The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR-79-0863/7 RESOLUTION NO. 79-83 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COMMUNITY- BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES STUDY IN PRINCIPLE WHEREAS, a significant number of community- based residential facilities are located in the City of Miami; and WHEREAS, because a number of complaints have been received about said facilities from citizens of Miami, the City of Miami Planning Department has prepared the Community -Based Residential Facilities Study; and WHEREAS, the Community -Based Residential Facil- ities Study proposes general guidelines for establish- ing and locating community -based residential facilities in the City, minimizing the impact of said facilities on City neighborhoods, and regulating the facilities within the City of Miami; and WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of December 19, 1979, Item No. 1, follow- ing an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB _ by a to vote approving, in principle, the Community -Based Residential Facilities Study. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Community -Based Residential Facilities Study be and the same is hereby approved in principle. "DOCU.MENT- INDLX ITEM NO /I'ff. P/ CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF 0E027 1976 VilloumoN No 7 9 - 8 3 lipumif PIMP PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of Dec , 19 79 . Maurice A. Ferre MAURICE A. FERRE MAYOR ATTEST: G. ONGIE, City C1e�k PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: ( !) . A sistant City Attork4y APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: G •i. F. OX, • Cit ttone y 79-863 4.0 COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES •STUDY CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER 1979 44e- 4 7/7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Miami City Commission Maurice A. Ferre J. L. Plummer Rev.Theodore R. Gibson Joe Carollo Armando Lacasa Joseph R. Grassie Richard L. Fosmoen Mayor Vice Mayor Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner City Manager Assistant City Manager The Community -Based Residential Facilities Study was prepared by the City of Miami Planning Department Jim Reid Joseph W. McManus Peirce Eichelberger Carol Fox Jack Corbett Wally Chandley Leah Diamond Bonnie Dearborn Richard Butler Mary Babacheff Director Assistant Director Chief, Special Studies Project Coordinator Planning Technician Planning Intern Planning Intern Planning Intern Illustrator Secretary the Miami Planning Advisory Board Cyril Smith Selma Alexander Mary Lichtenstein Lorenzo L. Luaces Aaron J. Manes Louis Martinez Grace Rockafellar Richard H. Rosichan Chairperson alternate Division -1- the City interdepartmental Technical Committee Richard Whipple T. J. Keene Donnie Horne Frank Williams Tom Haggard Laura Butler Aurelio Perez Sgt. Robert Ingram Planning Department Fire Department Citizen Services Department Building and Zoning Inspections Department Building and Zoning Inspections Department Building and Zoning Inspections Department Planning and Zoning Boards Administration Police Department and the Ad Hoc Committee of. Service Providers Liane Palacin Mary Duffy H. Vann Rhodes Cheryl Lowell Richard Harrington Marshall I. Farkas Dr. Benjamin Sheppard Martin A. Waas Miguel Gonzalez-Pando Dr. Robert A. Ladner Sally Hart Tony O'Rourke Joe Aniello James Mooney Ellen Kellom Barbara Llopiz Gracie Miller, Karlene Peyton Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Florida Department of. Health and Rehabilitative Services Metropolitan Dade County Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Metropolitan Dade County Depart- ment of. Human Resources Metropolitan Dade County Depart- ment of Human Resources Behavioral Science Research Company Behavioral Science Research Company Florida Department o,f Health and Rehabilitative Services United Cerebral Palsy Association of Miami Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Youth and Family Development Fellowship House Fellowship House Jackson Memorial Hospital Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services -2- Karen Shershmiov Mardella Nottebaum Frank Rabitto Hillis Holman Virginia Essex Ray Greenlaw Jeffrey N. Silbert A.B.Mumford Arlene Brummer Larry Forman Israel Milton Lucius Campbell Sara Heatherly Antonio Fernandez Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Metropolitan Dade County Welfare Department Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Transition, Inc. Health Systems Agency of South Florida Dade -Miami Criminal Justice Council Dade -Miami Criminal Justice Council Dade -Miami Criminal Justice Council Dade County Association for Retarded Citizens Metropolitan Dade County Department of Human Resources Metropolitan Dade County Department of Human Resources Florida Department of Corrections Dade -Monroe Mental Health Board -3- • I. Introduction Table of Contents Purpose of the Study Study Methodology Organization of this Report Page 9 9 9 10 II. Background 11 Purpose of Community -Based. Residential Facilities 11 Issues Pertaining to Community - Based Residential Facilities 14 Legislation for Community - Based Facilities 16 Federal Legislation 16 State Legislation 18 III. Community -Based Residential Facil- ities in Miami 23 Typology 23 Sponsoring and Regulatory Agencies 33 Number and Location of Facilities 36 Size of Facilities 40 Need for Facilities 40 Summary 56 IV. Impact of Community -Based Residen- tial Facilities on Miami Neigh- borhoods 60 Process of Neighborhood Change 60 Density of Facilities in Miami Neighborhoods 64 Neighborhood Compatibility of Miami's Facilities 70 Neighborhood Compatibility Survey 70 Literature Review 73 Field Survey 75 Fiscal Impact of Facilities 89 Impact on Property Values 89 Impact on the City Tax Base 91 Estimated Net Fiscal Impact 93 Summary 100 V. The Regulatory System for Community - Based Residential Facilities in Miami 105 -4- Zoning Zoning Classification of Facilities in Miami Page 105 106 Existing Zoning Regulations 108 Zoning Certification Process 109 Building Code Requirements 111, South Florida Building Code Requirements 111 Process for Codes Compliance Certification 114 Occupational Licensing 115 Fire Code Requirements 115 Fire Code Regulations 116 Fire Inspection Process 119 Summary 119 VI. Recommendations 122 VII. Appendices A. Neighborhood Compatibility Survey Results B. Existing City of Miami Zoning Regulations for Community -Based Residen- tial Facilities VIII. Bibliography 133 138 141 List of Tables Page Table 1 Position of Community -Based Residential 12 Facilities in the Health and Correctional Systems 2 Typology of Community -Based Residential 24 Facilities in Miami and Dade County 3 Distribution of Community -Based Residential Facilities by Type; Number of Facilities in the City of Miami vs. Remainder of Dade 38 County - 4 Distribution of Community -Based. Residential Facilities by Type; Capacity of Facilities in the City of Miami vs. Remainder of Dade County 39. 5 Distribution of Community -Based Residential Facilities by Size of Facility in the City 50 of Miami 6 Comparison of City and County Housing Units and Population with City and, County Distribu- tion of Community -Based Residential Facilities 51 7 Ranking of Catchment Areas by Selected Mental 56 Health Related Variables for Dade County, Florida .... 8 Density of Community -Based Residential'Facilities in the City of Miami in Terms of Proximity 65 (Nearest Neighbor Analysis) 9 Miami Census Tracts with 1% or more Residents of Community -Based • Residential Facilities 67 10 Density of Community -Based Residential Facilities in the City of Miami in Terms of Number of Resi- dents (Location Quotient Analysis) 68 11 Capacity of Surveyed Community -Based Residential Facilities 12 Type of Structures in which Surveyed Community - Based Residential Facilities are Located 13 Age of Structures Surveyed 14 Condition of Structures Surveyed 15 Number. of Facilities with Paved Parking Spaces on the Site 16 Site Amenities of Surveyed Facilities 76 77 78. 79 80 81 e.y 'Page. Table 17 Number of Residents Visible From Street 82 18 Presence of Signs at Surveyed Facilities 82 19 Residential Character of Surveyed Facilities 83 20 Degree of Noise and Air Pollution from Street 84 21 Type of Neighborhood in which Surveyed Facil- 86 ities are Located 22 Condition of the Structure Compared to Other 87 Structures on the Block Face 23 Condition of the Yard Compared to Other Yards 88 on the Block Face 24 Degree to Which the Facility Blends into the 88 Surrounding Neighborhood 25 Tax Status of Community -Based Residential Facilities in Miami 92 26 Estimated Net Fiscal Impact; Community -Based Residential Facility with Three Residents 95 27 Estimated Net Fiscal Impact; Community -Based Residential Facility with 25 Residents 96 28 Estimated Net Fiscal Impact; Community -Based 97 Residential Facility with 18 Residents -.Tax Exempt . . 29 Estimated Net Fiscal Impact; Community -Based 98 Residential Facility with 75 Residents = Tax Exempt . 30 Estimated Net Fiscal Impact; Community -Based Residential Facility with 150 Residents 99 31 Zoning Classification of Community -Based Residential Facilities in the City of Miami 107 32 Results of Fire Inspections of Community -Based 118 Residential Facilities -7- LIST OF MAPS Map 1 Location of All Community -Based Residential Facilities in the City of Miami 2 Location of. Adult Congregate Living Facilities in the City of Miami 3 Location of Alcohol Rehabilitation Facilities in the City of Miami 4 Location of Residential Facilities for Drug Dependents in the City of Miami 5 Location of Residential Facilities for Developmentally Disabled Persons in the City of Miami 6 Location of Residential Facilities for Persons with Mental Health Problems in the City of Miami 7 Location of Residential Child -caring Facilities in the City of Miami 8 Location of Boarding Homes in the Page 41 • 42 43 44 45 City of Miami 9 Location of Adult Community -Based Correctional Facilities in the City of Miami 10 Mental Health Catchment Areas in the City of Miami 11 Density of Community -Based Residential Facilities in the City of Miami in. Terms of Proximity (Nearest Neighbor Analysis) 12 Density of Community -Based Residential Facilities in the City of Miami in Terms of Number of Residents (Location Quotient Analysis) 46 47 48 49 50 66 69 -8- I. Introduction Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to identify the problems and issues associated with community -based residential facili- ties in the City of Miami and to suggest guidelines for the provision of such facilities in the City. Community - based residential facilities are residences.designed to serve as alternatives to institutions in the health care and correctional systems. The types of community -based residential facilities included in this study are adult congregate living facilities, alcohol rehabilitation facilities, residential treatment facilities for drug dependents, residential facilities for developmentally disabled persons, residential facilities for persons with mental health problems, residential child -caring facilities, boarding homes, juvenile community -based corrections, and adult community -based corrections. Study Methodology This study was conducted by the City of Miami Planning Department. Two advisory groups were formed to represent those who are involved in the provision and regulation of community -based residential facilities. These advisory groups helped the Planning Department identify problems and issues associated with the facilities, supplied needed information during the course of the study, and reviewed the findings and recommendations of the study. One of these groups, the City Interdepartmental Technical Committee, included representatives from the Miami Depart- ments of Planning, Building and Zoning, Zoning Board Administration, Fire, Police and Citizen Services. The other committee, the Ad Hoc Committee of Service Providers, included representatives from public and private agencies at the County and State levels providing community -based residential facilities for the correctional and health treatment systems. In addition, the Miami Planning Advisory Board reviewed the findings and recommendations of the study. The study focused on three questions: (1) What are the characteristics of community -based residential facilities in the City of Miami? (2) What is the impact of community -based residential facilities on City of Miami neighborhoods? (3) How can the City's regulatory systems insure the provision'of effective and adequate community - based residential facilities? During the study, an inventory of community -based residen- tial facilities was conducted to determine the number, capacity and location of facilities in Dade County and the City of Miami. In addition, the Ad Hoc Committee of Service Providers was surveyed about the compatibility of residen- tial care facilities with various types of neighborhoods, the kinds of site and neighborhood amenitiesthat should be available for residents of residential care facilities, and the density of facilities within neighborhoods. The Planning Department made a field inspection of approximately halfethe City's facilities to identify the type and condition of the structures in which the facilities are located, the amenities located at the site, the type of neighborhoods in in which the facilities are'located, and the degree to which the facilities blend into the surrounding neighborhood. Organization of This Report The chapters in this report present background materials about community -based residential facilities in general and deal with each of the three study questions listed above. Chapter II discusses the purpose and issues per- taining to community -based residential facilities as well as the Federal and State legislationthat promotes the establishment of these facilities. The characteristics of community -based residential facilities in Miami and Dade County are presented in Chapter III. Chapter IV deals with the impact of community -based residential facilities on Miami neighborhoods. This chapter des- cribes the process of neighborhood change, identifies the density of facilities in Miami, discusses the com- patibility of Miami's facilities with their surrounding neighborhoods, and determines the potential fiscal impact of community -based residential facilities. The regulatory system for community -based residential facilities in Miami is discussed in Chapter V. Chapters III► IV and V conclude with a summary of findings related to each.chapcer's topic. The recommendations of this study are presented in Chapter VI. II..Background This chapter contains a description of community -based residential facilities and their function in the health care and correctional systems. The issues surrounding the creation of community residences and the participants in the resulting controversy are described, as well. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the major Federal and Florida legislation that supports the deinstitu- tionalization movement and the system of community -based residential facilities and services. Purpose of Community -Based Residential Facilities Community -based residential facilities are residences de- signed to serve as alternatives to institutions in the health care and correctional systems. Community -based residential facilities provide a homelike atmosphere for their residents within a neighborhood, enabling the residents to experience life as part of a community. These facilities may serve the elderly who are unable to live alone, the mentally ill or retarded, former drug or alcohol users, children who cannot live with their natu- ral parents, and former prisoners who may need to be reintroduced to community living or who may have committed minor crimes. Community -based residential facilities range in size from homes with three residents to facilities with more than one hundred inhabitants. They may be called foster homes, group homes, halfway houses or con- gregate living facilities. The increase in community -based residential facilities is due to the movement from the use of institutions in the health care and correctional systems. There is a growing belief in the United States that large institutions have not served all clients well; that in some cases they have not enabled the retarded to function better nor have they taught criminal offenders to lead non -criminal lives. In fact, there is some evidence that longtime residents of institutions may become so dependent upon life within the institution that they are unable to function effectively when returned to life in the community. Thus, community - based residences can serve as the bridge between institu- tionalization and completely independent living in society. TABLE 11 POSITION.OF,COMMUNITY-BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES IN THE HEALTH AND CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS Health System (Mental and Physical) Correctional System Hospital or sanitarium Nursing home Foster or group care facility, congregate living facility Periodic checkups No contact, . Prison or jail Halfway house, commu- nity correctional cen- ter Probabation or supervision No contact The location of community -based residences within the health and correctional systems is illustrated in Table 1. Each column in the table represents a continuum of care rang- ing from institutionalization at the top to independent living at the bottom. Community -based residences, which fall midway along the continuum, may receive clients who have been institutionalized but are able to live in a semi- independent living arrangement or who may need a transi- tional residence that can ease them into independent liv- ing in the community. Community residences may house clients who have never been institutionalized, as well. These residents could include the elderly who need house- keeping and meals services, former drug abusers who need a supervised living environment, or offenders who have committed minor crimes. The philosophy underlying the trend toward deinstitutiomali- zation is the normalization principle. Bengt Nirje des - scribed the normalization principle as it relates to re- tarded people in the following manner: The normalization principle means making available to all mentally retarded people patterns of life and conditions of everyday living which are as close as possible to the regular circumstances and ways of life of society. Normalization means sharing a normal rhythm of the day, with privacy, activities and mutual responsibilities; a normal rhythm of the week, with a home to live in, a school or work to go to, and leisure time with the changing modes and ways of life and of family and community -customs as ex- perienced in the different seasons of the year.2 This description of the normalization principle pertains to all forms of community -based care, as well. National statistiics illustrate the movement toward normal- ization for those for whom institutions were once the only residential alternative. In 1955, the number of resi- dents in state mental hospitals was 600,000 patients.. With the advent of new drug therapies and community -based fac- ilities, the population of state mental hospitals had dropped to 300,000 in 1972 and to 213,000 in 1974.3 In- stitutions for mentally retarded people have experienced a similar decline in population since the 1950's. There were only two-thirds as many retarded residents in public institutions in 1971 as there were in 1950. The popula- tion of private institutions for the retarded decreased fourteen percent between 1969 and 1970.4 Florida's institutions have experienced a similar de- crease in residents. The population of the State's hos- pitals for the mentally ill declined forty percent between 1963 and 1977. The average daily population in these institutions decreased from 9,821 patients in 1963 to 5,872 patients in 1977. Another factor in the trend toward deinstitutionalization is the lower cost of providing residential facilities in the community. For example, social workers at the South Florida State Hospital estimate that it costs more than $800 per month for each resident in the State Hospital, while the cost for each resident in a group home is. $310 per month.6 According to a 1965 report of the Pres- ident's Task Force on Corrections, the average cost per adult felon per year in the U.S. was $1,966 in an institution compared to $198 in the community.? Con- gregate living facilities providing meals and effective supportive services can offer a less costly alternative to nursing home care for the elderly. The costs for such a congregate living facility range from $12 to $16 a day as compared to $30 to $60 a day for skilled nursing care.e Issues Pertaining to Community -Based Residential Facilities The conflict and controversy that frequently surrounds the creation of community -based residential facilities is found at several geographical levels and involves a number of participants at both levels. The neighborhood is often the focus of debate over the rights of two sets of in- dividuals: (1) the rights of those who cannot live independ- ently to live in a homelike atmosphere in a community, and (2) the rights of the residents of a community to maintain and preserve the quality and char- acter of the neighborhoods in which they live. The characteristics that make community -based residences desirable for the individuals who need them may be seen by neighborhood residents as a threat to the stability of the neighborhood. For example, community -based facilities offer their residents the opportunity to become part of a home and a community with access to education, employ- ment and recreation. Neighborhood residents, however, view the introduction of a different type of individual, such as the retarded, former alcoholics, or ex -offenders, into neighborhood life as harmful. Any attempt to deal with the conflict inherent in the creation of community -based residential facilities must consider the concerns of both sets of participants. The concerns of the potential residents of community -based facilities include the following: (1) Treatment in a community -based residence may be moreeffective than that in an institution (2) Treatment in a community residence may be less costly than that in an institution. (3) A residential neighborhood may be the most effective location for a community -based • residence, but the most difficult location to achieve. (4) There is a growing demand for community -based residential facilities that is difficult to meet, often because of community resistance. On the other hand, the concerns of community residents in- clude the following: (1) The residents of community -based residential facilities might exhibit behavior that vio- lates the neighborhood norm and life style. (2) Concentrations of persons classified as social deviants might attract other deviants into the neighborhood. (3), The number of residents and the condition of the facilityand yard might be different from other residences in the neighborhood. (4) The conversion of residences into community - based residential facilities might erode the community's tax base and might result in the lower desirability of the neighbor- hood and thus in lower property values. (5) Concentration of community -based residential facilities might create, in effect, a social service district or institutional ghetto that will lead to the decline of the residen- tial neighborhood. Conflict at the neighborhood level usually involves other actors, as well. The potential residents of community - based residential facilities are represented in the attempt to create new facilities by the operators of facilities and social services providers who believe in deinstitutionalization and who fund, inspect, or license the facilities. Community residents, however, are represented, by the public officials who enact and en- force local regulations designed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood residents. Fre- quently, social services providers attempting to open additional facilities are thwarted by their inability to find buildings that can fulfill the requirements of local building and fire codes in neighborhoods with ' zoning regulations that allow such facilities. -15- The metropolitan region is another setting for debate about the location of community -based residential facili- ties. At this geographical level, the issue involves the concentration of community -based facilities in cer- tain areas of the region, usually in the central city. According to one expert, "housing and access to medical and other services, rather than employment sites, are the locational anchors which determine where the elderly and handicapped must live.i9 Housing in the central city usually costs less than that of the suburbs and services generally are concentrated in the central city. In fact, human service hubs evolve to serve the con- centrations of handicapped groups and their presence attracts more clients. The expert cited above believes that this trend is very difficult to reverse and that ....handicapped populations will con- tinue generally to be concentrated where housing costs are least and where the service facilities are con- centrated. They will live in areas of capital disinventment, where land use markets are soft and where ser- vice facilities can find sites in the shrinking retail and commercial structures.1° The concentration of community -based residences in the central city often alarms public officials who may feel that the municipal budget is supporting a dispropor- tionate share of residential facilities and public services for the region's handicapped citizens. These officials also may fear the institutionalization of certain neighborhoods where facilities tend to be located. These fears and the resulting attempts to distribute the burden more equitably throughout the region may frustrate social services providers and their clients who cannot find suitable locations or services outside the central city. Legislation For Community -Based Facilities Federal Legislation The deinstitutionalization movement is supported by a growing body of federal and state legislation. Various laws encourage the development of community -based -16- tfi residential facilities for the elderly, for persons who are developmentally disabled and for persons with mental health problems, including alcoholics and drug abusers. The current federal policy and funding for social ser- vices for lower -income individuals is found in Title XX of the Social Security Act, Public Law 93-647. Title XX provides federal grants to the states for social services. Each state's social services must be linked to one of five. national goals established by the Act. The fourth goal promotes deinstitutionalization by directing each state to furnish services for "preventing or reducing inappropriate institutional care by provid- ing for community -based care, home -based care, or other forms of less intensive care". The Keys Amendment to the Unemployment Compensation Amend- ments of 1976, Public Law 94-566, requires the establishment and enforcement of standards for community -based residen- tial