HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-75-0272TO Ho D, Southern
City Clerk
r o
Po Wo Andrews
City Manager
INTER-OFFR:E: MEMOR.AN4F-A.,1
MAR 1975
Notice of Public Hearitig
March 25, 1975
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Miami City Commission will consider the report, Downtown
Miami 1973 - 1985: An Urban Development and Zoning Plan; pre-
pared by the consultants Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd; and
the recommendations of four Downtown Zoning Study Committees,
in public hearing at 2.00 porn.
March 25, 1975, in the City Commission Chambers at Dinner Rey.
NOTICE OF Ptf3LIC HEARING
DOWNTOWN ZONING PLAN
A11 interested persons will take notice that a public
hearing will be held by the Miami City Commission in its
meeting chambers at City Hall, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida,
at 2:00 o'clock P.M. on Tuesday, March 25, 1975, on the
report, DOWNTOWN MIAMI 1973-1985: AN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND
ZONING PLAN, and the recommendations of four Downtown Zoning
Study Committees.
H. D. SOUTHERN
CITY C LE RI<
CITY OF MI?1NI, FLORIDA
eau of
Honorable City Commission
Attention: Mr. P. W. Andrews
City of Miami, Florida
Gentlemen:
s, ,
torittet
LP.
January 300 1975
Re: "DOWNTOWN MIAMI 1973-1985" STUDY y
RECOMMENDED
Initiated by Planning Department
The Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of January 22, 1975,
Item #4, following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB
5-75 by a 5 to 2 vote approving in principle the Study entitled
"DOWNTOWN MIAMI 1973-1985" pages 1 through 83 emphasizing points of
the River Walk, immediate Activity development emanating from Bayfront
Park area, and a separate study of the safety and security problem;
and Resolution No. PAB 6-75 by a 6 to 1 vote Recommending further to
the City Commission 16 points of emphasis from the reports of the four
Downtown Zoning Study Committee as shown on pages 31 and 32 of the
minutes of January 22, 1975.
A RESOLUTION to provide for the above has been prepared by the City
Attorney's office and submitted for consideration of the City
Commission.
_Sincerely,
David Simpson, Jr., erector
Department of Administration
Planning and Zoning Boards
cm
Attached: Minutes
cc: Law Department
Tentative City Commission date: To be coordinated by City Manager's
office and the Planning Department.
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO;
FROM
Honorable Members of the
City Commission
P. W. Andrews
City Manager
DATE:
rrlAR 1 9 1975
FILE.
SUBJECT: Principal Recommendations: Four
Downtown Zoning Study Committees
Downtown Miami 1973-1985: An
REFLR'"U roan Development and Zoning, Flan,
ENCLOSURES:
The principal recommendations of four ciowntowr,
zoning study committees appointed to evaluate the
downtown urban development and zoning study are
enclosed.
The C:itj' Commission in a series of resolutions (R - 7`t-358, 359, 360 and 361
of May 9, 1974, and R-74-5 iSA, 51513, 515C Ind 5151D of June 27, 1974)
four committees of ten members each to evaluate and make recom-
,hlcihciaLions regarding the report Downtown Miami ii lni 19 7 3- 19851: An Urban
Di`\'i'Iol)ment and Zoning Plan. These committees reported their recommenda-
tions to the Commission on December 17, 1974, and by Motion 74-1354, the
Commission directed the administration to schedule these recommendations
in public hearing.
On January 22, 1975, the Planning Advisory Board, in a public hearing con-
sidering the Downtown Urban Development and Zoning Plan also considered
the reports of the four downtown committees and included appropriate recom-
mendations from these comrnittec reports in their recommendation on the
Downtown Plan to the Commission. (PAi3 Resolution 5-75 and 6-75; January 22,
1975)
The enclosed summary has been prepared for your convenience to reflect
r,-.a or recommendations of the four committees. This summary has been
reviewed by the Committee Chairpeople and has their endorsement.
s !' `.:CO "\t''\D_'�'I tO'�TS�_--_E 1 S� )--------
OF THE 1'OU1; 1`t7��'�;'l U`; �' ZONING STUDY LC??�l�•1I'l TF:Ir__
__�--- Consumers and Users __._._-Land Owners and Dcvelo ers.
rc'.:itc'cts l Professional l'ianners_
There is a conflict between
auto parking requirements
and trying to encourage rapid
transit usage - should not
encourage both.
--Need more small urban open
spaces..
--Riverfrcnt walk too small.
--13eserve south bank of River
for , i i vay.
—Need to design ilrlin's to pro
vial,: high levee of security.
-Mandatory arcade require-
ments might inhibit good design.
--Through 1-)lock connection width
rccor .menciation are too narrow.
-All building ','ails to street line
on Flagler and Biscayne 131vd.
t,i„1�t jnhibit noo<1
Government
---'Auto needy to be de-empha-
sized to promote rapid transit
usage.
--NE Third Avenue ought to
terminate at NE Third Street
rather than NE Fifth Street.
More urban parks are needed.
-Need l;lrutned "public relations
en paign", presenting a psy-
chologically positive" dow nto,..vn.
-_Need social calendar of recrea-
tion activities.
Comprehensive second level
pedestrian circulation system
is needed. Additional study
recommended.
--Adopt zoning
on auto.
--It is not desirable to widen
streets to accommodate cars
if we want to encourage rapid
transit usage.
--Mini-parks and greenery are
needed.
- Number one concern.
- Need buddy system, car pools.
- -Need recreational and cultural
activities to increase number of
people.
- -New buildings need security design.
- -Need fire safety education program,
fire drills in high rise buildings.
- -Compulsory art requirements are
needed in new buildings.
--Building heights graduated from
lowest along bayfront to highest
inland.
--Roof tops need to be architectur-
:illy trotted.
v;ith de -emphasis --Adopt proposed ordinances.
--Need interim zoning ordinance
to protect the intent of the plan.
-Decrease parking requirements to
discourage car usage.
-Need easily accessible rapid transit
stations close to residential, office
uses.
-Divert auto traffic from streets
where on-street_parkina is eliminated..
-Need additional arcades and prome-
nades linking Downto.vn to Little
Havana., Brickell, Plaza Venetia..
-Essential to residents and workers..
-FAR too low in support areas of CBD:
N. 20th Street to 15th Road in
i3rickell.
-FAR should be 1-bitrated acid at least
doubled for rc t (_!;*l:.1 (CVCtoptt'v:lt
_owe is cote _; - t, -- — - -- -- _ -
Architects C. Professional Planners
Government
--Service system heeds to be
dc•vc•1op( .41 far ga rbage
vicic-up, deliveries to
buildings, etc.
Consumers and Users Land Owners and Developers:
--Smaller convention facilities and
larger cultural facilities are needs
- -Preserve historic structures
('Manzi News).
--Continuous shopping areas are
needed.
- -More restaurants and public rest -
rooms are needed.
- -Provisions are needed for handi-
capped.
--Loading and unloading provisions
for commercial, emergency, etc.
needed.
--era?: incentives required to re-
vitalize downtown.
d_ -Development of private and public
attractions are needed: government
center, cultural center, trade center.
--Need more residential and commercial
uses.
--Need ad valorem tax abatement for
residential developments in down-
town and support areas.
--Educational and day care
facilities needed in new
residential uses.
--Day care needed in new
developments a nd major
department stores.
LAND OWNERS & DEVELOPERS GOMMtTTEE REPORT
TO
THE MAYOR , CITY_COUNCIL, bF MIAIMI
Tibor Rollo
Chairman
Alvah Chapman!
Co -Chairman
Represented by James Renbarger
'Alex Aznares
Kenneth Bluh
Armando Alejandre
Paul J. Nasrallah
November 25, 1974
The Mayor and the ri'.y Council of Miami, in their infinite foresight
and because of the unsuccessful implementation of the Doxiades Plan, decided to
foam lay committees commenting on the Report submitted by Wall ace, McHarg, Roberts,
& Todd.
• The duties of these committees were to analyze the snbm#tted report
and comment on the feasibility of its implementation by the private sector
of the community. To accomplish this, this Committee has held two conferences
withthe professional staff of the City of Miami Planning Department, five
workshop meetings, two of them with the presence of the staff of the City of
Miami Planning Department, and an advertised public hearing to garner the
opinion of the public sector of the City of Miami.
The Committee hat not addressed itself to the technical aspects
of the Wallace, McHarg, Roberts, & Todd Report. Rather, to those points that
the Committee felt the Report was deficient in or not covered at all.
The economic and zoning inducements for the past several decades have
grossly favored the development of office type structures in the CBD district
with little or no regard given to its support areas. It is obvious from the
sentiment of the public at large and that of the Committee Memberse that the
developers of this city thought of the core area as a giant office complex.
It has been found that such predominately office areas are used: more or less,
40 hours out of a 168 hour week which renders them wasteful by today's
economic standards. Because of the lack of residendes and inadequate commerce
in the core area, it has depended on strictly commuters to come to and from
—1
.
r
work which, of course, also necessitates the profuse development of off-street
parking structures to house the vehicles, that were commuting to and fror work,
in want of proper transportation. it was found that as people removed
their residences from the near core areas and support areas, commercial
centers followed them to suburbia and then later, even office developments
established themselves in these out -lying suburban centers (such as Dadel.nd).
This exodus, out of the core city, tends to leave the core city a
mere skeleton - such as the case in many of our older northern cities = that
ultimately results in an economic fiasco for the city administration, for
the affluent populace, the major tax paying elements of the city will have
deserted the great city for suburbia.
To reverse this process, it is the CDmmittee's feeling that abundant
encouragement has to come from the city to attract developers to develop those
elements that are currently lacking in our downtown core area. The Committee
identified these elements basically as residences, and additional commerce.
Obviously, however, if in the next decade we could find ourselves with a
profuse development of residential areas in the CBD destrict and its support
areas, we could find ourselves with an economically viable, striving down-
town Miami.
To accomplish this the Committee came up with certain specific
recommendations to encourage developers to construct residential developments
in these areas. The Committee found that the bonus structure in the FAR as
recommended by the Report is wholly inadequate and it should not only resort
itself to, in fact, CBD districts but to the support area of the CBD, which
-2-
OP
At defined by the ..Jmdittee as 15th Road south on cckell Avenue and 20th
Street north on Biscayne Boulevard.
The Report offers a very small encouragement in FAR to residential
developers over that of the office building developers. A ratio should be
established by your Council whereby an office development per se would be
arbitrated and given FAR and then this FAR should be at least doubled for
residential use to properly encourage the residential developer in the CBD
district and in its near support areas (15th Road south and 20th Street north).
Further, it is felt by the Committee, that another exercise of the
City Council is necessary to further encourage these sorely needed develop-
ments which would be a structure of ad valorem tax abatement for residential
type of developments in the core city and its support areas. This tax abatement
could be either for a period of years after the building is completed or a grad-
uated percentage ad valorem value attributed increasingly to the completed dev-
elopment for a period of 10 years. Such tax benefits have been Liven, known to
this Committee, in 27 of our major cities already, and the professional staff
of the city could garner this information and possibly emulate them to some degree.
The encouragement of residential developments in these areas will
further tend to reduce the parking requirements for both the residential dev-
elopment as well as the office building and commercial developments in the core
area - because of the lack of need for automobiles, if. the resident perfuncts
almost its entire living cycle in the CBD district and its support areas.
Reduction of the parking reguirements is especially meaningful if the rapid
transport will have become a reality.
•.. ,moon Yn:< bi., t4Mtr,«,W4 Sfaieit: L48,1,4 Ti:^41,4,..... iikW.Ff'.-SAK k.WWX4/.A.9%,
—3—
R
Current economic standards in the investment world takes it it.,
possible for the private sector of developers to produce a residual income
apartment project. A tax subsidy, especially in the initial years of such
residential development, would also configure as an inducement to the prime
lender of these residential projects. With the current lack of willingness
of these prime lenders to come into the core city only allows government
subsidized, low income housing to come into these areas if and when such
funds are made available by the government.
But isn't this counter productive to what we want to accomplish
in revitalizing downtown? It is rather the middle class that the city
should seek out to transplant back into the core area. To do this the Council
needs to make sacrifices today to avert maybe a complete disaster tomorrow.
This Report, of course, had to start somewhere with either the
chicken or the egg - so it addressed itself at first to a point which it
felt was the first move as a precipitant to revitalize downtown, but to do
this the Council will have to consider every and all of those elements that
could and should be infused into downtown, into the core city, that would
improve the quality of life to the residents of downtown and that would
render it desirable for people to live downtown.
The first of these items is the improvement of security, that is
vital - especially for residents in core areas. This is not at all covered
in the Report. This Committee realizes, however, that the city is making
great strides in its goal to achieve a crime -free downtown. This item is
so important that it should be examined and re-examined and improved on a
- 4 -
s
month to month basis. Personal security is not an encouragement for people
to sortie downtown but should be a staple. The trepidation of people living
downtown because of personal security should be completely eliminated from
their minds.
While the Report covers transportation it should go a step further
and it should elaborate on better defined and easily acC`essible transit
stations and terminals. Further, to facilitate well-defined transportation
patterns, it should be important to eliminate completely on -street parking
from many of the downtown streets and, in fact, divert vehicular traffic
patterns from these streets. Wallace, McHarg, Roberts, & Todd should re-
study these portions of their Report.
The Report calls for spotted "mini -forests and mini -parks" in the
core area, but does not give the encouragement for pedestrian traffic. For
this reason study should be given to attractive, pleasing promenades and
exterior sun -shaded arcades. In facts such promenades and arcades could link
the new neighborhoods of the core city such as - Little Havanal Plaza Venetia,
and the Brickell Avenue area.
The city should further encourage the development of buildings
where shops are mixed with residences and maybe the only aspect of the
living cycle that should have no place in the core area is industry. This
has always been a part and parcel of the Great City studies.
The parking requirement should be greatly reduced in the core
city and support area :in a way to discourage people to having need for cars.
The very idea in downtown living, working, recreating, i3 the lack of
—5-
nedessity to depend on the car, especially with the advent of rapid trans-,
port and mass transport facilities.
The Wallace, McHoirg, Roberts, & Todd Report, while it does allude
to the attraction of tourism to the core city,•they choose not to purport
the means by which to do so. Of course, the number one answer that comes
to mind is the improvement of the quality of life in these areas to make it
desirable net only to the permanent resident but to the temporary one,
the tourist as well.
Development of private and public attractions in these areas have
to be a "must"., the Council should exert a constant vigil to seeing to it.
Governmental centers including the meaningful cultural centers. should be located
within these core areas. Activity of this nature should not be taken, out of
them but implanted in them.
•
With the development of sufficient commerce in these
core areas the thought of the development of a Trade Center is not too soon.
For instance, instead of taking one more element out of the core city - such
as the International Trade Center - that was scheduled to go to some 200
blocks out of the core city, should be well thought of to accomodate and
locate into the very heart of town, Miami, that was the cradle of all the
satellite cities that developed around it.
As it was indicated, Committee held a public hearing where
our citizens could air their views at large. These ideas were aired by
the citizens present - some of its highlights we respectfully submit to
- 6 -
cOu as well.
Largely they resounded our Committee's views and heed from both
municipal and private segments to improve thequality of life in the core
city and its support areas to make it attractive for eoplei not only to
use it for 40 hours but to desire to live a total living cycle there as well.
Tibor Rollo
Chairman
TO :
INTEROFFICE t 4ORhNDt.iM
pAGt �_. OP �.
DATE U/20/74.
SUBJECT.',_.Notes Made at Land Owners' and Developers Mtg. held at
+ilami City Commission on 11/19/74 ® 7 P.M.
COF'ItSTOT
Fathers Ignatius Fabacher of Gesu
1. interest younger people to qome downtown to worthwhile endeavors.
Activities.
2. Security
3. Wants to attract better class of people
Father Conelli
1. Why is City government out of the core of the City? It would give
more confidence to the people if the government would move back to the
core.
2. There's a need to develop activities and programs for the people.
3. Need to attract developers
Cliff Sherman
1. Feels that under current conditions it is not possible to develop the
core because of the failure of the.City to provide any security.
2. P.R. should publicize news about important structures in the core.
City and activities.
3. Make core City desirable to conventioneers and tourists. •
4. Existing buildings that are a disgrace to the core City should be
condemned.
5. Next new hospital should be brought downtown, otherwise we will
loose the medical profession from the downtown area.
6. City should use all its necessary strength to get things moving.
7. Overhead transportation (rapid)
T. H. — There is a remark on the top of your hand written notes that
says, "Monday, 4:30"..
r
LO .ID A EAST COAT PROPER
TI , INC
POST OFFICE BOX 012949 • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33101 305/35R=7i10
LANDHOLDERS & BtJItDEFO coo-v7.'E _
nomt Tibo Hd l.n y Chairman
70... ..__ ,_..Hember._�
DATE:, __ 11111174
At the October 31st meeting, the Chairman requested the Members of the
Cotttee to give their views and consideration to the Downtown Miami
1977--190 - An Urban Development and Zoning Plan Report, by the follow -
ing'workehop meeting
'.The next workshop meeting was held on November g, 1974, and the fol-
lowing were the crystallizations of the thoughts offered by each Com-
mittee member.
Kenneth Bluh
1. It would be desirable to have a higher than reported intensification
of residential development in the downtown: and the immediate support
treas. (More or less to be defined from 25th Street N.E. Biscayne
Boulevard to 25th Road S.E. Bri.ckell Avenue) _
2. Inducement of developers by various possible means -for development
of housing in downtown and in support areas.
3. Be stated that finance institutions under current standards will
refuse finance in these areas.
4. He felt that the report did not deal with personal security in
downtown or in its support areas and this should be provisioned by the
suggestion from the reporter or 'by the Council.
5. 'That the report fails to tie-in the fate of the near -in support
areas as an adjunct to the downtown report.
• Paul Nasrallah
1. The report did hot consider those elements that could be infused
into downtown so that the quality of life style for downtown residents
could be improved.
•
2. The improvement of security that',s vital for residents downtown
is not covered in the report.
3. We would like to see a more comprdhensive report on the preparation
transit meaningful bus and/or terminals and stations for he felt
RIVERGATE PLAZA — 444 BR!CKELL AVENUE, SUITE 530 MIA111I, FLORIDA
•
Chairman's Report
November 11► 1974
Page 2
Paul _Nasrallah �_.Continnied
that the bonuses given for residential developments must be intt h larger
k to induce such developments.
,dames A. _ fenbarger.- Substtutir .for_ Alvah_Chapman
1. He stated that he would like to see more: positive encouragement of
developers to develop residential properties.'
2.. le felt that there should be more meaaningful development downtown
where we can create 24 hour living cycle for those resid.entes,, anti that
we are lacking the involvement of residentia]. developers.
3. Under present criterion it would be very, difr"icult to attract fin—
ance for residential development.
4. That the report should handle more profound secuxity.arrangements.
5. He feels constructively, that the effort spent for transit and,
parking should be used to get residential developments .under way.
6. The Council should address itself to the possibility of not only
FAR bonuses to attract residential developments but also maybe with a
10 year abatement of taxes on residential developments downtown and
in the near support areas.
Alberto Ale;jandre
1. He stated that we have to be.100% behind residential development
and that the bonuses given for such developments are wholly inadequate
and that the bonuses offered have to be substantially higher.
2. He felt we should try to bring back the middle class into the City.
The encouragement of such developments can only be done with deep rooted
bonuses, not only in FAR but in taxes as well.
3. The Commission should definitely address itself to restructuring
• taxes in the downtown and in the support areas.
4. He stated that this could be done easily because it has been proven
that a vertical city costs less to administer.
5. The FAR bonuses should be substantially higher than indicated in the
report.
FLORIDA EAST COAST PROPERTIES, INC.
Chairman's #eport
$ itecnber 11, 1974
Page 5
.bet_o_A1e iandre_ =t_. Continued
•
6. Where people work and live as well, the parking requitement should
be sharply reduced; certainly to a level much below as it is provided.
fri the report.
exanderAznarez
1. he felt that none of the proposal could work especially as to r.:s-
ideritial construction if there is no willingness from the municipal
government to help, because he felt that heretofore, the government
worked against the developer.
2. There should be no cars in certain portions of downtown.
3• There should be a requirement that all buildings should have
mixed use.
4. The report did not provide for the possibility of rapid transit
on waterways.
5. The study calls for mini -forests or miri-parks only, but does
not call for promenades.
6. Sun shades and arcades should be compulsory downtown.
?scayne Boulevard downtown and in support areas should have_no
parking.
$. Arcades could link or should link neighborhoods such as Little
Havana, Plaza Venetia and the Brd.ckell Avenue area.
9. He takes exception for the report calling for 235 projects. The
government's attempt' sometimes failed to produce the desired mix of
developments and excludes residences for middle income families.
10. There should be no industry at all allowed downtown or in the sup-
port areas.
• Joseph MacManus represerrtini George Acton
He felt that a call for more meaningful bonuses in FAR and in
taxation is very useful, especially to financing in attracting dev-
elopers. He also noted that an over abundance of parking works
against rapid transit.
•
•
FLORIDA EAST COAST PROPERTIES, INC.
a .. � . ,..._ a ..,-e.!n,.:�.. ib �.. �;�5,�4..- .,.<.e�.._•r._A'.?'twil"ku;�.e�.._..sna+ouauma
•
Airman's Report
November I.l, 1974
• 'age 4
itemark of the_Chairman - _fia.bor Rollo
The Chairman felt that the remarks of the various members of the
Committee covered well the $talient points of the report.
The redundancy of the remarks of the Committee members, especial t
in the area of encomagirg residential development, pointed out aft
Obvious need of the Council to address itself to create a multi-
faceted bonus structure to encourage residential development in the
core City and in the inmt3diate support areas from 25th Street N. B.
Biscayne Boulevard to 25th .Road S. E. Bricke]l. Avenue. •
•
It is obvious that_ without profuse residential developments in
these areas, the fate of our downtown is not alien to that of
. - Detroit, Cleveland, etc.
All Committee members agreed upon one item, that is structuring
the bonuses for residential developments ne on:iy by intensifying
FAR bonuses for such developments but also by the creation of a tax
abatement for a given period of time. The latter will also tend to
attract more favorable finance by improving the income criterion of
a given residential development.
Notice: The next workshop meeting will be — "
DATE: November 18, 1974
Monday
•
TIME: 4.P.M.
PLACE: W. l3rickell Avenue
Suite 530
FLORIDA EAST COAST PROPERTIES,
if e
•
REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTS AND
PROFESSIONAL PLANNERS COMMITTEE
(Excerpt of the Miami City Commission Minutes, December
I7, 1974; an oral presentation by Messers Norman Giller
and George Reed)
t•ir. Norman tiller.: Thank you, Mr, Mayor. I thought for ,t while that maybe
the experts weren't going to get in the ingredients at all but t see that; 1 .
think a gobd mixture of both as you have indicated can come up with the ritjht
answers and we want to thank you for the opportunity of allowing the architects
and the professional planners to participate in this important :study or review
of this important study because we feel that it will have a long insting effect
on the future citizenry of our city. What 1 would like to do at thi:.t time is to
ask George Reed who is the co-chairman of this committee to give a more detailed
resume of our report after which we will furnish you with at a later date a
written resume of the report.
Mayor Ferre: I think that's important, Norman, that we have a statement in
writing from you as we have from these other committees.
Mr. tiller: We will present that to yo•i. At this time then I would lice to pre-
sent George Reed who is an architect anal a -member of the American Institute of
architects of South Florida.
Mr. George Reed: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, thank you again for allowing us to
report to you today. The members of thy• Committee appointed by you represent.
a very wide background of professional expertise. Our chairman, .t;; you know,
Mr. Norman tiller is the President of the Florida South Chapter of. the ATA and
has worked very hard this; year to cause ;uality in the architectural de•;ign tak-
ing place 1n our community. The breed ♦. u.i e of .a. pa ei ✓.:. ..nltv�ilCllle
rented here has allowed us to approach our review from many directions with a
special interplay of talent and reactions. As you probably recall the members
were Rocco Pace, Alfredo Barotto, Ron Frazier, Michael Simonoff, Mr.. P'raga,
Orlando Toma, Wayne Williams and Mrs. Edna Mingo. To begin with T would like to
thank this Commission for their wi:.;don in their selection of these particular
consultants - Wallace, Mc Hard, Roberts and ttodd. They aro undoubtedly one of
the outstanding group of professionals in the country today. l.n fact, ;-o,t may
recall Mr. Mc Hard a number of years ego was one of the fir:.:t to s:i. ,a'.•: (tut it.tt-
ionally on the probability of our destroying our pl.2net: eerth through oer own
mieuse of the environment and the ecology. Their repnrr, the novnt. wn Miomi
Development and Zoning Plan, we believe to be essentially on target with only a
few exception:;. It has strong concerns in areas never :1'.:feee rc.' ioct..,d it the
thinking of our city or for that pert, in many other singe either. A::
of this we expecially applaude the concern !or certain views .tn_t the reeervatioe
of these views. In as city such as ours it i'; important to reserve the view open-
ings to the water since that is one of our most precious assets. There is enph aii;;
upon street access views is an important one. It allows us to have a "nsit of
orientation as well as a pride in a community. They haee :mown .-t great: f?e.11 of
T�a1L�s.� 'Li ele
sensitivity in views taken from different pedestrian levels, fhe different heights
and the angles and all of this is an urti etst•3nding of Views that particularly
enhance a tropical city of sunlight and shadows, parks and boulevards. Addition-
ally, we are very pleased with their reaction to the need for small parks and
open spaces in a growing city. Their description.; of the requirements for open
spaces of respite, visual and ahyeical relief and opportunities for pedestrian:;
to be mote a part of the City muse certainly build upon the spirit of the down-
town person. In fact, if we ha`i our wiehes the committee wot.ld like to see evert
more of these small open spaces and carrying the idea etep forWard especially
as it might relate to Bayfront Park, we would like to see not only the boulevard
itself more green with the retention of our famous Royal Palms but even invasion
of this Bayfront Park into the fringe of the City facing it, especially .L the
tore southern end of the park. Perhaps if the City could afford to buy Mayor
Ferre's Hotel we could accomplish what Mr. Voxiadas could not - that is bring
the park to the City rather than the City to the Park. And if not, Mayor, maybe
at another* location.
Mayor Ferte: It doesn't, by the way,belong to Mayor Ferro but that's Alright.
Mr. Reed:, Our only disappointment with the reports proposals for open spaces
deals with the riverfront or rather does not: seem to deal with it adequately.
Again we're seeing evidence of Miami's great tention for thinking small. We
feel the river walkways are far too little space, too meager in its present
form and without enough relation to the properties near by. Again, we have
only one side of the river being looked at. Wo think that now is the time to
reserve south bank space where ultimately housing complexes therefore people
may require it more. I would like now to react to some of the more alarming
aspects of the report. The committee ha:, a concern as to the new resident.ia].
feasibility. We agree that getting people to live downtown is a desirable thing.
It appears that most of the housing development there will be for upper middle
and high income families. If so, would the l're eent downtown businessmen move
their residences there if a].l of the ,:;provetnante are made that are suglested in
the study? We're not so sure and to dote no report that we know of has addressed
this question. Even the new town in town concept at the upper end of the boule-
vard does not seem to be blessed at the eoment since the federal government who
previously funded this concept does nut seem so inclined to do so now and it may
be some time before th.vj wil i. Thf: uc,:-::,i_ttec has a concern too In reeard to cer-
tain types of pedestrian walkways. eirst the arcades. se h Arcades themselves .:re
desirable amenities in a tropical city. NasIau does this pretty well. That is
covering and shading the :;i0.0 walk in front of a building. Our argument is in
reaction to the mandatory concept, to the r:•andatory requirement of these in a
carefully :spelled out way. The report aliens them, describes their wid:h and
height and in general :seem_, to inhibit a creative designer reacting to the scree
need whiclh would he the shelter from the eun, sudden rain squalls while rotat-
ing to the shops and stores eo served. another type of pedestrian walkw:ey is
the through block; connections. These, a.. described in the report arc probably a
little narrow for through street paeessee. They describe 20 "comet of covered if
enclosed and 30 feet if open overhead. Beyond bring too confining to pdsetrian
experience. It has been shown in they 13.13t: that these breeeeways have b sco:ne
escape routes and hideouts for crir:lirwi.. Therefore, we f:oc•1 that the man;iaLory
dimensions should be enlarged r
Mayer Ferro.
Mr. Reed: The mandatory di.^..ersioee (If width ror the through block passages.
They are presently 20 feet for an en;•1os€'d :..pace and 30 teat toe an unenclosed
space or some formula for the height of ree building next to it. The Committee
has a concern for the confusion shown in the report regarding the automobile.
Either the emphasis should be on caLe or it should he on rapid transit. This
,report seems to try to do both but with neither done well. It is suggested that
•
there will ultimately he, only its in the report, that there will ultitately b?
oily a 6000 car parking space difference whether there is a bass rapid tranait
system of not. Something is wrong here that needs more study. Either that or
we're about to spend an awfully lot of money on an inefficient system that won't
solve the problem. Lastly, the committee 's strongest objection of all was the
tecoautiendation for a mandatory requirement to build all building Walls to the
street line fronting on both sides of rlagler Street and the same on ona side of
Biscayne Boulevard: We believe this to be a mistake. To b=_gin with, a little
history. Ten or fifteen years ago clew' York City gave concessions to Park Avenue
to site their buildings back from the streets to allow plazas and fourtains and
landscaping for the pedestrian: Today some planners say that was a mistake that
the frontal alignment when missing allowed the street to loose its axial identity.
You just didn't feel the containment of the street as you walked along it. Park
Avenue is 400 feet wide. Henry Flagler never though Miami would be an important
city when he gave us Flagler Street 60 feet wide. We think that for buildings....
in order to comply. Instead, we think it would be more appropriate for each
developer and his designer to be required to address himself to the street and
his neighbors and then to demonstrate this reaction to some sort of design re*
view committee with the power to object. This, of course, would require such
refinement for acceptance by all. The point is that we should not attempt to
'legislate'design solutions in our zoning code book. The AIA as always stands
ready to assist on this. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I would like
to thank you for your foresight in building a better downtown. The few concerns
that you have just heard the Architects and Planners Committee believes that
this will be proven to be a good first step.
Mayor Ferret I want to say on the record that I think that is an. excellent re-
port and I think I agree with -most of your comments. Now I've also had concern
about making all the people go right up to the property line because that really
has a potential danger of monotony. Now I know the other argument and that's
something that when we get into these hearings, I mean when we get to a public
hearing which I think, I hope we'll do now in the next 30 days or so that this
will all be coming out and we'll have Wallace Mc Cade down here explaining all
of this. That is a very important and very controversial point and I would in-
vite you and I would ask Mr. Acton that make sure that all these members of these
committees be advised of when we're going to be going through thi: so that they
can get involved in the public debit, on this because that is a major point right
there. That is one of them. It has tremendous .impact on the future o: downtown
Miami. Thank you for your report.
Page 3 of 3
•
November Z7+ 1974
TO:
Members, Miami City Commission
Ilonorablc Mayor and
FROM: Government Committee
Downtown Zoning Study Committee
SUBJECT: Report from the (flVERI'[ENI' COP.tIr T1ili
Re: Downtown Miami 1973-1985: An Urban Development F, Zoning Plan
The Government Committee has reviewed and evaluated the report Downtown Miami
1973-1985: An Urban Development 6 Zoning Plan. In so doing, the committee
quickly saw that it would be an unmanageable task to analyze every aspect of
the content of the document which would he in essence redoing the report.
The committee, therefore, concentrated on the Goals for Downtown and the hey
Action Recommendations as outlined in the Memorandurrr dated December 13, 1973,
Which should he before you as this report is reviewed, as well as making com-
ments germane to the report itself.
This document seems to be the more usable of the many past reports and stud-
ies in that it has many implementation procedures and processes spelled out
via the proposed zoning ordinance. however, more detailed project implementa-
tion planning must still he done in close coordination with the metropolitan
transit program.
The following constitutes the recommendations of members of the committee who
met to fulfill its charge:
(1) Goals (as stated in part 6.1 on page 65 and amplified in Appendix
B-1.0.),
(a) Increase Downtown 1_arplovment--concurs with goal and empha-
sizes diversity of service employment (retail, etc.) as
wel 1 as special i ration in mar jor fields, i .e. finance and
professional , and other office oriented users.
(h) Increase Iowntown Residential Development --concurs with
goal and augments by developing a process by which a diver-
sity of housing will be available.
(c) Improve the Qua I i t v of t he Downtown linvi rotunent - -concurs
with goal provided that .it is clearly understood that this
goal includes cultural and social "improvements to quality."
Psychological improvement is essential for the downtown area. "Security"
seems to be a real concern and, therefore, the .images of downtown 'mist he
turned to the positive -- its image, not only visually (which needs vast im-
provement), but also from a security point of view. People must have a healthy
feeling about downtown or the goals stated in (a) and (b) above will he fruit -
1ess. A planned "public relations" program, not of t he' propaganda" type but
stating the facts in a pleasing and straightforward manner should be initiated.
Such a program will most likely have to he precipitated by government with the
continued aid of all who are concerned with downtown. Downtown must become
"psychologically positive."
(1)
November u7 1974
SUBJECT: Report from the GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE - continued
Re: Downtown Miami.1973-1985: An Urban Development Z, Zoning Plan
An active social program is encouraged. Possibly additions to the Park and
Recreation Department who would be responsible for the planning, programming,
and coordinating of recreation activities (social calendar) in the downtown
area, could be a step in that direction.
(d) I rove Movement Through and Within Powntown--concurs with
goal; owever, possibly the words 'To" ani "Around" should
be added.
