HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-76-1031A/bk
10/27/76
ii'ES0LtiTt0N NO.
_. 1 ES( tUTION bECLARING THE INTENTION OF THE
'bb1MIESION OF CONSIDERING THE ADOPTION OP
CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN; AND AUTHORIZING THE CLERE
TO TRANSMIT COPIES OF THE PLAN TO AFFECTED
AGENCIES PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOCAL zj
GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACT OF 1'',
1975 (CHAPTER 75-257 F. S .) . .�t.J.t+ •. v •' ' 4'' '1:
76-1011
fi4HEREAS, the City of Miami has declared
of exercising its authority under the provisions of
aJ M NH
FOLLOWpi
its intention
the Local
Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 (Chapter 75-257 F.S.)
for the total area under its jurisdiction by Ordinance 8545, dated
April 22, 1976; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has designated the Planning
Advisory Board as the local planning agency (per Chapter 75-257
(F.S.) by Ordinance 8546, dated April 22, 1976; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission authorized the preparation
of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan by the consulting
firm of Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd by Resolution 75-37,
dated January 9, 1975, in conjunction with the Planning Department;
and
WHEREAS, the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan
has received widespread citizen participation and public scrutiny
through public meetings of the Planning Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, inter -governmental coordination has been
solicited through workshops on plan recommendations by a joint
City/County inter -departmental coordinating committee on April 21,
May 17 and June 8, 1976; and the Dade County Technical Advisory
Committee required by Section 16, Chapter 75-257 F.S. has met to
receive information on the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan
on September 22, 1976; and "COCIIMFNT 1INDEX
WHEREAS, the consultants ha+e presented their findings
in presentations before the Commission on October 9, 1975, April
22, 1976 and July 8, 1976; and
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF
NOV 1 ��7 1976
aSOI,UTION
REMARKS: . . . . ..........
1
WHEREAS, the Planning Advisory Board by Resolution
PAt "76, dated October 6, 1976, has transmitted the Miami
Otprehensive Neighborhood Plan for Review; and
WHEREAS, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning
Act of 1975 (Chapter 75-257 F.S.) requires that local government
adopt a Comprehensive Plan and has established procedures leading
to adoption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That the Commission intends to establish
a date certain for a public hearing at which the Commission will
consider adoption of certain elements of the Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan; such date to be established by the administration.
Section 2. That the Commission directs the Clerk to
transmit copies of the Plan to the Division of State Planning,
Coastal Coordinating Council, South Florida Regional Planning
Council, Dade County Planning Department and any other governmental
agency which has requested a copy, as per the requirements of the
Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 (Chapter 75-257
F.S.).
Section 3. That the Commission further directs the
administration to receive written comments from the agencies
enumerated in Section 2 by January 27, 1977, to administratively
prepare appropriate responses to these comments, and to schedule
a public hearing before the Planning Advisory Board at which these
responses will be considered, before the Commission reviews the
responses and transmits them to the agencies enumerated in Section 2.
1976.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17 day of NOVEMBER
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
cROogre
RALPH G. ONG
CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED
BY: `'
Maurice A. Ferre
MAYOR
MICHEL E . AN ' SON, AST . CITY ATTO$iVEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
gl4 P"4".1?L
EORGE F 1 KNOX, JR.
CITY ATT(`.' EY
LANNING FACT SHEET
!CANT City of Miami Planning Department, October 6, 1976
REQUEST
E) PLANATION
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUjvMENTS
F. .. LOW"
BACKGROUND
Transhission of certain proposed elements of the Miai`ni
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan to state, regional and
local governmental agencies for their review and written
comments per the requirements of the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975. (Resolution attached).
The Local Government.Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975
requires all units of local government throughout Florida to
adopt comprehensive plans by July 1, 1979. This Act further
requires that before the adoption by a governing body of a
comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, the
governing body shall transmit a copy of the proposed compre-
hensive plan to other units of government for their written
comments. Other units include the State of Florida Division
of State Planning, the Coastal Coordinating Council, the South
Florida Regional Planning Council, the Dade County Planning
Department and any other unit of local government, or govern-
mental agency in the State that has requested a copy. At the
time the proposed plan is transmitted the governing body shall
inform the Division of State Planning of a date certain at
which the governing body will consider adoption of the proposed
plan in public hearing.
A resolution to provide for appropriate transmittal has been
prepared and is submitted for consideration.
The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan has been prepared
by consultants and the City of Miami Planning Department to
update the City's Comprehensive Plan for the first time in nearly
20 years, to prepare land -use control recommendations to
organize a capital improvement programming process, and
develop a planning information system. The 18 month study
commenced in April 1975 and concluded in October 1976.
The prime consultants were Wallace,McHarg, Roberts and Todd.
Assisting WMRT were Hunter Moss and Company and Gladstone
Associates for economic and marketing; Environmental Design
Group for transportation and utilities; Dr. Ernest R. Bartley
and Bair Abernathy and Associates for Zoning, and Social
Research Consultants for social planning.
The study was divided into three phases. The first phase had a
City-wide emphasis and resulted in a City-wide concept plan.
leebnd phase addressed neighborhood concerns, The City
at divided into sik planning analysis districts and the consultant/
Tanning ]Department team worked with citizen advisory coma.
thittees in each district. The Planning Advisory Board sponsored
two public meetings in each of the districts.
Thethird phase -a city wide comprehensive plan- is responsive
to the Florida Local. Government Comprehensive Planning Act
of 1975. It contains all of the elements required by the
legislative except a capital improvement program and additionally
contains certain elements which are optional in the legislation.
ATUS The following significant actions denote progress on the MCNP:
• PP'ORT1VE
FOLLOW"
September 26, 1973 - The City Commission by Ordinance 8192
directed that a portion of federal revenue sharing funds be used
for the preparation of a Comprehensive Plan.
November 21, 1973 - The City Commission authorized the start
of the first phase of the study by Ordinance 8210.
December 5, 1973 - The administration requested letters of
interest from 13 urban planning consulting firms in the eastern
United States of which 10 firms responded.
January 24, 1974 - Three urban planning consulting firms,
recommended by the administration, were invited to Miami for
interviews by Resolution 74-62.
February 28, 1974 - Three urban planning consulting firms,
presented their background, experience and ability to perform
to the Commission.
April 11, 1974 - The Commission requested deferral of consultant
selection pending a clarification of the impact and relationship
of the MCNP to the Metropolitan Dade County planning program
by Resolution 74-294.
June 27, 1974 - The Commission by Resolution 74-557 directed
the administration to proceed to recommend a consulting firm
for the MCNP.
July 25, 1974 - The Commission authorized the administration to
negotiate a contract with the consulting firm of Wallace, McHarg,
Roberts and Todd by Motion 74-634.
1
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW„
a ►. ,__1971 The esittittlisSiori authorized ex€cutioli f5f
the city/consultant contract by Resolution 75Y37,
April 1, 1975 - The consultants commenced work per authorization
from City Manager dated March 24, 1975 for an 18 month study.
October 9, 1975 - The consultants presented their findings
from Phase I of the MCNP to the Commission.
November - December 1975 - The Planning Advisory Board
sponsored public meetings on the preparation of the MCNP
on 6 planning districts throughout the City.
March -April 1976 - The Planning Advisory Board sponsored
public meetings on planning proposals in 6 planning districts
throughout the City.
April 22, 1976 - The consultants presented their findings of
Phase II of the MCNP to the Commission. The Commission
declared its intention of exercising its authority under the
provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning
Act of 1975 (Ordinance 8545) and designated the Planning Advisory
Board as the local planning agency (Ordinance 8546).
July 8, 1976 - The Commission participated in a workshop with
the consultants on the recommendations of Phase II of the MCNP.
October 6, 1976 - The Planning Advisory Board has recommended
to the Commission that the Commission transmit the MCNP to
State, regional and local agencies per the requirements of the
Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 by
Resolution PAB 27-76.
FUTURE ACTIONS After receiving the comments from the affected governmental
agencies the governing body (City Commission) has four weeks to
transmit a written response to these agencies, and shall take
no action to adopt the plan until two weeks have elapsed following
body (CityCommission) must consider all comments received
from any person, agency, or government, it may adopt, or
adopt with changes or amendments, the proposed comprehensive
plan, or element or portion thereof, despite any adverse
comments received.
The Planning Advisory Board will also hold a public hearing
to make their recommendations to the Commission regarding
the adoption of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan
and to recommend to the Commission responses to the comments
of the other governmental agencies (above).
RECOMMENDATIONS
—PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
—PLANNING
ADVISORY BOARD
rot your information, a chart is attached whieh identifies
the tithe arid events necessary for the adoption of the CO?Apr e-
hen sirve plan.
Recommended for transmittal
Recommended for transmittal by nesolutirn P,At 21.76 dated
October 6, 1976.
