HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-75-013518
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
MEA 41
1/22/75
RESOLUTION NO. 75-155..
A RESOLUTION ISSUING A DEVELOPMENT ORDER,
APPROVING WITH MODIFICATIONS, DEVELOPMENT
OF REGIONAL IMPACT ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOP-
MENT BY EDWARD N. CLAUGHTON, JR, AND PRATES
PROPERTIES INC., FOR UNPLATTED CLAUGHTON
ISLAND, LOCATED IN BISCAYNE BAY AT THE FOOT
OF S.E. 8TH STREET, AFTER CONDUCTING A PUBLIC
HEARING AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 380.06, FLORIDA
STATUTES AND CITY OF MIAMI ORDINANCE NO. 8290,
AND CONSIDERING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
AND THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE DEVELOP-
MENT ORDER ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A".
WHEREAS, the Miami Advisory Board, at its meeting
of December 18, 1974, Item #1, following an advertised
hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 54-74 by a 6 to 0 vote
(one member absent) recommending the issuance of a Develop-
ment Order with modifications; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has considered the
report of the South Florida Regional Planning Council and
each element required to be considered by Chapter 380.06
of the Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission deems it advisable
and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City
of Miami, as more specifically set forth in the City
Commission Meeting minutes of February 12, 1975, incorporated
herein by reference, to issue a development order for the
development of regional impact as hereinafter set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: "DOCUMENT Ii�DEX
rr
Section 1. The Development Order, attached
hereto as Exhibit "A", approving with modifications,
Development of Regional Impact on the proposed development
by Edward N. Claughton, Jr. and Frates Properties Inc„
for Unplatted Claughton Island, located in Biscayne Bay at
the foot of S.E, 8th Street, after conducting a public
36
2
3
4
5
6
`i
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
hearing as required by Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes
and City of Miami ordinance No. 8290, and considering the
report and recommendation of the South Florida Regional
Planning Council and the Planning Advisory Board of the
City of Miami, and considering each element required to
be considered in accordance with Chapter 380.06 of the
Florida Statutes, be and the same is hereby granted and
issued.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 12 day of
FEBRUARY , 1975.
rMAURI CE A, FERRE
MAYOR
)
TEST:,/.J r.( ,1
H , D; OUTHERN 1.)
.CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
MICHEL A. ANDERSON
Assistant City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
,TOHN S. LLOYD
UC ity Attorney
crry
s;NJTEk-uf-Fi_.E N1E'y1ORArJDUM
The Honorable Members of the
City Commission
~John S. Lloyd
City Attorney
January 20, 1975
Claughton Island
Attached hereto are two Resolutions for the
development known as Claughton Island.
The first is a Resolution issuing a Development
Order. This is to comply with Florida Statute
Section 380.06 which requires the City of Miami
to hold a hearing and issue a Development Order
for developments of regional impact.
FI
The second Resolution is for the approval of the
Development Concept Plan for the Claughton Island
Project. This Resolution is necessary to comply with
the recently enacted SPD-1 Central Island District
Ordinance.
The conditions shown in both of the above Resolutions
are a result of the studies done by the Planning
Advisory Board. As you know, the City Commission
may make whatever changes it desires in the conditions
of these Resolutions or may refuse to adopt the
Resolutions.
JSL/MEA,/s
outh Florida Regional Planning Council
1515 N.W. 167th Street, Suite 429, Miami, Florida 33169 (305) 611-5871
?ebruaty 10, 1975
'The honorable Maurice Ferre
Mayor, City of Miami
City Hall
P.O. Box 330708
Coconut Grove Station
Miami, Florida 33133
Dear Mayor Ferret
In view of the fact that the City of Miami Commission will be reviewing
the Claughton Island project tomorrow, 1 want to take this opportunity
to give you my impressions of the applicability of the developments of
regional impact process to the Claughton Island project and the respective
roles of the Miami City Commissioners and the South Florida Regional
Planning Council.
Chapter 380, Florida Statutes - The Environmental Land and Water Management
Act of 1972 - directs "that the State establish land and water management
policies to guide and coordinate local decisions relating to growth and
development; that such State land and water policies should, to the maximum
possible extent, be implemented by local governments through existing processes
for the guidance of growth and development".
In addition to the application of State policies, Section 380.06, Developments
of Regional Impact (DRI) designates regional planning agencies to prepare
impact reports for Developments of Regional Impact to be forwarded as
recommendations to local government.
The South Florida Regional Planning Council is not a State agency, but is a
council whose members are county and municipal local elected officials from
Palm Beach, Broward, Dade and Monroe counties. This Council has been designated
by the State to prepare DRI impact reports on proposed projects within this
area.
Since the Claughton Island project has been determined under State Department
of Administration Rules to be a DRI, it has been reviewed by the South Florida
Regional Planning Council as required under the Environmental Land and Water
Management Act of 1972.
In September, 1974, the Council reviewed the Claughton Island Application for
Development Approval (ADA), as it was then proposed by the developer. The
report identified four major regional issues: (1) transportation; (2) conflict
with development of the Miami Central Business District; (3) intensity of
development; and (4) public facilities. Based on these regional impacts, the
Council recommended to the Miami City Commission that the project be denied
until these regional issues and any additional local issues were resolved.
911
The fioh(tabe Maurice Vette
Pebttiary 10, 105
Page 2
The Act requires that the local govetnMent hold a public heating oh the
proposed bRI. At the hearing the local government officials, in considering
whether the development shall be approved, denied` of approved subject to
conditions, restrictions or limitations, are required by the Act to consider
the following:
(a) The development unreasonably interferes with the achievement of
the objectives of an adopted state land development plan applicable.
to the area (none in the case of Claughton Island);
(b) The development is consistent with the.local land development
regulations (City of Miami's Zoning Regulations); and
(c)- The development is consistent with the report and recommendations
of the regional planning agency (South Florida Regional Planning Council).
On the basis of the above considerations, the Miami City Commission will
issue a Development Order which either approves, denies, or approves subject
to conditions, restrictions and limitations, the Claughton Island application.
This Development Order is then subject to appeal by the South Florida Regional
Planning Council, the Division of State Planning or the developer, to the
Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Governor and Cabinet).
From the Council's standpoint, it is important that the Development Order
deals with the regional issues, indicating what conditions were necessary to
mitigate the adverse regional impacts. Some of the adverse impacts may have
been altered due to changes in the original project concept as it was presented
in the ADA and reviewed by the Council last September. If this is the case,
the ADA should be amended by the Applicant in order that it fairly represents
the project as acted upon by the Miami City Commission.
The Development Order is for the Council, what a PUD or zoning approval is
for the Miami City Commission. The Development Order is the legal basis
upon which the SFRPC is assured that negative regional impacts have been
appropriately resolved. It is the content of this document which the Council
carefully reviews in considering appropriate action under the administrative
appeal procedures of the Environmental Land and Water Management Act.
I hope this abbreviated summary of the Development of Regional Impact process,
and the roles of the Miami City Commission and the South Florida Regional
Planning Council, will be of assistance to you with regards to the Claughton
The Honorable Maurice Pette
?ebrtiary 10, 1915
-Page 3
tsland project. Please feel free to contact fie in the future if t
can be of further assistance.
Sincerely yours,
M. Bar Peterson, AIP
Executa Director
MBP/as
cc: Mr. George Action
The Honorable J. L. Plumer, Jr.
The Honorable Rose Gordon
The honorable Theodore Gibson
The Honorable Nanolo Reboso
t(11
�••:•,f CO plp
Honorable City Commission
Attention: Mr. P. W. Andrews
City of Miami, Florida
Gentlemen:
ribs
January 2, 1975
Re: DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT -
RECOMMENDED
Claughton (Burlingame) Island
Located ,in Biscayne Bay at the
foot of S.E. 8th Street
UNPLATTED
Applicant: Frates Properties Inc.
The Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of December 18, 1974,
Item #1, following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution PAB 54-74
by a 6 to 0 vote (one member absent) Recommending the issuance of a
Development Order, approving with modifications, the development proposed
by Edward N. Claughton, Jr. and Frates Properties Inc., for UNPLATTED
Claughton Island, located in Biscayne Bay at the foot of S. E. 8th Street,
after conducting a public hearing as required by Chapter 380.06, Florida
Statutes and City of Miami Ordinance 8290, and considering the report
and recommendation of the South Florida Regional Planning Council,
subject to conditions as set forth on Pages 59 and 60 of the Planning
Advisory Board minutes of December 18, 1974.
A RESOLUTION to provide for the above has been prepared by the City
Attorney's office and submitted for consideration of the City
Commission.
Sincerei.y,
David Simpson, ` r., irector
Department of Administration
Planning and Zoning Boards
cm
Z. M. 36
Attached: Minutes
cc: Law Department
NOTE: Planning Department recommendation: "DENIAL".
Tentative City Commission date: January 23, 1975.
January 2, 1975
Honorable City Commission
Attention: Mr. P. W. Andrews
City of Miami, Florida
Re: DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN -
'RECOMMENDED
Claughton (Burlingame) Island
Located in Biscayne Bay at the
foot of S. E. 8th Street
UNPLATTED
Applicant: Frates Properties Inc.
Gentlemen:
The Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of December 18, 1974,
Item #2, following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution PAB 55-74
by a 6 to 0 vote (one member absent) Recommending the "Development
Concept Plan" after consideration as set out in Resolution PAB 54-74,
and as presented by Edward N. Claughton, Jr. and Frates Properties, Inc.,
for UNPLATTED Claughton Island, located in Biscayne Bay at the foot
of S. E. 8th Street, in accordance with Ordinance 6871, ARTICLE XXI-3,
SPD-I (Central Island District), subject to conditions as set forth
on Pages 98 and 99 of the Planning Advisory Board minutes of December
18, 1974.
A RESOLUTION to provide for the above has been prepared by the City
Attorney's office and submitted for consideration of the City
Commission.
(&\ncereY,
4}a
David Simpson, ., Didlector
Department of Administration
Planning and Zoning Boards
cm
Z. M. 36
attached: Minutes
cc: Law Department
NOTE: Planning Department recommendation: "DENIAL".
Tentative City Commission date: January 23, 1975.
.114-1:
}�.:• i .j i
•
;:irz% �
ii•i i.
.ii. ,rt.`t
Q.:1l'rii
knt i!litt
iatiti ,i ut \t a rir.it ]riur
111iimi, = Iuriil;t 231,11
February 21, 1975
Frates Properties, Inc.
c/o Day, Davies and Poe
5800 Skelly Drive East
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Gentlemen:
At the direction of the City Commission we are forwarding to you
herewith a copy of Resolution No. 75-135, passed and adopted by said
City Commission at its meeting held on February 12, 1975.
liDS/s Encl.
Yours very truly,
H. D. Southern
City Clerk
H U `'OJ T HE RN
Cr-T.
RALPH G. ONGI"r_
AS7liT'1HT !:ry CLEAtt
(
.t �4. ''
u� i i
Mr. Edward N. Clau;hton, Jr.
34 SE 2nd Avenue
Miami, Florida
Dear Mr. C1aughtont
firt
41
rot` Q:irrit
i;!l( ;ijal't
3.iliq iJ tt Autrriran �ritir
�alia;tti, Y1urila 33133
February 21, 1975
At the direction of the City Commission we are forwarding to you
herewith a copy of Resolution No. 75-135, passed and adopted by said
City Commission at its meeting held on February 12.
HDS/s Encl.
Yours very truly,
H. D. Southern
City Clerk
H.0 -SOUTHERN
CITY CLERK
RA`PH G. ONGIE:
,ASSI.;TANT CITY CLERK
li)` tt r tit it'!s Lihrh
i_It ;1IIt Attt'rtritt !trtitr
�ii; tmi, ti +;tr;l t 331
February 21, 1975
Division of State Planning
DepaLLWeLLL of Administration
660 Apalache Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida
Gentlemen:
At the direction of the City Commission we are forwarding to you
h rewith a copy of Resolution No. 75-135, passed and adopted by said
City Commission at its meeting held on February 12, 1975..
Yours very truly,
11. D. Southern
City Clerk
it "3 SOLlTHMPN
C[Tv
RALPH G. OVGtE
A,<<Sr;.•J' C; CL.Ear.
FROM
CI t bt NiIOM, FLE Rt1 A
iNtER,CO lot MEMORANDUM
Planning Advisory Board
1
ge / cto ; Jr. , Di
• Planning Department
ctor
DATE: December 11 1974
SUBJECT
Claughton Island
REFERENCES.