The various modes of transportation must compliment one another, however,
if rapid transit is truly to be a viable inode, the continued emphasis on the
automobile and its concomitant parking facilities must he softened if not
turned in the other direction. For downtown, the emphasis must be either
Mass Transit or the Automobile -- not both. It appears that the decision as
to which is to be dominant has not been resolved. It. .is unrealistic to at-
tempt both. Also, as has been mentioned before, more detailed and methodical
implementation plans must he done to dovetail downtown developments with mass
transportation.
The capability of servicing downtown and the "system and program" to accom-
plish it seems to be overlooked. For example, if the "environment" is to be
improved, then new and improved methods of collecting the refuse and garbage
(rather than placing it on the sidewalk shortly after five) must he developed;
how are the buildings to be serviced via deliveries, etc. A service -system
needs to be developed as an integral part of a transportation system.
The movement of goods and people -- the essence of a transportation system --
must he comprehensive.
People -- without them, the rest of the improvements, activities, even dorm
town itself is not necessary. ilowever, it appears that "people oriented"
items arc shunned or at least relegated to "a comprehensive system of pedes-
trian improvements should be undertaken." The pedestrian system should not
be an after the fact study -- it must be an integral part of the transporta-
tion plan for such a plan to be truly comprehensive.
The pedestrian is the buyer.
The pedestrian is the customer.
The pedestrian is "downtown."
The pedestrian traversing streets between ever increasing camons of build-
ings is buffeted by wind, covered in dust, surrounded by exhaust t'iincs. par-
boiled in the heat, constricted in movement by the continually added encroach
nients into the "sidewalks," and then cut off by free moving turning lanes for
(2)
•
November 27, 1974.
SUBJECT : Report from the GOVERNMENT C04111'TI:1: - continued
Re: Downtown Miami 1973-1985: An Urban Development & Zoning Plan
expressway and major arterials, i'he pedestrian must bebetter accommodated.
To say that there should be some elevated walkways here and there does twt
"a pedestrian system make." until there is a connnitntent to the pedestrian,
the people will lose -- downtown will lose.
The second level pedestrian system needs to be thoroughly explored as a part
of the comprehensive transportation modal movements within downtovai. Possi-
bly even to the point that the zoning '(or some other) ordinance be amended
to state in essence that all new structures wi11 be constructed to accommo-
date a second level pedestrian system and that all existing structures will
do so within a specified period of time -- a commitment to the }pedestrian.
(2) The Action Recommendations:
(a) ZONING --without a detailed analysis bordering on a new
study, the committee commends the proposed zoning ordin-
ance as a valid step in the direction of achieving the
goals. However, except as an interim measure, emphasis
on the automobile via parking facilities should he dis-
couraged, and recommends its adoption now.
(b) PHASE I COMPOSITE --these six items are advocated with
the cautions addressed in the discussion of coals above
with these additional thoughts.
(1) - the planned public projects which are to proceed
should he done only with ar comprehensive point of
view.
(2) t; (3) - the Urban Transit croup should give thorough re-
view to these items of transportation and traffic
movement. As has been stated, great emphasis has
been given to the automobile. Care should he
taken in their evaluation. The extension of N. F.
3r•d AVenc ought to terminate at N. F. 3rd Street -
which is more realistic to implement and causes
less traffic problems rather than to N. F. 5th
Street as proposed.
(4) - more urhan parks need to be located in the downtown
area.
(5) - the amenity of the tree cannot he overemphasized,
however, even here the program must he reasonable
with what's helcw ground as well as above. This
South Florida area has the greatest potential to he
ar "treed area" for they can be appreciated all year
long in contrast to our northern neighbors, hut
many of their downtowns with their limited growth
and use periods make ours look sickly.
(3)
•
November 27, 1974
SUBJEcir: Report from the GOVERNMligl' COtiMI"ITFE - cont nued
RE: Downtown Miami 1973-1985: An Urban (Development f, Zoning Plan
(6) - the parking program may be in conflict with the transit
program in that, as previously stated -- mass tr•anit
and the automobile cannot both he dominant -- which shall
it be!
The rapid transit system referred to throughout the report and more particular
1y under the Phase II program should comply with the Land Uses Plan for Down-
town and not attempt to dictate such uses.
(c) DUPONT PLAZA AREA --here again we en hasize that transit and the
automobile should- he developed as a cohesive unit, not as com-
peting elements. It seems that this proposal represents a spe-
cific out of context with the balance of downtown and somewhat
contrary to the goals.
(d) NEW-TOWN-IN-TOWtiN--the committee recommends that an appropriate
application be made.
This committee wishes to thank the City Commission for the step in the direction
of involving the citizentry in its planning process and urges the Commission to
continue this process.
(4)
•
H,Y.YNP',4N ! *. t I97?,1985
An urban rLevel r fpnt. -4nd .on i ng . lan
REPORT OF THE f r N51Th'r: ; r Nil ":;NFL f'' 'tr'.IT'NP
The Conti -timers and Users r:ommitteee, in a nurnher of mentieg
through individual study, has prepare; t,hn t'o1i.nMring rn,ommnnd. ti:,t,,,
and items for consideration ir reference to downtown h i am 19 % ?-i +t5 ,
In general, this committee felt, that the report was well done,
demonstrating .t rather thorourth understanding of the existing sitt;n1.ie:i
and offering a reasonable, and at the same time, exciting apprench to
developing ri downtown core of vitality. However, it should be nn i.n'
out that this report refers to nine other studies pert.ai.ninr to dnwnt.,w,:.
Lest this report become the tenth listed in Anrendix ,; of Report No. i ; .
this committee urges the Commission to Ar,T on thi report and i n i t i a t»»
the momentum that will be rertuirn.d to successfully revitalize downtown.
Step One then is to immediately begin the note is ry nroceed- re to
adopt the proposed zaning ordinance.
In the meantime, the committee urges the adoption of an ordinance
which will provide interim protection for the intent, of the plan,
similar to the ordinance enart,ed for roronut Grove.
An area of concern is the need for arehitertural harmony and nu3) ity
and the encouragement of art in any of its forms. ft is hoped that
appropriate guidelines can be built in.
Step TWO is the adoption of the goals set forth in the repnrt,
as follow.
Goal 1: Improve quality of downtown environment.
A. Safety: This it probably the number one concern. The
revitalization rrc,o"ss may have .suffered a ronn:tder hle set-
back by virtue c•f ono recent tragedy which nointed ottc,
nf the ills of our society. The City Commission
acted promptly in takint-• several measures imori at, t.reventine
such crimes .in the future.. However, the private :terfor mu t,
also take preventative measures such an car noels ;nil buddy
systems. The Downtown development Authority and the ;reatet
Miami Chamber of ''ommerce should coordinate ai publie education
program to this effect.
As there in certain safety in numbers, it is important to
bring increased evening activity into downtown through addition
cultural and re''reat.ional opportunities.
New buildings should he designed with security in riind by
avoiding "hiding places" and dark corner:;, for example. Lily,
rapid transit system develops, safety must, be a part of the
design criteria for stations, entrances ann exits.
H. Visual r..nvtronrn nt: i'hcre is a great need for greenery rim
open Spaces downtown and for upgrading oxirtinr7 hu i ld irtp:t. The
proposed urban park and additional mini -parks are vit.Ni.
C. Servires: Restaurants, incluciinr waterfront t'r,r ci i t,ir,,;, -tno
public re'tarooms are needed.
•
Ee a `wO
► . 'hopping: upgraded and cotrt,i guru;- retail f , :, ' will heir
to attract more people downtown. : bored t her' the rrlr iphrr.0
slum areas will lrrrprovr as a result of pressure by people who drt: r +.
want to go through an outer ring of spree.• rend hirh -`rimy` rrt.pps tee
reach the central core.
consideration mutt t»o fi ven +.a imprc,v i the of life
for all areas included in 'the .ituciy area, black. :• Tarnish and white.
lest the failure of onr ,pea cause the failure of 'all .
Goal 2: improve movement through and within :u wnt.ntirn.
The committee felt that t '..his time) parking f:rc i 1 i ' ie. w ' leG
a problem generally than traffic movement. Improvement of '.he >trriet
system and a public information program on traffic moveement and location
of parking facilities should Ur undertaken immediately, but, as ern
interim solution until the rapid transit system i:, orer:rtional.
Rapid transit is a key ingredient to downtown re. i.t al i za+.inn.-
fore, a positive determination of the :system and its .1tations is urged
as soon as possible. A "wait, and see" situation places much of the
revitalization proces:, in limbo. 'rtrai"inn the citizenry to use rapi_i
transit instead of private automobiles i:: going to be a big job.
C.armf 1. thought should br river to the relationship of widened ,streets
and 1 ;creased downtown parking and the rapid transit system. ' eople
will tend to do what is most convenient for them so i.f, will be necessary
to make rapid transit more convenient than cars. it may not be
desireable to do a lot of street widening or create an abundance of
parking facilities.
Goal 3: Increase downtown resinential development.
This is extremely important t,r) the revitalization process. However.
efforts to achieve Goals 1 and reittbe well underway be'for this3 will
begin to happen. '"he PE breur "yst m in, :r viable w to encourarr
residential development as a' e tax incentives. However, the latter
should only be r`:r d when it r i 11 not c'ose any additional burden on the
average taxpayer.
Tn andit.ian /1 new lcn'.•,' (.: :1 , „e 1
.l rr�r' ir:at�i nation of existing _ct.ru•ttr-.
should be enconra� ert where faoih1e. ui:4ocation of residents should le
avoided. Residential developm..nt should include accommodations for
various income levels.
Tn dr:vising ways of etl. ra.
facilities and day-care ct ntr•
inexpensive recreational and
should be -onsidered.
it is nece.lsary to recogni
willalways have its element
might be wise to plan for the
make it as unobtrusive as po:•
•a;,•ing re: idert.ial developrr-:nt. educational
r:. must be included. Appropriate and
cultural opportrrnitle for young people
human nature and !'e<,1i:.e that downtown
of poor rind unemployable. rherefore, i.t,
needs of these people in such a way as to
ib]e.
•
Page Three
Goal 4: Increase downtown employment,
As the three above goals are realized, increased employment
will follow,
New developments, both commercial and residential , :should :. • = t,
available space for child c -trr facilities, This would be an imeert.a.;t
attraction for increasing the number of employees and residents, aline.
Also child-care facilities in major department stores would attract
shoppers.
Implementation:
This plan must be coordinated with other plans and programs made
at all levels of government, such as the Dade County t-aster :Ian. an'i
with all other agencies.
Downtown needs a strong :tnd unified voice. This rommi ti ee felt n
definite leek of such a vo oe, pa 'ticuiar1y from the merchants. In
order for the downtown plan to work, there mu:lt, be strong civil• siinpert•
from commercial, professional, development, cultural and citizen groupr..
A ,joint program for the attainment of the four above goals miu't be
developed and carried through with enthusiasm. ft would seem that the
Downtown Development Authority is the proper agency to do this.
Because citizens of our •ommunity are a highly mobile group and
because most of them are originally from out of state, there in a lack
of community consciousness. Here again, a public education program
could do a great deal.
The Consumers and Users i •onunittet' .feels strongly that the Dorial
responsibilities for developinr, downtown Niami rest not mly on the
elected officials but alno on all segments of the diverse population
of consumers and inventors which make Miami such an exciting place
in which to live.
Additional Comments:
The committee discussed t.:hcimpact of development of off -shore
islands on the downtown lr.viiicprnnt plan, and felt that this shout:
be examined carefully in i,c-ms of long-range cause and effect.
The committee feels strongly that Miamishould not attempt to
duplicate the hugh convention facilities, of Miami Reach. Miami should
concentrate on smaller kings meeting plarn s. ronvention
objectives and :Larger cultural objectives should be sought. Hotel
owners should he encouraged to upgrade their f:+ril.ities.
Concern was expressed over the potential dirt ter of fire in hirh
rise buildings. A review of building code requirement; by the Miami
Fire Chief somewhat relieved this concern. However, the committee
urges r.omplete support and eooeeration with the rire Department by
government officials and citizens. tho fire safety education program
is a must and the utilization of fire drills in high rise coammereinl
and residential buildings & o► l d be studied.
Building heights should be graduated with the tallest inland and
the lowest next to the water. ihe• unique location on the water ::houl-i
Page Four
respected. The f radtiatr ► height concept wcu l ? allow •-' '; i to-, t
of the water and avoid the concrete wall that :.rf' ere wort^ t.r^ + 1-•
Roof tops should he et.trnrt.4ve. not Just -: v)•1r•'• t.n put. all t,hr,
ugly mechanical equipment.
In planning new develepmen is .and revi s i r f• rod st.i n r ones. it is
necessary to consider access with respert to emerr'enry vehicles sr i • hA
convenience of residents in temps of loading Ind unloading vehi. le,.
parkin; and the needs of the handicapped and elderly.
N. W. 2nd Avenue may need to hP widened north of the tiropesr±d
government center to handle Id i t.ienal. traf f to . Jee-h street i*tnreverrent
might also serve as a catalyst for commercial entf•.'"a' in-r.
Preservation and utilization of historically and/or architertur ll
significant buildings must be nart of the thinking ns related to
revitalization. of downtown. The Miami News i3ui ld ine in one of the
most significant examples. Preservation -i s less of n r.hallenge for
downtown Miami than many mn f,ronolit3n are n3 because hr {'r.re their
importance wan realized, rnnstof these buildings han-i.lrearty been
destroyed. However, it is imperative that we fierrr,l;, yard the few remei»
tangible reminders of our heritage. The enactment of an ordinanre t.ts
provide certain protection for designated :sites is ,an important, first
step. Also the development of proceedurer such as transfer of drrvelenno 1t.
rights, historic easements and tax incentives will lead to creative and
feasible solutions.
The building housing the Miami Public : ihrary r hoii1 -1 be ret,ii„ed
when vacated by the Library and recycled as a cultural facility.
CITY OF MiAMii FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
Honorable Members of the
City Commission
FROM
P. W. Andrews
City Manager
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MAR 1 9 1975
FILE:
Planning Advisory Board Public
Hearings = Downtown Zoning Recom-
mendations
REFERENCES:
ENCLOSURES:
This memorandum summarizes the content and schedule of Planning
Advisory Board Public I-Iearings to consider zoning recommendation
of Downtown Miarni 1973-1985: An Urban Development and Zoning Plan.
A series of four public hearings have been scheduled before the Planning Advisory Board
to consider the zoning recommendations of Downtown Miarni 1973-1985: An Urban
Dcve1opmcnt and Zoning Plan.
Ail hearings will commence at 7:00 P.M. at the City Commission Chambers at Dinner
iiey. The schedule is as follows:
Planning Department
Presentation
May 7, 1975 General •Presentation of Recom-
mendations
all new zoning districts
boundary changes
application
Special Central Business Dis-
trict Plan
Bonus provisions
Parking requirements
reports of four Downtown Zon-
ing Study Committees
Public Discussion PAB Actioi
The public may tom- NONE
ment on any recom-
mendation at any of
the hearings.
May 21, 1975 Flagler Street/I-Iotel Row The public may com- NONE
(generally south of N. 6th Street) ment on any recom-
mendation at any of
new zoning districts: (C-3, C-3A the hearings.
C-3B, C-3C, C-3D)
June 18, 1975
Planning Department
Presentation
Public Discussion
PAI3 Action
Midtown/Other
(generally north of N. 6th
Street)
new zoning districts
(C-313, C-3D, C-3E)
adjacent zoning district
boundary changes
July 2, 1975 Special Central Business
District: Plan
....................
Reports of Four Down-
town Zoning Study Com-
mittees
The public may coin- NONE
ment on any recom-
mendations of the
hearings,
The public may corn-
ment on any.recom-
mendations of the
hearings.
Following, put
lic discussio
the PAB will
discuss and
"mark-up"
their recom-
mendations tc
the City Com-
mission.
Ali property owners with the boundaries of downtown will be sent an initial mailing,
notif,,ing then: of the fact that zoning changes may have been recommended for their
propee y, including existing and proposed zoning maps and a summary of the provisions
of .hc new zoning districts.
The Planning Department will confine presentaLlOil6 to one hour, to be followed by public
cor:mlents. Complete texts of all ordinance changes will be available to the public and
c.uesi:lonna res will be distributed to additionally enable the public to riuiz the Department
about specific property questions. No Planning Advisory Board action will be taken
during the first three meetings. The major part of the fourth meeting will be taken up
by "marking -up" the PAB recommendation to the City Commission.
•
j
J
Oonsideration of a Planning and toning Stur, r.<:,
and proposal for the Mina$owntown Area, boded
by N. S. 20th Street en the North, Biscayne Ray 4, %;,
on the Bast, the Miami River on the South, and
0,0
I '95 on the West. e
Secretary filed proof of publication of Legal Netice of Hearing
and administered oath to all persons testifying at this Hearing.
Mr. Sobel: My name is Peter Sobel. My home address is
1140 North Bay Road. I came here just on the notice 1 saw in .he I
Miami Herald, with regard to downtown development. I own sonic
property within the district and I would like to have some clarification!
I'm sure you have an extensive report and recommendati,ns before you
but I don't have them before me.
Mrs. Rockafellar: May I interrupt you just a moment. Mr.
Acton, are the Committee Chairmen going to be here?
Mr. Acton: They were all notified. That's all I can tell you.
Mrs. McIntyre and Mrs. Lighte called aad said they wouldn't be able to
be here. But it was my understanding Mr. Reed would be here.
Mrs. Fernandez: Mme. Chairman, I'm so surprised that we don't
have a good turnout tonight. This is a very important item. Either
the mail didn't arrive, or the notices weren't read for this plan
for downtown Miami . . .
Mr. Dannenberg: Mme. Chairman; Sir, can you tell me when did
you see the ad? How was the ad presented?
Mr. Sobel: I'd like to submit the ad, and it appeared
approximately two weeks ago in the Miami Herald. I may be negligent
in my own duties but I was kind of busy and the only thing I was able
to do was to appear here tonight assuming that there was going to be
a presentation where I would be able to hear about what was happening
to the area where I own some property.
Mr. Acton: Can you identify your property location?
Mr. Sobel: Yes. 18-22 N. E. 5th St. 1512 N. E. 1st Ave.
1516 N. E. 1st Ave. 1524 N. E. 1st Ave., and west of 1-95 I have
421 N. W. 3rd St.
Mr. Acton: This only applies east of I-95.
Mr. Sobel: I realize that. It's close enough though that it's
germane to the development of the property on the west side of I-95.
Mr. Acton: We can give you general information about what types
of uses are proposed but you understand we're not considering the
zoning ordinances that are to be applied to your property tonight.
It is only consideration that applies itself in general.
Mr. Sobel: Yes, well I would like to take a look at what you
have before you and have a chance to review it.
Mrs. Alexander: Mme Chairman, we had what amounted to a workshop
previous to the public hearing. The public hearing was announced at
eight o'clock. For the benefit of the people who are here, I think
this material must be re -presented, in order for it to be properly
proposed. We may have cognizance of it but they do not. They came at
the time stated and we've been studying it, hashing it about, but I
January 22, 1975 Item 4
FAD
1
i
think we heed a proper presentation of the principles outlined in
this, and 2 think this should be re'ddhe, re,,stated, repeated if
necessary.
Mr. Acton: Perhaps you can get i ome indication from the
audience, and there are only two individuals that didn't, we'd like to
know exactly , this gentleman did state what he's interested in
and we can address that. If other individuals in the audience would
state exactly what they're interested in, it would be a little bit
easier for us to arrange our presentation.
Mrs. Rockafellar: Yes. State the interest that you have in the
downtown area. We'll finish with this gentleman first.
Mr. Sobel: Yes. I'm particularly interested in the 5th Street
location with regard to C-3 zoni'ig which I feel is a very good zoning
and enhances the value of my property and I wouldn't want to see the
C-3 zoning in the downtown district which enhances my property and 'which
I purchased it under, to be changed in any respect. That's my feeling
with regard to the property on 5th Street; the property on 1st Avenue
is zoned C-4, and I consider that a liberal zoning. I think that any
other zoning on it would be perhaps less liberal, and I'd be interested
in finding out if you planned to do that along 1st Avenue in the
l5th Street block?
Mrs. Rockafellar: Well we really haven't gotten into the zoning
aspect of it, have we Mr. Acton? And you know, I thought surely we
would have the Chairmen of these various committees he:-e tonight to
present this to the public?
Mr. Acton: They were notified.
Mrs. Rockafellar: It is surprisiAg.
Mr. Sobel: I've owned property downtown for ten years now and
I have some general observations which maybe eventually . . .
Mrs. Rockaaellar: I wonder if Mr. McManus would endeavor to
answer the questions that are broug,zt up for these various people here?
You state your question, and Mr. McManus can probably answer that for
you.
Mr. McManus: This is a summary. We have some copies over here,
but, this is the proposed zoning. Now you'll recall that this is
presently zoned C-3.
Mr. Sobel: Well I think that C-3 presently ends at 6th Street
on the north end. Do you plan to change that? The C-3 zoning in any
respect; or its boundaries?
Mr. McManus: That is correct. It is the Department's intention
following public hearings before the City Commission to move to
prepare the enabling zoning ordinances to come up with perhaps, four
or five additional new zones, some of which would serve to sub -divide
the existing C-3 zoning.
Now to give you an idea of what is proposed, this chart generally
takes the existing C-3 district and adds a C-3a, C-3b, C-3c, C-3d,
and C-3e in what was formerly and basically the C-3 zoning district.
The most basic change involved in the C-3 district is that there is
no floor area ratio limit in the present downtown C-3 district:
although there is a 300 foot height limit it is theoretically possible
-i6�-
January 22, 1975 Item 4
PAS
uIuuu unPINIIM
to achieve a floor area ratio of 10. We are going to propose through
the zoning district changes a Mastic reduction in the potential of
development, The highest attainable p,Aii to be allowed in the
proposed districts, would be approximately an P.A.A. of 17, Now,
depending upon where you're located
{
Mr. Sobel: I'm iol:ated at 22 N. L. 5th street, 'that's
immediately east of Miami Avenue and I'm on sth Street.
Mr. McManus: So that would probably fall in the new C-1c zoning
district so that the maximum P.A.A. with all bonuses would be 6.
Mr. Sobel: Would you explain to sae what you mean by thost
'abbreviations?
Mr. McManus: Sorry. F.A.R. refers to floor area ratio . . .
for example if we are talking about a floor area ratio of 1 and you
have a lot of 10,000 square feet, that would allow you to build a
building of 10,000 square feet on however many floors. If you have a
floor area ratio of 2, and a lot of 10,000 square feet, it would allow
you to develop a building of 20,000 square feet. So floor area ratio
is a multiple of your lot area.
Mr. Sobel: I understand I have 7500 square feet in my lot and
it's 50 feet wide by 140 deep; it's irregular it's 7500; at this time
I could go border to border, corner to corner, up 30 stories.
Mrs. Fernandez: Mme. Chairman?
Mr. Sobel: Can't you.hear me too well?
Mrs. Fernandez: No, it's a point of order. I would like to talk
to the Board if I may.
I go back to the thoughts I have expressed very many times and
it refers directly to the knowledge that the public directly related
to the subjects and to the items in front of us, are aware of what
we are making -ecisions about. This gentleman deserve.; the best and
the highest consideration because being an owner of an: important
location related to this item, he was not directly invited to this
meeting. He is just responding to a general notice in the newspaper.
This report and their recommendations pretend to . the
downtown area; to make it attractive for the people to live in the
downtown area, and as far as I know, downtown Miami is not the property
of three or four or five people. It includes maybe a thousand people
and the development, according to this plan can only be achieved
if the property owner accepts the plan and is willing to go along with
this and I don't think they know exactly what it's all about; not
exactly; they haven't the slightest idea; they don't know what the
floor area ratios have been recommended; which can be the alternative
for the floor area ratio; they don't know anything about the trans-
portation or mass transit for downtown. I don't think we have enough
representation in front of us tonight to make any recommendation to
the City Commission . . . how can we have the public interested . .
we have to have public input. .
Mrs. Alexander: What is your point of order Mrs. Fernandez?
Mra, Rockafellar; Mrs. Fernandez, I think Mr. Acton wanted to
say something.
Mr. Acton: Now we have the same process for whenever the Board
,MP 7-
January 22, 1975 Item 4
PAU
ml11II 1 In1•Ui1•Nt
reviews a planning study, Mot the toning ordinance, but a planning
study. The same process that we followed in the planning study for
Coconut drove; it was advertised, generally in the newspapers and then
when you get into specific appliciatiohs of toning districts you
notify each individual property owner. But Mr Simpson can give you
some idea of the magnitude of the mailings if you attempt to notify
each individual property owner for the entire study are<< that we're
considering tonight. %4hat we had intended to do was to break the
ordinances into one or more packages for consideration by the Planning -_
Advisory Board and the city coission. At that time, we would notify
the property owners that are affected by those particular recommendations.
Ws just a massive task to try to notify . . . Dave, could yo' speak
to that?
Mrs. Rockafellar: Mrs. Alexander, just a moment. Are you through
Mr. Acton?
Mr. Acton: I wanted Mr. Simpson to give you some idea of the
magnitude of taking a study area as large as this and notifying each
individual property owner within that study area.
Mr. Simpson: Mr. Acton's Department is right now preparing
and working up the list for future mailings when you get into the
specifics of changing zoning. We've estimated that in this particular
study area, there are probably in excess of 2,000 property owners.
We don't know definitely until they get it from the computer in the
tax -roll of Dade County.
Mrs. Rockafellar: Thank you Mr. Simpson. Mr. Sobel, your
questions on zoning are a little premature. What we're doing tonight
is to make a recommendation to the City Commission whether or not to
pass the plan in concept. Anybody that is interested in zoning,
there will be a Hearing later that will come before this Board. We're
not getting into the specific zoning areas tonight.
Mr. Sobel: This is my opinion. If you're going to accept a
study - you know this is about maybe the third or fourth major study
that's been made of downtown area; how to revitalize it; and you know
what's happened to those studies -
Mrs. Rockafellar: Yes, we understand that.
Mr. Sobel: A few million dollars have gone into studies from
Doxiades on down; I've been down here for twenty-five years and I've
watched these studies that have been proposed and announced and
publicized and worked up and spent, and the reality of what the problem
is downtown very often, isn't reflected in the studies; because very
often they take outside pcople to view the downtown area from maybe
a Greek standpoint, and I've seen twenty-five years of this sort of
study. They finally had a terrific Master Plan; there's nothing
wrong with the downtown zoning as I saw it. They gave the developer
a tremendous amount of leeway by having the 3-C zoning downtown which
was a tremendous concept and has produced some beautiful buildings
and has started the development of downtown. The problem of downtown
is not necessarily that it hasn't had enough planning, it's the
peripheral areas that are the main problem for discouraging the
development of downtown.
Mrs. Rockafellar: Well tonight we are not getting into the
specifics. We are just going to recommend either approval or disapproval
of the principle of the study, and as the zoning ordinances come up
there will be a public hearing on them. So if your interest is only
-8- January 22, 1975 Item 4
PAB
zoning, there will be a public hearing on it at . later date, but
we're not passing on any zoning ordinances or any ordinances as each
this evening.
M. Sobel: Well, as vas just explained, the 6.0 P.A.R. is an
example of what you're approving or considering approving tonight.
Mrs, Rockafellart No, that's not true.
Mr. Sobel: You're not going ahead and actually approving the
zoning .
Mrs. Rockafellar: We're not approving any zoning.
Mr. Sobel: I know that, but what happens is when you finally get
to approve the zoning then you use possibly your passage of thin
concept as a tool that will be passed . . . the concept is
detailed you've gone all the way to pass a concept and spent
thousands of dollars on a concept and then you pass it tonight - you
kind of don't go back on yourself when it comes (not audible)
to the details that are expressed in here.
Mrs. Rockefeller: We're only passing on the 'intent'. In
principle. Whether they will go ahead and say that all these things
will come up individually as we get into them.
Mr. Sobel: Will someone express to me what is the 'intent'?
Mrs. Alexander: Mme. Chairman, I don't think we're in a position
to say at this point what the intent is. I see here representatives
from the Downtown Development Authority who are very intimately
involved and very deeply concerned and certainly are here to speak to
this in some way or another. Is that not correct Mr. Williams?
Mr. Dannenberg: Mr. Acton, If I understood correctly, when we
had the workshop and we talked about this a couple of meetings back
that the reason we were going to have the workshop and then have the
public hearing, not only so that we could have the information, but
that people coming over here could also have the same information
that we were going to have. Yet, in the advertising in the newspaper
it says '8:00 P.M. a public hearing' it doesn't mention anything about
a workshop that would be earlier to inform the citizens as to what
we're doing? I thought this was the understanding as to why we would
have the workshop?
Mr. Acton: No sir, we made that statement only in reference
to the Environmental Preservation District.
Mr. Dannenberg: I thought it was a general statement; any time
we have a workshop.
Mr. Acton: Except if you remember, we have not had just one
workshop on this document. It's virtually impossible to give a
worshop that would be all encompassing. We'd be here for three hours
before we even started the public hearing. That's one of the problems
when you get into this kind of a comprehensive planning document, you
can't possibly give the audience all of the information we imparted to
the Board over a series of probably six workshops.
Mrs. Rockafellar: There are a number of people in the audience
to whom I would like to ask "is there any information you would like
to have regarding this, or is there something you don't understand?"
Please be sworn in, come to the microphone and give your name and
-9- January 22, 1975 Item 4
P1lB
address for the Board and tell us what you're interested in; what
aspect and then those questions can be answered.
Have you finished Mr, Sobel? We're not dealing on coning
tonight. You're premature.
Mt}, Sobel: I realize that probably and you're probably 100%
right and I wouldn't dispute you, Are you the chairlady? The
Chairperson? All right, I'll abide by your decision with regard to
my prematurity but 1 did get notice to cone here that you were
considering the downtown area where I do own property. I would like
to address myself later after I've digested what this general •oncept
is, You got me into specifics; it's easy to talk in specifics. If
you'd like me to go back to generalities, I'll be glad to talk and
not mention zoning again.
Mrs. Rockafellar: We will have this ordinance come up if the
plan is approved and after it goes through the City Commission and
then if there are any zoning ordinances to come up, there will be a
public hearing on those. You will be invited back.
Mr. Sobel: But I do have an opportunity to discuss the idea of
actually passing the concept? You're only here at the concept level
and not at the low level of actual nitty-gritty zoning?
Mrs. Rockafellar: Yes, that's right. We'll be glad to call on
you again.
Mr. Sobel: Thank you.
Mr. Don: Madame Chairwoman and Committee thank you very much for
allowing me to ask these questions, I know your time is valuable, I'll
try and be very brief. My name is Ronald Don. I'm President of
Edward Don and Company, located at 1550 North Miami Avenue. We
occupy that block of property between 15th and 1.th Streets, bounded
by Miami Avenue on the ea3t, and Miami Court on the We:tt; and we also
own substantial property for parking across the street.
My specific concern is what is the general intention to do with
the F.E.C. railroad tracks that now run back along N. W. Miami Court
as it does affect our business which employs approximately 150 people
with a payroll of over a million dollars a year? Also I would like to
know if the general zoning will prohibit a distribution type of
business? And those are all the questions I have.
Mrs. Rockafellar: Thank you Mr. Don. Mr. McManus, I think
he's addressing himself to the F.E.C. railroad?
Mr. McManus: There have been a number of proposals for the
F.E.C. right-of-way. The proposal shown in the Plan is that it be
utilized as a linear urban park. In the past there have been proposals
that it be used for an expressway. The most recent proposal is that
it be used for a rapid transit alignment. Now where we are with plans
in reality, I'm not at all sure. As far as the present zoning, there
is no intention of changing the zoning.
Mr. Don: Thank you very much, I just wish this committee to
take into consideration that there are many industrial users who are
presently using the F.E.C. railway and many large businesses. We do
use this, and it is important for them in order to remain competitive
to be on a railroad siding in order to achieve an inexpensive freight
cost. If we were unable to have the use of this railroad, it would
-10- January 22, 1975 Item 4
PAB
i
force us probably out of this area. This not only applies to my
Company but many other Companies along this railroad area, and 1 would
appreciate any consideration you would give to that. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Smith: Mme. Chairman; Mr. McManus, the proposal for the
rapid transit system coming into downtown, is that going to be above
the railroad tracks as is stated now, or is the railroad track going
to be taken out based on the proposal's' Is the rapid transit .
going to co -exist, or is one going to replace the other?
Mr. McManus: The .proposal, generally, is to help make O.
rapid transit lines and to allow the F.E.C. to operate their tr+cks.
. . . that which reflects the consultants for the County in
recommending a rapid transit system. I am not at all sure that
that represents the F.E.C.'s view of the way to run a railroad.
Mr. Smith: I mean, that's the way it stands now?
Mr. McManus: That's correct.
Mr. Tinney: My name is Dan Tinney. I'm a student at the
University of Miami School of Architecture and I did the re -design of
the Bayfront Park area that was presented yesterday, and Mrs. Alexander
invited me to attend the meeting this evening.
Mrs. Rockfellar: Thank you and you're welcome; glad to have
you here. I read your report.
Mr. Gertman: I came to find out what you people were going to
do. I read in the paper that they were having a zoning meeting in
regard to changing the zoning for the downtown core area, and I've
come to see what you were going to do. After you make a decisi)n, if
I go along with it . . . if I don't, that's when I'll express my
opinion.
Mrs. Rockafellar: Thank you. We're not into the zoning now,
but you will know a little later on.
Mr. Langhorne: My name is Richard Langhorne. I'm here
representing Miami-Ferre Investments, Inc., and Ferre Florida Corporation,
and we have no comment.
Mr. Dannenberg: What's that name again? The last Company?
Mr. Langhorne: Ferre Florida Corporation.