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
A
NTATIVE SCHEDULE FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE
MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
Af,.,,GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACT OF_ 1975
Maximum 60 days
(or longer, if Cotner
mission agrees)
(State law)
Minimum
60 days
(State law) x
Maximum 4 weeks
(State law)
Minimum 2 weeks
(State law)
November 17,1976- Miami City Cornthission
receives MCNP from Planning Advisory
Board, and authorizes transmission of
copies to:
a) Division of State Planning, Department
of Administration (DSP will advertise
City Commission public hearing of
April. 27, 1977).
Coastal Coordinating Council
South Florida Regional Planning Council
bade County Planning Department
Any unit of local government or govern-
mental agency that has requested a copy.
Sanua.ry 27, 1977
from a-e (above).
- All comments due
February 9, 1977- Miami Planning Advisory
Board public hearing to make recommenda-
tions regarding adoption of MCNP and to
recommend response to a-e (above).
4. February 23, 1977- Miami City Commission
transmits response to a-e (above).
5. April 27, 1977
Public Hearing: consideration of adoption
of MCNP.
- Miami City Commission
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOYv1,
'�*9OEcv F�o�,�•
DEPUTY CLERKS
WIL' ELMINA BELL
P pup RT NORRIS
R ;H! RT E. TINGLEY
Dear $irt
The Miami City Commission will consider the adoption of certain proposed
elements of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (enclosed) in public
hearing at 2:00 P.M., April 27, 1977, at City Hall, Dinner Key, Miami,
Florida, to satisfy the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive
Planning Act of 1975 (Chapter 75-257 F. S.).
The Miami City Commission, by Resolution 76-1031 dated November 17, 1976
(attached) has authorized the transmission of these proposed elements of the
Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan to the agencies specified by, or other
agencies which have requested a copy, as per Section 9(1) of the aforementioned •
Act in order to receive your written comments on the proposed plan by January
27, 1977. The Commission will transmit responses to your written comments by
February 23, 1977. The tentative schedule leading to adoption is also attached.
All of the required elements are being submitted for review. For your conve-
nience, a checklist is attached showing in the left-hand column all general,
required, and optional elements enumerated in the above Act, and in the right-
hand column those elements being considered for adoption by the City of Miami.
Please return your written comments to this office.
Sincerely,
.K....
fftrr rf tijr ONCOIlrra
T1tq aLL
331111 Batt :lntrriratt tIrii1C
±iiianti. 3finrila 33133
gitrecoltf,0
0
RALPH G ONGIE
CITY CLERK,
r97
RALPH G. ONGIE
City Clerk
RGOmh
cc: Division of State Planning
Bureau of Coastal Zone Planning, Dept. of Natural Resources
South Florida Regional Planning Council
Dade County Planning Department
Cities of Coral Gables and Hialeah
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
ENT.S
F� sr
L,LLOW
Encl,a/s
Minimum
60 days
(State law)
irtNTATIVE SCt-1EDULErot; THE ADOPTION OE THE
MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEtGi-II3O11HOOD PLAN
PER THE R EQU /R EMENTS OF THE
CAt.,GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING_ ACT OF 1975
1
Maximum 60 days
(or longer, if Corn.
mission agrees)
(State law)
Maximum 4 weeks
(State law)
-Minimum 2 weeks
(State law)
November 17,1976. Miami City ConiMission
receives MCNP from Planning Advisory
Hoard, and authorizes transmission of
copies to:
a) Division of State Planning, Department
of Administration (DSP will advertise
City Commission public hearing of
April 27, 1977).
b) Coastal Coordinating Council
South Florida Regional. Planning Council
Dade County Planning Department
Any unit of local government or govern -
Mental agency that has requested a copy.
anuary 27, 1977 - All cornments due
tarn a.-e (above).
February 9, 1977- Miami. Planning Advi so.y
Board public hearing to make recommenda-
tions regarding adoption of MCNP and to
recommend response to a-e (above).
4. February 23, 19 77- Miami City Commission
transmits response to a-e (above).
April 27, 1977 - Miami City Commission
Public Hearing: consideration of adoption
of MCNP.
"SUP^'JRTIVE
G =. L. r. �f i $
F. LLU Vie„
A VERNMNT COMPREHEN8IVE PLANN tN0 ACC'
C iAPTt 7 —2S 7 Lt
CAECt<t.IST
deneralt Requited and Optional Elements
(Elements are numbered. per Section 7 of the Adt)
General Requirements:
1. The comprehensive plan shall consist
of materials in such descriptive form
written or graphic, as may be appropri-
ate to the presecription of principles,
guidelines, and standards for the orderly
and balanced future economic, social,
physical, environmental and fiscal devel-
opment of the area. (See purpose & objectives)
Elements shall be coordinated and (See intergovernmental Coc=3_•-
consistent and the plan shall be econ- nation & Economic Feasibility)
omically feasible.
The economic assumptions on which the: (See Economic Development)
plan is based shall be set out.
The plan shall be coordinated with the (See intergovernmental Coc=di--
plans of adjacent municipalities, of nation)
the County or region and to the State
Comprehensive Plan.
The plan shall contain implementation (See Implementation)
recommendations.
Elements BeinE.'ratsMitted by
Miami
Required Elements:
6. The plan shall include the following
elements:
a. a future land use plan see Future Land Use Plan`
a traffic circulation element (see Transportation Elemen_)
utilities element (see Utility Element)
conservation element (see Conservation and Safa _y
Element)
"S f PORTIVE
DOC�,�iN TS
FOLLOW"
ecreation and open epaca
cement
A housing elerctent
A doasta1 zone inanagertent
I ee Recreation and •pen
tpaoe)
See Housing & Residential
Neighborhood Element
eletent(See Conservation & Safety
an intergovernmental • coordina-
tion element
an electrical utility element
Optional Elements
7. The plan may include the following
additional elements, however, (a)
and (b) are required for cities off:
Miami's population:
a, mass transit element
port and aviation f.acilities..
a'' non -automotive vehicular and
pedestrian element
off-street parking element
public services and facilities
element
public buildings and related
facilities element
a community design element
a general area redevelopment
•element
a ,safety element
n historic and scenic preserva-
on element
economic element
Element)
(See Intergovernmental
Coordination)
(See utility Element)
■
de Transportation nement)
(See Dade County Comprehensivc
Development Master Plan; port
and avaiation facilities are
owned and operated by :ade
County.
(NOT INCLUDED)
(NOT INCLUDED)
(NOT INCLUDED)
(See Community Design)
(See Neighborhood Trea:ment)
(See Conservation & Safety
Element)
(See Conservation & Safety
Element)
( See Economic De ve tcpi .srtt
Element)
NEA/bk
10/27/76
RESOLUTION NO,
76a,1011
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE INTENTION OF THE
COMMISSION OF CONSIDERING THE ADOPTION OF
CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN; AND AUTHORIZING THE CLERK
TO TRANSMIT COPIES OF THE PLAN TO AFFECTED
AGENCIES PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACT OF
1975 (CHAPTER 75-257 F.S.).
WHEREAS, the City of Miami has declared its intention
OE exercising its authority under the provisions of the Local
Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 (Chapter 75-257 F.S.)
for the total area under its jurisdiction by Ordinance 8545, dated
April 22, 1976; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has designated the Planning
Advisory Board as the local planning agency (per Chapter 75-257
(r.S.) by Ordinance 8546, dated April 22, 1976; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission authorized the preparation
of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan by the consulting
firm of Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd by Resolution 75-37,
dated January 9, 1975, in conjunction with the Planning Department;
and
WHEREAS, the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan
has received widespread citizen participation and public scrutiny
through public meetings of the Planning Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, inter -governmental coordination has been
solicited through workshops on plan recommendations by a joint
City/County inter -departmental coordinating committee on April 21,
May 17 and June 8, 1976; and the Dade County Technical Advisory
Committee required by Section 16, Chapter 75-257 F.S. has met to
receive information on the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan
on September 22, 1976; and
WHEREAS, the consultants have presented their findings
in presentations before the Commission on October 9, 1975, April
22, 1976 and July 8, 1976; and
WHEREAS, the Planing Advisoty Board by Resolution.
4'76, dated October 6, 1976, has transmitted the Miami
rprehehsive Neighborhood Plan for Review; and
WHEREAS, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning
Aet of 1975 (Chapter 75-257 F.S.) requires that local government
adopt a Comprehensive Plan and has established procedures leading
to adoption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Section 1. That the Commission intends to establish
a date certain for a public hearing at which the Commission will
consider adoption of certain elements of the Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan; such date to be established by the administration.
Section 2. That the Commission directs the Clerk to
transmit copies of the Plan to the Division of State Planning,
Coastal Coordinating Council, South Florida Regional Planning
Council, Dade County Planning Department and any other governmental
agency which has requested a copy, as per the requirements of the
Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 (Chapter 75-257
F.S.).
