Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-79-0161RESOLUTION No. 79-161 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTIJ G ,NE BID OF BARTLETT CO!JST CO IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 1,4,3,000 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR FOUNDATION WORK FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI/UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI JAMES L. KNIGHT INTERNATIONAL CENTER PROJECT; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE CONVENTION CENTER FUND; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH SAID FIRM. s 1 WHEREAS, the City has entered into Agreement with MIAMI 1 1 CENTER ASSOCIATES, LTD., (DEVELOPER) by Resolutions No. 77-280, dated 19 October 1977, and No. 78-74, as amended, dated 24 January 1978, to provide, among other things a base structure for the Improvements which will be constructed by the DEVELOPER, at the site of the City of Miami/University of Miami James L. Knight International Center (PROJECT); and WHEREAS, the City has accepted an Economic Development Administration Grant No. 04-51-20591, dated September 16, 1977, by Resolution No. 77-795, dated October 13, 1977, whereby City agreed to maintain continuous on -site construction work; and WHEREAS, funds are provided under the City of Miami Capital Improvement Program for the said PROJECT; and WHEREAS, to ensure continuity of on -site construction work, the next contruction contract award will have to be made during March, 1979. WHEREAS, these funds could be lost if the Ciiifrbe v not comply with the schedule; ITEM;; NO.. WHEREAS, sealed bids were received March 5, 1979 for the Convention Center Phase II Foundation Work; and WHEREAS, the City Manager reports that the $ 1,435,000 bid of BARTLETT CONSTRUCTIO1 CO, is the lowest responsible bid and recommends that a contract be awarded to said firm; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF Milt. 8-1979 RrSOIJI ON NO.1 I-'1,1 BA�S Section 1. The bid of CO'1 TPU TC TION CO, in the amount of $ 1,435,000 for the project entitled City of Miami/ University of Miami James L. Knight International Center, Phase II Foundation Work is hereby accepted at the price stated herein. Section 2. The amount of $ is hereby allocated from the CO: r. JTION CENTER FUND • Section 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into a contract on behalf of the City of Miami with BARTLETT CONSTRUCTION COL for the Convention Center Phase II Foundation Work. 8 PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of MARCH 1979. /s/ MAURICE A. FERRE MAURICE A. FERRE, M A Y O R (16r";;1() (32' --ice RALP G. ONGIL, CITY CLERK PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: ROB RT F. CLARK ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: GEORGE F. KNOX, JR. CITY ATTORN 2 TO: FROM: 32 Joseph R. Grassie City Manager CITY OF MIA•.'I t .•i0CirA INTER•CFFICZ NDUM e-1,,.,A,,,p1W-14,4A?r, Imes J. Connolly Projec Director Convention Center March 2, 1979 S�U JJEI:T' RFFCRENC.E'3: E N C.L .: Sli li CS FILL Attached please find the proposed resolution to be put on the agenda of the 3/8/79 Commission meeting requesting approval for the City Manager to enter into an Agreement with the lowest qualified bidder for the Foundation Work Construction contract. Bids are to be received and opened at the City Clerk's Office on Monday, March 5, 1979. In order to keep construc- tion activity continuosly on -site and to move forward expeditiously it is recommended -that the Commission award this contract on March 8, 1979. JJC/mm BID AWARD FACT SHEET For The City Manager PROJECT NAME & LOCATION PROJECT SCOPE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST DATE BIDS RECEIVED NUMBER OF BIDS RECEIVED NAME OF LOW BIDDER AMOUNT OF LOW BID TOTAL FUNDS TO BE ALLOCATED LENGTH OF TIME ALLOWED FOR CONSTRUCTION SOURCE OF FUNDS g - 3/48 - f CONVENTlc J CENTEk' , P//AsE /l - FOU4JOAT/ON WCeC (sect i a/o0/NG J fXCAvAT/oil, rxwA7r ,WG , FoEMWo2.0 TeAC/kvG of f ORc/n/C sT e., Sr 177a/6" Cr /Wee CGL j5 i? AC/ 4iJG ©f reocEE TF rc,a All COAJC?Ejf /1, 4JL.1rfOA,IS, Coal r/ Na Or ti /,4 r n0N � �n'fP ; fL , AIJo 5P[ZEAD rcOT,AIs, i4c 'T'L1f&J4, CCM/9r1cr/A/4 WS, //tt. j/vicl ©% 74)0 J/SC,/Iea£ k.'EtcS AreO sTracrc/'At k/041/1fc,ai70,J ?a (r, ri'A s64,0411.. 5e /l 4 o0, oo0 3-5-79 77410 13/RaE/% CDV/6772. CO. /435,000 0 /2S CXCE40P/ 2 Df VS FDA eM24A/7 Form PW #389 6/76 • TABULATION • C vvg/V r/ON rewrie , 7)f/d5E City Manager, City Clerk C.t, Cew.....-'e. City Clerk, OF BIOS !/ - da of Coy of Miomi, Florida FOR fotivoirioAJ -Sr.-14:' 2CIU P• GliOE'iC , M. _3 - 5 - %I SEcws9 G'ov'Aif Received by the , Bidder E.wrirrr Cot.rsrr. ruc tile. wr'som Ce.or. lip'• —� Licensed S Insured ^a Per City Code S Metro Ord. Ijt'S Bid Bond Amount .CI`le1 Unit PriceDESCRIPTION Princs rregulorit.e Unit P Total Unit Total Price Unit 1 Pace ( Total Unit Price 4 Total Unit Pr s 1 Total No. % 77,771t Of M914S /, Z,3, 4,5, et 6/ 43S, ctY) 0118, I0o j t { r xsf/3r0 I ; / IT "Dv vv1rrou 74Q Sao 76 f, o oo -i 2 of T'0a+to47700S 5,001/ Ci SE 4 _! Z 377f o00 4101 OM 3 1341. Tvoici Ar/D.)t rll ff Sf 4'PsT, Sf,, oc0 HF.J'oo PAi. e' ,I 77 /0 AISceAr2 f lt&Ell S (v 1, G'Or7 70, cco 4 tj 5 MOOIF/cAT/CNS `7ltp00 J5/tp00 ,:EAktA1L a-icv/si;7us foe S/'I041 /7PMS / 0, Oc0 100,, 00o G ADD DEe r ADP P1(tiX? J O OA),7t�Q/CES f'rA Co. YD. PS! CONIft'Elf '� �tS.Of tr Z0.18 T 42.00 137. 00 r30,0o rr „ N 5000 a 44.78 16• b7 4$.00 47. 00 i NG PP2 CO, VD. 30.77 /8,2/ q. so G. co i 3 F/AJEG1P (tl-AI £DA1 EXCA✓AT/0iJ fP Ca. vD• ?0, [a0 12.00 4. S0 2. 90 I 4 STEEL /N TA'r'& s /TOO►! 573,00 4b7.ID 573.00 SI0,00 j 1 1.- S 6 leem,r012c/N4 .r a IN AT / 70,.1 575.00 4&0,47o 570.00 SOr1.00 ze Pee SCE. Fr 4.7 2.00 3.10 2, 50 7 taemii A - No 8 - No C -Corrected 0 - Proposal - F G - Improper M - Corrected I - - Prep. IRREGULARITIES LEGEND IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Mt/4eof0 70 Prit'rcr, 4 raw 4c r et DISTRIBUTION: Power -of. Attorney Affidavit as to Capitol S Sorplus of Banding Company Extensions Unsigned or improperly Signed or No Corporate Seal Bid Bond Bid By: Cf • p• /y. �(Jlvt/e!�- %uk+uer+IL r` narr'ivic{ og r rp' fe14t /A/ Tfft M/t,v.t/T 01-; -0 /j 41•�3—? roD Rif 1'rfC( 8/0 er 7#c rz>e0r4L BID 76-7T-so 100 NO. 8- 3�A�3-F . • • BID SECURITY Convention Center Phase II F Public Works e Mar 5, 1979 DATE BIOS RECEIVED BIDDER TYPE OF SECURITY AMOUNT FOR ACCOUNTING USE M.R. Harrison Constr ction Corp. 1000 N.W. 54th Stre4 Base $1,648,000. BB 5% Mlami,Florida 3347 0 Bartlett Construction Inc. Base $1,435,000.00 3315 N.W. South River Drive B.B. 5% Miami,Florida 33142 Receiv.d the above describ,d checks this doy of 19__„_ FOR ACCOUNTING DIVISION • CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA REOUISITION FOR ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS RECEIVED '19 F �pi 23 -1 L 1 DEPTIDIV Cit:' 01 t+" ACCOUNT CODE Q BID NO. DATE Z PREPARED BY PHONE COCE_ ITEM DESCRIPTION •S QUANTITY REPRESENT/ DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR —MONTHS QUANTITY UNIT AMT. PRICE DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: CONTRACTUAL: INCIDENTAL : TO FAL $ OURCE OF FUNDS : • APPROVED BY BIDS TO BE SECURED FOR FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF: ADVERTISE ON BIOS TO BE RECEIVED ON DIRECTOR OF ISSUING DEPARTMENT I.. l.t RH( d rn LS FrPENDITURE CONTROL: FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR PROJECT INVOLVED PROJECT CODE AD CODE ExPENDITURE CONTROLLER r I )'Il: S I rl : Purr busing (O►g.) — City .%tanager — Lify Clerk — F.penditure (.outml — issuing Dt purtmefll — Other Affected Department li f.M U,43 HFV 74 WHITE GREEN f'INN CANARY BLUE GOLDENROD /'' Bid No. 78-79-50 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS Sealed bids f'or "CQNi7ENTION _CENTER, PHASE II - FflUUDATION WORK (211iD 5IDDI,^1G1 will be received by the City t?ana er and the -City Clerk of the City of Miami, Florida no later than 2:00 n.m. oil the 5th d3Y_ Qf„rriarc,i,. 18�.; .,in the City Clerk's of �'i.ce, ''ir-st T` 002' of the Miami Cite Hall. , Pan American Drive, Dinner Kev, Miami, Florida 33133, at which time aad p1a2'e th-y will bo or`ned and read. The i:ork consists o`' provid1' 7 all nc c'' ;sar'r labor and equinment to accomplish thy: follo:vin; lC ;•".,'.' iterl:'on the oit?, located on the north side o: the •Tiar.ri. River, between S. E. First Av .Due and S. E. Second Avenue: excavation, dewaterinc', formwork, pl<'32i.nc, of reinf'or' na steel, settia- of anchor bolt.;, placing^ o' co:1^reto f'or all concrete foundati )ns conoiotinr of mat foundation and spread fo0tln3, and strip footiri , back??illinr and comaa.ctin ^, and structurally modif: inr the existing balkhea 1, all as indicated by the Bii Documents. As time is of the essence, the bidder :hall demonstrate his ability to boc;ia the !Jos';: with on-ait•e labor on or prior to April 1, 1979, and to accorinli h tins '.dock within the time schedule as indicated in the 1_cat._on... All bids :hall be submitted in ac:;o ian:'e with the Instructions to Bil0e:o a.n•_i . ne.i"icatio:i • Plaos an -I Spo _.ration:- may be obtained 2rom the of"_ce of th:. Di r.:ctor, Department o ' ubl' e Works, 3332 Pan American .,: i`.'e, i1iar';_. , Florida. "fans and . _ ''ication ar`. to be r unmarked within ' 0 lays f Get �r:,•_d in ~Do-i co:idi _ io:1 ;, 1 art �� kt�d , ith1 r; � � after r bids have been received. Minority tar area contractors .)r small business �o interested in submittia7 biao are advised to contact Contractors Training; and Devi 1onn.,_nt, Inc. f'or providing" technical assistance in pr:n arinr bid polo: :a" For "t.lrther information call Mr. James D. Thomas, Administrative Assistant, 579-646P. Contractero and ouboorit:-aetors shall be required to comply with the pro7lolan3 o' 3ection 3 ( edoral rtinrr.11ations) which require that all developi'rs, contractors, and subcontractors create feasible oppor- tunities to employ and train re:silents in the area o" the project, and to Poly' pre''erence in stlbc_ontr'actiri3 and purchasinr of materials to bus:int':;^es located in, or owned in substantial part by persons resiiinr in, the area of the project. The est imatel cost of the Founiati.on Work is $1,250,000 and is funded by a Fed'ral Eco:I mic Development Grant. The City Commission reservos the rirht to waive any inr'ormality in any r- 'I , reanyreadvertise. and the it; ,,i.1a�,_r m,,., reject or all bid:, and The Bidder oho ild direct any questions rerardinr the Contract Documents to the Cons tr;lct ieri t1ana-er, Mr. Gary 'r r—,.r n, 15!1 S. 1% ;'.econd Avenue, 12th `loos', °•1i_i.mi, Florida 331 1, (?05)n,zostions o" general interest '.rill be issued in writin;c to all bi lderr, in Porn of an Addendum. Joseph R. Brassie Cite 1'iana er ITEM BID SECURITY CONVENTION CENTER PH II FOUNDATION WORK PUBLIC WORK S DATE BIDS RECEIVED Dec. 11, 1978 BIDDER TYPE OF SECURITY AMOUNT FOR ACCOUNTING USE BARTLETT CONSTRUCTION INC. 3315 N.W. South River Drive se S1,444 G00,00 B.B. 5 Miami,Florida 33142 Fred Teitelbaum Construrtinn rnnpa 5526 N, Kedzie of F lar i-da IRE Base U .568.662_110 Chicago, Illinois 60625 B.B. 5' Received the above describ,d checks this day of 10 FOR ACCOUNTING DIVISION • la CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, REOUISITION FOR QUANTITY REPRESENTS DEPARTMENT ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS • L J DEPT I DIV ACCOUNT CODE 3'To Ho 2_ BID NO. DATE ' PREPARED BY PHONE.y. COVE ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY REQUIREMENTS FOR MONTHS UNIT AMT. PRICE DATE DATE DATE (AMOU{{T AMOUNT AMOUNT • TOTAL ESTIMATED COST : CONTRACTUAL: INCIDENTAL : TOTAL $ `OURCE OF FUNDS : APPROVED BY BIDS TO BE SECURED FOR FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF: ADVERTISE ON BIDS TO BE RECEIVED ON at& DIRECTOR OF ISSUING DEPARTMENT fr(h 1In h� E/PENDITURE CONTROL: FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR PROJECT INVOLVED PROJECT CODE AD CODE EXPENDITURE CONTROLLER (Il'II 1 1 U: l'urrhasing (Org.) — City ,Mwiagrr — City (.perk — ". pentliture control — Issuing Department — Other Affected Department WHITE GREEN PINK CANARY BLUE GOLDENROD t•,�HM N, t,,43 REV 74 Bid No.78-79-')4 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS Sealed bids for "CONVENTION CENTER PHASE I; - "FOUNDATION WORK" will be received by the City Manager and the City Clerk of the--71y or-niami • Floriria no later than 2:00 P.M.7en the :.th ef Iecomr2.1978., in the City Clerk's office, first floor of the Miami City Ka , 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida 3-1, at which time and place they will be publicly orened and al. The or: consists of DI', v:-Iciinr, all nccessary 1bnr and equipment to accomplish tht foliowng ma,:"or itrms on the sitr, located on the north side of the Miami Rivcr, between S.E. First Avenue and S.E. Second Avenue - excavation, dowa',ering, formwork, placing of roinfercin.: steel, setting of anchor bolt,Tlacing of concrete for all concrete fo .ndations con- sisting of mat fcundation and spread footing, and strir footings, back - filling and ccmFacting, all as indicated hy the Hid Documents. As tne is of the esscnce, tho Midder d,'Iolstrate his to begin the Wrl'k with on-ste labor on or Trior to January 15, 1979, and to ac tht, Work within the tIme sc.hedule as indicated in the Specifications. All bids shall be susmitted in accordance with the Instructions to Bidders ani STecifications. Plans and Sr: cIfications Tay be obtained Iron the -ffce of' the Director, Dr1=tment of Putlic Works, 3332 Pan Areican:rive, Miami, Florida. in and .jpecfications are to be rctdrned in gocd cen,lition and unmarked within 10 days after bids have ben ref: targe', area cantracers et small businesses int -r-sa.:d ih s..11-ting bids hr. advis:: te cmsTact sntractors '-rainina; and :,eYeloTsent, inc., for previdin technical assistance in preTarins tcl.ages. For further inform•tion ca:1 Mr. James D. Thomas AdminIstratiY,_ Contractors and subcontractors shall be required to comply with the proylslons of :'ection I (E(doral hegulations which requires that all deveiobers, conractrs, and suncontractors create feasible opportunities to employ and train re -'dents In the area of the project, and to give prefrrnce in sdb-cntractin and purchasing of materials to businesses located in, or owned in substantial part by pernons residing in, the area of thr, pre,iect The estimated cost of the Foundation Work is .17950,000.00 and is funded by a Feder al Economic Development Grant. The City Commission reserves the right to waive any informality in any bid, and the City Manager may reject any or all bids and readvertise. The Pidaer should direct any questions regarding the Contract Documents to the Construction Manr'ger, Mr. Gary Herrmann, 150 F.E. 2nd Ave, 12th floor, Miami, Florida 33131, (305)-358-233. Questions of general interest will be issued in writing to all bidders in form of an Addendum. Joseph R. Grassie City Manager ADDENDUM - ,CITY OF ,MIAMT, FLORIDA Department of Public Works ADDENDUM NO. 1 ISSUED Novemter 28, 1978 TO BIDDING AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR CONVENTION CENTER, PHASE II - FOUNDATION WORK JOT NO. 3148-F ALL BIDDERS ARE HEFY DY NOTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: Change 1 of ADVERTIS=NFOE BIDS: 7: The date o' receivinr, Rids has been extended. Sealed Bids will be Clerk of `;'';..J 2:00 p.m. on City Clerk' at which tir., and read. ..,c,_iv«_21 1,.:,7__1,IlewCaanmer and the City, c T' :, F rl oLi F.� n'n`T ; than llth l.i., ' Pe, ,,mbe; , 1C)79 1•n the n -+'; %, _ =i. 1'. ; +_ . .: , :: i a r. i_►-1'�t3Ti d a 3 31 3 3 , r_J 1-�lac: th:_ will 'be publicly opened Change 2 of ADDITIC NAL ._ ..,C AL 7: Change 3 of 7: Attached are nNo cnp7 ,:ach of added pages 3 and 4 to Appendix I to ., action 01150. These pares list the Federal :,.'a rm, n,at„s for Buildinr, Construction for this project. SFECIFIC ATTnN - SEC,2InN nr-) 20 1. PaF c 051 20-1, Sarara,-h 1-03, subparaTraph (2), CHANGE "AST:1 A ;D7" to read "ASTF1 A30"". 2. Page 05120-2, Paragraph 3-02, CHANGE "anchor belts" to read "anchor bolts". Change 4 of 7: DRAWING S4: 1. Columns on grid line 9 shall drawing; Sl. 2. Columns 401 and 402 shall be Center line of columns shall 3. Dimension south of grid line 8 ft. 9 in. to 8 ft. 5 in. Change 5 of DRAWING S-13: 7: ADDENDUM NO. 1 Page 2 be as shown on 26 inches round. remain as shown. J CHANGE from CHANGE column marks 401 and 402 to 26 inches round. Reinforce with 8 #11 vertical, #4 @ 12 inches center -to -canter ties. Change 6 of DRAWING 7: 2. ADD 56 #11 top, 36'-0" long; and 104 #11 bottom, 36'-0" lcnr., under shearwall #5. These bar: are shown in plan, but the were not callod for. Change 7 of DRAWINGS 5-1.3 and -14: 7: Columns marked 445 through 452 change to 12" x 24". number and size size from 12" x 16" THIS ADDENDUM IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND SHALL BE MADE A PART THEREOF. Gary B. Herrmann, Project Manager --.-...-.-•-..•.. ..•-...•. .. ...• - •••nr•••. ..1.. • nt•t T.r' ...... .. .:,1 AN.-...:,,.,' . _•nf- ..,u -•s.,,.ti,'.viAreA..7 ....1,w_t'f"•-•r.`te?m11wl 11[•:. elY ee'Ir•"}'- COPERSCDCAD DUCISICN STATE; Florida COt Y: Dale OL:CLSt,3N W.JMJtatr r177-1147 DA1rr, Date of Publication ' Sap.ra.J.a Dg.tsion NJ.: Ft.77-1029 dated Peirce lU. 1Y:7 la 47-:•,1-15264 L.::Iki6T10:1 C}• SZ4X: Bu}1Jtay Caratr.:currt (.10: nct i•:;lu.• slnylo family h_v.rs or garJen type npartmcntc of toy; start.: cr 1.c41 , Astastag workers Dallecmakera aricrlaycrst Lc t 1. j z i l C.Gent MUMS: Mag Olo 'otters; Plaator•r.l :ccnc...lc:Aar t'lte 6 Tecrarl0 W(kkte C.rrpent.r., Soft floor layers al.ccrtatanar wlr•::n 't GL:a .plteets •11dvator cc.lccructoret h�c.'.•n tcu . d.lint� Prt.1 tlansry Helpers Glarlu• •• , Icor...acters LWrerar Air t.:o1 operators; mason tst.3ere, hurter stairs; Plp.la/s:rs V1.st.r.r tenders U.,a 111ed Letters Llnecmnr Linemen! Heavy blulpment ' operator Ca ,1e splicers . Minch CLUCK operator GroarJzen Millwrigt.ts Palnteras Bruen Tapers; Paperhangers Spray, 5and1lastera P1ledrtverman 1011:chers 0004 OuvOl Woes F,iny. U. snh ILr..nn II l N I I'tntlaas T tlif Ob.!! Yscatl.l, I uoJi.rt A.pr. tr. ' 11.15 .5:14.10 .u5 10.05 .95 1.uS 10.05 • l .60 .1�j 4.9S I' Uu I » 1 . 1.75 ! 51 31,2,51 I 17.75 is 31+2.54 l I 10.91 : .745 I .56 4144b 7.64 715 .56 41 •a rLl 5.455 9.50 .e5 r .35 I ,..' t 9.7: • .75 ' .Sd 6.70 6.09 6.60 9.20 1.10 1.10 1.10 .35 10.35 4.51 10.63 4.51 d.2d 4.51 E.CO 4.I 9.20 .60 9.1S .55 9.40 .55 9.65 . .55 e.95 .uu 6.12 .92 .37 .37 .37 .10 31+,22 • 51 3se.22.1 St i31e.22 $ 5t 361.22 51 .50 .50 .50 .55 1.05 r .01 .Oi 11 • 11 .025 • 1 .025 .LE 1 .06 0.751 0.751 0.754 0.751'1 .02 .02 .G2 .02 .02 , .15 F177.1117 - (Cunt'd.) , Pap 2 hefr/gsraticn 6 Ait ccndltlon- lng ..achan1:r3 ►./C 1.,l•11.2 ov.r 15 tone A;C witt. over 7.5 tens brit unJUr 15 tins Rr:;•r.t • t luirl.�alt D!.vet mute). uorkeca 64:Inkier fljtere H.ldete - rate for craft to w.rl:h waldiny la incidental. , } Fdny B.a.ti,s Par.,tnt• e.st.., Mari, . • R.N. It 1 11 t•.a.I.as Vacation I 1 10,53 • 9.77 7,02 10.55• 10.16 --ram-r 1.011 12.00 1,0U ' 4,0(1, ! .01 .10 .75 r .65 r15 I.15 • •.95 ' .09 '•02 • .10 10 f - • t ; • ��' At7 0I•I :AY9 iiHr48 A; PLSCANLLJ .1 •_ • l 0-Independence • 1'law •rr R.YI 0-}.._r1a1 Day, DaYI D-Labor •'' I: 1 ,.• ! . a, • t I-,,,ani.4(rIni NaYr f-LnllyW1a Day, ' • 't , j' tu• '.Ull.�, ' •1 . . a, .014 peld Iwllaayel A 1t,10694 lc . ' '1•' v 'I • . .s•. • l t-, 1 • . b. ,Anptoyet CCntr tbatr0 /e of regular hourly rate to Vacation Pay Credit ''r,•, '• •r for employs who 14.: ',wrote,: In DJslnesa•mot• Mari 5 years, I7ployer • • l .: • uo.ltrlbuter 21 of r+2,+1ar t:elcly rate to Vaoavicn Cre.11t for employee I. • r .!;`r t;•' • who has uwcksJ In busin.ss leer than 5 years. - 1 -''t' • r• ' Fday Lv.• 1ra P.p,..ts • PO:dlit cut Pr:1•;Nr ON:Wit749t Basic. t 1 m.,o, j fd+cat4a r Bar.. It A Of Pones,' t V.can.a I •ni/.. •', ' Appr. Tr. t' G11D'JP A 10.00 • 1 • .50 f ;45 .05 1 . I GIrLUP b 9.31 , I .50 I ./5 .05 ,I ,. f �. GULP C i 6./6 .SO ./S I. ! .OS' . I ^`' ;�t 1 f. Cli;n:1' D . , 7,90 l,50' I _;45 .05:,t 1• 'r'i.1-'1''', )• 0 ..J? 6 I , , i 6,a1 50 .15 ' .CS '', ; _t1, 11Iti. Ire i1• 'r� GROUP At 'field shop mechanic, oranes, derricks, hoist•(2'or rare dru:ls), field batch plant operator, inside elevator operator (when trans- fercwd free 2-dr,:m hoist) 1 GROUP Br Dragllnes, backtoee, gradalls, finisher gradoc,.inelde elevators'. operator,1 dr.;o hoist, fors lift, hopto machine, more than one 11 ••.j pa_,p or co,:Linaticn of other cqutpc.ont, up to 5; firer,en, pup.? ,t a (3' or larger) ' 1. k..•, • GROUP 0, • Bulldozer,, distributors, scrapers, motor graders, trenching machine, > ' fccnt end loaJere, air co•:?r•aaor (above 125'cL.i , welding machine, .v t t e• • II� dT 4 K lj. ), winch tr1Ok • - 1 , ' ' '` 1 ' ORDDP Dr Rollers, flnll�inq machines, ctector., ol3acs idrlvecs; ■l:trs t �•' !t• • '1"•• • dreykf,•••••• at'.•r., .'•I 1;1. ,rn� i it :. ,.•I '.•.,A � ' 1. t• Kettlaen 1 Ad•I t LIEORERS. T . Permit value up to $050,0001 Alrtool•OPotatoret Kasen .•, ' 1 Tenders{ mortar Mltlers' ,' • •'t 'Plasterer Tenders -unskilled • t are hereby cancelled. .Agencies with, ; in contracts for which the b!d opening res!dent!al construction projects con- is v..ith!n ten (10) days of this notice temp:ttted in these counties should ut:• need not be affected. lire the project determination prose- ' I ,' dure by sumb!tting form SF-303 (see . Signed at Washington, D.C.; this 29 CFR Part 1. Section 1.5). Contracts . 27th day of January 1978. for itch bids have been opener! shall . - net be affected by this notice. Cola,- RAY J. Dogs, tent with 29 CFR Part 1, Section 1.7 .! AssistantAd7ninistrator, ' . . - '(b)(2), inclusion of the above decisions 7, Wage end HourCivision. , _ • • M:DIFIC,':I 'S P. 1 r -t 1E.TSIO.7 f:0. FL76-1059. MJD. 3 (.1�rn 2,133 - 2.y 14, 1717 r1orie2 .1' :ruck Drivers Wrltare-Rate for craft to ' u',ch mr:it,•R is Inc!denta2 slabs Ita..lr I R.,,s • Fringe Brvnts Perm.nts 1 ' Ed•carIen 1 H & W + Peneleea I Yecarbn o•d/a. Ar. p,. Tr. 1 • . 2.65 I - .. F!.17-1144, 2' (.. iir t..55. ;v[':L- IS, i ice:Ls. r•.ty, S:or1d• - i 1 I 6ri.k1•yer.; Marble Setters) I ;. St,ne _nn..n. ' .1' I 9.207 '.65 C.. ent l:escns ' i t )B.62., I ' .t5 Tile & Terrazzo Workers • .45 ^e^l+(on# ..o7-1•'.2, MA. SI. Fh L1.,1, - ::e_c'.er 2, 1577. . Cu;e Ca:.avural, - .