Mr. Williams: Mme. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen, my name
is Lucius Williams. I'm the Director of the Downtown Development
Authority. As some of you know, because some of you have worked at
it so many years, we've been working toward this general plan which the
end result is a zoning revision, for a number of years. This is an
absolutely essential element of planning that this community does. It
is necessary to consider the planning proposal, the development plan
that you have before you. We think that actually this is just a
refinement of much of the work that has been done ovc.r the years. It
certainly gets much more specific. It gets much more specific in
terms of identifying the types of development that we need and that we
seek. It's much more specific in types of the volumes that we can
reasonably expect our economy to support. It properly relates those
volumes and those uses to the area and to the traffic configuration
11-
January 22, 1.975 Item 4
FIB
that the City system cah support. My Authority toard does not
consider technical qualities of •_hi3 but we have aft inherent interest
its this because we paid for the study and we invite your attention to
it, and ws urge you to take affirmative action which will theft permit
the proper officials, being the City Commission in the ultimate end,
to make judgments and to hold public 'bearings en the 2oninc that will
guide and develop all new development in the downtown area.
It will not be news to you to know that the city of Miami is
probably . . . i think, the most backward zoning of any major city
in this country and it'shigh time that we revised this: that it be
based on the kind of planning that is reflected in this report and
we commend you for these Hearings and for your consideration et this
development plan and encourage you to let it go to the next step
which is the Hearings for the rezoning itself. Thank you.
Mrs. Rockafellar: You wanted to speak again Mr. Sobel?
Mr. Sobel: Yes I would. I think I have the drift of what this
plan is. It's probably reducing density from the C-3 as I see it here.
Now, Lucius Williams, I wonder if I could just ask him a question?
Mrs. Rockafellar: Will you address your question to the Board,
sir?
Mr. Sobel: Yes, I just wanted to recollect. Is he instrumental
in creating the present zoning under the Master Plan for the downtown
area at the time this particular zoning in .she C-3 was created?
Mr. Williams: Absolutely not. And no one here was. The
present zoning ordinance we work under is basically a 1936 document
which has been revised and revised and revised in part; never a total
revision has been done since then. So I was no part of that; and
you weren't around either.
Mrs. Rockafellar: Mr. Sobel, I would just like to say to you
until such a time this is passed 'in principle' there may be no
zoning. There won't be any, but until it's passed 'in principle'
by this Board with the recommendations . . we're only an Advisory
Board and we pass on our recommendations to the City Commission, and
until we approve it, or disapprove the principle of it, then there
will be no action taken on it. Then it goes to the City Commission
where the real action will,be taken; and then when we get back into
specific ordinances,such as zoning, it will come back before this
Board again.
Mr. Sobel: Well I hate to feel that a notice goes out in the
newspaper advising the public to come to a meeting and that meeting
really, was merely just a legal requirement and it had already been
predetermined by everybody that this was just going to be approved
because it represents somebody's concept, and you're closing . . .
now there's only one other property owner here today, and he had no
comment. Mr. Ferre owns far more property than I do and his
Corporations; I don't understand why they have no comment; why they're
here. But at any rate, what I'm trying to say is I'm the only
property owner that would like to say something before you actually
finally determine this public hearing.
Mrs. Rockefeller: Well you see, we cannot determine the zoning.
We have a number of committees working 'on this. We have their reports.
so we either pass it 'in principle' or deny it in principle and then
we recommend this study 'in principle'. Then it goes to the City
Commission, and they hold public hearings on it. Then when you get
-12- January 22, 1975 Item 4
PN3
into the toning aspect of it, if the Plan is approved by the City
oiiiission after holding publid hearings then you cot into the
zoning aspects We don't know what part will have t change In zoning,
we have no idea: and then that will cote back before us if there is a
zoning change.
Mt. Sobel: I'd just like to snake a brief statement and then
I'll be done and you can go on and pass this. May i just make one
statement? I feel very strongly that the zoning, as it exists and as
everybody who owns downtown property has purchased their property
they purchased it for prices depending on what use that particular
parcel could be put to. Right now, the C-S zoning is probably the
highest and best use and obviously you're reducing density by cutting
it down by, maybe, 59% of what I m permitted to build on my property
at least from some of the things in here that I've been able to
observe: and I think the problem is not zoning downtown; and I think
that the zoning is fine and the problems are much more complex than
trying to bring people to live downtown. Actually, the downtown
district was not designed under the t-•3 zoning to be lived in. It was
designed as an industrial, rather a commercial, high-rise type area.
Now you're reversing the whole concept of the downtown section by
reducing density and you're reducing value of property and use of
property and if you haven't had any development up 'til now, if you
didn't consider you've had development, you're mistaken. You know
there's been tremendous development under the C-3. You've seen
enormous buildings go up; seen tremendous progress being made - -
some things - crime, it s the peripheral ghetto areas that are
depressing the downtown area and holding it back. It's - - crime,
and you can keep reducing zoning, but as you do that, there will be
less and less reason for anybody to want to build on this land as long
as you persist in not cleaning up your streets in the peripheral areas
of the downtown, and get rid of the ghetto. Until you do that
no matter what zoning you're going to put here, in fact you're going
to have much less likelihood of there being the kind of development
we've had thus far downtowns once you reduce density; once you make it
less profitable for somebody to build on these lots.
You're just going to kill the whole idea of the downtown area
and I see from what the changes that are proposed on an over-all
basis here, that looks like what you're going to do and you're not
going to the crux of the problem which is the area (surrounding this
downtown. It's not an island. It's surrounded by some of the worst
areas in Dade County.
Mrs. Rockafellar: This is exactly why we're doing this
comprehensive plan; to revitalize the downtown area. We're not
increasing or decreasing zoning here tonight. Nobody owns their
zoning. The government can change zoning at any time when it's for
the benefit for the over-all public.
Mr. Sobel: You see the picture here? You created an island
you see. When you put this in the newspaper, that's an island, that's
bordered by this and bordered by that. When you create an island
by this and then you try and develop that island without consideration
of the surrounding ten square miles, and you don't clean those ten
square miles up, I'm telling you, you're just kidding yourself. You're
wasting a lot of money on a little island preparing when it's not an
island. It's connected with the rest of the rotten downtown area,
Mrs. Alexander: Mme. Chairman, I think it's unfortunate in a way,
that our guns have been spiked in this matter because there was a
public hearing at the City Commission level at which time the reports
-13- January 22, 1975 Item 4
PAB
II�11InImIIg1IIII �UuUIUIII1
of all these sub --committees came to the City Commission and there
was a lot of interplay going on and that none of these people with
the exception of Mr. Williams who is head of a governn►ent authority
and has a great deal of concern; we do have a representative front the
Coneunters Committee; but there was art architects committee and there
was an owners of downtown area committee; all kinds of con ittees
that had a lot of input and react.on to this, generally favorable, but
with certain comtmei ts, Now, we c<<n read these reports but that
doesn't take the place for the people who are here for the actual
impact of eyeball to eyeball contact,
Now I've studied this fairly carefully. I think we all is ve.
Our concern With the downtown is to make it come alive. one c,r the
biggest problems has been that it's been C-3 and it dies at five
o'clock. It's dead. It's empty with the exception of a few people
who are in the hotels and they have nothing to do. There are many
things that can be implemented right now; within the next year perhaps,
in terms of the park; in terms of the innovative approach that this
group of University of Miami students came up with, and hopefully
will be brought to our attention at the proper time. In the meantime,
if we don't recognize the fact that cities like London that have
a city that died because they did this kind of zoning - industrial
and commercial zoning - that the cities that are alive like Paris
have downtown living; activities; people moving; walking. You can
walk from any concert theatre or opera at midnight and the place is
full of sidewalk cafes and people out, moving around; people who live
there; people coming home from other areas and this study addresses
itself to the need to get into more activity areas and the relation-
ship from one activity area to the other.
It addresses itself also to that very blighted area in the
northwest quadrant of this, which is a slum. Call it what you will,
it's a slum and it t11ks in terms of the need for incentives in
floor area ratio incentives; in tax incentives, and possibly the more
sophisticated transfer of development rights which conceivably could
be helpful to Mr. Sobel in his problems. These are things that have
been tried with a great deal of success in other major metropolitan
areas. But we're talking about only a concept. We're dying. We're
dead downtown and until we get in there with some kind of principle
and plan, this is just an over-all plan, drawn up by the most
prestigious firm in the United States, I'm convinced. McHarg is the
first man to even look at the ecology of an area before he ever did
the first design. I mean, he's conscious and sensitive to the
ecology, the needs of the community; the need to communicate with the
water; the need for open space and so on.
Now all of these principles are involved in this study. They're
just principles and I, for one, want to speak very strongly that
we adopt this 'in principle'.
Mrs. Rockafellar: Thank you Mrs. Alexander but I think at this
time we'll close the public hearing. Is there anyone else who has
anything to say? Questions? Comments?
Mr. Dannenberg: I agree with Mrs. Alexander but the thing
that bothers me is this; we're supposed to have a public hearing
as a citizens group to take input from the citizens, and it makes it
very difficult for example, what the gentleman said. It almost seems
like we're just going through the paces. You know, we have to fulfill
this; we have to have a public hearing; don't worry about the turnout
or something like that; and you know I've said this many times, I
believe that there can be a better turnout at some of these meetings,
-14- January 22, 1975 Item 4
'AP
I don't agree with just newspaper advertising. This happens to be
an arer' that I know of; I know you can get public service announcements
(vet the radio and i'.lt. if you really wanted to bring the people out;
and it doesn't take that much work and doesn't cost any money. So
it makes it difficult for me to hear that we had committees that were
appointed; they probably got a lot of input, to come out with their
suggestions, and yet they can't appear here and give it to us; and if
they couldn't appear, they should have sent us letters saying what
they thought or whatever their findings are so that we could have this
information in order that we can reach
Mrs. Alexander: I'm sorry., these reports are all in ofr palket.
Mr. Dannenberg: I haven't seen them. Where are they?
Mrs. Lichtenstein: We often receive the City Commission minutes
and it's all in there. I read them.
Mrs. Alexander: The only consideration I said is our guns were
spiked because this went at Commission level and it's sort of like
beating a dead horse to bring it back here and then go back to the
Commission level; and if this is the way the Commission wishes to
handle it, o.k. Maybe they thought more people migzt come out for
this than did at the Commission level. There was a" great deal of
input at the Commission level. I read the minutes very thoroughly.
I presume you all did too; at least from some of the comments I'm
aware of this, but it is a questionable procedure and I quite under-
stand Mr. Dannenberg's concern and I do think, perhaps, we could make
more of an effort to reach out . . .
Mr. Dannenberg: a person out there, their
situation, they think, well here and again the government is going to
put me into a spot and put me against the wall, they don't understand
there's a little lack of understE.nding; of confusion. So therefore
it's a mistrust; and this is the thing that I'm concerned about
because it makes our job a little easier. I know it's very difficult
for you as far as mail -out; it's very difficult to mail -out for each
individual person. I know, because I've done it many times; but I
know there's other ways of reaching out, rather than just newspaper
advertising; and it doesn't cost any additional money. This is what
I'm trying to get at.
Mr. Acton: Well, we'll look into that, but I do want to point
out to the Board that we tried to get input from the very beginning.
We did have an advisory committee formed. We tried to reach out
into the downtown community to make the property owners aware of what
was going on during the course of the studyt plus the Commission. As
we all know, the Mayor wanted to make sure that we did have input
from different types of organizations and that's the reason he did
form the various committees that represent different facets of the
community. But I quite concur that it certainly wouldn't do any harm
to look into public service type of announcements.
Mr. Dannenberg: That's my only concern.
Mrs. Fernandez: Mme. Chairman, I have more than one doubt in
my mind first; I don't see this as the same case as when we accepted
'in principle' adopted 'in principle' say, one type of district and
then go into specifics with a specific ordinance. This is different,
In the other cases we have always had a general intent, a set of
goals, that we approved 'in principle'. In this case, what we have
in front of us is a complete report , . , . a summary of their
recommendations which is 2.0 Urban Development Plan refers as related
-15- January 22, 1975 item 4
c
directly even to tbning because i:s Land Use Element and if we
approve 'in principle` 2.0 Urban Development Plan,.we are saying
that 'in principle' we accept the Land tine dement the office.
residential; the location of the development; the DuPont Plata area;
the Biscayne-2nd Avenue area; the concept of the mw,as rapid transit;
the transportation and parking element, and everything that is here
and also which is not here, but I think it's the most important part
and feasible, is 6.0 Future of Downtown. Goals for Downtown. If
you ask me to accept or to approve in principle' these goals tonight,
and nothing else, I think it would be reasonable to ask that of us.
But to accept 'in,principle' 'in principle' what! There is no set
of goals to accept'in principle'. There is no general intent o
accept 'in principle'. I heard from people tonight who own vet.* large
amounts of property downtown, except we don't have any comments.
I would like to know their comments. Some of these reports
even talk about . . . how to develop areas in downtown, proposing
to have this converted as part of the Bayfront Park, and have the Park
into the City. It may sound very nice, but it might be quite
unreasonable; and I can say I approve 'in principle' the principle of
WHAT? To have the Park in the City? Not to have the Park in the City?
Mini -parks where? I don't know what we are supposed to approve
'in principle'? Are we going to approve 'in principle' the goals?
The Land Use? What?
Mr. Acton: You're reviewing this entire report. It's up to
the Board to make whatever recommendations you want to, on this report.
If you want to exclude certain portions of the report, that's up to
you. We started four or five months ago reviewing this report.
We've tried to take you through each individual section of the report
so you would become familiar with those portions of the report. So
what I'm saying, it's up to the Board now, how you recommend this
document to the City Commission. If you want to recommend it,
excluding the Appendix with the right to review the zoning ordinances
at a future date, or whatever your recommendation might be, that's
up to you. If you want to take it page by page, or chapter by chapter -
Mrs. Fernandez: No. Page by page - in general - the goals.
Mr. Acton: What Tim saying is, if you want to approve the
goals, fine. What do you do with the rest of the report?
Mrs. Fernandez: We don't have the input of the public to know
what we think about the specifics. We don't have the input of the
public - 'in principle' we say, yes, we want to see people going to
live downtown, but what about the property owner of downtown land who
doesn't agree with that? They don't think that they want to have their
property converted into residences. This gentleman here, has a
distribution type of business and I don't know if you've included in
what the proposed zoning changes a plan - - -
Mr. Acton: That particular individual, it doesn't change his
property at all; recommendations for zoning. The other individual
that spoke does have property in an area where it's recommended to
reduce the floor area ratio but not th's types of uses that are allowed
in the district.
Mrs. Fernandez: But we don't have to vote on that tonight?
Mr. Acton; No, I say it's up to the Board to go through this
report in the same manner that you've gone through the other reports
that the Department brought before you. Do you want to go through it
chapter by chapter? However you want to do it, it's up to you,
-16- January 22, 1975 Item 4
PAD
Mts. Pernanderzt We want to approve 'in principleand t think
what we have to discuss is only the goals for downtown 6.0
Future of Downtown, and then wait for the specific ordinance, and
see what are the recommendations and what are the reactions of the
people to the specific ordinance: because 1 accept that we all can
say increase downtown employment, increase dowttow:, residential
development: improve quality of downtown environme:,it; improvement
movement with and through downtown. If you say that we can accept
these goals for downtown, without going into any specifics tonight,
i think it's all right.
•
Mr. Acton: If you'll look at the 'Table of Contents that ,i11
tell you what is contained in each particular chapter. For instance,
from 6.0 through 8.0 are strictly analysis. It doesn't deal with the
zoning at all. The same with Downtown Miami 1973; Existing Conditions;
Existing Zoning; Residential Sub -areas; Functional Areas and Linkages;
The Regional Context. It's strictly data is what I'm saying. It's
up to this Board to go through this report in the same manner you've
gone through the other reports and decide if you want to adopt it
'in general' or 'in principle' the entire document. Do you want to
adopt certain portions of it 'in principle' and reserve the right
to take a look at say, Appendix A and Appendix B, which are the
proposed zoning ordinances, that's up to you. Whatever you want to do;
but I would follow the same type of format that you followed in the
pant when you were reviewing the planning study.
Mr. Smith: I'd like to present a motion that I feel would
propose my recommendations, the way I feel about this because I've
been through it, oh, I've slept with it for about three months, I'd
say, and I do agree with most of the recommendations that have been
made by the consultant .3o I move
MOTION:
that we recommend that the City Commission
approve in principle the flan Downtown Miami
1973-1985 with the right to review the proposed
zoning ordinance in detail at a later date.
Mrs. Rockafellar: Thore is a motion on the floor. Is there a
seconito Mr. Smith's motion?
Mrs. Fernandez: Would you repeat that motion?
(Mr. Smith repeats motion).
Mrs. Alexander: Mme. Chairman; Mr. Smith I second the motion
to put it on the floor. I would, however, like to amend it; that we
go through it subject to modifications which we may or may not make
at this point.
Mr. Smith: I was hopin!} "to review the proposed zoning
ordinance in detail" would take care of it.
Mrs. Alexander: Well, let me speak to this point Mr. Smith.
Your committee, for example, made certain recommendations. Other
committees made certain recommendations. There was a committee of
Landowners and Developers downtown who made recommendations and I
think what we need to do is address ourselves to the recommendations
that were made by these committees that were very sensitive and very
fine, I thought and perhaps we would like to move this 'in principle'
with these modifications. If we decide on the modifications. We're
approving 'in principle' and now we can go through it and if we
decide to modify,those modifications will be the ones that will be
-17- January 22, 1975 Item 4
PAD
included with our approval 'in principle'.
Mr. 8mitht I sPecirld your amendment then.
Mrs. Alexander: Thank you.
Mrs, Rockafellart There is a motion on an amendment by Mrs.
Alexander and it hds ben seconded by Mr. Smith. Will you call the
roll Mr. Acton?
Mrs. Alexander offered the following amendment to Mr, Smith's
motion to include *subject to modifications which ue may or ma' not
make at this point!!.
Upon being seconded by Mr. Smith, this amendment to the motion
was passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mmes. Alexander, Lichtenstein, Rockafellar
Messrs. Rolle, Smith
NAYES: Mrs. Fernandez
Mr. Dannenberg
Mr. Acton: Motion passes 5 - 2
* Mr. Borja left the chambers at 8:30 P.M.
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
-18, January 22, t975 Item 4
PAB
Mrs. Rockafellar: Now the amendment has been passed. Mr.
Stith would you like to restate your motion with the amendn►eht
attLichedg
Mr. Smith offered the following amended motion, and moved
its adoption:
MOTION: t move that we recommend that the City
Cottnttission approve in principle the Plan
Downtown Miami 1973-1985 subject to
modifications which we may or may not
make at this point.
Upon being seconde3 by Mrs. Lichtenstein, this motion was
passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mmes. Alexander, Lichtenstein, Rockafellar
Messrs. Rolle, Smith
NAYES: Mrs. Fernandez
Mr. Dannenberg
Mr. Acton: Motion passes 5 - 2.
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE.)
-19-
January 22, L975 Item 4
PAB
Mrs, AleNn ider: t think we need to go through it now,
Me. Chairman, and: see what we might think bf in term § of niodifieatibn
in to tat ionshi p to the report of the cititens eemMittee that were
appointed hy, the CMtt issibn. I would be very happy if we would
discuss, nnrhmet, the first committee report which Mr. Smith was a
member of. The. Consu lers report,
Mrs, Reckafellart We'll take "An Urban bevel and Zoning
Plan" REPORT of THE CONSUMERS AND USERS COMMITTEE.
Mrs. Alexander: Mrne. Chairman, perhaps we ought to do it the
way it is in our folder and start off with the REPORT Off' THE
ARCHITECTS AND PROFESSIONAL PLANNERS COMMITTEE and they address
themselves very specific points.
Mrs. Fernandez: Mme. Chairman, I want to ask a little question.
I voted against it; do I have to vote also on the specifics? Do I
have to vote on somethiAg now that I voted against? Should I abstain?
Mrs. Rockafellar: :Mr. Acton, we have had a vote on the proposal
for the recommendation of this, as amended. Is it now necessary to
go through each one to make recommendations? We said "with
modifications and a right to review".
Mr. Acton: I suggested that you use the same format or same
procedure we used in the past. Mrs. Alexander wanted to go through the
four sub -committee reports to see whether or not they would affect the
ultimate resolution of the City Commission.
Mrs. Alexander: I was going to say that the Consumers. and
Users Committee address themselves to the goals and they were in
agreement more or less with all of the goals and if you want to look
on page 65 - 6.0 FUTURE OF DOWNTOWN; and so if we will address our-
selves to these points to improve the quality of downtown environment;
to increase downtown employment; increase downtown residential
development; improve the quality and :improve movement through and
within downtown. Generally speaking, I think we could simply accept
these goals. Z think Mrs. Fernandez was in agreement with that. Now
I think I would move that we accept the "goal" section which is 6.0.
Mr. Rolle: I second that motion.
Mrs. Rockafellar: There is a motion on the floor made by
Mrs. Alexander, seconded by Mr. Rolle. Would you call the roll Mr.
Acton?
Mrs. Alexander: There may be some discussion, Mme. Chairman.
There were some additional comments and I don't think, however, that
we need to draw these to the attention of the Commission because
they've already made due note of it, but I don't think there's any
area of disagreement as far as the "goals" are concerned, so I'll
call the question if there's no further discussion.
Mrs. Rockafellar: Is there any Eurther discussion? No? Call
the roll Mr. Acton.
Mr. Smith; The motion on the floor is to accept the"goals?"
Mrs. Alexander: 6.0 starring on page 65.
Mr. Anderson: I've been asked to answer Mrs, Fernandez'
question regarding whether or not she should vote on this Item,
-2 0- January 22, 1975 Item 4
PAP
you're required to vote on all items coming before the hoard unless
you have a conflict of interest, 4.0 therefore, you may not agree with
the report but feel that if the report goes through, it should have
certain amendments attached to it or should have certain deletions
from it.
Mrs. Fernande2: . I simply thought that we didn't have
the necessary input to vote on the specifics; to accept 'ifi principle'.
. . . I don't believe we are in a position tonight with such a small
group of property owners . . . in a position to make any recommendations.
If we don't have their inpat 3 I know the city connMission is in a
position to ,make recommendations to approve or disapprove. I think
all we can approve is 'in principle'. If I voted that way . .
why do I have to vote favor or against afterward? I can't see that.
Mr. Anderson: Well, you may want to go against all amendments
or deletions and leave it as it is.
Mrs. Fernandez: Even if I agree with something in this report
because I voted no on the first Item.
Mr. Anderson: The, question is whether or not the report goes
through. It appears that it's going to go through. Now, it's just
a matter of whether there's any insertions or deletions from the
report and therefore you may want to vote against them, or for them
or, I don't know what you what to do, that's up to you.
Mrs. Alexander: Mme. Chairman, in terms of this
'proposed zoning' map, it would be perfectly in order
chose to say that we preferred not to take a decision
if anybody so chose to move. See how that goes.
so-called
if someone
at this time,
Mr. Dannenberg: Mme. Chairman, this is the only reason why I
voted against it at this time. I'm for the - -
Mrs. Alexander:
The principles and goals, we ,,oted on that.
Mr. Dannenberg: That's the only reason why
otherwise I would have voted for it at this time
consideration. The 'principle' and the 'study',
would have voted for it but because we're trying
step - at this time I don't want to do that.
I voted
to take
I'm all
to take
against it
every single
for it and I
it ste? by
Mr. Acton: Mme. Chairman, I think that the Board, as I said
before, you could follow the same procedure that we have in the past
where you go through it section by section and you ask if there are
any amendments to particular sections. If there are not, you go on
to the next one. I would suggest you start from 6 and go through 8
and then go back to 1 up through 5. I say start with 6.
Mrs. Alexander: We've done that.
Mr. Acton: And then start with 1 through 5 and offer each one,
If you want to make an amendment to each particular section, request
that. If there are none then you go on to the next one.
Mr, Smith: Mme. Chairman, there is a motion on the floor now
that's been moved and seconded.
Mrs. Alexander: For what?
Mr. Smith; The motion was made by you firs. Alexander.
-21- January 22, 1975 Item 4,
PAP
■
Mrs. Alexander: 1 thought we voted on that, t'm sorry, t
thought you r:alled the roll on that.
Mrs. Izoekafeliar: We're waiting for yo+ir disd issio r. All right,
Mrs. Alexst,der, somebody asked for yet: to re -state your Lotion?
Mr. Acton:
believe.
tt's Mr, Smith's motion that's under discussion 1
Mr. Smith: tt's Mrs. Alexander's motion, and it was that we
accept the gcais as outlined in Chapter 6.
Mrs. Alexander: 6.0 FUTURE OF DEVELOPMENT goals
as stateC1 i.n the document, page F5.
MI. r'\cton :
any amervirnent s .
through a i-�h one
for dote town
As I stated before, you could just ask if there are
Remember the procedure we used before? We go
then you go on to the next one.
Mrq. Rockafellar: It has been seconded. Are there any
amendment:, t•o the goals?
Mrs. Fur,iandez: Please! Please! This was already assumed with
the first vote?
Mr. Acton: No.
Mr. Anderson: Mme.. Chairman, what he's saying is that for
example you say that: Section 1 - is anyone going to make an amendments
or deletions? If no one says, "I am going to" then you would go on
to Section 2. You wouldn't require a vote because it would save you
a lot of time and it wouldn't require her vote. You'd mark down the
ones that people are going to make amendments or deletions to or from,
and then you would go on to vote on those.
Mrs. Rockafellar: Thank you. Are there any amendments on
Section 1?
Mr. Dannenberg: We still have a motion.
Mrs. Fernandez: I vote no.
Mrs. Alexander: I withdraw my motion.
Mr. Smith: I withdraw my second.
Mrs. kkockafellar: Being no amendments to Section 1, let's
move to:
6,2 Factors in Influencing Downtown Employment, page 65.
Mr. Acton: I have suggested you :start with 6, FUTURE OF
DOWNTOWN, 7, 8, then go back to 1 because what the consultant had done
in his report for the convenience of the reader is to present the
summary of recommendations in the first part of the report. Then if
the reader had interest in looking into the background, he would go into
4, 5 6, 7 & 8. So if you started with 6, 7, & 8 and then go back to
1 - following it in the planning process sequence.
Mrs. Rockafellar; All right. 7.0 BASIS FOR CHANGE. Is there
any discussion on 7? Any amendments?
Mrs. Alexander: That just describes the process, in a sense, and
I don't think we can amend their process. 1 think they're better able
-22- January 22, 1975 Item 4
PAS
to deeide that than we are.
Mrse kodkafeiiar t 8.0, page /8 PhOtABILITY dAOWTH MCi13 .` .
Is there any discussion or amendments on 8?
Mrs. Alexander: There was some comment in terms of °Riverfront"
that the architects brought up and they made the statement, and 1
thought it was rather interesting, that they thought we were thinking
a little small . . . of the study and that we needed to really
explore more in depth the total riverfront and so perhaps in this
ease where they talk about the 'probability of growth' and 'development'
that we do & little more re -emphasis on the riverfront. We cer'ainly
have been concerned with it in many of our studies.
Mrs. Lichtenstein: They were talking about, Mrs. Alexander, the
south side of the Miami riverfront, the 'walkway' there; to explore
that area further.
Mrs. Alexander: And I would like to see that as a modification
in this particular area.
Mr. Acton: What specific ones? On page 81 you'll find on the
bottom of the page reference Miami Riverfront when it talks about
opportunity areas. What specifically is it that you want to modify?
Mrs. Alexander: I would like to modify it in terms of more
open walkway and more open usage of the riverfront, just very, very,
major emphasis upon it. I think it's a very important point. The
Commission is very well aware of it. They took a junket to San
Antonio to find out what they did out there.
Mr. Smith: Mrs. Alexander, are you talking about extending the
riverfront further west?
Mrs. Alexander: Yes, as far as we can. So I would like to
hopefully see that they emphasize this as a modification.
Mr. Williams, did you have a question that you wanted to address
to me or the Board?
Mr. Williams: If I may, Mme. Chairman, I believe Mrs. Ale:sander's
concern which is reflected by the architect's report would better be
a part of a revision to Chapter 2 where it talks about land uses.
Mrs. Alexander: Well, it also talks about the Miami Riverfront,
and we'll give it in both places, o.k?
Mr. Williams: If we expand the land uses . . . for public access
then we've accomplished that objective.
Mr. Smith: The Riverfront walk on the north side of the river
extends to the 5th Street bridge as it is now. There isn't too much
that you can extend beyond the 5th Street bridge.
Mrs. Alexander: We're talking about the south side.
Mr. Smiths- but I'm talking about as
far as the north is concerned. The 5th Street bridge, because of the
way the river meanders . . . there isn't too much of an extension
that you can go on the northside; I'm addressing thyself to the north
side. I don't know about the south side.
-23- January 22, 1975 Item 4
'AB
i
Mrs. Alexander: 1 think we're thinking in terms of the south.
Mr, nitht Well =
Mrs. Alexander: Maybe we'd better wait until Chapter 2 and take
the advice of our expert in downtown development. In any event, 1
would like to see us address our ,elves to a re -emphasis on the river
development as an item of first concern, and if that's agreeable to
the Board we can incorporate that in the modifications.
Mrs. Rockafellar: Is that a motion?
Mr. Acton: As Mr. Williams just stated, you'd better wait then,
until you get to Chapter 2. This only refers to those areas that
are opportunity areas; subject to growth. That's all he's really
saying. He's identifying areas in the City that
Mrs. Alexander: I want to highlight it.
Mr. Acton: I understand that, but what I'm saying is, that it
has been identified as an opportunity area.
Mrs. Alexander: When you talk about opportunity areas this
comes down to the bottom of the list; DuPont Plaza, N. E. 2nd Avenue;
West Flagler - I mean they're all equally important, but this is
last on the list and I dcn't think it should be considered last.
That's my point.
Mrs. Rockafellar: Any other suggestion on 8? If not, we'll
turn to 1.0 INTRODUCTION.
Mrs. Leichtenstein:' I have no argument with that.
Mrs. Rockafellar: All right, let's go to 2.0 URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PLAN. Any discussion or amendments to 2?
Mrs. Alexander: Is it in this area, I'm trying to remember
where I saw it and the architect's report reacted to the solid
front along Flagler Street? Well, maybe it's later.
Mrs. Rockafellar: Was it 2, Mrs. Alexander, where you wanted to
bring up Little River?
Mrs. Alexander: Well, it says residential; Bayfront Park -
will be attractive for adjacent development -
Mr. Acton: On page 21 it deals with the Miami River.
Mrs. Lichtenstein: In this particular paragraph I think that
there was discussion about increasing the footage for walkways from
what they recommended - 20 feet for enclosed areas and 30 feet for
open areas. They seem to be very concerned that this should not be
hide -away places and crime; they want the footage increased there, and
I agree with the recommendation.
Mrs. Alexander; I think that concerns Flagler Street.
Mr. Rolle: I would like t•o ask about the residential here.
It says something about New -In -Town residential communities .
meaning the ghetto area up there near the Booker Washington area -
would that be a different situation, the new -in -town, over -town
residential area, because these committees I think have also been
-24- January 22, 1975 Item 4
PAD
meeting with the CAA - the Community Action Agency = and t waft to
know is there anything different here because t'm hew to the hoard
and I'm asking for information on page 4.
Mr. Acton: No, it's across the railroad tracks. it's on the
west side of the '.t.C. in host of the area that's proposed for
News -Town -in -Town it's in existing mixed use: lot of old roominv houses -
and commercial structures, and they felt that this would be an .ideal
location for a New -Town -In -Town as actually there was a federal
program directed at both new cities and the development of new towns
within existing urban areas.
Mr. Rolle: Would the Over Town be in the NDP-3 area?
Mr. Acton: Yes. Of course we no longer have NDP. We now have
the Community Development Act.
Mrs. Alexander: Is that within this boundary?
Mr. Acton: Partially, yes.
Mrs. Alexander: Yes it is; the northwest quadrant area which is
one that we've been very concerned with.
Mr. Acton: Right. But I was answering his question about the
New -Town -In -Town.
Mr. Rolle: Are there plans for that new . . . area?
Mr. Acton; The . . . area, as I said, is under the
Development Act and it is within a so called "target area"
they are meeting right now and the County will surely make
on the expenditure of federal funds as well as the City of
Community
- and
recommendation
Miami.
Mrs. Lichtenstein: I'd like to know more about when they talk
about North Biscayne Boulevard on page 21 "A second level pedestrian
promenade should be developed along Biscayne Boulevard" and
a "Second level plazas should be encouraged to take advantage of the
Bay View". I'd like to know more about that from the Staff?
Mr. Acton: Well, it's exactly that. They're encouraging a
second level promenade which 'ould be on the second level.
Mrs. Lichtenstein: Elevated over the sidewalk?
Mr. Acton: No, no, they're not recommending that. What they
have recommended in this report both on Flagler Street and Biscayne
Boulevard that the first level facade should follow the sidewalk
line, to give it some continuity; but they're recommending that above
that point there should be a second level promenade which would
give individuals a chance to get up above the foliage in Bayfront
Park and to be able to view the Bay.
Mrs. Lichtenstein: The illustration here appears to be on the
west side of Biscayne Boulevard.
Mrs. Alexander: There's no proposal for a bridge over the
Boulevard - this is an area I think we should be very concerned with
so that the park would be more readily acceptable. That's a pretty
gloomy outlook to start trying to go across those six and eight length
traffic and utilize the park, and any kind of a pedestrian overpass
that would give a view and access to an even better view and activity
5 - January 22, 19175 Item' 4
PAD
z
Mrs. Lichtenstein: Well 5 speak:, Mrs. Alexander, about
pedways that should connect to the new community and Rayfront Park.
Mrs.
Boulevard
Mrs.
pedways.
