, 19i31
accurately portrays the project. Any substnnti.al. change in
the project, is represented by the model,must be brought back
before the City Commission for consideration and approval,
I
IL
The Applicant 8hallt The City Shall:
traffic on SE Srd Street;
it being also understood
that trucks will not be
allowed to either back
from or into SE 2nd Street;
it being understood that
if the egress portal foil
automobiles is retained
on SE 2nd Street, there
is a corresponding obliga-
tion on the dart of the
Applicant to provide a
second level. pedestrian
connection from the project,
across SE 2nd Street, par=
allel and adjacent to SE
3rd Avenue, returning to
grade on the north side of
_SE 2nd Street.
The Applicant shall prepare
an external access and in-
ternal circulation analysis
of the garage, including the
alternatives in the SFRPC
Report (Exhibit "A"), and
submit the analyses and re-
port with any recommended
design changes within 30 days
of the issuance of this De-
velopment Order to the
agencies named in 9b.
garage design or circulation
pattern, and willa) care=
fully evaluate any applica.-
tion for a zoning variance
for off-street truck loading
bays in the context of the
provisions of the proposed
new Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance (January 1979 Draft)
and b) insure adequate and
satisfactory access, egress
and free traffic flow through
review and approval of the
analysis in 9a., building
plans and portal locations
by the Florida Department of
Transportation, Dade County
Department of Traffic and
Transportation and the City
of Miami Planning Department
(in consultation with the
Council staff) prior to the
granting of any zoning approval
Specifically, the Florida
Department of Transportation
shall be requested to comment,
in writing, on a) the necess-
ity for a deceleration lane
on SE 2nd Street and b) the
proposed elimination of the
egress portal for automobiles
onto SE 2nd Street within_15
days of the issuance of this
Development Order.
10a. Prepare, in collaboration 10b. Consult with DDA, the Council
with the City, DDA and
Holywell Corporation, a plan
for an unenclosed ,non-commer-
ci.al,publ.icly-owned, second
level pedestrian circulation
system as conditioned by the
attached "Conditions Related
To The Development Of A Sec-
ond Level Pedestrian Prom-
enade" dated January 15,1981,
or otherwise submit the Plan
to the City of Miami Planning
Department for approval with-
in 30 days of the date of
this Development Order, failing
which:
The Applicant Shall:
Recognize a responsibility to
participate in the conceptual
Second Level Pedestrian Circu-
lation Plan in 10b, , as
follows;
Fund a Second Level Pedestrian
Circulation Study for the Du-
Pont PIA44 ,area, in an amount
not to exceed $78,200, by 4
staff and the Dade County
Department of Traffic and
Transportation prior to
approving any second level
pedestrian circulation plan
proferred by the Applicant and
Holywell Corporation, failing
which:
"SUPPORTIVE
DO�U1Vt E 1 S
FOLLOW 71
The City Shall:
Hereby approve in concept
the Second Level Pedestrian
Circualtion Plan (attached)
to differentiate between ped-
estrian and vehicle circulation
so as to provide greater ped-
estrian safety and security
and to further free traffic
circulation, To implement
this Plan, the City" will rely
Any Variances and Conditional Uses will be brought before
the City Comtission for consideration and approval, after
a decision by the Zoning 13o rd, it Heinz.; understood that
any such City Commission approvals (ot= disapprovals) may
further limit the project (above) and are incorporated by
reference in this Development: order,
2. The Applicant shall. determine if a General Permit will He
required from the South Florida Water Management District
and, if necessary, apply for an obtain a permit prior to
project construction.
3. The Applicant shall apply for and receive a complex .source
permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation
4. The Applicant shall construct an emergency helicopter landing
area for emergence evacuation on the roof of the Financial
Center office towel,. Further, the Appl.i.cant shall, at any
time that a feasible solution is found, provide roof space for
aerials and appurtenant minor structure for the City's com-
munication system; such aerials and appurtenances shall be
at City of Miami expense. The Applicant retains the right
of architectural review and approval.