Section 3. That the Commission further directs the
administration to receive written comments from
enumerated in Section 2 by January 27, 1977, to
prepare appropriate responses to these comments,
a public hearing before the Planning Advisory Board at which these
responses will be considered, before the Commission reviews the
responses and transmits them to the agencies enumerated in Section
the agencies
administratively
and to schedule
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17 day of NOVEN3ER
-7;it
RALP:I G, ONGTE
CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED
*Maurice A. Ferre
MAYOR
BY _ t
MICHEL ,,E . AND jSON, ASST . CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: ::�3 `, s'"""'
EORGE F ,- KNOX, JR.
CITY ATTaRNEY
2.
PLANNING FACT SHEET
PPL1CANT City of Miatrii Planning bepartttieht, C3cto1ier 6, 1976
REOULST
EXPLANATION
ACKGROUND
Transmission of certain proposed elements of the Miami.
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan to state, regional and
local governmental agencies for their review and written
comments per the requirements of the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975. (Resolution attached).
The Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975
requires all units of local government throughout Florida to
adopt comprehensive plans by July 1, 1979. This Act further
requires that before the adoption by a governing body of a
comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, the
governing body shall transmit a copy of the proposed comprei.
hensive plan to other units of government for their written
comments. Other units include the State of Florida Division
of State Planning, the Coastal. Coordinating Council, the South
Florida Regional Planning Council, the Dade County Planning
Department and any other unit of local government, or govern-
mental agency in the State that has requested a copy. At the
time the proposed plan is transmitted the governing body shall
inform the Division of State Planning of a date certain at
which the governing body will consider adoption of the proposed
plan in public hearing.
A resolution to provide for appropriate transmittal has been
prepared and is submitted for consideration.
The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan has been prepared
by consultants and the City of Miarni Planning Department to
update the City's Comprehensive Plan for the first time in nearly
20 years, to prepare land -use control recommendations to
organize a capital improvement programming process, and
develop a planning information system. The iS month study
commenced in April 1975 and concluded in October 1976.
The prime consultants were Wallace,McHarg, Roberts and Todd.
Assisting WMRT were Hunter Moss and Cornpany ar.d Gladstone
'Associates for economic and marketing; Environmental Design
Group for transportation and utilities; Dr. Ernest R. Bartley
_and Bair Abernathy and Associates for Zoning, arid Social
Research Consultants for social planning.
The study was divided into three phases. The first phase had a
City-wide emphasis and resulted in a City-wide concept plan.
he second phase addressed neighborhood eoneerns. The Cit:
Was divided into six planning analysis districts and the eonsulnt/
Planning Department team worked with citizen advisory cortia
tittees in each district. The Planning Advisory Board sponsored
two public meetings in each of the districts.
Thethird phase -a city wide comprehensive plan- is responsive
to the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act
of 1975. It contains all of the elements required by the
legislative except a capital improvement program and additionally
contains certain elements which are optional in the legislation.
TATUS The following significant actions denote progress on the MCNP:
September 26, 1973 - The City Commission by Ordinance 8192
directed that a portion of federal revenue sharing funds be used
for the preparation of a Comprehensive Plan.
November 21, 1973 - The City Commission authorized the start
of the first phase of the study by Ordinance 8210.
December 5, 1973 - The administration requested letters cf
interest from 13 urban planning consulting firms in the eastern
United States of which 10 firms responded.
January 24, 1974 - Three urban planning consulting firms,
recommended by the administration, were invited to Miami for
interviews by Resolution 74-62.
February 28, 1974 - Three urban planning consulting firms,
presented their background, experience and ability to perform
to the Commission.
April 11, 1974 - The Commission requested deferral of consu:ant
selection pending a clarification of the impact and relationship
of the MCNP to the Metropolitan Dade County planning program
by Resolution 74-294.
June 27, 1974 - The Commission by Resolution 74-557 direct.
the administration to proceed to recommend a consulting firm.
for the MCNP.
July 25, 1974 - The Commission authorized the administration to
negotiate a contract with the consulting firm of Wallace, Ivlciia: g,
Roberts and Todd by Motion 74-634.
_�iriti . ___ _ The Cottlthis eion autho ri ed ekeetttioti
he City/consultant contract by rtesolution 75=S1,
April 1, 1975 - The consultants commenced work per authori±ation
frotn City Manager dated March 24, 1975 for an 18 month stilly.
October 9, 1975 - The consultants presented their findings
from Phase I of the MCNP to the Commission.
November - December 1975 - The Planning Advisory Board
sponsored public meetings on the preparation of the MCNP
on 6 planning districts throughout the City.
March -April 1976 - The Planning Advisory Board sponsored
public meetings on planning proposals in 6 planning districts
throughout the City.
April 22, 1976 - The consultants presented their findings of
Phase II of the MCNP to the Commission. The Commission
declared its intention of exercising its authority under the
provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning
Act of 1975 (Ordinance 8545) and designated the Planning Advisory
Board as the local planning agency (Ordinance 8546).
July 8, 1976 - The Commission participated in a N.vorkshop with
the consultants on the recommendations of Phase II of the MCNP.
October 6, 1976 - The Planning Advisory Board has recommended
to the Commission that the Commission transmit the MCNP to
State, regional and local agencies per the requirements of the
Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 by
Resolution PAB 27-76.
FUTURE ACTIONS After receiving the comments from the affected governmental
agencies the governing body (City Commission) has four weeks to
transmit a written response to these agencies, and shall take
no action to adopt the plan until two weeks have elapsed following
body (CityCommission) must consider all comments received
from any person, agency, or government, it may adopt, or
adopt with changes or amendments, the proposed cornprehensi-.•e
plan, or element or portion thereof, despite any adverse
comments received.
The Planning Advisory Board will also hold a public hearir.z
to make their recommendations to the Commission regarding
the adoption of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan
and to recommend to the Commission responses to the c.ommects
of the other governmental agencies (above).
RECOMMSNDA1'IONS
PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
-PLANN I NG
ADVISORY BOARD
'er your information, a than is attached which identifies
the tine and events necessary for the adoption of the cb:T115re.
herisitre plan.
eeonrimended for transmittal
Recommended for transmittal by Resolution PAB 27.76 dated
October 6, 1976.
NTATIVE SCHEDULE pOR THE ADOPTION OF THE
MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
qAt, COVERNMEIVT_COMPREI-IENSIVE PLANNING ACT ,OF` .1,9` 5
A
Ma.dimurn 60 days
(or longer, if Corry.
mission agrees)
(State law)
Maximum 4 weeks
(State law)
Minimum 2 weeks
(State law)
November 17,1976. Miami City Cox Mission
receives MCNP from Planning Advisory
Board, and authorizes transmission of
copies to:
a.) Division of State Planning, Department
of Administration (DSP will advertise
City Commission public hearing of
April 27, 1977).
Coastal Coordinating Council
South Florida Regional Planning Council.
Dade County Planning Department
Any unit of local government or govern-
mental agency that has requested a copy.
January 27, 1977 - A11 comments due
from a-e (above).
3. February 9, 1977- Miami Planning Advisory
Board public hearing to make recommenda-
tions regarding adoption of MCNP and to
recommend response to a-e (above).
4. February 23, 1977- Miami City Commission
transmits response to a-e (above).
5. April 27, 1977 - Miami City Commission
Public Hearing: consideration of adoption
of MCNP.
Stat of Horidi
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Ht)'i SIM.MS
ritt)‘01 ta.11.10(*) 2112 ll01. 1 I I 11.1.A11.1SSI E 3230.1
6huat
Mf. Riehard L. POsmoen,
bireetor of Planning
P. O. Box 330708
Miami, Florida 33133
Dear Mr. Fosmoen:
In response to your letter of January 24, 1977, please be
advisee that we have sent written comments related to the
Miami C=prehensive Neishborhoc:f Plan to the Division of
State Planning as they are the state agency responsible
for coordinating the review of comprehensive plans required
by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975.
For your information a copy of these comments has been
enclosed.
We appreciate your notice concerning the forthcoming public
hearing, but due to staff limitation on travel, we will not
be able to attend this meeting. Thank you for your consi-
deration in this matter.
RUBIS O'D. ASKEW
RiCE Cp,verrv,r
SM•ll FIERS
,Srtr....to%,•.fStat.!
ROFSER 1 L. SHFVIN
GER ALI) .k. LEWIS
11111.1P1-.AAMIA
rf.0,0t0r
bovli co\NI-.1(
kAiril b. 1 041.11/44GION
•
BJ/jgs
CC:
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Charles M. Sanders
Lou Burney
Jim Quinn
Dorothy Bergamaschi
Robert Kessler
Sincerely,
BRUCE ,20SON, Chief
Bureau of Coastal Zone Planning
'•-';..1
NIP JAN
Ji.13
FIR
1%'oloss 040NUNPITKATirfs POW-WES • 1..AW EVFORctiNlk:NT • NI ARINF, RESOVRek..S
iM•
Ma
MW
MW
=Wt.