ENCLOSURES:
PETI TION
2. Claughton (Burlingame) Island
Located in Biscayne l3ay at the foot of SE 8th Street
UNPLATTED
Request for the approval of a Special Planned
Development on the above site, as per Ordinance
6871, ARTICLE XXI-3, Section 2; zoned SPD-1
(Central Island District).
FILE!
Planning Department Recommendation: Denial
The development of Claughton Island represents a great opportunity for the
future social and economic growth of Downtown Miami. It is therefore vitally
important to promote the most beneficial development of the Island and to
encourage the creation of a self-contained residential community with the highest
quality of site planning and design. The developers of Claughton Island have pre-
sented a "development concept plan" containing a well organized spatial arrange-
ment of residential, office and retail activities, several interesting open space
areas and a combination of housing typeE. Ilowever, it is the recommendation
of the Planning Department that the proposal be denied for the reasons contained
in the following report.
GJA:JWM:JAR:jd
attachment
004
Planning Advisory 13oard Decettiber 11, 1974
IMPACT tVALUATION
Introduction
The proposed 44 acre Claughton Island development is the first Development
of Regional Impact within the City of Miami. Originally a spoil bank resulting
from deepening the Miami River Channel, it is triangular in shape, approxi-
mately 1300 feet wide along its north bank and 1800 feet long from north fo
south, tt is separated by a 150 foot shallow channel from I3rickell Point
on the south bank of the Miami River. At its southern end, Claughton Island
is approximately 1000 feet from the mainland. The only means of access is
a two lane bridge which was recently extended from S. W, 8th Street to the
Island. Its existing vegetation, marine and animal life are typical of a spoil
bank and not considered to be exceptional.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Controls
At the Miami City Commission meeting of January 24, 1974. the developers
presented an informal proposal for the development of Claughton Island
including the following specific uses:
Uses
DEVELOPERS ORIGINAL PROPOSAL (ADA)
Units
Residential 2, 775
Office
Hotel
Retail
Parking Spaces
600
7, 205
Floor Area (sq. ft. )
3, 795, 000
1,400,000
480, 000
230, 000
5, 905, 000
Following the presentation, the Commission asked a number of penetrating
questions relating to:
ground level views through the island
amount of open space available to the general public
traffic and circulation
density and intensity of development
social impact (dedications for schools. etc.)
impact on city services
balanced residential development (wide range of housing types)
relationship to existing development
Page 1
Platining Advisory 13oard Deceit bet• 11, 1974
The Planning Department convened a La rge-Scale Develo?meat Committee
oti February 22, May 9, and December 4, 1974 to assist. Lhe Department
in evaluating the developers original proposal and also the developers
revised proposal for its impact on municipal facilities and :services. This
Committee, representing City and County Departments and public utility
companies, utilized a comprehensive, coordinated approach in evaluating
the impact of Claughton Island included affected service areas and proposed
construction/maintenance/staffing re.luirements for any new facilities
caused by the project. This impact evaluation represents the input from
the Large -Scale Development Committee,
The SPD- l zoning ordinance that regulates land use on Claughton island was
based on comprehensive plans for the 13rickell area and the concept plan for
Claughton Island has many commendable features which relate to comprehensive
plans for the frickell Area. These include:
1. The establishment of a residential community with supporting retail
services. Residential use is particularly appropriate for Claughton
Island because of its water oriented environment and because it
meets a goal in the downtown area which calls for intensive nearby
residential development. Retail uses are necessary for convenience
shopping by residents of the Island, hotel guests and office workers.
2. A high proportion of both ground level and upper level landscaped
open space.
3. Creation of waterfront pedestrian easement.
However, some of the most irnportant guidelines and standards con-
tained in the SPD-1 di !•t rict that regulate building bulk have been
disregarded, consequently the concept plan is not in accord with
comprehensive plans t•,r the Brickell Area. It should be noted that
the two adjacent zoning districts are R-CB. with a base FAR of 1.5
plus bonsues, ancc RC-1 with a base FAR of 2.0 plus bonuses. Both
of these districts encourage the assembling of large parcels of land
and both districts are designed to allow a maximum FAR of 2.5 including
bonuses. Development in Claughton Island should be compatible
with the surrounding districts and should be developed at equivalent
intensities.
Page 2
4
Piannittg Advisory BoalecetribeF 11, 1974
pollowing is a table that illustrates the developers revised proposal and the
accompanying table illustrates the differences between the concept plan and
the SPD- 1 Ordinance:
DEVELOPER'S REVISED PROPOSAL
Use Units Floor
Residential 3, 075 3,716,924 sn. ft.
Hotel 1,200 750, 000 sq. ft.
Commercial 222,000 sq. ft.
Office 1,216,076 sq. ft.
Parking Spaces 6, 605
5,905,000 sq. ft.
From the accompanying table, it is to be noted that the Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) which controls building bulk has been drastically exceeded by the
concept plan re guest. Analysis shows that the request for excessive FAR
results in 11 building masses which block pedestrian and high level views
from both the mainland and the Island 2) the generation of traffic from the
proposed office uses which would cause severe circulation problems in the
Brickell area.
The proposed density of 68 dwelling units per acre has been achieved in only
our most densely developed projects and appears to be excessive especially
coupled with the proposed 600 hotel rooms and the remaining proposed devel-
opment.
It is therefore recommended that the developers comply with the following
provisions:
1. A FAR with possible bonuses not to exceed 2.5.
A density limitation of 58 dwelling units per net residential acre
with possible bonuses for the provision of low and moderate income
housing to provide for service personnel.
Page 3
eNs
Provision
COMPAR2.ISON BttWEENDtVELOPI:RS
APPLICATION AND SPD-1 REGULATIONS
Developer's Proposal
SPD- 1 (SP1r,,.1 Application)
Ntaxitnutn Floor Area Ratio 2. 5 (net)
(with bonuses)
Net Residential Density 58 d. u. /acre
Maximum No. of Dwelling ()nits 2,428
Total floor Area 4,553,907
(2. 5 x net area)
Residential Floor Area 3, 415, 430. 25 sq. ft.
(minimum residential)
Non-residential Floor Area
1 . 138, 476. 75
(maximum office and
retail)
net area of district = 1, 821, 563 sq. ft. or
95% of gross area
* gross area = 1, 917, 435 sq. ft.
Lot Coverage
Total Open Space
Ground Level Pedestrian Open Space
Total Pedestrian Open Space
Pedestrian Open Space generally
accessible to Island residents and
workers
3,08 (gross)
3.24 (net)
73.6 d. u. /acre
3, 07 5
5,905,000
(3. 24 x net area)
4, 466, 924
1,438,076
(Percent of Gross Island Area)
60%
(including parking struc-
tures)
75%
35%
5 0 %
1.25 acres per 1000
residents or approxi-
mately 6. ? acres or
16%.
Paige 4
55%
75%
35%
,0%
8. 46 ac res
19%
Plahhing Advisory 8oard December 11, 1974
3, A drastic reduction of office use square footage.
4. Retail uses limited to convenience shopping,
All City Zoning Ordinance regulations are predicated upon the lot area, net of
streets, The developer assumes that regulations will apply to the gross Island
area. To approve the developer's proposal is to award the developer a hidden
bonus for rights -of -way which will be used by the public.
The developer's are also encouraged to consider the housing needs of the service
personnel working on the Island and to consider the provision of low to mc.de rate
income housing on the Island.
Land Use
The land use concept orients residential uses to the east or Biscayne Bay side
of the Island, while office uses mirror the adjacent development on Brickell
Avenue. Hotels are placed on the north bank and southern tip of the Island. A
marina would occupy the west bank. The urban design plan places a multi -level
retail galleria in a north -south spine. flanked by multi -level parking decks.
High-rise residential buildings are placed perpendicular to the north -south
spine thereby allowing mainland views through the Island in an east -west
direction. A boardwalk would surround the Island and other interior ground
level open space would be provided, but recreational uses are not confined
solely to the ground plane. Extensive use is also made of landscaped top decks
of the parking garages. Over 8000 employees and 6, 000 residents would occupy
the Island.
The concept of an integrated multi -use development on Claughton Island is
commendable. Plans call for a residential community establishment with
supporting retail services which will form a dramatic compliment to the adjacent
Brickell area and downtown Miami. The Island retail uses should not he in
competition with Downtown but rather provide convenience shopping with
certain high -fashion specialties appropriate to the Island.. However, it is
estimated that only approximately 100, 000 square feet would be required to
provide retail services for Island residents; amounts in excess of that figure
would tend to draw a disproportionate number of shoppers from the mainland.
The Island environment also offers the opportunity to add hotel facilities and
thereby retain and reinforce Miami's position in the important tourist industry.
The proposal for office uses presents a problem in objectives. location, extent,
and access. This Departrnent has encouraged office development primarily in
the Downtown and to a lesser extent in the Brickell area as the emerging
function of Downtown, consistent with nationwide trends. The introduction of
Page 5
•t
Planning Advisory Board December 11, 1974
the regional rapid transit system connecting the Downtown with 1Vliatni Beach
and South Dade County wilt spur additional office building in the Downtown,
For example, the present Downtown has over 4 niillicn square feet of office
with an additional 1.4 million square feet of office s.ce along Brickell,
Another 1,2 million square feet has been constructed at the One Biscayne-
First Federal cotnptex. Forecasts are that by 1985 there could be an addi-
tional 6 million square feet of office space in the Downtown, There is ample
room in the Downtown and along Brickell Avenue (secondarily) to accommodate
this development. The extent of the office space proposed for the island
1,4 million square feet - duplicates all of the existing office space along
Brickell, while the location, rather than being accessible from several streets
capable of dispersing traffic in several directions. is at .he terminus of a
bridge: If 20 percent of the adult Island residents will wort: in offices on
the Island as forecast by the developers, only 240, 000 s.luare feet of office
,pace would he occupied by Island residents. The remaining office space,
as proposed, would be utilized by other than island residents.
Omen Space •
Dade County standards for neighborhood and com nunity parks are 2.75 acres
per 1000 people. Even after completion of proposed acquisitions, there will
remain a deficit of 41 acres of neighborhood -oriented open space in the
vicinity of Claughton Island as shown in the following table.
DADE COUNTY STANDARDS FOR OPEN SPACE
Area Standard
Neighborhood Park 1.25 acres/ 1000 people
Community Park 1. 50 acres/ 1000 people
Other Areas 1.75 acres/ 1000 people
Total
4. 50 acres' 1000 people
OPEN Sl'ACE DEFICIT: CI.AUGHTON ISLAND VICINITY
1. Population within 1 mile radius. 57, 000 people
2. Existing Open Space. 84 acres
3. Existing and proposed open space. 116 acres
4. Open space requirements (2. 75 / 1000) 157 acres
S. Existing open space deficit. 73 acres
ti. Deficit after Proposed Open Space 41 acres
acquisition.
Page 6
Planning Advisory board Decetnbetr 11, 1974
It is clear that there is a deficiency of neighborhoccl-oriented open space wit bin
1 mile of Claughton Island. There is a dernoestrated public ietere:,t in asstirittg
that open space will be available on the Island for the general public and that
does not increase the overall deficit of open space. Considering that the
Island's projected population is 6, 000 and if a neighborhood park standard of
1.25 acres per 1000 residents were adopted then 7. 5 ,acres of open space would
be required.
The developer's proposal as shown in the previous full -page table provides for:
1. A perimeter easement, 3,000 feet in length and 20 feet in width, totaling
1. 35 acres to be constructed, landscaped and maintained by the developer
and open to the general public during daylight hours.
2. An additional 7. 11 acres of landscaped ground -level open space generally
located on the westerly side of the Island in an office park available
to the general public. Thus, a total of 8.46 acres of open space is
available to the general public. This satisfies the criteria of open space
need maintained previously of 7. 5 acres.
3. A total of 15.4 acres of ground level landscaped pedestrian open space
including 1 and 2 (above) part of which would be restricted to Island
residents.
4. A total of 22.0 acres of pedestrian open space including 1, 2 and 3 (above)
on ground level and on decks, part of which is resfricted to island
residents.
5. A total of 35. 0 acres of open space, including 1, 2, 3, 4 (above) and
streets.
The developer should state the relationship between the provisions of open
space and various stages of construction:. No further recommendations are
made concerning open space.
Access and Circulation
Internal circulation is well considered. The main loop street system proposed
for the island provides good internal circulation and is well -related to adjoining
parking decks. The proposed people mover system along the north -south center-
line of the Island will assist in distributing pedestrians internally but is not beyond
a reasonable walking distance (1, 200 to 1,400 feet) and is not an important adjunct
facility providing access to the Island. The proposed ferry service operating at
the north end of the Island will assist in exiting the Island but is not an important
adjunct of an external access system.