facilities where recipients of Supplemental Security Income payments reside. One of the purposes of the regula- tions that implement the Keys Amendment is "to encourage the development of safe and appropriate residential set- tings as an alternative to institutional living for appropriate elderly individuals andhandicapped children and adults".11 Section 7 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 encourages public housing agencies to develop congregate housing for low-income, elderly families. Section 202 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1959 provides construction loans for con- gregate living facilities for the elderly and the handi- capped. The Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Con- struction Amendments of 1970, Public Law 91-517, amended the Mental Retardation and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963 to assist states in developing plans for the provision of comprehensive services to per- sons affected by mental retardation and other developmental disabilities orginating in childhood. A later amendment,. the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, requires that the State plan "support the estab- lishment of community programs as alternatives to institu- tionalization.". Federal legislation promoting mental health care for people in their own neighborhood and com- munities has existed since 1963 when Congress passed the Community Mental Health Centers Act. This comprehensive -17- approach to community care for th.e mentally ill was al strengthened in 1975 by Public Law 94-63, the Sp Health Revenue Sharing Act of 1975. This law reaffirmed the nation's commitment to community mental health Centers ters and provided standards for services to be offered by centers. The twelve essential services mandatedbythe law include inpatient, outpatient, emergency, partial hospitalization, consultation, education, speialized services for children, the elderly, drug addicts alcoholics as well as three services concerned with al- ternatives to institutionalization: aftercare, screen- ing and community living programs. Section 102 (2) (D) of Title I of the 1975 Act requires the state mental health authority to "establish randicarry out a plan which is designed to eliminate imapp P placement in institutions of persons with mentalhealth problems, to insure the availability of appropriate noninstitutional services for such persons, and to im- prove the quality of care for those with mental health problems for whom institutional care is appropriate:' Sec- tion 201 (b) (1) (G) of Title II of the same Act requires that community mental health centers provide "a p 9 ram of transitional halfwayhouse services for the mentally ill who are residents of its catchment area and who have been discharged from a mental health facility or would without such services require inpatient care in such a facility." State Legislation Florida law clearly promotes community -based residential facilities as alternatives to institutionalization in both the health care and correctional systems. The in- tent of the Florida legislature to provide community -based care for Florida citizens is set forth in eight State statutes dealing with the elderly, alcoholics, drug abusers, developmentally disabled persons, the mentally ill, and juvenile delinquents and adult offenders. Each of these laws is described in the paragraphs that follow: Comprehensive Alcoholism Prevention, Control and Treatment Act. Chapter 396, Florida Statutes. This law establishes a comprehensive program for the prevention and treatment of alcoholism. According to the Act, "alcoholism pre- vention, treatment, and control programs should, when- ever possible, be community based and be integrated with, and involve, the active participation of a wide range of public and, nongovernmental agencies, especially community mental health programs." The Act further specifies that treatment facilities should include in- termediate care services such as community mental health centers, foster home placement, hostels and halfway houses. Rehabilitation of Drug Dependents. Chapter 397, Florida Statutes. The intent of the Legislature in passing this law is to "provide an alternative to .criminal imprison- ment for individuals capable of rehabilitation as use- ful citizens through techniques not generally available in state or local prison systems." This law establishes. the development of a rehabilitation program for drug dependents including residential rehabilitation centers. Retardation Prevention and Community Services Act. Chapter 393, Florida Statutes. The law provides for the estab- lishment of programs and services for developmentally disabled persons. A developmental disability is defined as a disorder attributable to retardation, cerebral palsy, autism or epilepsy, which originated prior to the age of 18 years. Under this Act, "greatest priority shall be given to the development and implementation of community - based residential placements, services, and treatment prog- rams for the retarded and other developmentally disabled individuals which will enable such individuals to achieve, their greatest potential for independent and productive living and which will enable them to live in their own homes or in facilities located in their own communities, and which will permit clients to be diverted or removed from unnecessary institutional placement." Florida Mental Health Act. Chapter 394, Part I, Florida Statutes. Community Mental Health Act. Chapter 394, Part IV, Florida Statutes. The Florida Mental Health Act, also known as the Baker Act, signaled a major change in the State's treatment of individuals with mental health prob- lems. This law sets forth the rights of patients admitted to mental institutions in Florida, providing that patients must be admitted to these institutions on a voluntary basis and that involuntary hospitalization is permitted only when expert evaluation determines that it is necessary. The Community Mental Health Act emphasizes Florida's com- mitment to providing mental health services at the com- munity level. The act establishes a program for providing and II III I1I I ! IT�J�A coordinating community mental health services. Mental health boards are established in each Florida Department of Health And Rehabilitative Services district. Each board must prepare a district mental health plan that may include Community precare and aftercare services, such as foster home placement and halfway houses. Youth Services. Chapter 959, Florida Statutes. Chapter 959 creates a comprehensive program for the prevention, control and treatment of juvenile delinquency. This program may include community -based residential programs, such as foster homes and halfway houses. Florida Corrections Code of 1957. Chapter 944, Florida Statutes. The Florida Corrections Code establishes a system of community -based correctional facilities and programs. The intent of the Legislature is clearly stated in Section 944.012 (,2) of the Statute: "it is clear that major changes in correctional methods are required. It is essential to abate the use cf large institutions and continue the development of community -based corrections .... and to provide alternatives to institutionalization, including the availability of probationers' residences and community correctional centers". Section 944.012 (6) (c) further states the intent of the Legislature: "When possible, to divert from expensive insti- tutional commitment those individuals who, by virtue of professional diagnosis .and evalua- tion, can be placed in less costly and more effective environments and programs better suited for their rehabilitation and the pro- tection of society." 1 References Adapted from Daniel Lauber and Frank S. Bangs, Zoning for Family and Group Care Facilities. Planning Advisory Service Report No'. 300 (Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1974), p.2. 2 Bengt Nirge, "The Normalization Principle" in. Changing Patterns in Residential Services for the Mentally Re- tarded, edited by Robert B. Kugel and Ann Shearer (Wash- ington, D.C.: President's Committee on Mental Re- tardation, 1976), p. 231. 3 Bertram S. Brown, "Critical Issues for Community Mental Health" (Rockville: U.S. Department of Health, Educa- tion and Welfare, 1977), p.5. 4 Earl Butterfield, "Some. Basic Changes in Residential Facilities" in Changing Patterns in Residential Services for the Mentally Retarded, edited by Robert B. Kugel and Ann Shearer (Washington, D.C.: President's Committee on Mental Retardation, 1976), p. 16. 5 Peter B.C. B. Ivory, "Deinstitutionalization Concept Paper" (Tallahassee: Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1978), p. 4. 6 "Hospital to Release Mentally Retarded , The Miami Herald sec. B, p.l. Richard P. Seiter, et al., Halfway Houses (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1977), p.3. 8 D. Richard Neill, "Working Paper on Optional Living En- vironments for Less Independent Senior Citizens" (Con- cord: New England Non -Profit Housing Development Corpo- ration, 1976), p.2. 9 Julian Wolpert: "Social Planning and the Mentally and Physically Handicapped; The Growing "Special Service" Populations"in Planning Theory in the 1980's; a Search for Future Directions (New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1978), p.99. 10 11 Ibid., p. 98. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Program Planning and Development, "Proposed Comprehensive Annual Services Program Plan for Title XX - Social Security Act; July 1, 1979 - June 30, 1980". (Tallahassee: Florida Department ofHealthand Rehabilitative Services, 1979), p. III.Community-Based Residential Facilities in Miami This chapter describes the basic characteristics of community -based residential facilities in Miami and surrounding Dade County. A description of the nine types of facilities found in the County is followed by a discussion of the organizations that sponsor and reg- ulate the facilities. Also included are the number and capacity of the residences as well as the dis- tribution of each type in Miami as compared to Dade County. The size of community -based residential facilities in the City of Miami is analyzed by type of facility. The last part of this chapter compares the number and capacity of facilities in Miami and Dade County with each jurisdiction's share of total County housing units and population. The chapter concludes with a basic projection of the need for several types of facilities in Miami. Typology There are seven types of community -based residential facilities in Dade County's health treatment system and two types of facilities in the correctional system. Defined in Table 2, these facilities include adult con- gregate living facilities, alcohol rehabilitation facili- ties, residential facilities for drug dependents, resi- dences for developmentally disabled persons, residential facilities for persons with mental health problems, child caring facilities, boarding homes, residential facilities for juvenile delinquents and residences for adult offen- ders. As shown in the table, there is a variety of sizes and services offered within these nine basic cate- gories of facilities. The type of client served by each. category of facility is not exclusive to that category. For example, the mentally ill may reside in adult con- gregate living facilities and boarding homes as well as in the facilities described in category 5 of the table. TABLE 2 TYPOLOGY OF COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES IN MIAMI AND DADE COUNTY Health Treatment System Type 1. Adult Congre- gate Living Facilities Definition A residential facility that provides, for a period ex- ceeding 24 hours, one or more personal services for four or more adults, not related to the owner or ad- ministrator. Personal ser- vices cogld include food service, personal assistance with bathing, dressing, am- bulation, housekeeping, supervision, and emotional security. (Ch.400,F.S.) (a) Level I. A facility usually comprised of individual living units, offering housing, food service and minimal personal care services such as emotional sec- urity, housekeeping and companionship. (b) Level II. A facility offering housing, food service and personal services which include but are not limited to: State Legislation/Regulations Chapter 400, Flor- ida Statutes Chapter 10A-5, Flor- ida Administrative Code licensed Sponsoring/Licensing Public Agencies Florida Department of Health and Rehabilita- tive Services, Aging and Adult Program. Dade County Depart- ment of Housing, and Urban Development Type 2. Alcohol Reha- bilitation Facil- ities. 3. Residential Treatment Facil- ities for Drug Dependents Definition State Legislation / Regulations (b) continued personal assistance with dressing, ambulation, eat- ing, securing necessary health care from appropri- ate sources, and supervi- sion of self-administered medications and personal supervision. (Sec.10A-5 F.A.C.) A facility that offers 24 hour service and provides residence to clients. Care or treatment is rendered to a client in a theraupeutic setting where the individ- ual is provided with a bed, and housed overnight. (Sec. 10E-3, F.A.C.) Chapter 396, Flor- ida Statutes Chapter 10E-3, Flor- ida Administrative Code not licensed A live-in facility staffed Chapter 397, Flor- by professional and para- ida Statutes professional persons offer- ing therapeutic programs for drug dependent persons. Chapter 10E-7, Flor- ida Administrative Code (Ch. 397, F.S.) licensed Sponsoring/Licensing, Public Agencies Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitatiire Services, Mental Health Program Dade County Depart- ment of Human Resources, Comprehensive Alcohol Program Florida Department of Health and Rehabi- litative Services, Mental Health Program Dade County Department of Human Resources,. Comprehensive Drug Program 1II IIIIMM Type 4. Residential Facilities for Developmental- ly Disabled Persons Definition A facility provid- ing room and board and personal care for per- sons with a developmen- tal disability. Devel- opmental disability means a disorder or syndrome that is at- tributable to retar- dation, cerebral pal- sy, autism or epilepsy (a) Foster care facil- ity that provides a family living environment in- cluding super- vision and care necessary to meet the physical, emo- tional, and social needs of clients. The capacity of a foster care facil- ity does not exceed three clients (b) Group home facility: a residential facil- ity that provides a family living environ- ment including super- vision and care nec- essary to meet the physical, emotional and social needs of clients. State Legislation / Regulations Chapter 393, Flor- ida Statutes Chapter 10E-6, Florida Administra- tive Code licensed Sponsoring/Licensing Public Agencies Florida Department of Health and Re- habilitative Services, Retardation Program Sponsoring/Licensing I Type Definition State Legislation / Public Agencies Regulations (b) (continued) The capacity is at least four clients, but not more than sixteen clients (c)Residential habilitation center: a community re- sidential facility oper- ated primarily for the diagnosis, treatment, or rehabilitation of clients. This facility provides, in a struc- tured residential setting, individualized continuing evaluation, planning, 24 hour supervision, and coordination and integ- ration of health or re- habilitative services to help each client• reach his maximum functioning capa- bilities. The capacity of these facilities is not less than seventeen clients. (d) Intermediate care facil- ity of the mentally re- tarded: a residential facility that provides medicaid services to per- sons who are mentally re- tarded or who have, related conditions. The. capacity 111 Type 5. Residential Facilities for Persons with Mental Health Problems Definition (d) (continued) of these facil- ities does not exceed 120 clients. (Ch. 393, F.S.) A transitional residential facility for persons who have been discharged from public mental institutions and who, in the absence of such facilities would have required continued inpatient care. Such living arrange- ments are designed to foster a gradual phased return to community living to the maximum extent pos- sible for each person. (Ch. 10E-4.11, F.A.C.) (a) Group homes: 'residences for chronic patients who require assistance in basic living functions. The group homes'are staffed by nonprofes- sionals who provide assist- ance to residents in meal preparation, personal hygiene, transportation and recreation. These facilities should house no more than fifteen residents. State Legislation/ Regulations Chapter 394, Florida Statutes Chapter 10E-4.11 Florida Administra- tive Code not licensed Sponsoring/Licensing Public Agencies Florida Department of Health and Re- habilitative Services, Mental Health Program Dade County De- partment of Youth and Family Devel- opment, Psycholo- gical Services Division Jackson Memorial Hospital, Community Mental Health Program Type 6. Residential Child -Caring Facilities Definition (b) Supervised apartments: apartments rented by the service provider and sublet by the client, generally..housing four clients per unit. These facilities are designed for clients who have achieved a limited capac- ity for independent living but who require frequent assistance and support!. and some supervision and staff intervention in order to survive in. the community. (c) Satellite apartment: rented apartments hous- ing usually three or four clients who pos- sess most of the basic living skills necessary. for survival but who require support and en- couragement to carry out these functions. (Proposed HRS 79-80 Budg,Qt) A facility in which four or more unrelated children receive full-time care away from their own parents, relatives or guardians. State Legislation/ Regulations Chapter 409, Flor- ida Statutes Chapter 10C-15, Part II, Florida Administrative Code Sponsoring/Licensing Public Agencies Florida Depart- ment of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Social and Economic Services Type 6. (continued) 7. Boarding Homes Correctional System 8. Juvenile Community Based Cor- rections Definition (a) Group home: a facility that pro- vides care for no more than fifteen boys and/or girls in a residence usu- ally not on the cam- pus of a child -car- ing facility. (Ch. 10C-15, Pt. II, F.A.C.) A residential facility that provides a partially structured living envi- ronment and room and board for persons who are medi- cally unable to work and are without resources. Sponsored by the Dade Coun- ty Welfare Department, the program also offers a variety of casework ser- vices directed toward re- habilitation and self-suf- ficiency. (Dade County Welfare Department) (a) Halfway house: a short- term residential facil- ity for either twenty- five boys or twenty girls, ages 14-18, ad- judicated delinquent by the circuit court State Legislation/ Regulations licensed Chapter 509, Flor- ida Statutes Chapter 7-C, Flor- ida Administrative Code licensed Chapter 959, Flor- ida Statutes Chapter 10H-9, Florida Admin- istrative Code nOt licensed Sponsoring/Licensing Public Agencies Dade County Depart- ment of Youth and Family Development, Alternative Home Care Division Dade County Wel- fare Department Florida Depart- ment of Business Regulation, Hotel and Restaurant Division Florida Depart- ment of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Youth Services Program Type 9. Adult Com- munity Based Corrections Definition (b) Group treatment home: a small residential facility designed to provide a group of seven children with a treatment -oriented homelike atmosphere. The residents usually range in age from 10 to 13 and have been adjudicated delin- quent by the circuit court. (c) Family group home: a private family residence that pro- vides basic care and a therapeutic environ- ment for one to a max- imum of eight youth- ful offenders. (HRS Manual: Community - Based Treatment Centers) (a) Community correctional center and women's ad- justment center: while sti,11 maintaining cus- tody, these centers allow selected inmates who are within the last- 18 months of the end of their sentence to work in the community and grad- ually adjust to life Sponsoring/Licensing State Legislation/ Public Agencies Regulations Chapter 944.026, Florida Statutes Chapter 944.033, Flor- ida Statutes Chapter 33-10 Flor- ida Administrative Code not licensed Florida Depart- ment of Offender Rehabilitation Type 9. (continued) Definition outside of prison. (Florida Depart- ment of Offender Rehabilitation) (b) Probation/resti- tution center: a structured residential program for probationers who are non-violent felons convicted of property crimes. The main thrust of the facil- ity is toward payment of restitution to vic- tims of crimes by offenders. (Florida Department of Correc- tions) (c) Halfway house: a residential facility designed to facilitate the transition of paroled adult ex -offen- ders into comm\lnity living. (Florida Department of Correctios) Sponsoring/Licensing State Legislation/ Public Agencies Regulations. Florida Depart- ment of Corrections, Probation and Parole Services Program Sponsoring and Regulatory Organizations Community -based residential facilities are sponsored by many organizations and individuals in the private and public sectors. Some types, such as adult con- gregate living facilities, boarding homes, and residences for the developmentally disabled, are most often owned by individuals and operated as for -profit businesses. Other types, such as drug rehabilitation facilities are usually sponsored and operated by non-profit organi- zations. State and city agencies are responsible for the regula- tion of Miami's community -based facilities. Five types of community -based residential facilities are licensed by the State of Florida: (1) adult congregate living facilities, (2) facilities for drug dependents, (3) facilities for the developmentally disabled, (4) facilities for dependent children, and (5) boarding homes. The first four types of facilities are licensed by the Flor- ida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, while boarding homes are licensed by the Hotel and Res- taurant Division of the Florida Department of Business Regulation. The licensing requirements provide State standards for the operation of the facilities. Four types of facilities are not covered by State or other licensing procedures: (1) alcohol rehabilitation facil- ities, '(2) residential facilities for persons with men- tal health problems, (3) juvenile community -based correc- tions, and (4) adult community -based corrections. The City of Miami regulates community residences through enforcement of its zoning, building, and fire codes. The public agencies involved in sponsoring and regulating facilities are described in the paragraphs below. State Agencies Aging and Adult Services Program Office, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services The Aging and Adult Services Program Office is responsible for program planning, standard setting and policy formu- lation to assure the delivery of quality services to aged individuals or disabled adults who have special con- ditions which' impair or potentially impair their well- being. This office licenses adult congregate living facilities. -33- Mental Health Program Office, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services The Mental Health Program Office is responsible for planning, developing, setting standards and formu- lating policies for programs for prevention and treat- ment of mental, emotional and behavioral disorders for all age groups, including programs for alcoholism and drug abuse. This office participates in the devel- opment of community -based residential facilities for alcoholics and persons with mental health problems and licenses residential treatment facilities for drug dependents. Developmental Services Program Office,.Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services The Developmental Services Program Office is responsible for program planning, policy formulation and standard setting to assure quality services for retarded and otherwise developmentally disabled citizens who have conditions which impair or potentially impair their normal growth and development. This office licenses residential facil- ities for developmentally disabled persons. Social and Economic Services Program Office, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services The Social and Economic Services Program Office is res- ponsible for program planning, policy formulation, stan- dard setting to assure comprehensive statewide delivery of quality treatment alternatives in both community and institutional settings for youth alleged to be or adjudicated delinquent. This office sponsors residential facilities for juvenile community -based corrections.. Hotel and Restaurant Division, Florida Department of Business Regulation The Hotel and Restaurant Division sets standards for the operation of hotels, rooming houses, and restaurants. This division licenses boarding homes. Florida Department of Offender Rehabilitation The Department of Offender Rehabilitation is responsible for integrating the delivery of all offender rehabili- tation and incarceration services deemed necessary for the rehabilitation of offenders and protection of society. This Department operates adult community -based correc- tional facilities. County AaAncies Metropolitan Dade County Department of Housing and Urban Development The Dade County Department of'Housing and Urban Devel- opment is responsible for planning and developing housing programs for the County's lower -income residents. This Departmentdeveloped the County's only public housing development for adult congregate living. Comprehensive Alcohol Program, Metropolitan Dade County Department of Human Resources The Comprehensive Alcohol Program Office sponsors and manages alcoholism treatment programs, including residen- tial facilities. Comprehensive Drug Program, Metropolitan Dade County Department of Human Resources The Comprehensive Drug Program Office sponsors drug abuse treatment and rehabilitation facilities* includ- ing residential facilities. Psychological Services Division, Metropolitan Dade County Department of Youth and Family Development The Psychological Services Division sponsors mental health programs for dependent and delinquent children, including residential facilities. Alternative Home Care Division, Metropolitan Dade County Department of Youth and Family Development The Alternative Home Care Division sponsors group homes for dependent and delinquent children. Boarding Home Program, Metropolitan Dade County Welfare Department The Boarding Home Program offers a. partially structured living environment and room and board for adults who are medically unable to work and who are without resources. City Agencies City of Miami Building and Zoning Inspections Department The Building and Zoning InspectionsDepartment enforces the South Florida Building Code in Miami and the City's Zoning Ordinance. Fire Prevention Bureau, City of Miami Fire Department The Fire Prevention Bureau enforces the life safety re- quirements of the Miami Fire Code. Tax and Licenses Division, City of Miami Finance Depart- ment The Tax and Licenses Division is responsible for collect- ing fees from City occupational licenses. City of Miami Planning Department The Planning Department reviews the applications for • zoning approval of most types of community -based residen- tial facilities. City of Miami Planning and Zoning Boards Administration Department The Planning and Zoning Boards Administration Department,re- ceives applications for zoning approval of community -based residential facilities and schedules public hearings for such approval. The City of Miami process and codes for regulating community - based residential facilities are explained in detail in Chapter V of this report. Number and Location of Facilities In February 1979, the City of Miami Planning Department con- ducted an inventory of community -based residential facilities in Dade County. The inventory was compiled from lists of facilities licensed by the State of Florida and lists of facilities sponsored or used by Metropolitan Dade County. In addition, non-profit and religious organizations were contacted for the names of any facilities sponsored by them. Each facility in the inventory was telephoned to get bed or resident capacity information. i i Pm!I!!!