Alexander: . . . but I'm concerned about OVER Biscayne
to the Park.
Lichtenstein: t took it to mean bridges where they say
Mrs. Alexander: 1 think we just need to make that Park
accessible and available. 1 don't know if we should address ourselves
to this point, Mr. Acton?
Mr. Acton: It's not in this section but I'm sure it's in the
report. If you'll look on page 27 - Phase II Implementation -
you'll see pedway, down in the legend, and you look up at the map and
you'll see connections into Bayfront Park and also into Bi-Centennial -
those are the overpasses.
Mrs. Alexander: What are the streets? Flagler S:reet and
4th Street
Mr. Acton: 3rd Street - down by the Junior College
Mrs. Alexander: Up from the Junior College and from Flagler
Street.
Mr. Acton: Right.
Mrs. Rockafellar: 3.0 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM. Any amendments
to 3?
Mrs. Alexander: This deals with all those new approaches to
zoning and all the incentives and I was particularly taken with them.
I saw that Battery Park pedestrian area and I checked with the
Greenwich development people in New York - here is the kinds of
incentives that development can be used to invite developers. It.
could be very helpful to us in the downtown - to upgrade our image
in terms of attracting development.
Mrs. Rockafellar: Any further discussion on 3? Being none,
we'll move on to 4.0 REGIONAL CONTEXT, page 48.
Mrs. Alexander: May we g.7 back Ntme. Chairman to page 32 -
Waterfront Paths, and whether we think 20 feet is enough for the
width of a landscaped walk along the water's edge. I'd like some
input from the Department on this.
Mr. Acton: I think Mr. Williams should address that since the
Downtown Development Authority is funding the present Miami River
Walkway.
Mr. Williams: Thank you. I read the comments of the architects
and I would tend to agree that if we could get 40, 50 or 80 feet it
might be desirable but I can see no way to do that. We have received
20 foot width walkway without cost to the public, and that land is
generally worth about $40.00 a square foot and so 1 don't see any way
in the world we could buy it. It is my hope and it certainly was
reflected in this planning that the private developers who develop
alongside the walkway will complement that open space such as has been
done with the Y.W.C.A. If you've been there recently, you'd know that
the Y.W.C.A. at one . . . has 40 or 60 foot additional. plaza. As a
-26- January 22, 1975 Item 4
'AB
4
Matter of fact . . and` even in the moot restricted areas
probably another 20 foot additional space; also we hope that shopper
will be along there, and in those cases where shopper are there, we
certainly want them to be <<djacent to walkway so as to have the inter-
action. to other words, 1 don't think the larger areas are
automatically betters. 1 think it's a matter of design. As a matter
of fact if any of you have had the opportunity to go to San Antonio
there are some places that the an Antonio Walkway is less than four
feet wide. it's just a matter of design and we are trying our best to
get the design which will call for interaction of the 9eople and to
encourage the commercial development with shopper and estaurants and
that sort of thing along the •river. We're fortunate that there's not
too much development there at the present title and that the ne'4
development will provide these facilities. The City of Miami has
has funded one nominal park area; nominal in the sense that
it probably will be 150 x 150 maybe 200 x 150 which is not teensy;
plus one major park area which will be at the western end and that
park area is over three blocks long.
Mrs. Alexander: What street is that Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: It's in that strange configuration if you will
look at one of your maps in that strange area west of I-95 but south
of Flagler Street, on any map look at that tiny area west of the
express -way, east of the river, and south of Flagler Street. Now
we are looking, with the Planning Department, and with the owners,
because essentially that land is predominately owned by one person;
we're working with them and with the group of architects incidentally,
to make sure that the private development complements the mass of
upward spaces that we have there.
So we are all looking toward the same end, and I do not believe
that the magic number of 30, or 40, or 50 is any better than the
magic number of 20.
Mrs. Alexander: MMe. Chairman, and to that point I would like to
bring out a State law, Section 193.501 of the Florida Statutes
whereby a tax abatement is given to owners or owner in fee of any
land which is utilized for outdoor recreation or park purposes and it
may be conveyed by appropriate instrument. Now this is a State law.
The City doesn't have to buy a lot of this property if the owners are
willing to develop, they get a tax abatement; they work out . . .
a ten year document, a graph and a sliding scale, and at the end of
five years if they want to re -negotiate for another ten, the taxes go
down again or to nothing. So rather than put the City to the expense
of capital outlay, this is an instrument that I found out about at
the Marco Island Institute and Senator Graham sent me the copy of it.
I think it's something we should think about very seriously and I hope
well - nobody seems to know much about. it. Do you know about it?
O.K. Is that what you're working on, on that little park?
Mr. Williams: I'm familiar with it but I know of no one who
will attribute the use of $40.00 per foot land to park space just for
a few dollars difference in taxes.
Mrs. Alexander: Well, it all depends. There are areas when
it can be used.
Mr. Williams: We'll certainly try and find them. We have
arranged, as you know, several gifts to the City, outright gifts,
which is even better than this, and we're seeking to do more of that.
.27- January 22, 1975 Item 4
PAD
.
Mrs. Rockafellar: If there is no more discussion we'ii go to
page 40, 4.0 RMIOMAL CONTEXT.
Any comments or amendments/
Mrs. Alexander: I have no quarrel with this.
Mrs. Rockafellar: Anyone else? Let's go to 5.0 DOWNTOWN
MIAMI 1973.
Mrs. Lichtenstein: Mme, chairman, I think this safety and
security might be a part ` ell the reports seem -to emphasize +-hat
there was a great need for further information and a study on t',e
safety and security of the downtown area, in order to bring people
into the area, and make them want to stay there and live there; and
develop it further; and they speak of the lack of enough study being
done about safety and security.
Mrs. Rockafellar: Well I personally think that unless they do
have security downtown, that all this would be an effort in futility.
You must have itl
If there are no more comments, 1 think that finishes it. Mr.
Acton, I don't think there's been ary amendment. There's been
suggestions about something we'd like to have studied -
Mrs. Alexander: A little re -emphasis, that's a].1.
Mrs. Rockafellar: Now, do we take a vote on the entire thing?
We've approved it 'in principle'.
Mr. Acton: Now you make your resolution that makes whatever
modifications or additions you've made, to the report; and that's the
resolution that will pass on to the City Commission; that you adopt
it 'in principle' but for instance, state that more emphasis should
be placed on analysis of security measures for the downtown area and
whatever else you want to add.
Mrs. Alexander: The architectural group addressed themselves
to a solid line of buildings and I found that rather interesting
because when this was initially presented to us and we talked about
the solid front of, I guess, Flagler Street, I was very concerned at
that time and I raised the question and said "what about Park Avenue
in New York and all these other areas?" and I really don't like the
idea of this wall of buildings. I don't see any reason why there
couldn't be some kind of arcaded areas? I mean the old Flagler Street
was divine.
Mr. Acton: They are calling for arcades but they are after
preserving a continuous pedestrian walkway - . . , you have to have
retail shopping there; the idea being that a person can walk along
and they're not interrupted; but that, again, is a part of the zoning
ordinance that would be the C-3 district. But if you want to make
mention of that now -
Mrs. Alexander: I think I can reserve any comment until the
proper time. I just wanted to ask the question again because I found
my concern mirrored.
Mr. Acton: I have had discussions with the consultant on this
particular point and based on the experiences in New York on certain
of their major streets/attempts to modify the zoning districts to
encourage large open urban areas have been disastrous, and they sort
of lose their sense of place, and they felt that if it's a continuous
-28- January 22, 1975 Item 4
PAD
i
shopping area or street, that there should be a continuity to the
spaces. That's their rationale.
Mrs. Alexander: It's a matter of opinion.
Mr, Acton: that's correct.
Mrs. Rockafellar: The Chair will now entertain a motion.
Mrs. Alexander: Mme. chairman, l move that we forward this
document which we have gone over point by point to the City commission
with our recommendation that we approve the principle of this r'udy
with a little more emphasis on the points of the River Walk and some
more emphasis on immediate activity development which may lone out of
the Biscayne Bay Park - Bayfront Park area.
Mrs. Rockafellar: Mrs. Lichtenstein made a motion on the
security. Do you want to add that?
Mrs. Alexander: And perhaps, with a separate study of the
security problem.
Mrs. Lichtenstein: I second it.
Mrs. Rockafellar: A motion has been made by Mrs. Alexander and
seconded by Mrs. Lichtenstein. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Mrs. Fernandez: I want to ask Mrs. Alexander - did you exclude
in your last motion the part referring to the zone . . . ?
Mrs. Alexander: I didn't exclude anything. We approved the
principle.
Mr. hcton: She's speaking about Appendix A which was not
reviewed.
Mrs. Alexander: We didn't review it, and it is excluded.
Mr. Acton: Except then, it should be pages 1 through 83
Mrs. Alexander: Then I will restate my motion to reflect that
it's pages 1 through 83.
Mr. Acton: You might want to look at, and by the way we didn't
do that, it's Appendix B which is not zoning- it's a technical
supplement. You might want to consider . . . that. Appendix B
is technical data.
Mrs. Alexander: I don't think we need to approve technical data;
we're approving goals and principle, generally, and I think that these
zoning bits are something that we need to address ourselves to later.
The technical data is not for us to approve in principle or otherwise.
Mrs. Rockefeller: There's a motion on the floor. Will you call
the roll Mr. Acton?
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
29= January 22, 1975 Item 4
PAB
i
•
shopping area or street, that there should be a continuity to the
spaces, 'that's their rationale,
Mrs, Alexander: It's a matter of opinion,
Mr, Acton: What's correct.
Mrs, Rockafellar: The Chair will now entertain a Motion,
Mrs. Alexander: Mme. Chairman, I move that we forward this
document which we have gone over point by point to the City Commission
with our recommendation that we approve the principle of this e':udy
with a little more emphasis on the points of the River Walk ancl some
more emphasis on immediate activity development which may tome out of
the Biscayne Bay Park Bayfront Park area.
Mrs, Rockafellar: Mrs. Lichtenstein made a motion on the
security. Do you want to add that?
Mrs. Alexander: And perhaps, with a separate study of the
security problem.
Mrs. Lichtenstein: I second it.
Mrs. Rockafellar: A motion has been made by Mrs. Alexander and
seconded by Mrs. Lichtenstein. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Mrs. Fernandez: I want to ask Mrs. Alexander - did you exclude
in your last motion the part referring to the zone . . . ?
Mrs. Alexander: I didn't exclude anything. We approved the
principle.
Mr. Lcton: Sie's speaking about Appendix A which was not
reviewed.
Mrs. Alexander: We didn't review it, and it is excluded.
Mr. Acton: Except then, it should be pages 1 through 83
Mrs. Alexander: Then I will restate my motion to reflect that
it's pages 1 through 83.
Mr. Acton: You might want to look at, and by the way we didn't
do that, it's Appendix B which is not zoning -•it's a technical
supplement. You might want to consider . . . that. Appendix A
is technical data.
Mrs. Alexander: I don't, think we need to approve technical data;
we're approving goals and principle, generally, and I think that these
zoning bits are something that we need to address ourselves to later.
The technical data is not for us to approve in principle or otherwise.
Mrs. Rockafellar: There's a motion on the floor. Will you call
the roll Mr. Acton?
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
-29- January 22, 1975 Item 4
PAB
4
Mrs. Alexander offered the followingtesolution and moved
it adoption;
RtAOLUTIoN No. PAA -5:45
That the Planning Advisory toard approve the
principle of the study entitled °DOWNTOWN MIAMI
1971-198S" pages 1 through Al emphasizing points
of the River Walk; immediate Activity development
emanating from Bayfront Park area, and a separate
study of the safety and security problem.
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Lichtenstein, this resolution was
passed by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Rolle, Smith
Mmes. Alexander, Lichtenstein, Rockafellar
NAYES: Mrs. Fernandez
Mr. Dannenberg
Mr. Acton: Motion passes 5 - 2.
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
-30- January 22, 1975 Item 4
PM
t
1
1
.
4
Mrs. Fernandez: ire; Chairman, I want the advice of the
toga' Department again. I voted against the way we voted, but can I
express my particular vote on that?
Mr. Acton: Certainly. You can express why you voted against
the motion.
Mrs. Fernandez: I'm saying what it is I want to vote for. I
explained it before and I'm sure it's stated in the minutes the
reason why I voted against it. What I'm saying is can I have a vote
on how I think I want to vote; or something I can express.
Mr. Acton:
You lost me. I'm sorry, you lost me.
Mrs. Fernandez: I said that according to what was recommended
to us to do tonight; to recommend 'in principle' the recommendation
that I consider we should be sending to the City Commission is to
approve the goals for downtown 6.0 FUTURE OF DOWNTOWN and then,
with the inclusion of most, not to say all, of the recommendations
of the different committees, Government Committee; Users and
Consumers Committee; Landowners and Developers Committee and the
Landowners & Builders Committee because they have expressed:
Mrs. Fernandez offered the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. PAB 6-75
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING FURTHER TO THE CITY
COMMISSION THE FOLLOWING P)INTS OF EMPHASIS
FROM THE REPORTS OF THE FOJR DOWNTOWN ZONING
STUDY COMMITTEES AS FOLLOWS:
1. Provide needed security for safety of life and property.
2. Need of an active social program in Downtown related to
Parks and Recreation Department.
3. Emphasis on mass transit instead of auto transit - not both.
4. Exploring possibilities of a'second level pedestrian system.
5. More urban parks.
6. Need for the amenities of trees and landscaping Downtown.
7. Application for a New -Town -In --Town.
8. Upgraded and contiguous retail facilities to help attract
more people Downtown.
9. The rehabilitation of existing structures should be
encouraged where feasible„
10, Encourage residential development, educational facilities
and Day Care Centers.
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
-31- January 22, 1975 Item 4
PAB
4
•
Ili Motmeaningful development of downtown with 24 hour use.
12. Possibility of more P.A.IL bonuses to attract residential
development,
1J. Try to bring back the middle class to the City.
14. Interest younger people to cote bowntown to worthwhile
endeavors and activities.
1S. Condemn existing buildings that are a disgrace to the
core City.
16. To inter -relate the overhead transportation rapid transit
system with the existing transportation system.
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Alexander, this resoliation was
passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: MMes. Alexander, Fernandez, Lichtenstein
Rockafellar
Messrs. Dannenberg, Rolle
NAYES: Mr. Smith
Mr. Acton: Resolution passes 6 - 1.
ADJOURNMENT Mrs. Lichtenstein offered a motion to adjourn the
meeting at 10:00 P.M., seconded by Mr. Dannenberg
and unanimously approved by the Board.
-32- January 22, 1975 Item 4
### PAB Finis
uma
f
f
Oa
f
I
i
i
1
MAR 2
2nd RIACOG747.--L 724
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DOWNTOWN
MIAMI
1973
1985
AN
URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
AND
ZONING PLAN
prepared for:
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
prepared by:
WALLACE MCHARG ROBERTS & TODD
Architects, Landscape Architects
Urban and Ecological Planners
Zoning: Haines Lundberg & Waehler
Economics: Gladstone Associates
1
1 TABLE
� OF
CONTENTS
1
1
r
r
t
t
t
1 1.0 Introduction
2 2.0 Urban Development plan
2 2.1 Ur kin Design Framework
3 2.2 The Land Use Element
10 2.3 Transportation and Parking Element
13 2.4 Development Intensity
14 2.5 The Downtown Environment and
Peal strian Circulation Element
19 2.6 Subarea Recommendations
24 3.0 Implementation Program
24 3.1 Introduction
2(3 3.2 Implementation Strategy
29 3.3 Phase I Implementation Program
38 3,4 New and Revised Zoning Districts,
Regulations and Zoning Maps
48 4.0 Regional Context
48 4.1 Definition of the Miami Region and the
Study Area
48 4.2 Character of the Region and Downtown
50 4.3 Regional Developments Affecting Downtown
54 5.0 Downtown Miami 1973
54 5.1 Functional Areas and Linkages
55 5.2 Residential Sub -Areas
58 5.3 Context Area
58 5.4 Employment and Space Use
62 5.5 Existing Conditions Downtown
03 5.0 Existing Zoning
65 6.0 Future of Downtown
65 6.1 Goals for Downtown
65 6.2 Factors Influencing Downtown Employment
66 6.3 Downtown Space Forecast 1973-1985
70 7.0 Basis for Change
70 7.1 The Process of Change and Method of
Analysis
70 7.2 Non -Residential Susceptibility to Change
75 7.3 Probability of New Downtown Projects
78 8.0 Probability Growth Model
78 8.1 Definition
78 8.2 Constraints on Development
80 8.3 Develot)m ent Opportunity Areas
83 Footnotes
Appendix A: Zoning Ordinance
Appendix B: Technical Supplement
•
3231657. 7i13
131 17".
4 8
•
4}14 ht' L_
EXISTING BUILDINGS
441,4•
4444,-4,4c.4-4`;',11;"*.;,11C41:404
, , -
11
ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
I • .
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1
D( )wt)tOy^,l kiiirrlli is (;hiinrtiilq rapidly. Over
one nliliiOn 5goare f(s(!t of rlew of ice space hits
rei,ently hoen (,:ompleted; Brn,kell Avenue, south of
Downtown, IS ('Iti"igin(t as ii strong cornrnerciat and
resiitentGri (t1r1Ct'r1tifitlon, find PI:.iia Ver1etia, i1 major
rood rl(•y!lilt)rur!nt, is now underway in the
Miritt)vvn Core In addltr(on to r:omalerc:iot develop
!neilt, Central is growing its an institutional
c:entil with) the Miami -Doric Community College,
the new Y` VCA Building, the Warmed G(,lvernrrlent
Center and recently proposed cor vPntnon facilities.
If Downtown (;(:)rttintres to grow of the c(irrnrlt pace,
(1r11Olo;'na(nt in 1985 could be iiouhIe that of 1970.
Over five million sctuare fr_l('t of new office
space and is nliirly is 7000 tle.4v tiwi Bind units faro
fOt(1(:irst fc)r C)Owntown by 1985 Pttblic projects
SIICIl i1S the Miami Rivet Walk will soon be (irl(.ferway
and fluids have been approve, i for the Regional Mass
Rapid Transit Pi ()Tarn. These a(:tiorls provi(n o
potential t()r Dovvrlt(.Avn 1I m i h.) become on
attractive bill VIto1 city centet; ii center providing
iltoiad opt)ottritlities foi work, living and leisure. for
itt the citiiens ()t the Ie(tiorl. However, for this
potential to become i1 reality, piihil& t)r)tn(:;ts ilr''
te(t(tire(1 tr1 stirnul,tto private development, and, in
turn, t)t'vote development fnitSt t:Otitrli)illt' t) 1 a'
Pet ter Down tuVrrl envirofif11ent- this pr;vote (_;()n-
ttii_iittiOl) includes now developments interfi.i(irl(t
vwith street (:apa(:.lty, pat king IOi,Itinns,in(1 mass
',writ transit 't tions,iIS\veil dsitt ittltir(.)veil pod
estiIaii (41V1rOI111it',ilt.
If! Wine of 1 )GI ii Master _Plan,for Dovv'rrt(wtr
Miami was t)ret)at(?ii for the DOwntt)yvn Development
Alttiiot Ity pis a tt(ti,l(ilitte ft)r futtire developrnattt.
S. `,''.'ills later some of tli(:s(' pt(t)USiils Clove il('COnle
i reality; others hiivc' not. P'tt,h(; and private iir:.hons
,vttiCl1 vary irim the pion requite n!(lt_11hGitil)rlti of
the Ori(tarat (4!(.O!Ilnlendoti(ms to meet the needs of
tile! inoile,:tiate fittiire, and rllost 'moot torlt Is Ow
nwed ((1 methods of impiementing these (1(rvclof:r
nienl proposals. Mirth ttie stlppott of the Down tovvta
Devel0 1 11 xl i Authority t1'iillace, Mt,Horrj, Rohot is
clot) T(_)d!1 wos i.:ontracted to t1r(apar(r a 1 Uti'lot
D('veiopnlent ,1n(1 Zoning Plan fr)r DuvvntOWn Miami.
Tii(.! Urban Development Plain, as presented in
S(..iction 2, provides , letailed I I!r.onlmendations for ,t
((tiding tiro+.vth in Downtown to the yr.inr 1985.
The Inlplemi titotiorl Ptoorarll, (1(!Scrihc)ti in Section
3, includes both direct puht(c investrn(:int and it /oning
strat('(Iy, that is hosed on concepts of "new zoning„
The proposed revisions to thin City Zoning Or(iinanc(a
and Atlas are included in Appendix A of this report.
w
1
2.0
I URBAN
� DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
t
t
t
7
2.1 URBAN Gi=SIGN KRAINBWbRI<
Long range development potentials in the
Miami Region are strong, and Downtown can
,attract a substantial share of that grovvth. The
cumulative et touts of pclt)lic and private investments
rlow underway and planned will retake Downtown
r))oIe attractive and accessible than ever before.
But tO insure orderly dt veloprnent, the City must
suhscribc to a coordinated development frame-
VOr k. The following urban design principles form
the basis of the plan.
Develop Amenities and Catalysts
Bayfront Park improvements and expansion
�lnd the Miami River Walk will dramatically increase
the attractiveness of the water edge of Downtown,
stimulating and enhancing private development. But
internal improvements are also necessary. The
Goverrlrnent Center, ,..Ieveloped in conjunction with
linear park along this F.E.C. Railroad, will balance
new private development occurring along Biscayne
Boulevard. A large-scale residential development in
the presently underiltillzed area north of the Corn -
unity College should be developed as a large in -
town, water -related community. In addition, activ•
ity streets, streets lined with retail and other active
uses with high quality pedestrian improvements,
shOuid he developed connecting existing and nevv
development and providing day and evening activities.
Join Activity Centers and Areas of Highest
Development Potential
Downtown is composed of three major activity
zones: the Flagler Street Core, Midtown Core and
Hotel Row along Biscayne Boulevard. Brickell Ave-
nir'_! c:an be considered another office -retail -residen-
tial zone outside the Study Area. The most signifi-
(,ant opportunity areas lie within the corridor along
Biscayne Bay and inland along Flagler Street. Rapid
transit should connect these areas to reinforce the
existing retail core and to provide regional transit
connections as close as possible to major employ-
ment concentrations.
Locate New Development in Relationship to
Infrastructure Capacity
Inhastruc►ore is the public network of streets,
2
transit stops and parking facilities which can he
measured in terms of peak hour capacity. To ac-
commodate the dramatic growth in the Study Area
between 1973 and 1985, location of new develop-
ment and parkconcentrations should he related
to street capacity, and transit stops should he loca-
ted near employment concentrations.
Connect New Development with a Pedestrian
Circulation System
With employment increasing almost 50% by
1985, pedestrian improvements are required to
improve the erlvironmentat quality of Downtown,
reduce; conflicts between the pedestrian anc,l auto-
mobile, and take maxirnrrrn advantage of direct
connections between transit stations and surround-
_ inq employment. Improvements include landscaped
streets, arcades, second level walkways and elevated
plazas.
Develop Amenities and Catalysts
3
NEW
COMMUNITY
22 tHE LAND USE ELEMENt
Land Use and Activity Distribution
The 1985 Development Plan is organize(' to
respond to the two existing commercial centers
along Biscayne Boulevard the Flagier Street Retail
arrci Of lice Core and the Midtown Core. Flagier
Street is reinforced on the west by the new Govern-
ment Center and its auxiliary development and on
the east by major of five growth in Dupont Plaza and
north of Flagier Street along Biscayne Boulevard.
The Midtown Core remains primarily retail with
small increases in office and residential as spin-off
development to Plaza Venetia.
The linear development corridor extending
from Dupont Plaza to Plaza Venetia includes a corn-
plernentary mixture of activities. Included are retail,
of ice, hotel, residential and entertainment uses to
stimulate Downtown activity along the length of
Bayfront Park, one of the region's most important
Join Activity Centers and Areas of Highest Development
Potential
•
•
•••••
•
00
Oo°o o
0
O
amenities. Connected to this r;orrido► IS a major in
town residential community, the Miami -Dade
Connuunity College and a zone for Downtown serv-
ice functions aro of f-street parking. The southern
terminus of this cot ri(for connects to the Miarni
River Walk nt(I major residentiaf-COnlrllerCial devel-
opment west of the Brickell Avenue Bridge.
1. OFFICE
The aniolint of office space forecast between
1972 and 1985 is the equivalent of one First Federal
Budding allilually for the noxl 12 years, and most
of this space will locate nriar the existing office
core. Office development rviII_occur, if Certain iirl-
proVerileritS and controls are initiated to prevent
negative impacts; and, therefore, new office Sf)aCe
is the key to the Downtown Development Plan.
Residential, retail arld hotel development depend
upon sustained off ice growth.
Locate New Development in Relation to Infrastructure
Capacity
2. RESIDENTIAL
Rasidential development in Downtown Miami
must he related to significant amenities of a quality
to compete with other areas in the region. Bayfront
Park and Miami River Walk will certainly be attract -
for adjacent +levelopruent in the near future. In
the long range additional public action will he re-
quired.
New In -Town Resir.lential Community: The
economic forecast indicates that a large-scale,
moderate (tensity, mixed IOCOIT1C community
is a possihility Downtown. The most approp-
riate location for such a development would
be north of the Community College to 1-395
and east of the F.E.C. Railroad. This area
presently contains only a very small residen-
tial population, is underutilized, and has enough
area for a significantly large development to'
include retail and other community services.
The Illustrative Development Plan indicates a
rle\n' Comrrnanity of approximately 7000
Connect New Development with a Pedestrian Circulation
System
IIIIIIIIIIIIII Central Commercial IIIU I O
MN General Commercial
Industrial
Punic Facdrtres
5
Commercial/ Residential
Parks and Recreation
Residential (high density)
Residential (mod density)
1985 LAND USE
t
i
i
1
1
w
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
dwelling units with supportmq facilities organ
IJt d artlnniI a major park and lake) system
Inlr)lemeratation of this propr.)sal lid require
pu1)lic private c).t)Or)eriition with the City pro
viriing lama assembly- assistance, write -dawns,
or other actions. Although developing this
('orllllllirllty will be ail enormous task, the
benefits for Downtown VVr)illd be significant.
A large, socially, fac;ially,aald ecnnomic:aliy
mixect residential population will irv:rease tale
atI1rlI ti0n of Downtown to the regional r)optlla
tion,uld, in turn, will stimulate iurther (level
opulent. The community will also diva existing
NOP-3 residents a wider c:hoic;e Of living t;rn-
virorinlr)nts ant!;IlIOry reflabilitdtion and selec-
tive redevelopment of the NDP 3 Area with no
relocdUorh Outside of Downtown net:)essary. .
Rc_siderltial Development in the Flagler Simet
Cc)rcl Residential development in the exist-
ing office ilticl retail core is desirable and a(:hiev
at)it . However, duce to high land costs only
Conrlorniniurlas can he anticipated, since i)igl,-
risrt al)at fc)r sail: are tlhe only residential
type that can (;(11111)(Ite With Office development.
In addition, to attract residents to the Corn,
the Downtown envirorullent must be improved
dramatically, including piahiic parks, fandscap
irnl, evening activities aria, perhaps most ini
por tam, re;iclt'mt security.
Existin Residential S_1.),nok1s: Newt develoll-
11I !tin Dtn,rntown will provide belief its to
the existing population; i+ir:teasing Downtown
employment vgrin provide increased jot) oppor-
tunities - The proposed I1 W community will
provide new housing aitelriatives for existing
residents', tli,it is ridirtir;ll,�irly i1r11)()rlant for
thif eeIclerly now hying in Dovyotr)tvn art'as most
susceptible to nevv development. Major new
parks will provide expande(l recreational
opportunities.
Tc) ca:)lnplement this new d«(velol)tnrnt, the
City in cooperation with existing residents,
shouldestablish llrutlrari)s tot exishnct neigh-
borhoods. In the short range this should in-
clude investigations to avoid tt) . negative hil-
1 -facts c)f Increase.! traffic Downtown, street
landscaping, and ,a progranh to inhptovt1 public
services in the central area. In the lend tangs,
when Federal hollsiI I l programs ;are clot if iec.1,
rehabilitation anci selective redeveiopnlent
should occur with till' City cant) ex151:I1i resi-
dents Coopt)riltiucl ill all ac11011 pl,lrl.
i. RETAIL AND ENTERTAINMENT
Refill R tIvity In Do`.yrltowrl is not expected to
expdncl significantly; but, with a larger resident
popillatir:)n lied incrr;asing employment, conditions
t)f current far'lities should improve and a moderate
increase in space car) he expected Tile ITIOSt impor-
tant new retail activltir?S are places of entertainment
and restaurants of regional im;)ortance. These should
be! (frier get er1COilraged. In addi100, the con-
tinuous retail ,activity along Flagler Street Should he
maintained; all new developments should have active
srku:es on the 11rr)tirlil floor containing retail, per-
sc)nal services, entertainment arid restaurants.
4. HOTEL AND MOTEL
Hotel devehoment IS exp;ctr+ct in the forte of
renovation of existing S1,CE), but a modest amount
of new spate is likely as DowntC)wn'develops Into an
important (:l)lnrnerc;i;a1 center. If the environment of
Downtown is significantly irnprov(l,I, the new Port
of Miami could stimulate DI)wr)towr) tol,risrn,
which would fmco;uage hotel development. The
most appropriato location tot new hotels and motels
is along Biscayne Rotllevarl within easy walking
distance of the tetall (.Orc int1 the irnprovc?ci Bay-
frc)nt Park.
Location of New Development
Opport!inity areas are the probable receptacles
for new (ievelonrnent. The allocation of the space
forecast into tl"le;e areas, as Sllowil OIh the Illustrative
Plan, represents a probable future for Downtown
Miami. Of Loursc;, other futures are possible, but
the illustrative solution defines a desirable and fed
sibie future state witch set ves as ,a basis for reconh-
mended public action and zoning controls.
The arras of greatest commercial development
potential during the 1973-1985 period will he in the
Dupont Plaza Area and the Biscayne-2nd Avenue
Corridor. To a lesser extent comrriereial develop-
ment is certain to occur in and adjacent to the
Govet nmenl Center and the Midtown Core. The
Biscayne Bayftont and Miami River Subareas have
excellent potentials for residential development.
1. DUPONT PLAZA AREA
Dupont Plaza is important for Downtown.
Development will provide linkages to Brickell Ave -
nut? on the south and Carl Stimulate development on
the currently underutilized parcels along the Miami
River. However, transportation improvements as
6
:1
• •
7
•
ui
—
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
. ak
•
•
^ t
•
•
•
tgA
•
•
e
r
; . 2 • a•
• • \ •
•
. ft 0 • • •• 1 :rill
a •• •ip,
•• • 1 •• ,
„
a
. , •• Ili 0•111 ••••:,
•• •• •••
'• N,,, ._..‘ \'
• •••:•••
110
. ..
•••••• •••• I: !;.
111:r•••:. ••• !.:..t, .12•1',• • •.• . ..: • . . I •e 1.: • SHP '11: •
two •
, - - a,
..; '' , - , -4, . ''.. -:: 4 111•01
:
1985 EMPLOYEE DISTRIBUTION
• Existing Employees (250)
Under Construction and Committed
Proposed (net new)
°
1
r
1
i
w
t
C= District
Office
Retail
Motel/Hotel
Residential
00WNtOWN MIAM1 CONCEPT PLAN - SUB AREA ALLOCATION
Probability 1 Probability 11 Net New"
1,410,000 sq.ft.
25,000 sq.ft.
On -Site Parking 2,795 spaces
Biscayne/2nd Ave. Subarea
Office 1,230,000 sq. f t.
Retail 25,000 sq.ft.
Motel/Hotel
Residential
On -Site Parking 2,795 spacns
Dupont Plaza Subarea
Of lice
Retail
Motel/Hotel
Residential
On -Site Parking
Midtown Core Subarea
Office 153,600 sq.ft.
Retail 612,000 sq.ft.
Merchandise Mart 232,800 sq.ft.
Hotel/Motel 240 rooms
Residential 200 D.U.
On -Site Parking 3,910 spaces
Government Center Subarea
Office 125,000 sq.ft.
Government Office 851,200sq. ft.
Retail
On -Site Parking 103 spaces 1,240 spaces
Miami Riverfront Subarea
Residential Apartments
Retail
On -Site Parking
Biscayne Bayfront Subarea
Residential Apartments
Retail
On -Site Parking 1,000 spaces 1,000 spaces
*Net New includes probability III plus net remaining space forecast to
250,000 sq.ft.
25,000 sq.ft.
500 rooms
200 D.U.
908 spaces
250,000 sq.f t.
25,000 sq.ft.
500 rooms
200 D.U.
908 Spaces
described in Section 2.3 are required for any new
development to occur. The four vacant blocks in
Dupont Plaza plus the area proposed for Miami
Center can accommodate almost 2.5 million square
feet of new office space, 740 hotel rooms, 1300
dwelling units and as much as 80,000 square feet
of retail space. 11 less office space were developed,
additional residential space could be accommodated.
4,330,000 sq.ft.
206,500 sq.ft.
480 rooms
1,960 D.U.
9,763 spaces
2,310,000 sq.f t.
150,500 sq.ft.
240 rooms
1,300 D.U.
2,834 spaces
2,200,000 sq.ft.
56,000 sq.ft.
240 rooms
5,000 spaces
625,000 sq.ft.
45,500 sq.f t.
1,033 spaces
250,000 sq. t t.
10,500 sq.f t.
207 spaces
700 D.U.
10,000 sq.ft.
800 spaces
1,650 D.U.
22,000 sq.ft.
1,650 spaces
1985.
Total
5,990,000 sq. f t.
256,000 sq.ft.
980 rooms
2,160 D.U.
13,466 spaces
3,540,000 sq.ft.
175,500 sq.ft.