Page 7
t;
Planning Advisory Board
December 11, 1974
Vehicular traffic generated by the proposed Claughton IslE rid development will
have a profound negative impact on the street system and will adversely affect
traffic conditions in the Brickell Area. While the present bridge and segment
of S. E. 8th :-4treet extending to Brickell Avenue have adequate rapacity, the
intersection at Brickell Avenue (U. S. 1) and S. E. 7th Street (t . S. 411 does
not have adequate capacity to accommodate the traffic from Claughton Island.
when fully developed.
The greatest impact is felt during the afternoon peak hours when offices close
and employees drive home. In order to accommodate the northbound to westbound
PM peak hour movement through this intersection when Claughton Island is fully
developed, approximately 64 percent of the total signal cycle time would he required
to accommodate this left turn movement, during which time the traffic proceeding
south on Brickell Avenue from the Miami CBD would be stopped. Nor do these
traffic assumptions include the impending developments on the east side of 1rickell
from S. E. 8th Street to the River or the more remote developments sure to follow
as vacant and underutilized land is developed along the rest of Brickell Avenue.
Traffic conditions along Brickell are rapidly reaching the point they will exert
the controlling influence on development.
The impact of Claughton Island can be corrected by: a) formulating a more realistic
level or different form of development that would not impose surging peak period
loads upon the external street network: or b) providing, at the developer's expense
for the continuity of S. E. 7th Street from Brickell Avenue across a bridge to the
Island, and/or c) providing alternate access to the Island via continuation of a
S. E. 7th and S. E. 8th Street one-way bridge couplet connecting to a new crossing
of the Miami River from the Island to Biscayne Boulevard.
It is recommended that PI1 peak hour traffic exiting the Island be limited to 800
vehicles per hour measured at the present 5. E. 8th Street bridge.
Streets
Two alterna ties are available for the ownership of the main loop street system
around the island. Either the loop street remains in the ownership of the developer
or the loop street is dedicated to the City.
Under the first alternative the streets and bridge would remain in private owner-
ship the developer would construct the loop street to acceptable principal standards
and maintain these facilities. Sewer and water lines on the Island would be con-
structed. ov in d, and operated by the developers. Easements would be provided
Page 8
1
Planning Advisory Board
December 1 1 , 1974
for public .;tilities; the utilities would construct and maintain telephone and
electrical lines. City sanitation services could not he provided over private
streets. The developer would he responsible for providing and maintaining
street lighting. City police and fire services would be provided from facilities
on the Island although access to these facilities most be guaranteed. A cul-de-sac
with 100 feet outside turning radius must be provided at the easterly bridgehead to
the S. E. 8th Street bridge to enable vehicles to turn around and exit the Island,
Under the second alternative, the loot streets would he constructed to City standards
with a minimum of 60 foot right-of-way and 16 foot plus clearance by the developer
and then the street and bridge would be dedicated to the City. Maintenance. repairs
and operation of the streets and bridge would be the responsibility of the City.
The cost of all street improvements including water merit s, sanitation and storm
sewers, pavement, curb and gutter, and landscaping in the public right-of-way
would be borne by the developer. Sewer and water mains would be maintained by
the Miami -Dade Sewer and Water Authority. Private utilities would install and
maintain telephone and electrical lines. City sanitation services could be provided.
The FPL under direction of the City would be responsible for the installing and
maintaining of street lights. If the developers plan to dedicate the loop street,
.the Miami Department of Public Works must be consulted for street grades,
street width and cross -sections. Plans for improvements ir, the public right-of-way
must be prepared by a Professional Engineer to be approved by the Department of
Public Works, and the City must have access for police and fire, and other necessary
City services.
,Schools
All of the schools in the South Central Area which would logically serve the student::
from Claughton Island are currently operating at 125% to 165% of capacity. Con-
struction of two new junior high schools in the South Central Area has been included
in the 5 year plan. One will be a replacement for Citrus Grove Junior on the
existing site at an estimated cost of $3 million. This school is located at 2154 N. W.
5th Street, approximately four miles from Claughton Island. The anticipated comple-
tion date for this school is September of 1976. The other junior high school for this
area will be located on a site to be acquired for an estimated cost of $1, 350, 000.
This school will relieve the overcrowding at Shenandoah, Ada Merritt and Kenlock
Park Junior lligh Schools. Ada Merritt is located approximately 1-,,' miles from
Claughton Island. Completion of this school is anticipated in April 1979 at an
estimated cost of $6.44 million.
Pa go 9
Planning Advisory Board December 11, 1974
$C8QOL._CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENT: 1973=1974_
School
Capacity Enrollment
Southside Elementary 330 380
Citrus Grove Elementary 930 1238
Riverside Elementary 1245 1318
Citrus Grove JH5 (8th Grade) 1245 1318
Ada .Merritt JI-1S (7th Grade) 791 1100
13. T„ Washington JHS (9th Grade) 938 1037
Funds for capital construction are derived primarily from the various state: and
federal funds allocated to each school district for this purpose. The Five -Year
Construction Plan identifies construction needs in the amount of $432. 8 million.
The projected revenue feu• capital construction for the year 1973-1978 is only
$214.4 million. Funds from local and valorem taxes are applied to the operation
of the schools, rather than construction of new facilities.
Further consideration of the impact on the school system by this 6, 000 resident
community has led the Dade County School Board to discount its impact.
Sewer and Water
The lviiami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority has a policy of not owning and operating
facilities which are not in dedicated streets which are readily accessible. There
is a 20" water main and a 12" force sewer main back to the mainland over the
bridge, which are considered adequate. Existing mains have been paid for by the
developers and the developers will construct all future mains on the Island. The
Water and Sewer Authority will maintain the mains, to be paid out of service
charges.
It is recommended that:
1. To insure adquate fire protection on the Island, the minimum size water
main should be 12" inside diameter.
2. All sanitary sewers should be of cast iron pipe to insure low rates of
infiltration and to resist damage during construction.
3. The sewage pumping stations should be of heavy reinforced concrete con-
struction with no steel exposed below grade.
4. Engineering Division and the Consulting Engineers coordinate closely to
expedite the development and to eliminate continuing revisions to contrac,
documents for furnishing both the sewer and water facilities.
Page 10
Planning Advisory Boaftd December 11, 1974
Telephone
Claughton Island would require Southern Bell Telephone Company to make a very
subEtantial investment in central office equipment that would be installed in an
existing building located at 45 NW 5th Street or 2010 SW 17th Avenue. It would
also require costly reinforcement of underground conduit and cable system from
the Central Office to the Island. Depending on whether the streets retrained
private or become public right-of-way, the developers might be required fo
furnish a conduit system suitable to accommodate telephone cables on the sland.
It is recommended that proper coordination be maintained to minimize construction
problems due to the restricted space available for all utilities and clue to traffic
flows on the Island.
Electricity
Florida Power and Light contemplates service from the Miami substation at the
Miami River and SW 2nd Avenue. A duct has already been installed on the Bridge.
All electrical distribution facilities on the Island will be underground. Each
building will require an electrical vault enclosure, the exact number and size to
be negotiated in the future. Vaults must be accessible by truck. Florida Power
and Light is also concerned about providing service to the Island in the event that
there is an obstruction on the Bridge. It is recommended that:
1. Florida Power and Light have 24-hour access to all their facilities
on the Island.
2. Adequate consideration be given during design stages to potential
restrictions and clearances to Florida Power and Light vehicles,
equipment, installation, maintenances and op !rations.
Sanitation
Upon full development, Claughton Island would generate approximately 29 tons of
solid waste per d.iy. If the developer is satisfied with the level of services to be
provided by the City, then the City will undertake to provide that level of sanitation
service. Considering the level of municipal services to be provided and the size
of development contemplated, the developers very likely will opt to contract for the
service of a private waste collector. Approximately 85% of all commercially
generated solid waste in the City are collected by 25 private companies. Private
haulers can offer service customized to the requirements of the Island and are also
:able to handle customers of all sizes.
Page 11
Ir
4-
Planning Advisory Board December 11, 1974
Telephone
Claughton Island would require Southern Bell Telephone Company to make a very
substantial investment in central office equipment that would be installed in an
existing building located at 45 NW 5th Street or 2010 SW 17th Avenue. It would
also require costly reinforcement of underground conduit and cable system from
the Central Office to the Island. Depending on whether the streets remained
private or become public right-of-way, the developers might be required En
furnish a conduit system suitable to accommodate telephone cables on the Bland.
It is recommended that proper coordination be maintained to minimize construction
problems due to the restricted space available for all utilities and due to traffic
flows on the Island.
Electricity
Florida Power and Light contemplates service from the Miami substation at the
Miami River and SW 2nd Avenue. A duct has already been installed on the Bridge.
All electrical distribution facilities on the Island will be underground. Each
building will require an electrical vault enclosure, the exact number and size to
be negotiated in the future. Vaults must be accessible by truck. Florida Power
and Light is also concerned about providing service to the Island in the event that
there is an obstruction on the Bridge. It is recommended that:
1. Florida Power and Light have 24-hour access to all their facilities
on the Island.
2. Adequate consideration be given during design stages to potential
restrictions and clearances to Florida Power and Light vehicles,
equipment, installation, maintenances and op 'rations.
Sanitation
lipon full development, Claughton Island would generate approximately 29 tons of
solid waste per day. If the developer is satisfied with the level of services to be
provided by the City, then the City will undertake to provide that level of sanitation
service. Considering the level of municipal services t� be provided and the size
of development contemplated, the developers very likely will opt to contract for the
service of a private waste collector. Approximately 8510 of all commercially
generated solid waste in the City are collected by 25 private companies. Private
haulers can offer service customized to the requirements of the Island and are also
able to handle customers of all sizes.
Page 11
Planning Advisory toard becetrnber 11) 1974
Contemplating the services of private haulers, the impact of C laughton Island on
City of Miami sanitation services w aild be minimal; confiner to inspection and
enforcement services., The additional 8, 000 to 10,000 tons c f solid waste per
year to be taken to the new NW 20th Street transfer station would create no
significant problem.
Polite
Upon full de\e.loptnent of C1a:ighton Island as proposed, it will have a resident
nighttime population of 6,100 and a daytime population of over 12,000. Using the
present police manpower -to -population ratio of 2. 2 sworn personnel per 1,000
population and evaluating the population density of Claughton Island as far in ex-
cess of the 10,000 persons per square mile average Miami density, would justify
the addition of 1.8 more sworn personnel. (15 police officers and 3 Sergeants of
Police) to the Police Department budget. These would cover three shifts seven
days a week.
TENTATIVE ANNUAL POLICE BUDGET: CLAUGHTON ISLAND
Number Kind Cost
15 Police Officers $190, 000
3 Sergeants of Police 39,000
18 Uniforms and Equipment 5, 400
4 6-Channel portable radios 6,800
(1 extra for maintenance)
1. 'Three wheel motorcycle 625
1.5 for ► aintenanc•e) $244, 825
It is recommended that:
1.
An 8'x10' office with telephone be provided by the developer for police use.
2. Two 8tx20' p,irLin!.; spaces be provided by the developer in proximity to the
office.
3. The pro' ision of proposed Ordinance 51 -22 amending the South Florida
1Building Code be required for all construction on Claughton Island. These
amendments to the Code call for the use of locks and secure construction in
critical areas that would greatly reduce bosh the number of crimes and
security costs. Any additional security would be the responsibility of the
developer, including TV surveillance.
4. 'J'wo police -fire emergency phones should be installed plus one at the Bridge
with the actual lay out to be determined.
Pa go 12
Planning Advisory Doard
Fire Protection
December 11,1974
Fire protection for Claughton Island must be considered in terms of the locatIc rc
the Island, the particular kind of construction and emergency access; to the Island.
Claughton Island is presently served by Fire Station //4 at 1000 South Miami A\ enrr: ,
which houses one ladder and one engine company. As presently located, the response
time is two minutes to the Island, although anticipated relocation of the station
westerly may extend this response time to three minutes. Rescue response in this
area averages three minutes. Based on general construction in the Brick :11 area,
and Claughton Island in particular, Station #4 will not provide adequate ser •ice.
.A high rise fire would call for at least four pumpers, two ladders, one emergency
rescue team, a district chief, and substantial supporting equipment. At present,
Engine Company #15 from Fire Station #15 at 1300 SW 12t h Avenue, and the Fire
Chief of District #3 provide additional response. The next available hack -up units
(Engine //5) is located at Station #3 at 1103 NW 7th Street two miles away or at
Station #2 (Ladder #2) north of the Miami River where consideration must be given
to bridge.openings. Dependence on existing back-up units north of the Miami River
depends upon the premise that river bridges will be down in an emergency. 13oth
of these stations are two miles away. Station #1 downtown would only supply
supporting equipment, and men and equipment from outlying stations would have,
to be moved in to provide back-up protection for downtown.