*•. -36- This inventory identified more than 216 community -based residential facilities in Dade County. Table 3 shows that nearly half of those facilities are adult congregate living facilities and facilities for the developmentally disabled, with 60 and 68 residents respectively. The smallest number of residences, 8 and 9, are found in the correctional system and facilities for drug depend- ents. Eighteen boarding homes were identified during the survey, as were 17 child -caring facilities, 15 facil- ities for persons with mental health problems and 12 residences for alcohol rehabilitation. An analysis of the location of these community -based residential facilities discloses that 95 or 44% of the facilities are located in the City of Miami. The remaining residences are located outside City boundaries in other municipalities or in unincorporated Dade County. The statistics in Table 3 reveal that some types of facilities predominate in the City of Miami. These include residen- tial facilities for drug dependents. (78% of the County total), boarding homes (83%), alcohol rehabilitation facil- ities (75%), and adult community -based corrections (62%). Other types are found in greater numbers outside the -City. Only 17% of the child -caring facilities and 22% ofthe residences for the developmentally disabled are found in Miami. Miami has approximately half of the adult con- gregate living facilities (49%) and slightly fewer mental health residential facilities (46%). The resident capacity statistics, displayed in Table 4, show that Miami's share of beds is slightly larger than its share of facilities. Of the total County capacity of more that 6,916 beds, 48% are located in the City and 52% are located outside City limits. The large share of beds for certain types of residences is similar to the large shares of facilities identified in Table 3. Boarding homes, facilities for drug dependents, and alcohol re- habilitation facilities account for 87%, 83%, and 81% of the total capacity in each category. Each of these per- centages is slightly larger than the percent of facilities located, in the City of Miami', indicating that Miami's facilities in these categories are slightly larger than those outside the City. The City's adult community -based correctional facilities, however, are smaller. Miami. has 62of the facilities in this category, but only 34% of the capacity. The capacity of adult congregate living facilities and facilities for the developmentally disabled, 53% and 36% respectively, also indicate slightly larger residences. The capacity of mental health facilities and juvenile community -based correctional facilities in Miami is 17% each. The City's share of residential child - caring beds accounts for only 8% of the total. TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES BY TYPE NUMBER OF FACILITIES IN CITY OF MIAMI VS. REMAINDER OF DADE COUNTY Facilities Facilities in Miami Outside Miami Health Treatment System No. % No. % Total Adult Congregate Living 34 49% 35 51% 69 Facilities Alcohol Rehabilitation 9 75% 3 25% Facilities Residential Facilities 7 78% 2 22% for Drug Dependents Residential Facilities 15 22% 53 78% for Developmentally Disabled Persons 12 68 Mental Health Residential 7 46% 8 54% 15 Facilities Residential Child- 3 17% 14 83% 17 Caring Facilities Boarding Homes 15 23% 3 17% 18 Correctional System Juvenile Community- Based Corrections Adult Community- 5 62% 3 38% Based Corrections Total All Residential Facilities 95+ 44% 121+ 56% * Information• not available. 216+ •TABLE 4 bISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES BY TYPE CAPACITY OF FACILITIES IN CITY OF MIAMI VS. REMAINDER OF DADE COUNTY Capacity Capacity out - in Miami side Miami Health Treatment System No. ' % No. % Total Adult Congregate Living 1302 53% 1158 47% 2460 Facilities Alcohol Rehabilitation 368 81% 86 19% 454 Facilities Residential Facilities 310 83% 64 17% 374 for Drug Dependents Residential Facilities 499+ 36% 891+ 64% 1390+ for Developmentally Disabled Persons Mental Health Residential 84 17% 404 83% 488 Facilities Residential Child- 62 8% 638 91% 700 Caring Facilities Boarding Homes 531+ 87% 81 .13% 612+ Correctional System Juvenile Community- 15 17% 70 82% 85 Based Corrections Adult Community- 121 34% 232 66% 353 Based Corrections Total All Residential Facilities 3292+ 48% 3624+ 52% 6916+ + Capacity not available for all facilities. The location of community -based residential facilities ,1 within City of Miami boundaries is shown on Maps 1 through 9. Map 1 shows the location of all facilities in Miami.. Maps 2 through 9 show the location of each type of, facility. The February, 1979 inventory conducted by the, Planning Department is the source of the information dis- played on the maps. Size of Facilities Miami's community -based residential facilities are classified according to size in, Table 5. Slightly more, than 40% of the facilities have 17 to 50 residents. Fa- cilities with 7 to 16 residents account for 20% of all facilities, while facilities with 1 to 6 residents and those with 50 to 100 residents account for a slightly smaller portion of the total. Only 9% of the facilities have more than 100 residents. Of the nine types of facilities shown in Table 5, adult congregate living facilities, facilities for drug dependents, residences for the developmentally disabled, and boarding homes have a significant number of facilities with more than 50 residents. Need for Facilities A comprehensive study of community -based residential facilities includes an analysis of the demand for such facilities as well as an inventory of the supply.;:The need for community residences can be compared with:the supply in a geographical area to determine whether that_ area has a need for more facilities or an overabundance. of them. The need for community -based residential facilities in the City of Miami and the City's supply of facilities is compared with the supply and demand in the rest of Dade County in the following paragraphs. Because an analysis of need for every type of facility is beyond the scope of this study, this section will provide several examples:of the supply -demand relationship in the City of Miami and Dade County. In Table 6, the distribution of community -based facilities in the City of Miami and outside the City is compared with Miami's percentage of total County housing units and popu- lation. Miami has 44% of all community -based residential facilities, but only 25% of the total County housing units. The number of beds supplied in the City of Miami::compared.: with its share of the County's populationis even greater. Miami has 48% of the bed capacity in th,e County,;•but only 23% of the population. n iI uowr n C 10.04 if IT Faa 15,02 -1 le—r 5 .a $4 it 19.02 i 17,01 g 17.02 19.03 «I -I • 17.03 24 , 25 40#• • 29 -455.02 7002 :72 • OMIR IT only[ un '2 19• n r1Q0.02 • * r * 11 I ITUM 106 67.02 1 Community -Based Residential Facilities Study MAP 1 LOCATION OF ALL COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF MIAMI (FEBRUARY, 1979) • CITE/ OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT JUNE 1979 -41- ►111111 1T 5802 1 1 I. sr 1 58.01 10.04 n1? 1115.01 15,02 1r It r.S 19.02 18.02 17.01 2 17.02 18,03 21 E ►. tt _ 14 1901 `(� u ft 1r I 120.01 110? 10tt 00 11 1r 4 20.02 21 11tt 23 17.03 24 25 • • 22.02 E 221 26 127.0 101 49 55.01 51 ?sr 54.0* 52 WWI 55.02 0.02 rimier 54.02 10 1 tT vio 8 30.01 128 ti31 .4 wort, * �% 134 1 fT 36.0( 0362 • Ie1TtI . s 63.01 63.02 ? 70" M 10 24 1T 7002 71 AVE 272 • W11C1 12 73 100/►1C2 01101 64 65 Is 11. 1T 1. 11 or 69 a` 1�. 66 1� 7.02 3702 ..s ►» 37.01 01 ift 4* 67.02 7.0 Community -Based Residential Facilities Study MAP 2 LOCATION OF ADULT CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF MIAMI (FEBRUARY, 1979) 'CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT JUNE 1979 —42- n 5802 1 teasi-, 18.02-Li *. 1e ►► Y. 23 17,01 g 17.02 . 18.03 «I _,._-.. _ f1 ST '�J --�—i� it - 17.03 r 24 25 T26 27.0 1r. t► ►T ►. 9T 10.04 ri ►T 1150 15.02 utt 1902 155. 02 N r. .00WT 1T 1 70 02 Tn 54.01 52 ►0 0 !T 65 1\ 22 IT 69 Community -Based Residential Facilities Study MAP 3 LOCATION OF ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF MIAMI (FEBRUARY, 1979) COTT OF MIAMI PLANNINO DEPARTMENT JUNE 1979 _43- S902 Ii ± 1 IV I It ! 15.01 19.01 15,02 i un t. 19.02 23 Si It ►OIgIV IT 1 /1IT 10.04 ti It 9e.01-r- 11 ITI 18.02 17.01 « 17.02 1e.03 I "I • I7.03 24 155.02 7002 Community -Based Residential Facilities Study 'MAP 4 LOCATION OF RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES FOR DRUG DEPENDENTS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI (FEBRUARY, 1979) CITT OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT JUNE 1979 =44- 5 E102 1 Ira 1 1f OHO 11 10.04 n!e!f V I 23 V r • I 17,01 2 17.02 18.03 aI V ^ 17.03 24 25 I '155.02 7002 472 aimin 011111! 18.a --r- 18.02 t!!i Community -Based Residential Facilities Study *MAP 5 LOCATION OF RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI (FEBRUARY, 1979) CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT JUNE' 1979 -45- n !111111 fT 5802 seer 1N11T 1T 73 nn 10.04 4.41 1T SU 15,02 41 S Is.02 18.02 ! .e e.„ g23 17.01 2 17.02 18,03 «I f1 fT ' 17.03 i 55.01 55, 02 63.01 11 63.02 70.0 1 22.02 I 5 t 126 3702 Tft Community -Based Residential Facilities Study MAP 6 LOCATION OF RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES FOR PERSONS WITH MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI (FEBRUARY, 1979) CITY OF MIAMI PLANNINO OUPAATMENT JUNE 1979 —46— n ii CLAIM 1T 57 5902 ; 56.01 1I b I 1► /49 10.04 ntt f �.a 1901 un 1.$T 23 • w . 17,01 g 17,02 I9,03 »I 17.03 24 2S 126 2002LW 55.01 n,t 55.02 r T 9 63.01 15.02 —j tun = 1902 14 1r 13.02 54.01 54.02 IV 1T 64 j—'- 1. 11 IT 63.02 70.01 1. it IT J02 :72 4unu n +4 73 ��.� 65 69 29 I► IT' VI V i3 Community -Based Residential Facilities Study MAP 7 LOCATION OF RESIDENTIAL CHILD -CARING FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF MIAMI (FEBRUARY, 1979) CITY OP MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT JUNE 1979 - 4 7 - 1001112 11 1 10.04 1T ft 15.02 - 1* >r 5 1902 1 Yi . le.o --7= 161 I1 It „ It 22.02 23 1901 f1 It 14 I1 IT- 0.01 20.02 II ft r-- 17,03 24, 25# r26 22 1I II IT Ufh n 31 AVE 55.01 55.02 63.01 63.02 70.01 �T002 71 :72 1_,1Y11I11T 73 /. 21 IT .Yl 1101srcr 01111 0.02 51 54.01 1111111 1T 54.02 1. I IT 64 65 69 20 1 21 13 I. It IT • 29 52 53 30.01 66 ' lj34 36.01 36.02 1.. 1r r 22.01 3702 1112 37.01 67.02 7.0 Community -Based Residential Fac,ilities Study MAP 8 LOCATION OF BOARDING HOMES IN THE CITY OF MIAMI (FEBRUARY, 1979) CITY OF MIAMI PLANNINO DEPARTMENT JUNE 1979 —48— 5601 56 f J55,02 54.02 Community -Based Residential Facilities Study 'MAP 9 LOCATION OF ADULT COMMUNITY -BASED CORRECTIONAL . FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF MIAMI (FEBRUARY, 1979) CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT JUNE 997E -49- TABLE 5, DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES BY SIZE OF FACILITY IN THE CITY OF MIAMI Number of Facilities 1 - 6 7 -16 17-50 50-100 100+ Resi- Resi- Resi- Resi- Resi- Type of Facility dents dents dents dents dents Adult Congregate Liv- 7 10 9 3 5 ing Facilities* Alcohol Rehabilitation 0 0 6 0 1 Facilities* Residential Facilities 0 0 3 2 0 for Drug Dependents* Residential Facilities 2 2 3 3 2 for Developmentally Disabled Persons* Residential Facilities 4 1 2 0 0 for Persons with Mental Health Problems Residential Child- 0 0 3 0 0 Caring Facilities Boarding Homes* 0 3 7 4 0 Juvenile Community- 0 0 0 0 0 Based Corrections ** Adult Community -Based 0 1 3 0 0 Corrections Total 13 17 36 12 8 * Does not include facilities for which capacity is unknown ** Information not available -:50- • TABLE. 6z COMPARISON OF CITY AND COUNTY HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION WITH CITY AND COUNTY DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY -BASED RES- IDENTIAL FACILITIES Comparative Distribution of Housing Units and Facilities No. of Housing Units (1978) Percent Miami 140,795 25% Dade County 572,340 75% Percent of Community -Based Facilities - Total 44% 56% Adult Congregate Living Facilities 49% 51%. Alcohol Rehabilitation Facilities 75% 25% Residential Facilities for Drug Dependents 78% 22% Residential Facilities for Developmentally Disabled Persons 22% 78% Mental Health Residential Facilities 46% 54% Residential Child -Caring Facilities 17% 83% Boarding Homes 83% 17% Adult Community -Based Corrections 62% 38% Comparative Distribution of Population and Capacity of Facilities Population (1978) Percent Miami 348,721 23% Dade County 1,496,009 77% Percent Capacity (Residents) of Community -Based Facilities Total 48% 52% Adult Congregate Living Facilities 53% 47% Alcohol Rehabilitation Facilities 81% 19% Residential Facilities for Drug Dependents 83% 17% Residential Facilities for Developmentally Disabled Persons 36% 64% -51- Population (1978) Percent (continued) Miami 348,721 23% Dade County 1,496,009 77% Mental Health Residential Facilities 17% 83% Residential Child -Caring Facilities 8% 91% Boarding Homes 87% 13% Juvenile Community -Based Corrections 17% 82% Adult Community -Based Corrections 34% 66% n uIII.�■ These statistics, however, should not lead to the con- clusion that Miami's share of population and dwelling units determines the City's need for community -based facilities. Although the number of persons in need of residential facilities in some categories relates directly to population, the need for other types of facilities may be related to other factors. Some examples of indicators of need for several types of facilities will illustrate this point. Nevertheless, as. mentioned earlier, determination of the need for each type of facility is beyond the scope of this study. The need for congregate living facilities for the el- derly relates to a percentage of the population that is over 60 years of age. According to national statistics, 5% of this population require "institutionalization or skilled nursing care and 12-14% require some assistance in daily living but do not require 24 hours skilled nursing care".1 The Dade County Planning Department estimates that the County's elderly population 65 years of age and over totaled 223,450 persons in 1975. Miami's elderly population in 1975 was 58,080, according to the same estimates.2 The need for semi-independent living quarters in Dade County and Miami can be projected by multiplying these population figures by 14%.3 Thus, Dade County as a whole has 31,283 persons who might need congregate living facilities and Miami has 8,131 persons or 25% of the total County need. Two conclusions may be drawn from these figures: (1) the capacity of licensed congregate living facilities in Dade County (2,460 beds) and Miami (1,302 beds) is far below the projected need, and (2) Miami, which currently has 53% of the County beds, is supplying more than twice its share of the total County need. The need for residential facilities for developmentally disabled persons also corresponds to a jurisdiction's population. The incidence of mental retardation has been estimated to be between 2.5% and 3% of the total population.4 Estimates of the need for residential placement for mentally retarded individuals, those with behavioral disturbances, and those with sensory and/or 5 physical disorders are 1% each of the total population. Multiplying the total County population and Miami's popu- lation by 3% yields a County population of 4,488 per- sons and a City population of 1,046 persons in need of residential facilities. Again, the need for residential. facilities is not met in the City of the County. Miami, with 23% of the County's need for residential facilities for the developmentally disabled supplies 36% of the beds. The need for mental health services, unlike the need for adult congregate living facilities and facilities for the developmentally disabled, is related to certain socioeconomic variables. The National Institute of Mental Health identified ten variables associated with population groups considered of a high risk for mental illness. These ten variables are families in poverty, teenagers not in school, working mothers with pre-school children, aged persons living alone, aged persons in poverty, large households with low incomes, disabled populations, disabled populations unable to work, and children in poverty. The Dade -Monroe Mental Health Board used these variables in conjunction with three locally generated variables (state hospital admission rates, state hospital read- • mission rates, and suicide rates) to score and rank eight geographical areas of Dade County in terms of the need for mental health services. The City of Miami lies within three of these areas, called catchment areas. Map 10 shows the boundaries of Miami's catchment areas, Areas IV,, VI and VII. The average score and rank of each catchment area is displayed, in Table 7. A rank of 8 in- dicates the highest need for mental, health services and a rank of one indicates the lowest. Miami lies within the two catchment areas with the highest ranks as well as the catchment area with the lowest rank. Although the need for residential facilities is not determined here nor is the proportion of Miami's need for residential facilities • in relation to the County need calculated, the table in- dicates that large portions of the City of Miami have a high risk population. Thus the proportionate need for community -based residential facilities for the mentally ill might begreater in Miami than in the rest of Dade County. The deinstitutionalized mentally ill can be found in boarding homes, adult congregate living facilities, and in residences specifically serving the mentally ill. Miami's large share of these facilities may correspond to a greater need in the City.. -54- 57 ,runt! It seIo2CATC* ENT ANEA "' " VH INrtf tl n 10.04 D t mol 15,02 —i Itn S 19.02 le.d--r- N— 1a.oz—.,i OAfCHME 17.02 19A3 ml 17.01 x • I7.03 it 25 ` ' 126 or IT N n 122.02 N T. Community -Based Residential Facilities Study MAP 10 MENTAL HEALTH CATCHMENT AREAS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI. • CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT JUNE 1979-55— • TABLE 7 RANKING OF CATCHMENT AREAS BY SELECTED MENTAL HEILTH RELATED VARIABLES FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA • Catchment Areas I II III IV V VI VII VIII Average Score 3.62 3.46 5.23 7.69 4.54 6.08 2.27 3.12 Rank 4 3 6 8 5 7 1 2 In summary, the need or demand for community -based resi- dential facilities exceeds the supply in Dade County. Miami, however, appears to supply a greater proportion of Dade County's community based residential facilities than the City's population and number of housing units warrant. Although it is impossible to determine the need for each type of facility in this study, such a projection must be completed before Miami's share of the needed facilities can be calculated. Simple projections of the need for adult congregate living facilities and facilities for the developmentally disabled show that Miamiprovides a relatively higher proportion of these facilities than does the rest of Dade County. Analysis of the variables that indicate the need for mental health services reveals that significant portions of Miami's population are considered high risk groups in terms of mental health. Miami's share of facilities for the mentally ill may be a rela- tively high proportion of the County total. Summary 1. There are nine types of community-based.residen- tial facilities in the City of Miami as follows: (1) adult congregate living facilities (2) alcohol rehabilitation facilities (3) residential facilities for drug dependents (4) residences for developmentally disabled persons (5) residential facilities for persons with mental health problems (6) child -caring facilities (7) boarding homes (8) residential facilities for juvenile delinquents (9) residences for adult offenders 2. Community -based residential facilities are sponsored bu organizations and individuals in the private and public sectors. 3. Five types of facilities are licensed by the State of Florida; the remaining four types of facilities are not covered by licensing procedures. 4. The City of Miami regulates community residences through enforcement of its zoning, building, and fire codes. 5. There are approximately 216 community -based res- idential facilities in Dade County. Of these, 95 facilities or 44% are located in the City of Miami. 6. Some types of facilities are found predominantly in the City of Miami: (1) boarding homes 83% (2) residential facilities for drug dependents 78% (3) alcohol rehabilitation facilities 75% (4) adult community -based corrections 62% 7. The capacity of Dade County's community -based residential facilities is more than 6,916 beds. Miami has 48% of the total County capacity. 8. Some types of facilities in Miami provide a large share of the total County capacity: (1) boarding homes 87% (2) facilities for drug dependents 83% (3) alcohol rehabilitation facilities 81% 9. More than 40% of the community -based residential facilities have 17 to 50 residents. Facilities with 7 to 16 residents account for 20% of all facilities, while facilities with 1 to 6 residents and those with 50 to 100 residents account for a slightly smaller portion of the total. Only 9% of the facilities have more than 100 residents. 10. Miami has 44% of all community -based residential facilities but only 25% of the total County housing units. Similarly, Miami has 48% of the bed capa- city in the County but only 23% of the population. 11. The need for community -based residential facilities and Miami's share must be determined individually for each type of facility. The need for some types of facilities corresponds directly to a certain proportion of a jurisdiction's total population. The need for other types of facilities, however, is related to the socioeconomic levels of a given population. 12. Although a complete analysis of the need for com- munity -based residential facilities in Miami is beyond the scope of this study, simple projections of the need for several types show that Miami may be providing more than its share of adult congregate living facilities for the elderly and facilities for the developmentally disabled. Miami's need for facilities for the mentally ill, which is re- lated to the socioeconomic levels of its population, may be a relatively high proportion of the total county need. 1 2 3 4 References D. Richard Neill, "Working Paper on 'Optional Living Environments' for Less Independent Senior Citizens" (Concord: New England Non -Profit Housing Develop- ment Corporation, 1976), p. 7. These figures con- firmed by Liane Palacin, Director of Aging and Adult Services, Florida Department of Health and Rehabili- tative Services, District XI, May 3, 1979. Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department, "Es- timate of the Elderly Resident Population of Dade County, 65 Years of Age and Over, as of June 30, 1975, by Census Tract" (Miami: Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department, 1976). The higher percentage is used because these population estimates are for persons over 65 rather than those over 60. It is assumed that this older segment of the el- derly population would have a greater need for con- gregate living facilities. Burton Blatt, "The Executive" in Changing Patterns in Residential Services for the Mentally Retarded, edited by Robert B. Kugel and Ann Shearer (Washington, D.C.: President's Committee on Mental Retardation, 1976), p. 141. The Retardation Program Office, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Dis- trict XI, uses the figure of 2.5%. Telephone conver- sation with Jim Wood of the Retardation Program Office May 3, 1979. 5 Ibid., pp. 144-145. 