240 rooms
1,300 D.U.
5,629 spaces
2,450,000
81,000
740
200
5,908
778,600
657,500
232,800
240
200
4,943
375,000
851,200
10,500
1,550
sq.f t.
sq.ft.
rooms
D.U.
spaces
sq.ft.
sq.f t.
sq.ft.
rooms
D.U.
spaces
sq.ft.
sq.f t.
sq.ft.
spaces
700 D.U.
10,000 sq.f t.
800 spaces
1,650 D.U.
22,000 sq.ft.
3,650 spaces
2. BISCAYNE-2ND AVENUE AREA
This area is the most attractive for commercial
development after Dupont Plaza. Although the front
portions of many of the blocks are occupied by
developments considered as "givens", almost the
entire frontage along NE 2nd Avenue can be avail-
able for intense new development. The Miami -Dade
Community College, a recommended regional rapid
transit station and a new Downtown urban park will
8
A
RAPID TRANSIT
9
•
•
contribtite to increased development potentials and
a positive Downtown environtlient. TiiIS area has
capacity for more than 3.5 million square feat of
retail space. A significant number of now dv✓elhng
units wiilk , also be developed.
3. GOVERNMENT CENTER AREA
A Downtown Government Center has been
i)roposed for some time, aritl a recent plan Ili1S been
completed. This projeci will enhance Downtown by
providing an "internal" catalyst for ref
the existing underutilized area. The possibility of
a major Government Office Center has already begun
to stimulate development along 1,1/est Flagler Street.
4. MIDTOWN CORE AREA
Plaza Venetia Is d major riewv retail develop-
ment which is now ,underway. Over 600,000 square
feat of retail space will he (1 Ve;lopO(1, (0111plementer,I
I)y new ofhr.e and residential space an i a morchan-
(fise rtlar1. This will transform the MIdtr)\Vil Cole into
a nlajor regional r;ntl)loyrnent concentration and
shoiild stlltllllate moderate amounts of i 1 litit)rlal
of tic', dud reside/well tic;velurrrnent.
b. MIAMI RIVEIRFRONT AREA AND BISCAYNE
BAYFRONT AREAS
These b.vo <ileas have the highest rlrl enity
potential in DoyvtltOvvli and are therelore (pptOn•
!late IUtatlOr1S tor nevy.Do\vritow'rl reside ntial
)pnlerlt. A total of over 2300 emits
O!nrnt.fatc'd III Pie areaS ."chit('vastly
Irl)I`I0Yirlrr (tnV'itt)rlrlll'ntai (t(alit't'. T4it' f'.7linll Rlvt'r
1'Valk and the l0l'-) Pr;r t re it -rid elent i111r) ail
('oi)Ulsion t t Bavttr)nt Palk ,ire e SS.1t'j t('1 stl!rl`--!
Into 11iI`> pit'V,«,lOt)/11f,rit.
2.3 TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING
ELEMENT
Tile! movement system for Dovviito\vn is planned
not only to keep pace; with development, but
also to provide d pleasant .:c)r1 enil.'rlt SySte;nl dial
unit; II ates and tylides Ile v'v developMeill. In the
short hinge a, ltornobile transportation and par king
are the critical issues; ill the long range the location
of mass rdptr1 transit stations and internal transit
rnovt.menf I.;e!Conlr; major concur ns, I t should br,
t-!n1pb<1svt):l th.1t transportation IS CI iticdl for Dovwtl
t�)vvn de!velopnl(.nt. Before reijic:)nal r(11)1.i transit is
opr�;r<atinjl, sttc't;l irnprot r.mt;nts and par kind t)ro.
grant must lit implemented in order to alloy^✓
significant amount of new development.
Mass Rapid Transit
St.istamecl oftiff? growth Downtown is depend-
ent upon a high level of mass rapid transit service.
Beyond 1980, dependence on the automobile corn-
t)a.ral7le to 197:3 would produce traffic and parking
demands far in excess of Downtown's Capacity, re-
sulting in d reduced attraction rate for office devel-
opment. Thercfnre, mass rapid transit is a nlajor com-
ponent of the 1985 Urban Development Plan.
The regional mass rapid transit system align-
ment and Downtown station locations have not yet
been letermined, r)( (11in!i final design studies. The
following principles are strongly recommended for
guiding Downtown system alignment and station
locations in hit' transit studies:
1. Regional rapid transit stations should be
located as close as possible to existing and
fritnte employment and retail concentrations.
2. Employment concentrations Downtown
should hc! interconnected with some form
of mass transit.
3. Employment concentrations Downtown
should he linked to new development north
Jill south of the Study Area, particularly along
Brickeli Avenue.
4. Employriu'nt (011Centri bons Dc_)wntown
should be linked i() regional intercept and fringe
parking by regional rapid transit or other forms
of mass transpor ta11011.
5. Transit guideways and stations in Downtown
should, whore possible, , slow integration of
future buildings using air rights and direct
pedestrian connections from stations to sur-
rounding buildings.
The recommended regional rape1 transit align-
ment as shown on the Illustrative Development Plan
ent(,rs the; Study Area from the McArthur Causeway
vvith th1! first stop at the Transportation Center and
the new residential Con1n1unity. It then continues
down the east side of NE 2nd Avenue, with air
rights development over the guideway, to the second
stop between NE 2nd and 3rd Streets, the center
of a major rlev development concentration. The
guideway then turns and continues down NE 3rd
Avenue along the proposed two block park between
Flagler Street and NE 2nd Street. The next stop is
on Flagler Street between Miami Avenue and East
1st Avenue, anti the station connects directly to
10
.....,....
............... ..•
alimminommi;;;Niime
VEHICULAR TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING
11
•
•
•
surrounding tlef)artrti rlt stores anti office b(lil(1-
ings. The last stop in Downtown is In the major
em()1Ov1111erlt Concerlirdtion Z-It the planned Govern-
ment Center.
Ir1 ad(lihon to the regional system, a people -
mover is recommended to parallel the East 2nd and
3rd Avenue regional system. It continues to the
not with stops at the Transportation Center and
the Midtown Core and extends to the vicinity of
the Jiilld Tuttle Causeway or beyoricl, f)referably
terminating at a regional parking intercept. The
people -mover also continues (o the south with a
station at Dupont Plaza, crossing the Brickell Aventl('
Bridge (In(i serving the Brickell Avenll(r development
(:orri(lor. Tlie southern extension would disc) ter-
minate near a regic)tlal parking Intercept in the
vicinity of the Rickenhacker Causeway. An expan
slop of this system to serve areas within Downtown
and to connect to fringe parking concentrations
should be considered.
The people -mover shotilrl also serve Downtown
of site parking concentrations to the major office
deVel(IpnlerltS in Dupont Plaza and the Blscayne-
2ri 1 Avenue Corridor. The recommended alignment
turns from ihie main rlotth-south people -mover at the
Dupont Plata station to the reconstructed S1r114th
Street rigllt-of-way. Stops are iodated near the rec
o111nlended off site parking concentrations under
the 195 Expressway ramps. The route then continues
north along NW 211d Avenue serving VVest Flagler
Street and the Government Cerlit:r offrees and park•
ing concentraiiorls. TOrriitty east, the people mover
there reconnects with the north -south route and
could continue to the New Por 1 Orl Dofti .'
Vehicular Traffic
Beiswenger-Hoch Lind Associates1 recurnrner d
the following immediate action to improve vehicular
cireiItatIon Down
1. Strictly enforce on -street parking regulations.
2. Prohibit curb cuts on critical Downtown
sire(fts.
3. Continue and expand operatirlrl Of the
staggered work hours program.
4. Widen S.E. 2nd Street.
5. Reconstruct and widen S.E. 4th Street.
6. Extend East 3rd Avenue to N.E. 1st Street.
7. Develop the Transportation Center.
8. Introduce regional intercept parking.
9. Introduce hinge parking.
In addition to these immediate actions, solu-
tion to the transportation problems in Dupont Plaza
is necessary before any new cevelopment can occur
on those four blocks. The scheme proposed by
Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates2 requires public
expenditures to alter the 1-95 Expressway approach,
construct approach ramps to parking garages, and
improve through traffic movement. Clearly, this
cannot be undertaken on a piecemeal basis; and,
if development cannot locate in Dupont Plaza be-
cause of delayed public action, it will move else-
where, not necessarily within Downtown.
Longer range vehicular transportation require-
ments Include widening of Biscayne BOO levard from
NE 6th Street to 1-395; extension of NE 3rd Avenue
to NE 5th Street to allow increased access to new
development; and extension of NW 1st Avenue
along the F.E.C. Railroad to serve the increased
access requirements in Downtown, particularly
the Government Center.
Parking
With the new rlevelopment that is forecast for
Downtown, parking becomes a critical concern of
the Plan. Section 3 of the Appendix describes the
current problem of parking and street congestion
created by the One Biscayne Tower anti the First
Federal Building and illustrates the scope of parking
and 1rattic demands in the immediate future. The
following Downtown parking guidelines are rec-
ommended as part of the Plan:
1. ON -SITE PARKING
In the core area of Downtown which is currently
/orled C-3, the probable new development will
generate a demand for a total of approximately
1250 new spaces per year until the Regional Rapid
Transit is in place. Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates
have indicated that 1200 spaces per block in the
new development opportunity areas is the maximum
that can be permitted without exceeding street
capacity. Therefore the on -site parking guideline is
that for any new off ice development in the core
area a maximum of 30% of total demand should be
permitted on site. This translates into a requirement
of 1 space per 1000 square feet with a maximum
of 1200 spaces per block. Since short-term parking
demand will meet or exceed 1200 spaces, the 1
space per 1000 square feet should be a minimum
as well.
12
2. OFF -SITE PARKING
With above on -site requirement a demand
for 6500 off site spaces will be regilired by 1985,
given the development of the Regional Rapid
Transit_(11 is assumed that the current modal split
will continue until the Regional Rapid Transit is
in operation; see the charts in Section :3 of the
Appendix for calculations.) The following Rapicl
Tr 111sit areas are ri?corllrner deg for off -site parking
Downtown:
Transportation Center
Vicinity of the Miami Dade Community, west
of NE 2r1(1 Avenue
Within or adjacent tO the Government Center
Under and adjacent to the 1-95 Expressway
ramps leading to Duporit Plaza
Since some of tIwse sites are beyond walkirIII
disiance to office sites, a people -hover may 1)
required within Downtown.
Immediate consideration should he clirecte,f
toward developing intercept parking concentrations
in the region which will coincide with future Rapid
Transit stations near major trtaftic arterles. in the
short range these facilities can be connected to
Downtown Uvith express buses. Fringe;farf:Ing near
the Study Area should he implemented to Connect
with a major people. -mover connecting to Downto':vn
from the north and south_
3. PUBLIC MONITORING
blrith 70"t; of the parking rtenlaritl to be met
(off site, the pp-lbtI( mif51 insi<1 11101111orkill pro-
gram) to Cvaltiate each lC".1' development „anti It)
recomfnend spi [.ific ioc,ftions for garaftes tit
properly serve the increasing oft -site parkiii j
d(manEls.
2.4 DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
The block developed to the greatest intensity
In Downtown to (late contains One Biscayne
Tower and the First Federal Building. The total
office F.A.R. of this Mock is approximately 13.7
with an allowable F.A.R. of 30 under present
zoning. No other block in they Study Area approaches
this intensity, yet all of the blocks in the C-3 zone
currently have an allowable height limit of 300
feet which translates Into a t1laX1f11t1111 permitted
F.A.R. of30.
According to Wilbur Smith Associates,3 the
opening of these buildings will produce critical
13
traffic problems on this surrounding streets, 1)!it the
problems can be '.y'l1h(1 1 a major motI-
atir)n of the 0,:Istirig street system. However,
tiher n sirif\. to the
sarne intensity with a S111111 )f narking concentration,
the capacity of the street system would he far
ex(:(te+tt���1, rog,tirinq rttajor public expennitures
to meet the constraints of street capacity while
tonlaftling within !11.ont)nlic feasibility.
bNithotlt ,an appropriate intensity limit the
following things could occur:4
An excessive number of automobiles would
be attracted to new accessory parking
spaces resulting in extreme congestion of
surrounding streets. (A typical block in
Downtown developed to an F.A.R. of 24
would generate over 11,000 automobiles.)
Pedestrian movements on streets, side-
walks and transit system would become
unnecessarily overloaded at certain
locations. (A typical block in Downtown
developed to an F.A.R. of 24 will
generate over 16,000 new employees.)
Ecological problems
would become more
town since Tight and
streets and buildings
impaired.
of air pollution
severe in Down -
air to surrounding
would be
The total office space forecast to 1985
could be developed on two and one-half
typical Downtown blocks, resulting in
massive congestion and ecological
problems on the one hand, and disruption
of the potential of Downtown to be
revitalized on the other. (At present
there are 160 acres zoned C-3 in the
Study Area; this would permit a total of
190 million square feet of new develop-
ment, over 38 times the total office space
projected for Downtown to 1985.)
Of particular importance to the future of
Downtown are the four vacant blocks of Dupont
Plaza. Conflicts between through and local traffic
and congestion now prohibit development; but,
given a solution to the traffic problems, this area
will be the most attractive for development in
the entire region. Indeed, it is a key for achieving
the goals of the plan since development coordinated
with traffic improvements Would in(Jease the
accessibility of the entire Study Area dirt woulcl
provide a major new cleveloprnerlt thrust Down-
town.
However, if these blocks were develope(l to
th(' full intensity permitted by current Toning
(F.A.R. 30) as many as 36,000 employees and
3,600 visitors would he attracted on an average
working day. i the resultant patkinq dr'mancf wrnutcl
be approxin-hately 25,000 spaces, based on the
1972 journey -to -work modal split. Beiswenger •
Hach and Associates state that even with the
proposed nhajor traffic irhl.)rovements the capacity
of the new system restricts the four block area
to a maximum o1 5000 parking spaces. This is
clearly a limiting factor for ilevelopnlent intensity.
Deperi(tirul on tale location of the nearest
transit station the demand for parking could be
reduced. Tiin present modal split of 82'i) auto-
mobile could possibly be reduced to a very optim-
istic 50',10, if a people -filmier or rapid transit sta
lion were located on onr, of the folds blocks, and
if fringe, peripheral and intercept parking were
established. For the Dupont Plaza area a minimum
of 501 if parking cienara(I must 1) providr'rf orh-
site, since the surrounding ,area has limited street
capacity. There are limited opportunity parcels
for adjacent parking developments, and the
available parcels for parking must also serve
existing and filttlr(, nearby office concentrations.
Since Dupont Plaza is at least as Iav(.)rahty
situated for intensive office development as any
other part of Dowrltowrr Mid laird LUSts are at
IeaSl ids high as ashy ()tiler 1)h)Ct:, It IS (v+idt'llt :lilt
rhr.) higher F.A.R. should he permitted
in Miami. Rev:onirnendhhtions for nl;r?:irli trll 1)14
Milted development intensity in the C 3 /one are
as follows: (PIcas(_' refer to SOutiou 4 of Iilr
Appernlix.l
Non -Residential and Hotel Buildings
(n-laxirrnrnl permitted F.A.R.) 8
Residential Buildings
(maximum permitted F.A.R.) 4
Total Building (Incl. resit s?. norl-resi.)
(maximum permitted F.A.R.) 10
It residential and public improvements, sub-
ject to bonus provisions, are developed, maximum
non-residential F.A.R. could be increased to 11
and the total to F.A.R. 15. If located near a regional
rapid transit station, the non-residential F.A.R.
could lie increased to F.A.R. 13 and the total to
F.A.R. 17.
In addition the are. presently ?oiled C-3,
hounded tly North 2nd Street, mid -block west of
North 2nd Averse, North 6th Street, North Mjiarni
Avenue, North bth Street and the F.E.C. Railroad
should he restricted to maximum F.A.R. of 6.
This area do's not have significant development pa-
terhti;al for thigh intensity uses, yet it Is a very signif-
icant area for Location of Downtown services Which
dr,r:oin-t upon proximity to the CBD. This area should
hr? ericolirarlr'rt tO remain as a services' ilrstrict.
Outside the C.3 ione intensity regulations
should remain as pieserltly required by the Zoning
Or.iinance, but certain areas, in particular along
the Miami River and along Biscayne Boulevard frorn
N.E. 6th Street to 1-395, should be designated as
horn is areas.
2.5 THE DOWNTOWN ENVIRONMENT AND
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
An improved Downtown environment will
stirnraiate growth and attract development. Sub-
stantial improvements are required Downtown to
compete for development with the lush beauty of
many other areas of the region. Miami's sub-
tropical climate will fir Os outdoor protection from
the irht011Se si)Ihlnllrr heat but, at the same time,
stimulates vegetative rtrowth to provide this pro-
tection ;and to produce an attractive environment.
Miami is can alltoinolrile-oriented region with few
areas for rhr''1e5ir fans to VNatl.., relax and participate
in urban activities without being threatened by the
,automobile. Downtown can become tare urban ped-
estrian cr,nteI Of the region.
The Development Plan recommends a com-
prehensive program for inlproving the Downtown
l'nvirOnnlerrt. Pnbiic development, controls on pri-
vate development, and cooperation between the
public and private developers are necessary for
implementation.
Waterfront Parks and Amenities
Biscayne Bay and the Miami River are im-
portant amenities for Downtown. When the Bayfront
Park improvements and expansion are completed
and the Miami River Walk underway, Downtown
Miami will have a system of water -related parks and
14
pedestrian ways equal to any other central city in
the nation. These plarineci improvements should he
conlpletei as soon as possible. In addition a Bayfront
Walk from the McArthur Causeway to Paco Park
should be? Constructed ii at all possible; and the City
should (levrlop <ln illlt)rl)v(nlerlt !fall (7)r the entire
J1iarill River, f(.lcLisin(( ptl pllb(IC a('CH55, O(.!deStr roll
parks and walkways, adjacent activities, appropriate
new development, and inlpr ovetnent (11 water rtual i ty.
Downtown Urban Parks
Major now Downtown urban parks should be
constructed to the west of Biscayne Boulevard to
improve environmental duality in high (Tensity em-
ployment and residential areas. Three major public
actions are recomniencie(I:
1. Develop a new Downtown park alon(I the
proposed N.E. 3rd Avenue extension horn
Flagler Street to N.E. 2nd Street. This will pro-
vide opera space, a large space for Downtown
relaxation, and light and air to balance the
Pedestrian Street
landscaped street
with MRT guideway
15
expected intense surrounding development.
Additionally, tllis open space can provide a
corridor for mass rapid transit or people -
mover guideways.
2. Develop a linear park along the F.E.C. Rail-
road from the river to N.E. 5th Street. This will
serve as E:ln entrance to the planned Government
Center, provide open space for new employees,
and function as an informal pedestrian connector
frotrl Flagler Street to development along the
Miami River. In the long range tide existing
tracks below 6t11 Street should be removed, and
landscaping should extend north to the NDP-3
conillllIr)ity and the proposed new community.
3. In conjunction with the proposed new com-
munity, develop a large-scale open space with
a system of lakes and canals to serve existing
and new Downtown residents.
Downtown Mini Parks
Mini parks should be developed Downtown, par -
Pedestrian Path
•
soft edge at Tow use are
hard edge at high use area
r
r
f
f
a
i
l
t
t
t
i
ticularly along Hagler Street and N.E. 2n(I Avenue,
functioning as small-scale places for people to rat
lunch, to relax from shopping, or to sit in the sha,l<<
or sun. These parks should provide enclosure acid
isolation from stre(!t activity, be heav(y landscaped
with rnirlirutirn paved surfaces, and he reasonably
spaced so as not to disrupt the scale arl(t activity of
the street itself. These high quality parks would be
the equivalent of other cities' plazas. Mini parks
should be random occurrences with a variety of
forms and textures and located in the highest inten-
sity areas; ltlerelorr1, it is appropriate that they should
hrr developed in conjunction with new private con-
struction with control and design review by the
pllhtic.
Pedestrian improvements
A comprehensive system of pedestrian in)-
1)r()ven)erlts simul 1 he unrlcertak(en Downtown. These
include landscaped streets and paths, arcades and
elevated pedestrian walkways and plazas.
Arcade
■
arcade
at' t1
itkk
with pedway
with MRT guideway
1. Landscaped pedestrian streets are designed
to provide a pleasant walking environment
throughout Cowntown, particularly within re-
tail areas an(' (.connecting employment con-
centrations with shopping streets and public
faeitities, such as the Mianli-Dade Community
College.
2. Lan''lscaped pedestrian paths are designed
to front directly on major amenities SLICK as
f3iscilyne B,i',' and Ih(:u Miami River. Paths should
also he,leveloned within large parks, such as
the proposed linear parks atonq the F.E.C.
Railr(_)ac1.
:3. Area les ate designed for high volume ped-
estrian channels to provide a high quality walk-
ing environment vlilt protection from sun and
raid. They are lined, where possible, with retail,
S(Nvice, (entertainment and public. uses.
4. Pedways, or elevated pedestrian paths, are
cksigne,I for areas with highest pedestrian
volumes as well as high traffic volumes. They
also set vO to cor1pecl elPvafe(i plazas, seconifar y
entrances to Of lice buildings anrd department
Pedway
with arcade
with MRT guideway
16
stores, and particularly, rapid transit station;.
Pedways also provide public, views to the 13,1y
and the new Port of Wiwi, The City shotil•t
develop an elevated lvatk.way plan In e_:()II)Ilnt
non with, or Initneillatety at tor resign 'le(;ts!0! ,
are made fOt I lf)Idi transit alignment an,f Stil
lion IO(:ations in Dov,Inow I.
Design Principles
Itl plurInin(f and f'Villtla►flit) t)eN;'ll1O`,^till e'rl\'Irt)tl
mental inThroverllents, the ir)Ilt)W.vturi.tosiqu j)rlliCll'�11'S
should) he (:onsidere(t:
1. SHADE: Shad st f)e :lestir nl areas t u tlf•,'
intense summer hoot. On nortli S0tith avenue's
maximum solrir radiation is Iron] the vve st.
B ttl(.flrlt1s can lie:,' used lU sh,ide the"vVe"i► `lido;
vegetation, arcades nor rips the mass rani t
transit (t!Ili e \ay should bo t0 11r(-)te't_i
Shade for Avenues
Shade for Streets
Breeze for Streets
/4
17
the east `i tr'. On east -west streets maximum
solar ra,fiiatiort during Hies siitl)ni(tr is frorn the
rot tn; vegetation, t0S and fall("7t}Ie5 Sh0(ild
h.: ise, t tO t)rote(.;t het festr irtrls on the south
shire.
2.. E3ERREEZE: In Mi,inti's hlirnid climate breeies
art! Unpin hint for r:Ooiina effects and air
( !uansinri. faro'?? ? \ivith ship le is even more ef-
►et.tive•. On not ttl-sOttth iiV(,nuPs with high
t)e,tostr iitn IIsf. datl)tuto wince by Properly loca-
ting vegetation an(t positioning and shin( builri-
inOs; vvide t,iltll^,vays on the (cast side increase
lilt movement on the street. East•\west streets
s,!rvo a5 uteri/e COt rl(lot s with the streets actually
IIICre'.itSi?Kt (ntln i velocity; lrinds(ilt)e(i sf'tl)acks
are ar wi tin r !ate.
SURFACES: Extensive t)aveit surfaces
'in O'. {ld Ieet �IVt )I'f,t ilea! 1)e:(.ICStrlatl The
Hi\"Ie''1tit ref lev.ts nf'at, rililss nl)sot1)S. I(1 Ver,,,
Intel' use mods, olt'vate(t planting areas channel
Breeze for Avenues
Grass for Heat Absorption
Raised Grass Area
•1
t:.
I
r
f
f
1
C
t
pedestrian movement
alp e costs
4 AUTO BUFFER? Usin planting near no�
cirri) to rr. lu, e automobile noise WO inures
in the tlocli'Strian tvay. Vegi-nation arid oh
street parking ; al) in, tease hie 0t',ii'.StrIan's
sense i)l s(tr;irity.
5. VISUAI_ CONTACT fc'rle5tri;nl sr't_urity
tinting the mils is !moor (Alit for
stimulating I)oV'c'ntt)\\!l a(.t!V'lly_ Visual',Huta( i
final the sh et to I,i lvvays air 1 elevate,
and hc)1r1 buildings to the street art.! sidi'tvalt,5,
IS important It) ixitil the {)lilt.e Core ar)'1
J uilal ti+'i'hlli)S.
6. ACTIVITIES. flie most lift'".tives„riirit
deviC e Is Do'.:v'nlovvri d :11v'Ity. Street it^,i�l ;il1�i
1)ir1'.vayssh)) )I,'1 hl' lin,,,i \^dith aC1i,. ' .I5C'S )1)
1:111(i1110 r)1,111, 1)r,45lin,ll 5„IVIl:!"; "rli'tt t;Urtrtt"'It,
li'.stil)bailts, 'Ott'
Vegetation for Auto Buffer
yvhlio. red!' Inairliell
On -Street Parking for Auto Buffer
Visual Contact to Pedways
1 t
etfa
...... •Y4L.J
it ••
f tr
i
1
Ammknowam
Street Chatacter
light and air" arH Imhoflant ingrredients for a
ti+11:'i �'tiSf-11 IlLan iwileslrlan environment, hut equally
important is the form ,lrna scale of the street itself.
Setk),Ic t.; al the ground level should he controlled to
provide C.orltinllity to shop fronts and building en-
Ir;lll�:, s. 1,ytithiti the Downtown Core, Midtown Core
In:l along Ili'vard the existing building
Ilse sllttu1,1 hi' nrl wrv<':1_ The exception is along
NE .'r1-1 Avenue an,! SE ;r<I Avenue where the
tl,„H r i'tl)t ; I` ..,1. silo,lltl I)i' i'�:t),rt) ls;' 1 to meet the
nee, is of increase OI!rlestrlar) rr)o\-`ernent ani_Lpoten-
tI )tl`,i,111'.,' Raplii transit guideway, •
The character of the street, its texture and
1 Ir rlishinils are contributors to the 1,rsdestrian en-
viroiIntent . Mail boxes, r)eyvs1)at)rsr vending machines,
t,_'leriflones, waste bask 15 and seating are important
street f'irnitill'' They should be coordinated, perhaps
Visual Contact to Streets
Activities Along Pedestrian Areas
J
18
with lighting standards, so that they are attractive
and convenient. Signs communicate individual
activities to the pedestrian arid the (trivet, and,
when properly designed, they also provide color
and decoration to the street. The City should con
sider developing a sign ordinance that worili.l allow
signs to serve their iiee-.ded functions but encourage
positive contributions to the total environment.
2.6 SUBAREA RECOMMENDATIONS
New development, which will predcltllrnaetly
locate in the detined opportunity areas, should
respond to the particular opportunities and
constraints for each area. Detailed recommen-
dations for each Downtown Subarea ore outlined
below. These form the basis for Om implementa-
tion program presented in the next section.
Some of the proposals requires direct public in
vestment; others, particularly controls lur develop
nlent intensity and pedestrian improvements, are
elements of the zoning plan, preset tec.l in the, next
section, and the Proposed Zoning Ordinance,
presented in Section 9,
19
Dupont Plaza Area
1. Encourage development of office, hotel
and residential >.vith retail activities on the
street levels honting S.E. 3rd Avenue.
2. Maxinlurn 1.:1levelopmont intensity should
hr� F.A.R. 11 for non-residential t,uiliiings,
F.A.R. 15 when combined with residential.
(F.A.R. 13 and 17 respectively if a mass rapid
transit station is located'' itli n the Dupont
Plaza Area.)
3. Proceed immediately 10 !Flake triirtsportation
improvements recommended by Beiswenger-
Hoch and Associates.
4. If possible, develop a mass transit stop
within the four block area.
5. S.E. 3rd Avenue should be developed as
a landscaped street with arcades on both
slats; the right-of-way should also be extended.
6. If a transit stop is developed, pedways
should connect directly from the station to
the Dupont Plaza Hotel, Miami Center , north
to the existing Office Core and to surrounding
Dupont Plaza development.
7. The tops of parking garages should 1.)e
developed into pedestrian plazas, particularly
facing Biscayne Bay.
8_ All streets around the forir block area
she:ild be 'wavily landscaped to screen the
Loge parking garages.
N.E. 2nd Avenue —Biscayne Boulevard Area
1. Encourage office, hotel and residential
cleveloprnerlt and particularly encourage en-
tertainment and retail uses on the street level
on Biscayne Boulevard and N.E. 2nd Avenue,
2. Maximum development intensity should be
F.A.R. 11 for non-residential buildings; F.A.R.
15 when combined with residential. (F.A.R.
13 and 17 respectively if a mass rapid transit
station is developed in the area.)
3. On -site parking supply should be restricted
to no more Iharr 1200 spaces per block.
4. N.E. 3r1 Avenue should be extended im-
mediately to N.E. 1st Street to allow rerouting
of buses and, in the long range, should be
extended to N.E. 5th Street to provide access
to triture accessory parking.
5. A regional mass rapid transit station should
be developed to serve tyre Dade County Cor»-
tncinityCollege and the anticipated develop-
ment concentration in the.? 2nd Avenue -Biscayne
Boulevard corn ir:for.
6. N.E. 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard
should be developed as landscaped streets with
arcades; and, in addition, all streets surrounding
the community College should be landscaped.
7; The N.E. 2nd Avenue street right-of-way
should be extended on the east side to serve
intense pedestrian movement and anticipate the
Regional Rapid Transit.
8. The building line on Biscayne Boulevard
should be preserved.
9. Mini -parks should be constructed in con-
junction with private development to provide
small scale areas for pedestrians.
10. A two block urban park should be devel-
oped along the N.E. 3rd Avenue extension be-
tween Flagler Street and N.E. 2nd Avenue with
landscaped second level plazas overlooking the
Park.
11. Pedways, arcades and air rights develop-
ment should be encouraged in conjunction
with the rapid transit guideway. These pedes-
trian circulation corridors should directly
connect to the community college, adjacent
development, to Bayfront Park at N.E. 3rd
1
1
•
Street drid extend north tO th(' proposei.1 new
con -mu -My.
17. Access from Blsc:ayne BO(Illwclr t, Fla(ller
Street and N.E 2rtil Avenue to adjacent r)rO
perty sho111(1 ht.‘ strictly Controlled,
Hagler Street
1. The existing retail function trust be pre-
s(trve l; at) new development shl)u1(1 1 rrl)Ilte,'
Io develop significant nevv retail sI)dcO ftonting
out Flii tier Street.
2. Maxi urn development intensity should 1)e
F.A.R. 11 for non residentidl buildings; F.A.R.
15 when combined with resiric ntial. (F.A.R. 13
and 17 respectively if a mass rit5d transit sta-
tion is developed it) the area.)
3. If possible it mass rapid transit station shc)ul(i
be developed near Hie tllajor detlilrttnent storr''s.
4. Arcades should be, r ncr)nrair,.f with all new
d(wel oprttent.
5. Pedwtays should connect Ow proposed
transit station to nearby -fer)ilrtment stores grid
office buildings.
Dupont Plaza Area
EfUT
•
•
•
•
•
• • W
• >
•'•
• z'
• Li,
• U
•
• • m
•
1.041.0m,
•• ONE BISCAYNE TOWER
•
•
•
TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENTS
MIAMI RIVER WALK
CLAUGHTON
ISLAND
ARCADE ttliut swat
PEDWAY
TRANSIT ••••••
Mint Ddrks and elevated t)lazas Shonld he
r)nco, r i ierl fOr set -vim] [Jt)wntown shoppers.
l Sett)acks not vary from the existing
building line in -)rler tO preserve the pefiestrian-
r(�tdi1 (;harac:ter of the street.
8. Access to aitjacent property from Flagler
Street and fvltan)i Avow le shoeIld orn-
hlhited
Government Center Area
1. The Government Canter Area should con
tam not Only government office space but also
retail uses On tilt' fIrorrn'i flout fiacinq N.W. 1st
Court aft' Hagler Streets
2. Patit fldrailes shoillrl h(.' constr(I(:10(1 with
tl Government Center to solve government
ettmloyees and visitors and to f(trlcti0rt as a
frirtrf(+ narktn(I On(:''rttrdti0I)
:3. A reiitonal rapid transit station should he
�iOvr�lO III I i s itsL le'l iwilestti511 stroets with
at(
.' \y'est Flilglls and N.lv. 1st Coin t sll0l.11d I)('
'levetope,1 ,is lair '1`.ii;illNld pedestrian streets
N.E. 2nd Avenue -Biscayne Boulevard Area
ions•
•
PARKING
•
COMMUNITY
COLLEGE
1 1a
PARKING
•
NE 2ND AVENUE
FREEDOM TOWER
0
u
O
1REGIONAL RAPID
RANSIT STATION
irio FLAGLER ST •
••••••••••• ••
Via-
•• •�•.••ONE.IIISCAYNE TOWER
Z
}
Q
U
N
BAYFRONT PARK
20
with arcade's.
5. Poi!ways should be developed on West Flaglet
Street and N.W. 1st Court to connect new dc�
voioptnent directly to the nmposrrd rapkr! troll
sit stop.
G. A linear park should he developed along tt•i!,
F.E.C. Railroad right -of Avoy from Flagler Street
to N.E. 6th Street
Miami River Area
1. Moderiltr.' density residential for side arid
rent should hr, vigorously enroUragrid.
2. Retail, entertainment, or other active rises
should he ene:olimged in buildings facing the
Miami River.
3. The maximum permitted F.A.R. sllolil(1 Iau
2.4 lot non-residential buildings anti 5 for
residential.
4. The (\,'Hael River \\folkway silociI 1 be com-
pleted as soon as possible.
5. Frequent public access shcnild lire allc:rrved
to the Miami Riverfront.
