Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #02 - PresentationCITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM To FROM Honorable Members of the City Commission ,off ai-t-.... P. W. Andrews City Manager DATE JUL 7 197G kUE• tUBJECT Agenda Item 1, - City Commission Meeting July 8,1976 Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan REFERENCES Workshop ENCLOSURES Enclosed, for your review, is the summary of the presentation to be made by the consultants: Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd during the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Workshop. Messrs. Huffman and Dramov will make the presentation for the consultants: other planners will be available to answer questions following the presentation. 3 MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP July 8, 1976 Prepared By: WALLACE, McHARG , ROBERTS & TODD and CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT .w t l Hurter Moss a Company/Gladstone Assoc. Environmental Design Group Ernest E. Bartley/Blair, Abernathy Assoc. Social Research Consultants, Inc. WORKSHOP OUTLINE Introduction 1. Overview of Citywide Trends and Growth Options 2. Neighborhood Needs and Neighborhood Development Strategies 3, Basic Decision Areas for Plan Consideration 4. Land Use and Zoning Problems 5. Sample District Plan 6 Questions and Answers STATEMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA By Dr. David A. Wallace, Partner Wallace, McHarg, Roberts & Todd Date: Thursday, July 1, 1976 A. Progress Report 1. Contract commenced April 1, 1975, so we have been underway for fifteen months. 2. Phase I produced a Report and City-wide Concept Plan. 3. Phase II involved a process of neighborhood anaysis, field research, 18 citizens' meetings under the aegis of the Planning Advisory Board plus numerous extra meetings upon special request. The results of this work have been a Concept Plan for each of the six Planning Districts, plus a Techicai Report. These have now been substantially completed and will be delivered to George Acton before the end of July. 4. Phase III, the last phase we're in now, will produce a single fold -out summary of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (in 5000 copies) and a single Technical Report backed up by separate Neighborhood Reports already clone in Phase II for each of the six Planning Districts. These together will comply with Miami City's mandate for a Plan as well as comply with the Local. Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975. We will produce a Draft of the fold'. -out summar} of the Plan before the end of July and the Technical Reports (ready for reproduction by the City), to- gether with 5000 copies of the summary on September 30, 1976. 5. The City will then go through a process of revew, public hearings, citizen and inter -agency input, necessary modifications to the Plan, etc., all prior to final adoption of the Plan by the Cit;, Commission by July 1, 1979, three years from now. Hopefully the Plan will be adopted long before then as there are many, many key actions and decisions contingent on the City having an adopted Comprehensive Plan. Page 2 Statement to the Mayor and City Commission July 1, 1976 B. The Workshop' Today we are here at Mayor Ferro's and the Commission's request to engage in an informal "workshop" in which we can give you the following: 1. An Overview of City-wide Tren:is and Growth Options by Boris Dramov. 2. A Classification of Neighborhoods by Condition and General Type of Program or Development Strategies Needed, by Richard Huffman. 3. A Brief Discussion of the Five Basic Decision Areas on Which the Commission will be Acting in The Adoption Process, by Richard Huffman. 