MW
mw
EE
mme
maw_
MIK
=Mk
41-
State 1 rIoricla
DEPARTMENT Or NATUNAL s OURCES
14kR1q)1 W.SWIiMS
•
uRow, tali Dim; 21121-D O. slid!! I '1/4 I \ •\ SSI I-, 11.1304
Mr. RiChard L. Fosmoen, AIP
bireCtor of Planning
P. O. Box 330708
Miami, Florida 33133
Dear Mr. Fosmoen:
ik URI'S O'D. ASKEW
epkuvri,,t
IIMA+A.SMMHERS
S,crttr,r‘ sot.
kimER VIN
AU) \. 1+V. Li
MHUPF.VIHUA
rr•
Wm.i co\
kAl..MtbALRUGIW.
In response to your letter of January 24, 1977, please be
advised thLt we have sent written comments related to the
Miami C=I-.)::eher.sive Neishl,,crho:f Plan to the Division of
State Planning as they are the state agency responsible
for coordinating the review of comprehensive plans required
by the Local Governm2nt Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975.
For your information a copy of these comments has been
enclosed.
We appreciate your notice concerning the forthcoming public
hearing, but due to staff limitation on travel, we will not
be able to attend this meeting. Thank you for your consi-
deration in this matter.
Bj j qs
CC: Mr. Charles M. Sanders
Mr. Lou Burney
Mr. Jim Quinn
Ms. Dorothy Bergamaschi
Mr. Robert Kessler
Sincerely,
BRUCE .20SON, Chief
Bureau of Coastal Zone Planning',
rrr ;7'1
JI
•
ass ,,:).,,..AI)MINLSTRATIVE SERVICE'S • KNFORCEMENT • MARINE
. r Mint*, .1. It'4 4414"P 4, rt r,4-`44 rtn ry t II, 4 •-• r-.....r
Stat2 ot Fic-Aa
D1u., A Tt'\ .i4T Or- NATURAL S
iitAc: tic • 1 y . a�
ntiat
'rOt e.ries M. Sanders, bitector
1V15ion Of i?esourCce Management
MOM airy Quinn, Coastal Planner
tureau o f Coastal Zone Pian j n_
Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood platy 1976,-$'
In response to the provisions of Chapter 75- 25/, twetS o
the Bureau of Coastal Zone Planning has reviewed the ebOve
referenced document and offers the follo`::ing. comments:
1. - The Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, as presented for
review, appears to Le ., S: c' various technical
reports e in ti-e cor'.j rc'.- nsivt planning process
While this document may be very useful for meeting
public participation requirements, ere feel that it
does not meet t the req ili re -en LS of the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning Act. Specifically, the Coastal
Zone Ele ' ant requires the de vel of:merit. of policies re-
lated to five aspects of coastal management as well as
the developmenL of proposed coastal management and
regulatory techniques. Policies rust be specified in
relationship to:
a. The maintenance, restoration and enhancement of
the environmental quality of the coastal zone;
. the maintenance of optimum population of wildlife;
• the balanced use and preservation of coastal
resources;
• the avoidance of irreversible commitments of
coastal resources any?;
▪ the ecological principles to be utilized in determin-
ing the suitability and extent of future developments.
igOAA!4nn Charles
January 4, 1,971
Page Two
•
Apparently these specific t.equit•er:-.e:lt s ere to he fiiieL
based upon a one `,aragreph discussion of generali2ca
lidelines. tnzle we generally agree with the policies cies
staged within these quid 1. tnes , t';e feel that they do
hot r _:2L either the _ �.:if is require , nLs or the intent
bf the Local Government Comprehensive Planning tact.
While the Plan is general in nature, it appears that
there is. an o ✓e_ ..helring e,- h :sis on the land use
aspec'cs of plannLng. The co:u tal r,anag2-aent concerns
as; cciaLed with the portion of Biscayne Bay within
the t•iiami City 1imiLs are ra?ely r:,entioned within
the document. ~Therefore, we feel that more attention
should bc' focJsed on th::' int:e'rface b_ tween the land
and waterand a1:.:o on B.isc-t ne Buy itself.
Thank you for the opportunity to co=ent on this plan.
cct truce Johnson
Lou burney
'borothy F3ergamaschi:
`T'Fit CITY or CORAL CAELtS
OLAh1NII46 tiingctcih
Richard L. Posmoen, AIP
Director
City of Miami, Florida
Planning Department
P. 0. Box 330708
Miami, Florida 33133
NIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD
,PLAN - 1976 - 1986
Dear Mr. rostnoen:
The Planning Board at its meeting held on Monday, January 17, 1977
considered the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan - 1976 - 1986 and
after discussion, the Planning Board instructed me to advise you that
the City of Coral Gables did not have any objection to the Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan.
..JEV
Very truly yours,
THE CITY OF CORAL GABLES
PLANNING BOARD
John.E. Vingant
Secretary
r s
. ,. t.i
urt„n
4
South Florida Regional elannirt'
15) 5 N.W. 167th Street, Suite 429, Miami. Florida 31 6 9 (3O5) 621-5301
COUNC I L MEMBERS
-FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF COMPREHENS I V
LADE COUNTY
ACENUA ITEM #8b
HBCkHCCi OLAt ,
The Council has reviewed the proposed Comprehensive P1i3t of the
City of Miami in accordance with the provisions of the Florida
Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act (LGCPA) of 1975,
Chapter 163, F.S.
We have the following comments concerning specific elements:
I. Traffic circulation element - The suggested rerouting of the
proposed Mass i=,.::pid Transit and the suggested relocation of
transit stations should be coordinated with Dade County. Also,
even though port facilities are managed by Dade County, any
expansion of the Port of "'iarli facilities should beevaluited
In terms of the impacts on the City of Miami, such as
tional
traffic generated, additional requirements for energy and water,
and additional loads on sewage treatment facilities.
. General sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage and notable
water ele^rent - The provision of These services is discussed in
the utility element of the plan. It is noted that potable water
will be available for future growth and that the Miami -Dade
Water and Sewer Authority has a program for installing high pressure
mains in'the Downtown area. The plan also acknowledges that sewer
services should be extended and improved; and appropriate storm
drainage solutions should be developed.
In order to meet the requirements of Chapter 163.3177 (6)(c), which
states that the element be
correlated to principles and guidelines for future
land use indicating ways to provide for future
potable water, drainage, sanitary sewer, and solid
waste requirements ...,
•
redonrrlend that ed f io storm drainage rSolutions
ol uti nsbbe deVei ed
riot. to the adoption of this plan, b) such _o
lutiOnsimp 1emented in conjunction h in uture termsc1ofr fihe un impactfu Urea
water requirements be assessed
d) the program for future high
Sbuth Florida water system; and
pressure mains be included in the plan.
Conservation element - The conservation element addresses water
Conservation by proposing that development guidelines based On
water conservation principles be adopted. While nots required Ode
a-� ,� similar proposal the Act, It is CCU"'..31'1(13b1e ,ii.. 1 5
energy conservation.
to meet the requirements of Chapter 163.3177 (b)(d) which
in order
requires
A conservation element forthe conservation, development,
utilization, and protection of natural resources13intethe
area, including, as the situation may be, ,
la ins,
estuarine marshes, soils, beaches, shores, flood P
rivers, lakes,
harbors, forests, fisheries and wildlife,
minerals, and other natural and environmental resources,
we recommend lhat the proposed guidelines be developed and included
as part of the plan prior to its adoption.
The conservation
element also contains the cc_lstal zone protection
element. The plan recognizes that the County, the South Florida
Regional Planning Council, and State
givingpitsasuppong Ptato the
for
Biscayne Bay and the coastal zo
plans prepared by other units and agencies of government the plan
makes a contribution toward meeting the intent of Chapter 163.3161
(4) which states:
It is the intent of this act jencourage
counties and ere �ceurageon
between and among municipalities
and assure coordination Gan+iwithrgheand
planningnment activitieslo�es
of units of local government
regional agencies and state government in accord with applicable
provisions of law.
In addition, the plan proposes
that guidelines for development
within the coastal zone be adopted.
In order to meet the coastal protection element requirements of
Chapter 163.3177 (6)(g) which specifies
...surveys of existing vegetation types which need to be
preserved for natural control of dune and beach erosion
and surveys of traditional patterns of public access and
use of beach resources, setting out the policies for:
M i ntenance, restoration) and enhancement of the
�,...ra i I quality of the coa st a I zone environment)
iholuding but not limited to, its amenities and
tiesthetic values,
2. Continued existence of optimum populations of all
species of wildlife,
3, The orderly and balanced utilization and preservation,
Consistent with sound conservation principles, of all
living and nonliving coastal zone resources,
4. Avoidance of irreversible and irretrievable commitments
of c03sta1 zone reEcJrc=s.