The development of Claughton Island and the adjacent area calls fur a re-evaluation
of fire suppression forces and adding to existing stations or building new stations t,
house the additional units needed. An additional problem is that access to Clauuhtu i
Island is restricted by a single bridge as the .City has nD fire boats. To properly
protect life and property requires one additional fire rescue unit in the a rea.
Adding just one unit and the supporting manpower would cost as follows:
FIRE RESCUE UNIT REQUIREMENT
Manpower/Equipment
Cost
3 Lieutenants $53, 604
6 Driver Engineers $94, 896
9 Privates 138, 888
i Pumper 45, 000
Uniformed Bunker Equipment 5, 400
Station Housing 40, 000
Total. $ 377, 788''=
.:One half of this cost can be attributed to Claughtor Island
Emergency Medical Rescue is not at present a problem at Claughton Island. llu\v.e\or
looking ahead 10 or 15 years during the time Claughton Island is being constructed,
the growth of the surrounding area will continue unabated. Therefore, the addi-
tion of a rescue unit to be located at Station //4 is warranted in the future. The
Page 13
Planning Advisory Board
December 11, 194
following staffing and equipmentN otticl be reclui red:
.EMERGENCY RESCUE UNIT REQUIREMENT
Manpower/ Equipment Cost
3 Lieutenants $56, 268
Privates 99,515
1 Vehicle 25,000
Equipment 14, 400
Quarters (included in Station H4)
Total $195, 183-'
':-One half of this cost can be attributed to Claughton Island
Fire Prevention measures. to protect the property and population of Claughton lslancl
indicate that one full. time inspector Nvill be required to examine plans, inspect
construction, certify occupancy, and conduct routine inspections of fire and life
safety features. The annual cost of one inspector and a vehicle are $16, 350.
Fire Communications to provide adequate communications and control following
the onset of construction of Claughton Island should include central fire alarm
office control of traffic signal lights at the following intersections:
A. Brickell .Avenue at 57th Street
B. South Miami Avenue at South 6th, 7th and 8th Streets
C. SW 1st Avenue at South 7th and 8th Streets
1). SW 2nd Avenue at South 7th and 8th Streets
South 13ayshore Drive at 8th Street will probably require a traffic signal with central
control. Dade County Department of Traffic and Transportation bears the cost of
these lights estimated at $12/month/light. A minimum of 12 emergency telephone
boxes will be installed at a cost of approximately $13/month pins a one -tinge
installation charge of $30. Annual costs for fire -rescue services caused by
Claughton Island upon full development .1 re as follows:
SUMMARY OF FIRE PREVENTION REQUIREMENTS
Annual Operation Costs
Fire Suppression (50°°')) $145, 694
Rescue (50"0) 86, 182
Prevention (50';,:) 14, 700
Communications (1 00%) 156
Support Services (100%) 5, 000
Total Operating $249, 732
Total Capital 6, 941
$256, 673
Page 14
Capital Costs
$47, 700
19, 700
1,650
360
$69,410 or
$ 6,941 based On 10 year
depreciation
Planning Advisory Board
It is recommended that;
December 11, 1974
Facilities should be provided on the Island to house one fire rescue unit
and housing for fire personnel.
d• 1'o insure proper maintenance of the street width, vertical clearance, turning
radii and hydrants, streets should either be dedicated or if left as private
streets be developed to city standards and have.. access equal to that provi( e�1
over public streets.
3. The developer carefully coordinate plans with the I3ureau of Fire Prevention
regarding current provisions of Chapter 52 of the South Florida Building Code
lemergency access, lateral distanc from streets to interior parking decks
and sprinkler systems ).
Air, N.'iseand Water Pollution
The State Department of Pollution Control and the South Florida Regional Planning
Council have stated that Claughton Island as a "complex source" or "indirect
source," under new State regulations effective December 15, 1973 governing those
facilities attracting a large number of vehicles which might lower the present air
quality. The State Department of Pollution Control has identified Dade C ounty as
a Air Quality Maintenance Area, having the potential for exceeding national air
quality standards in the next 10 years.
It is recommended, and required, that the State Department of Pollution Control
carefully evaluate the impact of Claughton Island on ambient air conditions before
final approval is given.
The lxnj)act of noise will be most evident from pile -driving and other operations during
cont ruct its',. One of the purposes of defining the total development to be allowed in
Claughton island is to enable the developer to complete all substructure work at the
inception of the construction period so as to concentrate these noisy operations to a
shorter period of time.
Disposing, of storm ‘vater runoff directly into Biscayne Bay should be considered only
a,: a last resort because of the continuing concern over the water quality of the Bay.
however other alternatives were considered to be too costly or unworkable. Deep
well drilling to salt water for storm water disposal was considered prohibitively
expensive. Disposing of storm water runoff in the rainstorm sewer system was
.rlsr' unacceptable. I'hc proposal to dispose of surface run-off by filtering into the
ground. i. e. , french drains,wuuld be infeasible because of the high wafer table.
l'he developer should consider retaining storm water run-off in underground structures
Page 15
Planting Advisory Board
December 11,1914
sufficient to accotnmodate the first 10 minutes; allowing the oily pavement file to
be retained underground. Water containing vehicle drippings that Would be fltishe 1
periodically from parking decks could also be drained into underground structure
and then allowed to seep into the ground.
Development I)esign
The Planning Department encourages the provision of parking within structures;
however the arrangement and neigh! of main parking structures along a north south
axis creates a five to six story barrier dividing the area and destroying pi :entially
interesting views of the Bay.
I'hr development concept plan should provide illustrative design examples as to the
character of landscape design, of courts and yard areas including functional areas,
street furniture and lighting.
:\ landscaping plan is required and should contain specific information as to the type
and size of trees and other plant materials to be provided.
The proposed concept plan should contain illustrative design examples of the
character of informational signs. The design of signs should be coordinated through-
out the interior and exterior spaces of the Island.
Further Documentation
The developer's Application for Development Approval., required for developments
of regional impact, the developer's Concept Plan required under the SPD-1 district,
and letters from agencies represented on the Largo Scale Development Committee
are on file for review in the Department of Administration for Planning and Zoning
Boards.
Page 16
1
.l
Planning Advisory Board December 11, 1974
Recoimnmeendations
The Planning i)epartment would be prepared to consider approval if the
following modifications were made:
I. The intensity of development should be limited to a I••loor
Area Ratio of 2.5, predicated on bonuses and other con-
siderations as specified in the SPD- 1 District.
2. Retail and office space should be drastically reduced,
to 500, 000 square feet in total, This should be
basically a residential community. Retail ►:ses should only
he sufficient to serve the Island.
3. 'l'he exiting afternoon peak hour traffic should not exceed
800 vehicles per hour measured at the S. E. 8th Street bridge
as recommended by the Dade County Department of Traffic
and Transportation. (The enclosed table shows a mixture
and magnitude of uses that do not exceed these limitations.)
4. The provisions of proposed Ordinance 'L 1 -1.,'_ amending the
South Florida Building Code be made specifically applicable
to the Island.
5. An office and parking spaces (2) should be provided by the
developers for police use.
6. The developers should clarify their proposal to provide 300
housing units for "medium -income" housing.
7. All streets should be constructed to City standards and the
Island should be platted.
8. The total number of buildings and the building mass should
be reduced to create additional o en space at lower and upper
levels that would allow better views a1 all 1 •vels from the
mainland and the island.
9. The housing needs of low income service personnel working
in the hotel ancl residential buildings should be considered.
11), Additional public Landscaped ground level open spices should be
created on the east waterfront area.
Page 17
J
Planning Advisory Board December i 1, 1974
Exiting P,M. Peak Hour Traffic Generation. 108
(Planning Department Estimate)
The Dade County Department of Traffic. and Transportation has stated that
the development of Claughton Island will not cause severe traffic congestion
••on the mainland if no more than 800 vehicles exit the Island during the 5:00-
.'6.00 P.M. weekday peak hour. The following example illustrates a desirable
nlagnitude and mixture of uses resulting in an exiting volume of 800 vehicles
. per hour. using the developers assuMptions and Dade County Department of
Traffic and Transportation trip generation rates. Contrary to the developers
assumptions however. staggered work hours are not assumed.
Assumptions (Developers)
- Average annual growth in Dade County .1 percent
auto registrations.
- Internal trips
- 1 ransit usage
- Car occupancy rate
- Walk trips
• A\( -rage Slav absentee rate
- No increase to Brickell Avenue tralfie
colauues between 1c772 and I980
rip Generation Rates (Dade DU"1'"I')
20 percent
30 percent
1.6 persons per car
5 percent
10 percent
- Otfice - 1.3 trips per 1,000 square feet (includes 31110 transit, 5%
walk, 10% absentee, 20% internal, and perk period/peak hour
conversion)
110t01 - 0. o trips per hotel unit
- I2esi•lential - 0. .$ trips per residential unit
I:t0,1'1 1.21 trips per 1, 000 square feet
Page 18
Planning Advisory 13oatcl December 11, 1974
Uses
Residentia I
Odiee
Hotel
Retail
Residentia 1
2, 42 units x tl, 53 trips/unit
less internal trips
- office I. LO x 10581
- waIk t.05 x 12.871
- shopping (.65 x 4211
t inits A roil (sq. ft. )
600
External trips
less 30'u transit t. 30 x 7471
;, r,, 360
4S(. 000
1110, U001
•I, 270, 3t,,i1 (PAR 2. 34 )
540
747
224
Office
; 0, 01'0 s,;u:lrr feet x 1. i trite 10011 square foot
(:xtrrn,1 tr,hs
52 3
480
! Iclt o l
600 units x 0.6 t rips/unit
loss internal trips
int e rnn l (. 'r; x 3601
Page 19
c0
2.711
Planning Advisory Board December 11, 1974
Retail
101), (10O sulita rr feet x •1.2..1 t rips/ l ttt►11 rt Iool
Tess internal trips
- internal (.65 x 42 1 )
tv1
L74
(no transit utilization) 147
Total Traffic Generation 1420
Trip Distribution Outbound (Island to Mainland)
Residential t. 35 x 523)
Office (. 85 x 480)
llotel; Retail (. 50 x •(171
183
408
20,1
CG
r.. cv
..,„.. •.: Jr F!'i i J !e
or
:U.':d/11'/ .LJ i,.,i �l •i'
�+ f
i:tlfti{if�u L( LOc'fii,U uoAaDs
Alt 1 i,CJ ii'N01)ii►\ f 1*SJ5 i1C.
5500 EAST SKELLY DRIVE TULSA. OKLAHOMA 74111 918 G11.3474
31 December 1974
Mr, David Simpson, Jr., Director
City of Miami, Department of Administration
Planting & Zoning Boards
3318 Pan American Drive
Miami, Fla, 33133
Subject: EXPLANATORY DOCUMENT NO. 3
Re: CLAUGH T ON ISLAND APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT DATED 11/15/74
Dear Mr, Simpson:
Iilis document will confiriil our coinmittnient to provide an 8' x 10' office and two
0' x 20' parking spaces in proximity to the office for use by the City of Miami Police
Department as requested by tilc City on 11 December 1974.
Ic also formally offer to make available for public use as a tilullicipal part: approximate-
ly :Li .5 acres of our property on the western portion of the island in consideration of the
approval of our project as outlined in the Claucjhton island Application ,or Development
dated 11/15/74. As a part of this cominittment we further agree to s;)end proxii a•cc ly
$1, 500, 000 in improving the property as a tropical landscaped arca with provisions for
strolling, sitting and other similar passive activities. We further agree to maintain this
property in perpetuity.
The exact 3.5 acres ± shall be as shown on the Final Development Plans submitted
as required by Section 4 (3) of SPD-1 Central Island District. The public park use
will be assured by our execution of a permanent easement (in a form approved by the
City Attorney) or other such document as OW legal counsel requires.
The use of this property shall be restricted to that of a tropical landscaped area and
its associated pedestrian Llses aad other such uses requested by the City as approved
by us. If security dictates, we reseNe the right to limit the use of the part: to reasonable
ciayl fight hours.
cit...
•
SSO) EAST SKELLY ORini: TULSA, UKLAHOmA 74115 91B 622-3474
31 December 1974
Mr. David Simpson, Jr., Director
City of Miami, Department of Administration
Planning & Zoning Boards
3318 Pan American Drive
Miami, Fla. 33133
t•
t11 �rf `!