6 Dade -Monroe Mental Health Board, Mental Health Plan for Dade County, 1976 (Miami: Dade -Monroe Mental Health Board, 1976), p.32. -59- 1 IV. Impact of Community -Based Residential Facilities on Miami Neighborhoods One of the greatest barriers to the establishment of community -based residential facilities is the fear on the part of community residents that these facilities will have a negative impact on their neighborhoods. These feared negative impacts include the concentration of facilities in certain areas, increased crime, the introduction of social deviants into the neighborhood, lower property values, and a decline in the neighbor- hood and municipal tax base. Community residents often believe that the introduction of a.community-based facility into their neighborhood will initiate a pro- cess of change that will alter the character of the neighborhood. The possible impacts of community -based residential facilities on Miami's neighborhoods were examined during this study. Two statistical techniques were used to determine the density of facilities in Miami in terms of the clustering of residences and the number of facility residents in City census tracts. The types of neighborhoods and sites best suited for community facil- ities as well as the compatibility of Miami's existing facilities with their neighborhoods were analyzed through two surveys. Finally, the possible fiscal impact of community -based residences was studied. The neighborhood impact of community -based residential facilities must be examined with attention to the dynamics of neighborhood change. Consequently, the first part of this section describes what the elements of a healthy neighborhood are and how neighborhoods remain healthy or decline. Process of Neighborhood Change The following paragraphs describe what a neighborhood is and the various stages in its life cycle. The reasons for neighborhood decline are also discussed. This sec- tion concludes with a discussion of the possible_rela- tionship between community -based residential facilities and the process of neighborhood change. There is no single and exact definition of a neighborhood. It is possible, however, to list some of the elements of a neighborhood that may define it as a separate entity in the city: It can be a geographic area, rec- ognized by boundaries like a street, freeway or railroad tracks. It can be distinguished by a conspicuous physical feature -like a park or a hill or a building (a school, a church, a library, a factory). It can be defined by a certain type of housing, (perhaps row houses, perhaps all built at the same time or by the same developer) that is different enough from the surrounding housing types to stand out clearly. The neighborhood can also be defined socially- by political groups, religious affiliations or ethnic similarities. In addition, since most areas do not have widely vary- ing prices for housing, and since income largely (but not exclusively) determines buying power, neighborhoods can be defined by income groupings, or as "housing sub-markets".1 Neighborhoods change constantly. The change may make the neighborhood better by improving the housing or adding desirable features or it may be bad for the neighborhood, causing it to decline in desirability. Every neighbor- hood has a life cycle composed of various stages from healthy to declining to abandoned. Neighborhoods may move through this life cycle slowly or quickly; they may stay at one stage for a long time. The most im- portant aspect of the neighborhood life cycle is that neighborhoods can be regenerated. Trends toward decline can be reversed and neighborhoods can be revitalized.2 The residents of a healthy neighborhood usually perceive their neighborhood to be homogeneous; i.e. composed of people similar to one another in terms of income, status, race, education and job. The residents of a healthy neighborhood usually have pride in their homes and their neighborhood's future. They show this pride and confi- dence in their neighborhood by maintaining and investing in their homes. Healthy neighborhoods usually are socially cohesive. Well -organized neighborhood groups are often present,. The number of residents leaving the neighborhood is low and usually they are replaced by per- sons of the same social status and income At any time -61- a neighborhood may be in one of three states, rising, declining, or stable. A neighborhood declines when a number of its residents decide to move because there is a lower demand for the homes they are leaving. There are various possible reasons for the change of attitudes toward,the neighborhood. The housing may have reached the end of its "reasonable" life or other neighborhoods nearby may be declining rapidly. Another possible reason is that the residents may believe that a different type of household is moving into the neighborhood. When the number of "different" households reaches a certain point, the existing residents may feel that the values of their own group can no longer dominate the neighbor- hood environment. There residents then choose to move to a neighborhood where their values prevail. This concept has been called the tipping point; that is, the point at which the residents of a neighborhood reach their limits of tolerance for "different" households and decide to move. At what point a neighborhood reaches its limit of tolerance for a different group of residents or tipping point is difficult to ascertain. A survey in Dayton, Ohio attempted -62- to determine the impact of different low and moderate income groups on four healthy neighborhoods. Respondents in each community were asked to rate these groups as hav- ing a positive, neutral, or negative influence on the community. Additionally, respondents were asked to rate the influence of .each household type as being introduced into the neighborhood at a 5 percent, 10 percent, and 20 percent level. The survey responses, similar in all four suburbs, revealed that reactions to additional num- bers of low and moderate -income households ranged from neutral to negative. The study concluded that When the new group was postulated as making up 20 percent of the neighborhood's population, all but the moderate -income white households with husbands were regarded as being very harmful to the neighborhood. When the new group was only to make up 10 percent of the neighborhood, the group of moderate -income white households with no hus- bands falls out of the negative into the neutral response cate- gory. When it was postulated that the low -and moderate -income groups would constitute only 5 percent of the neighborhood population, the following groups were also considered to have a neutral ef- fect: low-income white house- holds with husbands, moderate - income black households with hus- bands, and moderate -income black households with no husbands. The low-income white family without a husband and all low-income black families were believedto be poten- tially harmful, even if they were to constitute only 5 percent of the neighborhood's resident population.5 Except for two categories of households, the surveyed neighborhoods'' tolerance for "different" households fell below 10% of the neighborhood. Certain types of -63- households were not tolerable even at 5% of the population. The occupants of a community -based residential facility may be considered "different" by the residents of the surrounding neighborhood, creating fear on the part of the residents that the neighborhood is changing. These fears may increase if a number of community facilities are established in the same neighborhood. It is possible that such a neighborhood could reach an "institutional tipping point" when the neighborhood's tolerance for ad- ditional facilities is exceeded. Although no research has established a neighborhood's limit of tolerance for community -based facilities, such research for other types of households has shown that an influx of 5% or fewer b "different" households could initiate the process of neigh- borhood change. The implication for agencies that spon- sor and regulate community -based residential facilities is clear: these facilities should not be allowed to concen- trate in neighborhoods at levels that might bring about neighborhood change. Density of Facilities in Miami Neighborhoods Density has two meanings in relation to community -based residential facilities. Degree of density can be measured by the proximity of one residential care facility to an- other facility or group of facilities. Density also can be gauged by the number of facility residents in an area. The density of community -based residential facilities in Miami's neighborhoods was measured by two statistical techniques called nearest neighbor analysis and location quotient analysis. The geographical units of analysis were the City's 1970 census tracts. Nearest neighbor analysis was used to measure the degree of proximity of community -based residential facilities in each census tract. This method quantitatively deter- mines a scale that measures the degree of departure from a random distribution. There are three benchmarks on this scale: (1) absolute clustering (all points falling in the same place), (2) absolute randomness, and (3) absolute dispersal (all points falling equidistant from the other.)? The diagram below shows a random pattern, a dispersed pattern, and a clustered pattern. Random Pattern • M • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • Dispersed Pattern • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Clustered Pattern • • • • • • • • •• • • Through this statistical technique, a score was cal- culated for each census tract with two or more com- munity -based facilities as well as for the City as a whole. Those scores•falling below 1.0 indicate clus- tering with a score. of 0 representing all points in the same spot. Scores of 1 or above indicate a ran- dom distribution, while scores above two indicate a dispersed pattern. The scores for each census tract measured are displayed in Table 8 below and on Map 11. TABLE 8 DENSITY OF COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF MIAMI IN TERMS OF PROXIMITY (NEAREST NEIGHBOR ANALYSIS) Census Tract Score 64 .577 20.02 .639 27.01 .709 25 .716 22.01 .81 CityofMiami .88 clustered 55.01 13 36.02 14 69 53 67.02 19.02 27.02 30.01 50 70.01 1.242 1.256 1.261 1.338 1.489 1.495 1.603 1.8 1.953 1.99 2.786 2.91 random r dispersed 1 e t 141 . A > n CENSUS TRACT WITH ONE OR.NO FACILITIES 0.0-0.99 TERED DISTRIBUTION 1.0-1•99 CENSUS TRACT WITH RANDOM DISTRIBUTION 2.0-2.99 CENSUS TRACT WITH DISPERSED DISTRIBUTION 5801 49 56 t000tl ST J 63.01 63.02 CENSUS TRACT WITH CLUS- mu le,ol —T- S• ,T I 17.02 le.o3 24 L . L 21411010114 D.IYS SIP 2! St Community -Based Residential Facilities Study MAP 11 DENSITY OF COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF MIAMI IN TERMS OF PROXIMITY (NEAREST NEIGHBOR ANALYSIS) ' CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT JUNE 1979 -66- !;1 Census Tract 24 27.02 20.02 64 (33 30.01 36.02 27.01 Community -based facilities in the City of Miami are clustered as shown by the City's score of .88. Within the City, five census tracts show a distribution of community -based residential facilities that is clustered. These census tracts, 22.01, 22.02, 25, 27.01, and 64 are shown on the'map. Location quotient analysis measured the relative den- sity of community -based residential facilities in each census tract in terms 'of number of residents. The num- ber of beds or capacity in each census tract was compared to thetract's total population. (Table 9 shows the census tracts where the residents of community -based facilities account for 1% or more of the total population.) The location quotient statistic then determined how far above or below average for the entire City a particular census tract falls in concentration of beds. A value of one is average. A value of less than one indicates the census tract's ratio of beds to total population is smaller than the City average. Values greater than one indicate that the ratio is greater than the City average. TABLE 9 MIAMI CENSUS TRACTS WITH 1% OR MORE RESIDENTS OF COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES Total Population Number of Residents Percent 10,771 196 1% 2,974 110 1% 5,973 152 2% 10,888 233 2% 9,023 397 4% 3,432 203 5% 6,891 457 7% 6,044 580 10% The location quotient statistics for each census tract that has community -based residential facilities are listed in Table 10 and displayed on Map 12. Thirty-one of the City's 63 census tracts contain community -based residential facilities. Of these, 18 census tracts have a smaller ratio of beds than the City average. The remaining tracts have a greater ratio, ranging from a location quotient of 1.0333 to one of 10.6667. As shown on the map, the densest census tracts in terms of facility residents are 13, 27.02, 30.01, 36.02 and 27.01. -67- When the results of the nearest neighbor analysis and the location quotient analysis are compared, several census tracts appear to have a concentration of community - based residential facilities both in proximity of facilities_ and number of residents. These tracts are 22.02, 25, 64, and 27.01. Census tract 27.01's community -based residen- tial facilities are extremely dense. It ranks near the clustered end of the scale in the nearest neighbor ana- lysis and has the highest location quotient of all cen- sus tracts. TABLE 10 DENSITY OF COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF MIAMI IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF RESIDENTS (LOCATION QUOTIENT ANALYSIS) Census Tract Location Quotient8 28 54.01 15.01 30.02 55.01 68 52 22.01 21 49 53 14 26 69 70 01 34 19.02 18.02 50 67.02 25 20.01 22.02 24 64 20.02 '27.02 13 30.01 36.02 27.01 . 1111 . 1222 .1889 . 2333 . 2667 . 3333 .3444 .3667 . 4000 .4111 .4333 .4889 . 4889 . 5000 . 5556 . 5556 .6333 .9444 1.0333 1.0444 1.3556 1.4111 1.5667 2.0222 2.3778 2.8222 4.1111 4.8889 6.5667 7.3667 10.6667 0.0-0.99 1.0-2.99 ® 3.0-4.99 5.0-6.99 7.0-8.99 9.0-10.99 SMALLER RATIO THAN AVERAGE CITY CAPACITY 10.04 GREATER RATIO THAN 10 AVERAGE CITY CAPACITY i3s.44;fl I90i 7002 *Pt III HIV( 18.a---P--S SI 1f1 till!� 8.03 «I iesi ..:, 19oz::: tsn ydmoiloM 23 n 'Mt Community -Based Residential Facilities Study MAP 12 DENSITY OF COMMUNITY —BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF MIAMI IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF RESIDENTS (LOCATION QUOTIENT ANALYSIS) • CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT JUNE 1979 —69_ Neighborhood Compatibility of Miami's Facilities Citizen complaints about proposed or existing community - based residential facilities often center on the compat- ibility of the facility with their neighborhood. On the other hand,, individuals and organizations trying to find a suitable location for a proposed facility often find that the only locations available are those not consid- ered appropriate for a community -based residence. The factors associated with neighborhood compatibility in- clude the size of the facility in relation to the sur- rounding buildings, the character of the surrounding neighborhood, the neighborhood amenities available to the residents of the facility, the amenities avail- able at the site of the facility itself, and the num- ber of facilities in a neighborhood. A survey of individuals and organizations that provide community -based residential facilities, a review of the literature regarding the location of such facilities, and a Planning Department field survey of facilities in the City were used to determine the compatability of Miami's existing community -based residential facil- ities with their neighborhoods and to provide guidelines forthe location of proposed facilities. The following paragraphs describe the results of the surveys and the literature review. Neighborhood Compatibility Survey Questionnaires were distributed to thirty-two individuals representing State and County public agencies and local private or non-profit organizations that sponsor or license community• -based residential facilities in Dade County. The purpose of the questionnaire was to obtain the opinion of these service providers about the compat- ibility of residential care facilities with various types of neighborhoods, the kinds of site and neighborhood amenities that should be available for residents of these facilities, and the number of residential care facilities that should be located in a neighborhood. Each of the twenty -three -respondents completed the ques- tionnaire in terms of the type of facility with which he or she is most familiar. The number of responses for each type of facility follows: -70- Type of Facility Responses Adult Congregate Living Facilities 4 Alcohol Rehabilitation Facilities 1 Residential Treatment Facilities for Drug Dependents 1 Residential Facilities for Devel- opmentally Disabled Persons 2 Residential Facilities for Persons with Mental Health Problems 6 Residential Child -Caring Facilities 3 Boarding Homes 2 Juvenile Community -Based Corrections 1 Adult Community -Based Corrections 3 Total 23 Respondents rated the suitability or importance of items on a. five -point scale ranging from least important to most suitable or most important. Appendix A presents the results of the survey. The first question pertained to the optimum size of a residential care facility that is considered a community - based facility rather than an institution. The respondents clearly preferred the smaller facilities. A facility with 7 to 16 residents was ranked on the fourth or fifth point of the scale by 73% of the respondents. Rating 60% of the scores in the fourth and fifth points, the facility with 1 to 6 residents was the second most suitable. The facility with 50 to 100 residents was ranked least suitable by 86% (first and second points) of the respondents, while facilities with more than 100 residents were considered least suitable by 95% (first and second points) of the respondents. When asked to rate the suitability of different types of neighborhoods, respondents sel.ected the less dense neighbor- hoods as the most suitable for community -based residential facilities. A single-family or duplex neighborhood was preferred by 73% (fourth and fifth points) of the respon- dents. Sixty-five percent (fourth and fifth points) felt that a neighborhood composed of apartment buildings with 3 to 50 apartments was most suitable. A commercial neigh- borhood composed of offices, retail shops, restaurants and service -oriented businesses was considered least suitable by 77% (first and second points) of the respondents. Eighty two percent (first and second points) felt that a warehousing and manufacturing district was least suitable for these facilities. -71- Respondents also rated the importance of neighborhood and site amenities. The neighborhood amenities are listed below in order of importance on the basis of the ratings they,received on the fourth and fifth points of the scale: 1. access to public transportation (91%) 2. access to medical facilities (83%) 3. access to active recreational facilities (sports fields, play grounds, etc.) (78%) 4. access to educational facilities (77%) 5. access to passive recreational facilities (neighborhood parks) (69%) 6. access to social service agencies and social services required for the residents (66%) 7. access to employment (55%) 8. access to shopping (43%) The priori.ti-e.s setfor the site amenities, based on the responses on the fourth and fifth points of the scale, follow: 1. outdoor space for recreation (65%) 2. outdoor space for relaxing and gathering (58%) 3. landscaping (40%) 4. space for gardening (21%) 5. space for observing neighborhood and street activities (19%) 6. parking (5%) The relative importance of access to public transportation and parking is especially interesting. Parking was con- sidered least important to the site by 78% of the res- pondents (first and second points), while access to pub- lic transportation was considered most important by.91%. Most residents of community -based residential facilities apparently do not own or have access to automobiles. -72- Outdoor space for active and passive recreation rank near the top of both lists. No respondents to the question about site amenities considered outdoor space for recreation least important and only 5% considered outdoor space for relaxing and gathering least important. Two survey questions dealt with the proximity of com- munity -based residential facilities. The first asked respondents to rate the suitability of the location of two residential facilities in terms of the number of blocks between them. Responses to this questions showed no definite pattern. Respondents probably were not able to differentiate the suitability of the hypothetical distances. Respondents did select a preferable number of facilities to be located on a block face, however. (A diagram of a block face is shown in Appendix A.) Res- ponses clearly show that service providers feel that only one or two community -based residential facilities should be located on a block face. Literature Review Standards pertaining to the proper size, location, and available amenities for community -based residential facil- ities are not available for every type of facility examined in this study. It is possible, however, to find some standards for adult congregateliving facilities and cor- rectional facilities. These standards are summarized below: Adult Congregate Living Facilities 1. Size small developments of 20 to 30 units to provide 9 a homey, uncomplicated, and personal atmosphere. 2. Location and Amenities - to encourage community participation, the facility should be located in an active area with easy orientation to various age groups who reside, work, shop, and play in the areal° - the facility should not be located near environ- mental generators of crime and potential vandalism, such as bars and taverns, high school play yards, and transitional housing areas" the facility should be accessible to public transportation 12 the facility should be located near the following services: the distances are critical distances as perceived by urban older persons" -73- grocery store bus stop church drug store clinic or hospital bank social center library 2-3 blocks 1-2 blocks 1/4 - 1/2 mile 3 blocks 1/4 - 1/2 mile 1/4 mile 3 blocks 1 mile the facility should be located near parks, par- ticularly those thatlmphasize passive rec- reational activities the facility should not be located near environ- mental generators lf5 noise, such as major truck routes or industry provision should be made for outsidg sitting and watching in both sun and shade though only perhaps 20% of the elderly have cars, consideration should be given to poten- tial parking expansion as this number is ex- pected to increase in coming years. Provisionl7 should be made for significant visitor parking Juvenile Community -Based Corrections 1. Size a community-basedl$rogram should not exceed 25 clients in number 2. Location and Amenities community -based treatment centers should be located in areas that are reasonably close to employment, 19 educational, vocational and recreational facilities Adult Community -Based Corrections 1. Size - the resident capacity of a community treatment center should not exceed twenty clients 2. Location and Amenities the community treatment center should be located in an area reasonably close to public transpor- tation,' employment, and vocational opportunities; medical, psychiatric, recreational and other • community resources; and agencies to be utilized 21 by the community treatment center for its clients -74- Field Survey The Planning Department selected randomly approximately half the City's community -based residential facilities identified in the February inventory for a field survey. The purpose of the survey was to identify the type and condition of the, structures in which the facilities are located, the amenities located at the site, the type of neighborhoods in which the facilities are located, and the degree to which the facility blends into the surrounding neighborhood. Forty residences scattered throughout the City of Miami were included in the survey. The number of facilities surveyed in each category follows: 1. adult congregate living facilities 2. alcohol and drug rehabilitation facilities 3. residential facilities for devel- opmentally disabled persons 4. residential facilities for persons with mental health problems 2 5. residential child -caring facilities 2 6. boarding homes 7. adult community -based corrections 2 Total 16 6 40 The surveyed facilities represented a range of sizes as shown in Table 11. This table includes the capacity of only 38 residences because the capacity of three is un- known. The distribution of sizes of the randomly selected facilities is similar to that of the entire inventory of facilities shown in Table 5. It can be assumed, there- fore, that the findings of this survey pertain to the entire inventory of facilities. TABLE 11 CAPACITY OF SURVEYED COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES Number of Residents Type of Facility 1-6 7-16 17-50 50-100 100+ Adult Congregate Living 2 6 5 2 1 Facilities Alcohol and Drug Rehabili- 0 0 3 1 1 tation Facilities Residential Facilities 2 0 0 0 2 for Developmentally Dis- abled Persons Residential Facilities for 2 0 0 0 0 Persons with Mental Health Problems Residential Child -Caring 0 0 2 0 0 Facilities Boarding Homes 0 1 3 2 0 Adult Community -Based 0 1 1 0 0 Corrections Total 6 8 14 5 4 Most of the facilities surveyed were located in single-family structures or in apartment buildings containing 3 to 50 units. There were no residences located in duplexes or apartment buildings with more than 50 units. Seven facil- ities were located in other types of structures: two were located in former motels, one in an office building, and four were in institutional structures. The type of structure for each category of facility is shown in Table 14. The adult congregate living facilities were located in the greatest variety of structural types. Most of the residences for the developmentally disabled were single- family homes. TABLE 12 TYPE OF STRUCTURE IN WHICH SURVEYED COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES ARE LOCATED Type of Facility Type of Structure Single Family and Dup- lex Apart- ment 3 -50 units Apart- ment 50+ units Other Adult Congregate 6 5 0 5* Living Facilities Alcohol and Drug 3 3 0 0 Rehabilitation Facilities Residential Facil- 4 1 0 1** ities for Devel- opmentally Dis- abled Persons Residential Facil- 0 2 0 0 ities for Per- sons with Mental Health Problems Residential Child- 0 1 Caring Facil- ities Boarding Homes 3 3 0 Adult Community- 1 1 0 Based Correc- tions ** Total 17 16 0 l** 0 7 Facilities include 2 former motels, 1 office building, and 2 institutional structures. Institutional structure The surveyed community -based residential facilities tend to be located in older buildings. Thirty-one of the residences are located in structures built before 1949. Only two facilities are in buildings contructed since 1970 and seven are in structures built between 1950 and 1969. Table 13 shows the age of the surveyed facilities by type of facility. -77- TABLE 13 AGE OF STRUCTURES SURVEYED Age of Structure Type of Facility 1970 to Present 1950-1969 1949 or Earlier Adult Congregate Living 0 4 12 Facilities Alcohol and Drug Rehabi- 1 1 litation Facilities Residential Facilities 1 1 5 for the Development- ally Disabled Residential Facilities 0 1 1 for Persons with Mental Health Prob- lems Residential Child- 0 0 1 Caring Facilities Boarding Homes 0 0 6 Adult Community- 0 0 2 Based Corrections Total 2 7 31 Although most of the structures surveyed are old, most of them are in good condition. An inspection of the ex- terior of these buildings revealed that only seven of the forty structures needed minor repairs. According to the U.S. Census definition, a structure needing minor re- pairs is sound structurally, but trim, cornices, eaves, gutters, windows, doors and other non -critical elements may need to be replaced. None of the surveyed facilities needed major repairs or was dilapidated. No interior inspection of structural conditions was made. The data displayed in Table 14 show that half of the boarding homes and the adult correctional facilities needed minor re- pairs. Type of Facility TABLE 14 CONDITION OF STRUCTURES SURVEYED Condition of Structure Good Needs Minor Repairs Adult Congregate Living 14 2 Facilities Alcohol and Drug Rehabi- 6 0 litation Facilities Residential Facilities 5 1 for the Developmentally Disabled Residential Facilities for 2 0 Persons with Mental Health Problems Residential Child -Caring 2 0 Facilities Boarding Homes 3 3 Adult Community -Based 1 1 Corrections Total 33 7 The characteristics of the site of each facility were noted in the survey. These site characteristics in- cluded the number of paved parking spaces on the site, the amenities available, the presence of signs, the residential character of the site, the number of resi- dents visible from the street and the degree of noise or air pollution from the street. Tables 15 through 20 present the results of the site characteristics survey. TABLE 15 NtJMBER OF FACILITIES WITH PAVED PARKING SPACES ON THE SITE Type of Facility Number of Facilities 0 1-4. 5-10 10+ Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Adult Congregate 4 7 1 4 Living Facilities Alcohol and Drug Rehabi- 1 2 2 1 litation Facilities Residential Facilities 2 3 0 1 for. the Development- ally Disabled Residential Facilities 1 0 0 1 for Persons with Mental Health Prob- lems Residential Child- 0 1 0 1 Caring Facilities Boarding Homes 3 2 1 0 Adult Community- 0 2 0 1 Based Corrections Total 11 17 . 