G. Develop a linear park olonq thr. F.E.C. Rail
rOd.1 right of -way ftorn tfu Miami River Walk to
Flagler Street
Government Center Area
POLICE
BUILDING
PARKING
• PARKING
t•••••••••••1R•
•••
PARKING
REGIONAL RANI,
TRANSII.VATION
w. FLAGLER
ARCADE-- 1W1111ilic;
PEDWAY
TRANSIT ••M•s'
21
LINEAR PARK.
COURT
HOUSE •
•
•••••� N•
w _µ ••
J
3Q
— 1qLL
North Biscayne Boulevard
1. Residential development should he encour-
oetr'd in this corridor from N.E. 6th Street to
1-3O5; and retail, entertainment, and other ac-
tive uses should front on Biscayne Boulevard
and N.E. 2n,1 Avenue. Office and hotel develop-
ments'would also he appropriate new developments.
Tllr:' potential for a new residential community
should be investigated.
2. Maximum permitted F.A.R. should he 2.4
for non-residential and 5 for residential.
3. A regional mass rapid transit stop should
he located near the Transportation Center and
shoulrl connect to tfrc; proposed new community.
4. Northeast 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boule-
vard should he developed as landscaper:! streets
witli arcades.
5. On N.E. 2nd Avenue air rights development,
arcades owl ped ways should he developed in
conjunction with the mass transit guideway.
The pee lwd': s sf log lld connect to the proposer(
new community and to Bayfront Park.
6. A second level pedestrian pronieriade should
{r. d(r,'elc-lllecl along Biscayne Boulevard.
7. Second level plazas should be encouraged to
take advantage rif the Bay view.
Miami River Area
C▪ OURT REGIONAL •
-LOUSE RAPID TRANSIT •
••••••••••••
•
••
RETAIL CORE
PARKING
a
8. N.E. Stir and N E. loth Street should be
developed as hosIlevards from the F.E.C.
Railroad to Biscayne Boulevard in conjunc-
tion with the proposed now community.
9. The N.E. 2nd Averuae right-of-way slroulrl
he extended on the east side to serve pedes-
trians and anticipate the regional rapid
transit.
10. Access to property fronting on Biscayne
Boulevard and N.E. 2r r I Avenue should be
strictly Contrc.alled.
Midtown Core
1. Office and residential development should
t)e encouraged alorul Biscayne Boulevard across
from Plaza Venetia.
2. The maximum permitted F.A.R. should be
North Biscayne Boulevard
••RTOWWEER
••
5 for non-residential or residential buildings.
(If uses are combined, maximum P.A.R.
should be 6.)
3. A transit stop should he provided across
Biscayne Boulevard from Plaza Venetia.
4. The Transportation Center should be
developed to serve as a fringe parking loca-
tion for Downtown employees.
6. Biscayne Boralevard should he a landscaped
street with retail space developed at ground
level; arcades should be required for new
development.
6. If possible a bay(ront walk should be
r.lr:uveloraed to link Bay front Park with Pace
Park.
7. If the transit station is developed, pedways
should connect to Plaza Venetia, to surroun-
ding development and to the parking garages
at the Transportation Center.
Midtown Core
REGIONAL RAPID
TRANSIT STATIO
•
•
•
'•• P LA7 A
• VENETIA
� JEFFERSON'S
2190 cc
se4SCAYNE
• D
.• • ca
• SEARS 2
• }
Q
• co
•
m
•
•
MIAMI
HERALD
22
• • • • Building Walls
Area Sut*x:t
Dove loon ter it
Landscaped
Landsc; rl ied
• — Public Pr( p i ;
NStreet E_:ti•n
Street R'Av
23
1
IMO .1 MEP
�TlStt t!• .• lTt �!rt.! �62.tTls.4 RTtl2#'!
_! !►�i ilt Z{l �tTa tt7 �11{i�
.. +1 ... ......L.1 1 �3�
i'_: air..-�
L1.....:If'
it
.!
Along Street Lines
to Waterfront Area
Controls
Street
Path Along Waterfront
sioI
-xp;an5um
L.; __.... .� . %9
PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION
Dsttict Subect to Retail RequlrementstArt xv-u
••: Arcade
Restricted Accessi Art xr:m, Sec.10)
Q= Visuirl Corridor
Boundary of Special Central
Business DIstrlct
+_ _+t)upont PI:iza Improvements
':Urbart Park
3.0
IMPLEMENTATION
PROGRAM
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This plan and implementation program were
develope I vvithin the framework of the following
set of aSSUrllptions and facts:
1. After two decades of booming construction
in downtown areas, developers and designers are
discovering that hare hones buildings are less
marketable than those with adequate pedestrian
facilities, services, and environmental amenities
such as open spaces and landscaper' areas. In brief,
buildings. designed with adequate facilities, services,
and arnenities constitute enlightened real estate
investment 'both horn the point of view of the market-
ability of individual buildings and of increasing
the economic potential and viability of Downtown
Areas.
2. There has been a strong shift in public opinion
and attitudes reflecting the increasing concerns with
planning and environmental considerations, including
the quality of urban development. In urban areas there
is not only concern with conserving natural and
environmental resources, but ilk() a larder concern
with achieving a high quality of new urban develop-
ment and redevelopment. As reflection of this
concern there has been a vigorotIS process of
adapting] old laws to new values.
3. Major new public investments and improve-
ments planned and recommended for the future in
the Development Plan should stimulate private
development by slaking Downtown more attractive
and accessible tltan ever before. There Is a great
opp(irtrinity and need to insure that new private
developments coniribute their share to achieving
the new, urban environment of Downtown by
meeting the following e.on(iltions: (1) proper general
locations; (2) appropriate densities so as not to
overload public streets and sidewalks; (3) proper
relationships to the open space system and to future
transit stops; (4) contain proper facilities, services
and amenities.
4. A series of new approaches and tools have been
developed in the last three or four years which con-
stitute breakthroughs in zoning wlllch can improve
the quality of new development. These new thrusts
to obtain optimum development can greatly im-
prove the quality of new development, achieve the
increase in needed public improvements and
amenities, and improve the coordination of public
and private investments. These innovative types of
implementing tools are much more sensitive and
responsive to achieving the improved quality of
design as well as mandating or encouraging, by means
24
•
of Irl(:e:)ntives,p(Iblicin11-)rovE'.Lrlentsand rinertittesilnd
other community nee,.IS.
A brief surninary Of these new approaches is in
order to understand their application to Downtown
Miami. They are frequently referred tr) as zonirui or
the "new zoning" since zoning is their primary
all(l administrative veIIICIe. However, they have heel,
(her ived front a variety of approaches and concepts,
including planned unit development regulations,
urban renewal t) dtiS, s)Ib-division regulations, and
special dSSeSSrflent districts for public: improvements.
Another key element in the development of these
new apf)roaclies [las been the evolution and increased
sophistication of civic or urban design in the last ten
years.
At least a dozen major U.S. cities have instituted
some form of incentive zoning, with varying degrees
of sophistication. Perhaps the most intensive work
on innovative zoning devices tins been (torte in New
York City, inc:lu(tin(1 incentive zoning and the ex ten.
siori of the concept of th(e "special-purpose district"
or "special design listrict". Of these special purpose
districts, the Special Greenwich Street Development
District is perhaps the most advanced to date. A
brief descriptir)n of this district follows.
The Special Greenwich Street Developmerit
District lies jels'1 inland Ir(irit the Battey Park City
project and south c)f tht) World Trade Center. The
plan and special zoning regulations for this district
milked sigrllf i :arit nl'' tu..e irl the use of toiling dS
an imr)l t)1entint,l tool of planning and development.
As the tall Street Financial District e):pands into
this area, the special zoning tegutiabciris will require
develolaers to provide) fluor Siiare Ot the I)ui)Iic in)-
proVerltents dS specff te)i_D Irl Ole SbeCid1 :i slrll�t f)Ic111_
In rectum, develof)ers tivlll be entitled tilt ()ugh bonus
Provisions to build larger buildings returning more
rent titan word(' otherwise he possible. The plan
includes a t)r0(lydrll (if improvements to the network
of seibway stations serving ilw larger ate,1, an
elevate,' pedestrian) circulation system passing
through buildings and over sheets and eventually
connecting to the 13atter',' Rif City pedestrian
Clr(illation system, d series of spacious plazas and
opennFiler CiileS;1t kite)IVaIS illO11g the elevated pedes-
trian systc)nl, and special provisions to assure ade-
c.luate retail shops, Iestatirants and other services.
Among the nurnerous uses of applications of
the "nr_tw zoning" are ltie following:
1. The new at are particularly suited
tO guiding tit ban areas undergoing t)rivatt)
development or redevelopment where urban
lenewiil Or l)ther a)?Oilchf'S tie not jt)siiIied
25
or feasibly. Plans developed for such areas can
l)O enacte,1 into legislation to achieve precise
planning and design results through zoning,
thereby resulting in a heiter quality of develop-
ment. In d'_iditiorl, there can be more flexible
appto lcli s where necessary as related either to
ltdlibondi zoning districts and zoning lines or
to such technical elements as parking regulations.
2. Either by itself or in combination with other
planning implementation devices, the "new
zoning" has the potential for the gradual devel-
opment of entire planned systems of circulation,
other public facilities and amenities as an area is
privately developed or rebuilt. This is particularly
irnt)ol tant tut Downtown Miami with its major
r)+ihli : investment in the new rapid transit system,
including the need for better pedestrian access to
these facilities as new of lice and residential
buildings ore constructed.
3. Areas Such as the waterfront areas adjacent to
Biscayne Bay and the Miami River with special en-
vironmental features to he preserved, protected
Or erlllill) :r.'d can have spectral environmental
design planning and guidelines.
4. Developers can he required arld encouraged
tIlinticth incentive zoning to build systems of
pi blir: and private amenities such as lancis(:a1ar-)
systems or planned systems of small urban
spaces or Mini •parks. in much the same vv ay that
In lower (tensity residential districts, single
family houses are encouraged to cluster by
means 01 planned unit development regulations
{called "residential development of a planned
,snit nature)" in the Kilian-1i ordinance), higher
density residential and office buildings can be
encouraged to grolcp together, even though in
separate ownerships, thereby achieving "Mini -
parks" by means of combined open spaces and
perhaps also saving land to the benefit of both
the rirtveloper and municipality.
5. In all or key parts of downtown areas,such
as Flagier Street shopping area, retail facilities
cull be required to be replaced as new buildings
displace older buildings containing these facilities.
One of the most serious problems al fecting
many downtown areas is the rapid decline in
facilities for eating and shopping as private
redevelopment occurs while typically greatly
increasing the floor space and the size of the
visiting and working population needing these
facilities.
6. A variety of other facilities and developments
such as a variety of types of pedestrian arcades
t
r
1
f
or t an {1tl er1, (('Ird11CC1 to ho
built thIOI1,1i1 n1c t�nUvl� totes For F�xdnipt<�,
of+ly cI:)drireerlf lnlll,hn(is (Ind nely hliildirrfs
corlldr,',,idt?rlt1 11 roll! of f
)uilt'i f.i( 111110S Itl f)f)11`t110vV11 N11,11111. Thi<; IS a
It)cr1 t`:<t`' kcl `,1.It 1 th,? 1(111)c)rt,ltlt 1:)I111rl-1Ip O1
nc by resi lentlal +if velooment and l)on:llation
so vit;Il to ilio lon(i min ffiture of Dowrltryvrl
Mi,-1n11.
This section of th(r ropor t contains t irnf)10
rnant,itinn plogranl for Downtown Mianli including
ttuo j)wpo.S(d siategy for irnplenlenhng tho urban
development Ilan by an )1 111 ltiou and
description of the Phase? I Implementation Prn!1r,irn
including public hnprov(?nlr?rlts end the Special
District Plan and other trincwdtiye toning appro,lcIP,?s
tc) guide private improvements (In;l tin,ttly by the
c?xplan,ation of the new arld revised system of zoning)
dist,iits, mil zoning) maps. Tire proposed
zoning OHin,lnce clrafl,end zoning (naps are con
Idirted in the Appendix.
3.2 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
A strategy d!11 pr[)ilrani have been evolved Je(1 tot
irllple!111(?lting th,e r)rharl ,loVtdOr)11lntlt
('.Sti'lt)IISl(I'S ih(? rl:'1 .111(1I1SI111)S arli 1111) l ratll(`V OI k
for coordinating, phasing, and partially Iinancin(;
a planned system of piil)lic any f private investments
and improvements. The strati.,,, Consists of ih,,
follolvin(t set of intr.nrel lt( 1 far:tOrS:
A Strategy for Developing and Relating
Public and Private Improvements
The twO types (it Inlprovi l!it nts die. (11
Corlllnittrd and rt?cntnrrlenl l(ld irlbhi: in1i1r(r.'('rneruS
by the City of MW,lrtli previously (lest the
urban (iev0opn1(?nt )Id!), anti (2) i11e:? IiSe of new
irt11)1er11entiny loc)Is tc) rc)(ll(Ir(f <nl(1 t?r)c;OIllii)!)(? PriViIt(;
developers tO provide; their sham of SOnli-put)iic; anct
private inlproverllt?nts including p(? lestrtart circ:1.11,1
Lion facilities, services, anti i)rllenities especially as
they relate to planned public investments and public
improvements such as future transit stops and nevy
parks.
A Strategy of Timing and Staging
A c.arr?t Ill', developed strategy of tinting and
staging has ho n evolved for both public and private
improvements in vvhicll these elements of the plan
which can and sho111d he implemented imrne liately
are in Phase I ,Ind are shown in the following Phase
( Whip. Those elements which can only he irnple
relented In the future dtf? !r1 Phase 11 and are shown
in the tu11r)1vinn Phase II moi).
The recommended public actions and inlprove-
merlts dre descr 'hell in the section on the Urban
(11?velopiT1l'nt titan, 8r1e1 the spi.cif is IlllprovelTlonts
nc.r listed as follows for Phase I or imnle(liate
implementation:
1. Completion of all planned public.; projects,
ilarticularly 1117 01(1 Port-Bayfron1 Park.
2. Prcx:necl witli Beiswenger-Hoch transpor-
tati()11 recommendations with emphasis on
Dupont Plata tratfic separation, N.E. 3rd Street
extension, arm! widening of Biscayne Boulevard
north of N.E. (ith Street.
3. Exti nsiorl of the right-of-way of N.E. 2nd
Ave! a11(1 S.E. 3r,1 Avenue.
4. Acquisition for an Urban Pork north of
Flagl(?r Street along N.E. 3t d Avenue.
E.J. Prni.oed with a r1l,lj0r public two planting
program with preliminary r?rllphaSiS on Biscayne
Boulevard, Flagler Strec?t,'vest side of 2r1,1
Averli ie c11) 1 areas whore Ile V ilevr'Ioprnent is
rlO1 lik,?1y.
G. pi, weed with d public parking prc)!irarn which
provides for off site parking needs of new
,Ic?veloprnont either Within vvalking distance or
iransit rifle Eton) the high intensity dreas.
The semi-public and private improvements to he
required or (,'I11.nilrataed are Shown ir1 the Phase I Alan
end are also contained in the Special Dist, ict Plan in
the proposed toning ordinance for Downtown Mianli
in Artn;le XXVI-1, Section 2, in the form of a neap
SI1pf)lemented by zoning regulations. (See the
Appendix.)
The private iknotovements,as scheduled in
Phas(a II and indicated on the Phase II, mat) can only
be implemented after key future public decisions,
actions or allocations of public funds have been made
on the following two kinds or categories:
1. Making final decisions on the new rapid
transit system which involves additional plan-
ning and design work and then decisions by the
City of Miami as to the type of system, its
location and detailed alignments as well as the
26
',v.:. Arcade
PHASE II IMPLEMENTATION
OM Mass Transit Station = Mi.rrni Rover Welk
2nd Level Plaza - - - Special Projects
— Pedway ---- Street Extension
District Subject to Retail Requirements
Urban Parks
27
transit stops. For ih(:se reasons the following
upper level facilities in the plan stOligly relaie!f
to the new trilnsit system aro proposed for
Phase II that is, not tot immediate impl(�
ineiltatOrl:
Rapid transit plazas
Pedways (a second level pedestrian system)
Pedestrian bridges which ideally should Ire
located at the new rapid transit stops arid
connected to the rapid transit t)lilzas and
t)('.c14vi!y S`'Steni
2. For silk-areas,sucll as the proposed Miami
River Walk-, involving possl)le relocation of
existing ac.fivities,r' ctlliring t)ossihly art 1111m (
renewal than or obtaining additional public
easen0nts or similar ictions, it Silos Id be ilot(xl
that the legislative intent and legal (ranrowOrk
for the upper level facilities are set forth u t''re
proposed zoning or, finance. Finally, the
orilinrince contains a bonus system for pruxinlity
tO transit stops to 1)t nlal_I(? Op(+t11) e when the
transit Y./stern and trilnsit stops ale (I('tinitivety
estit)I(Si lecl.
Only lhOse SOOlOrIS Of the proposed arciio
SySIE!nl bvint'll `dvei(' t!it!(1(!rf 1101 1O t)e r(dale(t 10 (it
In danger tit 1)0111,i tllspliireJ by tit! (:uilstiii+:tloll Of
ih+? rl+!t1V riwid transit s`ysti,tri at(' Hi Philse I ((.(`., Ili,'
Special Distl Ic:1 7+lnint) PI,Int. Thl! r("!tili11111r1!) s(!(:-
tir)rls of the ar('ad.! s,'st„t shnvy'tl in iile ban
development (;i2irl are Iri Phase II. the rltll,l
tralisit rout(' ,111(iiiments are established, the ar,, de
rl'Cjl llit't11t?Ilis Irl PI'.iis': II ilo:11(1 f)(' ,'> 1("I'.1+!;1 1O
this(! i 1,111n)l,,ll sit iti, .in i ;,tit + L11 (1, 1 lt?t ,1!1(1
'vet 11t., ri Oi)nr (t.11U(1 1),= i°irlf i(
for at (;ililt.'s tt) nt' {?tO`; I'1+ l('1+i.i. 1y;.1 ,'s (lt ( )'!1(
)(till tJl'11„ifrl,i'I
-1 hl1SE! s('(ftotis t(1 ;tic t+t(loOti,'; i ici' l ltit_,ilno.I
t)ilit)S,IIOnl) tfi' Rvll,ltlll RIV('I y't'f11(:h 1'-1^L+Iye ))i1111;11
Or total 'ltSpi n 0nitriil c)f (' :istng 1,1.1. stthi; Or i1ui1
S('Iv1( :>51)5 i)r 111't obtaining !it 1Y1(11tioriiil
eilti('n l('ii1S air' !i111)':'dri ill Pili1S+' II i>1(1 11+' o,1s1(11`,(
S('et1)r( lot Irlltl!('�11;11(' itl)r l(gtIE'ntatl4)Il IS Sliov it
mP11,61!I.
Finally, them is another elenl(!nl re1a1(!(1 to
publit] ilni)lov(!nllIlls wi1101 slI(51111 1) delet red
Intl{ PI(aS(' it Anil !iO 4) I ii+4! J11(1r ftll! t1!>1 i111111111(jllt
Of ill(' rapid triulsit Systeiii ilcts b('1'rl ,rerenttined,
The ilnr th south street along whir rapid transit
system \"dirt It)in will I)1`1 :111tt 1 Oilill,ir`,' a(.11`J11y
street and,,nouid nave `pe( 1,11 retail rt q lll('n-it'rlts
t (.1 pr(.s, Itie aril strengthen retail ilt.: tivities or, till!
street.
A Strategy for Implementing a Systeni of
Planned Private Improvements
In the last four years, significant breakthroughs
h,lve occurred in the technical Itel(1 of zoning. Among
prose is a tileari5 of overcoming rititnerous shol t-
(;bJl)lill!ls or liirlililtions of traditional zorlinfl 1f)-
ptoach(s of having to relate primarily to the
inllivi(loel /oiling lot. T11e new approach calls for the
preparation of .1 slieri,l district than which contains
an interrelated system of planned semipublic and
pi wwale improvements which lire either required or
encourage( to lie (;griStrlicteiI as ilew dflveloprnent
()cc( s.
A Special District Plan has beuri prepared for
D(1w11town Miami within the framework of the
;II ban development than. The Special District Plan
is not Only a staged or timerl plan (Phase I), as
'lesciihe(I in the previous section, but is also the
rn(x:hanisnl for Mandating Or re(ilnrin(1 specified
(mot IiV rllurits y^rh(!rlOver n(nw+lev(!lopment occurs.
Rattier ttsuri p1(!c(!ttl(:!al Or illlCoOr'1r'laleil pedestllan
(ir('iil<lt ion facilities an(I open Sp(icr..i5 or oilier amenities
On in f(vid(Iel zoning lots unrelated Io each other,
s ick facilities anti amenities can now l)e re1a1ed to
r?ecli other as a pdr 1 (if a system which becomes
lot:allied (in ire respective Jointly lots by means of
thl.! Sp(!(:iai District Plan.
A Strategy of Using a Combination of Devices
TI) ilnpl('lnclit Phase I O1 the Itnpienientation
Pri minim d combination of devices and approaches
is n1(it rOsl,,i to he used which involves Public Irll
! i)';' nit'.r1IS ,i111f i111 array Of SpI: ciol D1Stlet Plait
I,''111!r1IS, reglll,ltor'y, f irliinoial a11(1 ailnlinistrative
de`,'It (,. These tall generally into the foli()v-vinq
( d1((111 5
1. Tile Special District Plan elements plus
the special relall regulations noted earlier
fill of \^dl11Ch ale lllondatoly regulations;
2. Special incentives an'l allowances which
,ire to be built at the option or discretion of
the rlevelop('r; anil
'. The thew and revised zoning (districts and
their application by means of the revised
zoning 1eguldtions and maps.
The proposed legislative and administrative process
opel(it ing within the ;I'm -ring fr'aillework established
I)y 111e plan and implementation program including
the Speciai District Plan can, in the future, he ex -
pant led 10 in(:lude additional approaches, devices
28
r
•
and tools.
A Strategy of Using the Implementation
Program as a Coordinating Device
The Special District Plan ()nil the other optional
special invent1V(?s Can result in d much more sU('c('tis
fill coordination and meriting of public and private
economic inr?rests, plans and invest miints slid) as
the now ripi(-I transit system and the ancillary pri-
vate faCllrtIPS Heeded Oil IleW dr;vel(lp)lletlt5 d(IjE1(-OrIt
to rapid transit stops. in ad(iition a Special District
Plan Ci111 have Vdlu(? In helping tO COOrllllato some of
the planning and review activities of d number Of
City Delia!tmunts which deal vvith pai king facilitii s,
curb Cuts, and ()tiler ilspl?ctS of pt'Cf(?Sir'Iiirl,V('IiICUI�ir
tied ttdr1SIt tICihtI(S dS r((late'd tO tlt?w dev4'lopreont.
A Financial Strategy
Tilis flrllni:lill strategy, as':lotr_'!l earlier, in
1. Public inlprovenmfmts i.onbine:l with re-
quiting and encouraging private! ,levelop(?rs tr)
prOvi,JF? public, and private ta(dines, sotvicrs
dirt ()Menthes;
2. Prov'i,iinl fill the irdnst(tr ,-rrl•l sllr? (,t ,1
tights; arid
:. Living tIi grutlniV\'girt; for providing 111 trl('
lair( 101 tlit? 0S1(11)II$lllii('.rlt Of d Sp('tJiti Dlstrl(_t
Fund Wilr r eliy level(lpers can rx_)ntr it1 1i(- ius'i
in of providing pal' i;irl!t to 11'`c •.iir
nlents This fund Can 11r?;Is4'<t tot utl u p:_It111(
inlprovernents Within tlln Distr
The result Of these various fac('ls Ir1 this ini;)lttllien
tailo!1 stiatew IS that toning has 1.1er.orle more than
it k("; t(iol In 1114? iarld t1SI? r4ltp,llatory Pt0(10ss; 11
I1r)S becnrlle the means got oftn(: lively legislating <u 1
init)leteentin(t the plan for the design of Dovvntnyvn
Mianll.
3.3 PHASE I: IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
Introduction
The remainder of this section will deal With
the Phase I Implementation Prooiranl containing
those elements Which CAR ant Sllould be initlier11enteil
rrnrrie(liately. The of tl n Phase I program
cornpr ised of both public and private improvements,
29
lhi.? Itwirl(' of Ill('. Ptlilsrelotr1erltS (as Contrasted
with the Phase I1 elements), anal this listing of the
rE?C(1r111t1(?t1(1+?d l)Illlll(_ illlt)rOvotlletlts Irl Pilas(1
Ynt ? (lisi:rlssed previously in Irm)lernentation Strider
Ohl? rr!tlriinirl(t elnt1'nn1Is of Phase i, consisting
11 tt tre? interrelated types of rimiulations, are
sirnrnarlied in tt) tahl(? ti^dhi(at In? (.)ws i)rid are
briefly irlerltified as follows:
Phase I implementation program
Special Central Business
District Mandatory
Requirements
1. Parking
2. Landscaped Streets
3, Landscaped Paths
Along Waterfront'
4, Arcades'
5, Waterfront Area
Controls
G. Visual Corridors
7. Restricted Access
8. Building Wa)is Along
Street Line
9. Retail Requirement
'Bonus incentive
IV.
Optional Features Changes in Zoning
with Bonus Provisions Regulations
1. Residential or 1. New and Revised
Mixed Buildings' Districts
A. Regulations
B. Mapping
2. Urban Open Spaces' 2. Changes in
Mapping of Exist-
ing Districts
3. Through Block
Connections•
4. Arcades •
5. Extra Usable Open
Space for Residen-
tial Developments'
Parking Policy and Guidelines
A unique element in the Special District Plan
is 11ie reconlm6'nrted atioplion Of 1111' Parking Policy
arid Guidelines v,rhich Pro-)vidiis the fran)ewark and
itui(lr ll 1 ?s for reviewing the r)ilrt,inrt facilities for all
rlow<✓ non tt!Si(l t1ltal clt?v(IIofr1 -lots in rile Spacial
District.
The Other Elements of Special District Plan
Plus Flagler Street Retail Regulations
AS rioted earlier , all the elements of the Dist, idt
Plan and the Flagler Street Regulations have three
primary Characteristics:
1. They constitute a ptdnneii system of public
and private facilities, services aoCl amenities;
?. They aril locational in nature, becoming
ri
Iocali/ed on the respective zoning lots, blocks,
streets and areas with their (different oppoi
him ties, problems, and rice -!.is by means of the
District Plan or by special regulations inr.or.
notated within 7orlirlci (districts;
3. All 01 these) (dements are established as
nlan(da►ory requirements to be followed when
new devel0prnent occurs.
The Special District Plan contains the following
seven elerlh(,?n►s plebs the planning policy and ciuide.
lilies. In adCllllOn, there are the special retail regu-
lations for Ft]ter Street:
1. AREAS SUBJECT TO WATERFRONT AREA
DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS: In the three
areas desr!fnaterl for special waterfront controls,
there are guidelines for coverage., Setbacks, and
landscaping.
2. VISUAL CORRIDORS: The extensions
of ,, ni inlber of streets have been e k(signate, i
Las vlseral cc)rrlelors overlooking Biscayne Bay
and the Miami River, and r1) new construction
will be pernlitted to block those open corridors
to the waterfront.
3. LANDSCAPED PATHS: Two categories of
landscaped paths are designated:
Landscaped streets are; desigrnted for most
of the streets in the Low areas of Downtown
Miami with the. !equal:mien; that all new
development r)hust meet the specified
landscape standards.
Landscaped path:; along waterfronts area
designate, along sections of the Miami River
to irrlplt)rnetht the first phase of the Riverw,alk
Plan and along sections of the Biscayne
vvalerfront.
4. ARCADES: hl 11 e first phase, sc.'ctions of
the total arcade system contained in urban
development plan are designated for inhnlediate,
inhplenlentation. The ron)ainin(d sections are
in Phase II.
5. RESTRICTED ACCESS: For designated
streets in the Special District Plan which per-
form such important functions in the move-
ment of vehicular traffic that traffic inter-
ruption should be minimized, access to and
from oif-street parking facilities is prohibited.
There are similar but less stringent restrictions
on access to off -street loading berths.
(3. BUILDING WALLS ALONG STREET
LINES: In orcler to maintain the traLlitional
character of certain streets by maintaining
a common building facade line and to guide
pen sea; into a))►)r+)priate locatl()ns In �ISe
fu: arse in(s, a building line is desirinated for
these streets
7 SPECIAL RETAIL REQUIREMENT: To
pi ',servo an,l st(et)(itl)On the Flamer Street retail
center, a rn'v Itstri(:t is proposel (the C•3A
District) v iri(h will require a suitable amount
of load development to be provided in any
new building (_it enlargement.
Special Incentives and Allowances
In addition tO mandatory elements, there are
other public lacilities, uses, and amenities which
can contribute sie_inific:antly to the quality of the
environment and Support high intensity develop-
ment. The provision of these facilities is optional
with the) developer, arld floor area bonuses are
proposer! as incentives for their construction. The
following types of facilities are proposed:
1. INCENTIVES FOR OPTIONAL FACILITIES
AS A MATTER OF RIGHT: The following
facilities are considered to be generally approp-
r late and ne e;le 1 wherever provided in the;
Miami CBD.
Arcades are encourager! by means of floor
area bonuses, elsewhere in the CBD, in
azirdition to the arcade system cfefined in the
Special District Plan.
Through (block connections which are public
pedestrian connections which the developer
may provide tiltouglh his lot from one street
to another and receive a floor area bonus.
Extra usable open space for residential devel-
opment in designated zoning districts is
encolarage 1 by nheanS of a floor area bonus.
Urban open spaces including the provision
jointly by adjacent owners, are encouraged
by means of a floor area bonus but only will)
design review and the issl ance of a special
permit after the (Determination that the open
spaces sleet designated standards for suita-
bility of location in the CBD and siting and
urban design.
2. INCENTIVES FOR RESIDENTIAL AND
MIXED BUILDING DEVELOPMENTS: To
assist in meeting the goal of increasing the
residential population in and near the Miami
CBD, a series of new features are proposed,
including bonus incentives for new residential
and mixed residential and commercial buildings.
30
A New and Revised System of Zoning Districts,
Regulations and Zoning Maps
A third and niajor set of regulations in the
implementation program is the preparation of ,i
new and revised) sysiem of /oiling districts, refit'.
lotions, and 7i111in(1 maps. A riurriher of now (iis-
tri(:ts and sets r)f r(->flulatic)ns and an r!xt(!nsiv(1 re-
vlsiOn of existing districts rind regulations was
necessary for twr) r(!,_Isorls:
1. BC'.Ci111Se there are serious del icien(:u.s in
tllO present regulations; and
2. A system of regulations is reg1(rired fvhich
is dt.)sign(!d expressly to carry Out the bhisi(:
goals, (t)1(!(tiveS and principles of the urban
development plan.
A detail(!cl explanation of these nets and ruvised
toning regulations is contained in Section 3.4.
The following sections of this report con-
tain a C.l(.'tlile(I explanation in.1 (les(riphorl of each
element of talc Pilase I Illlple1I !ntnti011 Prorlrarn.
Parking Policy and Guidelines
The Par king Policy and Gul(1Cllin(!s,as (1isc:r it. 1
in the 'Ai bon development plan,is a key element irl
both the plan and the ilntli(_lrllf!nt,lhon program.
(Tale tf!chr11ca1 aspects of poi king are supple-
mented by a 50.11on (1f Itl(! App(!n,iix.) Briefly,
the polio, focuses On developments' generation
of parking fJeri 1llil,1n,i witll the It11di:t of pat king
facilities, existing and proposed, U11 the t:,11)<IC,it'{
of the str r(!t system. it thel('f0te proposes parking
reg1 lrenll?t1tS scaled to ,_I('1nJri(1 it auto proposes
it limit U11 the number of spa,:i'.t 0) 1»' permitted
Una given lurid area Such as a cit', block_ Where
the require n lnlb(r of spaces exceeds on sits,
limit, the remaining requited spac.('s have
to be pi ()vie eft-sitf). The special (l:StrlCt
ioris pres(;r the a qua: ter rolle as the illax::nl,:n
\Iv'alkinfi distance front an o1f-sits) facility to the
(levelcplllelll it serves, vvitb greater distances
permitted only if an apt)rovei people -mover
system is provided.
The Special Central Business District PlIrl
provides for the adoption of the Parking Policy
and Guidelines. In accordance with the Special
District's regulations, all non-residential develop•
nlents in the Special District will be subject to
st)eual review for c;onsistericy 4vitb this adopted
Parking Policy and Guidelines.
31
'The f('ls)t)Illty Ot In(:ort'limiting pre set parking
requirements :Ir1d controls into the lonitlg regula-
tions was "xt'll()refI and found wanting. Tin! Ilrrlted
u,lcily )1 Ih(! system re({uires tl: rt the
rl(IrillN'1 Of par ia)(1 Ciars In a given area also be Ilnlited.
How(!vr!r, tail; thralls appropriate for any one develop-
ment will dep(111 1 on variables which, if worked ell()
ordinance, l)ecome excessively rigid. These
variables include
1. The traffic c(ulditions themselves, both
present an(1 f'utire, which C;ii(1 Vary consider-
ably 1,'y are,i;
2. The area potentially dVailahle for tlarIcirl(t
within a (liven hlocf:, which will dr!penrl on the
character of d(irill)ilily r)t ftxisting development
as well as market forces; and
3. The policy O1 ('nc0llraging transit nse, which
�;VIII be More gerrllclri(i to the 0I1(' area than
another (iepen(ling on transit route alignments.
t\lureovr.r, it IS clear tilat the. parking nee(is ll('11
(scat(!.! lay in(, hi(IIl(!st Int('nsitV ottic(.! (i(!V(Ilopnl.!ni
cannot he I11(!t in full on the development site itself
with,,)Ilt overi)ailin(i ili t street syrstenl. This makes
It necessarV to 1r)vide for the balance in of [site
locations Mild) ,re themselves si l)ject to capacity
limits.