1
rJ14 13 i ir, .,...01
G .,: #12 ..i •, ,
P_LAN;4;;;',1 e4 Zai`J;;u i>1 ituS
Subject: EXPLANATORY DOCUMENT NO, 3
Re: CLAUGHTON ISLAND APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT DATED 11/15/74
Dear Mr. Simpson:
This document will confirm our commiltnie;it to provide an 8' x 101 office and two
vl x 23' parking spaces in proximity to the office for use by the City of Miami Police
Department. as requested by the City on 11 December 1974.
We also formally offer to make available for public use as a municipal park ap1 roxiniate-
ly .J. S acres of our property on the western portion of the island in consideration of the
approval of our project as outlin�d in the Ciaucjhton Island Application ,or Development
darted 11/15/74. As a part of this committment we further agree to spend approxim.;c�ly
$1,500,000 in improving the property as a tropical landscaped area with p►ovisions for
strolling, sitting and other similar passive activities. We further agree to maintain this
property in perpetuity.
The exact 3.5 acres .± shall be as shown on the Final Development Plans submitted
as required by Section 4 (3) of SPD-1 Central Island District. The public park use
will be assured by our execution of a permane:it easement (in a forrii approved by the
City Attorney) or other such document as our legal counsel requires.
The use of this property shall be resiricted to that of a tropical Icindscapcd a. ii and
its associated pedestrian uses and other such uses requested by the City as approved
by us, if security dictates, we rese,ve the. right to limit. the use of the park to reasonable
daylight hours. •
r to C (✓ 0'1 c•vi� i
1 ►,l
�1! I •
ki
I �V
r c.
'4 ✓•
+•,
oki
David Simpson, J+,
Dece);;ber 1974
Page 2
IL is pointed out that it is not required to provide any public park land in the
project (with tiie exceptions of the 20 foot boardwalk) in order to qualify for
all of the. bonuses stipulated in the Central Island District. This offer of a
park is an extraordinary offer that, we believe, demonstrates beyond a doubt
the over►vhelming public benefit associated with the approval of our project as
herewith submitted.
Robert C. Poe
RCP:mm
cc: E. N. C laughton
Bob Goble
Iry Oft, A sit
.. , ,..• 4 ,
-
• 4 ,0,-
6 4
; ' . . : ''• : 'k.. 7 . .....
r i I
• .;
• , 'i.
. .. .. ' .
/
‘.:.!:',... ''''',...„
1 1--:"` '''" . .. - • (1/4.'-.) ''',
1 ...,
•
, .
------
•
•
•
I
,
• : ,,. : \
i . . , ....., .
. I
I1 ,. I , • ....,,
1- • '
•
.'
to
FROM
CItY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INtER•oFt=ICE MEMORANbUM
George .T. A( ton, Jr.
David Simpson, Jr.
Glenn A. Buff
Urban Development Review Board
PETITION
DATE
SUBJECT
I.)rcemher 10, 19741
FILL
Claughton (13ut-lineamr) Island Review
of Proposed Development Concept
Plan - Findings and Recommendations
REFERENCES
ENCLOSURES-
2, Claughton (Burlingame) Island located in 13iscayne Bay
at the foot of S. 1J'. gth Street. UNPLATTED
Request for the approval of a Special Planned Development
on the above as per Ordinance Nn. 6871 AR TITLE XXI- 3
zoned SPD-1 (Central Island District) and requesting
approval of specific floor area ratio bonuses as provided
by the SPD-1 district regulations ARTICLE XXI-3 Section S.
As per Ordinance 6871, ARTICLE XXI-3 Section ; the City of Miami Urban
Development Review Board shall consider requests for floor area bonuses
for projects within the SPD-1 Central Island District. The Urban Development
Review Beard after review of 'he bonus application shall forward its recom-
mendation to the Planning Advisory Board for consideration and action.
The Urban Dce\elopnarnt 1 'view I3oard has reviewed the proposed development
concept plan for the Claughton Island project at meetings on November 27, 1974,
December 3, 1971, and December 9. 1974. Rased upon a review of the plans
and supporting data and discussions with the project architect the Board presents
the following recommendations:
URBAN DEV1. 1.O1,MENT REVIEW 13OAR1) RECOMMENDATION: DENIA1,
The Urban DeNclupnaent Review Board concurs that the development of Claughton
Islancl represent; a great opportunity for the future growth of Downtown Miami.
It is therefore \ ita l to encourage and promote the most beneficial development of
Claughton Island. The developers have presented a plan containing a well con-
ceived two dimensional arrangement of commercial and residential land uses,
some interesting open space areas, and a choice in housing types. However,
it is the recommendation of this Board that the proposed development plan be
restudied and that the proposed floor area be reduced for the following reasons:
Page 1 of 2
to
FROM
CerY of MtAMt, FL OtOA
IN/'Et-OFFICEIN/tPt-OFPICE MEMORANbUM
George .T. Acton. Jr.
David Simpson, ,rr.
Glenn A. Huff
Urban Development Review Board
PETITION
DATE
sUHJrcT
1)ecetnber ID, 1974
Fll.r
Claughton (13urlingarnr') island Review
of Proposed Development Concept
Plan - Findings and Recommendations
REFERENCES•
ENCLOSURES:
2. Claughton (Burlingame) Island located in Biscayne Bay
at the foot of S. E. 8th Street. UNPLATTED
Request for the approval of a Special Planned Development
on the above as per Ordinance N. 6871 AR TIC LE XXI- 3
zoned SPD- 1 (Central Island District) and requesting
approval of specific floor area ratio bonuses as provided
by the SPD-1 district regulations ARTICLE XXI-3 Section 5.
As per Ordinance 6871, ARTICLE XXI-3 Section c the City of Miami Urban
Development Review Board shall consider requests for floor area bonuses
for projects within the SPD-1 Central Island District. The Urban Development
Review Board after review of the bonus application shall forward its recom-
mendation to the Planning Advisory Board for consideration and action.
'Thy Urban Development Review Board has reviewed the proposed development
concept plan for the Claughton Island project at meetings on November 27, 1974,
December 3. 1974, and December 0, 1974. Based upon a review of the plans
and supporting data and discussions with the project architect the Board presents
the following recommendations:
URBAN DEVi:1,OPME:NT REFVIEVU BOAR RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL,
The Urban De\e•lupnaent Review Board concurs that the development of Claughton
Island represent; a great opportunity for the future growth of Downtown Miami.
It is therefore vital to encourage and promote the most beneficial development of
Claughton Island. The developers have presented a plan containing a well con-
ceived two dimensional arrangement of commercial and residential land uses,
some interesting open space areas, and a choice in housing types. However,
it is the recommendation of this Board that the proposed development plan be
restudied and that the proposed floor area be reduced for the following reasons:
Page 1 of 2
George .1. Acton, Jr. , David Simpson. tr.
1
Urcembrr 10, 1')74
development prc.grani pro'.:ides for excessive floor area, which
compounds prohletri.-; with traffic generation, parking needs. and destroys
opportunities for aesthetic views from both the mainland and the island.
2. The traffic studies subn fitted by the consultants preslent trip generation
factors based upon optimistic assumptions. "These studies should he
reviewed to provide a more realistic projection of future traffic flaws
especially during the exitinu afternoon peak hour load.
3. 1'he development program contains an excessive amount of -pace de'\oted
to office and retail space. Retail space should be lirrtttr<1 to ttieet the
shopping needs of the residents and workers on the Island. Clauehton
Island should not be developed as a comtnnnity shopping center thereby
competing with downtown merchants. All development on the Island
should complement the growth and development of the Central I3usiness
District -- not compete with it.
1. The predominate land limes on the Island should be residential. The
developers should explore mixing of residential and offices within a
single structure IIotel development seems ,appropriate, however the
developers should consider providing housing opportunities within the
hotel s for their lower income employees.
ti. Views from the mainland through the island are blocked at all elevations
except for one or two locations. The height of the parkins; structure along
a north -south axis creates .a five -six story barrier dividing the area and
destroying potentially interesting views toward the flay.
O.
The developers have proposed the dedication of a landscaped bayfront
public easement extending appro':i'nately 3O00 feet .elontg, the western
side of the Island; substantial portions of the public easement could also
he located on the east edge of the Island that would open up additional
public vistas.
The Ship-1 ordinance requires the suhrii s ,i0n of ,r general landscape plan
indicating the types of landscape materials to be provided in the developed
open space area. The developer should provide such a plan indicating, the
type and size of trees and other plant materials.
ti. The proposal to provide 300 housing units for the medium income should
be clarified. The developers should define medium ins woe and the estimated
rental rates for such housing units.
GA1;:.1 AR:vb
Page 2 of 2
FROM
Olt** OF MIAMi, FLORIDA
Ifv?Et4=oP ICE MEMc RANbuM
Planning Advisory Board DATE December 10, 1974 PILE
is /
�' eorga .I. ttfiton, Jr. (,
Executive Secretary
Planning Advisory hoard
SUBJECT
Claughton Is land
Development of Regional Impact
Pul)ic Hearing
REFERENCES
ENCLOSURES
1. PETITION: Claughton ( Burlingame) 1s land
Located in Biscayne Baru at the font of S, E. 8th Street UNPLATTED
Request for approval by thr' City of Miami for the "Development
of Regional Impact" as defined by Florida St,rtile .380. 06,
located on the above site.
Planning Department Recommendation: DENIA I.
Claughton Island, a 44 acre island in Biscayne Bay i•; defined as a Development
of Regional Impact (DIU), under Florida Statutes chapter 380, and requires
that local government conduct a public hearing, prier to issuing a development
order. In this public hearing local government must consider a1 the recom-
mendatirons of thc' South Florida Regional Planning t_ c.nucii concerning the
developers Application for Development Approval r 11),N1 and b) t ontorrnance
with local land development regulations. On Septs'ot er ',, 1074, the South
Florida Regional Planning Council r•econnmended 1)1'':';1A1 of the developers
ADA. The Planning Depar mood recommendation to tlic Planning Advisory
Board is for DENI.AI., of the proposal. considering al the recommendations
of the South Florida Regional Planning Council: 1 1 tIle eon -conformity of the
project with Local land development regulations. an.! el the impact of the
project. The recommendations of the Planning Ad. i:;ory Board will be con-
sidered by the City Commission is issuing a de\elopment order approving,
denying or approving with conditions a development orflc r•.
Developers Proposal
The developers ADA proposes an integrated multi =e complex including resi-
dential, hotel, commercial and ntfice uses; enrompit,sing buildings of archi-
tectural merit, and employing imaginative concepts of urban design and
sensitive landscape treatment, reflecting a sophi-ti;•ated blend of urban liv-
ing in a unique is land environment.
Page 1 of 4
cltY OP MIAMI. FLORIDA
tN?ER-b tcE MEMO RANSUM
To Planning Advisory Board DATE December 10, 1974 Frr.E.
FROM
t tr- /,.
r � "7 / e \,'�' i--e - 6..^...
teorge .i. Eton, Jr.
Executive Secretary
Planning Advisory Board
SUeJEcr
Claughton Island
Development of Regional ltnpact
Pulite Ifearing
REFERENCES
ENCLOSURES
1. PETITION: Claughton (Burlingame) Island
Located in Biscayne Bay at the foot of S. F. :4l1r .Street UNPLATTED
Request for approval by the City of tvliatoi tc+r the "Development
of Regional Impact" as defined by Florida Sintnte 380, 06,
located on the above site,
Planning Department Recommendation: DENiA 1.
Claughton Island, a 44 acre island in Biscayne lay i defined as a Development
of Regional Impact (DRI), under Florida Statutes chapter 380, and requires
that local government conduct a public hearing, pro.,r to issuing a development
order. In this public hearing local government must consider a► the recom-
mendations of the South Florida Itrt;ional Planning t. ++nutcil concerning the
developers Application for Development Approval (.1\ li.ti t and b) + ontormance
with local land development regulations. On S)•pt. riot +,r ''. 1Q74. the South
Florida Regional Planning Council recommended In. ''.',AI of the developers
ADA. The .Planning Depatinieni reconnnendation to tine Planning Advisory
Board is for DENIAL of the proposal, considering at the recommendations
of the South Florida Regional Planning Council; 1+1 (be eon -conformity of the
project with local land development regulations. and 1 the impact of the
project.. The recommendations of the Planning Advi;,)ory Board will be con-
sidered by the City Commission is issuing a deg eb+l'ment order approving.
denying or approving with conditions a development corder.
Developers Proposal
The developers ADA proposes an integrated multi a=e complex including resi-
dential, hotel, commercial and ollire rises; enconip+i•sinct buildings of archi-
tectural merit, and employing imaginative concepts of urban design and
sensitive landscape treatment, reflecting a sophi.-tit•Ited blend of urban liv-
ing in a unique island environment.