4 8 In general, the facilities surveyed had fewer parking spaces on the site than number of residents. Eleven facilities had no on -site parking at all. The survey team found no residences where there seemed to be an inadequate amount of parking space. Each community -based residential facility was evaluated in terms of the amenities present on the site. Table 16 shows the number of facilities that had outdoor space for active recreation, outdoor space for passive recreation, space for gardening, landscaping, space for observing neighborhood and street activities, and significant trees. The survey of service providers found that outdoor space. for recreation and for relaxing and gathering were con- sidered the two most important site amenities. Most facilities surveyed had these two amenities on site. Slightly more than half the facilities had landscaping and significant trees and fewer than one half had space for gardening. TABLE 16 SITE AMENITIES OF SURVEYED FACILITIES Number of Facilities with Amenity Total Active Passive Land Type of Facilities Recrea- Recrea- Gar- Scap- Facility Surveyed tion tion dening ing Observ- ing Street Signi- ficant TreeS Adult Con- 16 6 15 4 10 I4 gregate Living Facilities Alcohol and 6 4 6 3 5 5 Drug Reha- bilitation Facilities Residential 6 4 6 4 4 6 4 Facilities for Develop- mentally Disabled Persons Residential Fa- 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 cilities:.for Per- sons with Men- tal Health Problems Residential Child- 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 Caring Facil- ities Boarding Homes 6 2 6 1 4 6 4 Adult Commun- 2 1 2 1 0 1 0 ity-Based Corrections 6 Total 40 21 39 15 26 35 26 The presence of a community -based residential facility in a neighborhood can be• signaled by a significant number of resi- dents visible from the street or by signs with the name of the residence. Tables 17 and 18 display data about the num- ber of residents visible from the street at each of the fa- cilities and whether any signs were present. -81- TABLE 17 NUMBER OF RESIDENTS VISIBLE FROM STREET Number of Facilities Type of Facility 0 1-5 6-10 10+ Residents Residents Residents Residents Adult Congregate Living Facilities Alcohol and Drug Re- habilitation Facilities Residential Facilities for Developmentally Dis- abled Persons Residential Facilities for Persons with Men- tal Health Problems Residential Child- Car- ing Facilities Boarding Homes Adult Community - Based Corrections Type of Facility Total 9 2 7 0 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 1 2 1 0 21 15 3 TABLE 18 PRESENCE OF SIGNS AT SURVEYED FACILITIES Number of Facilities Sign No Sign 1 Adult Congregate Living Facilities Alcohol and Drug Re- habilitation Facilities Residential Facilities for Developmentally Dis- abled Persons Residential Facilities for Persons with Men- tal Health Problems Residential Child -caring Facilities Boarding Homes Adult Community -Based Corrections Total 5 4 1 0 2 0 11 2 5 13 27 -82- Type of Facility Over half the facilities surveyed had no residents visible from the street. One to five residents were visible at fifteen facilities. Only four facilities had more than five residents visible from the street. The facilities were surveyed during the week in the daytime. Thirteen of the forty facilities surveyed had signs with the name of the residence. The alcohol and drug rehabilitation facilities, boarding homes, and adult congregate facilities were more likely to have signs than the other types of facilities. The residential character of each site was evaluated. As shown in Table 19, thirty-three of the forty sites sur- veyed were judged to be residential in character. Residen- tial character was defined as housed in a structure de- signed to be.used as a residence, located on a site with the setbacks similar to those found in residential neigh- borhoods, and located on a block with a predominance of residential land uses. The adult congregate living facil- ities and alcohol and drug rehabilitation facilities were less likely to have a residential character. TABLE 19 RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF SURVEYED FACILITIES Number of Facilities Residential Not Residential Adult Congregate Living 13 3 Facilities Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation 4 2 Facilities Residential Facilities for 5 1 Developmentally Disabled Persons Residential Facilities for 2 0 Persons with Mental Health Problems Residential Child -Caring 1 1 Facilities Boarding Homes 6 0 Adult Community -Based 2 0 Corrections Total 33 7 -83- Each site was rated as receiving low, moderate, or high amounts of noise or air pollution from the street. Table 29 shows that more than half the facilities were located on sites with low levels of pollution. Of the various types of facilities, the adult congregate living facilities had a significant number of sites with high levels of pollution from the street. The mental health facilities were located on sites with moderate or high levels of pollution. TABLE 20 DEGREE OF NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION FROM STREET Number of Facilities Low Moderate High Type of Facility Pollution Pollution Pollution Adult Congregate 9 1 Living Facilities Alcohol and Drug Re- 4 1 habilitation Facilities Residential Facil- 6 ities for Develop- mentally Disabled Persons Residential Facil0 ities for Persons with. Mental Health Problems Residential Child- 1 Caring Facilities Boarding Homes 5 Adult Community- 1 Based Corrections 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 Total 26 5 9 The type of neighborhood in which the facility is located also was noted. The categories of neighborhoods were predominantly single family and duplex, predominantly apartment buildings with 3 to 50 units, predominantly apartment buildings with more than 50 units,.predomi- nantly commercial, predominantly industrial, or a -84- neighborhood with a mixture of building types and uses. Table 21 shows that twenty of the facilities are located in mixed neighborhoods, fourteen are located in single- family neighborhoods, three are located in neighbor- hoods predominantly composed of apartment buildings with 3 to 50 units, and three are located in predom- inantly commercial neighborhoods. The mixed neighborhoods in which the adult congregate living facilities were located included neighborhoods with single family homes and apartment buildings, those with apartment buildings and offices, and those with single family homes and commercial uses, such as shopping, centers. The alcohol and drug rehabilitation facilities located in mixed neighborhoods included one neighborhood with a mixture of single family homes and apartment buildings; another with residences, warehouses, and a church; and a third with apartment buildings, commercial uses, a fire station and a school. Both mental health facilities were located in neigh- borhoods with a mixture of apartment and parking lots and commercial uses. The child -caring facilities were located in neighborhoods with a mixture of residen- tial, commercial, and institutional_ uses. One correctional residence was located in a neighborhood of commercial and residential uses and the boarding homes in mixed neighborhoods were in neighborhoods with residential and commercial or industrial uses. -85- TABLE 21 TYPE OF NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH SURVEYED FACILITIES ARE LOCATED Number of Facilities Apts. Apts. Com- In - Single 3-5 50+ mer- dus- Family' units units cial trial Mixed Adult Congregate 5 1 0 3 0 7 Living Facilities Alcohol and Drug Re- 2 1 0 0 0 3 habilitation Facilities Residential Facilities 4 1 0 0 0 1 for Developmentally Disabled Persons 2 Residential Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 for Persons with Mental Health Problems 2 Residential Child- 0 0 0 0 0 Caring Facilities 0 4 Boarding Homes 2 0 0 0 Adult Community- 1 0 0 0 0 1 Based Corrections Total 14 3 0 3 0 20 Finally, each community -based residential facility was evaluated against other structures and sites on the block face to com- pare the of the structures and the yards, and the degree to which the facility blends into the neighborhood. Tables 22 through 24 display the results of this evaluation. The structural condition of most of the facilities was the same as or better than other structures on the block face. The same was true of the yards. Thirty-one of thirty-nine facilities surveyed appeared to blend into the surrounding neighborhood. The only type of facility that had a significant number of residences different from the surrounding neighborhood was the alcohol and drug rehabilitation facilties. TABLE 22 CONDITION OF THE STRUCTURE COMPARED TO OTHER STRUCTURES ON THE BLOCK FACE Number of Facilities Type of Facility Much Much Worse Worse Same Better Better Adult Congregate Living Facilities Alcohol and Drug Rehabi- litation Facilities Residential Facilities for Developmentally Dis- abled Persons Residential Facilities for Persons with Mental Health Problems Residential Child -Caring 0 Facilities Boarding Homes Adult Community -Based Corrections 0 0 • 0 3 11 1 1 O 1 4 0 1 O 1. 4 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 0 Total* 0 5 28 2 * Several facilities were not evaluated because there were no other structures on the block face with which to compare them. 3 IIIII 1IIIIIII IIIIAUUI�1 -87- TABLE 23 CONDITION OF THE YARD COMPARED TO OTHER YARDS ON THE BLOCK FACE Type of Facility Number of Facilities Much Much Worse Worse Same Better Better Adult Congregate Living 0 3 8 4 Facilities Alcohol and Drug Rehabi- 0 0 4 1 litation Facilities Residential Facilities for 1 1 3 0 Developmentally Dis- abled Persons 2 0 Residential Facililies 0 0 for Persons with Mental Health Problems Residential Child -Caring 0 0 0 1 Facilities Boarding Homes 0 0 5 0 Adult Community -Based 0 0 2 0 Corrections 0 1 1 0 0 Total* 1 4 24 . 6 * It was not possible to evalute several facilities. TABLE 24 ' DEGREE TO WHICH THE FACILITY BLENDS INTO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD Type of Facility Same Number of Facilities 1 2 3 4 .•5 Very Different 2 Adult Congregate Liv- 14 1 0 1 0 ing Facilities. Alcohol and Drug Re- 3 0 2 1 0 habilitation Facil- ities Residential Facilities 4 0 1 1 0 for Developmentally Disabled Persons Residential Facilities 2 0 0 0 0 forPersons with Mental Health Problems Residential Child -Caring 1 0 0 0 0 Facilities Boarding Homes 5 '1 0 0 0 Adult Community -Based 2 0 0 0 0 Corrections Total• 31 2 3 0 -88- Fiscal Impact of Community -Based Residential Facilities Three components of the fiscal impact of community - based residential facilities on a neighborhood or jurisdiction were examined in this study: (1) the impact of the facilities on surrounding property values, (2) the extent to which the facilities con- tribute to the local, tax base by paying property taxes, and (3) the net fiscal impact of the facilities, i.e., the difference between the average cost of public services provided for the facilities and the average revenues received from the facilities by local govern- ment. The following section provides an analysis of the fiscal impact of community -based residential facilities in Miami in terms of these components. Impact on Property Values The impact of a community -based residential facility on neighboring property values can be determined by com- paring property sales data in the neighborhood around the facility with sales data in a similar neighborhood that has no facility. This data must be collected for a period of time before the facility is established as well as after the facility opens. Because such an investigation is beyond the scope of this study, no attempt has been made to determine the impact of com- munity -based residential facilities on property values in Miami. Nonetheless, an indication of the potential impact of these facilities on property values can be gained from studies done in other cities. The most rigorous study of property impacts, was done 22 by Dr. Julian Wolpert of Princeton University in 1978. Dr Wolpert compared property transactions in 42 neigh- borhoods in ten New York cities where group homes for the mentally retarded had been located with prop- erty transactions in 42 similar control neighborhoods. The sample neighborhoods differed in terms of the life cycle characteristics of the residents, socio-economic status, and ethnic or racial composition, but many were suburban in nature with predominantly single-family housing and were in communities with at least two or three group homes. To determine the community residence's impact on prop- erty values, each property within a one block radius of the facility or control site was traced to find all sales in the area from January of the year preceding in the facility's opening. For properties experiencing sales, all sales were traced back to 1967 for comparison. If sales occurred both before and after the establish- ment of the group home, the change in market price was divided by the.,number of months between successive transactions to find the increase or decrease in pur- chase price of the property per month. This informa- tion was compared with the distance of the property from the group home or its control to estimate the "effects of proximity to the group h9Te on the change of value of neighboring properties". An analysis of 754 property transactionsnear group homes and 826 in control areas revealed that: 1. property values in communities with group homes had the same increase or decrease in market prices as in matched control areas, 2. proximity of neighboring properties to a group home did not significantly affect their market value, 3. the immediately adjacent properties did not experience property value declines, and 4. establishment of the group homes did not generate a higher degree of neighboring property2urnover than in the matched control. A similar study was conducted in Lansing, Michigan. The Lansing Planning Department selected five neighborhoods with community -based residential facilities of varied types, number of residents, and type of location. These five neighborhoods were matched with five control neighborhoods without facilities. The ippact of the facilities on property values was measured by averaging the ratio of sales price to the City Assessor's ap- praised value for property transactions in the neigh- borhood before and after each facility was established. When the average sales price ratio in these neighborhoods was compared with the average sales price ratio in the control neighborhoods, the ratio after the establish- ment of the facilities in four of five neighborhoods was equal to or higher than the ratio in the control neigh- borhood. In one instance, the control area had a higher III I II111 ■ 111 IIIi1 -90- average sales price ratio, but the difference was not significant statistically. This study concluded that there is no relationship between community -based residential facilities and property values, regardless of the age of the neighborhood, relationship to dnn- town, number of residents, and type of residents. Although the impact of a single community -based resi- dential facility on property values in the surrounding neighborhood has been studied, no investigation of the impact of a concentration of facilities in a neigh- borhood has been attempted. Such a study would have to measure the increase or decrease in property values over a period of time as each facility was established in the neighborhood. It was not possible to conduct such a study in the City of Miami for several rea- sons: (1) most of the Miami neighborhoods with a high concentration of facilities are predominantly rental apartment districts, making it difficult to relate the establishment of a facility to a decision to sell property; (2) where a number of facilities are located in a neighborhood of predominantly owner -occupied housing, the facilities have been established for so long that it is impossible to find property sales data for the years immediately before and after the opening of the facility; and (3) because of the relatively small size of Miami, it is difficult to find matching control neighborhoods. If a neighborhood with a concentration of facilities reaches the institutional tipping point mentioned ear- lier, it is possible that a number of neighborhood resi- dents will decide that the neighborhood is not desirable and will decide to move. Potential buyers in the neighborhood may see the area as undesirable, as well. In such a situation, if the number of houses for sale exceeds the demand for residences in the area, their value may drop or not rise as fast as similar homes in other neighborhoods. Impact on the City Tax Base The contribution of a community -based residential facility to the municipal tax base depends on whether the owners of the facility pay property taxes on the land and buildings where it is located. A facility's owners may be exempted .from paying property taxes if they are classified as a charitable or religious organization or -91- if the facility is located on public land. On the other hand, the owners of property with a facility operated as a private business must pay property taxes. Table 25 shows the tax status of Miami's community - based residential facilities. Twenty-three of the ninety-one facilities,.. or approximately 25%, are tax exempt. The rest are taxable and have a total assessed value of $6,174,195 representing,$89,445 in revenue for the City. Of the various types of facilities, only the child -caring facilities and the drug rehabilitation facilities are predominately tax-exempt. Only one of eight drug rehabilitation facilities pays property taxes. TABLE 25 TAX STATUS OF COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES Number of Facilities Total Assessed Total Assessed Tax Value of Tax- Value of Taxable Type of Facility Exempt Exempt Facil. Taxable Facilities . Adult Congregate Living 5 $6,079,563 29 $3,110,168 Facilities Alcohol Rehabilitation 3 1,236,075 7 748,065 Facilities Residential Treatment 7 515,922 1 52,191 Facilities for Drug Dependents Residential Facilities for 3 1,329,223 10 641,585 Developmentally Dis- abled Persons Residential Facilities 0 4 608,316 for Persons with Mental Health Problems Residential Child -Caring 2 107,393 1 24,495 Facilities Boarding Homes 2 122,733 13 902,533 Adult Community- Based 1 26,964 3 173,410 Corrections Total 23 $ 9,417,873 68 $ 6,174.195 -92- Estimated Net Fiscal Impact Net fiscal impact analysi.s is a method of projecting the average public costs and revenues associated with certain types of development or alternative land use plans. In this type of analysis, the estimated revenues received by a local government from development are compared with the estimated cost of services that must be provided to the development by that local government. The re- sulting impact on the local government's budget will be either positive or negative depending on whether the revenues received are greater or less than the cost of the public services provided. Certain characteristics of fiscal impact analysis must be understood. First, fiscal impact analysis. concerns only the direct impacts of development. It projects only the primary costs, such as salaries for policemen or sanitation workers, and the primary revenues, such as property taxes or revenue sharing funds. Possible secon- dary costs and revenues,. such as an increase or decrease of nearby property values, are not included. Secondly, fiscal impact analysis deals with public costs and revenues. The private costs of development, i.e., the private costs of complying with local zoning, build- ing and fire codes are not considered. Finally, the costs are projected to only the local juris- diction in which the development occurs. Costs to county, regional, or special districts are not included in the analysis. This analysis does not include the costs of pro- viding supporting services for community -based facilities nor the costs of institutionalization as an alternative.. Tables 26 through 30 show the estimated net fiscal impact of five existing community -based residential facilities in the City of Miami. The five facilities vary in size, type of structure, number of employees, and property tax status. One facility ,is a small group home in a single- family dwelling. Two facilities are medium-sized with 18 and 25 residents respectively. One of these is exempt from property taxes; the other is not. The remaining two facilities are large. One, an apartment like structure with 75 residents, is tax exempt. The other facility, which pays property taxes, is a converted motel with 150 residents. For the purposes of the fiscal impact analysis, these community -based residential facilities are considered to have the characteristics of a residential building and -93- a hotel. Although the facilities are residences, they also have a significant number of employees. For this reason, the analysis includes costs and revenues associated with both residents and employees. The only exception is the small group home, which is treated as a residence. The unit costs for the City of Miami are based on 1979 Planning Department estimates. The estimated net fiscal impact of these facilities ranges from a positive impact of $154 to a negative impact of $8,440. The tax exempt facilities have the greatest nega- tive impact on the City's fiscal condition. The two facilities with a positive impact do not contribute greatly to the City's coffers. It should be remembered that community -based residential facilities provide a valuable service for citizens who are unable to live independently. However, since these facilities will provide a negligible positive fiscal impact or a negative one, it is important that the City of Miami not provide more facilities than are needed by its residents. -94- TABLE 26 ESTIMATED NET FISCAL IMPACT Community -Based Residential Facility with Three Residents Estimated Revenues Total Assessed Value Tax Rate (City) City Real Estate Tax Other Revenues: 2 Personal Property Utilities Tax 22.48 Service Charge 7.10 Court Fines 6.22 State Revenue Sharing 19.77 Federal Revenue Sharing 30.61 Total, All Revenues $19,000 14.487 mils Estimated Costs General Government3 Fire4 5 Sanitation Police and Legal Parks Other6 Per Residentl Per Resident $ 40.86 8.81 Total, All Costs Estimated Net Fiscal Impact Positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 $ 275 55 67 21 18 59 91 $ 586 41 59 34 122 26 150 $ 432 +$154 Facility has 3 residents. 20% of real estate tax . @ expenditure of .0022/$1.00 assessed value. Includes adminis- trative and legislative costs, economic development, community affairs, legal, planning and budget, and building operations and maintenance. @ $59.64 per unit. Facility has 1 unit. @ $34.66 per unit. Facility has 1 unit. @ .0079/$1.00 assessed value. Includes service enterprises, pensions, debt service and special projects. -95- TABLE 27 ESTIMATED NET FISCAL IMPACT Community -Based Residential Facility with 25 Residents Total Estimated Revenues Assessed Value Tax Rate (City) City Real Estate Tax $30,852 14.487 mils Other Revenues: Per Resident1 Personal Property3 Utilities Tax Service Charge Court Fines State Revenue Sharing Federal Revenue " Estimated Costs Per Employee2 $22.48 7.10 6.22 19.77 30.61 Total All $446 89 $22.48 674 177 155 19.77 593 765 Revenues $2,899 Per Resident Per Employee General Government 67 Tires 750 6 736 Sanitation, Police and Legal $40.86 $40.86 1,2255 Parks 8.81 Other7 243 Total, All Costs Estimated Net Fiscal Impact Negative $3,241 -$342 1 Facility has 25 residents. 2 Facility has 5 employees. 3 @ 20% of real estate tax. 4 @ expenditure of $.0022/$1.00 assessed value. Includes admin- istrative and legislative costs, economic development, community affairs, legal, planning and budget, and building operations 5 and maintenance. 6 @ $75.03 per unit. Facility has 10 units. 7 @ $73.64 per unit. Facility has 10 units. @ .0079/$1,00 assessed value. Includes service enterprises, pensions, debt service, and special projects. TABLE 28 ESTIMATED NET FISCAL IMPACT Community-Based.Residential Facility with 18 Residents Tax Exempt Estimated Revenues Total Assessed Value $107,393 Tax Rate (City) exempt City Real Estate Tax -0- -0- Other Revenues: Per Resident1 Per Employee2 Personal Property 3 -0- Utilities Tax $ 22.48 $22.48 584 Service Charge 7.10 127 Court Charge 6.22 111 State Revenue Sharing 19.77 19.77 514 Federal Revenue Sharing 30.61 550 Total, All Revenues $1,886 Estimated Costs GeneEal Government4 Fire 6 Sanitation Police and Legal Parks? Other Per Resident $40.86 8.81 Per Employee 236 1,050 1,030 $40.86 1,062 158 848 Total, All Costs Estimated Net Fiscal Impact Negative $4,384 -$2,498 1 Facility has 18 residents. 2 Facility has 8 employees. 3 @ 20% of real estate tax. 4 @ expenditure of $.0022/$1.00 assessed value. Includes admin- istrative and legislative costs, economic development, community affairs, legal, planning and budgeting, and building operations 5 and maintenance. 6 @ $75.03 per unit. Facility has 14 units. 7 @ $73.64 per unit. Facility has 14, units. @.007W$1.00 assessed value. Includes service enterprises, pensions, debt service and special projects. -97- TABLE 29 ESTIMATED NET FISCAL IMPACT Community -Based Residential Facility with 75 Residents Tax Exempt Estimated Revenues Assessed Value Tax Rate (City) City Real Estate Tax -0- -0- Per Resident1 Per Employee 2 Total Other Revenues: Personal Property 3 Utilities Tax Service Charge Court Fines State Revenue Sharing Federal Revenue Sharing Estimated Costs Geneal Government4 Fire 6 Sanitation Police and Legal Parks? Other $351,014 $22.48 7.10 6.22 19.77 30.61 Per Resident $40.86 8.81 -0- $22.48 $2,180 532 466 19.77 1,917 2,295 Total, All Revenues$7,390 Per Employee 772 4,051 3,976 $40.86 3,963 475 2,773 Total, All Costs $15,830 Estimated Net Fiscal Impact Negative - $8,440 1 Facility has 75 residents. 2 Facility has 22 employees. 3 @ 20% of real estate tax. 4 @ expenditure of $.0022/$1.00 assessed value. Includes adminis- trative and legislative costs, economic development, community affairs, planning and budgeting, and building operations and 5 maintenance. 6 @ $75.03 per unit. Facility has 54 units. 7 @ $73.64 per unit. Facility has 54 units. @ .0079/$1.00 assessed value. Includes service enterprises, pensions, debt service, and special projects. -98- Estimated Revenues Assessed Value Tax Rate (City) City Real Estate Tax TABLE 30 ESTIMATED NET FISCAL IMPACT Community -Based Residential Facility with 150 Residents Total $547,863 14.487 mils $8,328 Other Revenues: Per Residentl Per Employee2 Personal PropertY3 1,665 3 665 Utilities Tax $22.48 $22.48 Service Charge 7.10 1,065 Court Fines 6.22 933 State Revenue Sharing 19.77 19.77 3,222 Federal Revenue Sharing 30.61 4,591 Total, All Revenues $23,468 Estimated Costs GeneEal Government Fire 6 Sanitation Police and Legal Parks 7 Other 4 Per Resident Per Employee $ 40.86 8.81 Estimated Net Fiscal Impact Positive $ 40.86 Total, All Costs 1,264 4,876 4,786 6,660 1,321 4,541 $23,448 + $20 1 Facility has 150 residents. 2 Facility has 13 employees. 