�.eij Space . . ' ' F'l/&:t Center, tatrlck Air Force oe, and 7a1►:ar hnSar Site, 1 . ' • I i;:.eet Metal Yorkers ' .. • : .9:72 . '•.6.0 t233b - :cce-'Ler 5, 197., Lace Co,...:y, FIot1J. Chnn�e: r' • '' Slate; Tire; Composition;- .".t 'D...p 7Jterproofers. ,. • 0.77 .63 Poured or Pre -cast roof, ' 1' ' Deck Applicators. 5.85 .30,, .. 7.02 30 •-- t .5J .09 .C9 ' .C9 r. DECISION IA1.77-104o-MOD. 16 (42 ET-1 17752 - April 1, 1977) MaIlson County, Alabama 1 • Change: Electriclans,ltnemsn DECISr"v CAt.77-1O25-MOD: 14 (42 IK 15277-arch 4, 1977) Li:aresce Limestone end Margin Cr,.ncics, Alatav ' CI! aos• Ericeleyera: Bricklaycre, Marble Masons, 'St.:nc_aains, Painters, • Cleal..rs a,:d Caulkers Carpenters{ Car;enrer 6 Soft Floor Layers , Milluri�nce ' Piledrivermen Ccent Masers , Electrlcur,: Lleccriciana.11nemen , CuLle .pllcers . r Plasterers 6 Trnwelingt !Machine Operator Sheet Metal Workers .',1 ' Puucr Equipment CperettOrst Croup A Croup B , Crol, C D1:CISI_9 NO. FL75-1071. v-70. 2 (41 ra 4149 - 30, 197; `Lay, sieveibis, Golf. Ck.l000s, Santa Rosa; 6 Walton Counties F1oriea • • • ,I •r 1 Lnburerst' 'e Cor.ion ! r . Truck Driver, 1 ••i4 r •i N.1Jurs - fate for craft to ,' . i • . twatcit weldls` i11 intidencal'{ , • • • ' 1 , . , . i •I .1. 1 t. t • -,37' . ., ! !.r_ s. rlr.ti.• 1 J- . jClt 1 • )••i,-..: • .37 ' s , ' r t,:,T' r1 .r t ,ti I.I, t, _•. 1' 'i•, 1. 1 1... .. 177. . 'Ir S. 1 ( 1 i .. ` '. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 21-FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1978 'T,'1'. '':1 '' 't ' 1 t 1, . HuDIFICATIO9S P. 2 • F.inee E.aefite Permeate• • ' • Earle Mewl, 1 EJ.cerlea Rotes . ' H L If Penet.as I Yacetts. smiler ! I App. Tr. ' • 10.35 .55 ' I 32 + .3S 9.75 7.60 35 8.24 • .35 3.01 ' .35 • 9.00 10.35 .55 10.35 ' .55 25 • .25 '.25 32 + .35, ,31-- .351, 8.90 • .10,05 i .69 ,.82 1: ' ,'.+, 9.96,E . ,t0 ,.40 6,6,4 .40 .40 7.52 .40 ; :40 1 • ., • Lrfcklayers 0,I Foresettera • +'�• igt:FR r•'Ar4r'I? crr.R.1T0191 Asphalt Plant tirter , foncreto rav:nf Machina Oiler I. i.. • ' Ti'accor-610hp, 9t ,ls:a i ' t, 12r 12 .09 • • • • ,• •t • GREENLEAF ! TIE PLANNERS • ENGINEERS •ARCH ylw'V W'lP, 'A�lMha__ W'�" ✓yy°_www/a .,•.m°9PY'V�/r^�w'�'V'r.`p'*!"":, ,. • 1J Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami February 1979 CITY COMMISSIONERS Maurice A. Ferre, Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr., Vice Mayor Rose Gordon Theodore R. Gibson Armando Lacasa PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD Cyril Smith, Chairperson Mary Lichtenstein, Vice Chairperson Selma Alexander Grace Rockafellar Waldo Silva Richard Rosichan, Alternate Jim Reid, Executive Secretary MARINA DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Alex M. Balfe Thomas W. Bilhorn Richard Cummins Robert Fielder Robert H. McTague John F. Michel CITY MANAGER Joseph R. Grassie Richard L. Fosmoen, Assistant City Manager for Community Development PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jim Reid, Director Joseph W. McManus, Assistant Director PREPARED BY: GREENLEAF/TELESCA . PLANNERS . ENGINEERS . ARCHITECTS, INC. John W. Greenleaf, Jr., PE, Principal in Charge Robert W. Bentley, AIA-AICP, Project Manager Ronald J. Falkey, Marina Analyst Robert W. Tango, AIA, Project Planner This study was funded from the Second Year Community Development Block Grant GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. • ( REENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 1451 BRICKELL AVENUE • MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131 • 305/377-8411 • CABLE GREENING 21 February 1979 Mr. Joseph R. Grassle City Manager City of Miami P. 0. Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33133 Re: Comprehensive Marina Development Study - Job No. 1621 Mr. Grassie, we are pleased to submit this report which documents the results of our Comprehensive Marina Development Study. Attached hereto is a summary of the study which briefly states the purpose and background of the study, the findings, and our recommendations. We have found that there is a continuing demand for facilities to serve the recre- ational boating community as well as a need for storm protected berthing and com- mercial/industrial sites for marine related activities. Our association with the City's Planning Department, the Planning Advisory Board, and the Marina Development Advisory Committee has proved to be extremely beneficial in the preparation of the study. We hope the City Commission will accept this study and develop a program for implementation in accordance with our recommendations. Such a program will have a secondary beneficial economic impact on the area as well as provide for the facilities needs of the City. We look forward to further assisting the City to the extent necessary in carrying out the recommended program. Sincerely, hn W. Greenleaf, Jr., Incipal-in-Charge JWG:ipg CLEARWATER • ORLANDO, FLA. f. SUMMARY Comprehensive Marina Development Study, City of Miami PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The Comprehensive Marina Development Study was undertaken to evaluate City owned waterfront property for potential marina development. The study was authorized for advertisement by City Commission Resolution 77-227 dated 16 March 1977; execution of a contract with Greenleaf/Telesca was authorized by City Commission Resolution 78-503 dated 27 July 1978. This delay afforded better coordination with a countywide marina study completed in spring 1978. The contract was signed 21 August 1978 with funding from Second Year Community Development Block Grant funds. Interim findings and recommendations have been discussed with the Marina Develop- ment Advisory Committee on 17 October and 6 December 1978; with the Planning Ad- visory Board on 18 October 1978; and with the City Commission on 24 October 1978. FINDINGS Through research, study, and evaluation of the market demands certain conclusions were reached which support the hypothesis that there is a definite need for addi- tional marina facilities. • There will be a shortage of some 3,350 wet and dry berths in the Miami area by 1985. • Boat launching ramps in the Miami area are operating at capacity during average summer weekend peak hours. • There is an urgent need for marine repair and service facilities. • The future development of private property for marine oriented activities is being discouraged by economic forces and environmental concerns; future marine oriented activities will be generally limited to publicly held lands. In evaluating City owned potential marina sites it was determined that nine sites were suitable for marine development; two sites have potential for storm refuge moorings; ten sites may have some limited potential for marine access to park -rec- reation -open space uses; and fourteen sites have no potential for marine develop- ment. The nine potential sites selected for marine development are summarized as follows: GREENLEAF/ TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. Summary 1 SITE POTENTIAL USE PRIORITY PROBABLE COST REMARKS 1 -Dinner Key Marina, moorings Proceeds, similar $ 3,291,000 $4.5 million bond issue not in- to that as pres- cluded ently proposed 1A-David Kennedy Park Jr.Sailing Club 6 $ 288,000 Parking not included 3-Miamarina Moorings Proceeds, similar $ 294,000 $400,000 current program not to that as pres- included ently proposed 5 -Watson Island Marinas Proceeds, similar - Under private investment contract to that as pres- ently proposed 6 -Margaret Pace Park Phase I Jr.Sailing Club 2 $ 327,000 Phase I1 Ramps 1 27,000 Phase III Dry Berths 5 590,000 Phase IV Marina 8 2,539,000 $ 3,483,000 7 -Magnolia Park Marina 7 $ 2,612,000 9-Morningside Park Phase I Ramps 2 $ 85,000 Phase II Dry Berths 5 645,000 Phase III Marina 8 967,000 $ 1,697,000 118-Virginia Key Phase I Marina, Moorings 7 $ 4,822,000 Phase 11 Dry Berths 2 1,768,000 Industrial Park Repair Services 1 - * •n $ 6,591,000 3 W 14-1-95 S.W. 4 St. Dry Berths 1 n -` Not estimated raawuiva,r.e�rrwrby SUMMARY Continued The boating industry provides a positive economic value to the Miami area. This value yields important benefits to all citizens of Miami. • Boaters in Dade County spend an estimated $100,000,000 annually. • Miami's marine orientation, with supporting facilities, attracts and supports the tourist industry upon which South Florida depends for economic viability. • The accumulative economic benefit of boating in Dade County is estimated at $200,000,000 annually. RECOMMENDATIONS This study recommends: 1. An implementation program for the comprehensive development of marinas and marina oriented projects in the City of Miami. 2. Public hearings should be held before the Planning Advisory Board and City Commission approving in principle the Comprehensive Marina Development Study. 3. A Project Manager should be appointed to carry out recommendations of the study. 4. A detailed development program should be formulated for each project including design plans, sources of funding, management arrangements, and permitting requirements. 5. Programs for secondary sites should be incorporated into the park and recre- ation program to provide or improve water access to indicated park or poten- tial park areas. 6. A cooperative program should be entered into with Dade County to establish storm refuge moorings in protected areas. 7. A joint City -County watercraft transit study should be initiated to determine the feasibility of such a program and to what extent watercraft transit should be considered in the marina development program for the City of Miami. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. Summary 3 • Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami C ONTENTS Letter of Transmittal Summary INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1 A. B. C. D. E. CHAPTER 11 A. B. CHAPTER III Site 1 Site 3 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7/8 Site 9 Site 118 Site 14 RECREATIONAL BOATING DEMANDS AND INVENTORY Wet Boat Storage in Dade County Dry Berth Storage - Dade County Present Construction Program - City Leased Land Market Potential for Boat Storage in Dade County Marina Requirements for the City of Miami Figure Table Table Table 1 - Wet and Dry Berth Demand - Dade 1 - Wet and Dry Berth Inventory 2 - Ramp Width & Space 3 - Trailerable Boat - Ramp Demand POTENTIAL SITE EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS Site Analysis Site Suitability Assessment County Projections Figure 2 - Site Location Map Table 4 - Site Suitability Assessment (Sites 1-14) Table 4A- Site Suitability Assessment (Sites 15-35) Table 5 - Site Classification DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM POTENTIAL Dinner Key - David Kennedy Park Miamarina-Bayfront Park Watson Island Margaret Pace Park Magnolia -Stearns Park Morningside Park Virginia Key 1-95 at SW 4th Street Table Table Table 6 - Site 1 Dinner Key 7 - Impact Assessment 8 - Development Priorities GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. Page 1 3 3 5 5 6 6 7 8 15 16 20 20 30 21 31 32 34 36 36 47 52 56 61 65 69 74 Development Proposal Legend 43 78 79 • Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami CONTENTS CHAPTER IV A. B. C. D. E. F. Continued - PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Economic Impact Organization and Administration Funding Sources Management/operations Options Permitting Requirements Implementation Figure 3 - Table 9 - Table 10 - Normal Processing Simplified Flow Model Annual Operations Pro Forma 150-Boat Wet Berth Marina Model Annual Operations Pro Forma 200-Boat Dry Berth Storage LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND EXHIBITS Figure 1 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Figure 2 Table 4 Table 4A Table 5 Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Table 6 Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit A-1- B-1- A-2- B-2- C-1- C-2- D-1- D-2- E-1- E-2- F-1- F-2- G-1- G-2- H-1- H-2- Wet and Dry Berth Demand - Dade County Wet and Dry Berth Inventory Ramp Width and Space Trailerable Boat - Ramp Demand Projections Site Location Map Site Suitability Assessment (Sites 1-14) Site Suitability Assessment Site Classification Site Analysis/Dinner Key (1) Site Analysis/David Kennedy Park (IA) Development Proposal/Dinner Key (1) Site 1 - Dinner Key Development Proposal Legend Development Proposal/David Kennedy Park (1A) Site Analysis/Miamarina (3) Development Proposal/Miamarina (3) Site Analysis/Watson Island (5) Development Proposal/Watson Island (5) Site Analysis/Margaret Pace Park (6) Development Proposal/Margaret Pace Park (6) Site Analysis/Magnolia/Stearns Park (7/8) Development Proposal/Magnolia/Stearns Park (7/8) Site Analysis/Morningside Park (9) Development Proposal/Morningside Park (9) Site Analysis/Virginia Key (11B) Development Proposal/Virginia Key (11B) Page 80 80 81 82 85 85 89 Chart 90 86 GREENLEAF /TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC, 87 7 8 15 16 21 31 32 34 38 39 42 43 44 48 49 53 54 57 58 62 63 66 67 70 71 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND EXHIBITS Exhibit J-1- Table 7 - Table 8 - Table 9 - Table 10 Figure 3 Continued Site Analysis/I-95/4th Street (14) Impact Assessment Development Priorities Model Annual Operations Pro Forma (150-Boat Wet Berth Marina) Model Annual Operations Pro Forma (200-Boat Dry Berth Storage) Normal Processing Simplified Flow Chart GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS. INC. Page 75 78 79 86 87 90 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Comprehensive Marina Development Study is to evaluate City owned waterfront property in relation to the potential for marina development with emphasis on recreational boating demands. The study has been divided into four chapters, outlined as follows: CHAPTER I - RECREATIONAL BOATING DEMANDS AND INVENTORY This chapter includes a review of existing marina operations and marina site op- portunities. A determination has been made showing the potential for marina development based on the market demands of the area. In carrying out this task, prior studies and reports have been reviewed and updated to the extent necessary to arrive at the demand potential. CHAPTER II - POTENTIAL SITE EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS This chapter encompasses the review of specific City owned waterfront property and the evaluation and analysis of such potential sites for marina development. In the evaluation process such factors as location, land use, accessibility, general suitability, and limitations or constraints have been considered. In terms of the potential for development, an assessment has been made from which specific sites have been selected for further study under Chapters 11I and IV. CHAPTER III - DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM POTENTIAL This chapter delineates the development potential for each of the selected sites, including a determination of the number, size, type, and characteristic of the fleet to be accommodated, as well as the supporting water and landside facilities necessary to promote a recreational boating program. Estimated development costs have been provided for the various phases of development proposed. CHAPTER IV - PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION This chapter evaluates the various requirements for implementing the potential program for each site. Included in this chapter is the economic impact on the community as a whole, recommendations for an implementation structure, sources of funding, management -operations options, permitting requirements, general feasibility, and an implementation strategy. During the study period, meetings were held with the City of Miami Planning De- partment as well as progress presentations with the Marina Development Advisory Committee, the Planning Advisory Board, the City Commission, and staff from other City departments. Input from these groups has been incorporated into the study. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 1 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami In undertaking the study, certain reports and studies have been reviewed. These include: • The Impact of Recreational Boating on Dade County, 1976 - By The Marine Council. • Dade County Marinas and Parks - Marina System Plan 1977-1997, including Hur- ricane Supplement - By Connell, Metcalf & Eddy, 1978. • City of Miami - Miami Riverfront Development Study - By Wallace McHarg Roberts & Todd and Economics Research Associates, 1977/78. • City of Miami - Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1976-1986 - By Wallace McHarg Roberts & Todd and City of Miami Planning Department, 1976. • City of Miami - Riverfront Study - By Marine Industry Task Force and City of Miami Planning Department, 1973. • Recreational Boating in Dade County, 1975-76 - By Dr. C. Bruce Austin, 1977. Based on this study, it is proposed that the City of Miami carry out an active program to develop marina facilities in an effort to fulfill a portion of the needs and demands of a boating public in the Miami area. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 2 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami CHAPTER I RECREATIONAL BOATING DEMANDS AND INVENTORY A. WET BOAT STORAGE IN DADE COUNTY 1. Review of Existing Information Up until 1974 little information was available regarding the needs or facilities for recreational boating in the Greater Miami area. At the urging of The Marine Council, Dade County through its Department of Parks and Recreation arranged with the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science to obtain a grant from the U.S. Sea Grant Program with which to undertake a study of "Recreational Boating in Dade County." This study, carried out under the direction of Dr. Bruce Austin, was published in March 1977 and was based on the 1975-76 data on registered boaters from the Florida Department of Natural Resources; an in -situ survey of berthed boats between 1 November and 15 December 1975; a telephone interview of marina operators undertaken in May and June 1976; and some 4,275 interviews at the county marinas during three 6-week intervals within the study period. Although this study presented great quantities of information and statistical data, conclusions drawn from this information require a careful analysis of the statistics and knowledge of the recreational boating industry to be of value in forecasting the future needs and demands of the area. In early 1976, an ad hoc committee was appointed by The Marine Council under the chairmanship of John W. Greenleaf, Jr. to undertake a study of the impact of recreational boating in Dade County which could be used to show the urgent need for additional boating facilities in the Dade County area and the serious economic impact of the lack of those facilities. This committee consisted of 12 leaders in the marine field, each selected for his special knowledge of the conditions existing in the area. The efforts of the committee were divided principally into two parts: the first to forecast the demand for recreational boating facilities and the second to determine the economic benefits to the area that would result from meeting of the demand. The committee, in making its forecast, took advantage of a preliminary report of Dr. Bruce Austin which included the boat registration in Dade County for 1975-76 and gave the results of his in -situ survey of boats then berthed in the county. In making its estimate, the committee also took into account the large number of un- registered dealer boats in the area, the demand for berths by seasonal visitors and transients, as well as the fact that Dr. Austin's in -situ survey was conducted between 1 November and 15 December, at a time when there is little or no effect from visitors and transient boats in the area. The forecast of dockage requirements (wet berths) was shown on Figure VII of this report covering the period of 1970 to 2000. Also shown is the number of dock spaces existing at the time of the survey, broken down into present Dade County and City of Miami docks, yacht GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS• INC. 3 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami clubs, existing private and commercial slips, and unorganized private slips. The difference between the forecast and presently available docks showed a shortage of 2,500 slips in 1975, increasing to 6,500 to 1885, and to 10,000 by the year 2000. These forecasts did not take into account dry storage of boats at marinas. 0n 15 March 1978, Connell Metcalf & Eddy presented their report on a Marina System Plan, 1977-1997. This report, based largely on the March 1977 report of Dr. Austin, supplemented by certain additional field surveys, covered the entire Dade County area, stressing particularly the Dade County marinas including those proposed for Chapman Field, Black Point, and Homestead. In making this study, no distinction was made between boats requiring wet storage and those for which dry storage could be provided. As a result, no direct comparison between the study of The Marine Council and that of Connell Metcalf & Eddy can be made of the present shortage of facilities, except to state that both studies show an extreme shortage to exist. 2. Special Considerations An analysis of the in -situ survey shown in Dr. Austin's report indicates that some 47% of the wet slips being utilized in Dade County at the time of the survey were classified as unorganized. This classification refers to boats tied up at seawalls and private docks along the canals and waterways in Dade County on private property. While this number represents only a relatively small percentage of the dockage possible along such privately owned waterfront property, it must be realized that many waterfront property owners are not interested in boating, are not boat owners, and enjoy the privacy of their waterfront properties, with the result that although it would be physically possible to greatly increase the unorganized dockage, the berths found by Dr. Austin probably represent the normal maximum usage which can be anticipated for this type of facility. Also, private seawalls not utilized for the normal dockage of boats may be available by special arrangement for tie-up as a refuge during hurricanes when public marinas on Biscayne Bay are required to be evacuated. Dr. Austin's survey showed that whereas something over 500 of the families in Dade County lived in apartment houses and condominiums, less than 15% were boat owners, while something less than 50% living in single family units account for the remaining 35% of boat owners in Dade County. The present trend of planning and zoning authorities and the developers of large waterfront condominium and apartment complexes to limit the use of marina facilities constructed as an adjunct to the apartment or condominium to the occupants of those facilities, is resulting in many slips being constructed for which there will be no occupant. Since such facilities are not provided with proper landside access and the necessary parking, their attractiveness to the general public is limited even if such usage were to be permitted. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 4 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami • Phase III: Consisting of a 50-boat dry storage rack, marina headquarters facilities, toilet facilities, and further landscaping. • Phase IV: A twelve-month program 'consisting of the addition of 105 wet slips, 50-dry storage boat racks, a maintenance facility, and other sales and service facilities that may be deemed necessary. This program will provide for a total of 200 wet slips and 150 dry storage ac- commodations, and has been included in Table 1. D. MARKET POTENTIAL FOR BOAT STORAGE IN DADE COUNTY The forecast of The Marine Council shown on Figure VII of their study indicated the potential dockage requirements for wet berth storage for the entire Dade County area to the year 2000. The market potential is the difference between available facilities and total potential demand. Assuming the dockage requirements for dry berth storage to be equivalent to the 12% of the registered boats in the 16-25 foot class, the needs for this type of facility to the year 2000 can be similarly forecast. The Marine Council projections for wet berth demand is shown in Figure 1 together with the projection of the dry berth storage needs. The market potential is the difference between available facilities and the total potential demand. In November/December 1975, Dr. Austin made a survey of both wet and dry facilities existing in the county. This survey is presented in Table 1, in which the marina facilities listed by numbers are those reported by Dr. Austin. Additional information updating the data on these marinas has been added as well as a number of facilities which are presently proposed but were not contemplated at the time of his survey. These additional facilities have been identified by letters. The wet and dry berths programmed for construction to 1985 are shown on Figure 1 as well as the total projected wet and dry storage berth demand as discussed herein. For comparative purposes the total projected wet and dry storage demand indicated by Connell Metcalf & Eddy in their 1978 report to Dade County has been shown. From Figure 1 it will be noted that after completion of the currently programmed construction for wet slips in Dade County there will still remain a shortage of 4,500 slips for the year 1985 and a shortage of some 500 dry berths. Unless a sustained marina development program is undertaken, these shortages will continue to worsen. E. MARINA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CITY OF I11 At1 I 1. Wet and Ury Berth Storage The studies previously referred to included the entire Dade County area. Both the Bruce Austin and the Connell Metcalf & Eddy reports were focused GREENLEAF ,TEL ESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 6 20,000 17,500 15,000 12,500 I0,000 7,500 5,000 2,500 FIGURE 1 VET AND DRY BERTH DEMAND - DADE COUNTY Total Projected Wet 8 Dry Berth Demand •� /i' �• Total Projected Dry & Wet Berth Demand (Connel I , Metcalf & Eddy • •' 19 78 .40doe / ,/ • / ear / ,_�p...— (Mar • Projcted Wet Berth Demand i ne Counc i I 1 976) •/ ,,:: / / /Z4. • • ••40°.• tik.#°° mai • • • lose ■ w•ra••n• blot Ber•hs Programned for Construction no Projected Dry Berth remand • 0 1975 •ra••ra■ �w Dry ,3• r; -•rogrammLd for Construction 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Com rehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami 8. DRY BERTH STORAGE - DADE COUNTY The in -situ survey of Dr. Austin shows a ratio of nearly two dry boat storage berths to three wet boat storage berths in the organized marinas existing in Dade County. The development of dry boat storage facilities in this area, particularly those utilizing multi -tiered racks, either open or covered, is a relatively new phenomena which has grown rapidly in response to the ever increasing demand for boat storage facilities. It serves a special need for the owner of the larger trailerable boat, permitting him to store his boat at the marina where launching and retrieval services are provided. This eliminates the need for trailering the boat, owning a trailer, and providing storage at the boater's home. Demand for this type of storage is increasing as zoning ordinances are passed restricting the storage of boats in front or side yards and driveways of individual homes. The demand is also increasing as more and more families are resorting to living in multifamily dwellings where no space is available for boat storage. The dry storage of boats offers the advantage of preventing the accumulation of grasses and barnacles on the boat hull while significantly reducing corrosion. Where covered storage is provided, it also gives the boat owner a secure place to leave his boat during a storm or hurricane. The reduction in size of cars to accommodate greater gasoline mileage require- ments will reduce the trailerability of boats, especially those in the upper limits of the 16-25 foot class. This will further increase the demand for dry storage at marinas, particularly as energy conservation programs become more intensive. Dr. Austin found a total of 1,985 boats in dry storage during his survey. This represents about 8.8% of the total registered boats in the 16-25 foot class. Dr. Austin also found a total of 5,774 wet stored boats during his. survey, which represented 76% of the need for boating facilities at that time, as determined by The Marine Council. If it is assumed that the same market factors have governed the construction of wet and dry berth storage facilities, the demand for dry berth storage at the time of the survey would have been 11.6, say 12%, of the registered boats in the 16-25 foot class. C. PRESENT CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM - CITY LEASED LAND Marina Biscayne has a development program for wet and dry storage facilities (Miami Marine Stadium Lagoon). This is a four phase program; phases I, II, and III, an eight -month program, are under construction at the present time: • Phase I: Consisting of 95 wet slips, a temporary office, toilet facil- ities, water supply system, fencing, lighting, and electrical services, and initial parking. • Phase II: Consisting of 50-dry storage cradles, a launching platform for dry storage boats, fueling facilities, landscaping, and expanded parking. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 5 TABLE 1 WET AND DRY BERTH INVENTORY (Present and Proposed) NUMBER OF BERTHS NUMBER NAME TYPE OF FACILITY BRUCE AUSTIt1 1975-1976 Wet STUDY Dry PROPOSED 1978 Wet CHANGES Dry 1 Sheraton Beach Hotel 19400 Collins Avenue Hotel dock 17 - - 2 Gray Line Boats 450 Sunny Isles Blvd. Commercial Marina 20 - - - 3 Jerry's Marine Center 400 Sunny Isles Blvd Commercial Marina 25 - - - 4 Hi Lift Marine 2890 NE 187 Street Commercial Marina - 300 - - 5 Offshore Marine 17501 Biscayne Blvd. Commercial Marina - 107 - - 6 Snug Harbor Marine 17355 Biscayne Boulevard Commercial Marina 22 - - Maule Lake Marina 17107 Biscayne Boulevard Commercial Marina 150 200 - - 8 Blue Marlin Marina 2500 NE 173 Street Commercial Marina 12 - - - 9 Aqua Marina 3000 Sunny Isles Boulevard Commercial Marina 60 - - - . 10 Haulover Park 10800 Collins Avenue Maria Marina (county) 14 - 29 - 11 Bal Harbour Club 10201 Collins Avenue Private Club 40 - - - 12 Bay Harbor Hotel 9660 E. Bay Harbor Drive Hotel dock 3 - - - 13 Keystone Point, Inc. 1950 NE 135 Street Commercial Marina 65 300 - 100 14 Biscayne Marine- 13301 Biscayne Blvd. Commercial Marina 97 - 15 Keystone Harbour Club 131 Ixora Court Condominium Docks 14 - - - 16 Jockey Club, Inc. 11111 Biscayne Blvd. Private Club 53 - 27 - 8 TABLE 1 - CONTINUED NUMBER OF BERTHS NUMBER NAME TYPE OF FACILITY BRUCE AUSTIN 1975-1976 Wet STUDY Dry PROPOSED 1978 Wet CHANCES Dry 17 Skyway Marine 820 NE 79 Street Commercial Marina 20 50 - - 18 Little River Marina 724 NE 79 Street Commercial Marina 20 230 - - 19 Marine Plaza Apartments 660 NE 78 Street Apartment Docks 23 - - - 20 Pelican Harbor 1275 79 Street Causeway Public Marina (county) 19 _ Phase I (444) Ultimate, 400 21 Harbor West Yacht Club 7910 West Drive Commercial Marina 27 - - - 22 Racquet Club 7930 East Drive (Harbor Island) Private Club 22 - - - 23 Flamingo Yacht Basin 1900 79th Street Causeway Commercial Marina 62 - - - 24 King Cole Hotel and Yacht Club 900 Bay Drive 32 - - - A Purdy Avenue Marina Miami Beach Commercial Marina _ - 192 - B South Beach Marina Miami Beach Public Marin� (city - - 430 400 25 Palm Bay Yacht Club 1 Palm Bay Cr. Private Club 35 ` 26 Miami Yacht Club 1001 MacArthur Causeway Private Club 42 120 - - �7 Watson Island Park MacArthur Causeway Public Boat Ramp (city) _ - _ _ 28 Miami Outboard Club 1099 MacArthur Causeway Private Club 50 35 - - 29 Bette and Bert Bayfront 66 Marina, Inc. 1050 MacArthur Causeway Fuel and Supplies - - - - 30 Watson Island Marina MacArthur Causeway Maa Marriina (city) 43 J - - - - 9 TABLE 1 - CONTINUED NUMBER OF BERTHS NUMBER NAME TYPE OF FACILITY BRUCE AUSTIN 1975-1976 Wet STUDY Dry PROPOSED 1978 Wet CHANGES Dry C Watson Island Theme Park Transient Marina Semi-public Marina - 151 " D Watson Island Theme Park Marina North Semi-public Marina - f _ 122 - E Omni International Miami (Plaza Venetia) Commercial Marina _ Phase I (300) Ultimate - 31 Miamarina Miami Bayfront Park 1 Public Marina (city) 208 - - 32 Sheraton 4 Ambassadors Marina 801 S. Bayshore Drive Hotel dock 18 33 Dupont Plaza Hotel Marina 300 Biscayne Boulevard Hotel dock 1,000 ft. (10) - - - F Vizcaya North So. Bayshore Drive Apartment Docks - - 12 - G Brickell Place 1865 Brickell Avenue Condominium Docks _ _ Phase I r146) U ti mate _ 34 Atlantic Marine Boat Yard Inc. 247 S. W. 5th Street Commercial Marina 13 - 2 35 8th Avenue Boat Slips 801 NW 4th Street Commercial Marina 40 36 Riviera Marine Service 201 NW So. River Drive Commercial Marina 35 - - - 37 Tony's Marine Service 243 NW So. River Drive Commercial Marina 20 - - - 38 Miami Pioneer Club 250 NW No. River Drive Private Club 28 - - - 39 Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co. 1270 NW llth Street Commercial Marina _ _ - 40 Nuta's Boat Yard 1884 NW No. River Drive Commercial Marina 160 - - - 41 Hardie Yacht Basin 2100 NW No. River Drive Commercial Marina 100 - - - l Increases proposed at Miamarina but nothing has been established. 10 TABLE 1 - CONTINUED NUMBER OF BERTHS NUMBER NAME TYPE OF FACILITY BRUCL AUSTIN 1975-1976 Wet STUDY Dry PROPOSED 1970 Wet CHANGES Dry 42 Poland Yacht Basin 2190 NW No. River Drive Commercial Marina 29 - - - 43 Florida Yacht Basin 1585 NW 24th Avenue Commercial Marina 1,800 ft.(20) _ _ _ 44 Richard Bertram & Co. 3660 NW 21 Street Commercial Marina 150 - - - 45 Jones Boat Yard, Inc. 3399 NW So. River Drive Commercial Marina 4,300 ft.(50) - - - 46 Coral Reef Yacht Club 2484 So. Bayshore Drive Private Club 72 73 27 - 47 Biscayne Bay Yacht Club 2540 So. Bayshore Drive Private Club 56 - - _ 48 Monty Trainer's Bayshore Marina 2562 So. Bayshore Drive Commercial Marina 40 - - - 49 City of Miami Boat Ramp 2564 Bayshore Drive Public BoatRamp (city) - - - - 50 Merrill Stevens Yacht Yard 2640 So. Bayshore Drive Commercial Marina 56 80 - - 51 Grove Key Marina 3385 Pan American Drive Commercial Marina - 250 - - 52 Dinner Key Marina So. Bayshore Drive Public Marina (city) 370 - Phase I (930) U trmate - 53 Seminole Boat Service 2760 So. Bayshore Drive Fuel dock - - - - 54 Coconut Grove Sailing Club McFrine Road Private Club 250 40 - - 55 Crandon Park Marina Crandon Park Public Marina (county) 125 - 97 - 56 Key Biscayne Yacht Club 180 Harbor Dr. (Key Biscayne) Private Club 92 25 - - H Cocoplum Marina Coral Gables Private Club - _ 208 - 11 TABLE 1 - CONTINUED NUMBER OF BERTHS NUMBER NAME TYPE OF FACILITY BRUCE AUSTIN 1975-I97G Wet STUDY Dry PROPOSED 1976 Wet CHANGES Dry 57 Matheson Hammock Marina Old Cutler Road Public Marina (county) 156 - 150 - 58 Snapper Creek Marina 11190 Snapper Creek Private Club 29 10 - - 59 Homestead AFB Docks Homestead Private Military 37 12 - - 60 Kings Bay Yacht and Country Club 14401 SW 62 Avenue Private Club 135 - - - I Marina Biscayne Rickenbacker Causeway Public Marina (City lease) - - 200 150 61 Florida Power & Light Docks Private 16 - - - 62 Pirates Spa 8701 SW 248 Street Commercial Marina 16 37 - - b3 Snapper Point Marina 11190 Snapper Creek Road Commercial Marina 15 - - - 64 Homestead Bayfront Park Canal Drive Public Marina (county) 72 - - - 65 Greens Place Card Sound Road Commercial Marina 13 - - - 66 Fred's Boat Card Sound Road Commercial Marina 24 - - - J Fair (Grove) Isle Private Marina - - 98* - 'Not included in totals as proposal is in abeyance pending a bay -bottom deter- mination TOTAL (±) 3345 1966 3437 1050 otal Existing & Proposed: Wet: 6832 Dry: 3016 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami on the development of additional marina facilities in the south bay area of Dade County. Each contains basic data useful to project the needs of the City of Miami. The boat owner registration data which had been identified by zip code number was developed for nine areas of Dade County and forecasts were made for boating demand for the residents of each of these areas. The individual preferences of boat launching and storage facilities was determined along with preferred destinations of the boater. Based on these surveys, we find that marina facilities within the City of Miami would largely serve zip code areas 1 thru 5 of the survey, which represent about 65% of the total population of boating registration of the County or a shortage of some 3,250 wet and dry berths by 1985 for the Miami area. 2. Launching Ramps - City of Miami The boating registration in Dade County shows that approximately 90% of the boats registered are trailerable so that any marine oriented program must make provision for handling this type of craft if the citizenry of the community is to be served. Dr. Austin spent considerable time in his study observing launching ramp operations and in obtaining information on their use and frequency of operation. Table 2 lists the number and name of the marina from his study together with the width of its launching ramp for those facilities serving the middle and north part of the county within which the City of Miami is located. Also shown are certain additional launching ramps within the city which were not included in Dr. Austin's survey as well as the number of launching lanes at each of the boat ramps based on a lane width of approximately 13.5 feet; also estimated are the number of parking spaces available at each facility for the storage of vehicles and boat trailers. The boat registration has been analyzed for residents in the middle and north part of the county to determine the portion of boats 25 feet and under which may be expected to use launching facilities in these areas. In order to determine the number of trailerable boats likely to utilize the launching ramps those boats 25 feet in length and less which were found to be either in wet berths or in dry storage at the marinas have been deducted; also deducted are 50% of the boats in the 0-15 foot class based on the assumption that many of these will either be used as dinghies for larger boats or are located in fresh water lakes and waterways and therefore generally do not utilize coastal launching ramps. Using information from Dr. Austin's survey, it was found that 65% of the total registration can be expected to use launching ramp facilities. Also, it was found that boats in use on an average summer weekend day can be expected to reach 7-1/2% and that peak hour use on any boat ramp will equal 20% of those boats using the facility. Dr. Austin's observations GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, tNC. 13 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami indicate the lane width to be 13.5 feet and that the number of cars and trailers parked at the facility could equal 63% of the total daily use. Based on this information Table 3 has been prepared, which shows this information for 1975, 1982, 1987, and 1997 based on the forecasts of total boat registration contained in the Connell Metcalf & Eddy report. Comparing the total existing ramp widths and launching lanes with those forecast for the area, it was determined that the existing launching facilities would be 95% occupied by 1982 and that parking facilities for only 750 of the anticipated traffic will be available. In evaluating these figures, it must be realized that on special holidays such as Fourth of July, Labor Day, and Columbus Day, when special nautical activities are scheduled in the area, the number of boats in use will far exceed the average summer weekend figures. Also, as launching facilities approach their maximum capability, operating inefficiencies and equipment breakdown can cause serious delays and frustrations to those using the facility with the result that as the capacity of the facility is approached, its use becomes less desirable and the desire to use it is suppressed. Analyzing the list of launching ramps in Table 2, it was found that one of the largest facilities is at Baker's Haulover with 22 launching lanes. This is at the extreme north end of the county with somewhat difficult access and therefore may be less desirable than some of the more conveniently located facilities. The proposal of Diplomat World Enterprises to construct a Theme Park on Watson Island will require the closing of the 16 launching lanes presently located there. Also, it should be pointed out that the modifications at Dinner Key Auditorium have greatly reduced the car and trailer parking available for the Seminole Boat Service located there, and therefore lessen the capability• of this facility. Crandon Park, the other major county facility with 22 launching lanes requires the crossing of Rickenbacker Causeway and the payment of a toll. The heavy traffic jams on weekends considerably lessens the desirability of the use of this facility. As a result of the foregoing, it is obvious that the construction of launching facilities by the city, on city -owned property will be limited strictly by the financial capability and not by the need. The replacement of the 16 launching lanes on Watson Island by an equivalent facility should take priority in any development program which is to be undertaken. 3. Miami River Since the earliest days of Miami, the Miami River has played an important part in the marina activities of the area. The first settlement of Miami was on the banks of the river and much of the life of the early settlers GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS• INC. 14 TABLE 2 RAMP WIDTH 6 SPACE No. Name 8 Blue Marlin Marina 10 Haulover Beach 20 Pelican Harbor 26 Miami Yacht Club 27 Watson Island Park 47 Biscayne Yacht Club 49 City of Miami C.G. 53 Seminole Boat Service 55 Crandon Park 56 Key Biscayne Yacht Club A Legion Park B Curtis Park C Morningside Park TOTAL Ramp Width (ft) 50 295 147 12 213 12 44 130 300 20 50 80 100 1453 Launching Lanes 4 22 11 16 1 3 9 22 1 3 6 7 106 Car 6 Trailer Parking 145 130 75 125 20 45 20 266 10 20 50 50 956 15 iiimuiiaiiaiiuuuIIIIUIuI IMIIIIIII II ME Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami center could be a popular and heavily used area. Except for this specialty center, the marine activity suggested in their report for this section of the river represents little change from that existing at the present time. Their suggestion of developing a commercial fishing center with a marina serving a part of the fishing fleet on the east bank between 1-95 and Flagler street represents little change In the present use; we believe such an approach is highly desirable. b. Small Cargo Boats The redevelopment of this entire stretch of the river from Brickell Avenue to U.W. 5th Street will displace several docks presently used for loading and unloading of cargo mainly from the Bahamas, the Caribbean Islands, and Central America. These cargo vessels are small and are operated by non -union crews so that they can not be accommodated at the Dodge Island Port of Miami which is strictly an all -union operation. However, it should be pointed out that certain areas along the river west of 14.W. 27 Avenue might be developed for this type of commercial shipping. This type of commerce means many millions of dollars of business to Miami retailers and all efforts should be made to encourage its continuance, even though economic pressures may require its relocation. c. Marine Repair and Services Facilities A number of marine repair and service facilities are presently located along both shores of the river within the proposed redevelopment area. Those facilities will ultimately have to be relocated since their operation cannot be economically justified in view of the rising land values and since these types of operations are not compatible with the higher and more intensive use planned under the redevelopment program. Boat repair facilities, particularly those where work is performed on the hull, can be unsightly, noisy, and foul smelling and as such, are not desirable neighbors for higher types of usage. In addition, considerable landside areas are needed on which to store and work on ships being repaired. Such facilities are essential for the regular and emergency servicing of all vessels using the waters in this area including Biscayne Bay. Any reduction in existing repair and services in this area will have a negative impact on boating and adversely affect the economy as boat owners look to other areas for needed services. 