It is logical to requite all (levelotlln(!nts to
iarovide parking elate, 1 to the demand they
generate. Par king requirements CUuI(l he (!stabllsheil
tir tin! C-3 Districts, j iSI as they are tot oifler
,fistric:ts in I( ianli. But the af)ifit',' to satisfy the
r('quilern(!nt tflf) deveh)prnent site.! itself (would
to ( leper1:.1 Uri street conditions, Site capacity
an,1 proximity of runic{ transit ta(;IlitteS. lhf'refor(!,
,i �1)f!Ci1l sit<! I)lan rOVIP would lie required in arr�
(.35!!. If,,1S %Ye il1oposc, parking rnllirenletits are
cont,i11) 11 in the Gilldelllles can he odrlllnlster131
with the acquired amount of ilexihility. In the
lilt, ire, they should perio(lically he modified to
allow for reduced requirements for developments
iu close proximity 10 a 11)pi(1 transit station.
Vo.,iare,thereforr!, recommending that the new
,apprOil& 10 parking in the CBD he, i!l effect, i)n
extension of the conditional use procedure t)reSOrltly
reglrire(1 in the C-3 District. The major difference
is that tilt.' n1w procedure will be in the context 01
a parking policy and guidelines and the guidelines
will he iI':lilreSSed to required as well as permitte'I
parking.
The Guidelines will assist the Planning Board,
the Par king Authority, and City Commission in
reviewing development proposals for consistenc,,
with the Plan.
In thct halite, cash -in -lieu provisions might he
developc'cl which would he closely arrllagous to
regulations under marry municipal subdivision
control orrtinanc.es which require school and part:
site decdications or, where there is rlo possihllity
of providing a site in a satisfactory location, it Cash
contribution toward public ilccauisition of a site
elsewlwre. As in the ease of cash c:ontrihiitions
toward ac.:quisilion of park site, the public: parking
facility provided with the help of fun(1s conk ihut(rd
by a developer must be within a service radius of the
developer's building.
The Policy and Guidelines shorted periodically
he reviewed awl kept rip to data. It should be
closely tied in to the City's parking garage construc-
tion program and r0Vlsed OS necessary in the light
of ,leveloprneitt trends, program achievements and
future opportunities, parking supply deficit or
surplus, and the capacity and potential ridership of
the rapid transit system.
The Parking Policy and Guidelines would take
of foot upon its adoption by the City Conlnlission.
The adoption procedure proposed is the same as
that for an antendni nt of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Parking Policy and Guidelines is ro-
r uireri by Article XXVI-1 to be made available to
the public. in the sarlle chanter as the ordinance
itself. II should be cfesignecd to guide developers
as well as City officials involved in tin: aunlinistra-
tiorl of the controls. The applicant v,'ho plans to
erect 0 building of a given site should haven good
idea of his responsibilities and options in the pro-
vision of accessory parking. Those c:0n he ctur if ie( I
fur the/ by preliminary discussions with Planning
Department staft.
Applications for approval of proposed parking
facilities uri ler Article XXVI 1, Section 8, will be
submitted to ille Planning Board. Timy should include
all relevant i11101lllatlorl O11 location, number of
spaces and their layout, site and location of the
1110i11 c.levelopnlent being served and proposed cash
contributions, if any, toward the provision of a
public parking facility. The application will be refer-
red to the Parking Authority for its report on the
facility's relationship to the Parking Policy and
Guidelines. The Board should slake recommendations
to the City Commission ()it the application alter
making the findings required by the ordinance. The
COinrllission, after public notice and hearing, wolild
pass upon the application by resolution. Building
Departnunt approvals of development plans for the
principal use will depend on Conlnarssion approval
of the accessoryy parking facility plans.
Other Elements of Special bistrict Flan and
Special Retail Regulations
Then follows a I110re detailed explanation of
the various (elements of the Special District Plan and
regulations Iistee.I earlier. (See Article XXVI-1 in
the Proposed Zoning Ordinance.)
The mandatory remould level pedestrian facilities
are provided for in 111e rregulations of the Special
District. They include landscaped streets and paths
and it partial system of arcades as shown on the
District Plan, The system of arcades can he cona-
("kitfSI when the rapid transit route alignments are
established.
Landscaped Streets and Paths
Landscaping requirements are shown on the
District Plan along most of the streets in the Special
District and along designated waterfronts. Planting
plans and Selection of trees and other plant materials
are subject to t!1e Approval of the Public Works and
Planning Departments.
1. LANDSCAPED STREETS: Every new
development with frontage on a street which
has a landscaped path designation will be
required to provide landscaping in the sidewalk
area. Unless a special landscaping plan has been
&:lopted for the particular street as described
later in this section, the landscaping will con-
sist of shade trees complying with specifications
stated in Section 4 of Article XXVI-1. These
incluc-fe Millie-1We caliper and height of trees
at the time of planting and minimum number
of trees related to the lot's total street frontage.
The number of trees planted along any street
(ender the provisions of Section 4 will obviously
depend on the amount of building activity.
11 is important that the City match the developers'
tree plantings with its own tree planting pro-
gram along the already permanently built-up
street frontages and those other frontages
without prospects for development in the near
future.
2. WATERFRONT PATHS: Developments
with frontage on the Miami River east of the
Florida East Coast property or on Biscayne
Bay north of Venetian Causeway are required
to provide a public easement at least 20 feet
32
-Ide for it landscape, walk Ore vtTil(!r's
edge. In rho dhsel)ce of a sl)i`clal adopted land
sr,al)tt plan, these developments ant rec1i1tli'tt
to provide shade trees con! t)rming to the
requirements on the north side OI east west
streets acltirtaenlel 11\' silt ilht)(!r ;/_ klaillte'I1dt1 t
reshotit-Atiltty IS to he hot 'to 1,v till' 11rupetty
owner. In line with existlnq rtinin(i rtlllul;ltu s
developers aro het1O(1 is 1lnor area iu
tetrinl for their t1oihi:ifitln of the easement
and their planting and nl;iini(!nant,n r(!stn)t)
sihili lit}s.
3 SPECIAL LANDSCAPING PLANS AND
ADOPTION PROCEDURE The Miami
Ct!nir,ll Business F)istllt.t af)O1Ir)(Is In ()poor tun
flies for special landseapt'd treatment (-)1 public
ways. Along River (1r Bay It nutallt1S or , with
proper tv r) veer ct111dholaht )n and suppot t,
alOntt cot tam streets special landscaping plants
cot ll(I keeslehstitined lot the minimum shade
tree requirements. For example, uniform noes
of a special V;1nPly t:Onfti b,! seleck)fI tot ,l
d( i(iri,lte(1 street. This plan to/wild then I)e
follc)wed O,' develol)ers of 1rotddio'flung that
sheet ,Intl by the City in its l) itt:I11 progr,nn.
A special 1andscrlpintl plan can III? adopte!tI ls'
the City Commission i11 the sane! Imi nme( as an
atiwnclment of the Zoning Oi 11)111 ) anti there-
at ter wotlicl supplement or replace Chw general
reyutations within the designated area
Arcades
The purpose O1 the arcade oro,,,ISIO115 is to
pI()vide lrl it !diet ter t,d sot tied(-',Strl;lrl
spa(:e! to supplement the sr, i1!vv;itk;are;i. On
busiest of the d(:lwntovvrl stri`('1s, (irti)J('s;1r(( Ilt'11!l(0,
to 1' I1)!vi-! si(l0vValk congestion. Tile Sot lr.i,l1 Dist! ii: is
area le require)rte!nts apply to these sheets. When
the rapid transit route ali(intlienis are establishc;l
Ow arcade requirements should be (!xtoncle11I to
additional streets, and s{)et'ial height iln(i ve'tti(_:di
cunnoction wilt irrin-rents sliotilci 1)o wtitte!n for
at cades to he provide-1 below pet 'ways or either
upper level prtilesirian spaces.
T1)e new proposed dot Mitton cif Alcatle! in
Article II est<l1lishr!s minimum requiremenis for
iirc;l,les, wlilOtiler Mandated Ot 0p0011ial, ill Ohio
to quality for i) bonus. The Special District regu-
lations establish Borne what hi(ltler standar( IS for
arca(1(!s which are mandated by the District Plan.
This is hecause more genc!rutrs space stOruiarris art:
33
r(!t1!In['�I 1'v))(!re 1)( 1)'Slrlan Irallt' iS Sr) l)€! lVy EIS 11)
11ISiIIS 1h(! nlrlI lIl 1(1 t)I arcaJ(!s. It) addition, at
!east ten 1)i;rt.ent of the dread,! area is required to
hi! land,;t_.dpe-I to enhance the public henefit iri terms
of Comfort and amenity.
F3tlntis floor area for area -ties Is four square feet
per square foot of arcade area, (which Is the Salle
as that ailovvetI fc)r arcades provided voluntarily
Inkier the mutilations of the wirier lying C•3, C-3A,
C :',E3, C-:3C of C.30 Distr icts. Thoretoro, the deeper
the art:atle (tip to the maximum depth of 20 feet
(!stafliislind In the (felilution) the greater its area
,tilt' the (totter tl)e bottle!,.
Waterfront Areas
The special t(`tiill,ltiolls rieslgne:i to assure
Indxlnitin) visual employment Of ihe! waterfront are
contained in S'r.tion 6 of At ticle XXVI-1.
1. AREA AFFECTED: All land in any block
having some or ..ill o1 its area in close proximity
to the Biscayne Bay or Miami River Waterfront
Is sul))ee,1 to the special yvote? 17011t area controls.
TI1e principal ands alfecte'1 ire the Biscayne
Bay waterhont area north of Interstate 395
mid the Midrill River front area e!iSt of inter-
state 95, close to E3iscavni! Park are
not !itchy led because these art' the blocks
where th(: IC-3) conll)l(!rceal
dc.velopmerit is permitted. The special vvater-
ir()rit tlevelonmen1 controls on yards and land-
5(:apinq vwot'Id be too stringent in this at ea. 0n
the (atllrl harltl, 1110 short hiock fronts arid the
tlroun1 level sethaCt; requirements of the C-3
District will lirovide a good measure of visual
contact >vith the Hark and water host from
inlant I locationis.
2. COVERAGE, YARDS AND LANDSCAPING:
The waterfront development controls limit
buil(ling coverage above ground level to be-
tween 50 and 60 percent of the lot depending
on its size. The coverage restrictions apply at
actual ground level, not three feet six inches
above it Os provided elsewhere in the Miami
Zoning Ordinance. At least 40 percent of the
uncovered portion of the lot is required to be
landscaped and not more than 35 percent
of the uncovered portion may be devoteri to
access d► fives and convenience parking.
in addition, a setback of at least 18 feet
is ►equire!ri from any interior side or rear lot line,
and buildings are limited to a maximum hori-
r
r
e
zontal dimension of 200 feet
3. VISUAL CORRIDORS: N.E. 10111 and
N.E. 8th Streets are O\ter1:l0(I (S VISil)il ct)Irl-
(Ir)rs to Biscayne Bay. This mans that n0
building ('an blor.k these open cotri(lors tt)
tit(' water front.
4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVALS:
In order It) encourage a high quality of site
planning and to achieve most eflt:(,liv(!ly thl'
purposes of the waterfront aced rya; ifations,
pr()visi011 is made lot appropriate nl(.);litlt:atl(m
I:)y the City COIlunissiun of iany yarc1, CA)v,;er(Fit
or (tinlensiOrrlt retttitations imposed eittier by
the st)eci,il waterfront controls or those tit thr
underly,'ing districts. The granting of modi-
fications is (:c)n(Iitinur)(I upon their tesultiticl
in better view protection Or better arrala(le-
Illent of IancIS(dt)ei1 Open space witht)ui
sacrifice of view protect ion. Visual cot r ldnr s
are inviolahir
Another clause provides for the watvel tti
special yap] reittlirenl(:nts.and 1I_Iildin;_t _iini iIsion
restrictions in cases where VIe'ws +-)f the watt?( art,
t)l0cke(1 by intervening existing buildings +lvhich
do not themselves conform to the maximum builti-
ing (IitllenSIOn, so that the intent of the regulations
15 thwilrtot I.
Street Functions
Certain streets et the Miami CBD per it)tin
such Minor twit functions irl Ow 1110vt1tif:nt 01
vehicular tuffthat sources of milli+: interr`i14tf0iis
sho(1id be mutant/c.f. 131st:trytic BO_llt_-'ar(1, Flouter
Street, N.E. and S.E. 2nd Av(ti ie an) Not tit
and South Mialni Avenue are s,1C11 sireets. Along
these streets (listed Iii Section 10 kit Ar title
XXIII) ttItt11:t 'deh1(:t11)il ia(.c.7SS 10 or egress fruit
oft street par king localities is prohil)itr,+_I. The s,inie
title applies it) Ow (;ase of oft -sheet loading berths
or set vice entrances unless it (:ail ho demonstrated
-to the ButhJtng D(?parIntent that it is impossibie
to provi(I0 access or egress tot 0(�r the tar service
((orate:es on Some oth(:r sheet.
Requirements for Building to Street Line
In order to maintain the traditional character
of Biscayne Boulevard and Flagler Street and pre
vont new huilcliritls v ith a variety of setbacks f10na
lrt:akina the (r)Isting Nettling facade, i:a huilcfin!:f
1,ne IS dt,>;tgna1(1 1 for this'! sireets.
Arr afiiOd god! is to insure that overt space
I5 tlath1rr(:r1 into useful ahlo(Ints irl useful places.
A proliferation Of setbacks of plazas Will not only
reale broken street Imes Litt also unusable areas.
It should also be nO10,1 that retail facilities,
such as restdurants,typi(;ally do not tend to flourish
along streets where setbacks it plazas break-up the
shopping haulage. Tills c,omern Is particularly
armor for F1atiler Street
RetailRequirement
A common shot teaming o1 most new office
buildings consh(Ict0+1 in the (Anthill business districts
Of American cities is [h('tlt)artfl (If space for retail
facilities including restaurants_ Gronnt1 floor space
is fre(1111)mly largely taken Over 1)'/ banks 0r airline
ticket offices, Company restaurants may 1)(.' 1)t0
witted on upper 11t)Ois, but the needs and wants of
the employed populdttun are for the most par
ignored, and the street seen(' is rnonotonolis. It
1vc)(Ild I'H l'Str(?n1(1!y (Inf0(il111ilte if this were to
be(otn? the late of Ibe Flagler Street retail center.
'The destr,tcbon of Now York CItv's Fifth Avenue
‘t1to ):tint; tfishid! MIS well On its way when the process
was tit1'rt1ltl(t?t1 10 I)t: arrested by dll amendment
Ot Its /OCling t)rd111ilrl1:e.
To preserve and stt('n(itb011 the Flagler Street
((bill center, a ntlw C-3A District is proposed whidi
will rf:(i(1rre 1) suitable amount of retail develop-
ment to be provided at any new building or enlarge -
Merit. U;i:r, blafk and dei)Srty IeyulatiOns iire the
sang(:? ,1S in the C-3 District, but a rllirinrn.lnt r(.qutred
area, equal to 75 percent of the lot area, is specified
tor retail uses and public eating establishments
ItlIWI) tom a list of 48 uses set forth in the District
le(luldtionS. Since th( requited retail space is net
Hoot space allocated for physical occupancy by
ind(Vi(llldl uses and (00eS not include elevator cores,
corridors or other spaces used in cotnmorl, this
requirement will ordinar ily result in a minimum
of two stories to be occupied in whole or part by
retail and restaurant uses. Banks, airline oft ices
or other uses permitted by the District regulations
clan also occupy any space in the building as long
as the minimum required space is allocated to uses
011 the retail list. At least 70 percent of Flagler
Street and Miami Avenue ground floor frontages
arr'r(ar.{nlrecl to be devoted to the retail and
restaurant uses.
34
As previously noted, 2n,1 Avenue Oi another
north -south street selected as the location of 111e
rapid transit route will brl(:r)me it prrriu' O('(fllstriarl
activity street. t/'Vherl that (lelerrTuiiation is made,
the clestgrlalc?(I street shout() hr? rr'rrlappe f in the
new C-3A District in order for new construction tO
provide d statahle an)ount Of retail.
Special Incentives and Allowances
In ad(lition to the bonuses for nlan(fatoty ped-
estrian (are:illation init)rovornents,suc:h as arcades,
along certain streets and landscaped paths along
Bay or River fronts, the proposed or (Finance offers
bonuses for other public amenities whose pro-
vision is optional with the developer. In general,
those arilUnities contribute significantly to the
quality of the environment and support high inters
sity elev3lopn1Unt. Bonds allowances function as
II)Ct'ntIVCs for the prevision of these amenities.
The present C-3 District offers bonuses in the
loam of floor area ratio prenliurns for apartment
buildings providitn; certain ground level amenities.
/Apartrl)ent buildings are restricted to FAR 2.0
if they provide no such arnc?nithes but nlay attain
an FAR ,as high nls 7.0 by providing amenities in
the maximum amount creditable lot bonuses. In
the Sarile district, none IfSi(Ierltaal ileo-dot)rllent has I1(1
FAR Iil1U1, but only a height limit of 300 feet, so
that th(' same bonus system is not available to en-
courage the provision of putalic amenities in con-
nection with ncnv of lice building construction.
There is no reason why llig!) hulk (;cinlnlrrrciat (lt?v(?l-
ii )nlent should not share In the t)r0:!isii)ti ot the
pedestrian spat es and allletllties Tot \.^,dli(ii it genii
itI S is tl('.t'tl Io11(1 lotiv'yell (}IHatly
benefit the emir e (list, ici.
Un)It?t the proposed toning tegul,atiorts, howls
allowances for optiorldl public amenities are pro-
wled In sections of the district regulations entitled
„Floor Art',i Premiums". Tliese provisions apply ill
the C-3, C-3A, C 3B, C-3C and C3D Districts. For
arcades and through -block connections, hornlses
art' allowe(i as a platter of right. For tllfIran 01)011
Spaces they are allowed only by a special permit
procedure.
35
•
Incentives for Optional Amenities as a
Matter of Right
Tlie?le are ceiliairi cllnenitieS whiff) Girl 1)e COrl-
sufet .' I to he generull),/ appropriate vvhc?rever pro -
hie l\a)lanu CBD. These are arcades, throlufh-
I)lock connections and extt,i usable open space (for
residential uses). The reef 'unions of these amenities
incltr(fe standards \vlii h can be easily adiilinistered
by the f3uililin(f Depar tnii?rit aricl which will assure
tlii,ir usefulness and satisfactory design treatment.
1. ARCADES: Under the proposed definition
in Article 1I, narcafles ate requited to have a
clear height of ,at least 12 feet and a depth of
at least eight feet. Landscaping or works of
at t may occupy portions of an arcade's area
provided that a clear width of at. least six
feet remains for pedestrian circulation. Tliey
mist be at sidewalk level rind freely accessible
front the sidewalk.
Floor area borlllses for arcades are set forth
in the District regulations. The standard bonus
is four square feet of floor area for each square
foot of arcade. The deeper the arcade the
greater is the floor area bottles, but the maximum
depth which may be credited for purposes of
a bonus is 20 lee!.
It will be noted that the district yard regu-
lations require front setbacks of 10 feet and
street -side setbacks of five feet for the first
nine feet ot building height. The setback area
can be landscaped or used for parking. Because
Of this ru,an(:latory setback the incentive to
provide on arcade vvit1) somewhat l'iigher
standards and serving a useful public circulation
fl)nction should he very strong indeed.
2. THROUGH -BLOCK CONNECTIONS: A
(It?veloper who provides a public pedestrian
connection section through his lot froria one street to
another contributes to the improvement of
rr.?'festriara circulation, and the proposed
zoning regulations award him a standard bonus
1.)f six square feet of floor area for each square
foot of through -block connection area. The
connection must be hit least 150 feet sway from
the nearest parallel street. It may be open or
enclosed. Standards for both open and enclosed
(1a-m1 i-block connections are set forth in the
proposed definition in Article II.
3. EXTRA USABLE OPEN SPACE: In the
C-3B, C-3C and C-3D Districts a bonus of tour
square feet of residential floor area is allowed
for each square foot of usable open space in
excess of 50 percent of the lot area. A similar
provision is contained in the existing R-CB
District, which is mapped in the Brickell Avenue
area. The district regulations require 120 square
1
feet o1 ;rs1111e Ot)r'n space per (I'.' lling unit
Open space e(Tilvalerit to half the lot area
would typically be tr?Ilinr(?d for residential
FAR of 4.0. 41'hetilet or not open space
in excess r)i 50 percent of the rot area is re
(tinted for the nueihr3r of dwelling units being
consir1i11e_1, the provision of such large
amounts ()f open space benefits the surro(In(_1-
in+1 area by rerlticing b(.nirling cov('rage, admit-
ting mote light and air, and provi(ling wIditional
lancIs(l (_?(1 st)ace-
This bonus floes not apply ni the C-3 or
C-3A District. 1-lowever, the hones for lots
arljacent tO a public open space, as presently
provided for apartment buildings in the C-3
District, is cutrie(f Over into the propose.I C 3
and C-3A Districts.
Urban Open Space Bonus
A well-clesirinecl landscaped open space, even
a small one, Carl he Fl great public asset In a (1U\VrltO via
area. Marty 11if terent kinds of public Open spaces
are l?xenlplified in the central business districts rlf
Of cities in this country and ahlodd. The plu/ds ir1
New York City along Park AVl?Ilnl' ;in_1 the Avenue
of the Ann'r icas have ill mall' Cu'S provi to 1 , isr?f ul
ground level space off the cro�wdr?d sidl?�w,ilks vthere
people Can stroll or sit down_ But their have also
resilitOd in broken street lines, anlf also unfrss (;are -
fully designed,cutt result in (t11 sahl(r areas_
The Central Business District Of Itiiiarni would
be better served by a variety of small, catelully de-
signed urban open spaces in seiec:teil locations r.1t11(�r
than a procession of !)!aids. The open spaces
should be Landscaped with trees and siltlibs and
offer shaded sitting areas. Fountains he de-
sirahre for their cooling spray.
It is proposed that bonus incentives for urban
open) sp,ices be subject 1() spe(.'al permit (:antral.
Special review is needed to determine suitability
of location and acceptability of the siting and
urban design. Approval procedure vvould hl? similar
to that established for conditional uses, with the
City Commission making the final del(rrrninatiorl
after it public h(?grind and review of r(?co7Utn(?rl(lations
by the Planning and Zoning Board.
The proposed standards for urban open spat:es
are contained in a proposed definitior) In Article II
and in Article XXXI1-1. These relate to the (timer)
si(:)ns of the Open space requirements for access from
sidewalks or upper level pedestrian ways, use of the
Open 511a(.e and lan(1S(;apiii,1 provisions. It should he
note 1 that ttir? IlrOpOsrr, I regulations anticipate the
(inure establishment 1)f rapid transit r1)1110 ah(ilrflenls
and station locations aril with then( a planned systern
of transit station pia/as anti upper level pedestrian
'.ViVs Sr)Irne tl(1 It) !)pert spaces may be related to
the Iloilo! upper level tie(1eSt tall System while ground
level space beneath them can he put to economic
1;0I11n1et(iaf l4Sr?
Special permits tor urban open) space bonuses
are provided In the C•3, C-3E3, C-3C and C-3D Districts.
1 he r)l oposei i special 1011 t111 t prOVISIOnS Off; C011talr1e( I
ill a new Article XXXI I-1 which is designed tr) prl)virle
for incentive boIIIIS''S ielllllrinq special approval. It
parallels the conditional use praVisioris of Article
XXXII.
Sp1(:till Iilldin(ts are te(1tlne:l to be Ilmade before
a bonus can he granted by the Commission for an
ur han open space. To assist the Planning Board and
the City Commission in rnakirn;t the rather hroari
hndin(1s required by the spe(Cial permit regulations,
a set of guidelines is included Which will be use(l in
reviewing urban open spate bonus applications. The
findings are addressed to three principal questions:
1. Is there a public, need in the 1oci)1 area which
the l0Ci111nn arid design r)f Pin urban open space
will ?:atisty)
2. Is the i(x:at1011 and siting of the Urban open
space consistent with functions of predominant
minor tame in till', local area slid) as retail
opntent?
3. Is lhel?ntilr? d(;veloprnent,incli iInlg ihr? urban
open spara�',II1 harmony with the Miami Plan's
''al'OUI5 elettlelltS and ObIC,'CtIVeS?
The guideiines will aid in the consistent a.11I)I l-
istration of these broad criteria and include some
dr?tiiilr?;,i (fesidri regin (alerts to carry out the intent
of the standards in the fief inilion of urban open space.
Building Walls Along Street Lines
The requirement of a common building facade
11r1e for certain Streets, OS explained earlier, is also
an important, ailiee control 10 guide open Space into
appropriate locations 111 useful atl)o)ints.
Urban Open Spaces Provided Jointly by
Adjacent Owners
The special permit regulations include a provision
36
for joint applications by adjacent owners for pooled
urban open spaces. A single open space provided by
two il(flacetll owners Could he fir milt llSr'fill than
lwc) Sepalate and independently I)rovl(1(Ytl areas, each
barely complying 1,VI111 minimum din1(?11Slollal rk'
quiretnents. Provisions allowing the transfer of
(ievelopnlent rights )ehvet;n one owner and the
other al lord aulditionai flexibility in the al rang,'
moot tit of tuft open space and its rel,ltionsfl 1) to the
two buildings.
Incentives for Residential and Mixed Building
Developments
MI! ohjectivi, of a gain in resi,ient1,11 population
in 11lt near the Miami Central Business District is
supported by several n('w t('atores in the proposed
zoning regulations. These Include:
1 Nevd ; iistr lets, stir 11 as the C-3D and C•3E
Districts ploviding,in the lorrnc'r rase for FAR
llltr'rt!rltlals favorlll(i ws1c1t?tltlnl,arld Ill the
latter a dish let permitting both wsideritial anrf
r1Url•rr?sideritial uses in an alga formerly re-
strict(?d ti) non-residential use;
2. Mote Widesplead it -tapping of existing ,fistricts
permitting residential use;
3. Lil)eralizl'd recinlations on floor artm ratio,
usahlr� open space, yard alci other controls
spited to high density whim livirlcl er)vircirri-news,
and
•4. BOtl;.ls it it curves.
This section of the repot t will disLu55 the bonus
incentives. The other features y^yIll be discussed in
the section on New and Revised Districts anti Their
Mapping.
Bonus Inc°rltives for residential use take the
form of differentials in the bonus allowances as
between) residential aril non-residential floor area.
For the provision of mandator'/ plan elements,
more bonus floor area is allowed if tile hol)Us floor
ar('il is allocated to residential Ilse. In the C-3 an,.I
C-3A Districts the bonus floor area is increased by
100 percent and in the C-38, C-3C and C-3D
Districts by 50 percent. Bonus floor area for op-
tional provision of in -caries or through -block con,
n('ctions is subjr:,ct to the same percentage increases
if the bonus floor urea is allocater:f to residential
use. The excess usable open space bonus is only
for residential floor area.
For urban Open spaces in the C•3B, C-3C and
C-3D Districts lh(rre is no bonus diffrrential in favor
37
Of residential iise since these amenities are of pri-
mary importance In areas Of nm lominantly COrn-
nirr+�l<II r1r���r'IOf'Int�'nt. However, in the C-3 and C•3A
Districts, ;1s an int entivri. for the construction of
Inlxr'rf residential oncf non teslr_I(xlhal b(riltlings,
burins floor (ito l fOr ',akin open space is dou1)ler1 if
ollcic,ate;1 to residential use.
TI1e'lifterential in i;onus rates Is partly needed
to overcome an Inherent r'CollOInIC handicap borne
1)'r iesidenti<Il fleveloprll0Ilt in competing with office
kidding rOnstruction in areas such as the Miarni •
CBD. Tills is \ythy it is necessary to provide such a
tat rl('rllfferet)ltal rrlorder both to overcome this
handicap and I) OVide a poSltive incentive for resi-
dential or mixed building developments.
In each distr Ir:t there is an absolute maximum
FAR which (:iannot he exceeded by any budding
nil matter I)OVV illllch holies floor urea has been
edified. The maximum foi a building which contains
both residential anr-1 non-residential (ISeS is higher
itliln that for it bt,ilclinrr ,Ise 1 only for one or the
caner use (see tabular skin1111;1'y Ot district hulk
re(tuliltiorl in Section 3.41. This provides a slight
additional inC''nti','e for mixed buildings.
Bonus Economics
In developing a bonus SySI°nl the recommended
sualr, r)1 bonuses is the result of two main deternlin
ants:
1. The public benefits of the various features
arid
2. The cost to 11u, developer of providing
tilts° features.
The public benefits of the features proposed in
the plan are explained in other parts of this report.
I11 general tiles° features alleviate the effects of high
(feveloptllen1 intensities by providing extra spilte
for pedestrian circulation and areas for rest and
relaxation in pleasant surroundings. These benefits
hilly justify the extra development intensity allowed
in return.
Some of the features are mandated as part of
the District Plan while others are optional and
depend On bonus incentives. To make their pro-
vision by developers attractive, the scale of the bonus
must he great enough to at least compensate for
the costs incurred.
In order to determine how much bonus floor
area is required to defray the cost of providing some
feature such as an arcade, the estimated value to the
a
1
p
developer of a unit Of bOmis floor ar si Is related to
the estimate l cost of provi(I111t1 a unii Of the t(lallne.
A naeaSJte of the Value 11f <a unit of bonus flr)or
area is provided by th[' residual land vaille analysis
conducted by Gladstwiri Associates, which is sent-
mati7e'i in Section 8.2 and supplernenterl by it state-
ment in the Appenifix, Section 2. This analysis sllovti's
"unsupportable land costs" of $4 to $6 a square
foot for prime Office use, which means that a level.
oilier swill pay no more than $4 to Sb in land costs
for each sgirare foot of floor area he b!lifds. For
the right to build an exist firth of floor area it can
be ass:i1(1e.,.I that the developer 'vvlll pay the Santee
amount, yvhether In' earns tfle right to the additi(.utal
floor area by acrliiiringl more land or by prnvlllirtq
a bowls feattue such as an arcade. In of loch bonus
floor area is valved at S4 to S6 per square foot.
The Sal11C analysis by Gladstone JSS0:IdteS
sh(lyvs that the unit value of bonus floor area in a
hi(111 rise apar lrnent building is sornt vboil less
S3.50 a squaw f+.x)t — than that lot prime (lfti(.E,
space. Therefore, more square feet of bonds floor
.,irria most he offere.f t(1 lyiil ers Ot residential space
to compensate there a,le(luately for provt:ling a
nubile amenity. In order to provide an extra in-
centive to erlco.irage residential E)r mixed buildings,
a substantially higher bonus rote is offered in tite
propose1 re(11llations if the bonus floor area is al
located to iesitlential Ilse.
Constt id ton costs and In srmie cases mainten-
ance a11,1 operating costs are Itytlos to be considered
in estimating total costs of ea( h kind of feature to
develorlers. Space inefin I(!ncie; irl the bilil'laig itself
ate ano111!'r kind of cost (.aisi' : l) r' provision of some
fea1'!11's a cost Wolin Is s.,bier-_l t!1 considerable
variation dl u(rh 1)11 1 oil the size and iiine the
site. This kind of ;1st assoi idle.! espE 1;ially vvttti
the l(r(,Vision Of mbar] open spaces on building
sites of Illo lelat(' Syr.'
In a l(fitiorl to estimated costs, ,bier factors
can affect the incentive to pro v ide a given type of
feat+are and hence ille reTtireti scald of bonuses. For
example, each of the districts where the arcade bonus
applies also has a ground level setback requirement,
ten feet (1n front streets and five feet on ;irte streets.
No bonus is ailovverl for thew; minimum setback re.
(l(iiremerats. The extra cost of provi(ling setbacks
which corifnrnt to the arcade re(flnrements is little
more than nominal, so that almost any bonus will
provide the required Incentive for an arcade.
Incentive zoning has been in effect for a slumber
of ','OIIs In many cities of 111e United States, and
tile expelir)nce gained in these Cities provides many
Itsctlll lessons. T1 ;vo are worth mentioning here.
First, ;In o,,tet ly (1f'llerr-ins hon',Is tor one kind of
,Itll(1111ty yAtli tend to result in the Infinite repetition
of that amenity to the virtual excI,Ision of all others.
Arcattles are rare in New York City, but plazas are
not. Bonuses twist be scaled \vi th a view IOWai (I the
cornpetilion among various amenities it) the bonus
floor area market. Secondly, the basic per !flitted
floor area ratios must not 1)e too high. For example,
under the hl!Ik regulations of a large inid.wostern
city, ,t floor area rotio of 40 is theoretically possible,
while developments ments at an FAR exceeding 10 are a
rarity. No incentive: Would k)( remotely possible in
Stich a Situation. For the reasons discussed in Section
2.5 of illis report it is important that development
intensity be restricted by realistic bulk controls.
The propose,.1 basic floor area ratios for the Mlallli
Central Business District are therefore considerably
lower than the i(:)vel in the raid -western city cited
mid are in Idol low F311Otigll 10 shake 111e incentive
system effeet i
3.4 NEW AND REVISED ZONING DISTRICTS,
REGULATIONS AND ZONING MAPS
Introduction
The proposed /oning ordnance is the end pro-
duct of a planning princess involving the five follow-
Ii1(t basic steps:
1. Analyzing the land and space needs of the
pro)jecte'1 users of land in Downtown Miami.