5. Ecological planning principles and assumptions to be
Used in the determination of suitability and extent of
permitted development.
6. Proposed management and regulatory techniques,
We recommend that the City of ''i mi develop a coastal protection
element including i n,p l e••,entat i cM strategies consistent with State,
regional and county plans for water and coastal zone management,
prior to the adoption of this plan. This is particularly important
in light of the future of Biscayne Bay (and the proposed Biscayne Bay
Aquatic Preserve regulations) and any areas subject to development or
redevelopment such as Virginia Key and Watson island, none of which
are addressed in the conservation element.
Recreation a-i t o n °P ase a l e^ nt -• i he plan propc ec a "unique
recreation and amusement complex"
be constructed on Watson Island.
We recommend that any proposed development be assessed, in the plan, in
terms of parking requirements, traffic generation, water and energy
requirements, and additional loads on sewer facilities. Any proposed
development should also be coordinated with the other elements of the
plan, such as conservation and coastal zone protection.
Housina element - The plan addresses the provision of low and moderate
income housing, the provision of such housing near job opportunities,
and the distribution of publicly -assisted housing. We recommend
that the City continue to coordinate its share of publicly -assisted
housing with the counties and other municipalities in the Region; and
that the City also participate in the evaluation of the Areawide
Housing Opportunities Plan (AHOP) presently being proposed by the
South Florida Regional Planning Council.
Intergovernmental coordination element - The plan states that "it is
the policy of the City of Miami that the Comprehensive Plan and any
modifications thereto shall be coordinated with and related to the
Comprehensive Plans of the State of Florida, Dade County, and the
South Florida Regional Planning Council, and such adjacent municipalities
as such plans exist or are prepared." This is a commendable policy.
However, in order to meet the requirements of Chapter 163.3177 (6)(h)
which requires an element:
�
��
_
�
w'* d *
. - ' ~ . ^" _
Ufd6lihes to be used in the
shmeht of
lah with the plans Of
it ad6ated comprehensive'
tith6o| boards and other units of local government proVyd~(Mg
tefOdes but not having regulatory authority over the use
' Of loAd^ with the comprehensive plans of adjacent
MUM^cipa\\llies, the county, adjacent counties, or the
,region, and (with) the state comprehensive plan, as the
Cage may require and as such adopted plans or plans in
|i�� roy gv�Er. ��i5 e|*~ent of f�y |oca| comprg�
prepare hsYve plan shall deTonstrafe consideration of the partltul6r
Ofgcfs of the |oze\ plan, when adopted, upon the development
of adjacent municipalities, the county, adjacent counties, or
g region ion or on the state oompre"
hans|v* p\pn as the case
may require,
we recommend that prior to adop|Yon of this plan the City develop
tn�eroovarnmentm| coordination relationships and guidelines, and
' - � that the Clfv assess the effects of the plan upon adjacent areat
'
tnd the Region.
We have the following comment concerning the entire plan:
If would appear that the sz'-:::)firn of fho pi-n as submitted, wifho|f
any technical and/or supporting docurr.enfs may greatly diminish
the usefulness of the plan in its implementation. The Act states
that surveys and studies used in developing the plan are not
considered part of the plan unless specifically adopted (Chapter
16].3177(8)). It may be helpful to include the technical support
documents in the plan when adopted, in order to meet the general
requirements of the 8of* such as Chopfar 163.3(77(]) which states:
The economic assumptions on which the plan is based and
any amendments thereto shall be ena|yzed and set out as
a part of the plan. Those a|on.u:fs of the ccmprehensYve
plan requiring fhe e«Pendifuro of public funds for capital
improvements shall carry fiscal proposals relating thereto,
Including, but not limited to, estimated costs, priority
ranking relative to other proposed capital expenditures,
and proposed funding sources.
We therefore raccmmmnd the Clfv consider the adoption of technical`
and/or supporting documents to aid in the planning process andplan implementation.
~
Recommendation:
That the above comments be forwarded to the City of Miami, Dade CoU.',and the Division of State Planning.
*
StATI OF FLORIDA
Ppa1ttit gttt of , 1brimtYtthtratt ti
IDivision of State Planning
66b Apalachee Parkway - IBM Building
TALLAHASSEE
R. G Whittle, Jr.
STATE PLANNING E MA
Mr. Ralph G. Otlgie
Office of the City Clerk
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Dear Mr. Ongie:
Pursuant to s. 163.3184, Plorida Statutes, the biviaion of State Plan. -
fling has conducted a review of the proposed Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan
for the City of Miami. Our review indicated that the content of the sub-
mitted document is too general to adequately evaluate as a plan. In our
opinion, the submitted document is an excellent plan summary, and would be
very useful in soliciting public comment and understanding. However, as the
actual plan there is simply not enough specificity to provide the type of
direction for decision -making as anticipated in they Local Government Compre-
hensive Planning Act. Our conversations with your planning department indi-
cate that there are additional background materials, appendices and district-
level plans. Selections from these materials would no doubt provide needed
policy specificity and background information.
Consequently, we must object to your plan as presently developed.
Specific comments which provide the basis for our objections are attached
for your consideration and possible use. In addition, you will also find
attached comments of other state agencies which had comments after reviewing
your plan.
In accordance with s. 163.3211, Florida Statutes, conformance with a
properly adopted local comprehensive plan does not obviate the need for any
developer of a project meeting the standards in Chapter 22F-2, Florida
Administrative Code (Developments Presumed to be of Regional Impact), to
comply with the provisions of s. 3$O.O6, Florida Statutes. Also, to adop-
tion of a local comprehensive plan does not preclude the designation of an
area of critical concern under the provisions of s. 380.05, Florida Statutes,
at some time in the future.
32304
Mg04) 488-1115
tteubth 0'b. As
tovdRwoi'
a
bey, eti. ail t t` WI liazne
• ttiitui o1 Aomiontrf►tpoe'
MMMMNPZ
MMMMMW
NEMMEW
bMMME
MMEW
MEW
MMMW
11t. Ralph G: Ongie
Page Two
Jtittttaty 24, 101
tit,
•
If we stay be of ng§i ' tit Attdf, do tot be AtiA
tiiceteiy,
; •l-'Y�;: - ,7r^' �.`.SL, ',Pi '=ic=c. nTH-�4;�;'a'�
kji j� �7i tdhittle, Jr,
csr..-, - �S`: =.3 �;• riirls" ,,�x:7Syr"u#~:,^r, _
�l•�EC t V L .. `. 'rc', - <t'ii:,l='v .tip'�urr�.-,1���,���,�`S,u.P`^*z.•� S.
ACI4jriAc
Attachments
cc: South Florida Regional
Planning Council
Metropolitan Dade County
Planning Department
bTV StON OF STATE PLANNING
S N THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE NEIGH$ORHOt t P
LAN
FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI
The Miami Plan represents an excellent start on the comprehensive
pienrtitg process. However, the plans, strategies, and programs presented
throughout ate much too broad and general to provide a meaningful guide for
the growth and development of the City. The lack of depth in development of
the various elements makes it impossible to determine if the elements are
consistent.
2. The economic assumptions on which the plan is based are not analyzed
and set out as part of the plan. A draft Capital Improvement Program was
mentioned in the plan but was not submitted for review. Therefore, the
economic feasibility of the plan could not be determined.
3. Although the Traffic Curculation Element appears to satisfy the mini-
mum requirements of the law, the plan does not satssfy the requirements for
Nass Transit and Port, Aviation and Related Facilities Elements as outlined
in s. 163.3177(7)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes.
4. The general requirements for a general Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste,
Drainage and Potable Water Element are outlined in s. 163.3177(6)C, Florida
Statutes. In your Utility Element, mention is made of each of these compo-
nents; however, little indication is given as to the existing problems, level
of need for these services, how the need will be met, and what facilities and
funding will be required.
5. The provision of the Conservation and Safety Element as presently
developed appears primarily as a plan to do a plan. The Conservation Ele-
ment should address specific policies for the conservation, development,
utilization and protection of natural resources in the area. In addition,
this element identifies saltwater intrusion and a continued supply of
freshwater as significant issues affecting the future well-being of the area.
No specific policies or proposals are presented for dealing with these issues.
6. The Housing and Community Development Elements provide an excellent
approach to positive planning concepts with an emphasis on several levels of
strategies proposed to solve problems and create better communities, but the
simple mention of codes, proposed enabling legislation and some existing
programs seem barely adequate. All major items required by the Statutes are
addressed, however no specific plans, principles or standards are included.