4. Summary The review and analysis of the marina requirements for the city based on present conditions and on development programs either presently under way or planned to be undertaken in the near future shows the following: GREENLEAF ' TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCMITECTS, INC. 18 1 Comprehensive Marina Development Stud v - City of Miami center could be a popular and heavily used area. Except for this specialty center, the marine activity suggested in their report for this section of the river represents little change from that existing at the present time. Their suggestion of developing a commercial fishing center with a marina serving a part of the fishing fleet on the east bank between 1-95 and Flagler street represents little change in the present use; we believe such an approach is highly desirable. b. Small Cargo Boats The redevelopment of this entire stretch of the river from Brickell Avenue to N.W. 5th Street will displace several docks presently used for loading and unloading of cargo mainly from the Bahamas, the Caribbean Islands, and Central America. These cargo vessels are small and are operated by non -union crews so that they can not be accommodated at the Dodge Island Port of Miami which is strictly an all -union operation. However, it should be pointed out that certain areas along the river west of N.W. 27 Avenue might be developed for this type of commercial shipping. This type of commerce means many millions of dollars of business to Miami retailers and all efforts should be made to encourage its continuance, even though economic pressures may require its relocation. c. Marine Repair and Services Facilities A number of marine repair and service facilities are presently located along both shores of the river within the proposed redevelopment area. Those facilities will ultimately have to be relocated since their operation cannot be economically justified in view of the rising land values and since these types of operations are not compatible with the• higher and more intensive use planned under the redevelopment program. Boat repair facilities, particularly those where work is performed on the hull, can be unsightly, noisy, and foul smelling and as such, are not desirable neighbors for higher types of usage. In addition, considerable landside areas are needed on which to store and work on ships being repaired. Such facilities are essential for the regular and emergency servicing of all vessels using the waters in this area including Biscayne Bay. Any reduction in existing repair and services in this area will have a negative impact on boating and adversely affect the economy as boat owners look to other areas for needed services. 4. Summary The review and analysis of the marina requirements for the city based on present conditions and on development programs either presently under way or planned to be undertaken in the near future shows the following: GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS. INC. 18 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami a. A shortage of dry and wet berths in the Miami area of approximately 3,250. The proposed Miami River development study, if implemented, would eliminate approximately 100 wet berths along the river for a total shortage of 3,350 in 1985. Wet and dry berths have been aggregated because the construction of additional dry berth storage will relieve the shortage for some of the smaller boats that would normally be in wet berth storage, making additional space available for craft that must be wet berthed. b. There are presently 106 launching ramp lanes serving the population in the general Miami area. Under average summer weekend conditions at peak hour, they will operate at 95"; capacity. The elimination of 16 launching lanes from Watson Island when it is developed as a Theme Park will cause the remaining facilities to be 20% beyond capacity under peak conditions. c. There is an urgent need for new areas for repairs and service facil- ities in the Miami area to replace areas where development pressures are forcing out existing facilities and to provide additional facil- ities to serve the present fleet in Biscayne Bay and encourage its further development. d. The establishment of Biscayne Bay as an Aquatic Preserve, the levying of an annual lease fee on private users of bay bottom lands and the high cost of real estate will largely discourage or prevent the future development of private property for marine oriented activities and thus limit such development to publicly held lands. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 19 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami CHAPTER 1I POTENTIAL SITE EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS The City presently owns a number of waterfront parks and other sites which were examined with a view toward determining their suitability for development in connection with the proposed recreational boating program. A. SITE ANALYSIS An initial screening was made from the examination of aerial photographs and other related maps. Further site examination trips were conducted, both landise and waterside, to assist in the evaluation process. The location of these sites is illustrated in Figure 2. In addition to mainland sites certain off -shore spoil islands were visited (Sites 30 thru 35). It was determined that some of these islands would be suitable as destination points for marine park use in conjunction with the development of certain mainland marina activities. Control and maintenance of these off -shore park sites could be associated with the management of an organized marina program. The evaluation process took into consideration, among other major elements, the following: • Size of site • Location of site • Access to the site • Marine orientation • Present use • Present utilization • Availability of services • Potential exposure to storms • Marine development potential The following is a brief synopsis of each of the sites under consideration: - Site I, Dinner Key The first and most important site is the Dinner Key complex extending some 6,000 feet along the bayfront from Coconut Grove Bayfront Park south of MacFarland Avenue to the David Kennedy Park on the north. This complex presently includes some 250 moorings leased to the Coconut Grove Sailing Club; 370 slips in the Dinner Key marina proper; dry berth storage for 350 boats on the property leased to the Grove Key Marina; 70 some odd slips on the property leased to Merrill -Stevens for its marine activities; the dry boat launching ramp at the former Coast Guard seaplane base facility; 110 wet storage slips at the facilities leased to Monty Trainer; and the docking facilities of Biscayne and Coral Reef Yacht Clubs with a total of 125 wet slips, both of which occupy city owned bay bottom. GREENLEAF / 7ELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 20 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami CHAPTER II POTENTIAL SITE EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS The City presently owns a number of waterfront parks and other sites which were examined with a view toward determining their suitability for development in connection with the proposed recreational boating program. A. SITE ANALYSIS An initial screening was made frorn the examination of aerial photographs and other related maps. Further site examination trips were conducted, both landise and waterside, to assist in the evaluation process. The location of these sites is illustrated in Figure 2. In addition to mainland sites certain off -shore spoil islands were visited (Sites 30 thru 35). It was determined that some of these islands would be suitable as destination points for marine park use in conjunction with the development of certain mainland marina activities. Control and maintenance of these off -shore park sites could be associated with the management of an organized marina program. The evaluation process took into consideration, among other major elements, the following: • Size of site • Location of site • Access to the site • Marine orientation • Present use • Present utilization • Availability of services • Potential exposure to storms • Marine development potential The following is a brief synopsis of each of the sites under consideration: - Site 1, Dinner Key The first and most important site is the Dinner Key complex extending some 6,000 feet along the bayfront from Coconut Grove Bayfront Park south of MacFarland Avenue to the David Kennedy Park on the north. This complex presently includes some 250 moorings leased to the Coconut Grove Sailing Club; 370 slips in the Dinner Key marina proper; dry berth storage for 350 boats on the property leased to the Grove Key Marina; 70 some odd slips on the property leased to Merrill -Stevens for its marine activities; the dry boat launching ramp at the former Coast Guard seaplane base facility; 110 wet storage slips at the facilities leased to Monty Trainer; and the docking facilities of Biscayne and Coral Reef Yacht Clubs with a total of 125 wet slips, both of which occupy city owned bay bottom. GREENLEAr TELEEICA • F:.ANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 20 7 NI'S1731IH'dV v' TABLE 3 TRAILERABLE BOAT - RAMP DEMAND PROJECTIONS Date Total Registration Trailerable Boats 67.5% of Total Boats in Use Average Summer Day 7.5% Peak Hour Use of Boat Ramp 20% 1975 Middle - North - Total 2 ,200 14,750 1,100 222 1982 Middle 24,080 North 16,150 Total 0�,230 27,200 2,040 408 1987 Middle 27,250 North 18,010 Total 45,260 30,800 2,310 462 1997 Middle 32,040 North 21,900 Total 53 99 0 36,600 2,730 546 Ramp Spaces Required at 15 Min.Cycle Ramp Width Req'd @ Aver. 13.5'/ Space Car and Trailer Parking at 63% Daily Use 56 102 115 136 755 1,370 1.550 1,640 700 1,290 1,460 1,720 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami was closely related to it. The river has always been a working river. It has served as a principal refuge in time of hurricane and much of the marine commerce has been and continues to be loading and unloading along its banks. The major boatyards and repair facilities serving commercial boats, visiting yachts, and pleasure boats are all, with a few exceptions, located along the river. The entire length of the river is heavily used for the berthing of boats for both open and covered storage in both commercial and private facilities. To facilitate the river's use, its channel ►vas dredged to a depth of 15 feet by the Corps of Engineers and fairway lines established along its length. a. Proposed Miami Riverfront Development The recent report on the Miami riverfront development by Wallace, McHarg, Roberts & Todd and Economic Research Associates clearly points out the redevelopment pressures on the lower stretches of the river north to U.W. 5th Street. It shows how the redevelopment of downtown Miami has reached this portion of the Miami River with the resulting substantial increases in land values for properties along the river. This report suggests the redevelopment of four riverfront parcels east of S.W. 1st Avenue for which they assigned land values of between $9 and $20 per square foot. The present marine oriented activities in this area of the river, although of considerable impact to the overall economy of the business community, cannot develop the full economic potential of these properties and ultimately will be forced to move to other locations because of such economic pressures. On Parcel No. 2, the report suggests a marina apartment house complex on the north side. of the river on the block between South Miami Avenue and S.W. 1st Avenue. Already plans to develop a sports arena in this area are being considered, which would preclude the possibility of marina development. Although this is the only site where major underground utilities do not preclude marina construction, no marina would justify the land cost in this area without an accompanying high density development of the remainder of the tract to share the burden. It is therefore, believed that if serious consideration is given to the development of a wet berth marina in this area, it must be as part of a larger project as suggested and therefore cannot be considered in any firm estimate of facilities to be provided. Between Flagler Street and N.W. 5 Street, the report suggests redevelopment of both sides of the river based on its close proximity to the new developing government center. This could bring a large number of people to the river from the government center particularly at lunch time and after work so that the proposed riverfront specialty GREENLEAF ; TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 17 4i3tts' N.E. 12S ST. OWNTOWN 12AMI WY. FIo•,d3 J�h to Haws T SI. FISHER ISLAND IIB IIA ' LCACH ThUR CS it BROA / C 28 ViRGIN'0 KEY GINIA RAND. -A PP :?K // /ZO U RI^ES FIGURE NO. 2 Page 21 gtLI OAEENLEAF / TELESCA Pk. *NNSP• tNOlN!!•• * C«1•[C?S ohm qdk•i •OICMlLI *V Nu! MIAMI F1O1111O* 33.31 MIAMI SPRINGS HIALEAH HIO .CAN RAi TRA:K N. W. 36 ST. MIAMI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FLAGLER TAMIAMI TRAIL SUNSET DR. KA DR. PARKIN CORAL WAY CORAL GABLES 15) BIRD AVE. .4:=.CHILD TROPICAL GARDENS U. S. PLAN INTRODUCTION STATION N. W. 103 ST. WIDENER i N. W. 79 ST. BLVD. eA iI HIALEAH L N. W. 54 ST. AIRPORT / EXPWV. MATHESON "MOC PAW\ 5. W. 8 ST. IA '"iNER KEY CCC^.MVT GROVE PARK �MAMI ST. N. W. 119 ST. (7 N. W. 103 N. W. 79 1 u; 4 95 i MIAMI RIC 2 (TOLL) VI=C :YA C DUNTY P. MUSEUM 4Y V� Q " SITE LOCATION MAP Comprehensive Marina Development Stud v - City of Miami At the David Kennedy Park (Site IA) there is a Noble Cat rental operation on property leased from the city. In addition, there are numerous uncontrolled moored boats in the bay outside of the present marina area. The ready unlimited access of this area to middle and south Biscayne Bay as well as to offshore areas and its central location to a large segment of the population in the area, make this an ideal location for recreational boating. A master plan published in 1974 envisioned a major expansion for this area and showed how this could be accomplished. Although environmental restraints not existing at the time of the development of this plan now limit the extent to which the plan can be implemented, there are still many elements which should be further considered and programmed for implementation. The David Kennedy Park at the northern end of this complex includes a considerable area of water which although limited in depth, should be incorporated into the recreational activities of the area. A junior sailing club or small sailboat rental program would be ideal for this area. - Site 2, Alice Wainwright Park This park, lying immediately south of the Rickenbacker Causeway and east of Brickell Avenue, stretches some 1,200 feet along Biscayne Bay and is bulkheaded. The park is undeveloped, maintaining the natural character of the land, except for picnic facilities along the waterfront which has a very pleasant surrounding. The park has limited vehicular parking along the street fronting on the park. It is felt that the present character of the park should remain undisturbed, in its natural state, and that any marine facilities should be limited to the replacement of the fingerpiers which previously existed in order to facilitate the use of the park as a marine destination. The beaches along the Rickenbacker Causeway offers launching facilities for the small boats using the area. The reconstruction of such docks would greatly enhance the opportunity for marine access for use of the picnic facilities. - Site 3, tliamarina The Miamarina, adjacent to Bayfront Park in downtown Miami is the second major marina facility of the city. It is on the Intracoastal Waterway and has ready access to the ocean through Fisherman's Channel or the Miami Ship Channel. Although the opening of drawbridges at the Rickenbacker Causeway and at Dodge Island is required for masted vessels, these bridges are provided with clearances in excess of 25 feet, which permits much of the traffic to move unrestricted by bridge openings. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 22 Comprehensive Marina Development Stud v - City of Miami An expansion program has been proposed for the area south of the main marina adjacent to Bayfront Park. Since dredge and fill would be mandated by present proposals, the required permits may be difficult to obtain. The present site for this marina is completely developed. However, with minor landside improvements, moorings could be provided as an adjunct to it in the area in front of Bayf-ont Park, thus substantially increasing the capacity of this facility with a minimum of expense. - Site 4, Bicentennial Park The high bulkhead of the recently completed Bicentennial Park is the westerly side of the turning basin for the ship channel. This, together with limited access and parking severely restricts the desirability of this area for general recreational boating purposes. With the relatively deep water along the bulkhead, this area could serve to berth visiting Naval vessels or other large ships which visit the area periodically and may be open to public inspection without the need to carefully schedule such visits, thus avoiding tieing up the facilities at Dodge Island. An active program to promote the docking of visiting vessels at Bicentennial Park would increase the activity within the park itself and pro- vide a greater utilitarian park. Under any circumstances the deep water area south of the park should remain for marine activities. - Site 5, Watson Island At the present time, the east side of Watson Island is occupied by the Miami Yacht Club, the Miami Outboard Club, and by a launching ramp. The bulkhead along the west side of the island is utilized as a marina accommodating some 40 boats. The proposed development of Watson Island by Diplomat World Enterprises into a Theme Park envisions maintaining the Miami Yacht Club and the Miami Outboard Club at their present locations on a reduced land area and the elimination of the launching ramp and the auto/trailer parking area, which will be required for theme park development. The project contemplates the construction of a transient type marina along the westerly bulkhead to replace existing facilities and provide berthing for vessels 35 feet and larger in length. The project also contemplates the development of a marina along the north side of Watson Island to accommodate somewhat smaller vessels, less than 35 feet in length, in wet berths and also to provide for the short term or daily visitor to the Theme Park. Should the Theme Park proposal fail to materialize, this area would be ideal for the development of several marinas, in keeping with that proposed for the Theme Park. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 23 1 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami - Site 6, Margaret Pace Park Pace Park lying east of North Bayshore Drive extends some 1,250 feet along Biscayne Bay next to the Miami Woman's Club and is bordered on the north by a basin some 600 feet long extending the entire width of the park. The park development at present is underutilized and limited to open space for passive recreation. It is expected that the adjoining residential area will be upgraded sometime in the future as the pressure of development from Omni increases. This park offers the opportunity for replacing the launching facilities which will be lost by the proposed development on Watson Island. The basin adjoining the park could be developed to provide moorings for approximately 100 boats at a minimum cost to the city or might be utilized for a junior sailing program. Any development of this park for marine activities should also include landside park development for the pedestrian to serve the residents in the immediate area. Long range plans should consider dry berth storage and a marina for the future local residents. A city owned spoil bank (Site 35) on the east side of the Intracoastal waterway lies about one-half mile from this area. The spoil bank already has limited use for picnics and is a destination that should be developed under the control of the operator of any marina facilities that may be developed at this site. Boats can be easily beached on this spoil bank because of its relatively steep slopes; a small dock might also be provided. - Site 7, Magnolia Park Magnolia Park, lying immediately north of the Julia Tuttle Causeway occupies the entire city block south of 39th Street. It contains approximately 2-1/2• acres and has approximately 450 feet of riprap protection along the bay. At present the park development is limited to passive recreation. Although exposed to the northeast winds, this site is ideally situated for the development of a marina which could be extended to utilize a portion of the bulkhead along the north side of the Julia Tutle Causeway. This Causeway has a fixed bridge clearance of 55 feet which would not unduly restrict the size and type of boats which could use this facility. It opens immediately onto the middle bay area. - Site 8, Stearn Park This park lies immediately south of Magnolia Park and is separated from it by the east ramp of Julia Tuttle Causeway. It has been developed for passive recreation and is provided with restrooms. In the development of the Julia Tuttle Causeway, a bulkheaded channel 100 feet wide was left in front of this park for water circulation in the bay. The low bridge clearances on the Julia Tuttle Causeway preclude any marina development on this park. except as may be appropriate in conjunction with the development of the Magnolia Park site. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 24 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami - Site 9, tlorningside Park This park, containing some 40 acres, lies some 1,800 feet east of Biscayne Boulevard, with access from N.E. 55 Terrace, and is surrounded by residential development. Though pleasantly developed, the park could be better utilized particularly for marine use with about 1,900 feet of exposure on Biscayne Bay. This park is provided with a 100-foot wide launching ramp and with trailer and car parking facilities to support it. The ramp has seven launching lanes. The park is of ample size to increase these facilities as needed, and to develop dry berth storage and marina activities for small boats. - Site 10, Legion Park This park extends from Biscayne Boulevard easterly to the bay and includes the bayfront property behind the Legion hall facilities. It has approximately 700 feet of bayfront, currently has a launching ramp, and is paved for cars and trailers. Although Legion Park has generally been developed as a senior citizen facility, some 600 feet of shoreline remain undeveloped on which marine related activities can be developed without impacting the present park usage. This property lies immediately south of the Palm Bay Yacht Club and could utilize this channel for access to the Intracoastal Waterway. It is a good location for a small marina and would require little, if any, dredging for boats of moderate draft. Some maintenance dredging might be required to connect with the channel serving The Palm Bay Club to the north, but this should present few ecological problems for its development. Citizen pressures to restrict development of further marine oriented ac- tivities may make the potential unrealized. If development did occur, a large spoil bank (Site 30) containing approximately 10 acres, also owned by the city, is some 1,100 feet from shore. Consideration should be given to the development of this spoil bank as a boating destination with picnic and other facilities provided as a part of the overall marina development. This area could also serve the tlorningside facility and would be an attraction to all those boating in the north bay area. - Site 11, Virginia Key The west shore area of Virginia Key lying west of the sewage treatment facility offers the opportunity for the development of marine repair and service facilities which are particularly needed in the area. The access to the area could be through the trench excavation for the force main delivering sewage to the treatment plant. The top of the sewage force main is ten feet or more below mean low water, providing ample depth for boats entering the area. This trench provides a channel 200 feet wide to give access to the area. It presently has a depth of about 3 feet at low tide. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 25 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami Another possibility for access to the area would be to utilize the trench about to be constructed for the sludge line which will extend from downtown Miami to Virginia Key. The development potential for this area may, however, be restricted because of pressures to develop a park in association with the preservation of the natural mangrove area to the southwest of the site. A second possibility on Virginia Key (Site 11A) is the development of a small marina presently existing in the lagoon between the beach line and the sewage treatment plant site on the easterly side of the key. This area is currently used by a limited number of vessels. With entrance channel improvements and further development of the lagoon, a number of boats could be accommodated in the area in a reasonable sheltered basin with close access to the ocean. Adjacent to the site, to the north of the lagoon, is an area (Site 11B) with the greatest marina development potential. This area, with its open exposure to the ocean would require a breakwater for protection. This area would also permit the development of dry berth storage and the much needed commercial repair and service facilities for the recreational boating enthusiast. If this area were developed as a marina, then the lagoon previously mentioned would be ideal for moorings. The inexpensive mooring concept would help offset the expense of the marina breakwater. Further consideration should be given to the development of a marine industrial park in the area westerly of the commercial repair and service site. This concept would be unique to Miami. - Site 12, Brickell Park This park contains approximately 2-1/2 acres and extends between Brickell• Avenue and the channel west of Claughton Island. It has approximately 175 feet of waterfront. It is presently developed for passive recreation. It has no vehicular access or parking. The park is presently used by office workers in the area during lunch. While it would be possible to construct a boat launching ramp in this area, which is at the mouth of the Miami River and convenient to Biscayne Bay and offshore waters, the limited access onto the heavily traveled Brickell Avenue limits the desirability of such a de- velopment. The trend toward increasing the density of development in this area will increase the pressure for the continued use of this site for open space and passive recreation. - Site 13, Tract at Miami River This tract is owned by the city and is being developed as a hotel/convention center complex. This property has some 500 feet of waterfront along the river, parallel with which a walkway is proposed. The bulkhead line at the river could be used as a marginal wharf for the temporary mooring of vessels GREENLEAF/ TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS. INC 26 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami utilizing the hotel and convention center facilities in much the same manner as the similar facility at the Dupont Plaza Hotel on the east side of SE 2nd Avenue. - Site 14, 1-95 at SW 4 Street This recently acquired site is ideally situated for marina use as evidenced by a small boatyard presently occupying the site. It abuts the right-of-way of I-95 which at this point is a structure some 200 feet in width and is elevated some 75 feet above the Miami River level. This space under the structure offers the opportunity for developing a major dry berth storage facility in conjunction with the development of the proposed Latin Riverfront Park. Its close proximity to the mouth of the Miami River minimizes travel time required to and from the bay and its location within the Latin American community makes it an ideal focal point for their marine oriented activities. This community, by background and heritage, relates closely to waterfront recreation and marine type activities. The combination of a dry berth storage and launching facility at this site would ideally serve this community. An elevated dry berth storage area, crane operated beneath the bridge, would permit the direct ground level connection - development of the park area on either side of the bridge structure without interruption. Limited ground level development along the Miami River would be required for boat facilities but this would not impact the park development. This site has the greatest marine development potential of any site along the Miami River, and strong local support for the development of a Latin Park. - Site 15, 1-95 at North River Drive The city currently owns the property between the Miami River and S.W. North River Drive extending from 1-95 to SW 1st Street. This area is at present largely used by the fishing fleet; the Wallace McHarg report recommends further development of these activities in the area. Since this site is rela- tively close to the mouth of the river, with the fishing industry already located there, it is of extreme importance to the economy of the entire area and provides considerable employment to members of the Latin community of which this area is a part. - Site 16, Lummus Park The waterfront at this park, located on the north side of the Miami River be- tween W.W. 2nd and 3rd Avenues, is currently used by the Miami Pioneer Club for the dockage of its boats. The liriited depth of the property between the river shoreline and W.W. North River Drive limits any further increase of marine activities in the area. GREENLEAr /TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 27 Comprehensive Marina Development Study -City of tliami - Site 17, Sewell Park This park containing approximately 10 acres, extends some 800 feet along the Miami River westerly of N.W. 17th Avenue. The park is presently developed for passive recreation. It is heavily wooded with trees native to the area. Access to the park is somewhat tortuous and parking is extremely limited. The riverfront is low and in its natural state. Any development of this park for marine oriented purposes would encounter severe ecological problems as well as opposition from residents in the area. It is urged that the shoreline of this park be provided with substantial bollards, piling, or other facilities which could be utilized to assist in tieing up boats during hurricanes. - Site 18, Gerry Curtis Park This park, lying on the north side of the Miami River between 22nd and 27th Avenues, presently has an 80-foot wide launching ramp which is extensively used. It does not appear that further marina development should be considered for this area. - Site 19, Melreese Golf Course The city owns the half section of land south of the Tamiami Canal extending between Douglas Road and LeJeune Road where the Melreese Golf Course is lo- cated. Although this property is outside of the city limits and beyond the specific scope of this study, it was felt that the waterfront along the Tamiami Canal should be developed with bollards, pilings, or other facilities which could be utilized to assist in tieing up boats during hurricanes. - Site 20, Tract West of 22nd Avenue The city owns this tract of about 7-1/2 acres on the south bank of the south branch of the Miami River, which lies west of 22nd Avenue and north of N.W. 14 Street. This tract is partially developed for park purposes. Limited headroom under N.W. 22nd Avenue precludes any use of this property for marina purposes, unless a new bridge of higher clearance were constructed. Traffic and related economic considerations would preclude such an improvement in the near future. - Site 21, Fern Isle Park This 5-acre park lies north of the south branch of the Miami River and because of the limited headroom under NW 22nd Avenue is of no value for marine purposes. - Site 22, Tract Along North Bank of Miami River at NW 17 Avenue The city owns a small tract of land along the north bank of the Miami River at N.W. 17 Avenue which appears to be an unusued portion of the highway right-of-way. This property is too limited to be of any use for marine purposes. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 28 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami - Site 23, Tract South Bank of Miami River Between NW 17 Avenue and 1-95 The city owns a tract of land on the south bank of the river between NW 17 Avenue and 1-95. This property appears to be a single lot and is of in- sufficient size to be considered for marine development. - Site 24, Tract on North Bank of Miami River - NW 12 Avenue The city owns this tract on the north bank of the Miami River and adjoining the right-of-way of NW 12 Avenue. It extends 100 feet along the river de- creasing to about 25 feet at N.W. 12 Street. While this tract offers limited opportunities for marginal docking, it should not be considered as a part of the city's marina development program. - Site 25, Lot Little River NE 84 Street The city owns a single lot on the south side of the Little River at the westerly end of the Belle Mead Island development. This lot, although bordering the river, is too small for consideration in the city's marina development program. - Site 26, Lot Little River NE 77 Avenue The city also owns a lot on the south side of the Little River between NE 2nd Avenue and the FEC Railroad. This lot is above the saltwater barrier and between two bridges with limited headroom and, therefore, offers no potential for inclusion within the marina program. - Site 27, Biscayne Bay Between 28 and 29 Streets, NE The city owns an excavated area of some 3 acres extending westward about 450 feet from the bulkhead line of Biscayne Bay between 28 and 29 Streets. How- ever, the lack of landside property at this site precludes its development by the city within its marina program. - Site 28, Lummus Island Lummus Island is largely owned by the city and is destined to become a part of the Dodge Island seaport expansion. As such, it will be entirely used for commercial purposes and will be unavailable for recreational boating. - Site 29, Miami Marine Stadium This stadium, developed by the city some years ago for aquatic sports, offers a potential for the provision of moorings which could be utilized during a hurricane. The south side of this property adjacent to the Rusty Pelican restaurant has been leased for private marina development and has been con- sidered in this study as an existing (proposed) facility. GREENLEAC / TEL.ESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 29 Comprehensive Flarina Development Study - City of Miami - Site 30, Spoil Island This island would be suitable for development as a destination park in con- junction with a marine program for Legion or Morningside Park. - Sites 31 thru 33, Spoil Islands These spoil islands are not considered as suitable for any marine -park de- velopment. - Site 34, Spoil Island Teacher's Island, south of the Julia Tuttle Causeway could be developed in association with the Margaret Pace Park marina development. Site charac- teristics include: - Sandy beach area - Deep water offshore from west shore - Shallow water at north point of Island - Island vegetation This island would make a good destination point for park -picnic activities associated with a boating mode of transportation. - Site 35, Spoil Island 'Bus Bench' Island (no name on chart - bus bench on island), north of the Julia Tuttle Causeway could be developed in association with the Magnolia Park marina. Site characteristics include: - Fine rock on west shore - East shore is rocky - not suitable for shoreline docking - Deep water offshore from west shore ▪ Island vegetation This island has similar characteristics as Site 34 and could be utilized under a similar program. B. SITE SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT Based on an inventory of marine oriented lands owned by the City of Miami, an assessment was made to determine the suitability of such sites for potential recreational boating facilities development. The results of this assessment have been summarized in Tables 4 and 4A. An analysis of this assessment resulted in the classification of potential sites into four basic groups (see Table 5): GREENLEAr / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 30 Site No. 1 1A 2 3 4 5 6 Location Dinner Key David Kennedy Park Wainwright Park Miama,ina- bayfront Park Bicentennial Park Watson Island Margaret Pace Park 7 Magnolia Park 8 Stearn Park 9 Morningside Park 10 Legion Park 11 Virginia Key 11A Virginia Key 11B Virginia Key 12 Brickell Park (Comm.) (marina) 13 Tract @ Miami River 14 I-95 @ SW 4 Street TABLE 4 SITE SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT 20 c L E G E N D a A Excellent o B Good C Fair IA • ^ • . > D Poor nvi c w° c c E Very Poor +� c 0 0E c Cl Rr o 00 '> L 044 C L 0 0L o •1. O (U tp L L v u ( u+ a s Comments AABBBBBOB Present use can be expanded A A B B B 6 6 0 B Junior sailing club- Small boats B B C B A 6 C D D Off -shore mooring/destination dock B A B A B B B C 6 Add moorings at Bayfront Park B 8 C A A B B C C Large ship destination dock B A 8 A C C B B A Good site for several marinas B B B B C D 8 C A Small boat @ north end w/ramp, dry berth storaae and narina B B B B B D C D B Rough water @ bay. Marina potential C D B C C 8 C D E Develop in assoc. with Magnolia A B B A B C B C B Ramp expansion, dry berth storage and small boat marina C B B A 6 C B C A Small boat marina. Ramp expansion A B D B D E D D A Boat repair/service. Marina B B C C B D C B B Marina A B C 6 D E C E A Marina. Dry berth storage. Repair service, moorings A B D B B C B C E tlot a potential site B B B B B D B C E Hotel/convention site. Marginal berths B B B B D D B A A Elevated berth sturage, crane operated 31 TABLE 4A SITE SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT LEGEND A Excellent BC Good Fair rvv c • v ` a D Poor C c v a v E Very Poor �+ c v a Site 4.0 u c 00) 00) No. Location to f a . vCDi �n Comments Available 15 1-95 a No. River Drive C C B B C C B 6 E Good commercial marine site 16 Lummus Park B B C B B B B 6 D No further dev. Fully utilized 17 Sewell Park A B D C A B C B D Storm refuge potential 18 Gerry Curtis Park B B B B C B C B D Present marine use is adequate 19 Melreese Golf Course B B 0 0 A A E B 0 Storm refuge potential 20 Tract west of 22 Avenue B E C E C D B B E No potential, bridge restriction 21 Fern Isle Park B E B E C C C B E No potential, bridge restriction 22 Tract -Miami River NW 17 Av E 0 E D B C C D E Not a potential site 23 Tract -Miami River NW 17 Av 0 D D D B C B D E Not a potential site 24 Tract -Miami River NW 17 Av 0 D D C B C B B 0 Not a potential site 25 Lot Little River NE 84 St E E D D C C C B E Not a potential site 26 Lot Little River NE 77 Av E E D E C C C E E Not a potential site 27 Biscayne Bay 28 & 29 St E C E C D E C C E Not a potential site 28 Lummus Island B B E 8 D E E D B Commercial/port expansion 29 Miami Marine Stadium B 8 B A B B B C D Expansion potential is limited 30-35 Spoil Islands Not a potential site 32 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami • Group I - Marine Development Potential: Sites suitable for marine activity development. • Group II - Storm Protection Development: Sites suitable for limited development related to mooring only during major storms in a pro- tected area. • Group III- Restricted Development Potential: Sites suitable as destination points associated with other park -open space activities; commer- cial development; or, that may have development potential but because of present utilization or community pressures are not considered to have a viable opportunity for implementation. • Group IV - No Marine Development Potential: Sites considered unsuitable for marine develop- ment. Further site development study has been limited to Group I. The other three groups (11, III, and IV) do not offer significant marine development potential for recreational boating activities. Specific short and long range programs will be prepared for all of the sites in Group I. Certain development -management proposals are presently being considered by the City of Miami for Sites 1, Dinner Key; 3, Miamarina, and 5, Watson Island, These development proposals have been reviewed and will be considered only in terms of optimum development potential for these three sites. It should be noted that the ultimate outcome of these proposals will have an impact on the• development, phasing, and priorities established for the other selected sites. GREENLEAP/ TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 33 GROUP NO. 1 Site No. TABLE 5 SITE CLASSIFICATION Site Location 1 Dinner Key 1A David Kennedy Park 3 Miamarina-Bayfront Park 5 Watson Island 6 Margaret Pace Park 7-8 Magnolia -Stearn Park 9 Morningside Park IIB Virginia Key 14 1-95 & SW 4 Street GROUP NO. II * Site No. Site Location 17 Sewell Park 19 Melreese Golf Course * Consideration should be given to further study, in conjunction with Dade County, for storm refuge moorings in county areas that may have potential access from the Miami River; i.e., the Blue Lagoon, south of Miami International Airport. GROUP NO. III Site No. Site Location 2 Wainwright Park 4 Bicentennial Park 10 Legion Park 13 Tract at Miami River 15 1-95 at North River Drive 28 Lummus Island 29 Miami Marine Stadium 30 Spoil Island 34 Teacher's Island 35 'Bus Bench' Island GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 34 TABLE 5 - SITE CLASSIFICATION Continued GROUP NO. IV Site No. Site Location 12 Brickell Park 16 Lummus Park 18 Gerry Curtis Park 20 Tract West of 22 Avenue 21 Fern Isle Park 22 Tract -Miami River NW 17 Av 23 Tract -Miami River NW 17 Av 24 Tract -Miami River NW 17 Av 25 Lot Little River NE 84 St 26 Lot Little River NE 77 Av 27 Biscayne Bay 28 & 29 St 31-33 Spoil Islands GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 35 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami CHAPTER III DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM POTENTIAL As a result of the evaluation and assessment of the various sites selected for development potential, a further site analysis was made from which a development program has been prepared. A written description of the proposed program has been prepared for each site followed by a site analysis diagram and a proposed development concept. Where appropriate, alternatives and phasing are indicated. Estimated costs, based on current values, include a contingency allowance and professional fees. SITE 1 DINNER KEY - DAVID KENNJEDY PARK A. Background tlarina facilities in the Dinner Key area have been in existence for years. Presently the City is contemplating the expansion and/or redevelopment of the City's marina as a part of a management proposal by private enterprise. This concept has merit so long as the development or redevelopment optimizes the use of the waterfront for marina purposes. Presently included in the greater Dinner Key marina area are the following: 1. Coconut Grove Sailing Club (private) 2. Dinner Key tlarina 3. Merrill Stevens (private) 4. U.S. Coast Guard ramp 5. Monty Trainer's marina (private) 6. City of Miami docks (old Underwood property) 7. Biscayne Yacht Club (private) 8. Coral Reef Yacht Club (private) 9. David Kennedy Park (Site 1A) In addition to the above, Grove Key, a small private facility, is located be- tween Merrill -Stevens and the Dinner Key tlarina. Any program should consider the possibility of expanding those private marine operations that now lease bay bottom from the City, as well as expansion potential for City or lease operated marina facilities. It should be noted that, during the summer, the City conducts a Junior Sail- ing School with an enrollment of about 250-300. This program is funded GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 36 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami through fees received, is administered by the Department of Leisure Services, and is conducted out of the old U.S. Coast Guard building north of the Mer- rill -Stevens boat yard. By lease agreement, the City also has access for a period of about 4 hours per week to the presently leased sailing facilities at Kennedy Park. Ultimate plans must consider the present City Hall. At some future date, City government will move to the Government Center in downtown Miami. City Hall, previously a Pan American seaplane terminal, at some point in time should be considered for renovation as a part of the marina complex. The structure has historical significance and should be appropriately rehabil- itated. Presently, the City has plans for additional parking at the David Kennedy Park. B. Site Analysis (See Exhibits A-1 and B-1) Access to the site from South Bayshore Drive is an established path to boating in the bay. Three channels now permit water travel to the Intracoastal Waterway. The area is renowned in terms of boating. Facility expansion should be well accepted in the area. As government activities at Dinner Key subside, re- creation and boating will become paramount. Parking is presently inadequate at the marina when functions are taking place at City Hall and/or the exhibition center. Landside parking constraints may have an impact on the waterside boat capacity. A study must be undertaken to develop a long range strategy for additional parking. With selective maintenance dredging and proper engineering detail, little or no environmental or ecological impacts should be realized due to the ex- pansion of the Dinner Key marine development. The shallow waters in the area north of the spoil island at Kennedy Park provide an ideal place for shallow draft sailboats and a junior sailing program. The present boat rental operation at this site appears to have the potential for expansion. C. Program Description (See Exhibits A-2 and 6-2) Continue with the development and redevelopment of Dinner Key for the max- imization of marine activities. This program might be categorized into four parts: Part 1 - Improvement and expansion of the Dinner Key Marina. Part 2 - Improvement, expansion, and relocation of the Coconut Grove Sailing Club. Part 3 - Improvement and expansion of private marine facilities with bay bottom leased from the City of Miami. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 37 Sr! ANA:=Y3[13 ..91 li .r,-aN '3 K. ri ",.._ 1-._ r ''''';/'• 1 , w, 'i • I�h , T•{":7-y .1N (.' J.. Ci'. OPEENLEAF / TELESCA •NNu•• SNOIN•SA• • ••CNI TIC•• ,NC j••l ••I •VUNH• MI•MI •LO•IO• 33i • • S 1 A -� I NEL gime ; .a•A\AG EXHIBIT A-1 n O1 ,' IW nSCO U.1 DINNER KEY t Page 38 • +.1°P1//e.60/.. \ # , .y • , • ..)," HeV/*"' Cfo. ?Aiert: OPIEBNLEAle 1 TEILE8C A ..4.Aikowegist • IlltvaiNS•11111 • AISCP4.•11C•• V11111 11011CM111,16, AtillP44,011 likasAPws •Lopt.e• awls -7E AKIAPLYZ_ 11 V4, AieSdki FU/Dfr..1 (e7".0 taveoriNetrew FA.11P`'T EXHIBIT 8-1 DAVID KENNEDY PARK Page @c9Da3),KA@LTAw.g d@wgigo@V en_lw e- 39 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami Part 4 - Development of the David Kennedy Park site as a small boat, junior sailing club; and extension of the area for park and recreation purposes. The off -shore spoil islands should remain or be selectively developed for park, recreation, and/or marine purposes. The present Dinner Key Marina piers are in need of repair. The proposed im- provement plan under consideration by the City for a new configuration replacement program appears feasible since additional wet berths can be obtained within the present use area. Additional wet berth provisions can be obtained by the relocation of the Coconut Grove Sailing Club (C.G.S.C.). With the installation of a new breakwater eastward of the spoil island, the pedestrian/cart/service bridge to the island, and the construction of a new C.G.S.C. clubhouse on the island, moorings can be developed in the area between the island and the new breakwater. Maverick moorings now exist in this area. This approach will increase the number of moorings as well as wet berths. The island would be provided sanitary facilities, power, fire access, and perhaps parking for 40 cars. Another possibility that exists is to leave the Coconut Grove Sailing Club at its present location with slight expansion to accommodate a new building, boat storage, and landscaping, while leasing the new island facilities to another entity. This arrangement would preclude the development of fixed piers in the present C.G.S.C. mooring area because of control. Space is available for the expansion of all piers north of the Dinner Key marina without interrupting access to the U.S.C.G. ramp from the old seaplane channel. This development program by necessity will be a multiphased program. Addi- tional planning studies and engineering analysis will be required to effec- tuate the final implementation program. Space has been designated for the expansion of private marina facilities. Such an expansion is subject to review and negotiation with the City of Miami. It is anticipated that no public funds will be expended for private piers in areas 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 shown on the Development Proposal plan. Subject to further fiscal analysis and negotiation public funds may or may not be required for certain elements of the Coconut Grove Sailing Club relocation; i.e., breakwater construction and the pedestrian/cart/service bridge. A grant application is currently under consideration for the bridge construction. Any phasing program will depend upon four primary issues: • The execution of an agreement, with its attendant conditions, for the development -management of the Dinner Key Marina and the time stipulations contained in such an agreement ▪ The execution of an acceptable agreement with the Coconut Grove Sailing Club to relocate their operation to the spoil island GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 40 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami ▪ The ability to obtain all necessary permits from federal, state, and local agencies having jurisdiction over the project ▪ The ability to obtain the necessary funding of the amounts the particular phase proposed From a logical perspective, the development of the Dinner Key area will require certain phasing and sequencing. Subject to previously mentioned, such phasing and/or sequencing is follows: • (1)Reconstruct the present marina. Starting at the south end of the present marina (see Exhibit A-2), construct pier "d" first; this provides space to dock boats from the first existing fingerpier that is to be demolished. Through proper build -remove sequencing the pier construction, from "d" to "1," for Area "8" can be accomplished without serious inconvenience to the boat owners presently berthed at the marina • (2)Construct the new breakwater outboard of the spoil island, and ▪ (3)Construct the pedestrian/cart/service bridge, and provide access to the bridge from McFarlane Road required for Marina-C.G.S.C. the constraints recommended as ▪ (4)Relocate or expand the Coconut Grove Sailing club facilities and develop the spoil island ▪ (5)Improve the landside parking at the present C.G.S.C. site. Further parking analysis is required; however, consideration should be given to... •. • Combination parking for sailboat ground storage as well as vehicular parking Moving the present ballfield and shelters in the park to the southwest to permit vehicular parking along the access drive to the new bridge ▪ (6)Install moorings in area "12" • (7)Construct piers in Area "9." The boats presently located along the bulkhead can be transferred to the new piers in Area "8." The C.G.S.C. boats moored in this area will be transfered to the new mooring area (12) ▪ (8)Install moorings in Areas "13" and "14" as demands dictate At David Kennedy Park there is an opportunity to expand the recreation as- pects of the facility with a pedestrian connection to the spoil island as well as the development of a junior sailing program in conjunction with a small sailboat rental facility. This could be undertaken by the City or thru a lease arrangement with private interests. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 41 i 41, TD) VE--,CDPRUFM' PROPOSA_, g NNCL-r pArK Sea s+'t'; 1A • kr c" Nt'`, Vi r- 4.1 A.' ti"feu 4 trc,C • 3J ' KEG': too< t N c' 5t.l PS .sc.tp% pfzaPoe9uo'fvfvs. - Exl '; (N(/ VTKIG X-ee. �-e�t �g1( rIe' J5 ‘a A Y'I P•J & IIF .4, 2 1 'G= •� �•',L. G��-er •.. .r- - - - . • - K --177• O• ti n is --p '4 -;.•.c, 7, - ,I(s : IMMO. OMB N1A'N 04'44.4e•f.-- -�—� en/ MiAM I Mra./z N61 A:e.A _. . -e7 tJ E co--) • 1s1U et28.5414.1A VZ.. - W f WAtrS _I' `.z•IE 12 EXHIBIT A-2 p b'i Ln ^' OAEENLEAF / TELESCA •RiMh•o• • •N,,W••o• • •oCamv•C•• .MC. idle. ••m *wSPd • MIAMI •Loom,• 33ia1 DINNER KEY CEO n D[Fas now@ UulgPiliR'] dwgg @nQ Page 42 TABLE 6 SITE 1 DINNER KEY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL LEGEND Area Number Name of Facility BOATS S = SLIPS M = MOORINGS Existing Removed Proposed TOTAL 1 Coral Reef Yacht Club 72 S 2 Biscayne Yacht Club 56 S 3 City of Miami Docks 50 5 (Underwood property) 4 U.S.C.G. Ramp 2 S 5 Monty Trainers 40 S 6 Merrill -Stevens 56 S 7 Restaurant (transient 0 marginal berths) 8 Dinner Key Marina 330 S 9 Dinner Key 40 S Marina 130 M 10 C.G.S.C. 120 M l0a C.G.S.C. 120 M (Option to 10 above) 11 C.G.S.C. (Island piers) 12 C.G.S.C. 13 City of Miami 14 City of Miami (Small boat moorings) CO 330 S 40 S 130 M 120 M 10 M 27 S 23 5 42 S 20 S 40 S 70 S 10 S 99 S 79 5 925 22 S 80 S 126 S 10 S 510 S 510 S 150 S 150 S 80 S 20 S 80 S 110 M 20 S 20 S 20 S - - 320 M 320 M - - 300 M 300 M - - 60 M 60 M GREENLEAF / TELE9C A •••Nti.•• •No,N6•w• • •weMITSC•• INC. u•, eQ.CM••• •v•NN• MI•MI PI.O ,O* 331014 DNNER KEY �r it (rl sari b UV@ UUL" �..'ll!riMS l:.:l� V@[O�Us eL'l5 �lS ���u1i a JJJ iJ'�.i�; J � �s L ud Page 43 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSA_. *A'N _ . • Fx 41C!..1 1-4 isla, MT" We, ;co(P1T rierg.TAL.) Fyr o&_0, AC014 EXHIBIT B-2 LILS-1 OPEENLE AP / TeLESC A 114.•60.11111•111 ONO. 11,0C.It1fC/111 14111e11110•Coligt.k av111.411.111 MIAOW •LOIMIDA 1131,11. Page 44 @©KnI7j7@ii@LridT( 61@w@ri 0 7[@EQ @M35 DAVID KENNEDY PARK Comprehensive Marina Development Study - Cfty of flfamf D. Project Facilities 1. Dinner Key Marina ▪ Piers Existing, to be replaced 2,700 L.F. New 7,500 L.F. ▪ Boat slips Existing 370 Boats flew 290 Boats ▪ Moorings 380 Boats ▪ Landscaping 2. Coconut Grove Sailing Club - Breakwater 3,500 L.F. - Bridge 600 L.F. - Moorings 350 - Clubhouse 2,000 SQ.FT. - Piers 1,000 L.F. - Boat Slips 80 Boats - Service docks 20 Boats - Observation tower 100 SQ.FT. - Parking 180 Cars - Landscaping 3. Private Slips • Merrill Stevens 70 Boats Monty Trainer's 40 Boats Biscayne Yacht Club 23 Boats ▪ Coral Reef Yacht Club 27 Boats 4. City of Miami Docks (expansion capacity) - Boat slips 5. David Kennedy Park (1-A) 42 Boats Floating docks 400 L.F. - Boat slips 40 Boats - Control building 400 SQ.FT. - Pedestrian bridge 300 L.F. - Pavilion/tower 40' High 300 SQ.FT. - Parking 150 Cars (not a part of this program) - Landscaping GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 45 E. Estimated Costs Preliminary cost estimates for the development of the Dinner Key area have been made. This does not take into account estimates contained in the pres- ent improvement -management proposal for Dinner Key Marina; however, estimates for marine related costs included in the federal grant application for the Dinner Key - West Island Development have been utilized. Subject to further analysis and design, the following estimate of costs has been made: 1. Dinner Key Marina: $ 2,942,000 Does not include the pier replacement cost for Area revenue bond issue for Area "3" is $ 4,500,000. 2. Coconut Grove Sailing Club $ 3,062 000 I18." First phase Does not include cost of park development which would change with the implementation of this proposed program. 3. Private Expansion: No estimate prepared. Private funding anticipated 4. City of Miami Dock expansion: 5. David Kennedy Park (1-A): Does not include parking. $ 229,000 $ 288,000 GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 46 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami SITE 3 MIAMARINA-BAYFRONT PARK A. Background Ultimate development will depend on management -development proposals cur- rently being considered by the City. Presently, Miamarina is fully developed; however, south along Bayfront Park is available for moorings. Periodic unstructured moorings have taken place in the past in spite of periodic rough water. A breakwater may be required eastward of the mooring area to soften the rough water and wake from the Intracoastal Waterway. This could be programmed to coincide with future demands. Year-round, seasonal, and transient moorings are envisioned; however, it is recommended that live-aboards not be permitted in the mooring area. Currently there is a proposal to develop a major mixed use project on the Ball Point property in downtown Miami. If this project proceeds, the proposed program will be further reinforced as to demand for moorings in this area. B. Site Analysis (see Exhibit C-1) The site offers a panoramic marine view from the park which will create ad- ditional landside interest along the bulkhead, similar to what the Coconut Grove Sailing Club moorings offer from the Grove Park, except on a much grander scale. The water depth at Bayfront Park can accommodate much larger sailing vessels. Access to the site from Biscayne Boulevard through the Miamarina/Bayfront Park area is excellent. 'Unobstructed' access to the Intracoastal waterway can be achieved from the mooring area where water depths range from 9 to 14 feet. It is recommended, as a part of the mooring development, that a study be made regarding the installation of a flushing relief structure connecting the southeast corner of the existing marina basin with the mooring area adjacent to the proposed control structure. It would also be appropriate to study the feasibility of placing a floating breakwater with surge attenuation char- acteristics to the north of the present marina as a means to improve the water turbulence that exists in the basin. C. Program Description (see Exhibit C-2) Develop an organized mooring area south of Miamarina along Bayfront Park. These moorings would be served by a water taxi from a control structure on the south shore of Miamarina. Facilities for a dockmaster will be required adjacent to the Miamarina Res- taurant parking area with some water - landside improvements. The dock - master's quarters will contain toilet and storage facilities. A small pier will be required for service craft and as dockage for a water taxi serving the moored boats. This would also make a good location for a watercraft transit stop serving the Biscayne Bay area. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 47 OPEENLEAF TELESICA AWINII191111 21400•Mall ANC•4,1116.11k ,401 •••C04114.1..VONUO 1,01.41mi 3212, MIAMARINA Page 48 ©©Emp[r@h@LT©lw@ as7n5 d@wcggpEn-u@Tn ttg(dv DEVELOPMENT PROPOSA. 1 ii irMivIIMIIMI 1 r t r e a e 1 V , r EXHIBIT C-2 . lyry7,35 afik 0 100 VA, OREENI.EAR / TELESICA •NO. AINCootTlIC*• 1.104 elf.C.111.1. Mi••46041 1101•0110, R,0111.0A 312.02/i MIAMARINA Page 49 @C)M(pT@h@L7,i`J@ rn).C, e@W@[03[In®Eg ehEldW Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of 1liami Additional parking for about 100 cars would be needed to serve the needs of boaters and others visiting Miamarina. 0n an interim basis, it is proposed to make provisions for 20 moorings, which can be administered and served by water taxi from the present dockmaster in the main basin. This test program will provide information pertaining to market potential in relation to demands for a breakwater and other conve- niences outlined in the program. Based on this experience, a feasibility de- termination can be made regarding further expenditures. D. Project Facilities 1. Landside - Control Center 500 SQ.FT. - Pier 200 L.F. - Boat slips 20 Boats - Parking 100 Cars - Landscaping - Options: Watercraft transit terminal 800 S.F. 2. Waterside - Moorings - Options: Breakwater Flushing Relief E. Estimated Cost 50 Boats 1,500 L.F. 100 L.F. Preliminary cost estimates for the development of moorings at Miamarina have been made in accordance with paragraph D above: 1. Basic Construction including moorings: $ 294,000 Does not include flushing relief structure. 2. Options: Watercraft transit terminal Floating breakwater: $ 41,000 $ 1,138,000 Does not include the north breakwater proposed for study. 3. Test Program (20 moorings): $ 14,000 Does not include water taxi and related services. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 50 C. mprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami The improvement program presently being considered by the City, involving some dredge and fill in the area adjacent to the control structure has been estimated by the City to cost approximately $400,000. GREENLEAF/TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 51 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami SITE 5 WATSON ISLAND A. Background Substantial marina development is proposed as a part of the Theme Park pro- posal now being considered by the City. The Theme Park marina has been in- cluded in this report because of its validity. If for some unexpected reason the Theme Park proposal fails to materialize, the marina concepts presented stilt be initiated; the only exception being the watershow area in marina (5A). B. Site Analysis (see Exhibit D-1) Excellent access to the site is available from MacArthur Causeway. The lo- cation of the west marina (5A) with direct water access to the Miami Ship Channel and the Intracoastal Waterway requires a breakwater to obtain calm waters within the marina basin. 0n the south side of the Causeway the seaplane base should be relocated to maximize the marina development. The present boat docks would be eliminated with the development of marina (5A). C. Program Description (see Exhibit D-2) 1. Develop a major marina (5A) on the west side of the island for boats 35 feet in length and larger. Facilities for fueling, pump out, and a dockmaster will be required as well as parking. A breakwater will be required. Associated visitor or tourist facilities would be appropriate for this location, in accordance with some of the concepts depicted in the present proposal for the Watson Island Theme Park. 2. Develop a marina (5B) on the north side of the island for boats up to 35 feet in length and of shallower draft than the western marina. Facil- ities for a dockmaster and parking are required. Fueling can be served from the western marina at site (5A). D. Project Facilities 1. West Marina (5A) - Breakwater 1,500 L.F. - Piers 1,300 L.F. - Boat slips 144 Boats - Tie-up berths 800 L.F. - Dockmaster 300 SQ.FT. - Restrooms 300 SQ.FT. - Laundry 200 SQ.FT. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 52 A ALY 1 5B GREENLEAF / TELESCA A•MM••• •M•1M•••• • ♦,•CM.?•C'• MC. t••' ••IC••%.♦ •V•MV• %W O. •..C•IC• asiS' p e s WATSON ISLAND ,�� Page 53 eIU]c_12I D-EVE_.CDP1EFrr PR' OPOSA A&14 JJZ 4.4 VIP.TP: ,CF,AFT y17 S4TLCt;- / . i . Mac -roc-fir, 5A '`'s 'N T�f� 5B �j. FA a vt oe J,NA 2o0 4p's Pic,N<o' EXHIBIT D-2 'PARK. NGc •►ANOAEENLEAR / TELEBCA WATSON ISLAND N1A1 ONO sN11•• � AOCN0•1C•1 ANC. Page 54 CLOG ffig ` d@r©1( ( _h '� j sits, •as *V1N1J1 Ms*MI •LOAsO• 331.1 ▪ Fueling and pump out station ▪ Sewer, water, power, and telephone ▪ Landscaping Adjacent Amenities: Theme Park Restaurants Watercraft transit station Parking 2. North Marina (58) connections - all berths ▪ Piers 3,300 L.F. ▪ Boat slips 270 Boats ▪ Dockmaster 300 SQ.FT. ▪ Restrooms 300 SQ.FT. ▪ Laundry 200 SQ.FT. ▪ Sewer, water, power connections ▪ Landscaping ▪ Adjacent Amenities: Parking Access to Theme Park E. Estimated Cost Preliminary cost estimates for the construction of the two marina areas, ex- clusive of any parking or major landside improvements are as follows: 1. West Marina (5A): $ 2,674,000 2. North Marina (50): $ 1,000,000 GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 55 Comp rehenslve Marina Development Study - City of Miami SITE 6 MARGARET PACE PARK A. Background It is expected that the entire area between the Bay and Biscayne Boulevard will redevelop over the next 20 years. It is expected that there will be a demand for marine facilities from the new residents of the area. This site has tremendous development potential but the landside low profile open space feeling should remain to the degree that it is practical under a feasible plan. B. Site Analysis (see Exhibit E-1) Access to the site is excellent from Biscayne Boulevard. Direct access to the Intracoastal Waterway and the upper bay area can be achieved without bridge restriction. Access to the lower bay area is somewhat restricted by Venetian Causeway, 8-foot clearance at the bascule bridge. Pace Park development must be sensitive to the needs and demands of the neighborhood and must accommodate the pedestrian visitor as well as the motorist. Emphasis must be placed on the pedestrian. This site would also make a good location for a watercraft transit station for individuals visiting the commercial -hotel employment centers in the area. C. Program Description (see Exhibit E-2) Develop a long range marine program that also preserves a portion of the site as open park space. The program should be phased in keeping with the development, or redevelopment of the surrounding residential -commercial area. 1. Phase I - Junior sailing club utilizing the north end of the site and the shallow basin in this area, along with appropriate landside facil- ities and parking. With some deepening of the basin, moorings can be provided in the basin. 2. Phase II - If the Watson Island Theme Park is initiated, provide boat ramps and auto -trailer parking to replace the 16 ramp lanes that would be eliminated on Watson Island. The improvement of the offshore spoil island (Site 35) would be appropriate at this time. 3. Phase ill - Dry berth storage with a launch facility and staging pier and appropriate parking. With an increase in development intensity in the immediate area, this facility would be appropriate to serve the small boat needs of the local residents. An overall park improvement plan should be enacted at this time. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 56 : 4,1..44 I moie 4,--Anmerf AL TE ANALYSIS FerVI1/41:41th5-174. 1046,1e.MNAI *.n2ret4 apps-katLE VrZop Tr; oreep iA4Agrz. 44. 