3 @ 20% of real estate tax. 4 @ expenditure of $.0022/$1.00 assessed value. Includes administra- tive and legislative costs, economic development, community affairs, legal, planning and budgeting, and building operations and main- s tenance. 6 @ $75.03 per unit. Facility has 65 units. 7 @ $73.64 per unit. Facility has 65 units. @ .0079/$1.00 assessed value. Includes service enterprise, pen- sions, debt service, and special projects. -99- Summary 1. Community -based residential facilities in Miami as a whole tend to be clustered rather than dispersed throughout the City. The community facilities Within census tracts 22.01, 22.02, 25,• 27.01, and 64 are clustered. 2. Residents of community -based residential facilities ac- count for 1% or more of the population of eight census tracts. Four tracts have 4% or more as follows: (a) 13 (b) 30.01 (c) 36.02 (d) 27.01 4% 5% 7% 10% 3. Twelve of the City's census tracts have a concentration of community -facility residents/population that is greater than the City average. 4. Four census tracts, 22.02, 25, 64 and 27.01 have a con- centration of facilities in terms of both proximity of facilities and number of residents. 5. Respondents to the neighborhood compatibility survey indicated that 7 to 16 residents is the optimum size for a community -based residential facility. The least suitable are facilities with 50 to 100 residents and those with more than 100 residents. 6. The most suitable neighborhoods for community facilities are single-family or duplex neighborhoods and those com- posed of apartment buildings with 3 to 50 apartments. Commercial and industrial neighborhoods are rated least suitable. 7. Neighborhood amenities are rated most important as follows: 1. Access to public transportation (91%) 2. Access to medical facilities (83%) 3. Access to active recreational facilities sportsfields, play grounds, etc.) (78%) 4. Access to educational facilities (77%) 5. Access to passive recreational facilities (neighborhood parks) (69%) 6. Access to social service agencies and social services required for the residents (66%) 7. Access to employment (55%) 8. Access to shopping (43%) -100- 8. Site amenities are rated most important as follows: 1. outdoor space for recreation (65%) 2. outdoor space for relaxing and gathering (58%) 3. landscaping (40%) 4. space for gardening (21%) 5. space for observing neighborhood and street activities (19%) 6. parking (5%) 9. Responses to a question about the proximity of community -based residential facilities indicated that only one or two facilities should be located on a block face'. 10. A field survey was conducted of approximately half of Miami's community -based residential facilities. Most of the facilities surveyed are located in single-family structures or in apart- ment buildings containing 3 to 50 units. 11. Community -based residential facilities tend to be located in older buildings. Thirty-one of forty residences surveyed are located in structures built before 1949. 12. Most surveyed facilities are in good condition. Only seven of forty struc- tures need repairs. The boarding homes and adult correctional facilities are more likely to need repairs than other types of facilities. 13. Most facilities have fewer parking spaces on site than number of residents. No facilities appeared to have an inadequate amount of parking during the survey. 14. Most facilities have the two site amenities rated most important in the neighborhood compatibility survey: outdoor space for rec- reation and for relaxing and gathering. More than half the facilities have landscaping and significant trees on the site. 15. During the survey, over half the forty facilities had no residents visible from the street. One to five residents were visible at fifteen facilities. 16. Thirteen facilities had signs with the name of the residence. The alcohol and drug rehabilitation facilities, boarding homes, and adult congregate living facilities were more likely to have signs than the other types of facilities. 17. Thirty-three of forty sites surveyed were judgJA to be residential in character. Adult congregate living facil- ities and alcohol and drug rehabilitation facilities were less likely to have a residential character. 18. Over half of the.facilities are located on sites with low levels of pollution from the street. There are a significant number of adult congregate living facilities and mental health facilities on sites with moderate or high levels of pollution. 19. Twenty of the forty facilities are located in tt ighbor- hoods with a mixture of land uses, fourteen :.-1:i: located in single-family neighborhoods, three are lccar_,:ld in neighborhoods predominentiy composed of apartment build- ings with 3 to 50 units, and three are located in pre- dominently commercial neighborhoods. 20. The structural and yard conditions of mo-;': facilities was the same as or better than other struc- tures on the block face. Thirty-one of thirty-nine facilities appeared to blend into the surr•our Jing neigh- borhood. The only type of facility that had r,. signi- ficant number of residences different from the surround- ing neighborhood was the alcohol and drug rehabilitation facilities. 21. Studies of the effects of a community -based residential facility on neighboring property values show that a. property values in communities with facilities, have the same increase or decrease in marlk:ct - prices as in matched control.areas, b. proximity of neighboring properties to a facility does not significantly affect thr:ir market value. 22. No studies have investigated the impact of a concentra- tion of facilities on property values in a neighbor- hood. It was not possible to conduct such a study in Miami. 23. Twenty-five percent of Miami's community -based residential facilities are exempt from property taxes. Child -caring facilities and drug rehabilitation facilities are pre- dominently tax-exempt. 24. Community -based residential facilities provide a neg- ligible positive fiscal impact or a negative fiscal impact on the City. -102- 1 References Public Affairs Counseling, The Dynamics of Neighbor- hood Change (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1975), p, 7. 2 Ibid, p.8. 3 Ibid, p.23. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The Metropolitan Area as a Racial Problem, quoted in in Alan S. Friedlob, and Thomas L. Anding, Community Based Residential Facilities in the Twin Cities Met- ropolitan Area (St. Paul: University of Minnesota, 1975), p.25. Nina Jaffee Gruen and Claude Gruen, Low and Moderate Income Housing in the Suburbs; an Analysis for the Dayton, Ohio Region (New York; Praeger Publishers, 1972), pp. 54-55. Daniel Lauber and Frank S. Bangs, Jr., Zoning for Family and Group Care Facilities. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 300 (Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1974), p.24. Maurice Yeates, An Introduction to Quantitative Analysis in Human Geography (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1974), pp. 33-34. Location quotients are computed by Xi/E Xi N/ EN where Xi equals the resident capacity in a census tract E Xi equals the total population in the census tract; N equals the total resident capacity in the City, and E N equals the total population of the City. Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate, Congregate Housing for Older Adults; Assisted Residential Living Combining Shelter and Services (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975) pp. 23-24. Ibid, p.22 . 100 11 Robert G. Obenland, Behavioral Factors for Elderly Housing Design (Concord: New England Non -Profit Housing Development Corporation, n.d.) p. 17. -103- 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • Ibid, p.22. Ibid.. Ibid . Ibid . Ibid, p. 19. Ibid, p. 20 . Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Youth Services; Community -based Treatment Centers (Tallahassee; Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1978), p.l-1 Ibid. John M. McCartt and Thomas J. Mangogna, Guidelines and Standards for Halfway Houses and Community Treatment Centers (Washington,. D.C.: U.S. Depart- ment of Justice, 1973), p. 81. Ibid. Julian Wolpert, Group Homes for the Mentally Retarded: An Investigation of Neighborhood Property Impacts (Princeton: Princeton University, 1978). Ibid, p.13. Ibid, p. 2. City of Lansing Planning Department, The Influence of Halfway Houses and Foster Care Facilities upon Property Values (Lansing: City of Lansing Planning Department, 1976). V. The Regulatory System for Community -Based Residential Facilities in Miami Miami's community -based residential facilities are regulated by four City codes: (1) the Miami Zoning Ordinance; (2) the South Florida Building.Code, which is the building code adopted and en- forced by the City; (3) the City's occupational licensing require- ments; and (4) the Miami Fire Code. This chapter explains the basic requirements pertaining to community -based residential facilities of each code and the City process for enforcing the regulations. Zoning Zoning is a legal device for dividing a municipality into dis- tricts and regulating the uses of land within those districts. The power to zone has been delegated to local governments in Florida by the State in Chapter 163.205 of the Florida Statutes. According to this Act, the purpose of zoning is to guide devel- opment in accordance with existing and future needs and to protect, promote, and improve public health, safety, comfort, order, ap- pearance, convenience, morals and general welfare. The law specifies that the zoning ordinance can regulate (1) height, bulk, size, loca- tion, and use of buildings for residential, commercial, and in- dustrial purposes, (2) the use of land for residential, commercial and industrial purposes, (3) the size of yards, courts, and other open spaces, (4) the percentage of the lot that may be occupied and (5) the density of population. Because the movement toward deinstitutionalization is a fairly recent trend, the zoning ordinances of many local governments do not specifically define or provide for community -based residential facilities. Often these facilities are classified as uses that they resemble in the zoning ordinance, such as boarding or rooming homes, nursing homes, or institutions. This practice does not take into account the nature of community -based facilities. By nature, these facilities provide neither the independent living arrangement found in a boarding home nor the completely dependent life of an institution. The residents of community -based facilities are a "family" unit with the type of semi-independent living arrangement that might be provided by a nuclear family. As such, the facilities should be located in low density residential neighborhoods, but are allowed more often in commercial districts than in single-family neighborhoods. Research hay shown that they are allowed most often in multi -family districts. The treatment of community -based residential facilities in the City' of Miami Zoning Ordinance is similar to that discussed above. A few types of community -based facilities are defined and regulated very specifically, while others are not defined at all and must be placed in boarding homes or institutional classifications. Most of Miami's community -based residential facilities are found in multi- ple -dwelling districts, with more facilities located in commercial districts than in the single-family zones. A detailed descrip- tion of the City's current zoning regulations that pertain to these facilities is given below. Zoning Classification of Facilities in Miami Table3l,which displays the zoning classification of the block on which each residential facility is located, shows that most community -based residential facilities are located in residential districts of the City. Over 80% of the facilities are located in one of the strictly residential districts. One quarter of these are located in single-family and duplex zones; the rest are located in multiple -family districts. The district containing the greatest number of facilities is R-4, the medium -density, multiple -dwelling district. Fourteen percent of all community -based residential facilities are located in light commercial districts; i.e., the R-C zone, which contains a mixture of low density multiple -dwelling units and offices; and the C-1 zone, a commercial district that has small neighborhood stores. Five percent of the facilities are located in heavier commercial districts and a light industrial district. Several types of residential care facilities are located primarily in higher density residential zones and commercial districts: (1) alcohol rehabilitation facilities, (2) facilities for drug dependents, (3) facilities for persons with mental health problems, and (4) adult community -based corrections. Although three types of facilities - adult congregate living facilities, facilities for developmentally disabled persons, and boarding homes - are located primarily in residen- tial districts, none of these is found predominantly in single-family or duplex zones. -106- TABLE 31' ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF MIAMI Type of Facility R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-C C-1 C-2 C-4 I-1 Adult Congregate 4 7 S 12 1 1 4 1 Living Facilities Alcohol Rehabilita- 1 1 5 1 1 1 tion Facilities Residential Facili- 5 1 1 1 ties for Drug Depen- dents Residential Facili- 4 2 2 3 1 ties for Develop- mentally Disabled Persons Residential Facili- 4 2 ties for Persons with Mental Health Problems Residential Child - taring Facilities Boarding Homes Adult Community - based Corrections 1 2 1 1 1 6 5 1 2 1 1 R-1: R-2: R- 3 : R- 4 : R-5: R-C: C-1 : C-2: C-4: I-1: TOTAL 9 10 14 30 . 12 5 8 .1 3 1 District composed of one -family dwellings District composed of two-family dwellings Low density multiple -dwelling district Medium density multiple -dwelling district High density multiple -dwelling district District composed of medium density multiple dwellings and offices Neighborhood commercial and residential district Community commercial and residential district A general commercial district A district composed of light industrial uses -107- Existing Zoning Regulations Three sections of the Miami Zoning Ordinance contain standards for community -based residential facilities. Two of these sections pertain to specific types of facilities; the third deals with non-profit facil- ities in general. Each of these sections is found in Appendix B of this report. Section 36 of Article IV, entitled Public or Semi -Public Buildings or Uses, requires that public hearings be held with the Miami Planning Advisory Board and the Miami City Commission prior to the authorization of hospitals, clinics, and institutions of an educational, religious, philanthropic, or eleemosynary character. This section also contains minimum requirements for setbacks from the yard lines. Detailed regulations governing substance abuse facilities are found in Section 43 of Article IV. Residential facilities for substance abuse are defined in the ordinance as residential treatment centers provid- ind a 24-hour therapeutic program for the treatment of substance abusers. Substance abuse is the excessive or illegal use of drugs, narcotics, and other hallucinatory substances (not including alcohol) which have created personal dependency on such substances. All pro- posed residential facilities must be reviewed by the Advisory Com- mittee on Substance Abuse and approved by the Miami Zoning Board. Standards are provided for lot size, housing and livability, location, yard areas, parking, open space, landscaping, proximity to support services, and ingress and egress. Residential group homes for developmental disabilities are regulated by Section 45 of Article IV. Such a facility is defined as a residen- tial facility for more than five persons with developmental disabilities such as mental retardation or cerebral palsy. This section contains standards for location, access, lot size, location of buildings,open space, housing, and landscaping. Under the Zoning Ordinance, the City is divided into a number of residential, commercial, and industrial districts. Certain types of land uses are permitted in each district; others are permitted by approval of the Zoning Board or City Commission; i.e. as a conditional use; and some are not allowed at all. The following paragraphs ex- plain the regulations for community -based residential facilities in each district. This explanation includes the interpretation given to these regulations by the City of Miami Building and Zoning Inspections Department, which is the department that enforces the zoning ordinance. One -Family Dwelling - R-1, R-1A, R-1B Districts: A single-family home is the only residential use permitted in this district. Community -based residential facilities are not allowed in -108- these districts if they offer any type of treatment program, such as counseling. A community -based residential facility operated for profit is per- mitted if the residents fit the definition of family. A family is defined in the zoning ordinance as an individual or two or more persons related by blood or marriage, or a group of not more than five persons (including servants) who need not be related by blood or marriage, living together in a dwelling unit. A family also may include a group of not more than six children, in addition to foster parents, residing in a home caring for foster children (including natural children of foster parents), provided that any such home is approved by the Florida State Welfare Department. Thus, a married couple that wishes to operate a community -based residential facility in their home (other than a home for foster children) is permitted to have three additional residents in their home. In these districts, a foster home for six to eight children is permitted as a conditional use, i.e. after a public hearing. A non- profit community -based residential facility may be approved after the public hearings required by Section 36 of Article IV. Two -Family Dwelling - R-2 Districts: The R-2 district permits all R-1 uses in addition to allowing dup- lexes. This means that each of the units of a two-family dwelling may be operated as a for -profit community facility if the number of residents in each unit does not exceed the number allowed under the definition of a family provided that no treatment is given in the facility. In addition, substance abuse facilities and group homes for developmental disabilities are allowed if approved as conditional uses under the regulations for each in Article IV. Low Density Multiple - R-3 District: The uses permitted in the R-2 districts are permitted in the R-3 districts. Another permitted use is the rooming house, which is defined in the ordinance as a dwelling containing one dwelling unit and not more than ten rental sleeping units or suites of rooms where lodging is provided with or without meals, for compensation. Community -based residential facilities operated for profit may be permitted as rooming houses if they do not provide the level of care associated with a nursing home as determined by a letter of intent submitted by the applicant. Medium Density Multiple - R-4 Districts: Any uses permitted in the R-I, R-2, and R-3 districts, subject to the use regulations of those districts, are allowed in R-4. Community based residential facilities may be permitted as conditional uses under three other classifications: (1) residential group homes for developmental disabilities, subject to the provisions of Article IV, Section 45; (2) institutions for the aged, indigent, or infirm; or (3) institutions of an educational, philanthropic, or eleemosynary character not operated for profit, other than penal or correctional institutions or vocational trade schools, subject to the provisions of Article IV, Section 36. Since the zoning ordinance does not include a definition of institution, the Building and Zoning Inspections Department requests a letter of intent from the applicant. The information in this letter is used to determine whether the facil- ity will be classified as an institution. High Density Multiple - R-5 Districts: Any community -based residential facility permitted under the reg- ulations of the R-3 districts is allowed in the R-5districts, subject to the use regulations of the R-3 district. Local Commercial - C-1 Districts: Two uses that can include community -based residential facilities are permitted in the C-1 districts. Any use permitted in the R-C dis- tricts is permitted in this district. Community -based residential facilities may be classified as sanitariums, convalescent homes, or nursing homes, which are permitted uses in the C-1 districts. Community Commercial - C-2 Districts: Any use permitted in the C-1 districts is permitted in these districts. Central Commercial - C-3 Districts: Community -based residential facilities if classified by the Building and Zoning Inspections Department as a hotel or motel may be allowed in these districts. General Commercial - C-4 Districts: Although the Zoning Ordinance does not specifically list rooming houses as a permitted use here, the Building and Zoning Inspections Department interprets the hotels and motels use permitted in C-4 to include rooming houses. Given this interpretation, community - based residential facilities are subject to the R-4 regulations. Liberal Commercial - C-5 Districts: Any use permitted in the C-4 districts is permitted in the C-5 districts. -110- Industrial Districts: No residential uses except hotels and motels are allowed in the City's industrial districts. Zoning Certification Process Every individual or organization that wishes to open a community - based residential facility in every zone except R-1 and R-2 must submit a letter of intent to the Building and Zoning Inspections Department. This letter states the location of the proposed facility, the number of residents, the number of staff persons, the type of treatment to be offered, how the facility will be operated, where the referrals come from, and whether the residence will be operated for profit or as a non-profit facility. The Building and Zoning Department uses this letter of intent to determine whether the proposed facility fulfills the requirements of the zoning code. Once zoning approval has been granted, the Building and Zoning Department files a request for inspection for a certificate of use and occupancy. The building to be used for the proposed facility is then inspected to ensure that it meets the South Florida Build- ing Code. The facility may not begin operation until the structure receives a certificate of use and occupancy. Building Code Requirements Adopted by Dade County and the municipalities within Dade County, the South Florida Building Code sets minimum standards for the safe design, construction, or alteration of buildings in Dade County. The Building Code also regulates the equipment, materials, use, and occupancy of all structures. Like the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance, the South Florida Building Code contains no special definitions or regulations for community - based residential facilities. Community -based facilities usually are classified as rooming houses or institutions for the purposes of the Building Code. South Florida Building Code Regulations Building code requirements are set forth for different classes of structural uses or occupancies. The requirements for each class of occupancy include type of building,allowable height and floor area, location on property, light and ventilation, enclosure of vertical -111- openings, and plumbing and sanitation regulations. Each of the building types is described briefly below: 1. Type I: This building is constructed of structural steel and concrete with a four-hour resistance to fire. Most high- rises like Omni and Plaza Venetia are Type I structures. 2. Type II: The construction of Type II buildings is similar to that of Type I except that the floors are not as thick. Type II structures can resist fire for three hours. Heavy commercial buildings, manufacturing plants, four to five story highrises, small hospitals, and small nursing homes are usually of Type II construction. 3. Type III: Type III building's, which have exterior walls with two-hour resistance to fire, are constructedof masonry. Type III buildings are further classified according to the fire resistance of their interior walls as protected or unprotected. In Type III (protected) buildings, all interior walls and floors are of, one -hour fire-resistant construction. Most apartment buildings, shopping centers, and CBS houses are Type III structures. 4. Type IV: These buildings are incombustible constructions. This classification includes parking garages, auditoriums and schools. 