HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #48 - Discussion Item- ~ ~ .'~
• ~ :i7Y Vii. 't,a;.if. -Jri~'J=~
~~.' ~ :i~-C7FF'?C~ ::•3c,r$G'~Jk(+#i:%U?vl
July 20, 1979 ~~~~~:
To. Mayor and Members of "7~'
the City Commission
:-~~~~-~~~ Proposed Waterfront
Protection Ordinance
a
R~FFR=NCE'S. .
FR°h': Joseph R. Grassie
City Manager Nc~osua~s:
Attached is a memorandum which has been prepared -
by the Planning Department on a recommended
Waterfront Protection Ordinance. This material
was presented to the .Planning Advisory Board on
July 18th, and will be on the Commission Planning
and Zoning Agenda, Monday, July 23rd..
Attachment
~~
d~G~Q~~
V
.:
~,K4
f;,
~,
• ~f.? i ~~-fit-. '.:~ •.a;~~q~~e~~,+~a~UM
ro: ~,'T" Jul 17 1979 ~,LE,
Joseph R. Grassie Y >
City Manager
~~"'~~~~ Recommended Waterfront
Protection Ordinance
REFER ENCE5:
Jim Reid, Director /t~ ~~
Planning Department ~-- ~,,CLGSURES:
FROM:
The Planning Departi.~c>>t i~as reviewed.
and analyzed the prot~os~~d waterfront
ordinance pertaining ~~o waterfront
setbacks and views, The Department
reconunends that a modified version of
the setback ordinance be enacted and
that a bayfront access ordinance be
substituted for the view ordinance.
RECOR1htENDAT I ONS
The Department recommends a modified waterfront setback ordinance
by amending ARTICLE IV, Section 40 Environmental Controls of the
''Zoning Ordinance which would:
continue the exclusion of lands zoned R-lA; R-1B two c-~
R-1 and P~-2 of one acre o.r Tess c. ~
c
r- --
add the exclusion of the Port of Miami ~.~-
continue to require site plan review of all cc
~
waterfront properties ~ ~"
:.. --~
, continue the minimum waterfront yard area '- ~~=
averaging 20 feet with a minimum of 15 feet :>
1
N -~
add a waterfront yard area for properties along th e
Bay, and east of the South Miami Avenue
Bridge. The proposed yard would be 25 percent
of the depth of lots measuring 200 feet or
less to a maximum of 50 feet.The Zoning Board and
City Commission could grant a variance if an
average 25 .foot, minimum 20 foot were dedicated
or easement provided, with landscaping and
maintainance by the developer.
Page 1 of 11
_.
~.. ,. ~~
Joseph R. Grassie July 1T, 1979
continue to permit minor accessory structures in-the ','
waterfront yard area
add dockmaster structures of less than 500 square
feet to the permitted occupancy list
continue minimum setbacks for underground
structures -
The Department recommends further amending ARTICLE IV, Section
40 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by enacting a bayfront
access ordinance applicable to all waterfront lands fronting on
Biscayne Bay zoned C-l through C-5, R-C-1 and F.-CB and containing
the following provisions:
. require a Public Baywalk, averaging 25 feet in depth,
minimum of 20 feet,to be dedicated, or an easement
provided,with landscaping and maintenance by the
developer
establish Bay Access Corridors, one per lot, 25 feet
in width to connect the Baywalk with a public road that is'
adjacent to property, unless the Baywalk were other-
wise directly accessible from a public thoroughfare.,.
These corridors would be dedicated to the City, or
easement provided, with landscaping and maintenance
by the developer.
BACKGROUND
In recent years the process of urbanization and high density
residential development taking place along Brickell Avenue and
other areas adjacent to Biscayne Bay has been combined with the
commercial resurgence of downtown. It is felt that as this trend
continues additional policies and standards are needed to preserve
Miami's waterfront heritage and maintain public access to the water
front.
On June 25, 1979, the City Commission instructed the City Attorney
to draft an ordinance presenting a proposed charter amendment: i
"In order to preserve the .City's natural
scenic beauty to guarantee open spaces
for light, air, and significant visual
access, and to protect the ecology of
the waterfront and Biscayne. Bay. and the
Miami River."
Page 2 of 11
Joseph R. Grassie
July 17, 1979
The amendment dealt with proposed setbacks from the bulkhead, line
or seawall and development which at ground level obstructs the
public .view of Biscayne Bay, Government Cut or the Miami River
by occupying more than 750 of the water frontage of each lot or
tract on which the structure is to be built.