5. The Applicant shall provide the development pans to the Fire
Department for review and comment and incorporate any other
measures which the Fire Department deems advisable to insure
that the towers can be evacuated safely in an emergency.
6. The Applicant shall notify the State Historic Preservation
Officer of the expected construction start, vacate the parking,
strip the blacktop off the site, and provide reasonable oppor-
tunity for exploration or excavation at least 30 days prior
to the start of construction.
7. The Applicant shall incorporate security systems into the
design of the development to assist in protecting employees
and patrons by discouraging crime. Security systems and con-
struction documents shall be reviewed by the Miami Police Depart-
ment prior to the issuance of a building permit.
8. I'll(j applicant shall use only native species in landscaping.
Access and Circulat:ion
The Applicant .and tho Ci t;Y of Mi-Mli (in 0O0J)Ot'at iOtI With County
a,ticl Sl-aI,e al;(3I1('ie.$) 'r('c'c)k ni ,(,- clortalll mutti:il rt-s-pon-sibi I it ies
i n 1•es()l v i llz anti nli t i gat i n act'('"s altli c• i l-cu lat ion problems
within, alld ill tho i111I11odi;lto vicillity, of the presjeot
To re-ioIl v(e l.h(-st+ lll'(►lJ l(m�;
I(t!d(r:; i t► i 11r. )I.. :41'4I
;tJ'(t;.l
:i l,t t't' (, I' 1� -;i t. l'�'. i' L 1(a;1li J 11►;
a►►d tilll+�;►(iin. (il,(•J';1t iu11;;
atld un(alarat..,rttt•I # (d F J(Jw all.
`Phr City S11:11 1
.)I). Coils i tlor (tit, tic's i -n ot� tilt,
Bank Antiox;tPariiin, : tl'110tul't'
ollvolope only, without pre-
;;11t11111„ t:llt' O.!\iStjJJg internal
The Applicant Shall,
traffic on SE Srd Street;
it being also understood
that trucks will not be
allowed to either back
from or into SE 2nd Street;
it being understood that
if tiie egress portal for
automobiles is retained
on SE 2nd Street, there
is a corresponding obliga
tion on the part of the
Applicant to provide a
second level. pedestrian
connection from the project,
across SE 2nd Street, par-
allel and adjacent to SE
3rd Avenue, returning to
grade on the north side of
SE 2nd Street
The Applicant shall prepare
an external access and in-
ternal circulation analysis
of the garage, including the
alternatives in the SFRPC
Report (Exhibit "A"), and
submit the analyses and re-
port with any recommended
design changes within 30 days
of the issuance of this De-
velopment Order to the
agencies named in 9b.
The City Shall!
10a.. Prepare, in collaboration
with the City, DDA and
Holywell_Corporation, -a plan
for an unenclosedinon-commer-
cial,publicly-owned, second
level pedestrian circulation
system as conditioned by the
attached "Conditions Related
To The Development Of A Sec-
ond Level Pedestrian Prom-
enade" datedJanuary 15,1981,
or otherwise submit the Plan
to the City of Miami Planning
Department for approval with-
in 30-days of the date of
this Development Order, failing
which:
The Applicant Shall:
Recognize a responsibility to
participate in the conceptual
Second Level Pedestrian Circu-
lation Plan in 10b, as
follows
garage design or circulation
pattern, and will a) care-
fully evaluate any applica
tion for a zoning; variance
for off-street truck loading
bays in the contest of the
provisions of the proposed
new Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance (January 1979 Draft)
and b) insure adequate and
satisfactory access, egress
and free traffic flow through
review and approval of the
analysis in 9a., building
plans and portal locations
by the Florida Department of
Transportation, Dade County
Department of Traffic and
Transportation and the City
of Miami Planning Department
(in consultation with the
Council staff) prior to the
granting of any zoning approval
Specifically, the Florida
Department of Transportation
shall be requested to comment,
in writing, on a) the necess-
ity for deceleration lane
on SE 2nd Street and b) the
proposed elimination of the
egress portal for automobiles
onto SE 2nd Street within 15
days of the issuance of this
Development Order.