1/N.OMANI* 4LAP, Pere'T1rJAil Z,FP5.1-1:0i2e, VONernAN GAUW-rNA EXHIBIT E-1 °Age 57 @©LIMENNWAV; NL)EeEtt d.cerL(D@EIR @audw CIFISIENLEAF J TIELIVIC A 1144•41•41.• 11440.1441114. 40444.44144.1 44C 11101C01114.4, •411444.0 044.41414 04.0114 Olt 3.1.4 MARGARET PACE PARK MVELOpIMC[ T PROPOSAL J J 1. lU NK9 G W f> LAetc ON: /t{ty,x ©2bC <TLub,/! AgeA �G'0 ri7ATS o;, et; "17A i E : Uh I P„—.;ire y , } a rn F?:.Lwe. - F^TCAk /" I• PAI2.Y- `I& LeT OAEENL.EAF / TELEBCA wArws•• •woiw••w• • Awcw•.•o.• we. ,4111 •Rie••« Avwu• MIAMI •46001OA 33i * / FkA•:, % (4) A 1,‘.142 NE Cf':Tef) �•� ��. ,,gam 2 EXHIBIT E-2 < Boa MARGARET PACE PARK me ,,��•,,��,, ,�(��, �,,,�� Page 58 UL'S �7151�,lu 4. Phase IV - Marina, including a breakwater to provide still water within the marina basin. If Plaza Venetia marina is constructed, they may have fueling facilities. Therefore, fuel service at Pace Park would not be required. D. Project Facilities 1. Phase 1 • Clubhouse ▪ Dry berth craddle area ▪ Launching pier ▪ Boat ramp ▪ Parking -auto ▪ Parking-Car/boat trailers • Landscaping 2. Phase 11 Boat ramp Parking-Car/boat trailers ▪ Landscaping 3. Phase III ▪ Dry berth storage: Slots Number of stories Building area Restrooms ▪ Launching pier - Launch facilities ▪ Parking • Park development • Landscaping 4. Phase IV ▪ Breakwater Piers ▪ Boat slips ▪ Tie-up berths ▪ Dockmaster/marine • Restrooms ▪ Laundry ▪ Sewer, water, power • Parking center 3,000 SQ.FT. 10,000 S.F. 200 L.F. 2 Lanes 50 Cars 20 Units 2 Lanes 20 Units 160 Boats 4 21,250 S.F. 300 S.F. 100 L.F. 50 Cars 1,500 L.F. 2,400 L.F. 200 Boats 800 L.F. 2,000 S.F. 300 S.F. 200 S.F. & telephone connections 50 Cars GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • •RCNITECTS,I NC. 59 Comprehensive Marina Oeveiopment Study - City of Miami - Landscaping - Options: Watercraft transit station E. Estimated Cost Based on a phased program, the estimate of cost is summarized as follows: 1. Phase I 2. Phase I1 3. Phase 1I1 4. Phase IV TOTAL $ 327,000 27,000 590,000 2,539,000 $3,483,000 GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. bo Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami SITE 7/8 MAGt•l0L I A-STEARNS PARK A. Background These two parks presently have a low degree of utilization. A pedestrian connection between Magnolia and Stearns would strengthen any further de- velopment at either site. It would be desirable to connect Stearns with Magnolia Park under the Julia Tuttle Causeway with a pedestrian underpass along the waterway that crosses the roadway; however, the clearance under the Causeway will not economically permit such a connection. B. Site Analysis (see Exhibit F-1) The general area surrounding the site is of mixed use, low to high density residential and commercial. It is expected that some redevelopment of the area will occur in the future which will reinforce the need for a marine ac- tivity at the park. There are no marinas in this area. Good access to the site can be obtained from Biscayne Boulevard and the Causeway. This site might also be considered for a watercraft transit station since there are restaurant and other commercial activities in the area, as well as a population base that might utilize such a mode of transportation to the downtown or other bay destinations. C. Program Description (see Exhibit F-2) Develop a marina at Magnolia Park utilizing Stearns Park as a part of the overall plan. This area consistently has rough water requiring the use of a breakwater to provide still water in the basin. A pedestrian-golfcart walkway along the north shore of the Julia Tuttle Causeway will connect the mainland parking area with the pier and dockmaster area. D. Project Facilities 1. Magnolia Park - Breakwater 1,900 L.F. - Piers 1,250 L.F. ▪ Boat slips 120 Boats Tie-up berths 500 L.F. Dockmaster 300 S.F. ▪ Pump out facilities ▪ Water and power connections - Parking 180 Cars ▪ Landscaping • Restroons 300 S.F. ▪ Laundry 200 S.F. • Bridge 120 L.F. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 61 G%tit tv1cZC; A �'Zv:�y1.\•j tip,✓ GREENLEAF / TELESCA •<ANNaw• •N•INpw• A•Ct*I NC' 1A6,1 ••ICM•L1. AVM Null MIAMI •\OwI•A Salo* • Iv�e�!vN©1.IA • . JUl.l.a ivrrte GA0fiev iA ' EXHIBIT F-1 NI-1'cl tze5l t - GHak E:t. GLAJ MAGNOLIA / STEARNS Page ©©mp@h@ago gQte] dGrGrL©pnYgit 4codw ceer Are iorfcsoge V'ap NtiY °7/ 54' f•,.,-• • • •,/ieoe... 04. ps;,. ( Mi4.111,..7•S Coe, 1••:••,,,A.4. • . • • g: • 4•••4`..7,7AF-^1". • • =4•••e,.„ oposeNLeimp 1 TIBLEISCA 01./*#10,.•0111 10401 AliCr.oripev• 1111111 lie.C116101. Awl"Nye • Mo•rwo •02101e0A 339s, ,114.../ 7z., e."'" v.ecago4.715K. MAGNOLIA / STEARNS Page dw@i_b 3 nTtIREI ©[-prmgaiQ crx-mieffig, Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami 2. Stearns Park - Restrooms (existing) - Service parking (existing) E. Estimated Cost The estimated cost for the Magnolia Park marina is $2,612,000. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 64 Comprehensive Marina DevelopmentStud y - City of Miami SITE 9 MORNINGSIDE PARK A. Background The present park is attractively developed, but creational activities, greater utilization can orientation permits further marine oriented use, section of the park. B. Site Analysis (see Exhibit G-1) in spite of a variety of re - be realized. Its bayfront particularly in the southern Access along NE 55 Terrace from Biscayne Boulevard to the north end of the site is good. The immediate neighborhood is low density residential with some medium density development on the west side of Biscayne Boulevard. The residential character of the area, except for the commercial strip along the boulevard, is a ready market for further park development. The exclusive residential community to the south of the site warrants a vegetative buffer, as does the single family area to the east of the site. C. Program Description (see Exhibit G-2) Develop a small boat marina, dry berth storage and additional launching ramps in conjunction with the present park operation. A breakwater will be required to provide still water in the marina basin. This basin would also serve as an area for a junior sailing program. The present pool house would be expanded to serve the junior sailing club. This program would work well as a phased program based on the extent and character of other marine development in this area of the bay. 1. Phase I - Add boat launching ramps and associated auto/trailer park- ing. 2. Phase II launching 3. Phase III provements pans ion. - Provide dry berth storage facilities along with appropriate facilities and parking. - Construct a marina, including a fishing pier, and make im- to the swimming area as well as related parking and club ex- D. Project Facilities 1. Phase I - Boat ramp - Auto/trailer parking 7 Lanes 60 Units GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 65 _ i, L OAEENLEAF / TELEBCA ry•NN•A• •YIO.N••A• • ••CH,f•CY• NC ,1•111, ••IC••t♦ *vNV• - MIAM, •..e•.e• 23,21 TLC ANALYSES EXHIBIT G-1 MORNINGSIDEp PARK Page 66 -ree.71. MA • erx trf e,'„e" PA:4,0c CI 707 Lekki tOr-fitir— • 1' - LI EN'T PROPOSAI. E(pAk,er, c..1)5 ptibukKo OW) e,iye-AANL, -76- op* •••••... 7kper. pe-sg(f46- -1--GAN1444, "rer•opS (s5 %,1p5) Jp cAxe, L.A<042:7n1 r :Tr t‘l N • 41'1.7;7: Arz2 1 SeLiq FgAMP1/2 exterr;Ncep grror.400._ r5f,Ars EXHIBIT G-2 a co OFIEENLIKAF TELESICA OIL ANIVIIIII• 111NOINI•11/1111 • ANICI44••C•• diss AWIENUi IMAM/ ilLowleta 3.1.1 MORNINGSIDE PARK Page 67 ©©E-113,[rgmArrTATd4 -- eu w C_,omprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami Florida 2. Phase 11 ▪ Dry berth storage: Slots 160 Boats Number of stories 2 Building area 42,500 S.F. ▪ Launch facility • Parking 100 Cars ▪ Landscaping 3. Phase I11 ▪ Breakwater 500 L.F. ▪ Pier 350 L.F. ▪ Boat slips 35 Boats ▪ Tie up berths 700 L.F. - Club addition 2,000 S.F. ▪ Parking 50 Cars • Landscaping ▪ Swin/beach improvements E. Estimated Cost 0n a phased program, the estimated cost for the Morningside program is sum- marized as follows: 1. Phase 1 2. Phase 11 3. Phase III TOTAL. $ 85,000 645,000 967,000 $1,697,000 GREENLEAF /TEL£SCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 68 1 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami SITE 11B VIRGINIA KEY A. Background Virginia Key is already a marine oriented area with major marine, recreation, and tourist accommodations existing. The City is planning for a major park surrounding most of the regional wastewater treatment plant on the island. Present and proposed uses northeast of Rickenbacker Causeway would be compatible with the development of commercial repair and service facilities as well as dry berth storage and marina. The lagoon, proposed for moorings, is currently being used for a limited nuriber of commercial (shrimp) boats. Provisions to serve this fleet could be incorporated into the marina plan. B. Site Analysis (see Exhibit H-1) Access to the site from Rickenbacker Causeway would be along the road serving the waste treatment plant with an improved extension to the site. Seasonal weekend traffic on the causeway is very high. This periodic congestion is the only major negative factor influencing marine development. Some localized dredging would be necessary in the area of the site, the spoil of which would go to fill the landside area at the north end of the key for commercial marine use. This would permit access to existing channels, from which travel to the Intracoastal Waterway and the Miami Ship Channel could be achieved via Fisherman's Channel. Present water depths in the channel area approaching the marina location are from 8 to 14 feet. Except for the lagoon, the land is primarily spoil from previous dredging, with spotted clusters of Australian pine trees. The natural character of the lagoon would be preserved with the perimeter area developed as a part of the City's park plan. This site may also be appropriate for a watercraft transit station and should be included in future studies. A water transit system to Virginia Key, coupled with a landside tram arrangement on the key, may solve a portion of the traffic problem presently existing on the key. C. Program Description (see Exhibit 11-2) Develop a long range program for the development of a total recreational boating facility along the eastern coast of Virginia Key. A phased program would provide for a marina, moorings in the lagoon, dry berth storage, and a repair and service facility. A breakwater would be required to protect the marina basin from direct ocean exposure to the east. GREENLEAF' / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 69 C, G • - \++-+"• \ \ 7 ""'.....,..-- ,,. ;E'4!:rt OAEENLEAR / TELEBGA 1R4NM/•• •NO,N/••• 411C..1,111C1• ,NC. 1••1 161,113.111,♦ 4v11NV• WARM 3(.O111rD4 2312, • cV/11a. TVA./ rI.AN -�iaLo__INE CJRO'3��Ni G1',O,hs n` of p('' r 14 dr Fpe7 . EXHIBIT H-1 VIRGINIA KEY Page 70 1 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL In Vett' W ATE?, C144 RN El.S. PoesKS • „ Fi-4 '44 • MA-41-4e, Pre- f. • " r."?;1 ttv4ers ) •• • . '11C • • (.; *Cm". ! szazur-Lya-ez/ Aftd."-4,0-41* . . ! ' \ . _ ' • t , . . . \.. ..+P• ,11-;,"rX..t.a.T.% '''' • • • . ‘• . .71-. PMZ.. ''' - - --', . ..•• s‘ -- • .---; -• ' ..--- 0,-;---k ......-• --, • : A ,:‘,..:;:mr ,,S.Ne • ....—% •—!..., '''',..../ ......." .," ' s'..t,_ 1-'0,3TMNA 1-17 .z-171VON igeA COPMENLEAP TIELOSC 1../11410.110111 111,40041111.10 • anevot•liCv• 11101C0111.1. MoolkM4 14,00*04 33,2i EXHIBIT H-2 , o Ix w 1111 VIRGINIA KEY Page 71 ©© AgEdW@ [MAIM d@w@cgER 4uclw U 79D f 1. Phase I - Breakwater and marina including the lagoon moorings served by a water taxi from the marina. A service road, parking, and dock - master with fueling provisions would be required. 2. Phase II - Dry berth storage with a launch facility, staging pier and appropriate parking. Consideration must be given to the development of a Marine Industrial Park, with tracts available for the development of marine related industry. A commercial boat maintenance, service and repair facility is envisioned as the park catalyst. Properly planned, the City would be able to lease the land to several businesses, thus permitting competition among leasors. It would be logical for the City to plan and develop the industrial site, including services, with private enterprise constructing any physical improvements. D. Project Facilities 1. Phase I Breakwater 1,300 L.F. ▪ Piers 3,800 L.F. ▪ Boat slips 380 Boats ▪ Tie up berths 1,000 L.F. ▪ Dockmaster 300 S.F. ▪ Fueling ▪ Restrooms 300 S.F. ▪ Laundry 200 S.F. - Sewer, water, power, and telephone connections ▪ Lagoon moorings 20 Boats - Parking 450 Cars - Landscaping ▪ Options: Watercraft transit station 600 S.F. Restaurant and other supporting facilities 2. Phase 11 ▪ Dry berth storage Slots 420 Boats Number of stories 4 Building area 42,500 S.F. ▪ Restrooms 600 S.F. ▪ Launch facilities Parking 450 Cars ▪ Landscaping GREENLEAF/TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 72 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami, Florida 3. Marine boat repair and service facility ▪ Storage and repair shed 60,000 S.F. ▪ Maintenance yard 60,000 S.F. ▪ Launch facility ▪ Staging area 20,000 S.F. ▪ Parking 100 Cars ▪ Landscaping E. Estimated Cost An estimate of cost was prepared for Phase I and Phase 11 which could be de- veloped by the City. The marine repair and service facility, Phase III, that would be developed in conjunction with a small marine industrial park has not been estimated because the parameters under which such a program would proceed are indeterminate at this time. 1. Phase 1 $4,822,000 2. Phase II 1,769,000 TOTAL $6,591,000 GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS. INC. 73 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami SITE 14 1-95 AT SW 4TH STREET A. Background Plans by the City to develop a community Latin park includes the acquisition of School Board property for park purposes. The site is somewhat divided by the 1-95 overpass which runs above a portion of the site. This tends to somewhat restrict the freedom of park design. There is strong community and political pressure to develop this site as a Latin Park. In the planning, consideration should be given to the Latin's natural affinity for the water. B. Site Analysis (see Exhibit J-1) Fair access to the site can be obtained from the local street network, 3rd Avenue and 4th Street. A multilevel parking area below the expressway would be appropriate with the construction of an elevated dry berth storage facility. Although there is commercial property to the east of the site, the western residential neighborhood would be the prime user of the park including marine facilities. Pedestrian paths must be provided as many area residents could walk to the site. Some protective structures will be required along the waterfront exposure. A linear pier for staging would be appropriate. In addition, some ground level space below the bridge at the protective fender would be required for ground access and crane operation to the storage level. The bridge structure is upward of 50 feet in height which would permit the construction of multilevel facilities. Such recreation structures as handball/racketball courts, basketball courts, and similar activity structures could be designed at the ground level, as a park function, for support of the dry berth storage facility above. There is a unique opportunity to develop a multipurpose park to take advan- tage of a prime marine oriented location. C. Program Description Develop an elevated or ground level dry berth storage facility beneath the 1-95 bridge along with waterfront development for launching and staging boats, and appropriate parking. This program must be coordinated with the City's park plan for the Latin Community. Several marine related development options are open to the City, based on community demands. The extent of marine related development •will depend on community support. Primarily the marine development should serve the Latin community, some of which may be within walking distance to the site. GREENLEAP / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 74 3[17 AN Wf356 , . : , r..i-rf • , -,..........„.... ,!-A•••A --i''. , r.. :...: • ,.. ...,•:, , • „,.,: j Pia-.. • • g.. 'le rr7.4"...1 ". . I ,f7A:zt< . . • .- EXHIBIT J- 1 P. *WPM Of OfalEIENLOAP TIBLESCA 1-95 / 4t." STREET kPOOP. II PO PO 6.41, C,• PPC gate I 11104CIS t., Pv•Pull WPM. 1.1.00.124. 33,s,Paye ©cm;p7cAgrauV. Eitfhn dc;e9G op tiu2; 75 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami Across the river, to the north of the site, there is an area beneath the bridge presently used for parking. The air space below the bridge and above the parking would also be suitable for a mechanically operated elevated dry berth boat storage of similar nature to that suggested for Site 14. Further study of this potential would be warranted. D. Project Facilities These will be developed by the Parks E Recreation Department in conjunction with their overall park planning effort. E. Estimated Cost Since a definitive program has not been established, pending the development of an overall park plan, it is not possible to estimate the cost of the project at this time. GREENLEAF/TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 76 1 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami IMPACT ASSESSMENT For each of the sites selected for marine development in Group 1, an impact assessment was made based on the ultimate development potential of each site as depicted in the various figures. The impacts associated with Group I will have varying degrees of positive or negative actions. The evaluation of appropriate impacts are displayed in Table 7, Impact Assessment. Because of limited development activity potential, minimal or no adverse impacts are projected for Group II and Group III sites. DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES Development priorities have been established based on the demands and needs established in Chapter I, and the site characteristics in Chapter 11. The economic considerations or other development constraints have not been a factor in establishing the priority list. Certainly, the priorities will be influenced by the type, amount, and restriction associated with available funding and method(s), public, private, or joint venture, by which the program will be implemented. Table 8 summarizes three independent priority rankings that have been established, conditioned on whether the present Dinner Key and Watson Island proposals do or do not proceed with the development. It is felt that any present proposals pertaining to the Miamarina will have little or no impact on priorities from a need standpoint. GREENLEAF/ TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC 77 1 IMPACT Landside Traffic Waterside Traffic Neighborhood Compatibility Historic Preservation Dredge and Fill Water Quality Water Hydro -Dynamics Wake/Wave Support Services Air Pollution Aquatic Resources Aesthetics K E Y: TABLE 7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT a G. c z W Q w z Q V) 34 W 2 - Y W C Q O Z > Q F- G 1 tif 3 (1) (la) (3) (5) 2 3 3 2 N v IIMARGARET PACE PARK ▪ • t 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 5 5 5 5 2 4 5 5 5 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 2 2 N/A 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 5 5 5 5 3 4 4 3 5 3 5 Positive Value to the Area 4 Some Value to the Area 3 Minimal Impact 2 Small Negative Effect to the Area 1 Possible Adverse Effect to the Area N/A Not Applicable GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. a 78 1 TABLE 8 DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES Dinner Key Watson Island Dinner Key & Watson Island Use Potential GROUP I (a) (b) (c) 1. Dinner Key Proceeds 1 Proceeds Marina -moorings 1A. David Kennedy Park 6 6 6 Jr. Sailing Club 3. Miamarina 5 5 4 Moorings 5. Watson Island West (5A) 2 Proceeds Proceeds Marina North (5B) 1 Proceeds Proceeds Marina East (5C) 3 - - Dry Berth Storage Ramps 6. Margaret Pace Park Phase 1 2 2 2 Jr. Sailing Club Phase I1 5 1 1 Ramps Phase III 6 5 5 Dry Berth Storage Phase IV 7 8 8 Marina 7. Magnolia Park 6 6 7 Marina 9. Morningside Park Phase I 4 2 2 Ramps Phase II 6 5 5 Dry Berth Storage Phase III 6 7 8 Marina 11B.Virginia Key Phase I 6 7 7 Marina -Moorings Phase II 4 2 2 Dry Berth Storag K E Y: 1 Highest Priority 8 Lowest Priority e na- a- Priorities will vary depending upon: (a) If Dinner Key proceeds as presently proposed (b) If Watson Island proceeds as presently proposed (c) If both Dinner Key and Watson Island proceed GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 79 CHAPTER IV PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of the program contained in the Comprehensive Marina Development Study can yield important benefits to the Citizens of Miami, not only through the provision of additional recreational facilities but also through the economic spin- off generated by marine related industry. A. ECONOMIC IMPACT A report by The Marine Council, "The Impact of Recreational Boating on Dade County - 1976," indicates a substantial economic contribution to the greater Miami area by marine related activities. 1. Capital Investment It is estimated that by 1985 the total value of boats in wet and dry berthed storage in Dade County will reach $520,000,000 based on 1976 values. This represents an average unit price of almost $10,000 per boat. 2. Operating Costs and Labor Force It is estimated that the annual cost of owning and operating a boat will range from 15 to 30 percent of the capital cost. Assuming 20 percent as a reasonable average, Dade County boaters can expect to spend an aggregate of $100,000,000 annually. Of this amount, some 60 percent will be generated in the form of local payroll. At an average wage of $10,000 per employee per year, this provides some 6,000 jobs that are directly related to the marine industry. 3. Related Economic Benefits In addition to the direct economic benefits to the community, there are indirect impacts that contribute to the tourist and associated industry. South Florida waters, accessible on a 12-month basis is a powerful at- traction to visiting boaters that wish to spend time and money in the area. The indirect economic impacts resulting from boating could easily double the values estimated for direct marine impacts. The Miami Inter- national Boat show is now considered as the nation's best. The average attendance over the past several years has exceeded 300,000 persons, with an estimated sales increase from $67,000,000 in 1976 to $81,400,000 in 1978. 