Subsequently, on June 26th, the Commission passed a Motion to
place the proposed Charter amendment on the November 6, 1979
City of Miami Election Ballot and a Motion to refer both Charter
amendments to the Planning Advisory Board, Zoning Board, Environ-
mental Preservation Review Board, City Administration, Law
Department and Waterfront Board for study to determine; 1) if any
problems exist in the proposals and 2) if any inherent dangers
exist in the proposed amendments and requesting that all of-the
aforementioned Boards deliberate and debate these proposed amend-
ments and make recormmendations to the City Commission as soon as
possible. The Department has met with the Waterfront Board on
July 11th and is scheduled to meet with the Zoning Board on
July 16th, the Environmental Preservation Review Board on July
17th, and the Planning Advisory Board on July 18th. A summary of
-comments and recommendations made at these meetings will be pro-
vided to the Commission.
The Department has prepared draft ordinances for consideration by-
the Planning Advisory Board on July 18th and the City Commission
on July 23rd. The remainder of this memorandum sets forth an
analysis of the proposed ordinances, Departmental comments on the
proposed view corridor and comments. on related policy issues.
ANALYSIS
The Department has reviewed the existing setback requirements and
`believes some modification would assist in the preservation of
".waterfront views and decrease the physical impact of more inter-
sive development along the waterfront.
The yard requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
require yards in excess of 50' when the building is 150' or more
in height.. However, most buildings x anging from 50' to 140' in
height would be affected by the 50' minimum setback requirement.
The Department feels this would be a beneficial addition to cur-
rent waterfront yard requirements and would result in a more
f
i
i.
Page 3 of 11
~u . _
r`~`.,
Joseph R. Grassie July 17, 1979
aesthetically pleasing view of the waterfront. (See Table A
'~ below for. the impact on residential yard requirements.)
TABLE A
WATERFRONT
SETBACK YARD
All Residential Districts
Lot Proposed Existing Yard Required -
Depth Setback Building Heights
25' S0' 100' 150' 200'
80' 20' 20' 26.3,
100' 25' 20' 26.3' 38.8' 51.3' 63.8'
150' 37.5' 20' 26.3' 38.8' 51.3' 63.8'
151' 50' 20' 26.3' 38.8' 51.3' 63.8'
160' S0' 20' 26.3' 38.8' 51.3' 63.5''
200' S0' 20' 26.3' 38.8' 51.3' 63.8'
250' S0' 20' 26.3' 38.8' 51.3' 63.8'
The Department generally favors the setback provision of the Ordi-
<nance, and the process for modifications of the setbacks to require
approval of an average depth of 25' when a 20' riverfront walkway
is provided. However, the Department believes some changes should
be incorporated in the Ordinance.
The Port of I~4iami would be excluded from the revised setback pro-
vision because it would interfere with the Port's functions. For
example, while the new passenger terminals at the Port are set back
50' the concrete passenger. boarding ramps are only 20' from the
.bulkhead line.
The lot depth to which the 25% provision should be applied should.
:be 200' rather than 150' to prevent inequities during application.
For example, as the provision is currently .written a lot of. 150'
would be required to have a 37~' setback whereas a lot of 151'
would be required to have a 50' setback. It should be noted that
only 55°,0 of the lots would be affected by this change. as the table
:.below indicates .since 45`,"0 of the lots are 200' or more in depth.
Page 4 of 11
Joseph R. Graasie July 17, 1979
TABLE B
WATERFRONT LOT DEPTH-BISCAYNE BAY AND MIAMI RIVER
ALL LOTS
0 - 100' 100'- 150' 150' - 200' 200+ TOTAL
No . % No . % Plo . % No . % No . % .
81 10 184 22 192 23 .371 45 828 100
Subsequently, the setback provision should be extended to the..
Northwest 5thSt fridge, as recommended in the Miami Riverfront
Development study, enabling the Riverwalk to be much more ex-
tensive as redevelopment occurs.. Beyond NW 5th Street, the
setback would revert to the existing 20' requirement.
.Waterfront accessory structure provision in the existing ordi-
nance should. be modified to allow dockmaster structure not in
.excess of 500 square feet.
In many residential zones, particularly as the heights of stru~-
ures increase,the present ordinance is much more restrictive
than the proposed uniform mandatory setback, it should there-
fore be made clear that, where the present provisions of the
various residential zoning districts are more restrictive, they
would apply.
The .Departmental analysis of the existing public access to the.
Miami River and Biscayne Bay and. views of the same reveal the
following: -
Over 25% of the City's bayfront (including the
Venetian Islands, but excluding ~9atson Island,
Dodge Island, Lummus Island, Claughton Island,
Sailboat Key .and Virginia Key) is accessible
to the public because it lies within a public
recreational area or adjoins public right-of-way
as Table C below indicates. Currently, the City
has major public .areas on the waterfrontsuch as
b4orningside, Pace, Legion, Kennedy, Coconut Grove,
Wainwright and Brickell Parks including. some
Page 5 of 11
-. -..-~-..•.'w~ae~ati'rK~-Y~fd~:4iSLk3W~Af17PM1~v.~ ,a.