10b. Consult with DDA, the Council
staff and the Dade County
Departrite Y t of Traffic and
Transportation prior to
approving any second level
pedestrian circulation plan
proferred by the Applicant and
Holywell Corporation, failing
which:
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUNIPNTS
The City Shall:
Hereby approve, in concept
the Second Level Pedestrian
Circuaition Plan (attached)
to differentiate between ped-
estrian and vehicle circulation
so as to provide greater ped-
Fund a second Level Pedestrian estrian safety and security
Circulation Study for the Du- and to further free traffic
Pont Plaza Area, in an amount. circulation, To implement
not to exceed $78,200, by a this Plan, the City will rely
1 36
' AT LEAST ONE OF THE First Phase Elements
.. TLdO OPTIONS ARE MANDATED
SOUTHEAST HOLYt:TELL PRL'V I
OUP
_ SOUTHEAST y SECOND OPTION DEVELOPI.1ENT ORDER 1
- PREFERRED OPTION I
D FOR KIAMI CEN.TEP,
"oj
_ - FI.Zr---7
SOUTHEAST I {
FIRST PHASE
i
�-.... Iy
�i_ �, • 1'lT.R1.lG ..O:AI.
N.
Og
Ilk
' _ Ili �'i i f{ - - ^.•:v%r
. y
> : �•••: {
�l5
i = t
a '
' cam.
CITY
• ..., ._
i?OL•n.1ELL FIRST PHASE .: HOLYiIELL FIRST PHASE
\ - DUPONT PLAZA HOTEL
� ' {, `- ol.•cohr nrzn Np:e� CONTINGEidT ON _
HOLYWELL FIRST PHASE AGREEMENT i
- I
FIGITRE I.:
SECOND =LEVEL DESTRI 14 CIRCULATION PLAI.
0
The Applidant Shall: The City Shall:
tonsultaht to be named by
on publie Arid private pat'ti-
the City, for the putbbge of
cioatim with the objective
proposing plan athendtnetits
of eompletiing this- system
validating or modifying
eRpeditiously+ The second-
p lg ptoparling�detailed
econnection
pedestrian
cost estimates and design
dogign p at`atetetsareAs
sthematits, and resolving
follows:
the issues of ownership, main=
tenance, insurance and
Covered, open at the sides to
utility access,
the weather:
Design, pay for and con-
12' clear width with 10► clear
struet up/down escalators
overhead at the second level,
and a second level pedes-
trian plaza froti the project
16.5' clearance at the under -
pedestrian plaza to the mez-+
side of the structure to grade.
tamne level of the DPM station
to include screening the
Ltniform interconnection at
project pedestrian plaza from
approximately 27:5' - 32.5'
SE 3rd Street.
City.of Viami datum to provide
1.6.5 clear height underneath,
Design, pay for and con-
struct up/down escalators
Clear span between buildings,
and related platform within
_
the right-of-way of SE 3rd
Open during normal business
Avenue to allow pedestrian
hours, at a minimum.
access from SE 3rd Avenue,
across the SE 3rd Avenue garage
It is understood that the Plan
portal to the second level
may be subject to further
pedestrian plaza contingent
modifications based on the Plan
on performance by Holy -well
or Study in 10a.
Corporation; provided
that this liability can be
converted by the applicant
to a performance bond of one
hundred fifty (150) percent
of the estimated cost of
construction at the end of
five (5) years.
Allow Holywell Corporation to
construct a second -level pe-
destrian connection from the
Edward Ball Office Building in
Miami Center I (Ball Point)
across Biscayne Boulevard, at
the southern point of the project
office - tower to connect with
the pedestrian promenade.
Be obligated to design, pay for
and construct at least fifty
(50) percent of a second level
pedestrian connection access
SE 2nd Street, between the pro-
ject pedestrian plaza and the
north side of SE 2nd Street if an
equitable agreement can be
reached with the owners of the
existing Southeast Rank Build-
ing; it being understood, that
as conditioned by Item 9a, that the
Applicant is obligated to Pro-
vide, fully fund and construct
at least ong of the two pe-
destrian connections across SE
2nd Street.