No specific implementation .is included. Provision for tax increment and
tax abatement as well as guarantees from a state hous ing finance agency were
defeated in the November election.
7. The discussions of the Coastal Zone, found in the Conservation
Element, does not address most of the required provisions of the Act for
the tuetal Zone Btotection Lteiaefts lteins such as proposed manage lent and
regulatory techniques, vegetation surveys, maintenance and restoration of te.,
tattling resources including the water quality of Biscayne Bay Aquatic Pre
SetVe, conservation principles, and ecological planning principles should be
included.
8. Miami's central role in Southeast Florida allows it to provide and
receive many regional services. This regional interdependence makes a strong
Intergovernmental Coordination Element essential. The proposed Intergovern-
mental Coordination Element neither shows relationships or guidelines to be
used in accomplishing coordination of the plan with other plans nor demon-
strates consideration of the effects of the plan on the development of other
units of government. For example, the interdependencies in economic activity,
transportation (port, aviation, mass transit, and rail), water, sewer, etc.
are discussed only superficially. Although some of these activities may fall
outside of the city's immediate responsibility or jurisdiction, they should
be addressed since their impact on the city may be substantial. The impact
of proposed plan actions on surrounding jurisdictions is not given.
9. Since 1886, thirteen major hurricanes have passed over or near Dade
County. The delineated 100-year flood plain does not accurately portray the
potential impact of a hurricane on (1) the physical area to be affected, (2)
the capability to evacuate Miami and the surrounding metropolitan area, and
(3) the extent of the potential damage. A Safety Element for the Miami area
should identify evacuation corridors, temporary internment areas, buildings
capable of withstanding the storm and thus providing shelter, and the provi-
sions of emergency water, food and power. In addition, consideration should
be given to civil defense plans to deal with a nuclear accident at Turkey
Point.
10. The attention to energy conservation is commendable. However, only
energy conservation aspects of the built environment, especially operational
costs of new structures, are considered. The energy conservation implications
of land use patterns, transportation, water, and waste management systems are
ignored. Finally, the importance of energy conservation to the city's economy
is not recognized.
e Ok
.Plorida Department of Transportation
Haytion burnt Building, 605 SuRann44 Strtbet, Tallahat.04, Florida 32304, tOlegthonl MO 48041M
l'oliA %natl. JR.
SECREtAlk,
OIEUEHN dz. ASKEW
00vERNoA
Januaty 12, 1977
Mt: Helge St4AtiSoft0 Chief
tuteau of Comprehensive Planning
Division of State Planning
Department of Administration
660 Apalachee Parkway
IBM Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Dear Mr. Swanson:
This is in reply to your Review and Comment Cover Sheet of December 8,
1976, which transmitted "Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1976-1986"
prepared by the City of Miami. You requested review of this document as
specified in Chapter 75-257, Laws of Florida, 1975 (now Sections 163.3161-
,3211, F.S.).
The "Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1976-1986" appears to have
addressed the required elements of the Local Government Comprehensive Plan
of Section 163.3177, F.S. The transportation element of the Plan presents
a very general description of the traffic circulation element required by
Section 163.3177(6)(h), as well as the mass transit, port, non -automotive
vehicular, and pedestrian traffic required by Sections 163.3177(7)(a-c), F.S.
The off-street parking plans required by Section 163.3177(7)(d) do not
seem to be covered in the plan at all and the other transportation
elements are so general that there is no possibility of reviewing fiscal
proposals for capital expenditures and proposed funding sources required
by Section 163.3177(3), F.S.
The transportation element material in the plan, together with the
maps, community design concepts, and the economic feasibility at imple-
mentation sections give a good basis for the continuing planning process
contemplated by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act. Special
attention must be given to coordinating access through the City of Miami
to the Miami International Airport and from the Port of Miami to the
adjoining Dade County.
The transportation element of the Miami Local Government Comprehensive
Plan will continua to be a very dynamic and changing activity. The
extensive studies associated with the Dade Area Rapid Transit (DART) and
the Miami Urban Area Transportation Study (MUATS) process will require
that the City of Miami coordinate very closely and participate in these
DART and MUATS program studies. %'k urge continued coordination in this
y�%¢�:A•samai ;s;'i�PA'��R411!
Mrs fieige S vansott
Januaty 12, 1911
Page 2
ttanspottatioh planning kith the Metropolitat Dadd County Ttahsit Agendy,
Policy and Technical Coordinating Committees and the staff of the tiati.
'Urban Area Transportation Study as well as with the Foutth District of
the Florida Depattment of Transportation in Ft. Lauderdale.
Sincerely,
eet fir. W. X. Fowler
Mr. W. D. Merrell
Mr. F. J. Fearnside
Senator Ralph Poston
Dr. John Dyer
RAY G. L'AMOREAUY, DIRECTOR
DIVISION OF PLANNING & PROGRA tNO
61,
V. N. L__ofroos, P. E.
Chief, Bureau of Planning
mmr
ENE
MEP
MED
Planning
reviewed by
G
. ' State of Florida
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
IIARMON W.SIIIELDS
E:secutive Director
CROWN Rlal_DING! 202 RLOUN1 SIRI+1 1'ALLAIIASSLE 32304
January 14, 1977
Mr, Robert Kessler
Bureau of Comprehensive Planning
Division of State Planning
660 Apalachee Parkway IBM Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Dear Mr. Kessler:
Reference is made to the City of Miami Comprehensive
Document.
Referenced comprehensive planning document has been
the Department staff. Comments are as follows:
A. Division of Resource Management (Bureau of Coastal Zone
Planning);
1. The Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, as presented for
review, appears to be a summary of various technical reports de-
veloped in the comprehensive planning process. While this document
may be very useful for meeting public participation requirements,
we feel that it does not meet the requirements of the Local Govern-
ment Comprehensive Planning Act. Specifically, the Coastal Zone
Element requires the development of policies related to five aspects
of coastal management and regulatory techniques. Policies must be
specific in relationship to:
a. The maintenance, restoration and enhancement of the en-
vironmental quality of the coastal zone;
b. the maintenance of optimum population of wildlife;
the balance use and preservation of coastal resources;
the avoidance of irreversible commitments of coastal
resources and;
the ecological principles to be utilized in determining
the suitability and extent of future developments.
REt'RIN U'D. ASKEW
Governor
Ilkl'UE A. SMAi IIEkS
Secretary of State
R(1)HERT L. SIIEVIN
Attorney General
GE RALI) A. I.LW'IS
Comptroller
f'flil.if E. MOILER
fre;rsurer
DOVI.E COSNER
C'nmmisiooner of ARricuthire
RAW! O.'MR IANGTON
Commissioner Of Education
t1 1'It:�T11'F: SEILV'It?F:S • I.i11Y FoRcEMENT • :A1Aitt' I K1:S0URG:F:S
RCCR :A7 ioN ANI) Y.1fc+K5 • ItI SUUItf'i' :M.. NAGF:NIA:NT
Mr. kibert Kesslef
Page TWO
January 14, 197'7
Apparently these specific requirements are to be met based upon,
a one paragraph discussion of generalized guidelines. While we
generally agree with the policies stated within these guidelines,
We feel that they do not Meet either the specific requirements or
the intent of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act.
2. While the Plan is general in nature, it appears that there
is an overwhelming emphasis or. the land use aspects of planning.
The coastal management concerns associated with the portion of
Biscayne Bay within the °'.iani City 1ir.its are rarely mentioned within
the document. Therefore, we feel that more attention should be
focused on the interface between the and and water and also on
Biscayne Bay itself.
Division
of Recreation and Parks:
An impressive work, somewhat hard to review, but a too
workable plan.
Sincerely,
James G. Smith .„
Assistant to the Executive bisector
0
NpU
PLANNING' DEPARTMENT. , I
. �.1 -X VY� Vic'. '..fij S
quite 900, 0ritkell Plata, 90S 5.E, ist Ava., `Mimi.'Plarida 33111
Mr. ka1ph G. Ongie, :City
City of Miami
P.O. Box 330708
Miami, Florida 33133
1
• • (3)51 579-2800
anuaty 28, 977
Dear Mr. Ongie:
The Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department has reviewed the pro-
posed "City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, 1976-1986" pur-
suant to the responsibilities as set forth by the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 and the Metropolitan Dade County
Charter. The following comments result from review of the proposed Plan
with respect to tiie County responsibilities for 1) preparation of County-
wide comprehensive plans, 2) provision of certain County -wide and trans-
ferred municipal -level facilities and services within the City of Miami,
and 3) development planning and regulation in incorporated areas adjacent
to the City of Miami.
General Comments
The proposed Plan, together with the reference detailed backup reports,
represents a major planning accomplishment for the City of Miami.