Page 1 of 4
Planning Advisory hoard
Use Units
Floor Atea
Residential
Hotel
Commercial
Office
2, ''75
600
7, 205
3, 795, 000 s luat'e feet
480, 000 square feet
230, 000 s ivare feet
1, 400, 000 square feet
5, 905, 000 square feet
South Florida Regional Planning Council Recommendations
The South Florida Regional Planning Council on September 9. Io74 recommended
DENIAL, of the developers ADA for the following reasons:
"It is therefore recommended that the proposed plan for Claughton Island
be DENIED because of the profound negative impact on the intersections
of 13rickell and S. E. 8th Street and S. E. 7th Street and Drickell. Both
the Dade County Department of Traffic and Transportation and the City
of Miami's Planning Department recommend a substantial reduction in
the proposed development based on traffic considerations. Moreover,
this development should be deferred until a policy decision is made on
a new Miami River bridge crossing as described in "Downtown Miami:
A Conceptual Transportation Plan."
It is recommender) that the proposed plan for r'1;t ighton Island be
DENIED, and a new proposal, more supportive of the potential of
CBD to become an attractive and vital urban center he planned by
applicant. "
Miami's
the
"It is therefore recommended that. the proposed plan for Claughton Island
be DENIED because the development intensity (FAR 3.08) is not in accord-
ance with the general comprehensive plan for the City of Miami and is
not compatible with the existing land uses adjacent to the proposed devel-
opment."
"It is therefore recommended that the proposed plan for Claughton Island
be DENIED because of its public facility impact and until said time as
this issue is adequately addressed by the applicant."
Page 2 of 4
Planning Advisory Board
"The applicant should supply the City of Miami Commission and South
Florida Regional Planning Council with a written commitment of
willingness to provide an approximate amount of low and moderate
income housing, In lieu of the complete lack of proposed low and
moderate cost housing units for the Island, the applicant should con-
sider contac.ting Dade County HUD to arrange for the donation of
land or buildings to meet low and moderate income housing needs.
It is furthermore recommended that the applicant re-evaluate, along
with the Dade County School Board, the number of school aged children
that the proposed development would generate and either provide the
necessary public facilities or fund a proportionate share of needed
facilities."
The "Development of Regional Impact Assessment for Claughton island"
prepared by the South Florida Regional Planning Council is attached.
Local Land Development Regulations
The Miami City Commission, by Ordinance 8330 and 8331 effective December
7, 1974 established a new SPD- 1 Central Island District and applied this to
Claughton Island. The Planning Department's finds that the developer's
proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of the SPD-1 District in the
following specific respects:
Inconsistencies between Develojer's
DRI Application and SPD-1 District
Regulations
Maximum floor Area Ratio
(with bonuses)
Net Residential Density
Maximum Number of Units
Total Floor Area
Residential Floor Area
(including hotels)
Non-residential Floor Area
(retail and office)
Developer's Proposal
SPD- 1 (DRI Application)
2. 5 (net)
58 .1. u. /acre
2,428d.u.
4, S 3, 907 sq. ft.
(2. 5 x net area)
3,415,430 sq. ft.
(minimum required)
1, 138, 477 sq. ft.
(maximum allowed)
Page 3 of 4
3. 1 (gross)
3.26 (net)
66. 3 d. u. /acre
2, 775
5,905,000 sq. ft.
4,275,000
I, 630,000 sq. ft.
Planning Advisory Board
gross area = 1, n16, 000 sd. ft.
net area 1.824, 5fi3 sq. ft.
Notes to table:
1. All City zoning districts regulations are predicated upon parcel
ownership not of streets. The developer uses the gross island
area in his calculations , thereby claiming credit for principal
rights -of -way.
I'dg(• 4 of 4
TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS OF
PROPOSED
CLAUGHTON ISLAND DEVELOPMENT
Presented to the
City of Miami Council
by
Dade County
Department of Traffic and Transportation
February 12, 1975
Developer's
Proposal
C. of Miami
Planning Dept.
Proposal
Mix I
Mix II
Mix III
Mix IV
Mix V
Res.
Hotel
GENERATED TRAFFIC OF
VARIOUS LAND USE MIXES
FOR
CLAUGHTON ISLAND DEVELOPMENT
Ret.
500
1
800 1000
Office
3.24
Land Uses
Developer Planning
i Proposal Dept.
Residential (units)
3,075
2,42a
Hotel (units)
1,200
600
Retail (sq. ft.)
222,000
10(4000+
Office (sq. ft..)
` 1,216,076
370;,000
1500 2000
Traffic Exiting Island in Peak Hour
A•.lgtist 12, 1 74
.tar. Georg J. Acton, Director
City of Miami Planning Department
City Hall
Dinner Key
Miami, Florida 33133
Dear George,
Re: Claughton Island
On a few occassions between late January and mid -Juno of this year
we discussed with you and Joe Mc'4anus the concept of p.m. peak hour
exiting traffic flow being a binding determinant of the extent of
staged development of the island. As a binding condition of the
issuance of building permits and/or certificates of occupancy for
each progressive stage of the island's development, measurement
of exiting p.m. peak hour flow for the completed stages would be
a factor entering into the decision.
At the stage where average weekday exiting p.m. peak traffic reach-
ed 803 vehicles par hour, no additional building permits would be
issued ncr certificates of occupancy granted. Please note again
that in our determination of this maximum, we assumed the exten-
sion of South 3ayehore ;)Five north to .t 7 Street which is in line
with good transportation planning. As volumes approach this maxi-
mum the developer could, at his prerogative, demonstrate at the
site certain reasures that actually reduce p.m. exiting traffic
and agree that theee demonstrated methods will be binding over al
long period. A written agreement incorporating this idea could,
we feel, be a condition of zoning/site-plan-approval of the over-
all island development concept that has been presented.
In mid -June at this office, .!r. nr::m and I generalized this con-
cept in our discussions with :.r. Edward Claughton and Dick Poe.
(
/
•
Mta deorge 36 Adttlft
.PqeTWO
August 12, 1574
7h%ly Vetrbally left us With the in ression that they t.fere in agretem
,.,unt with the concept,
naintdin the intelrity and adeeptabica lo/el ct efficiency of
our transportation systen, a written and les7Al1y binding_agreement
in in ord,ar. \-;e would be pleased to discus the tatter further
with you if you wish. As always, we would, also, be pleased to
2articipate in any other meetings that ray be scheduled by the '
City regarding Claughton island and its traffic impact.
2CIVELB/jt
cci lir. Edward Claughton
Mr. Joe *AcManus
Mr. Dick Keller
Vary truly yours,
David c. Rhinard
Transportation Planning Engineer
CITY o: MiA'.it, FLORIDA
T.)
INtrP-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Honorable Members of the
City Commission
P. W. Andrews
City Manager
S.'�'.7i•'f
n^EFFP[1• ::I:
J4N 2 0 In
FILE
Summary of Claughton Island -
Proposals and Recommendations
ENCLOSURES,
The following is a brief summary of the development pro-
posal for Claughton Island and the recommendations of the
Planning Advisory Board, the Urban Development Review
Board and the Planning Department.
Also attached is a chart presenting an analysis of the devel-
opment regulations as required by the SPD-1 District as
compared to the Developer's proposal and the recommenda-
tions of the Planning Department, and the Planning Advisory
Board.
Developer's Proposal
The developers have proposed a development of residential, hotels, office and
retail uses at a floor area ratio of 3.24 based upon the net area of the island.
Claughton Island would contain 3075 residential units with 300 of those dwellings
available to medium income families. Rents for the medium income units are
estimated to be about $300 per month. Their floor area ratio of 3.24 would
permit a total of 5, 905, 000 square feet to be developed as follows:
Residential
Hotel
Offices
Retail
3,716,924
750, 000
1,216,076
222, 000
Total 5, 905, 000
Since filing their application the developers have altered their application by
proposing a 3. 5 acre public park on the western side of the island to be con-
structed and maintained at the developers` expense. The public park would be
extensively landscaped and designed following an international theme. The
developers contend that the dedication of this international park merits the
Pact- 1 of 5
(
Honorable Members of the City Commission
awarding of a floor area ratio bonus increasing the maximurn FAR to 3, 24.
Maximum intensity allowed by SPD-1 District
According to the SPD- 1 District the base floor area ratio is 1. 0 for residential
development and 1,75 for mired residential and commercial development with
structure parking. Floor area bonuses may be awarded as follows:
A maximum bonus of 0.5 for the provision of a landscaped bayfront
public easement, an average of 20'0" wide and extending 3, 000 linear
feet along the perimeter of the island.
b. A maxirnun bonus of .06 for increasing the ground level pedestrian open
space 15"0 over the required 35%.
c. A maximum bonus of .15 for distinctive design quality.
d. A maximiun bonus of . 05 for providing an enclosed open space at the
ground level of building. The floor area may be increased by two (2)
square feet for each square foot left open and unenclosed at ground level.
Planning Advisory Board Recommendations
As per Planning Advisory Board Resolution 55-74 the Board recommended
that the developers be granted the increased FAR of 3.24 subject to the provision
that the developers dedicate, develop and maintain the 3. 5 acre public park as
proposed. In addition, the Planning Board recommended the following:
a. The residential density should be limited to 58 units per acre or 2, 428 unit:
b. The maximum allowable area for office and retail uses be limited to
1,138,477 square feet, which is the maxirnun permitted under the SPD-1
regulations.
c. Exiting vehicles in afternoon peak hour traffic should he limited to 800
vehicles per hour. If at any stage in the development process, traffic
approaches or exceeds 800 vehicles development intensity should be
reduced.
Urban Development Review Board Recommendations
As required by the SPD-1, the Urban Development Review Board has studied
the Claughton island development concept plan and evaluated the developer's
Page 2 of 5
1
Honorable Members of the City Commission
request for floor area ratio bonuses. Specific recommendations are as follows:
a) the developer's have requested an FAR bonus of . 5 for providing
a landscaped bayfront public easement and ,15 for distinctive
design features, It was the opinion of the Urban Development
Review Board that no floor area bonuses should be recommended
based upon careful review of the proposed development concept
plan. Because of the extensive floor area requested and the ar-
rangement of buildings and structures on the site opportunities
for views to the Island and from the mainland were destroyed;
b) the Urban Development Review Board recommended that the devel-
opment concept plan should he restudied and redesigned at lesser
intensities in order to encourage a higher quality of architectural
design and site planning.
Planning Department's Recommendations
Throughout the discussions with the developers and their presentations to the
Planning Advisory Board, the Planning Department has continually recommended
that, in accordance with the SPD- 1 regulations the floor area ratio be limited
to a maximum of 2. 5 including bonuses. A complete list of Planning Depart-
ment recommendations are contained on page 17 of the attached memorandum
of December 11, 1974.
Since traffic considerations are directly related to intensity of development, we
concur with the Dade County Department of Traffic and Transportation that the
proposed traffic exiting from the Island at the afternoon peak hour be limited
to 800 vehicles. Calculations by the Planning Department, on page 18, of the
December llth memorandum, indicate that a substantial reduction in proposed
floor area is necessary. Using many of the developers assumptions and trip
generation rates by Dade DOTT, the calculations show that it is reasonable to
limit the floor area ratio to 2. 5 and the retail and office space to 500, 000 square
feet in order to lirnit the outgoing traffic to 800 vehicles in the afternoon peak
hour.
The proposal by the developers to dedicate a 3. 5 acre public park on the western
side of the Island is commendable. The preliminary plans indicate that the park
would be a positive addition to the City's park system and offer many public
opportunities. However, based upon traffic considerations and the potential
scale of the residential and office development, the proposed park does not merit
a floor area bonus increasing the a!Iowable FAR to 3.24. To allow an FAR
bonus of .99 for the 3. 5 acre par'.-: would be equivalent of increasing the proposed
floor area by approximately 1,800,000 square feet or three times the area of the
One Biscayne Office building.
Page 3 of 5
Honorable lvlernbers of the City Commission
In the process of deriving the base floor area ratio of 1. 75 with potential
bonuses up to 2. 5, considerable attention vas given to the value of public
open space. The SPD- 1 District provides a maximum bonus of 0,5 for the
Landscaped bayfront public easement. This bonus is equivalent to over 900,000
square feet of building floor area --a substantial bonus. The 3.5 acre park as
proposed by the developers does not add greater open space to the Glaughton
Island Development Plan. This open space area which would be generally
accessible to residents and workers on the Island has always been in the
developer's plan. The difference, however, is the proposed landscape
development concept (the international scheme) and the offer to dedicate the
park.