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW
It 81.-36 �4
7
21
The Applicaht Shall:
lid, Submit design parnmetefso
a schedulo of first phase
elements and any a00to-
pflftte design modifications
to development plans within
120 days of the issuance or
this bevelopment Order for
review and approval. by the
agencies named in lib,
based on either the Applll�
cants' and Holywell Cotp=
otation#s approved plan or
the consultant recommienda=
tion in 10a.
12a. Reach agreement with the City
concerning the remaining ped-
estrian system issues within
210 days of the issuance of
this Development Order, based
on either the Applicants' and
Holywell Corporation's approve
plan or based on the report of
the design consultant in 10a.,
and make a complete report to
the Council on 10a. Ila., and
12a., as an amendment to the
Application for Development
Approval,
13. Dedicate all easements and
rights -of -way owned by the
Applicant, required by the Cit:
County and State to implement
(or provide access to) requires
transportation and second leve
pedestrian system improvements
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW
The, City 8hftil:
lib, Not grant a building petmilt
for any Pottioh of the d0VOIx-
opffient (foundation Permits
are exempted and may be pro-
ces8ed) until the pfttmotetsi
schedule and any design modi=
fications are reviewed and
approved by the bade County
Department of Traffic and
Transportation and the City
of Miami Departments ofPlan-
ning and Public Works (in
consultation with the Council
staff), No final Certificate
of occupancy will be granted
for complete operation of the
project until. the required
first phase elements are com-
pleted, contingent on perform-
ance by 11olywell. Corporation',
it being further understood
that a Building Permit or
Certificate of occupancy for
the project will be processed
upon presentation by the appli-
cant of a performance bond of
one hundred fifty (150) per-
cent of the estimated cost of
the first phase pedestrian
elements.
12b. Resolve the remaining pedes-
train system issues of con-
struction, ownership, main-
tenance, insurance and utility
access and reach agreement with
the Applicant within 210 days
I of the issuance of this Devel-
opment Order, recognizing the
increased tax revenues to be
generated upon project comple-
Lion.
14 .
Request a letter from mr, Rose,
Secretary of Transportation,
Florida Department of Trans-
portation that commits his
Department to:
preparing or funding engineering
plans, specifications and esti-
mates for the construction of
the 1-95 connector/bifurcated
ramp system in DuPont P147t4,
together Avith related surf ace
street improvements, withi;i 15
months of the date of this
Development Order,
The Apptieant Shall:
► consultant to be nailed by
the City, for the purpose
of proposing plan amond-
ments, validating or mod=
ifying i)hasi.hg , and pre
paring detailed cost esti-
mates and design schema--
tics, and resolving the
issues of ownership, main-
tenance, insurance and
utility access.
Design, pay for and con-
struct up/down esca.ltors
and a second level pedes-
trian plaza from the project
pedestrian plaza to the mez-
zanine level of the DPti9 sta-
tion to include screening
the project pedestrian plaza
from SE 3rd Street.
The City 511all:
on public and private parti= _
Cipati'on with the objective
of completing; this system
expeditiously, The second=
level pedestrian connection
design parameters are as
follows:
Covered, open at the sides to
the weather.
12' clear width with 10' clear
overhead at the second level.
16.5' clearance at the under
side of the structure to grade.
Uniform interconnection at
Design, pay for and con-
struct up/down escalators
and related platform within
the right-of-way of SE 3rd
Avenue to allow pedestrian
access from SE 3rd Avenue,
across the SE 3rd Avenue
garage portal to the second
level pedestrian plaza con-
tingent on performance by
Holywell Corporation pro-
vided that this liability
can be converted by the
applicant to a performance
bond of one hundred fifty
(150) percent of the estimated
cost of construction at the
end of five (5) years.