4. A Slide Presentation, by Jack Luft of the City Staff, of Land Use problem Areas. 5. A Quick Presentation of a Sal;ple Planning District Plan - Little Havana - by Boris Dramov and Willy Bermello of our staff. The other District plans are here and if you wish, can also be reviewed. Jack Luft and Matthew Schwartz of the Cit} y's Department of planning, who are zuthors r of two of them, are here along with WMRT's staff f to answer questions. Now for Boris Dramov. trnERTA Pa c ROVellA ©irlIo R • • • •• • • • • • • �INNIII111111111IINIIIIIII II�710�W HIALEAH MIAMI SPRINGS+, • •••• ••.% • •• ••344 • yam• ••••• •o •• • • P •• .geese • a:p ff —.'l J • �• �TO WES4CHESTER •�••___••••YM2: _. f 1 •• ••• FROM FLA.. GA.,N.C.,ETC 1.ck,' ?P•f �.i•••• •• e�\Z`\\C. f• •Ge /i • • •• f• �\\` • - • It •- \\�\ a:. yr� »:. :�, e j • w \ — t\\\ \\`\\\ •• 1.7 •w.h f•:• iko tie}�!� . . �•• ................. et..• • Y. .�, w !.;, Irlcl�nnu� , 4 � � r 1S a Iij, - '' ir( •• ham=' �>;.ti:.� i13� i '1h #3}ry 4 • • • . i>il : FROM FGG •e e/i�F nl+> SOUTH MIAMI POPULATION DYNAMICS sI* Anglo Intra-County Mobility ® Anglo City Edge 0 7 ""` v ooe is i':: .-'7. Cl :41 ~ yS • . ate.:. ;'''• • '. k� • .•%I 6 �1.� �yw "-v R ••n�oe•�owti, • '1••� 11yr, IIIN p1•Imt c ..4 d..i _yAttty-=� J 11111 nIIFIIIRIIgOtIIIMnl11'l1011l p�j101 luEp EARTH ST CUBA,C.A.,S.A. _.J • o-" ••• Latin Ultra -County Mobility oeo Latin City Edge ® Anglo Middle and Upper Income :•:::11 Latin Low and Moderate Income t• ees Black Intra-County Mobility ♦ IIIIIIII Black City Edge Black Low and Moderate Income w•• f • .f• KEY BISCAYNE Young and Unattached ConcentrationS 4 Elderly Concentrations MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 0 ?6 6 1 16 miles July 8, 1976 TRENDS OF E1HNtC/RACLAL COMPOSITION PEOPLE 400,0001 300,000 100,000 50,000 1950 MIAM TOTAL P O P O LA 113,\ ti ,. 397,799 383,199 372,499 368,000* 350,4 9 populatio 'Feecmr,�»de� cii: t.ri.butjon/Dade Co. 334,65i manning Department. DA;E-SPANISH SPEAKING 1299,164 BADE- LATINS 217,897 . JDADEBLACKS 189,606 • / MIAMI- LATINS 180,761 /../ ; 4/ 146,388 I37,299 • e ---%'136,014 122,837 l I / \ e / \MIAMI8786,200 !/ ANGLOS948 85,000 ° .•P.k •A MIAMI-BLACKS 79,909 .. . ii 76,000 65,300e \ /61,000 60,000 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 55 :U.S. CENSUS OF POPULATION, UNIV. OF FLORIDA,BUREAU OF ECONOMICRESEARC197HH SOURCE ,��C��1�P./Ju y , AND W.M.R.T 4 Po.. H..n ...r L..w.I i+rw'.."'1 TREND GROWTH ® Increase in Population ® No Change in Population 1 Decrease in Population Trend growth is based cn past development In order to achieve trend growth, we must continue the same inmigr•ation rate of the 1960-70 period. rj e N i. ,• 5'.s.,� :..... . .:RIIIIS:;aL:: 7fl MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN t a C s '- ;141 C04.11iO4 / vv.', . on Coufei0l J_ `A O. `\ i trends. 0 Y.. 5 1 15 m.lts July 8, 1976 2L !t 5t ' t 9 —<--+/Julie tfti Cool,*7/ 1 i- : ;.'j _....: . ri,. p, C0411000, /- -:: t 1 1 .: (ii, -I ; IT i :11' fif7ei "157,Fri t3....ij e c l i HIGH GROWTH ® Increase in Population Mg No Change in Population (� Decrease in Population High growth is based on zoning capacity. High growth could easily accommodat•? all of the projected 1985 pot ulatioq for Dade County. High growth represents present poli.iec (zoning). MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 0 IS . , � mil.. July 8, 1976 LOW GROWTH si2ns cf decline y rn n;ake low gro.otn trend growth if no public action is taken. POPULATION INCREASE NO CHANGE ' DECREASE o' 2700' s•oo' moo' SCALE July 8, 1976 rI n 1004 .•�T�.n'� 901 1502---. 17 01 7. 17 02 c Cu .i>, %'S, •\% .N. . t. " 31 7. 