However, the planning processes indicated in this project should be
considered only as a beginning in providing the full planning/management
framework required for the central city of the major metropolitan area.
Two factors make it difficult to relate the proposed plan to the County's
planning processes: 1) the unavailability of the referenced backup
reports to the proposed Plan document hampers the complete understanding
of the basis for the Plan recommendations, and 2) the lack of color
clarity between the land use legend and map makes it difficult to fully
determine the land use densities depicted. if these two difficulties
were corrected, a portion of the following comments might be found to be
unnecessary or invalid.
The Sepatttent finds the two major deficiencies of the Plan are: 1) the
abaet►ce of a clear statement of the goals and policies for the City that
forted the basis of the Plan, and 2) the lack of recognition of the
responsibilities of the County and other governmental jurisdictions for
certain of the Plan elements and implementing activities. The proposed
Plan should contain a full statement of goals, objectives, and policies
and srategies related to the City's role as a central city of a rapidly
growing major metropolitan area. Such a statement would provide a clear
direction for the development and redevelopment of the City that would
be helpful in gaining full support from other cities, the County, State
and nation in helping the City of Miami fulfill its proper role. Without
such a statement the City will have missed an opportunity to enlist the
assistance of these other levels of government in achieving its pro-
posals. Correspondingly, the Plan needs to fully recognize that many of
the proposals are not the City's direct responsibility and have not been
fully coordinated with the planning and Implementation programs of the
responsible governmental units. The implementation activities that are
its responsibility should be more fully dimensioned within the document
in terms of the City's ability to accomplish them within the necessary
time frame. The proposed Plan would be more effective if i.t were more
a policies document and less of a proposal_ of a program of specific
activities that may not have been fully determined to be feasible. The
Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act encourages the preparation
of unrealistic plans when it fails to recognize that each unit of
government is not responsible for all of the planning functions within
its boundaries and does not provide the complete mechanism for coordi-
nating this planning with the responsible jurisdiction. Additionally,
the "effect of law" status of plans adopted pursuant to the State act is
not totally compatible with the use of the proposed Plan as a beginning
point of negotiation with other governmental jurisdictions responsible
for carrying out some of the proposals.
Specific Comments
The following specific comments on various parts of the Plan reflect the
opinion of the Planning Department staff and the several County agencies
that provided comments.
As mentioned above, the statement of Purposes and Objectives of the Plan
are too broadly stated to permit the Plan to be properly evaluated. The
intergovernmental coordination of proposals set forth in the Plan are a
good beginning, but need to be strengthened. Proposals are recommended
that require more extensive interaction between planners, managers and
policy -makers before they can be finalized. To accomplish this full
coordination will require going beyond the minimal requirements of the
Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act.
g
ie
The l conomic Feasibility Element is one of the tote difficult requirements
of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act for any governmental
unit to meet. Without the referenced draft Capital Improvement Program
being available for review, it is impossible to determine the extent to
which the City Plan is economically feasible in terms of the requirement
it places on County government for funding of additional facilities and
services.
Three of the six stated actions listed in the Implementation section
have a major bearing on County responsibilities. The adoption of a
Capital Improvements Program and budget is indeed an important plan
implementation device; the City needs to work closely with Dade County's
processes toward coordinative programming of City and County improvements
needed to implement the proposed Plan. The requirement for broadened
urban renewal powers needs to be coordinated very closely with the
County since the County's Charter identifies this as a County function.
It is imperative that both governments work closely together in achieving
the enactment of Tax Increment Financing and Tax Abatement as a major
tool for plan implementation. Again, it is important that there be a
commitment from the total metropolitan community to help the City of
Miami fulfill its central city role and responsibilities.
The housing and Residential Neighborhoods Element is one portion of the
Plan that explicitly recognizes the interdependency between the City of
Miami and the metropolitan area. As documented by the statistics
cited, the shift of the public housing program from a City to a nearly
county -wide based activity has yet to match the historic support the
City has provided for publicly assisted housing.
As suggested, the provision of adequate low- and moderate -income housing
is a community wide responsibility with the central city continuing to
play a major role. A more explicit metropolitan strategy needs to be
developed that permits the proper sharing of responsibility between the
City of Miami, other municipalities, and the County. Again, this is an
activity that needs to have major coordination to develop proper solutions.
If the City is to realize the proposal to utilize public tax money to
encourage middle income housing, it will need the full support of the
metropolitan community in achieving the necessary legislative changes.
Two of the neighborhood development strategies hold major implications
for the County's responsibility for the provision of facilities and
services. Of the several direct services suggested as appropriate
treatment for areas that are service intensive, the County has major
responsibility for such services as manpower, health and housing oppor-
tunity. Similiarly, the suggested strategy for redevelopment areas
includes recognition of the role of public transit as a potential
generator of market demand that will permit better utilization of land.
Agie
the Public Services and Facilities Element suggests several actions that
Can be undertaken to improve the quality of life t. thin the City of
►4iami. A number of these are the responsibility of the County, or other
governmental jurisdictions, and thus in need of full coordination before
their achievement can be programmed or accomplished. The recent shift
of Federal grant funds from categorical to block grant programs that
have diminished the County's revenues and increased the City's, should
be recognized in the programming of social services.
The Transportation Element is another area of clear need for full recog-
nition of the County's responsibilities for metropolitan planning and
service delivery. In the absence of a clear statement of the trans-
portation goals and strategies necessary for the City of Miami to properly
realize its central city role, most of the actions recommended are
difficult to evaluate and premature in view of the extensive planning
the County has underway through the Miami Urban Area Transportation
Study update and the Rapid Transit Improvement Program. The Transpor-
tation Element of the Plan needs to have a thorough policies orientation
and a somewhat longer time frame. Such a policy framework would have
provided the basis for a more thorough treatment of such considerations
as the relationship between the provision of downtown people movers and
restricting of automobile usage downtown. Also, certain of the pro-
posals; i.e. the replacement of two bridges and construction of a new
one within a three block area, exceed any identified need and resources.
In summary, this section should be more policies oriented and the pro-
posed actions should be given further evaluation within the County's
ongoing transportation planning processes. Better yet, the City could
defer action on the Transportation Element until the MUATS 2000 process
can be completed to provide a County -wide transportation plan.
The Economic Development Element is one of the logical places to provide
a more complete analysis of the City's role vis-a-vis the County's. The
Plan document does not reflect any analysis of the City's function
within the context of long-term economic trends in Dade County and South
Florida. Hopefully, the backup documentation to the Plan includes a
more thorough treatment of the issues concerning central city economic
vitality. The strategies proposed do recognize the demonstrated ability
of public improvements and private projects to stimulate central city
economic development. The important role of the convention center and
the rapid transit system as catalysts to further economic vitality of
the central city is noted, but more attention must be devoted to identi-
fying the other. ingredients. The strategy to effect legislation permitting
Tax Increment and Tax Abatement financing clearly is an effort that will
require the full backing, support and coordination of local governmental
units as well as other urban areas throughout the State.
•
Mt. Ralph d. dngid
The Community Design Element considetations ate in cotiplete cchpatibiiity
ttith County -wide policies and plans►
The Utility Element does not properly recognize the County's role and
responsibility. The Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Authority's function in
the provision of water and sanitary sewer service in the City of Miami
is different from that described. The Authority is responsible for
designing, constructing, owning, operating and maintaining all the water
trains both inside and outside of the City of Miami. Sanitary sewer
collection systems within the City are designed and installed by the
City Public Works Department and are transferred to the Authority for
ownership, operation and maintenance. The sanitary sewer interceptor
system and large pumping stations are designed, constructed, owned, and
operated by the Authority. This division of responsibility, while
effectively providing water and sewer service to the City of Miami,
heightens the need to have coordination with the metropolitan -wide
entity.
The Recreation and Open Space Element contains a good balance of facility
and program proposals that are comparative with the County plans. The
suggested limit of 15 acreas for mini -parks seems high for central city
neighborhoods; additional smaller parks would perhaps be more effective.
The Conservation and Safety Element contains wide-ranging strategies
that suggest an agenda for further planning that would include approaches
for cooperative efforts at City, County and regional levels. This
section properly recognized ongoing planning responsibilities and
programs at each government level.
The Future Land Use and Transportation Map component of the proposed
City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan appears to be compatible
with Dade County plans. However, several factors make the full comparison
between the City and the County plans difficult. The previously mentioned
difficulty relating the map and legend, the use of maximum density
designations, and the scale and detail of the City Plan prohibits ready
determination of the relationship of the City's Plan with the County's.
Perhaps, the most ready comparison between the intent of the two plans
is the respecitve population projections which indicate that the two
plans provide for essentially the same population within the boundaries
of the City of :Miami. However, the full achievement of the land use
plan and the strategies and actions contained within tha various elements
of the City's Plan must draw on resources beyond those that would be
expected to accompany the additional development the City would expect
to be generated through population growth alone. The achievment of the
full implementation of the Plan will, again, require exteftsive commitment
of resources outside of the confines and responsibility of the City of
Mani.