Allow Holywell Corporation to
construct a second -level ped-
estrian connection from the
Edward Ball Office Building in
Miami Center I (Ball Point)
across Biscayne Boulevard, at
the southern point of the project
office tower to connect with
the pedestrian promenade.
Be obligated to design, pay for
and construct at Least fifty
(50) percent of a second level
pedestrian connection acce:i5
SE 2nd Street, between the pro-
ject pedestrian plaza and the
north side of SE 2nd Street if
an equitable agreement can be
reached with the owners of the
existing Southeast Banic Build-
ingf, it being understood, that as
conditioned by Item Ja, ,that the
Applicant is obligated to pro-
vide only one of the two lied-
estrian connections across SE
2nd Street,
approximately 27,5' - 32.5'
City of Miami datum to provide
16.5 clear height underneath,
Clear span between buildings,
Open during normal business
hours, at a minimum.
It is understood that the Plan
may be subject to further mod-
ifications based on the Plan
or Study in 10a.
PPORTIVE
D !__ CMIENTS
"" 3 6
The Applicant Shall:
The City 8hall:
15. Fund, bond, or provide a
15b, Insure that the required fund"
letter of credit to the
ing, bond or letter of credit
County and/or the State for
has been provided prior to
a
$874,800 (in 1980 dollars)
issuing any building permit
tot State and/or County con-
for the proposed development,
8truction of surface street
improvements and $192,500
M Evaluate, in collaboration
(in 1080 dollars) for re-
with the Dade County Department
quired DPNI modifications in
of Traffic and Transportation
DuPont Plaza prior to ob-
the Dade County office of Trans-
taining any building permits
portation Administration and
for the proposed development,
Florida Department of Trans"
portatioh, the recommended
options, contained in the Report
and Recommendations of the
South Florida Regional Planning
Council (Exhibit "A"), and any
other options which may be
feasible for public sector
financing (14.6 million in 1980
dollars) of the 1-95 bifurcated
ramps to the DuPont Plaza sur-
face street system; and prepare
a report and recommendations,
to be submitted to the Regional
Planning Council, Downtown De-
velopme nt Authority, the Metro-
politan Planning Organization
and Florida Department of Trans--
portation for review and com-
ment within one year of the
date of this Development Order
on the preferred options which
should be pursued, including
the steps necessary to insure
their realization so that con-
struction may begin immediately
after completion of the Miami
Avenue Bridge project. Con-
sideration shall be given to
the increased ad valorem rev-
enues from Southeast Bank and
Miami Center I (Ball Point) and
II in funding_,these necessary
improvements.
17a. Front end 20% ($2,92 million
17b. Not issue a Certificate of
in 1980 dollars) of the con-
Occupancy for the project
struction costs of the 1-95
unless a) either a public
bi-furcated ramps by:
sector financing package has
been committed or b) other
a) as a preforred option,
financial arrangements have
a Irrange loans to or bond
been completed to finance
purchases frorn appropriate
construction of the 1-95
governmental agencies, based bi-furcated ramps, The City
on an equitable reimburse-
shall also seek participation
meat agreement among appro-
from Dade County in propor-_
priate parties which shall
tional relation to the net
specify interest rates and
fiscal impact accrueing to the
maturity dates; or
City and County from the corn -
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW??
C
The Applicant Shall:
Tile City Shall:
b) arrango loans to or
biped Southeast hank and
bond purchases from
Miami Center projects,
appropriate government-
al agencies, to be evi-
danced by tax exempt
governmental obligations
which are eligible for
pledging (at a market
Value that equals the full
purchase price) against
public deposits by the
State of Florida, as deter-
mined by the Florida State
Constitutions Florida Sta-
tutes, or the State Con-
troller, whichever is
applicable;
if a public sector finan-
cing package has not been
committed by September 30,
1982,
18a. Promote energy conservation and
78b•Shall work closely with the
the use of public transit by
Downtown Development Authority,
participating in Transportation
the Dade County Office of
System Management, coordinated
Transportation Administration
with the Dade County Office of
and the applicant to promote
Transportation Administration
transit use; shall encourage
through such measures as employ-
a downtown parking pricing
er subsidized ride -sharing pro-
policy to discourage 8-hour
grams; and van pools; variable
use and shall. continue en -
work hours, _flex -time, and a
forcement efforts to restrict
4-day work week; employer sub-
or prohibit on -street parking,
sidized transit use coupled
all of which are intended to
with remote -site parkin;; and
maximize the use of the avail -
an on -site parking pricing
able roadway capacity.
policy to discourate 8-hour use.