~iT*. ~\
.Joseph R. Grassie July 17, 1979
that are underutilized e.g. Bayfront and
Bicentennial Parks. A major concern is
how to encourage public use of the water- s
front area that is already available.
TABLE C
WATERFRONT ZONING (linear feet, of frontage) •
R-1 R-3 R-CB C-1 W-1 W-R P-R ROW TOTAL.
thru thru and thru
R-2 R-5 R-C1 C-5
RPD
R-C
.29,100 19,900 4,200 .5,400 0 1,000 15,900 4,100 79,600
(3G.5o) (25.0%) (5.30) .(6.80) (0) (1,30) (20.Oo) (5.1%) (100%)
Over 36% of the waterfront is currently zoned R-1 and
R-2 and thus only low density development is permitted.
Basically, the City currently has a good mix of
bayfront land uses.
Perhaps a legislative policy is required that would state that at
least 50 or 60°0 of the I1liami bayfront should remain in public
ownership or provide for low density (R-1 and R-2) development.
This would make clear the City's intention to preserve large .areas
of the waterfront and remove citizen fears and developer aspirations
for conversions of large areas of R-1 and R-2 zones into higher
intensity use,. This-policy would be .especially applicable to the
;upper northeast area of the City above 36th Street and the Coconut
`;Grove .area.
A significant opportunity for viewing the Bay within the City is
provided by the 79th Street Causeway, the Julia Tuttle Causeway,
the Venetian Causeway, I-95 to Watson Island-and rliami Beach and
the Rickenbacker Causeway. In many cities where significant
waterfront views are provided, this is accomplished by waterfront
'highways. Since urban development and the filling of the Bay alon g
such areas such as Ba.yshore Drive have precluded this option, it
is impossible to recreate significant new opportunities"for Bay
views without disrupting large areas of low density residential
development.
Page 6 of 11
Joseph. R. Grassie July 17, 1979
the i eline such as Claughton Island,
Current developments in p p
Plaza Venetia, Ba11:Point, and the Jamestown on
Fair Isle
,
Bayshore Drive will significantly increase the number of resi-
dential units available along the waterfront. Also there
are significant opportunities for additional waterfront access
and views in areas where residential development is proposed
or permitted such as the "Park West" New Town In Town on
Brickell
NE 6th Street and I-395
,
Biscayne Boulevard. between
between SW 28th Road and the Miami River (seven sites) and most
importantly, the large Edgewater area between Plaza Venetia and ~
the Julia Tuttle Causeway, where the City's policy, as stated -
in the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan is to:
"Promote the redevelopment of high density residential,
coordinated with .street and circulation improvements
along Biscayne Boulevard and adjoining streets. Pre.-
serve indigenous vegetation, maximize waterfront views
"
and encourage pedestrian linkages along the Bayfront.
A list of units in the pipeline and the potential for future
residential development is included in Appendix 1.
The Department believes that the primar.yissue is providing access`
to t e ay in areas w erepeop a wor an s op ra er an gluing
...priori y o prove ing is an views o e ay throughout the City
°in a vaguely worded view corridor ordinance.
This could be accomplished by enactment of an ordinance which woul$
be applied in~the C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, RC-1 and R-CB districts
'`which would mandate a publicly accessible Baywalk along the bay
frontage of those properties and if such Baywalk is not accessible
from public rights-of-way or an adjoining Baywalk, require a 25'
easement or public dedication which would permit public access to
't'he Bay and the Baywalk from a public thoroughfare. The, dedicated
or easement area remains in the land area base for purposes of
computation of permissible floor area, and for the purpose-of
satisfying all applicable yard or setback requirements. The Depart-
ment believes this would encourage direct pedestrian access to the
Bay rather than provide limited visual benefits for far sighted
pedestrians and motorists driving along the Bayfront or boaters
viewing the mainland from their perspective. The bay access ordi-
nance would apply solely to the Bay. It is assumed that the. set-
page 7 of 11
back ordinance will encourage completion of the Riverwalk.
The Miami River as it proceeds from the Bay is too narrow to
permit a meaningful view at ground level except from the River-
walk.
Because of its unique designation as a special island district
and the intensive scrutiny received under the Development of
Regional Impact (DRI) approval process, the Department believes
that Claughton Island should be excluded from the Bay access or
future view protection ordinances. The DRI for Claughton Island
provides for 8 view corridors that are a minimum of 64' in width.
These view corridors were established after specific urban design
studies and should continue to be applied in the Claughton. Island
development review process. If the proposed development of
Watson Island is funded, the Department believes that view corri-
dors similar to Claughton Island could be defined in the DRI pro-
cess.
