HomeMy WebLinkAboutDiscussion ItemApril 26, 1976
Mr. Paul Andrews
City Manager
City of Miami
City }fall, Dinner Key
Miami, Florida 33133
Dear Paul:
Many in the c.e:,munity, including ourselves as Chairman of the
Downtown Action Committee (Mr. Chapman) and Chairman of the Zoning
Subcommittee (Mr. Blumberg), have some reservations about the
Wallace, NcHarg, Roberts & Todd Downtown Miami 1973--1985 study on
urban develop:::ent and zoning plan.
After studying the plan, the Committee agrees that the plan is
very carefully prepared and comprehensive, with highly commendable
objectives. However, the Committee is concerned that some elements
of the plan, instead of encouraging the objectives, may tend to
defeat them. We feel the main thrust of the plan should be to
encourage residential construction in the downtown area.
As the report was prepared several years ago when a mass transit
system (and particularly a rapid transit system) was not as close
to realization as it is today, and at a ti.nie when environmental
concern bad a higher priority than either economic health or down-
town revitalization, we feel some revisions should be made.
We present the following recommendations of the Zoning Subcommittee,
endorsed in a written ballot by a majority of the full Committee,
and request that they be given carefulconsideration in updating
and revising the Wallace, ticIlnrg, Roberts & Todd zoning plan.
JA.
Alvah : A; .
H. Cl s si,��,an, Jx'.
Chairman
Downtown Action Committee
David fliu:lbcrg
Chairman
Zoning Study Subcommittee
Enclosure
GR A!-[R P L JVH CHAMBER OF COmmNI Cir
1200 Risraoe Filvd.iMlidiui, Hos ida 33132
i (30J5) 3/7-4711
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS or THE SUBCOMMITTEE
Floor area ratios should be substantially increased, expecially ih
residential areas, Restrictions as proposed in the study would dis-
courage residential development and would preclude developments such
as Peachtree Center in Atlanta and Bonaventure in Montreal) as well
as the 100 Biscayne Building and the One Biscayne Building.
Reducing land values is contrary to commercial development. If any-
thing, values should be increased downtown in order to Hake it more
attractive, rather than make property acquisition and development
more risky.
2. The proposed incentive bonus system should be carefully reviewed.
Bonuses are intended to encourage mixed use of buildings and open
usable space area. Bonuses should be given to attract developers to
develop those elements that are lacking in our downtown core area.
If FAR's are increased elements such as set -backs and landscape should
be made mandatory.
3. Parking ratios should be reviewed and changed in anticipation of
improved mass transit system. The provision requiring acquisition
of two-thirds of the parking to be in off -site areas, determined by
an appointed board, should be eliminated from the pian. Strong
consideration should be given to eliminating mandatory parking
provisions altogether and leaving the provision of such facilities
to the econo~ic and rarket requirements of the development, and to
the Offstrcet Parking Authority.
4. A "floating" zone should be estabiished to allow higher densitites
within areas of reass transit facilities. (Rapid transit corridors
have been changed since this report 'was prepared, and this should
be recognized).
5
it is imperative that a special zoning process be established which
would permit individual study of major mixed -use co:rplexes, as these
cannot necessarily be fitted into criteria which do not anticipate
the innovations and special characteristics of such cor:iplexes.
6. Zoning areas dc-.cribed should be re -studied Planners could not anti-
cipate all new developments in Miami today. The zoning arras as outlined
in the study could be counter --productive to'•:h.it we want to acconpllsh
in revitalizing down town.