4. Transient Boaters The importance of the transient boater to the economy has been reinforced by one marina operator who indicated --a transient live -aboard slip is GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS. INC. 8o Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami worth more than a luxury hotel room in its economic impact on the com- munity, with only a fraction of the capital investment. At one facility, they cash an average of $1,500 per day in checks during the winter season. At a quality transient marina the average length of stay is 100 days with an average of four persons per boat. It is estimated that during such a visit, each person on board will spend from $20 to $50 per day, an average of S3,500 during the 100-day stay, or $14,000 per boat. The accumulative economic impact of boating in Dade County could be well over $200,000,000 annually, with a substantial portion assigned to the City of Miami. The proposals put forward in this report involving the expenditure of public funds will further economic benefit to the City, as well as leverage that will generate significant private expenditures. B. ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION To facilitate the implementation of the program outlined in this study it will be necessary for the City to take positive actions. In this regard, it is recommended that staff responsibility for implementation of the marina development program in the City of Miami be specifically assigned to a Project Manager, designated by the City Manager. The administration and management of a capital program with costs exceeding $30 million in public/private funds re- quires a high-level appointee, with solid management background and marine re- lated experience. Personnel costs for this office could be borne by a combi- nation of a percentage of revenues from the various projects, a percentage of revenue bond issues and/or a percentage of any grants-in-aid. The responsibilities of the Project Manager would include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: 1. Prepare a detailed marina development plan that extends the program out- lined in this study into specific project activities. 2. Initiate feasibility studies for specific development. 3. Present recommendations for public or private funding programs. 4. Prepare the necessary documentation for various funding sources including applications for grants-in-aid. 5. Prepare applications for the several local, state, and federal permits required to activate a project. 6. Present recommendations for management options -either public or private. 7. Assist in negotiating with private interests. 8. Coordinate the marina development program with other City departments that provide support services. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 81 Com rehensive Marina Develo men Stud - Cit of Miami 9. Assist in the selection of, and coordination with, special consultants that may be required. 10. Conduct citizen participation programs associated with specific projects. 11. Review and make recommendations regarding progress payments to con- tractors, vendors, or consultants, and monitor payments from leaseholders to the City. 12. Provide the Marina Development Advisory Committee with quarterly reports. It is further recommended that affected City departments provide those support services as may be necessary for the Project Manager to carry out his re- sponsibilities: o Grants Coordinator To identify the availability and scope of grants-in-aid for marine -ori- ented development and monitoring any grants awarded. o Planning Department/Office of Trade and Commerce To assist in the preparation of grant-in-aid applications; monitoring marine -oriented public projects on the Capital Improvements Program. o Lease Manager, Finance Department To assist with leasing arrangements. o Public Works Department To assist on permitting applications. o Parks Department Operation of public marine -oriented activities in existing parks. o Stadiums and Marinas Department To operate any public marinas not associated with parks. All departments should be reimbursed for their efforts in providing supporting services in a manner similar to that suggested for the Project Manager. C. FUNDING SOURCES There are a number of federal, state, and local grant or loan programs that should be investigated as a potential funding source to initiate a marina de- velopment program for the City. 1. Federal Grant-in-aid and Loan Programs presently include the following: • Economic Development - Grants and Loans for Public Works and Develop- ment Facilities (Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965). GREENLEAt/ TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 82 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami Grants on a 50/50 matching basis or long term loans are available to assist in the construction of public facilities needed to initiate and encourage long term economic growth in designated geographic areas where economic growth is lagging. • Economic Development - Business Development Assistance (Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965). Long term business develop- ment loans are available up to 652 of project cost to cover industrial and commercial expansion in designated areas by providing financial assistance to businesses that create permanent jobs, expand or establish plants in redevelopment areas for projects that cannot be financed through banks or other private lending institutions. • Economic Development - Technical Assistance (Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965). Grants are available to solve problems of economic growth in EDA designated geographic areas and other areas of substantial need through administration and demonstration project grants, feasibility studies, management and operational assistance, and other studies. • Economic Development - Public Works Impact Projects (Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965). Grants are available up to 80% of project cost to provide immediate useful work to unemployed and underemployed persons in designated project areas. • Small Navigation Projects (River and Harbor Act of 1960). Application may be made to the Corps of Engineers for small navigation projects to provide the most practicable and economic means of fulfilling the requirements of general navigation. • Urban Development Action Grants (Housing and Community Development Act of 1977). Federal grants are available to leverage private investment for projects for economic development and/or neighborhood revitalization. The purpose of the program is to assist severely distressed cities in alleviating physical and economic deterioration. • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) (Housing and Community Development act of 1977). Limited funds may be available for marine -related projects associated with other development to benefit residents of target areas. For example, the development of the Specialty Center at Miami River/Flagler Street includes CDBG funds; the project may include mooring space at the bulkhead line. The CDBG application is filed for a three-year period with annual updates and involves extensive citizen participation and approval by the City Commission. 2. State and County Grant and/or Loan Programs presently include the follow- ing: GREENLEAF/ TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 83 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami • Outdoor Recreation - Acquisition Development and Planning (Land and Water Conservation Fund) (Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965). Grants are available to provide financial assistance from the federal government through states to their political subdivisions for statewide planning and for the acquisition and development of outdoor recreation areas and facilities for the general public to meet current and future needs. Applications are made to the Florida Department of Natural Resources. • Coastal Zone Management Projects (Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972). Grants are available from the federal government for the enhancement of shoreline access by the general public by application to the Florida Bureau of Coastal Zone Planning, ')epartment of Environmental Regulation. • Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program (Outdoor Recreation Act of 1963). Grants are available from the Florida Department of Natural Resources for the purpose of acquiring and/or developing public recreation resources and facilities. Up to 15 percent of the net revenue of the Land Acquisition Trust Fund, funded partially by documentary tax stamps, is available for recreational projects. • Motorboating Revolving Trust Fund for outdoor recreational programs. Boat registration license receipts are collected statewide and returned to the counties. It is recommended that such fees be returned to cities as well as the counties. Availability of these fees to the City could assist in installing hurricane protected moorings as well as boat ramps and related facilities. • Dade County Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (F.S. 159, Part 11). Industrial Development Revenue Bonds may be issued upon application through the Tade County Industry Development Authority to facilitate the financing of industrial plants. Bond proceeds may be used for the purposes of acquisition of property, construction of buildings, and purchases of machinery and equipment including necessary legal, engineering, and consultant services and financing costs. Under this program, facilities may be constructed using bond proceeds, and leased to responsible companies, with lease -rental payments being equal to the debt service on the bonds. Any of these bond issues must be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners. City funds are generally confined to revenue bond issues, subject to fea- sibility and bond coverage requirements. Private funds may be available, subject to feasibility. GREENLEAr/ TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 84 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami D. MANAGEMENT/OPERATIONS OPTIONS The current policy of the City administration concerning marina operations is to lease the facility to, or enter into a management contract with, private enterprise, subject to public bidding procedures. Under this agreement, the City would receive a percentage of the net revenue from operations (excluding maintenance, operating, and capitalization costs). This is similar to the method presently being negotiated by the City in connection with Watson Island, Dinner Key, and Miamarina. This administration policy can be followed in implementing the Comprehensive Marina Development Study. Based on realistic revenues, marina development and operations are tentatively considered to be economically feasible for private development as exemplified by the pro forma model of annual operations of wet and dry berths shown in Tables 9 and 10. Several private development/management scenarios are pos- sible, as outlined below: 1. Under a lease from the City, private enterprise could develop a marina using private funds and manage the facility with the City receiving a percentage of net revenue, with a provision that the percentage of net revenue would be increased after amortization of capital investment. 2. Under a management contract, private enterprise would manage the develop- ment and operation of a marina for a fee based on net revenue. The City would issue long term revenue bonds and amortize the bonds from gross re- venues. 3. Public agency grants-in-aid should be actively pursued by the City prior to public bidding and negotiations for private lease/management contracts. If facilities are leased, private interests could apply, with City support, for applicable public agency loans. 4. In any private management option for a marina site, the City should seek to have private enterprise undertake, as a part of the management/lease arrangement such beneficial but low revenue producing activities as boat ramps and junior sailing clubs along with such high revenue producing ac- tivities as wet and dry berth storage. 5. In any private management option for a marina site, the private operator should be responsible for the application and acquisition of required permits with the assistance of the City. E. PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS The development proposals included in this study are considered to be appro- priate for permit applications to those agencies concerned with the protection and enhancement of marine resources. A single permit application can be made GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 85 TABLE 9 MODEL ANNUAL OPERATIONS PRO FORMA 150-BOAT WET BERTH MARINA Revenue(a) $ 363,500 Less -Capitalization and Operating Cost: - Amortization of principal and interest(') $169,910 - Operating Expenses(c) 120,000 $289,910 (289,910) NET REVENUE $ 73,590 Less -Management Fee (1:25 percent): (18 400) , N E T RETURN TO CITY $ 55,190 FOOTNOTES: (a) Revenue is based on a 20-year average rental rate of 204 per foot (average 30-foot boat length) plus premium for supplemental tran- sient rental of leased slips when not utilized by leasee. (b) Amortization of principal and interest is based on a capital in- vestment of $1,800,000 (150 berths at $12,000 per berth), exclu- sive of equipment, bridge construction, or breakwater requirements(d). Annual amortization is calculated on the basis of 20-year revenue bonds at 7 percent interest, including 1-1/2 percent bond coverage. (c) Operating expenses include salaries for dockmaster and assistants, materials, supplies, and general maintenance over a 20-year aver- age cost. (d) Breakwater construction costs are not to be assigned to the costs related to revenue bonds. Grants-in-aid and other long term low interest financing should be secured for such improvements. A 40- year bond program at 6 percent interest to amortize a $1,000,000 construction cost would require annual payments of $66,460. GREENLEAF/TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS. INC. 86 TABLE 10 MODEL ANNUAL OPERATIONS PRO FORMA 200-BOAT DRY BERTH STORAGE Revenue(a) $ 192,000 Less -Capitalization and Operating Cost: - Amortization of principal and interest(b) $ 56,640 - Operating Expenses(c) 65,000 - Equipment Amortization(d) 14,800 $136,440 (136,440) N E T REVENUE $ 55,560 Less -Management Fee (±25 percent) (13 900) L N E T RETURN TO CITY $ 41,660 FOOTNOTES: (a) Revenue is based on a 20-year average rental rate of $80.00 per month per boat. (b) Amortization of principal and interest is based on a capital in- vestment of $600,000 (200 berths at $3,000 per berth), exclusive of equipment (c) Operating expenses include salaries for manager and assistants, materials, supplies, and general maintenance over a 20-year average cost. (d) Cost of two forklifts are estimated at $80,000. These may be provided as an investment (there may be some investment tax credit advantages) or financed. If financed, the annual pay- ments are calculated on the basis of a to -year loan at 13 per- cent interest. GREENLEAF / TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS• INC. 87 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for permits that will be required from the state and the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Through the permitting process, other state and local agencies, or other interested parties are notified of the application for any appropriate input or comment. Any minor waterside improvements associated with the sites listed in Groups II and III should present little or no approval or permitting problems. The development proposals outlined for the sites contained in Group I will in- volve varying degrees of effort in order to obtain the required approvals and permits. Some of the development proposals may qualify as a "Development of Regional Impact" (DRI), as defined in Chapter 22F-2.09, Florida Administrative Code; whereby, an "Application for Development Approval" (ADA) will be required in accordance with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. The ADA is submitted to the Florida Division of State Planning and the South Florida Regional Planning Council for review and recommendations. Some projects may be exempt from the DRI analysis, even though they exceed the threshold stipulated for "port facilities" in Chapter 22F-2.09. This deter- mination can be made through the Division of State Planning pursuant to Sec- tion 380.06(4) F.S. Some of the projects fall within certain requirements of the Miami Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance. Other conditions and approval and permitting can involve the following: 1. The Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act - Chapter 258, Florida Statutes. 2. Acquisition or lease of bay bottom lands from the state - Bureau of State Lands (DNR). Bay bottom lands north of the Venetian causeway are pres- ently in state ownership; therefore, those sites north of the Causeway will require state agreement for waterside development. The current an- nual lease fee for bay bottom lands is 2 cents per square foot. 3. U.S. Coast Guard - Involving bridges or navigation. In summary, a project recommended by this study may still require substantial study and be subject to extensive governmental review followed by public hear- ings. The duration of time required to secure permits is directly related to the size and character of the project, the present condition of bay bottom lands, and the attitudes of the project. Providing the application is correct and complete, where projects are small and not too complex, where the bay bottom has previously been disturbed, and GREENLEAF' TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 88 Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami where no additional filling/dredging is contemplated, permitting could be completed in 60 to 90 days. If a public hearing is required, the time could be extended to from 150 to 180 days. There the project is large and complex, where the bay bottom in the vicinity has not been previously disturbed, and filling and dredging may be required, permitting could take from 450 to 900 days. This time would include the preparation of an ADA (Chapter 380, F.S.) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. (See Figure 3.) The following projects are classified by groups in terns of the duration of time anticipated to obtain the required permits: • Marina projects with short duration times: ▪ (1)Dinner Key (provided the City is not required to prepare an and is vested under Section 380.06(4) F.S.). • (1A)David Kennedy Park (small boat program). ADA • (3)Miamarina-Bayfront Park (moorings). • (6)Margaret Pace Park (dry berth storage). • (7/8)Magnoiia/Stearns (if number of wet slips is reduced to less than 100) . • (9)Morningside Park (marina 35 slips and 160 dry beith storage). • (i4)I-95 at S.W. 4th Street (dry berth storage). • Marina projects with long duration times due primarily to the requirement for an ADA under Chapter 380, F.S. ▪ (5)Watson Island (marina 150 and 200 wet slips). ▪ (6)Margaret Pace Park (marina 200 wet slips). • (7/8)Magnolia/Stearn; (marina 120 wet slips). • (116)Virginia Key (marina 380 wet slips). To work within a priority system for implementation as shown in Table 8, the time required to secure permits must be considered in the overall development program. F. IMPLEMENTATION To implement the program proposed in this study, the following steps are re- quired: GREENLEAF/TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 89 NORMAL PROCESSING SIMPLIFIED FLOW CHART 0 DAYS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBMISSION OF CORRECTLY COMPLETED APPLICATION TO DER 30 80 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 JOINT DER/CORPS PUBLIC NOTICE OR DER REQUEST COMMENT FROM G&FWFC AND ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND NORMAL CORPS PUBLIC NOTICE 1 1 1 90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i •1 1 APPLICANT ` 1 1 1 ADVISED OF 1 IF NO HEARING 1 1 INTENT TO IS REQUESTED 1 APPROVE 1 FINAL ACTION 1 1 1 OR 1 INITIATED 1 1 1 DENY Ir 2 1 1 DER 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPLICANT 1- 1 1 PROVIDED APPLICANT 1 FINAL 1 FINAL 1 SUBSTANTIVE RESPONDS ., COORDINATION ACTION 1 OFFBINALTIONS CTIONR TO 1 AND 1 INITIATED 1 OBJECTIONS INITIATED �1 EVALUATION ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Could take 15 • .1 1 1 'days to several1 1 mths depending 1 1 1 on objections 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLACED ON GOVERNOR 1 1 1 AGENDA FOR AND CABINET GOVERNOR — APPROVE DNR 1 1 1 AND CABINET FINAL ACTION 1 1 1 1 INITIATED 1 1 1 1 1 1 CORPS COPY TO CORPS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 SUBMISSION OF CORRECTLY COMPLETED APPLICATION TO DNR 1 1 0 Days 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DNR PUBLIC NOTICE 1 5 75 1 1 1 120 150 180 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ITHIS TIME SEQUENCE CANNOT BEGIN UNTIL THE 1 AGENCIES HAVE RECEIVED A COMPLETED APPLICA-1 1TION AS OUTLINED IN SPECIFIC. INSTRUCTIONS . 150 225-400 300-600 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PPLICANT CONSULTANT APPROVED 1 NOTIFIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL 1 EIS ASSESSMENT INITIATED 1 AM& 1 1 I DRAFT EIS AND PUBLIC NOTIC 1 375-800 450-900 1 1 it—' 1 F ILED FINAL WITH ACTION CEQ INITIATED 1 4 FIGURE 3 90 r Comprehensive Marina Development Study - City of Miami 1. Public hearing before the Planning Advisory Board and the City Commission regarding the recommendations of the Comprehensive Marina Development Study. 2. Acceptance of the study recommendations by the City Commission. 3. Authorization to appoint a Project Manager to carry out the recommenda- tions of the Study. 4. Formulation of a detailed program for each project including design de- velopment, funding, management options, and permitting requirements. GREENLEAF/TELESCA • PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS, INC. 91