300i -•/%, "‘*Y: ' 52 upusr r .r .3702 H , 3 4 ' 360 r MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNED GROWTH Plannec: 7r,-,sent popZat,-,..on ZeoeZEfl •-•71 \'•-1 t• • \„,,, ,t • • • • 1-:eans maintaining • • , • \ 44% •;.)i ne•goriloods, furz,hert.rk; 7.-ocscnt and .promoting develorr;ent trend.s. 17 oi :.: 17 ,E AXY. x•t‘w‘..X4' 17M 4•<"^A•\-• . s•••,'C X4 -.:c1 • \Ns /-•4‘t x X \ POPULATION N EA EM NO CHANGE I t DECREASE 0' noW 8400' 1 \\:, dcvelonmcn Avz- • ...._. .....,..._ -- ........- _ ___ </- 49 • ,(1/4,,\",, ' , ' • ' • •., \ \ • :.: 'N.' \ , \ ' \ ' .."• ,' 'I:S. AN... w: ' ''X'XXXL:44.14, 1: r •) • t• '\• =A `A 4 ••• ,X,X;'2••: A•r... •.... , . . .•.•.• • h `.' 1041UAT Offirt MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ez7 O. e• 7 -7 45 rr 46 J( CIRN 3©. 41©©I H C DRI DEd NORMAL MAINTENANCE These areas are healtku. If you conto prov(io bas- services, trc; Wiil ota:y that way. 48 0' 2700' 5400' 1110C. LH SCALE July 8, 1976 It 1004 :14 — .. -- .... ,.. . ..... _. .... 4,.......,.... i 150i . 1 ‘'-..... ..--; i19 01 l v 1502 .. . 20 ..1! _l__!....).L...:, ..1.....• I : 9 0: i , _ 2-002 ,...•.•.... , , •-•• •:•:•:-. 51_;•.1 ..._.4. t 4 t4 .. 1:22 02 i . se r ' 25 •:•• • i. rto1._ 17o2 i9(2:-. 1 . II 3-4 ,.7 ..__ I7 ,.15 ,?4 , 25 , I 26 ' ; % ! • • II 11 -L-. — . I ...., 70 04 7002 /--- 1"7/1'71 :72 44 a% 1 WI • 29 13 ; 270 - I 540152 • . • . 001 - t.,134 - I 56 Ot 0. r 1(.1 4 _____ u? ..•. •••••:•••:75 4 02 53 s• 7 v 6.“..“11 • " 1 - — 16 6 "" MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SERVICE INTENSIVE 1004 14 rt n un` ir5a .-•:f;c.:: - i q cso2 = zap r�;;� jtave mia�Vr oc ai.j ��".''..... E!n These a :, !-- 1 _� �: ;� rv. 21 ��conorr.-� �d y- -, In ora,;r -..,o :: ,,:rsf or .. ,t,u, reaLth� .4 ti ve :iiorr ('d.1602- � ,.;yn ''??02 2201 manor`GiG ,�nvestmen as ..•e-! sI z 1. as private commitment „:A z be 170: ) Ie w _ -i .•� -4. ��—r t24 25 48 cl 51 filet!, n - —1 58W 601 I56 ' !• s n 0' ! 00' 5i00' e10o' SCALE July 8, 1976 51 5501 15401+ n r 5502 W15402 r :, !•,!+ y3_0I 164 3 02 i65 100t 73 69 I !. !l n 1 �`i II ‚Inc "MEET �. E. ,1 68 T 52 =-4 IV 4 It J{ 66 , MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 21) 46 NeN PRESERVATION & IMPROVEMENT These areas are in tram; it i can. In order to s;abilize •.am, and "cliff.Jai aesisanr must be provided. 48 1 ..u. 11 58021 1158M li 1. . ft o' 2700' 5400' MOO' 1 1 I SCALE July 8, 1976 ' :72 t0111,1 •1 ..CHIC, ' t.111 17.01 -, 17 N tie n°. . 1004 1 1501 ` 1901 — :i::_: 1502-1 is Ji :< iB 02 1.501 r--1755 02 -J 6301 6'02 73 8 ,ES k_ 7 c '• fi MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN REDEVELOPMENT ti 1004 02-200/These areas provide new cpportun,,;-•- •:11.,__,901 ^#--t'"• •: IT I r redevelopment. Th areas ci', ,r jobs, ameni �•' P.£; c'r as " near ,. s. �: the river and rail, and near �'ut-:, E02--;- ..ece•H2202 2201 J transit, 1:o;.,�ever tote need :cur - : .23 degrees opublic ac> io'r •'' .i 170 i702 order to realize them. — — ,••_ - 48 n.ul. r tAil* • I. n l 0' 2T00 5400• 8100' SCALE July 8, 1976 P1 i 49 I�o UWn 55 01 1-" 55 02 r 1 63 01 163 02 7001 .. r. In 7002 ;5401 _ r- .165 ,. r anus • 73 Si r.eirtt, Vi pn ri 52 1 -4 MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOO) PLAN 45 P1 THE FIVE BASIC DECISION AREAS THESE ARE EXAMELES OF THE KINDS OF QUESTIONS YOU WILL H, VE TO ADDRESS. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WILL UL''IMATELY RLCoMMEND POSITIONS ON EACH OF THESE AS WELL AS OTHER:. 