5. Type V: Type V structures are wood frame buildings, which have a two-hour fire resistance. Each of the different classes of occupancies is called a group occupancy. There are ten group occupancies, called A through J., in the South Florida Building Code. Community -based residential facilities usually are classified as a Group D Occupancy or a Group H Occupancy. Group D Occupancies are institutional uses that include facilities where inmates' liberties are restricted, such as jails, prisons, reformatories and asylums (Division 1), 11101111 II11111111 111IIIII III and facilities where inmates are under physical limita- tions, such as hospitals, sanatariums, homes for the aged and orphanages and where accommodations are pro- vided for four or more inmates (Division 2). The Miami Building and Zoning Inspections Department, which en- forces the South Florida Building Code in the City, places community -based residential facilities with residents that have mental or physical limitations in this Group. Buildings classed in Group D because of use or occupancy are limited in height and area as follows: Division Bldg. Type 1 I 1 II 2 I 2 II 2 III (pro- tected) Allowable Height not limited 30 feet (2 stories) not limited 45 feet (3 stories) 20 feet (1 story) Basic Area not limited 11,300 not limited 11,300 5,100 In addition, each facility in Group D Occupancy must have 120 square feet of sleeping area per occupant and 240 square feet of institutional area per occupant. There must be two means of egress when there are more than five occupants in a Group D facility. Group H Occupancies include multiple -residential uses such as hotels, motels, apartment -hotels, apartment houses, bunga- low courts, rooming houses, dormitories, fraternity houses, monasteries and similar uses that provide accommoda- tions for more than six persons. The Building and Zoning Department uses this Group for community -based residential facilities that have residents capable of independent living. Height and area limitations for Group H Occupancies are listed below: Building Type I II III (Protected) III (Unprotected) Allowable Height not limited 75 feet (5 stories) 60 feet (4 stories) 20 feet ( 1 story) Basic Area not limited 22,500 10,100 9,000 Each facility in a Group H Occupancy must have 200 square feet of space per occupant. When there are more than 15 occupants, the building must have two means of egress. One regulation in the South Florida Building Code that can have a great impact on community -based residential facilites is the Change of Occupancy regulation. This regulation requires that an existing building for which the Group of Occupancy is changed must comply with all the requirements of a new building of the new Group of Oc- cupancy and Type of Construction. An example of such a Change of Occupancy is a large, old single-family home that becomes a community -based residential facility for 25 adults. If the building inspector determines that the building is now used as an institution or a rooming -house, he may conclude that a change of occupancy has occurred and require that the structure comply with the building code requirements for a similar new building. It may be extremely difficult and costly to bring an old structure like thisinto compliance with the code. Process for Codes Compliance Certification Each structure proposed for use as a community -based resi- dential facility must receive a certificate of use and, occupancy from the Miami Building and Zoning Inspections Department before operation can begin. After zoning approval has been granted, the building inspectors receive a copy of the request for inspection. The building is then inspected for violations of the South Florida Building Code. A citation is issued for any violations found. The facility is reinspected within seven days to determine whether the violations are being corrected. A certificate of use and occupancy is issued when all violations have been corrected. Every building that has received a certi- ficate of use and occupancy is reinspected annually. Occupational Licensing Community -based residential facilities operated for profit must ob- tain an occupational license from the Tax and Licenses Division of the City of Miami Finance Department. These facilities are licensed under Chapter 30-28 of the City code, which requires an occupational license for "every business, occupation, profession or exhibition, substantial, fixed or temporary, engaged in by any person whether in a building or tent, or upon the street, vacant lot or anywhere in the open air in the City...." The charge for the license is forty seven dollars. A non-profit community -based residential facility is exempted from City occupational licensing by Chapter 205.192 of the Florida Sta- tutes. This law states that no occupational license shall be re- quired of charitable, religious, fraternal, youth, civic or service organizations. Operators of community -based residential facilities are notified of the occupational licensing requirements through the certificate of use and occupancy process. When a certificate of use and oc- cupancy is issued by the Building and Zoning Inspections Depart- ment, a letter stating that an occupational license is required is mailed to the applicant. A copy of this letter is sent to the Tax and Licenses Division. The occupational license must be renewed yearly. If the community -based residential facility changes location, the license may be transferred only with the ap- proval of the Building and Zoning Department. Fire Code Requirements The regulatory system for fire prevention is especially important to the residents of community -based residential facilities who may be mentally or physically handicapped. In 1973, the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control estimated that 3,500 to 4,000 fires break out annually in nursing homes and homes for the elderly. This commission also.. found that "during the 20 years from 1951 to 1970, 496 residents of facilities for the aged died in multiple -death fires (those killing three or more). Several recent fires in community -based residential facilities have prompted hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives. In April 1979, twenty- five residents were killed in a Missouri boarding home for the men- tally ill and alcohol and drug abusers.3 During the same month, nine persons were killed in a blaze that swept a Washington, D.C. halfway house for mental patients.4 Rep. Claude Pepper, chairman of the House Committee, concluded that the national policy of deinstitutionalization IIIIIp IIIIIuolonUI nIIIIIIIIIIIIuIIIIMI -115- has foced thousands of elderly people into unsafe private boarding homes. Fires have occurred in community -based residential facilities in the City of Miami during the past year, although none resulted in mul- tiple deaths. One of these fires happened in a wood frame house that was used as a community residence for twenty former drug abusers. Many of the residents escaped the fire, started by an ar- sonist, by jumping from second -floor windows. There was one fatality. Another person died recently in an adult congregate living facility located in a converted motel. This 72 year -old resident fell asleep while smoking in bed. The fire did not spread beyond his room. These two examples illustrate the importance of the fire and life safety codes. The wood frame house, which could not be certified by fire inspectors because of its construction, was completely gutted by fire. The fire in the adult congregate living facility, however, did not spread throughout the building because the structure was built with a type of fire-resistant construction required by the fire code for motels. Fire Code Regulations Three separate but interwoven codes contain regulations for fire pro- tection in the City of Miami. The major source of fire regulations is the Miami Fire Code, Chapter 17 of the City Code. The Fire Code adopts the 1967 Life Safety Code recommended by the National Fire Protection Association. The Life Safety Codecontains guidelines for exits and other safety features for protecting lives from fire. In addition, the Miami Fire Code adopts the Group Occupancy classifi- cations, square footage requirements, and other regulations of the South Florida Building Code. Because the definitions for types of uses are from the South Florida Building Code, the fire inspectors experience the same problems with classifying community -based residential facilities as the building inspectors do. The community residences are placed either in the Group D Occupancy (institutional) or the Group H Occupancy (multiple unit residences) classifications. The Group Occupancy in which the facility is placed determines the specific f:i.re regulations that pertain to it. Some of the most com- mon and most -often violated regulations are described below: 1. Fire Extinguishers: All fire extinguishers must be in working condition at all times. They must be inspected and tagged annually by a State -licensed fire equipment company, -116- 2. Community kitchen separation: Kitchens used for the pre- paration of community meals must be enclosed with walls and self -closing doors having at least a one -hour fire resistance rating. 3 Smoke detectors: Smoke detectors are required in the common corridors of buildings with walls and doors that are not con- structed of one -hour fire resistive materials. 4. Exit doors: Exit doors must remain unobstructed and unlocked from the inside whenever the floor is occupied. Exit doors must never be locked with anything but a manual hand -locking device that does not require the use of a key for operation from inside the building. Exit doors must by marked with signs. Stairway doors must be kept closed. 5. Horizontal separation: Public corridors must be separated from adjoining rooms by walls and doors having a one -hour fire resistive rating. Doors must be self -closing. 6. Combustible materials: Combustible, explosive, or other- wise hazardous materials or equipment may not be stored in the building. 7. Building construction: The occupation of any wood frame buildings that do not have fire-resistant construction by community -based residential facilities is prohibited. All residential facilities must adhere to the construction type requirements of the South Florida Building Code. In March and April 1979,Miamifire inspectors inspected all licensed adult congregate living facilities, residential' facilities for drug dependents, and residences for the developmentally disabled. The type of fire code violations found during these inspections are listed in Table 32. In addition, the number of occupants in some facilities exceeded the number permitted according to the square footage per occupant requirements of the South Florida Building Code. -117- hiiiiiMMOMMISMIIII TABLE 32 RESULTS OF FIRE INSPECTIONS OF COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES Number of Facilities with Violation Number of Facil- No Fire No Community Smoke Exit No Com- ities Viola- Extinguisher Kitchen Detector Doors Horizontal bustible Type of Inspect- tions Problem Separation Problem Problem Separation Materials Facility ed. Adult Congregate 34 Living Facilities Residential Treat- 8 ment Facilities for Drug Depen- dents Residential Facil- 12 ities for Develop- mentally Disabled Persons Lew 3 2 7 8 12 7 6 5 1 0 8 1 0 2 6 3 0 0 Fire Inspection Process Fire inspections of new community -based residential facilities in Miami are initiated by requests from the licensing offices of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, or by the Certificate of Use and Occupancy process of the Miami Building and Zoning Inspections Department. Existing facilities are inspected annually when the State licenses are renewed or as a result of the periodic inspections made in every City neighborhood by the Miami Firefighting and Fire Prevention Division. During an inspection, the fire code violations are noted in an inspection report. The operators of the facility receive a copy of this report with deadlines for correc- tions. These deadlines range from immediate correction for life -threatening violations to thirty days for major construction deficiencies. If the problems are not corrected within the deadline, the operators are notified by an order letter that the violations must be corrected or the facility will be closed. Summary 1. Community -based residential facilities are found in. residential, commercial, and industrial zoning districts in Miami as follows: 2. a. residential districts b. commercial districts c. industrial districts 75 facilities 17 facilities 1 facility The zoning district containing the greatest number of facilities is the medium -density, multiple -dwelling R-4 district. Only one quarter of the facilities located in residential districts are found in the single- family R-1 zone or the two-family R-2 zone. 3. Community -based residential facilities for alcohol and drug rehabilitation, persons with mental health problems, and adult corrections are found primarily in higher density residential zones and commercial districts. Adult congregate living facilities, facilities for developmentally disabled persons, and boarding homes are located primarily in residential districts. -119- 4. The City of Miami Zoning Ordinance contains no uniform set of regulations that covers all types of community -based residential facilities. 5. The Zoning Ordinance contains detailed regulations for sub- stance abuse facilities and for group homes for developmentally disabled persons. The regulations for these types of facilities are not consistent, requiring different minimum lot sizes, different distances from other community -based facilities and different open space areas. 6. Community -based residential facilities not covered by the regulations for substance abuse facilities and for group homes for the developmentally disabled may be classified variously as non-profit institutions; rooming houses; institutions for the aged, indigent, or infirm,sanitariums, convalescent homes, or nursing homes; or hotels and motels. Under these definitions, community -based residential facilities (other than facilities for substance abusers or the developmentally disabled) may be located in every residential district and in most commercial districts. 7. The Miami Zoning Ordinance contains no uniform regulations or definitions that recognize the semi-independent living arrange- ment of community -based residential facilities or the potential concentration of facilities in certain areas of the City. 8. The South Florida Building Code contains no special definitions or regulations for community -based residential facilities. 9. For the purposes of the Building Code, community -based facilities usually are classified as rooming houses when the residents are capable of independent living and institutions when the residents have mental or physical limitations. 10. The Change of Occupancy regulation of the South Florida Building Code can prevent the conversion of older structures to community - based residential facilities by requiring that the structure conform to regulations for new multiple -residential buildings or institutions. 11. All community -based residential facilities, except those that are operated as non-profit organizations, must obtain City occupational licenses. 12. Fire protection regulations for community -based residential facilities in Miami are found in the City of Miami Fire Code, the National Fire Protection Association's Life Safety Code, and the South Florida Building Code. -120- 13. For the purposes of the fire regulations, community -based residential facilities are classified according to the Group Occupancy categories of the South Florida Building Code, which categorize the facilities as institutions or multiple unit residences. 14. Fire inspections of three types of community -based residen- tial facilities found the following kinds of violations: prob- lems with fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, and exit doors; a lack of community kitchen separation and horizontal separation, and the presence of combustible materials . A number of facilities had exceeded the occupancy limits required by the South Florida Building Code. 1 References Daniel Lauber and Frank S. Bangs, Jr., Zoning for Family and Group Care Facilities ( Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1974), p.13. 2 National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control, America Burning (Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control, 1973), p.127. "25 Killed in Blaze; Roof Falls", The Miami Herald, 3 April 1979, Sec. 2-A. 4 "Nine Die in D.C. Fire; Pepper Panel Probes 'A National Scandal,'" The Miami Herald, 12 April 1979, Sec. 26-A. 5 "Pepper: Policy Puts Mental Patients in Peril," The Miami Herald, 26 April 1979, Sec. 17-A. -121- V'I. Recommendations This chapter presents recommendationstif for tthetesta lish►nent, location, planning,�,and reg ed residential facilities in the City of'Miami. Locating Community -Based Residential Facil- ities and Minimizing Neighborhood Impacts 1. Encourage the establishment of small community -based residential facilities with fewer than 17 residents and no more than 50 residents. According to the neighborhood compatibility survey, 7 to 16 residents is the optimum size for a community - based residential facility. Facilities with more than 50 residents are considered least suitable. The encouragement of small facilities by sponsoring' and licensing agencies will help provide a homelike atmosphere for facility residents and prevent in- compatibility with surrounding residential neighbor- hoods. 2. Residents of community -based residential facilities should have adequate support services and adequate supervision. Licensing and sponsoring agencies should ensure that facilities have adequate supervision for their resi- dents. In addition, supporting services for resi- dents should be increased by the appropriate State, County and sponsoring organizations. Increased super- vision and services will minimize the likelihood of behavior that deviates from neighborhood norms creat- ing negative impacts on the surrounding area. 3. Encourage the location of community -based residential ident a multi - facilities in low -density, single-family, duplex, family residential neighborhoods. Avoid locating facil- ities in commercial neighborhoods. Prohibit the location of community -based residential facilities in industrial neighborhoods. According to the neighborhood compatibility survey, the most suitable neighborhoods for community facilities are.low-density residential neighborhoods. Commercial and industrial neighborhoods are considered least suitable. The location of community -based residential facilities in low -density residential areas will help provide a homey atmosphere for facility residents and allow them to participate in normal community'life. 4. Locate community -based residential facilities in neighborhoods that have access to public transpor- tation, recreational and educational facilities, social services, and employment. Since the mobility of the residents of community - based residential facilities is often restricted by physical handicaps or lack of private transportation, it is important that they live where there is access to the elements of normal community life. The neigh- borhood amenities listed above were rated most im- portant to community -based residential facilities in the neighborhood compatibility survey. 5. Encourage the establishment of community -based residential facilities on sites that have adequate open space and landscaping. The site amenities rated most important in the neigh- borhood compatibility survey were outdoor space for recreation, outdoor space for relaxing and gathering, and landscaping. 6. Prohibit signs designating the name of the community - based residential facility in residential neighbor- hoods. Community -based residential facilities located in residential neighborhoods should blend into the surrounding area to minimize fears on the part of the neighborhood residents that the character of the neighborhood will change. Prohibiting signs on the facilities in residential neighborhoods will facilitate the merger of the facility with the neigh- borhood. The City of Miami sign ordinance should be amended to provide regulations to enforce this recommendation. 7. Encourage sponsors and operators of community -based residential facilities to maintain their buildings and yards in good condition. Proper maintenance of community facilities and their yards will minimize negative impacts and facilitate the blending of the facility into the surrounding neighborhood. Not only should licensing and spon- soring agencies encourage and practice good main- tenance, but licensing agencies should refuse to license facilities that are not in good condition. The City of Miami zoning code should be amended to provide for annual inspection of facilities and enforcement of proper structural and site maintenance. 8. Prohibit the concentration of community -based residential facilities in neighborhoods and in spe- cific areas of Dade County. Certain types of community -based residential facil- ities tend to be concentrated within the City of Miami. In addition, some Miami neighborhoods have a concen- tration of community -based facilities. Such con- centrations should be avoided for three reasons: (1) to minimize the fears of neighborhood residents that the neighborhood is re- ceiving an influx of "different" house- holds, and thus, to avoid reaching an "institutional tipping point" that will - initiate the process of neighborhood change, (2) to avoid the creation of de facto social service or institutional ghettos that will restrict the ability of the community -based residential facilities to provide a normal living environment in a normal neighborhood, • (3) to distribute equitably throughout Dade County the burden of community - based facilities' potential negative fiscal impact on the local tax base. The City of Miami Zoning Ordinance should be amended to include regulations that will prohibit the concentra- tion of facilities in Miami neighborhoods. uii uuIIIIiiiiIIIIIIiiiiIIiIIIII 9. Encourage the dispersal of community -based residential facilities to. appropriate sites and neighborhoods throughout Dade County. To avoid the concentration of community - based residential facilities in certain areas and neighborhoods, State and County licensing and sponsoring agencies should pursue an ac- tive policy of locating facilities throughout Dade County. Planning for Community -Based Residential Facilities 1. The City of Miami Commission should request that the Governor of Florida take steps to establish State licensing requirements for every type of community -based residential facility in the health care and correctional systems. A central State registry of community -based residential facilities should be established. Bringing all community -based residential facilities under State licensing requirements would ensure that all types of facilities meet minimum standards for operation. Such licensing requirements also would make a central State registry of facilitiesa possible. A registry would supply the ire- quired to avoid the continued State licensing of facilities in geographical areas with concentrations of them. In addition, data from such a registry could facilitate planning for new facilities. 2. The City of Miami Commission should request that Dade County prepare and adopt a Countywide plan for community -based residential facilities. A plan for community-basedresidential facilities in Dade County would serve the following purposes: (1) to determine the need for all types of community -based residential facil- ities in Dade County (2) to provide guidelines for the proper location of the various types of facilities (3) to match the need for facilities with suitable locations for community - based residential facilities -125- (4) to assure the equitable distribution of community -based residential facilities throughout Dade County and to prevent the concentration of facilities in cer- tain neighborhoods. The plan should be prepared by the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Human Resources and the Metropoli- tan Dade County Planning Department. Participants in the plan preparation should include representatives ' of State of Florida agencies that license and sponsor facilities, County and other sponsoring organizations, Dade County municipalities, facility operators, and residents of communities or neighborhoods in which facilities are located. Regulating Community -Based Residential Facilities 1. The City of Miami Commission should amend the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance to include one group of definitions and regulations for all types of community -based residential facilities. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance contains detailed regulations,which are not consistent with ,each other, for two types of community -based residen- tial facilities. Other types of facilities may be classified in the Zoning Ordinance under various definitions ranging from rooming houses to motels and hotels. A single set of zoning regulations for all facilities will ensure (1) that all types of facilities are treated consistently, (2) that facilities within the City of Miami are located in the proper neighborhoods, and (3) that concentra- tions of facilities in certain neighborhoods are avoided. Because community -based residential facilities fulfill a demonstrated public need, Miami's zoning regulations for these facilities should be permissive in nature, while containing restrictions that will protect the safety and welfare of facility residents and,community residents. 