Floor area bonus systems are only effective as long as the amenities received
by the City benefit the City without creating undue negative ramifications. In
this case awarding an FAR of 3.24 N.vould result in a development program
which would:
a) create excessive mass and bulk
b) destroy opportunities for significant views through the Island
c) overburden the existing transportation system
d) allow excessive office and commercial floor area which would compete
with the Central Business District.
The Planning Department recommends that the allowable floor area for the
Glaughton Island Project be as follows:
1. The base FAR should be 1.75 as stated in the SPD- 1 district regulations
for development with mixed residential office and retail uses.
2. The floor area ratio should be increased by 0. 5 for providing the land-
scaped bayfront easement: extending 3000 linear feet along the western
side of the Island.
3. The allowable floor area may be increased up to two square feet for
every one square feet of area devoted to approved dedicated public park
use maintain by the developer. As applied to the proposed 3. 5 acre
international park it is recommended the floor area ratio be increased
by . ] 5. This also represents a substantial bonus by allowing dedicated
public open space to be included as a part of the net island area.
Page 4 of 5
1
Honorable Members of the City Commission
4, By recommending the above bonuses the allowable FAR would be 2, 40,
As development plans are submitted it is anticipated that additional
bonuses as stated in the SPD- 1 Ordinance may be awarded up to a
maximum FAR of 2, 5,
Page 5 of 5
Provision
Comparison of Ordinance Provisions and Developer's Proposal for Claughton Island
SPD-1 Regulations
'Maximum Net Floor Area
Ratio (with Bonuses)
2. 5
Net Residential Density
'Maximum No. of Dwelling Units
Maxi. um floor Area
58 d. u. /acre
2,428
4,553,907 sq. ft.
(2.5 x net area)
Developer's Proposal
SPD- 1
3.24
Agree to dedicate 3.5
public park and a 20'
wide landscaped easement
extending 3000 linear feet
along the bayfront.
73.6 d. u. /acre
Residential Floor Area
(includes hotels)
3,415,430 sq. ft.
(minimum)
'Office and Retail Floor Area
1,138,477 sq. ft.
(maximum)
Lot Coverage
Total Open Space (includes streets)
60%
3,075
Planning Depa rtrn ent' s
Recommendations
2.5
Subject to traffic
limits and dedica-
tion of 3.5 acre
public park. Land-
scaped bayfront
easement and other
bonus provisions of
SPD- 1.
58 d.u./acre
2,428
•
Planning Advisory Board
Recommendations
3.24
Developer must
dedicate 3.5 acre
public park.
2,428
/aire
5,905,000 sq. ft.
(3.24 x net area)
4,466,924 sq.ft.
1,438,076 sq. ft.
4,553,907 sq. ft.
(2.5 x net area)
4,053,907 sq. ft.
500,000 sq. ft.
(maximum)
5,905,000 sq. ft.
(3.24 x net area)
4.766,523 sq.. ft.
1, 138,477 sq. ft
(maximum)
116)2.—
Percent of Gross Island Area
55%
60%
75clio
75%
Ground Level Pedestrian Open Space 35% 35%
75%
35%
Provision
SPD-1 Regulations
Total Pedestrian Open Space
(excludes streets, includes
landscaped deck areas)
Open Space generally accessible
to Island residents and workers
Housing Opportunities for Low,
Moderate or Medium Income Persons
Exiting Vehicles in Afternoon Peak
Flour Traffic
Special Uses
50%
1.25 acres per 1000
residents - 6.7 acres
of 16%
No Requirement
"Proposed development
intensity and uses shall
be based upon the capa-
city of the connecting
traffic network to the
mainland to accommo-
date ingress and egress
without severely im-
pacting the adjacent
traffic systems."
All proposed special uses
to be subject to review at
the time of application.
Developer's Proposal
SPD-1
5 0%
19%
300 units of medium
income housing. Rents
would be approximately
$300 per month.
800 vehicles based upon
calculations by Alan
Voorhees and Associates.
Planning Department's
R ecommendations
50%
1.25 acres per 1000
residents
Developer should provide
at least 10% of total num-
ber of dwelling units for
medium income persons,
and also provide housing
for low income service
personnel.
800 vehicles based upor.
DOTT Report.
Carpets, rug and floor
covering store, drive-in
tellers, home appliance
store, night club, liquor
store, restaurants, cafes,
sporting goods, theatres,
private club or Lodge, dupli-
cation center, parking lots
as temporary use, facilities
for dispensing gasoline en-
closed in parking structure,
food markets, furniture store.
Planning Advisory Board
R ecommendations
Deve Loper encouraged
to provide at leas
300 units for medi-
um /mt,derate hor"yn'g•
800vchicl
All uses proposed by the developer except the
following:
--carpet, rug and floor covering store; drive-in
tellers; home appliance store; furniture store.
Parking lots as temporary uses shall be permitted
during construction only.
i=.1 f:IT "A"
'-W• ..;LOPi.oft: il' UiZo :
L •L LL by 1:ilo iri that Maur:zu iilt to Stion (7) 'vti C )it �<, ,
I_Ur L":.. ;mot`C1L'., C:^l:,�ot off ' l,_city DE Miami, Florida,
has ht.•":rr1 tat a iD.:b.i is ,el. tn-_a hold on i''t:'b it:lr;! 12, 1975, u
devel0 nl> of r!,.-t l.l)at t1 ?iil cot i... . Win'; of a complo:< of
cipnrts:lnts, hotels, office buildi nqs and stores to be locat d
in the City of Miami beginning in 1975.
Pursuant to Section 330.06 and after duo consideration
of the consistency of this development with regulations, and
the regional report this body took fhn following ar•f.i on
Approval of this development subject to t
con-
ditions: he following con-
"V U 1 ^ PO ° TrvIE
INTE, _: S I'rY OF DEVELOP:4ENT
FuLLOW"
1. The South Florida Regional Planning Council found
that a floor ar a ratio of 3.24 with bonuses to 3.70
was excessive. The Planning Departrnent of the City of
Miami_ has recommended a maximum floor area ratio of
2.4 (4,371,751 square feet) which includes bonuses
for bayfront easement and dedication of 3.5 acres for
public park. The Planning Advisory Board has recommended
a floor area ratio of 2.5 which would permit 4,553,907
:.:qu i e feet of r,J('-vG lortrr'r1t ,
The Planning T dvi gory
Board further recommended that a Moor area ratio
of 3.24 which would permit a development of 5,005,000
square foot would be appropriate if the developer
dedicates, develops and o•?rn tually maintains a 3.5 acr
public_ :t o:i the west 4;hoc- of: the .Island.
C o i'.1as. i cn .i 'i ;i i 1-}c.l '.tt r•:.' o. )::lend.ttions of
the Pl,tn.l' a,l .._l:'i '.)r t�G.l''.� : r<. _)i)ro'::r".Lc:LC. F3..
C1a0 1ihLon
1
2 The developer has ..:qu _st,:Ll 73.6 r del 11 rt.: unit:4 pc r
acre '? eI t-.o{:•.aZ Tlti:ibr of 3,075. The Sou...h Florida L:'"{1•U�l 1
T`1•..liii : ng Council has male rio r!?cummendatl.ori as to Lha number
of C2'... llin,.J un L s (;':? L eicr:'; how:, they have not('ii Lhdf;
the ur_:viou.. zoning .f the Island (R-4) p.!miLted Jii
Unit`; pi!r act: . The Planning Drpel:to nt of the Citv
of Mlciiil1 and the Pla Ii:iiili:j Advisor' Board of th,e City o
Miami have recommend`;d a maximum r:7!sidential density of
53 dwelling units per acre. The City Commission finds
that 73.6 units per acre or a total of 3,075 dwelling units
for the entire island will provide for reasonable .intrsity.
":ON -RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA
3. The developer requested hcfc rc t c
�+u
Regional Planning Council a non-residential floor area of
1,400,000 square feet for office and 230,000 square feet
for retail use. The South Florida Regional Planning Council
found that the request would impede the development of the
Central Business District as a major urban center. The
dev:!lopers request before the Planning Advisory Board and
The City Commission is for 1,200,000 square feet of office
and 238,000 square feet for retail use. The Planning
Department has recommended 400,000 squqre feet for office
use and 100,000 squgre for retail use. The Planning
Advisory Board has recommended a total non-residential area
ratio of 1,138,477 squgre feet. The City Commission finds
that a total non-residential floor area of 1,200,000 will
NO f4pt . THAN
So a sc ,FT. OF usE.
rMLA IS
4}
be appropriate for Claughton Island.
RETAIL
2.
4
'[he Cit_v of •Lane Planning Department and Planning
ivi oI y 'jo,,.rd have reco;' :i:c nde'i that the f')l Lo;/ing uses
bc: p.^:`'^;1 ttC':1 on Clau hto_Z 1 ],<Zn 1 t o:i': p rmitted uses
as set fortis in Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Use Regu-
lations of the :;fill-1 Di:;trictr, together with the follow-
ing: Hight Club, Package Liquor Store, Restaurants, Tea
Rooms or Cafe9, Sporting Goods, Theater, Private Club or
Lotge and other similar uses not operated for profit,
duplicating center not including typesetting and letter
press, Parking Lots as temporary uses during construction
only, Food, Meat or Vegetable Market, facilities for dis-
pensing gasoline, motor oil and incidental automotive
services enclosed as a portion of a parking facility
with no exterior advertising., The developer requests
the following additional uses - carpet, rug and floor
covering store; drive-in tellers; home appliance store;
and furniture store. The South Florida Regional Planning
Council found that the project as presented by the de-
veloper would be too competitive with the Central Business
District. The City Commission finds that the uses as
recommended by the Planning Department and Planning
Advisory Board would hc' appropriate for. an I ;1a.nrl
development. °-� t 0_ i
T r •T
TR?_ SPORTAPION
r L LLUVV"
5. The South FloridaRegional Planning Council found
that there would be a negative impact on the traffic
conditions at the"' intersoctions of Brickell Avenue and
S.I;. 7th and :;.1 , 8th Stro(,ts. '.['he City of i•2i.ari Planning
Deplrtm,:,n't and t.n_ City >>: 1 i .im.i. _ 1a.?.?.i.n.; r"':�..v L._•.� t .;oi2Ycl
have dc'tortr.inJ L.hat %lug: to thr' 1Ji:.; bi. Ili'? at:.l'.':?
1)M ill7'tr t:r.f f:.i C sho;.21 t b i i tt.o : .)( v ..;: I!.1 � 2 tCti!'-i
:i,
t;._ L-i ; �'..� C i.i.., ('n `.;i i ��2,:�;, Tl.yet
i
. _ _ 1 _ 7. c : u J __ 1. 1. i L. i �J " a t i t' �:1. trip.; +� and .i n a rd c r.
[. 0 . i_ f .: i . L 'o 4 =1 :: L t _ :; - . . t - : i U m , .J 1 1 .. _ ... � � 1 ` � a a t a F F c
zi:i _ .'r':• hy th.-2 D71•2 _ Cor,:. t"_ t)• •t-� _ ,_. !a._. o Traffic and 'i''atiL5-
:'7
T?-_'.t building Dc`._m::.t to detcrT?; n- hha :i t ng pa:; hour
traffic and the probable effect that t• 'building
:u� proposed
and those already under construction will have on the maximum
limit, No building -ler::li.t shall be issued if it is deter-
mined by said sui 'e ? that the maximum peak hour traffic will
be exceeded. The developer shall make provision for a
second briuge eolinection at the north ena or the island.
6. The South Florida Regional Planning Council has
found a complete lack of medium and moderate income housing
units on the Island and, therefore, recommended denial. The
developer has offered to furnish 300 units of medium income
housing charging rental fee that does not include a figure
for capitalized land value.
the Planning Advisory Board
would be approximately $300
The
that
developer represented to
the rental
per month.
The
Board found that this figure would be above
for these units
Planning Advisory
the low income
threshhold. The Planning Advisory Board encourages the.
developer to provide at least 300 units for medium -moderate
income housing. The City Commission finds that the develop-
rsrs ;hail ?'':cw'id' low i.ncc)mhnup.ing 'tnd requirs not 1c'
than 200 units on the island to be developed and rented in
the manner set forth by the developer.
4.
1
.7
`s ; = Urban Jeve l op etit F vic2.' Board has recomr ended
that til e! d2ve I r):Jzr Provide ad.Ji tior'a l visual vistas
through the island from th2 mainland, The Planning
A viso;•v Board concurs with this reca riendation, Th2
P anin i ! Departoen t h:s db termined that the additional
vi.;u I vistas ma Y be provided bY to l e;isgntn,1 of
tnt n.;itf as set forth hrrltn. The Citv Commission
encr`ur J)Ies the d?ve l Jeer to provide additional visual
vistas throc;rih the IsIzind from the west.