Several specific conflicts between City and County plans do exist. The
adopted Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan proposes
residential development in the narrow corridor between N.W. 7th Avenue
and I-95 north of 36 Street, while the City's Plan shows commercial
development within this area. Also, the proposed development south and
southeast of Miami International Airport appears to propose a density of
developments that might be incompatible with that designated for these
areas by the joint City of Miami - Dade County MIA Compatibility Study.
Similarly, there appears to be no acknowledgement in the City's Plan of
the airport study recommendations that sound -proof construction be used
and places of public assembly be excluded in the development and redevelop-
ment of such areas. It is imperative that the City and the County work
together in the review and implementation of necessary development
regulations in the vicinity of this important economic activity center.
The transit route and station locations shown in the proposed Plan
should not be considered binding until further final design work has
proceeded. The proposals can, however, be used as alternatives for
review and consideration in the subsequent stages of the rapid transit
program planning. In a broader sense, the City's Plan is generally
conpatible with the County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan along
the rapid transit corridor, in terms of the types of development and the
indicated station area goals, although there are differences in recommended
development densities. The City's proposed Plan does recognize common
plan objectives with regard to transit area stations by designating
portions of each transit station area for "special use" that will permit
mixed use development compatible with the transit system operation. In
recognition of extensivec detailed planning required to more precisely
determine the appropriate types, locations and densities of the develop-
ment around transit stations and the potential for changes in station
location, we suggests that the area on either side of the transit route
be depicted as a "transit development corridor" subject to plan refine-
ment in accord with the plans prepared and adopted for the transit
system. The detailed planning would need to be conducted as a coordi-
nated City -County effort.
In eonciusion, we commend the City fot its pioneering preparation of a
plan that addresses all of the elements mandated by the State Act, The
product should be strengthened in its goals and objective delineation
and its coordination of the specific plans and programs that involve
County responsibilities. This agency looks forward to assisting the
City in plan refinement and implementation.
Sirneere)y,
r`
r<e , - 1
L ' r�J r„t 4 I
Reginald R. Walters, Director
Planning Department
ltM AR$: na
cc: Division of State Planning
South Florida Regional Planning Council
Cities of Coral Gables and Hialeah
itfr
DST
bear Sir:
The Miami City Commission Will consider the adoption of dertaih
proposed elements of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan
(enclosed) in public hearing at 2:00 PM, April 27, 1977 at City
Hall, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida to satisfy the requirements of
the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 (Chapter
75-257 F. S.).
The Miami City Commission, by Resolution 76-1031 dated November
17,1976 (attached) has authorized the transmission of these pro-
posed elements of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan to the
agencies specified by, or other agencies which have requested a
copy, as per Section 9 (1) of the aforementioned Act in order to
receive your written comments on the proposed plan by January 27,
1977. The Commission will transmit responses to your written com-
ments by February 23, 1977. The tentative schedule leading to
adoption is also attached.
All of the required elements are being submitted for review. For
your convenience, a checklist is attached showing in the left-hand
column all general, required, and optional elements enumerated in
the above Act, and in the right-hand column those elements being
considered for adoption by the City of Miami.
Please return your written comments to this office.
Sincerely,
Ralph G. Ongie
City Clerk
Distribution to the following:
1. Division of State Planning
2. Bureau of Coastal Zone Planning, Dept. of Natural Resources
3. South Florida Regional Planning Council
4. Dade County Planning Department
5. Cities of Coral Gables and Hialeah
Dion of State Planning
Mt, Ronald G. Whittle, Jr., DiteCteit
biVision of State Planning
bepartment of Administration
660 Apalachee Parkway
IBM Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
2. Bureau of Coastal Zone Planning
Department of Natural Resources
Mr. Bruce Johnson
Bureau of Coastal Zone Planning
Department of Natural Resources
115 Bloxham Street - Pennington Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
3. South Florida Regional Planning Council
Mr. M. Barry Peterson, Executive Director
South Florida Regional Planning Council
1515 NW 167th Street - Suite 429
Miami, Florida 33169
4. Dade County Planning Department
Mr. Reginald Walters, Director
Dade County Planning Department
Brickell Plaza
909 SE 1st Avenue
Miami, Florida
5. City of Coral Gables
Mr. John E. Vinsant
Planning Director
City of Coral Gables
PODrawer 341549
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
6. City of Hialeah
Mr. Richard W. Gross, Director
Manpower and Community Development Planning Office
City of Hialeah
86 East 6th Street
PO Box 40
Hialeah, Florida 33011
TO:
Ralph di dtig ie
pity Clerk
CITY L;- A4iAM. Fi.CktDA
R OFflCE MEMORANDUM
13'I * Waton, Sr. i bireCtbr
Plal.ng Department
M Vember 2 3 ,19 7 6
Agenda Item # 1
City Commission Meeting:
November 17,1976 - firafisnlission
illti F' df MCNP
Enclosed, for your use in transmitting the Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan to certain government agencies per Resolution
76-1031, are the following materials:
1. Draft letter, over your signature, and distribution list
2. Copy of Resolution 76-1031 (please substitute the original
signed copy from your files)
Tentative Schedule
Checklist
6, Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan
(6 copies)
Responses are to be returned from these agencies to you by January
27, 1976. Please forward them to this Department as they are received.
GJA:JWM:jd
enclosures,.
Minimum
60 days
(State law)
SSE
'TENTATIVE SCHEDULE FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE
MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
1J GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACT' or 7$
Maximum 4 weeks
(State law)
Minimum 2 weeks
(State law)
- Miami City Commission
November 17,1976- Miami City Commission
receives MCNP from Planning Advisory
13oard, and authorizes transmission of
tbpie s to:
Division of State Planning, Department
of Administration (DSP will advertise
City Commission public hearing of
April 27, 1977).
Coastal Coordinating Council
South Florida Regional Planning Council.
Dade County Planning Department
Any unit of local government or govern-
mental agency that has requested a copy.
3anua ry 27, 1977
from a-e (above).
- A11 comments due
February 9, 1977- Miami Planning Advisory
$oard public hearing to make recommenda-
tions regarding adoption of MCNP and to
recommend response to a-e (above).
4. February 23, 1977- Miami City Commission
transmits response to a-e (above).
5, April 27, 1977
Public Ilearing: consideration of adoption
of MCNP.
=At GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNINd ACT
CHAPTER 75=257 tt
CHECKLIST
et a 'al, Required and Optional Elements
(Elements are numbered per Section 7 of the Aet)
General Requirements:
Elements Reifiq Trati§41.1.tted by
Miami
1. The comprehensive plan shall consist
of materials in such descriptive form
written or graphic, as may be appropri-
ate to the presecription of principles,
guidelines, and standards for the orderly
and balanced future economic, social,
physical, environmental and fiscal devel-
opment of the area. (See purpose & objectives)
2. Elements shall be coordinated and (See Intergovernmental Coordi-
consistent and the plan shall be econ- nation & Economic Feasibility)
omically feasible.
3. The economic assumptions on which the (See Economic Development)
plan is based shall be set out.
4. The plan shall be coordinated with the (See Intergovernmental Coordi-
plans of adjacent municipalities, of nation)
the County or region and to the State
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The plan shall contain implementation (See Implementation)
recommendations.
Required Elements:
6. The plan shall include the following
elements:
a. a future land use plan
a traffic circulation element
a utilities element
.�_:.. a conservation element
(see
(see
(see
Future Land Use Plan)
Transportation Element)
Utility Element)
(see Conservation and Safety
Element)
recreation and open
i.e nei t
housing element
pale see Ream t o & M Open
Space)
(See Housing & 1e8idential
Neighborhood Element
A Coastal zone management element(See Conservation & Safety
El
an intergovernmental coordina-
tion element
an electrical utility element (See Utility Element)
P':ional Elements
7. The plan may include
additional elements,
and (b) are required
Miami's population:
the following
however, (a)
for cities of
a. mass transit element
port and aviation facilities
a non -automotive vehicular and
pedestrian element
off-street parking element
public services and facilities
element
public buildings and related
facilities element
a community design element
a general area redevelopment
element
a safety element
(See Intergovernmental
Coordination)
(gee Transportation Element)
(See Dade County Comprehensive
Development Master Plan; port
and avaiation facilities are
owned and operated by Dade
County.
(NOT INCLUDED)
(NOT INCLUDED)
(NOT INCLUDED)
(See Community Design)
(See Neighborhood Treatment)
(See Conservation & Safety
Element)
an historic and scenic preserva- (See Conservation & Safety
Element)
tion element
an economic element
(See Economic Development
Element)