The applicant shall prepare a
report for review within 60 days.
i
UPP0['?_rIVE
I-ULLOWII
r
tie
10, The Applicant shall participate in the operation of o cogeneration
facility for DuPont Plaza, through the purchase of chilled And hot
water and/or electricity and the modification of the HVAC system
to assure their Use to meet electrical, requirements, should such
A facility be built in DuPont Plaza, The Applicant shall not be
e , per x -ted to pay rates in excess of those charged by the local
public power utility for commercial customers with similar peak
demand and comparable system reliability,
20, The applicant shall incorporate the following energy conservation
measures into the project or provide the Council a written Justi-
ficatioh for their omission:
restrict water flow in lavatories to 0,8 gallons per minute,
I ,
set domestic hot water temperatures in the office building
to approximately 1050 F.
provide priority parking space for commuter van pool
vehicles in any on -site garage.
Minority Participation
21. The applicant shall work with the City to prepare a minority
employment plan indicating how the maximum feasible number of
construction and permanent jobs resulting from the project
can be accessible and available to minority applicants, es-
pecially Blacks.
22. The applicant shall vigorously seek minority contractors,
especially Blacks, to carry out construction work, as feasible,
during the development phase of the project.
General
23. The applicant shall submit a report, twelve (12) months from the
date of issuance of this Development Order and each twelve (12)
months thereafter until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued,
to the South Florida Regional Planning Council; the State of
Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Local
Resource Management; all affected permitting agencies and the
Planning Director, City of Miami Planning Department. This
report shall contain, for the preceding twelve months:
A general description of construction progress in terms
of construction dollars and employment compared to the
schedule in the applicant's Application for Development
Approval,
0 Specific progress in response to paragraphs 9-18, it being
understood that submission of this report is not a substitu-
tion for specific reports required by these or other para-
graphs.
V A cumulative list of all permits or approvals ,ipplied for,
approved or denied,
PORTIVE
A stAtornoht as to Whether any VPODOSed PVOJCdt COhStVUC=
t1oh changes in the ensuing twelve (12) months are v.%-
petted to deviate substantially from the approvals in=
eluded in this Development Order,
Any,ftdditiohal responses requires by rules adopted by
the State of Florida. Department of Community Affairs,
The Planning Director, City of Miami Planning Department, or a
oro.jodt director to be named later, is hereby desighated to re=
ceive this report, and to monitor and assure compliance with this
Development Order,
24, The Development Order shall be null and void if substantial
development has not begun in two (2) Years of the recorded
date of this Development Order: Substantial development is
defined herein as the achievement of the following items,
construction of building foundations for the proposed
developmenti,
obtaining all required permits, variances, and approvals;
preparation and approval of raised pedestrian circulation
element plans;
6 dedication of all. right-of-way;
6 the deposit of all. monies, bonds, or letters of credit for
surface street improvements with the County or the State;
finalization of a public sector financing pacltage and/or a
private sector front -ending agreement for construction of
the 1-95 bifurcated ramps;
preparation and approval of a revised garage access plan;
construction of the drainage system for the proposed
development.