2. The following elements should be included in the zoning regulations for community -based residential facilities in Miami: a. Definitions: Define community -based residen- tial facilities by size of facility rather -126- than bytype of facility. The following is a suggested definition and suggested sizes: Community -Based Residential Facility- A facility that provides room and board, resident services, and 24 hour supervision. Such a facility functions as a single housekeeping unit and is licensed or approved by an author- ized governmental agency. This category in- cludes adult congregate living facilities; residential facilities for alcohol and drug rehabilitation, developmentally disabled persons, persons with mental health problems, and dependent children; and juvenile and adult residential correctional facilities, including halfway houses. This category excludes homes for foster children ,that are reg- ulated elsewhere in the zoning ordinance. Facility Sizes - 1. Six or fewer persons 2. Seven to sixteen persons 3. Seventeen to fifty persons 4. More than fifty persons b. Registration and Licensing: Require that all community -based residential facilities located in the City of Miami and all proposed facil- ities register with the Miami Planning Department. Information supplied at the time of registration should include (1) the name of the sponsoring agency, if any,(2) the name of the facility operators, (3) the street address of the facil- ity, (4) the type of program to be offered by the facility, (5) the maximum number of persons who will live at the facility, and (6) the governmental authorization to operate the facility. Registration of community -based residential facilities will enable the City of Miami to maintain an inventory and map of all such facil- ities in the City. This information will help the City enforce the zoning regulations. Re- quiring proof that the facility will be licensed or approved by an appropriate governmental agency will ensure that facilities in the City -127- meet good standards of operation. If licens- ing requirements for certain types of facil- ities require local zoning approval prior to licensing, zoning approval can be granted contingent upon licensing of the proposed facility. Building, Fire, and Safety Standards: Require that the proposed facility conform with ap- propriate City of Miami Building and Fire Codes. Before zoning approval is granted, City build- ing and fire inspectors should make recommenda- tions as to the conformance of the proposed facility with the building and fire codes. The recommendations should include the maximum number of occupants allowed under these codes.. Density Controls: Limit the number of resi- dents of community -based residential -facilities in each census tract to three percent of the census tract's total population. Prohibit the establishment of any community -based residential facility within 1200 feet of another facility. These density requirements will avoid concentra- tions of community based residential facilities on the neighborhood level and at .the block level. Several studies have shown that a neighborhood will tolerate an influx of 3% - 5% "different" households. Because greater increases of "dif- ferent" households could have a negative impact on the neighborhood's social structure and stability, the density of community -based residential facil- ities should be limited to 3% of a particular neighborhood. Census tracts, whose boundaries were drawn to delineate neighborhoods, are a feasible unit of measurement for implementation of this density control because population estimates are readily available for them. At the block level, density of facilities can be regulated by establishing minimum distance requirements between facilities. These minimum distance requirements will cover additional structures purchased by the operator of an existing facility, but not the expansion of a structure used for an -128- existing facility. The 1200 foot distance recommended in this study corresponds to the length of three average city blocks. This distance was selected on the basis of the findings of a Green Bay, Wisconsin study that showed that positive feelings about neighborhood group homes were related to distance from them and that by the third block, all neighbors who knew of the homes had positive feelings about them. This den- sity control can be implemented by using a map of all existing facilities. Circles with radii of 600 feet can be drawn around each existing facility. A similar circle can be drawn around the site of a proposed facility. If the proposed facility's cir- cle overlaps any circles of the existing facilities, the facility will be prohibited from locating on that site. See the dia- gram below. EXISTING FACILITY EXISTING FACILITY PROPOSED FACILITY MEETS MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED FACILITY DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS e. Open Space: Establish recreational open space requirements for community -based residential facilities based on the age of the facility residents. Require that the property of facil- ities with more than 50 residents be buffered by a hedge or fence. Open space, considered the most important site amenity in the neighborhood compatibility survey, can serve two functions: (1) provide for the recreational needs of facility residents, and (2) provide a buffer between the facility and neighboring properties. The following are sug- gested recreational open space standards for com- munity -based residential facilities: For each resident under 18 years of age 200 square feet For each resident 18 years of age or older 150 square feet These standards were recommended in a study of zoning for community -based residential facilities prepared by the Westchester County, New York Department of Planning,and are similar to Miami's current zoning requirements for substance abuse facilities. f. Parking: Require adequate on -site parking depending on the type of community -based residen- tial facility. Include a waiver of the parking requirements for facilities that have access to public transportation and other neighborhood amenities necessary for facility residents. According to the neighborhood compatibility survey, parking is the least important site amenity for community -based residential facil- ities. Some on -site parking must be provided, however, to protect neighboring properties. A suggested standard for on -site parking, taken from the City's current zoning regulations for drug rehabilitation facilities, is one space for each staff member and one space for each. four residents. A waiver of this requirement should be permitted for facilities whose residents do not own cars and facilities that have access to public transportation and other neighborhood amenities. g. Zoning Districts: Permit community -based residen- tial facilities in all residential districts and in the C-1 and C-2 commercial districts. Prohibit community -based residential facilities in all other zoning districts. It is recommended that community -based residential facilities be restricted to City residential and light commercial districts. The following are sug- gested zoning districts for each of the facility sizes defined above: Community -Based Residential Facility 1-6 residents - permitted in all residential districts. Community -Based Residential Facility 7-16 residents - permitted in R-3 and all more intense residential dis- tricts as well as C-1 and C-2 commer- cial districts. Community -Based Residential Facility 17-50 residents - permitted in R-4 and all more intense residential dis- tricts as well as C-1 and C-2 com- mercial districts. Community -Based Residential Facility 50+ residents - permitted in R-5 as - well as C-1 and C-2 commercial dis- tricts. h. Zoning Approach: Require a conditional use per- mit prior to the establishment of any com unitict. based residential facility in any zoning distrThe conditional use permitting process will give the City of Miami a zoning mechanism to ensure the facility's compliance with the zoning regu- lations. This process is especially necessary for enforcement of the density controls. The conditional use permit should not be transferable if ownership or use of the facility changes. porting•documents for the conditional use hearing should include certification that the building complies with Fire and Building Codes and aestate- tates. ment of maximum residents permitted bye 3. The Miami Building and Zoning Inspections Department should include an occupancy limit for each proposed com- munity -based residential facility as one condition of receiving a Certificate of Use or Occupancy. Setting occupancy limits for proposed community -based -131- residential facilities will ensure that the facil- ities comply with the occupancy requirements of the South Florida Building Code. An annual re -application for the Certificate of Use and Occupancy should be required to ensure that facilities have not exceeded the permitted capacity. 4. The Miami City Commission should request thatnd tthe Dade County Board of Rules and Appeals e South Florida Building Code to include regulations pertaining to the special requirements of community - based residential facilities. The South Florida Building Code should be amended to include definitions and regulations for community - based residential facilities. 5. The Miami City Commission should request that the State Fire Marshal 's office develop fire safety regulations for all types of community -based residential facilities. State fire regulations for community -based residen- tial facilities incorporated into State licensing procedures and enforced by State and local fire in- spectors would ensure that facilities meet proper standards for fire safety without being unduly res- trictive. 6. The City of Miami should develop a manual containing information about City of Miami regulations and pro- cedures governing community -based residential facil- ities. A manual providing information about the City's zoning, building, and fire regulations and procedures • for community -based residential facilities in an easily understandable format should be distributed to operators of proposed facilities and sponsoring and licensing organizations. Such a manual can save time for both the operator and the City in developing and reviewing proposals and help prevent misunderstandings between them. VII. Appendices A. Neighborhood Compatibility Survey Results 1. The purpose of this question is to determine your opinion about the optimum size or sizes of the residen- tial care facility that is considered community -based rather than institutional. Rate the suitability of the following sizes or capacities of the residential care facility, assuming that the structure itself is appropriate for use•as a residential care facility. Number of Responses (Percent) Least Suitable Most Suitable 1 to 6 residents 4(17%) 3(13%) 2(10%) 5(21%) 9(39%) 7 to 16 residents 3(14%) 1(4%) 2(9%) 11(50%) 5(23%) 17 to 50 residents 6(26%) 1(4%) 8(36%) 4(17%) 4(17%) 50 to 100 residents 11(50%) 8(36%) 1(5%) 0(0%) 2(9%) more than 100 residents 21(95%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1(5%) 0(0%) 2. The purpose of this question is to determine your opinion about the character of neighborhoods with which the residential care facility is most compatible. Rate the suitability of the following types of neighborhoods for the residential care facility. Number of. Responses (Percent) • Least Suitable Most Suitable a neighborhood pri- marily composed of single-family homes and duplexes a neighborhood pri- marily composed of apartment build- ings with 3 to 50 apartment units 0(0%) 2(9%) 4(18%) 4(18%) 12 (55%) 3(13%) 3(13%) 2(9%) 10(43%) 5(22%) -133- Number of Responses(.Rercent, Least Suitable Most Suitable a neighborhood pri- marily composed of apartment buildings with more than 50 apartment units a neighborhood pri- marily composed of offices, retail shops, restaurants and service -ori- ented businesses a neighborhood pri- marily composed of warehouses and manufacturing plants 5(23%) 8(36%) 6(28%) ' 3 (13%) 0(0%) 8(36%) 9(41%) 4 (18%) 1(5%) 0(0%) 18(82%) 0(0%) 2(9%) 2(9%) 0(0%) 3. The purpose of this question is to determine your opinion about the neighborhood amenities that should be available to the residential care facility. Rate the importance of the following neighborhood amenities to the residential care facility. Access means 1/4 to 1/2 mile walking distance or 20 minutes elapsed time by public transpor- tation or automobile. Number of Responses (Percent) Least Important Most Important access to public transportation 0(0%) 2(9%) 0(0%) 6(26%) 15(65%) access to edu- cational facil- ities 1(5%) 0(0%) 4(18%) 7(32%) 10 (45%) access to active recreational facilities (sports fields, play- grounds, etc.) 1(4%) 1(4%) 3(14%) 9(39%) 9(39%) access to pas- sive recrea- tional facil- ities (neighbor- hood parks) access to shopping access to em- ployment access to social service agencies access to medi- cal services Number of Responses(Percent) Least Important Most important 1(4%) 1(4%) 5(23%) 9(39%) 7(30%) 1(4%) 2 (9%) 10 (44%) ' 4 (17%) 6(26%) 4(18%) 1(5%) 5(22%) 4(18%) 8(37%) 0(0%) 4 (17%) 4(17%) 7 (31%) ' 8 (35%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 4 (17%) 9 (39%) 10 (44%) 4. The purpose of this question is to determine your opinion about the amenities that should be available at the residen- tial care facility. Rate the importance of the following site amenities to the residential care facility. • Number of Responses (Percent), Least Important Most Important parking 9(39%) 9(39%) 4(17%) 1(5%) 0(0%) outdoor space for recreation 0(0%) *0(0%) 8(35%) 8(35%) 7(30%) outdoor space for relaxing and gathering space for gar- dening landscaping space for observ- ing neighborhood and street ac- tivities 0(0%) 1(5%) 8(37%) 5(21%) 8(37%) 3(13%) 10(43%) 5(23%) 4(17%) 1(4%) 2(9%) 4(18%) 7(33%) 8(36%) 1 (4%) 5(24%) 5(24%) 7(33%) 4(19%) 0(0%) 5. Rate the suitability of the following locations of two residential care facilities in a neighborhood. one residential facility located one block from another residen- tial facility one residential facility located two blocks from another residen- tial facility one residential facility located three blocks from another residen- tial facility one residential facility located four blocks from another residen- tial facility one residential facility located five blocks from another residen- tial facility Number of Responses (Percent) Least Suitable Most Suitable 8(38%) 1(5%) 4 (19%) 2 (10%) 6(29%) 4 (19%) 4 (19%) 5 (24%) 4 (19%) •4 (19%) 4 (19%) 1(5%) 10 (47%) 4(19%) 2 (10%) 6(29%) 2 (10%) 5(24%) 7(32%) 1(5%) 6(29%) 2 (10%) 4 (19%) 4 (19%) 5(23%) -136- 6. Rate the suitability of the following numbers of facil- ities located on a block face. A block face is defined in the diagram below. The area contained within the bold lines represent a "block face" as used in the 1970 U.S. Census. one residential facil- ity on a block face two residential facil- ities on a block face r:n e..t 4;1,4?4ry Least Suitable Number of Responses(Percent) Most Suitable 2(10%) 1(5%) 5(24%) 5(24%) 8(37%) 5(25%) 2 (10%) 5(25%) 6(30%) 2 (10%) three residential facil- ities on a block face 8(40%) 3(15%) 6(30%) 3(15%) 0 (0%) four residential facil- ities on a block face 13(65%) 4(20%) 1(5%) 1(5%) 1(5%) five residential facil- ities on a block face 17(85%) 0(0%) 2(10%) 0(0%) 1(5%) -137- B. Existing City of Miami Zoning Regulations for Community - Based Residential Facilities. Section 35.- MUNICIPAL USES The provisions of this ORDINANCE are not intended, and shall not be construed. to pre-, clude the use of any property owned by the City of Miami in any municipal government capacity, function or purpose, provided, however, that said use is established upon recom- mendation of the Board and approval of the City Commission. Section 36.- PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC BUILDINGS OR USES The City Commission of the City of Miami may, upon recommendation of the Planning Advisory Board of Miami, after Public Hearing, authorize the location of any of the following buildings or uses in any District from which they are prohibited by this Ordinance: (ORD. 8225) (1) Any public building erected and used by any Department of the County, State, or Federal Government. - (2) Hospitals and clinics and institutions of an educational, religious, philanthropic or eleemosynary character, provided such use is confined within a building and provided that the building shall be set back from all yard lines a distance of not less than two (2) feet for each foot of building height, and provided further that this regulation shall not require a yard having a depth or width of more than fifty (50) feet, unless a yard of greater depth or width is otherwise required in the District where such building is located. (3) EXCEPTIONS: (a) This ORDINANCE shall not be construed to prohibit or limit the operation, maintenance or expansion of schools on any property used for school purposes on or before the date that this Ordinance becomes effective, provided, how- ever, that any expansion of school facilities on property used for school purposes shall, comply with the yard requirements and setback distances as provided for in Paragraph (2) of this Section. Section 37.- AIRPORT HEIGHT LIMITATIONS (ORD. 7944) In any area within the City of Miami, height limitations of buildings, structures and natural growth shall be regulated by Ordinance No. 69-39 of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, except where the height limitations of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami are more restrictive. Section 38.- NUISANCES Nothing shall be allowable on the premises in any District, provided for in this Ordinance, that shall in any way be offensive or noxious by reason of the emission of odors, gases, dust, smoke, light, vibration or noise (including the crowing of cocks, barking of dogs, or any noises emanating from any animal, fish or fowl). Nor shall anything be constructed or -maintained that would in any way constitute an eye- sore or nuisance to adjacent property owners or residents or to the community. Section 39.- INTERIM ZONING DISTRICTS (ORD. 8131) (1) INTENT - interim zoning districts are intended to provide temporary regulations in designated areas of the City, notwithstanding the existing zoning applied to the area, where public development policy has been established by the City Com- mission during the period of time when comprehensive plans have been or are being prepared for the area, and either before or during the zoning process. The pur- pose is to insure that any development in a designated area is in accord with established public policy and that the development of a particular project or, projects will not have an adverse effect on public plans or the general welfare of the public. (2) APPLICABILITY - An Interim Zoning District may be applied to any area in the city. (3) PROCEDURES - Interim districts shall be established in the following manner: (a) A determination based on findings shall be made setting forth the need for such interim zoning by the City Commission. (b) After notice to all property owners within the proposed interim zoning dis- trict, the Interim Zoning District regulations shall be submitted to the Planning Advisory Board and City Commission for public hearing. The Interim Zoning District requires adoption and approval of the City Commission by Ordinance 25 REV. 1-26-77 -138• - Section 43.— SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITIES (ORD. 8386) All proposed residential facilities, shall, prior to consideration of Conditional Use Approval, be reviewed by the Advisory Committee on Substance Abuse. The Com- mittee, upon concluding its findings, shall submit its recommendation to the Zoning Board. Prior to the granting of a certificate of use or occupancy by the Building Department, non-residential facilities shall be first reviewed by the Advisory Com- mittee on Substance Abuse. (1) Minirnum Lot Size Twenty Thousand (20,000) square feet. (2) Housing Standards All 'Facilities shall meet minimum housing and livability standards established by the City of Miami Housing Code. The facilities shall be adequate to support each program's objectives, consideration for convenience, free circulation, privacy, ventilation, light and air and crowding. Location Standards The location of programs of a similar nature in close proximity to those in existence shall be evaluated in accordance with the following objectives: (a) To distribute according to catchment area; that is, the area in which abusers are caught. (b) To discourage massing in transitional neighborhoods. (c) To balance geographically the location of facilities with drug abuse intensity. (d) To maximize existing facility use through recommended operational or modal changes. (e) To strengthen operational arrangements between facilities to meet changing demands. In no instance, however, shall programs of a similar nature be located a distance of less than one -quarter (1/4) mile from each other. Measurement shall be from the main entrance of each facility along the route of ordinary pedestrian traffic. (3) (4) Yard Areas Rear — 20 feet) Side — 10 feet) Front — 20 feet) (5) Parking One (1) space for each staff member and one (1) space for each four (4) occupants. Waiver of occupant parking may be permitted based upon the fol- lowing factors: Proximity to mass transit, employment area or community facilities, auto owner- ship, and visitation policy. (6) Open Space Open space shall be provided to facility occupants based upon the following schedule: First 10 occupants — 150 sq. feet per occupant, 10-15 occupants —additional 100 sq. ft. per occupant, 15-20 occupants — additional 75 sq. ft. per occupant, 25 occupants and over — additional 50 square feet per occupant. At least fifty percent (50%) of the required open space area shall be at ground level. (7) Landscaping One (1) shade tree for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of yard area shall be provided. Where this provision is not met at the incepiton of the facility's establishment, other provisions for attaining shade in open space areas where site occupants may be afforded satisfactory outdoor spaces to pursue leisure time activities.may. be considered. (8) Proximity to Support Services Proximity to or the availability of public or private transport to satisfy occupant service needs shall be evaluated to minimize travel and encourage the establish- ment of facilities at locations where they may best accord the occupant a wide range of services essential to his physical, social and economic well-being. (9) Ingress and Egress Drives for ingress and egress shall be restricted to no more than one (1) drive for each fifty (50) feet of frontage. 25.5 REV. 1-1-76 —139— Or the minimum yard areas required in the zoning district in which the facility is located, whichever is greater. Section 44.- REGULATED USES (ORD. 8618) (ORD. 8695) The following uses shall be termed "Regulated Uses": Adult Book Store, Adult Massage Parlor, Adult Motion Picture Theatre, Adult Private Dancing and. Escort Service. Regulated Uses shall comply with the following provisions: (1) No regulated use shall be established within a distance of 1000 feet from any other regulated use. This distance shall be measured from the front door of the proposed regulated use to the front door of the nearest existing regulated use along the route of ordinary pedestrian travel. (2) No regulated use shall be located within 500 feet of a residentially -zoned district. This distance shall be measured by the distance along the straight line drawn from the closest exterior door of the proposed regulated use to the closest portion of the residentially -zoned property. (3) For the purpose of this Section residentially -zoned districts shall be those designated in Article III, Section, 1. Where property in the City of Miami borders upon property of another City or Dade County, the term "residentially -zoned districts" shall be those districts designated as residentially zoned by the terms of the Zoning Ordinance in the affected jurisdiction. (4) No application for a Certificate of Use and Occupancy shall be accepted unless it Is accompanied by a survey certified by a land surveyor•registered in the State of Florida showing that it meets the requirements of Paragraphs I and 2 of this Section. (5) Notwithstanding other provisions of this ordinance, no regulated use shall resume operation once it has been discontinued or abandoned unless and until it meets all the provisions of this section. (ORD. 8640) Section 45 RESIDENTIAL GROUP HOMES FOR DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (ORD. 8861) Residential group homes for more than five persons with developmental disabilities including, but not limited to mental retardation programs, if approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies, shall be subject to the following zoning requirements and limitations: (I) Area Location Standards The group horne shall be geographically located and constructed to meet City and program ob- jectives including: (a) To encourage county -wide distribution and to discourage massing in neighborhoods not less than 2500 feet shall separate the facility from other similar facilities or other programs such as substance abuse or alcohol rehabilitation. (b) Proximity to support services like transportation, employment facilities, religious and educational programs, health and recreational facilities, and shopping. (2) Access Vehicular entrances to the grounds shall not be more than 150 feet from a major street. Not more than one ingress and egress drive shall be provided for each 50 feet of frontage. (3) Minimum Lot Dimensions The Tots shall have a minimum width of 100 feet and a minimum area of 10,000 square feet. (4) Location of Buildings Buildings shall provide a twenty foot front and rear yard and a t'n foot side yard. (5) Outdoor Recreation Area To meet social and recreational needs, the group home shall provide a minimum of 75 square feet' per person or 400 square feet per dwelling unit, whichever is greater, of outdoor ground level area. This area shall be located in side or rear yards and suitably landscaped with grass and shade trees; when adjoining another residential lot, at least 5'0" high solid textured wall or hedge shall be provided as a buffer amenity. (6) Housing Standards The group home shall be adequate to meet the program objectives for privacy, light, air, circu- lation, dining, and sleeping. (7) Landscaping To provide an attractive living environment, one shade tree shall be provided for each 1000 square feet of yard area along with other suitable shrubs, ground cover, grass, and patio areas. 25.6 REV. I-1-79 —140— VIII. Biblialgraphy Blatt, Burton. The Executive". In Changing Patterns in Residential Services for the Mentally Retarded. Edited by Robert B. Kugel and Ann Shearer. Washing- ton, D.C.: President's Committee on Mental Retarda- tion, 1976. Brown, Bertram S. "Critical Issues for Community Mental Health." Rockville: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare► 1977. Butterfield, Earl. "Some Basic Changes in Residential Facilities." In Changing Patterns in Residential Services for the Mentally Retarded. Edited by Robert B. Kugel and Ann Shearer. Washington, D.C.: President's Committee on Mental Retardation, 1976. City of Lansing Planning Department. The Influence of Halfway Houses and Foster Care Facilities Upon Property Values. Lansing: City of Lansing Plan- ning Department, 1976. Dade -Monroe Mental Health Board. Mental Health Plan for Dade County, 1976. Miami: Dade -Monroe Mental Health Board, 1976. Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Youth Services; Community -Based Treatment Centers. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1978. Gruen, Nina Jaffee and Gruen, Claude. Low and Moderate Income Housing in the Suburbs; an Analysis for the Dayton, Ohio Region. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972. "Hospital to Release Mentally Retarded." The Miami Herald. Ivory, Peter B.C.B. "Deinstitutionalization Concept Paper." Tallahassee: Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1978. Lauber, Daniel and Bangs, Frank S., Jr. Zoning for Family and Group Care Facilities. Chicago: Ameri- can Society of Planning Officials, 1974. -141- McCartt, John M. and Mangogna, Thomas J. Guidelines and Standards for Halfway Houses and Community Treatment Centers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1973. The Metropolitan Area as a Racial Problem. Quoted in Alan S. Friedlob and Thomas L. Anding, Community -Based Residential Facilities in the Twin Cities Metro- politan l.rea. ,St. Paul: University of Minnesota, 1975. Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department. "Estimate of the Elderly Resident Population of Dade County, 65 Years of Age and Over, as of June 30, 1975, by Census Tract." Miami: Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department, 1976. National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control. America Burning. Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control, 1973. Neill, D. Richard. "Working Paper on 'Optional Living Environments' for Less Independent Senior Citizens." Concord: New England Non -Profit Housing Develop- ment Corporation, 1976. "Nine Di.e in D.C. Fire; Pepper. Panel Probes 'A National :scandal.'" The Miami Herald. 12 April 1979. Nirge, Bengt. "The Normalization Principle." In Chang- ing Patterns in Resid& nt.i..:1. Services for the Men- tally Retarded. Edited by Pobert B. Kugel and Ann Shearer. Washington, D.C.: President's Committee on Mental Retardation, 1976. Oben1and, Robert G. Behavioral. Factors for Elderly (lousing Design. Concord: New England -Non -Profit Housing Development Corporation, n.d. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Program Planning and Development. "Proposed Comprehensive Annual Services Program Plan for Title XX-Social Security Act: July 1, 1979 - June 30, 1980."_ Tallahassee: Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1919. "Pepper: Policy Puts Mental Patients in Peril." The Miami Herald. 26 April 1979. -142- Public Affairs Counseling. The Dynamics of Neighborhood Change. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1975. Seiter, Richard P., et al. Halfway Houses. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1977. Special Committee on Aging. U.S. Senate. Congregate Housing for Older Adults; Assisted Residential Living Combining Shelter and Services. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975. "25 Killed in Blaze; Roof Falls." The Miami Herald. 3 April 1979. Wolpert, Julian. Group Homes for the Mentally Retarded: an Investigation of Neighborhood Property Impacts. Princeton: Princeton University, 1978. • "Social Planning and the Mentally and Physically Handicapped; The Growing 'Special Service' Populations." In Planning Theory in the 1980's; a Search for Future Directions. New Bruns- wick: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1978. Yeates, Maurice. An Introduction to Quantitative Analysis in Human Georgraphy. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1974. -143-