S. Ail Other portions of the develonrnent plan as
presented bY the developer are hereby ratified and
approved subject to the limitations of the SPD-1
DISTRICT and the an:.licaiion for develormen+ a�
aaproved by the City Commission.
9. The South Florida Regional Planning Council shall
be furnished with all proaosals and updates of the
application for the development of regional impact.
Copies of this Order are to be sent immediately to
the Division of State Planning, Department of Administra-
tion, 725 S. 3ronough, Tallahassee, Florida; to the South
Florida Regional Planning Council, 1515 N.W. 167 Street,
Suite 429, Miami, Florida; to Edward N. Claughton, Jr.,
34 S.E. Second Avenue, Miami, Florida; and to Frates
Prilper+,ps, Tnr., r/n T1ly: r)avics and P.:e. qi$n(.) S1t21ly
5.
DLiC, v=::
FOLLOW"
Ect , ti 01;7.. .I_J11-1 om , ct n ci
Y02.
C0.7..I1ISSIONER
COZ,IM IS S IONER
COMM ISS ION -ER
11.(-110.7(Thrrik ft;
_ •• 1 4 ; i
FOLLOW"
6
EMU 1T "A"
DEVELOPMENIii ORDER
Let it be known that ursuant to Section 380:06 (7),
t
Florida Statutes, the Commission of the City of Miami, Florida,
has heard at a Public Hearin held on February 12, 1975, a
development of regional impacconsisting of a complex of
apartments, hotels, office buildings and stores to be located
in the City of Miami beginning vn 1975.
Pursuant to Section 380.06 And after due consideration
of the consistency of this development with regulations, and
the regional report this body tookthe following action:
Approval of this development subjedt to the following con-
ditions: "( 1 1 ^ 1C"-.) ?'!\
t L.
INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT i r
The South Florida Regional Plann ing� Oelfta-et) Mund
1.
that a floor area ratio of 3.24 with bonuses to 3.79
was excessive. The Planning Depa4ment of the City of
Miami has recommended a maximum fldpr area ratio of
2.4 (4,371,751 square feet) which includes bonuses
for bayfront easement and dedication ;of 3.5 acres for
public park. The Planning Advisory Bard has recommended
a floor area ratio of 2.5 which would permit 4,553,907
square feet of development. The Planning Advisory
Board further recommended that a floor area ratio
of 3.24 which would permit a development of 5,905,000
square feet would be appropriate if the developer
dedicates, develops and perpetually maintains a 3.5 acre
public park on the west shore of the Island.
The Commission finds that the recommendations of
the Planning Advisory Board are appropriate for
Claughton Island.
2. The developer has requested 73.6 dwelling units per
acre or a total number of 3,075, The South Florida Regional
Planning Council has made no recommendation as to the number
of dwelling units per acre, however, they have noted that
the previous zoning of the Island (R-4) permitted 58
units per acre. The Planning Department of the City
of Miami and the Planning Advisory Board of the City of
Miami have recommended a maximum residential density of
58 dwelling units per acre. The City Commission finds
that 73.6 units per acre or a total of 3,075 dwelling units
for the entire island will provide for reasonable intensity.
NON-RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA
3. The developer requested before the South Florida
Regional Planning Council a non-residential floor area of
1,400,000 square feet for office and 230,000 square feet
for retail use. The South Florida Regional Planning Council
found that the request would impede the development of the
Central Business District as a major urban center. The
developers request before the Planning Advisory Board and
The City Commission is for 1,200,000 square feet of office
and 238,000 square feet for retail use. The Planning
Department has recommended 400,000 squqre feet for office
use and 100,000 squqre for retail use. The Planning
Advisory Board has recommended a total non-residential area
ratio of 1,138,477 squqre feet. The City Commission finds
that a total non-residential floor area of 1,200,000 will
be appropriate for Claughton Island.
"�CJ'L.1 !fit , ✓�R ii rE
2.
c
A
is.V
2. The developer has requested 73.6 dwelling units per
acre or a total number of 3,075. The South Florida Regional
Planning Council has made no recommendation as to the number
of dwelling units per acre; however, they have noted that
the previous zoning of the Island (R-4) permitted 58
units per acre. The Planning Department of the City
of Miami and the Planning Advisory Board of the City of
Miami have recommended a maximum residential density of
58 dwelling units per acre. The City Commission finds
that 58 units per acre or a total of 2,428 dwelling units
for the entire Island will provide for reasonable intensity.
NON-RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA
3. The developer requested before the South Florida
Regional Planning Council a non-residential floor area
of 1,400,000 square feet for office and 230,000 square feet
for retail use. The South Florida Regional Planning Council
found that the request would impede the development of the
Central Business District as a major urban center. The
developers request before the Planning Advisory Board and
the City Commission is for 1,200,000 square feet of office
and 238,000 square feet for retail use. The Planning
Department has recommended 400,000 square feet for office
use and 100,000 square feet for retail use. The Planning
Advisory Board has recommended a total non-residential area
ratio of 1,138,477 square feet. The City Commission finds
r r• r.
that a total non-residential floor area of 1,138,477 will
be appropriate for Claughton Island.
j,r 1
ti e'er :.•� i i i 4.. 1
2.
PERMITTED_ USES
tom•
4. The City of Miami Planning Department and Planning
Advisory Board have recommended that the following uses
be permitted on Claughton Island: those permitted uses
as set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Use Regu-
lations of the SPD-1 District, together with the follow-
ing: Night Club, Package Liquor Store, Restaurants, Tea
Rooms or Cafes, Sporting Goods, Theater, Private Club or
Lodge and other similar uses not operated for profit,
duplicating center not including typesetting and letter
• press, Parking Lots as temporary uses during construction
only, Food, Meat or Vegetable Market, facilities for dis-
pensing gasoline, motor oil and incidental automotive
services enclosed as a portion of a parking facility
with no exterior advertising. The developer requests
the following additional uses - carpet, rug and floor
covering store; drive-in tellers; home appliance store;
and furniture store. The South Florida Regional Planning
Council found that the project as presented by the de-
veloper would be too competitive with the Central Business
District. The City Commission finds that the uses as
recommended by the Planning Department and Planning
Advisory Board would be appropriate for an Island
«S I f p r:' 1—r, rE
development. f ;1
!
TRANSPORTATION S
,r ,..� ; f , jj,
t„ JCou`
5. The South Florida Regional Planningn i.y found
that there would be a negative impact on the traffic
conditions at the intersections of Brickell Avenue and
S.E. 7th and S.E. 8th Streets, The City of Miami Planning
Department and the City of Miami Planning Advisory Board
have determined that due to the possible negative impact,
exiting peak PM hour traffic should be limited to 800 vehicular
trips. The City Commission finds that exiting peak PM hour
traffic must be limited to 800 vehicular trips and in order
to insure that this maximum is not exceeded, a traffic
survey by the Dade County Department of Traffic and Trans-
portation shall be conducted prior to the issuance of each
new building permit to determine the exiting peak PM hour
traffic and the probable effect that the proposed building
and those already under construction will have on the maximum
limit. No building permit shall be issued if it is deter-
mined by said survey that the maximum PM hour traffic will
be exceeded. The developer shall make provision for a
second bridge connection at the north end of the island.
6. The South Florida Regional Planning Council has
found a complete lack of medium and moderate income housing
units on the Island and, therefore, recommended denial. The
developer has offered to furnish 300 units of medium income
housing charging rental fee that does not include a figure
for capitalized land value. The developer represented to
the Planning Advisory Board that the rental for these units
would be approximately $300 per month. The Planning Advisory
Board found that this figure would be above the low income
threshhold. The Planning Advisory Board 'encourages the
developer to provide at least 300 units for medium -moderate
income housing. The City Commission finds that the develop-
ers shall provide low income housing and requires not less
than 200 units on the island to be developed and rented in
the manner set forth by the developer.
4.
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
r
i
V V
1
trips. The City Commission finds that exiting peak
PM hour traffic must be limited to 800 vehicular trips
and in order to insure that this maximum is not exceeded,
a traffic survey by the Dade County Department of Traffic
and Transportation shall be conducted prior to the is-
suance of each new building permit to determine the
exiting peak PM hour traffic and the probable effect
that the proposed building and those already under
construction will have on the maximum limit. No
building permit shall be issued if it is determined
by said survey that the maximum peak PM hour traffic
will be exceeded.
6. The South Florida Regional Planning Council has found
a complete lack of medium and moderate income housing
units on the Island and, therefore, recommended denial.
The developer has offered to furnish 300 units of medium
income housing charging a rental fee that does not in-
clude a figure for capitalized land value. The developer
represented to the Planning Advisory Board that the
rental for these units would be approximately $300 per
month. The Planning Advisory Board found that this
figure would be above the low income threshhold. The
Planning Advisory Board encourages the developer to
provide at least 300 units for medium -moderate income
l.,
housing. The City Commission finds that the developers put-
forth a good -faith effort in attempting to provide
medium income housing and recommends a£l'1ast 300 units
be developed and rented in the manner set forth by the
developer.
7. The Urban Development Review Board has recommended
that the developer provide additional visual vistas
through the Island from the mainland. The Planning
Advisory Board concurs with this recommendation. The
Planning Department has determined that the additional
visual vistas may be provided by the lessening of in-
tensity as set forth herein. The City Commission finds
that additional visual vistas will be available and
should be provided by reducing the intensity of devel-
opment as set out herein.
8. All other portions of the development plan as
presented by the developer are hereby ratified and
approved subject to the limitations of the SPD-1 DISTRICT
and the application for development as approved by the
City Commission.
9. The South Florida Regional Planning Council shall
be furnished with all proposals and updates of the ap-
plication for the development of regional impact.
Copies of this Order are to be sent immediately to
the Division of State Planning, Department of Administra-
tion, 725 S. Bronough, Tallahassee, Florida; to the South
Florida Regional Planning Council, 1515 N. W. 167th Street,
Suite 429, Miami, Florida; to Edward N. Claughton, Jr.,
34 S. E. Second Avenue, Miami, Florida; and to Frates
Properties, Inc., c/o Day, Davies and Poe, 5800 Skelly
5.
t,.
?a The Urban DevetoPment Review board has recommended
that the developer Provide additional visual vistas
through the Island from the Mainland', The Planning
Advisory $oard concurs with this recommendation. The
Planning Department has determined that the additional
visual vistas may be provided by the lessening of
intensity as set forth herein: The City Commission
encourages the developer to Provide additional visual
vistas through the Island from the west.
8. All Other portions of the development plan as
presented by the developer are hereby ratified and
approved subject to the limitations of the SPD-1
DISTRICT and the application for development as
approved by the City Commission.
9. The South Florida Regional Planning Council shall
be furnished with all proposals and updates of the
application for the development of regional impact.
Copies of this Order are to be sent immediately to
the Division of State Planning, Department of Administra-
tion, 725 S. Bronough, Tallahassee, Florida; to the South
Florida Regional Planning Council, 1515 N.W. 167 Street,
Suite 4291 Miami, Florida; to Edward N. Claughton, Jr.,
34 S.E. Second Avenue, Miami, Florida; and to Frates
Properties, Inc., c/o Day, Davies and Poe, 5800 Skelly
5.
7 . The Urban Deyelop'me :t Review Board has recommended
that the developer proVide additional visual vistas
through the Island front the mainland. The Planning
Advisory Board concurs with this r: co•i:w1._'ndeation. The
Planning Department: has determined that: the additional
visual ;vistas may be prcided b•t the lessening of in-
tensity as set forth herein. The City Commission
encourages the developer to provide additional visual
vistas through the Is1 a: d from the 0l0.i 16at t _.
8. All other portions of the development plan as
presented by the developer are hereby ratified and
approved subject to the limitations of the SPD-1 DISTRICT
and the application for development as approved by the
City Co amis_;ion.
9. The South Florida Regional Planning Council shall
be furnished with all proposals and updates of the ap-
plication for the development of regional impact.
Copies of this Order are to be sent immediately to.
the Division of State Planning, Department of Administra-
tion, 725 S. Bronough, Tallahassee, Florida; to the South
Florida Regional Planning Council, 1515 N. W. 167th Street,
Suite 429, Miami, Florida; to.Edward N. Claughton, Jr.,
34 S. E. Second Avenue, Miami, Florida; and to Frates
Properties, Inc., c/o Day, Davies and Poe, 5800 Skelly
5.
Drive East, Tu sa Oklahoma, Owners and developer's.
DATE
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
6.
COMMISSIONER
1