25. The applicant shall give notice to Richard P. Brinker, Clerk
Dade County Circuit Court, 73 West Flagler Street, Miami,
Florida, 33130 for recording in the Official Records of Dade
County, Florida, as follows:
a) That the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida has
issued'a Development Order for the Southeast Bank Financial
Center, a Development of Regional. Impact located at approxi-
mately 200-298 South Biscayne Boulevard, being
ALL OF BLOCK 5
DUPONT PLAZA (50-11)
b) That Southeast Banking Coporation, 100 South Bayshore Boule-
vard, Miami, 33131 and Gerald 1), )lines Interests, One Shell
Square, New Orleans, La. are the developers,
IISUPPORTIVU
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW11
a
E,
d) That the Development Otdev with ftny modificatiohs may be
oxwinihod in the City Clerk's Off ices, 8600 Pan American
brivo, bifihet keyjk'-1iAffii, Plotida, 8313:3,
d) That the Development Order constitutes a land development
regulation applicable to the ptoperty,, that the conditions
Contained in this Development Otdetl shall run with the land
and Mind all successors in intetlest; it being understood
that recording of this notice shall not constitute a lien,
cloud or eticambrahce on real property, not actual nor coh-
8truetive notice of any of the same,
26. The Applicant will incorporate all original and additional ro=
Visions to the originally submitted Application for Development
Approval including the ttahsoortaton analysis and recommended
system into one complete document and will provide copies within
00 days of the date of issuance of this Development order, to the
City of Miami, the South r-lorida Regional Planning Council and
the State Department of Community Affairs,
27. The application for Development Approval is incorporated herein
by reference and is relied upon by the parties in discharging
their statutory duties under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes,
Substantial compliance with the representations contained in the
Application for Development Approval is a condition for approval
unless waived or modified by agreement among the parties,
28, Nothing in this Development Order shall be construed as preventing
the Applicant from obtaining certificates of occupancy for the
Southeast Bank Financial Center if the Applicant complies with
all conditions specified in the Development Order,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Southeast Bank Financial Center proposed by Southeast Banking
Corporation and Gerald D. Hines Interests, complies with the Miami
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, is consistent with the orderly
development and goals of the City of Miami, and complies with local
land development regulations being Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
No. 6871; and
The proposed development does not unreasonable interfere with the
achievement of the objectives of the adopted State Land Development
Plan applicable to the City of Miami; and
The proposed development is generally consistent with the Report
and Recommendations of the South Florida Regional Planning Council
and does not unreasonably interfere with any of the considerations
and objectives set forth in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes.
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW
CONbftfOMS AttAttb TO tHt btVtt6PMtNt OF A
SECdHti.w bn.(?Eb S.T_ At. P,1k0,M.tNh.bt ....,.:; .
1. It is agreed upon by each patty whose sig atute is affixed to
this document that a pedestrian promenade will be cohsttueted
between Southeast Vihaheial Center and Miami Center Phatd if
btidging SD ltd Street, Miami, Plorida,
2, There will be no objection to the dteati6h by the City of Miami
of a Special 'Tax or Attessment District to fund the Construdt oh
of the pedestrian promenade, -
1, The entire Cost of a desigh study for the said promenade will be
funded jointly (50/50) by each party with the City of Miami's
participation in the design.
4. The Upper level pedestrian promenade extending froth property
line to property line over SE 1rd Street will bepublicly
owned and any right to air space above the city street which
may be vested in the existing property owners is hereby _
granted to the City of Miami for the purpose of developing a
pedestrian promenade.
S. The question of approval of the design of the pedestrian promenade
and the nature of the Asses^ment or Tax District funding obliga-
tions will be worked out between the parties signing below and
the City of Miami and will be brought to the City Commission for
approval at its next meeting of January 22, 1981. If both parties
cannot reach agreement, the City Commission will have final
approval.
6. The design study of the pedestrian promenade will be completed within
210 days from the issuance of the development order.
Through the signatures contained below, we agree to the above condi-
tions as part of the development orders issued for both Southeast
Financial Center and Miami Center Phase II.
SOUTHEAST FINANCIAL CENTER
(Gerald Hines Interests and
Southeast Banks)
l
17 WITNESS: 1 !
8 \ /
'S . XER
MI MICENPHASE II
(Holywell. Corp o tion)
Hy
VWITNESS. . i
_ �.
TITLE fjl
NOT 0