The Bay view ordinance has serious flaws. The Department feels.
t at t is concept nee s furt er stu y amore it can be evaluated
for possible enactment.
`The "light and air" considerations apply to zoning purposes gen-
erally and are not something specially related to waterfront
property. Provisions already in force, frequently more restric-
tve than those proposed, already .take care of adequate light and
air.
"Significant visual access" thus becomes the element of special
concern. It -is a vague concept. Nothing in the language_of the
present ordinance indicates precisely from where visual access is
to be provided.
Language concerning elimination of surface- parking, raising struc-
tures above ground level, etc. imply that it is ground-level visual
access which is desired, and the visual access is clearly to the Bay
`and related water areas. No account is taken of natural terrain
features or maintenance of desirable vegetation, so that the pre-
occupation with visual. access to the Bay may in some cases run
counter to protection of ecology stated as one of the purposes of
'the ordinance.
Page 8 of 11
t,
a
i
Joseph R. Gra5sie July 17, 1979
In addition, the view corridor, if applied to residential
areas, could restrict the construction of walls, the growing
of hedges, landscaping to screen parking lots and the pro-
vision of site amenities such as gazebos and potentially
prevent many desirable activities at ground level. For
example, if an individual property owner in an R-1 zone
wanted to put a 8' wall across his property he could be re-
quired to cover 250 of the property which a chain link fence
or in the case of multi-family structures, large parking lots
adjacent to the structures could be prevented from being
screened with landscaping and residential areas would lose
privacy. In some residential areas of the City it is believed
that nearby residents in lower density areas prefer to be
screened from large bayfront buildings rather than partake of
a distant view of 'the Bay.
~The application of the proposed view corridor ordin~.nce presents
severe administrative difficulties both in the calcu:iation of
frontage and the determination of how the sight line of the view
corridor would be applied. .The Department is prepared to illustrate
'the difficulty of these calculations, particularly in their applica-
tion to irregularly-shaped parcels, parcels bounded on two sides
-by water, andislands.
Finally, the recommended study of the view corridor ordinance could..:
incorporate an analysis of several. interesting ideas that have arisen
in the discussion of visibility protection including policy standards
and intentives regarding raising structures above ground level so
only supporting columns, lobby and elevator and required stair en-
closures are built at groundlevel.
The Department believes that standards could be developed for. the
encouragement of high rise construction perpendicular to the water-
front thus creating maximum openness. The Department suggests a
120-day study period and. recommends that the Zoning Board, the
Planning Advisory Board and the Urban Development Review Board,
concerned citizens, and businessmen should be involved throughou t
the study.
Page 9 of 11
J .
~"
Joseph R. Grassie July 17,.1979
The Department has some general comments regarding related
policy issues. such as:
1. Enactment of an .ordinance in lieu of a
Charter. amendment.
2. The economic .and fiscal impact of the proposed
.Charter changes,and -
3. The proposed Charter clause regarding certificates
of occupancy. -
1. Enactment of an ordinance in lieu of a charter amendment
2.
3.
The Department recommends that the detailed ordinance
be enacted as an amendment to the Zoning Code rather
than being placed in the Charter. Specifically,
ARTICLE IV, Section 40 of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance dealing with environmental controls should
be amended as desired. The Commission may wish to
recommend general policy guidelines in the Charter to
provide a sense of direction for the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance and other laws affecting the water-
front.
The economic and fiscal impact of proposed Charter changes
The Department has not conducted analysis regarding the
impact of the proposed Charter amendments on future
investors, current developers, employment and revenues.
These issues were discussed in great detail .during the
City Commission meeting of July 11,1979. It is assumed
that these issues will be further delineated by private
sector representatives in their testimony to the Planning
Advisory IIoard and the City Commission.
The proposed Charter clause regarding certificates of occupancy
This is primarily a legal matter relating to the "taking"
clause of the Constitution, the vesting of development
rights and the impact of retroactive laws which the City
Attorney can analyze and interpret.
Page 10 of 11
_. ..
Joseph R., Grassie July 1?, 1979
The Department has participated in many
court cases regarding land use law and ~
is concerned that this proposal will
present legal problems.
i
s • • i ~y
_APPENDIX I
UNITS IN THE PIPELINE
PROJECT NUh~BER OF UNITS
Plata Venetia 1,090
Fair Isle 570
Claughton Island 3,075
Jamestown 109
Tiffany (Brickell) 130.
Brickell Biscayne 253
Brickell Point 115 -
BAYFRONT RESIDENTIAL
UNIT POTENTIAL
AREA
Brickell
Park West - New Town In Town
Edgewater
ESTIMATED # OF UNITS
800
1,182
6,201