1, YOU WILL HAVE TG SAKE DECISIO'1S ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD PRIORITIES. A. 10 wkat eaten .,.: �O.:,Je:•, 1t ./', ;t', u'•': is .;.n technical as ..s�..nc, ti �: . iron ,tional areas? ,I Identified as ::reservation and ir'i� t'3 veme :t areas on the mar;. B. To what extent should ro')r."Senprograms focu : On S services including "cz,ipower', :Eu li-f'i, cdli . atioha :, recre- at iona 1 , and day care, .,n t cL 1 t areas? ? Id a:•n t : f ied as service intensive on r ma:2. C. You have already made the ..'t:c: ., ion to i%c_'c'ome , n'ol ved in housing with the passage of the $5 •million bons. To what extent should the city get aggressively involved in public assisted redevelopment in order to strengthen the economic base and to promote new market housing and job opportunities? identified as redevelopment areas on the map. (Actively campaign for constitutional amendment allot.ing tax incentives, tax abatements, and incentive financing.) 2, YOU WILL HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT CITYWIDE PRI.RITIES, The major neighborhood ;'a" ve l pr'iEn t strategy decis i.c ns ?oz. are going to have to make aro related to setting pI iorit i.es for the allocation of monies (federal, state, counry and local). A. To what extent are you going to invest the MOST fundv in the areas that have the greatest needs? B. To what extent are you going to invest the mos, funds in transitional areas where you can get the ma:•imum private response. C. To what extent are you going to invest the ms o : funds in creating new residential, opportunities and revitalizing underutilized or obsolescing land uses? In addition, there are two other moans of implementing housing and economic development objectives. Tax policies, althou?h not pre- sently available, can become a powerful tool to maintain and im- prove housing quality and re. iden e is l neighl,orhoods, p' ovide new housing opportunities as well as etr'rngthcn the economi of the city. In addition, zoning actions in very high development pressure areas can be used as incentives for achieving hcusing and economic development objectives. 3, YOU WILL HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT USE CHANGES. The basic existing land use p-ttern (dirtribution ar.d location) kap already been set. 0n7E1 very PuraZZ rer- centage (3%) of total land area is vacant. Only in a few areas are land use changes proposed on the plan. In order to ci,mply with state law, must confcrm to the plan. A. Should offo,' coninuo o expand in )2',_yu0t,?t1 on or should restdent,ial L ncura-jed? B. Should wo ,:nuourage I.E2L3icZentiuz: commeroial anj industrial along the Miami River': C. Should we cnouraje ?es-:dentiai cc;no commerc-:al areas, inoluding Oownown, in order to strengthen and itvrove them? user along with marine In a citywide oc,ntext, (,?: of c.;ze: mot important land use issues is related to the quality of future development, rather than its distribution. 4. YOU WILL HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS AND GUIDELINES. A. Will ,ou gr,.aicv private civelopment reciiirements as a n'cans of achieving a better public environment? B. Will you ret higher rtandardr which will requir.? greater expenditures for pule 7:1-7prc,vements (e.g. struts and parks) in ode' to .Pz''0,1t) a better iublic enoi,ionment? C. WiZZ you sot greater incentives to nrivate development to achieve c1 etter vuiqic envirenment? 5. YOU WILL HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT PUBLIC FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS, A. Should alternatives l considered to Dade County routes on the has of neighborhood priorities? B. Should arterials go through residential areas? C. Should additional bridges he constructed to facilitate movement? D. Should now parks be designated? E. Should NCM schools be built? F. Should utilities be improved?