2. Preparing the urban devcloprnent plan.
3. Developing the general framework of the
implementation program, includin(1 the liming
and phasing aspects and the broad outlines (A:
-- the Special District Plan
- the optional bonus features and
tllo n(?\•'' an(1 teV Serf districts an(i district
regulations.
4. Devising the details of all of the above regu-
lations.
5. Drawing the proposed new zoning maps.
The new and revised system of districts, regu-
lations and zoning maps is a key part of the imple-
mentation program and strategy for carrying out
the urban development plan. To accompany the
major new programs of public improvements, there
is a great need to insure that new private develop-
ments meet the two following basic conditions:
1. Location in the proper areas, and
38
- Distnct Bo ndary
C.1 District Designation
39
PROPOSED ZONING MAP
110 "a
1
1
1
J1
r
2. Deveinpmrint of ot)nroprialn rlet sitios so as
not to over Matt puhhc. streets, sidewalks, and
transit far:ihties.
The new and tevisr'd zoning dish leas awl reaps are
the mechanics for ac:cornplislli11 this.
The proposed tarot uses, density limits, and
parking (tensity limits and guidelines were developed
together as irdcgral parts of the i:orra comer') with
present aril future traffl( c.ongeStioil and several
prohienls of Downtown accessihility in the fun ire.
Closely allied to approptiote density limits are
guidelines for Itle required accessory parking facili-
ties as tetate(I to a erihca' issue In the core office
district \NiterO trafflc and parking congesttor will tie
Irlt)St severe. (See the discussion of development.
Intensity and iIIsQ vell1Callar parking Ill the urban
dr!vclUprnent plan.)
In addition to developing a new system of
/oiling regulations tU carry ()tit tile basic goals,
ohjec_ tives and principles of the urban (level(.ipnaent
plat), it 1'VaS necessary to Correct a number of sertot is
deficiencies in the present zoning rentilations. These
deficiencies are discussed in Section 5.6, Existing
Zoning, and can he sunlm.tized as follows:
1. The allowance of xi issivc density for
flrinlc; oftice development;
2. The nllc)c.tion of too much Irei for High
density developrllelt;
The lack, of a rtleciiunl density district,
4 The total absence of ,i parking oink.',' and
guidelines for its adrliinistration,
5. The un;hl ! wstric,tiens on rr!st,lentiol iev".!
,ltltllen t ; and
ld
G. Excessivr'allocation of tailed lot in Hsu', ,lr1d
SF'r`'ICEUSE'S.
These lot i.let ores vvete t otrecto.; ._II0i ki O,lt is
of the what) development plan :^,''ire irnplertlente,I
by the use of tllr fiv^:ru)g,il,prr)aches ,nid 1I . is
1. By establishing at)tuot)r late lensit.,,V Bruits
(the maximum pc'rinitio 1 111)0r aria t.itios) for
thr�'various sec:tuns of 111 [)uV'ntowri Arr!,+,
especially the pr unit of lice core, as rei,lti!, 1 to
street and sidewalk capaE (ties, pollution stand
aryls, light and oil , and t)uhlic cnnvenritio,,e anti
amenity, as well .is from the point of viev' of
both the projected demand for of lice space
and land values.
2. By ?('eating the atto)i int of acreage for the
highest hrifk office 1):iilclitig development to
the pr ,jecled der1 1rrd for of flee Spa00 and
land v;il i s.
3. By allowing It greater variety of permitted
ser\'Ice uscts in the area which is rezoned for
lower densities.
4. By allowing rnoderotely higher densities
in those areas outside the present C.3 District
which are advantageously sits rated ton) the
standpoint of 1CC('SS by highway or the pro-
posed transit system.
5. By E11K;rluraglnrt residential or r111Xe(1 rest
k911h.11 ,1n'.l C:C)rllrrle?Cial development it) Or near
the CBI).
The remai lder of this section contains the
exploniatiorl of the otganizution of lhc3 Inning regu-
lations, the new,inc1 rovised zoning districts, the
primal regulations In Odd) district (inr;lucling the
use, density and parking repulatiorls) and the pro-
p()s4!d, new /oiling neaps.
Organization of Zoning Regulations
ThE' new and revised (fish ict tontllations conform
to the present st! iE„tutr. of tho Miami Zoning Ordinance.
Most of the regulations of tectrng d(!velOprnenl in a
district will he form( in on Article! containing regu-
lotions specifically applicable in that district, 11ow-
rvE!r, the talking and I sabre regulations for all
the City's zonirxl dish ors are contained in a separate
Article! (Artide XXIII). Other AttIdes Cn?110ining
general tit ()visionsate ArBete II (Dehnitions),
At tide III (Zoning Districts — Classes and Syrt)bols),
and Al t) le IV (G(.!nr,il Provisions). New Articles
XXVI-1 ordaining the regulations of Ow Special
Central Bitsirlr ss District) and XXXII 1 (providing for
s,('r:ial per administration) ha':'ea1plicati(in In
pat to of the Staff, Area E' )Iltalllirig several zoning
districts existing and laropos(!" 1, and the rtrovisic)ris
of mese At toles I lave .)Ire,)dy been descrihe',f.
Off -Street Parking Regulations
Uncler At Beer! XXII I at present the same off
street parking rer.tuirenlerds apply in all zoning
rlistric'ts of the City except the C-3 District. In C-3
no accessory talking is I!J(-ttlired and noel(t is perruit-
teri ex(ept id, conditional use permit.
Under the pr()posed revisions of Article XXIII
Clete ,'\'III li(! acC:essory off steed pal king require
meets in all zoning districts of the City without
exception However, in the revised C-3 and new
40
C 3A, C :36, C 3C ori-1 C:3 1:11strit-ts, thef)iirf:irni
rt�illnrerllt�ni, y,gill lie!iifi r, nl hew ili( ;est tit tllr,
Cl1', A rill:tl(tl'I111 of tl.f t!�i1E.ftir{ '�I*'� pot ,I)..`t'llin
;mit %%1;1 do 1 for null r'?SL t�'rlil, li 15t
(mil hi)ieI tli• real y,all ht tlr�it�rrlur, t1 h.
the Git'ti' rlt-othlance kind
Polly ()lid ( tl; it I lttr:, (See ,,,tr her {is; r,•;I!)n OI
P,ttkina-) In the C 3E t)istrit.:t ()It sit'' 1 1;:iition of
rw!(i11111'(I ,leta'S`it1l�,' r),lrf:lllt)A':'III di5o lit' =11',If-It:t tO
CoininI1si(1ri,i;)ilrnSJ1!Hid'f iltt'Pl,iriI (G111,1('lii)r's.
Thu C 3E L)Istr in iil l t •.e.t+ell ..11str k is
Vrllll�h l )t11 t' to he Illili)f'ed to the`7t'I'�l;r Art'il
'Viil have the sdine l)rtrkinit tt'Ciiiiiiii1IeIlt5 its tlie test
of the City
Description of Proposed Districts and Their
Mapping
The !levy xl(1 revist',I'11Strit:I ref: if,ltlU!l;iiL
Ind siltt:lfIL:oily to the C-3, c ,.3A, C-3f3, C 3C, C. 31-),
drill C =3E Districts ore sit tor ih in Ar ti,•'t•s XV
olio XV-S, rt,,tllri;UvThere tol!tl.'.s ,1 stltn
Alin,,' of tn., itlt)1',t)slal rt' IUl,lii[1115 tilt ille t' [)ISttil't:>
oft; f!1)\V the,/ orii tilcijlil(?i1. A till)Illiit ltll!nilr', of
t11e Lill.; rt.,yllldlion5 lei ,ill ,iistri( is rn Iope:i to !Ile
CBE) ,Itli)•'.o15
C-3 District (Article XV)
The C 3 Dr,tr it ty,.'ill he rnat)lxltl to include all the
di. t?rr'Senik., lniionei1 C 3 e.xta.'pt the (Olioe to :
1. Tile ,n si nor ill of N.W. N.E. 2nrl Street ant{
d tin 200 feet west Ot N.E. I Avenue.
). The Fiii'tlt_'r Shoot tt!tilil moo.
lie ;ireii so'Ith t)f the 1-05 Expressway ramps
ln,I'.vest of S.E. 211 1 Avenue,
TI1 C-3 District's use rert:llniions will rrrrnain es-
Setttl,lily trio) ititttitl, I1twing \vt,ll-suitr�tl to the variety of
It;tly'itlos needed for high intensity 'i0Vel0pi-ne It In
ill cir.t1 of the Control B11sin0Ss District.
The trlsic control on building slit) is the floor
rilii1 llllilt kl,ixitllurll floor sired rotioS are Shown
l tilt? t ittlt I lt)`;rr. Nth\V limits ar0 irlirotlllof?,I for tl0rl-
Iesi ,;s1,5 iitt ! hotels in lir'ti el the 300 foot
heitrlt limit, r:ltit:h is too cruile tt) htl Iwttlful as a
ololttlintt do l .le.'elehltt )nt control 0ntl is proposed
to Ile tiliininate,I. The present f10(-)r area riltto Iirilit5
or ds(ts list' slightly irotn id reside
of 2.0 to /.0 to onto el (1.0 to 8.0. The tlittertrnce
1i 11'.A00r1 the It;\V'er omit the nli_{tltll tit{ills''! Ill the iongn
t)1 "s ix11!)Inn FAR'S reflects the potentii:il floor
,ited hoods illt)':ii nt;f'S, Fel Ines rt'SIi1(!tltli7l Asps the
,ili:ill1itlt'tlt +_!f the in:h.:InliInl FAR 13.0 depends orlon
Proposed Miami CBD Zoning District Bulk Regulations
�.,),1>.tt l..irn F't)r;r" At•'.I Rail;) Ivlintirn ill Lot Art?,i Mirnirntirn Usnhle Open
Distr_i 1 Crul iet,I,I' R si i''.iti,it [Intl! Bldg Pt'rD_�J.Si].Ft
C3,tn 1 C 3A (Present C-3 Ex,.,'r,1
tor rllrr.1.0 it....0 10.0 t,) 17.0 115
C lPlil,/,; Vr neiiii ,In 1 A:11,i
ni ,tr. t).L1 o t;r t111 30) i, r I).(_) .'20
C :3C (N,lr th).,,est poi hot) 1)1
piest'nt C 3) 2 0 0 0 2.0 h., 5.C) 3.0 t0.0 220
Car) (Plai,l Vet),"tl,t Ed51,
N. Bisti 1\11drrli
Rig.%er how Artr,l) 1.5 to 2.4 1 5 to 5.0 2.5 to G.0 220
C-3E (East of N.E. 2n.1 Ave.,
North of N.E 7tft St.) 2.0 1.5 to 1.G5 600
C 1, C 2 (Existing) 2.0 1.5 I 1 .65 600
C4, C-5 fr 11 I E>:ist intt) 2 .0
R4 (Exlstini) 1.0 to 1.1 750
R•5 (Existing) 2.0 tt) 2.2 450
50
120
120
120
200
200
200
200
Note: Floor area ratios do not include floor area for off-street parking facilities since the Miami Zoning Ordinance excludes area in off-street
parking facilities from the floor area definition. The amount of on -she parking spaces will be determined on the basis of the Parking Plan
and Guidelines. It would not be likely to exceed seven parking levels or the equivalent of six points of FAR on any site.
41
r
•
tl1i:' (I('vr'It)ttt11(rnt's proximity to a rapid transit
station. If the deverloprtletaf IS lnOre than 1(0)0() fret
Wcilkitl(l distance from a station On the ripld transit
system, the rtidximi an FAR vwith iali 1)onises is 1 1 .0.
When Phase I I of the hrltilementdtion Program is in
effect, the District Platt \A:ill rnajot now r'Ie
tr1(iItS related to the trdtlslt system, s() that rl(ry tt111
trlents close to transit stations Will typically he
rf'(lillre(I to provide tippet level norlways or lit i;lges
OV,et Sit(!trtS for whicll additional floor (111) 1)0Nl!1`it"i
will be edrne:I The hi(Ihrrr maximum FAR Ot 13.0
ills() takes Into E1: ;;011I1i do dnticitlatell re Inchon
in then percentage of employees using automobiles
for the ji)tlrrlr"y_i(:)-work, so ttidt the impact Ot
automobile milli(_ enl t11e street system Will he no
greater than that generated 1)y it building w11h FAR
11 0, vAthi(,h is not servi!il by rapid transit
As [hit t Ot the implementation I'ronrdlll'S
ri.trltlhasis on nr",v resid0nital consttut fion, ih:� C .3
District (dntl (WWI rury%' .lisint_ts dsr,1!11) !)r()vi tlrs
lot ;1 hi(_lh(rr maximum FAR ft)r buildings vwin( h
colnk;ine hotkl tint non-residential osos
than for single !IS! stt!I(anr(rs. -f IUJ rtin(1e of liilo.Itllt. m
FAR's for an entire mixed b Imidirin is 10.0 to 1 7 O,
)f which the non residential tr)rh11) may not
(;x(.r(1 8.0 to 13.0 of the r(lspietindt portion .1.0 to
8.0 For ex,irnple, a non resi,tonna', biilding which
provides no leatlutr5 itllillii',-in+f for IIt)n.is flot-Ir t)t0;1
o!11t1 tea=.(' d rllii`:Itllllrli FAR of (i 0. The Ii(illtilll(t s
total FAR could be raise,( to as 'rill( I1 ,i ; 1 () (.1 h'
El hlin(i:inner sti 1I('i fit dtIatIntents.
Floor iared tioll!IS provisions (( O!lt<illle k in
Section 8) ,'t(lv'I(li' ('?.rt 1 i(.e iltl: s )tit residential
I); !rii-x("t O ill=lir1:141)'" 1tC)Ot il!('d It
it Is ailt)cdt" t to resi(f:'!itial I;s..
Till' initiati n-1 1ot died net `ltlii IS
IOV''erl?.1 Sll(tlllfti' horn 1r2f.) tO 115'i`f icirt' i(rltt In line
t;n;ltfi till? Itlit''ase ire n1a'0erliltll iesiuenl1a1 FAR fro m
7.0 to 8.0
Us;1!71(r i)i)i'11 snak ' It'tt:Il!i'(Ilr'ill'7 tlfh'r 10 i!lt."!)
iron) 90 (int_i(r! ":I5tinrl r«wt!lidtbonS) if) 50 Sqt1,lrt'
feel (PI ,1v'w;trllin(t unit, ,!n;1 till rr'sttir.lil)ris (in it11'
1e'dr1S ut 1101{110S tit ':yhit 11 it nso her lttovrlet! ,rr(
!Inlllliiteil. T!li! Wvls*.1 Ie(ilIII(rmrrtlts are 1110ti' ta)n-
sisleni wroth the high livunl
r'ri ir01)110 nt W11(11 llle rest of !kit It'!pll;t
Huns (.Irr.lti ;' rorltcrnlpidle.
MO proposed vat 1 rett-imrtnents of the C-3
District, refle(,111111 the hind irlr i;IO:u1d 1('ve) Oi)t'!i
spice, Inc0rpOrdte the front and street side setback
regulations ilt the C 2 District Present requirements
of whet mi side ,ants for tesideritial buildings iirt'
t'11111111,11t!.1, bit residential building walls having
yvin,foos are re(tuirt :f to hs sot hack froth the lot
ti!lr' ;11 least .'S feet (instead of 1(1 feet its now) or
1lle soli, of ihr. 110i911t of tilt' �,vtill, Whichever is
!note' Present rear `i'il!II rt'ittllrr;mentS, h0110 for non-
tesrlr:1ntial ildin(ts and 25 fetrt for residential ht-rildt
nuts, y.vrnlirt remain lift hd111'1d, Hut the rule for set -
ha( k O1 t('SI(Ientldl Walls with Wltl(IoWs
from ulterior side lot liners w(sll(1 aptly Also from
tear lot Inns. A revised building sts cing formula has
dls0 been 1)r ellar l'r 1 for r11001 appropriate spacinq of
huiltfinfis in hlyh density (lrfsils.
In 1(4 t ilsi' of hlHidings which combine re_sirlenliill
;liltt non-residential uses, the yar:l dn1 Sethiick re -
rumen -rents for rest,. !) lit users Woufd apply a1 .the
!11)O! 1 . '( of me lowest story use1 for iesidential
I ISr'.
Those ,:dl l reft lldtinns arcs (irieraliy similar for
till th+ nr :v +list) i(:is, rxr-et)1 I ie C-3E. The provisions
of Anccle IV, Section 27, dpnlylnn to c0rnhinatiotl
1451,lenhtil and non restilellti it buildings, d0 not I10W
apply n1 thin C3 District and should also he made in-
d,tlliicdble, in 111(r C•3A, C-3B, C:3C and C-3D Dis-
h ii ts, Sln( (' 11(4 are overly restrictive 1Or ()inklings
li;1VII1(1 tllOre Blatt 25 t(('r['.etit i)1 their tto(lr ultra 111
r(4Sidentiiil Il5(r_
C-3A District (Article XV-1)
The urntiose.1 C 3A District tor the Hagler
Street retail dtea IIi15 lht' Sil!l1H tt?(1,1Ii111011S OS the C-3
Dish ILI, (r.., eta for ihi' S)e(Idl retdll 115('
(111'1115; 1(4 50 rr:rt litrrrnerits have been (iiscuSSe:1 in
the Se, nun 3 d1 nt this tenor t desra 'kw] the Dish ic.t
Plcl'l
C-3B District (Article XV-2)
The C-313 District is mapped primarily in the
Mi-ttOvvn Atea north of 1305 and east of N.E. 211(1
A', n,le, r.,>:tenlin(i north to N.E. 17111 Terrace. It
includes most of Plaid Venetia but doles not include
tile tier of blocks bob tering Biscayne Bay. It is also
rlidt)t;cr;1 sol1th Of LISI Fla(iler Street between the
F.E.C. Railroad arid I-95. For the most part the new
district v'vlll replace the C-1 District 111 the Midtown
Area. It Will also replace the C-3 District mapped for
the' Pldrl Venetia project and por titans of C-4 Distr icts.
The use regulations of the C-3B District are
generally the same as for the C-3 District as befits
tills IliOh activity central bilsirless area. However,
agar intent buildings are permitted as a matter of
42
tight tattier tI ;uisulijer I to c:on,lItit)n,il usr� ap,l;ltn'ill
as in C-3.
Tilo structure of tiltrcplllat .iri:, is
similar to that for the C-3 District. As indicated on
the tal)Ir "Proposed Miami CBD Zoning District
Bulk Re11ulations", the range of n)axinlllrn FAR's
for resldellhal aricl (loll -residential uses is the same:
2.0 to J.O. However, the attainment of a rlc)n-
rr)S((311Ilti,il FAR exceeding 4.0 depends upon the
development's proximity to a rapid transit station.
As a lleneriil rule, it should be possible to ilanile
the impact of each tleveioprnent in tllo C-3B Dis
bid! on the development site itself. However, sic!)
criteria as on -site accorntnoclation of balking for
off ice buildings 1)econle iliffic1111 to achieve at
FAR's higher 041114.0 in the absence of ameliora-
ting factors such as good transii service. When Ole
rapid transit route alignments and station locatic)ns
are fixed, just as in the C-3 Distr ict, there will be
new obligations on (lev(?li)pxrrs vvho 1)11i1r1 alontpa
transit pine Ur near a station to provide dl)Ilrl0Ctin(1
pedestrian ways or hr'iclges tinder Phase II of the
Iniplern)ntation Program. In r011tn tur tite.ii.!
extra obtigi(tiolls extra boasts floor area V"vill be re-
quired, and the increase in maximum FAR to 5.0
will 1)o nee) led to provide adequate bonus rapacity
The rand" of nraxirnuru FAR's for mixed
building is 3.0 to 6.0, providing the same kin:_i r)I
incentive for combining resi(I1 )ltial and non-resi-
dential uses as that describtir for Ho C-3 District.
Extra incentives for residential +Ise slat) p)to-
vi.1r"1 by increasing floor area be)nllses for pl()vision
of ni(llldatory or optional put tic f,lc:ilitn!S by 50
percent if the bonus floor area is ,11Incato' 1 ic)
residential use
Resi:it'r)hal density t.Onhnis retl sina mini-
mlitn lot area of 220 square tt'i't lit?( „';E!Illn'1 war,
yyinch v-voasis ,illow almost 2(.10 families nil r not
acre. The ;.(sable open 531(10a reClllirt'rlr-nt t)1 120
square feet per (welling unit, t.tI3 In eyc:ess of the
50 Sduare teot rr'cl;lire,1 ill the-, C 3 Distr idt, is a
goon standard for t!ovelopnlents just outside the
core of the CBD. Section 8 of the District )('illa-
tions provides liberal controls on the levels at which
trio open space can be pr uvidl'.l
Yard regulations ale the Sallie! its for the C-:3
District.
C-3C District (Article XV-3)
The nor tllwest portion o1 the prrrser)t C-:3
District north of N.1',11. and N.E. 2ntl Street arm
43
of a f!I1t! 5f+'lttln*1 it"l" i)It)i.k between N E. 1st
NI E. ?n.1 Ave'!,(,! is propose"! for a
t_. -3C (Contra' (,f)rr11)11'1c„)1 Sr'r ;:j(;ei [)IStrli't de51r300
tli)Il� 1.„1" 5: 111'1,.a'tt C1";elopmerlt potential for
III!if! tnti'))S11', K'!S, It Is ver km:Med fir the
lrlrft,_, ;',ir:et'y` O1 5'irvir.es `.'v(1)C11 S!IOI)r)rl hlq}1 Intensity
!lovl iol)1111 nl 1lie uses permitted to the C-3C
Dishict •.':ilf !note, in addition to those permitt(r)
I(I C .3 .111 r;'.(('nst tt Itjt t)f SeIVICOS Ctrifrite(1 tciwarri
1)145tnosses. t'1111)11)Vei S and residents, it1(.;111i11n(3
numerous t:in`fs Of 1 ontractors' shoos and ,1rlto-
itlotrve serVl(.05. The Dish i(,t•illa'v'provide good loca-
tions fr)r otf site narking fat:ilitioS sorvirirt.hll;l) bulk
of flee hi Hidings an 1 retail devel)n))rnt It) tln' C-3
lluf C-:3A Districts. Ali lrtmt)nt buildings are px!r
rilillt!,1 only if a;lnrm5t'r1 its conliti(ulal tlSns Open
slc)r.ltle of )tlrlfel sills OIC! t'(( (01lir!rlt (S r)('rmitted
stil)iec:t 10 restrictions 1)I1 11h:,11)tu1 ,tart Ire Sr)('"pins
It'(3111r0itlr!ni5
1 !
C�;�C I 1,f: r ,,,,,; li�ltio.ls and ,,-.u,1 ani s-1)acf;
ttlri:lirenlenis lit' the sitTIe as frl' lilt' C- 3B District.
D''v'1lolttrient5 iltt''lilt likely to make fills (Cie of
holl:is In t'rlt(\`1"i 111it It !tsIH l tilt'':' are ayaiiahl))
C-3D District (Article XV-4)
TI)(! C 3D DiSlrli:t is i-afietl a ''ReSldelntii.11
Qific_e CI!nlr;); Cr)rnnlert:tal Oistri,':t', ReSidr!nlial
�ltrvelot)nlr�ni Is t!tineelrlll,' f,1 'i)rr),i I);' the Disbu:t
re'l,lla11 111;-
_ 1)r= C , D Di5rrir_t IS )pant)"-t trl tf;tr"' itreaS, �1tl
f ihr'rrI i_rr'(tt(?)rlil,* lt)+_itt''! tin leSrtlent)at
,tt ti11)r' 1n1'tlt
1 Al,in"; Pi `t 1 ,i'tt: of tl)o Mia!ni R1ti'c)t
the F E.C. R.Illrt)(i11proper t'-,'and
S.E. 2n'1 Avon a11r! He Btu t_eii Ave it'
Bri,ige. The Distllt t rr'ttl,'t es tl;e C 3 Distri1:1
t'ir,t ':)f fv1i,(11 1 r(1)'1 t!)e I• 1 Distrit.t
the railroad property.
2. Opposite t4(1riose 1 Bavtronl Park (the Old
P:ot) .1r1,1 "Xt,'r),tin{1 lt) ILO t't!St Silk! of N_E.
2nll Avenue, l ite ;1)' IS p)t0;el1i'CV nliltll)t'ai C-2
along Biscayne Bo' ilt'.\.'ar'I antl C-4 to tile rear.
3. Biscayne ayn! Bay homage in the gni-flown area
inc.11l:dmil the east riottiorl of Piai.l Venetia and
1dock to the south. The area is presently
/oiled C-3 and C 1.
T1ie Distric:ls 11s1) ri11pl11iltionS Permit residential,
()f 111:e ,1)1(1 1Ocal retitil uses, restaur,lnts and cafes.
EntI!rt0iiililc'nt use;,(11!not pet1n11(et!
The bulk r(!fpui,atlons )filler fr1)1n thoSe in the
1
i
1
N
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C-313 arid C 3C Distracts ill that toen1l imam f=AR'S
for nnn•resi,Ielltlal Iises are I to a range! of 2 0
tO 2.4. This result:nonl iS ifisigneti to limit the
of cot l n 1cial tlevelooml Ht and related at:CHSS I
pillklrltl .'ilftWilItHti SU (IS le) pr(NI( 1t' l 011lnilriftivl'i\
faVorahle Coll!!! 'HMS foI reStri !rlhal (if'VE!l(ftfrfiorit. A
maximum retil(lt'rlIr i FAR Of 5.0 can hit Het! VW!'
proviriing rna!),la1i)ry ;)r optional amenities earning
bonus floor area.
The usable open spitc:e reciuirement of 120
squire feet per (dwelling Unit includes a 'rigout:fli(!ta
that at least HO percent he provided al ground level
or hei(iflis no ctr(ime! than 1:i0 feet ai)c)vcr tfro(lnti iitvel.
The yard and setback reguiat1ons arc: the Sanle
as those 10r tilt. C 3, C 3B anti C :3C f.)istricts.
A major part of the Cr3D Districts is subject
to ih(! kNoterfronl Area 1)evelt)pinl:nt Controls 3n
Article XXVI-1, Section (3, which imiticicf special
yard requirements, restrictions on ground coverage
anil lan(is(,apintl rectnir(!rn(!nts. Other previsions of
that se('ti0r) allow the City COn1missif_)n io waive or
modify district yiir't Or;fish-inc1! bt!t�,�reerl 011 Idhn(t
regulations as well as der tail) of the \A'aterli ()lit Area
Development Controls to achiever bet l(:r View 1)r0-
'0Cl1(.)il atl(I het ter ill ftfll(i(-?!11er1t5 of larli_IS12 1pl!i1 open
space. (See discussion of \v'(Itt)rfront Area Dev(aOn-
inent Controls in Sectholl 3.41
C-3E District (Article XV-5)
The C 3E District is the 0111'. new c Bair il:t !wing
p103105,e3 wltil I maximum hulk Of Isis at, FAR 2.0�
Tills district is Hopped In frees ist of N.E.2riri
Avt!r)(ie and riot1h tin 3 south of 1 305':`il11ret CA eat),1
C-5 Districts are pre5lrr)t3'' map; era.
These areas are char iict+'r 1/''-1 by mix(51 1esii n-
t3i.11 and non-r1'sl 11 11tIai uses uu itriirni ;-.,(pie industrial
ices. The area sahib of I 3�)5 is the le''(ition of the
plot)t)S(:tl ltew In-T(.1;!) R(!5i;1r!r111;i1 Cornmtlruty.
Tli' C-3E District',sci1l)c3 t)t'1alit r('5'ieutial uses
where the CA and C 5 Districts .1) not. The District
is (k151gne;3 with the hunted purpose of allowing
residential i )S(:5 (as vvel I ii5 norl'r esul0l It iifl) in dI 0ilS
Whl!r(! r(!SI(3rntlift iicvelopn)!nt IS elf lt)rollriate an•:1
where tenet is an appreciable amount of residential
use today. Residential uses will thus he at forded the
limited advantages of conforming use Stelt1.IS. However,
there sh0 i1(I be no ill(Isic)ns that mapping the C-3E
District will In at1 Ot !ISHII result in redeveloprnerlt
for resi(fentiifl use. A lar(te part of the In-1 OW'rl
Residential Community site is proposed to remain in
C•b classification for tiiu pres('nl since flresolnl land
use (1)!1i1111Ot1s Irl that part Of Site arc! Clearly inimical
to the ir11roilli:tl0II of new residential (ISOs or evert
the ;HIrvlval of existing ones.
the Ifs, ri!ct_llntions of the C-3E District permit
residential an:i I ornrneriaal uses of the types which
pir ser)lly pr(:'tiOin!nate !!f tie areas where the District
is rtiilp!)eil. fifty) 1)f 1110 SHIVICe i]nd industrial uses
which are presently per mated by C-4 and C-5
District mapping vviii not he permitted in the new
District depot tment stores omit large retail establish-
ments (over 10,000 square feet of floor area) are
excluded because the sporadic appearance of such
establ)shrn('n1s in the C-3E Districts would be ir)-
(;OnSISil rat ):vIih the purpose Of promoting the con-
centration Of shoni)in 3 in major centers.
In ,any ;lislrict designed to provide reasonable
protection for the majority of uses in a mixed use
aura, some highly incolnpatihle uses will inevitality
be matt(! rlurl•conforrming. The rise regulaiR.)0s of the
C-3E District included provision for COn(1itional
use approval of additions to buildings containing
non -conforming Uses.
As in the C-3C District open storage of
nrlterials and et)0ipnlent is permitted subject to
restrictions on location and to Screening require -
merits.
The maX3naurn floor area rate( for non-residential
uses is 2.0. For residential rises (by cross reference
to the C-2 re(tulations) the maximum floor ayes
ratio) is 1 .5 to 1.1)5 depending on average clwti'elling
(alit siie, the minimum lot area per dwelling unit
is (300 square feet and the minimum usable open
space per IIWellitig unit is 200 sr-1;41re feet.
Changes from C-4 Mapping North of 1-395
The present excessive mapping of C-4 in the
area north of 1-395 is changed as follows:
1. The C-4 District is proposed to be confined
to two strips along N.E. 2n(d Avenue, an area
north of the M ianii City Cemetery at the
h0uri(-lary of the Study Area and a two block
area between the approaches to McArthur and
Venetian Causeways which includes the Miami
Herald plant.
2. The area between N.E. 1st Court and the
1-1 industrial band along the F.E.C. Railroad
is changed to C-3E, R-4 and C-1. The central
par t of this area is occupied by well -maintained
low -density residential development conven-
iently related to the Midtown business area.
The area should remain predominantly residential.
44
3. Blocks on both sides OI N.E. 2nt_f Avenue
between N.E. 14t}h Street an,f N.E. 16111 Street
are (:ban rid try C-3B to provide for westerly
exnansior1 of the Midtown Core.
Areas Where No Changes Ate Proposed
Irl the following arras nr) substantial changes
from existing zoning are reconlnlencfed:
1 Tile area c)f the Prrlt)ose+I Miami Dade
County GU)ve 11111 nt CI".ntr,r IS prOI)OS!I to
ten)ain In its present classifications — C-4 and
R•4 -- LIr1tII plans are crystalllted ft)r the Gov
r'rrintent Center Project. The interim overlay
district around t}I' site sllrrllrl 1)e made per
trlarrent \:'hen the Government Center -toning
IS change+ with any mo(llhcations?ylhlch there
appear appropriate.
2 Zoning of The River front Area west of the
proposed C-3D District is proposed to remain
unchanged tten+ling adoption of plans for the
area.
3. The area north of the Government Center
site which ir)(It.t+_les the NDP 3 Area should
rerllaI! in its present zoning pen, ling renewal
action.
4. Portions of the existing C 5 toning between
N. M1d1lll Avenue and thy' F.E.C. Railroad and
along the Municipal Railroad aft; F.E.C. spurs
are proposed to remain tlnr11,111(it!11 for th(!
pr1>srrnt bet:Wiseof existing development.
5. The area north of the Midtown Cure is
+-1t))t)rowlately tone d and 511oaIt.1 remain in its
present classifications.
Phase I1: Revisions and Updating
As a key dart of the strategy of timing and
phasing discussed earlier, it will 1-w impel hint per-
iodically to review and update the toning districts,
regulations and zonintl reaps as major public; inl-
t)rov(rrllents are cornmitled or completed and new
programs of development or redevelopment occur
in Downtown Miami.
45
1
1
STUDY AREA
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ern NDP-3
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
46
El
AN
a
* Business Districts Industrial Area
• Malor Shopping Center Conservation Area
■ Highrise Office .., .
47
\ ,
• r, 4V Syf�•i:t.j „'.
•
REGIONAL ACTIVITY CONCENTRATIONS
i
i 4.0
I REGIONAL
CONTEXT
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
p
4.1 DEFINITION OE THE MIAMI REGION
AND THE STUDY AREA
The Study Area, or Downtown Miami, is
located in a rr rlion coterminous with Dade County,
Florida. This region is, in turn, linked to other,
smaller but contiguous, rirban areas extending north
along the Florida Past Coast to West Palm Beach and
beyond. Biscayne Bay, the Miarni River, 1-95, 1-395,
the F.E.C. Railroa i and North 20th Street form the
boundar ies of the Urban Development and Zoning
Study. This boundary conforms generally to pre-
viouS planning stu,fies and the Downtown Develop-
ment Authority's juristiic:tion; however, a functional
definition of Downtown Miami would also include
the linear developments to the north along Biscayne
Boulevard and to the south along Brickell Avenue.
4.2 CHARACTER OF THE REGION AND
DOWNTOWN
Since Miami e:Ir1d the Southern Florida east
coast turban CC)rt idor are relatively young, tile auto-
mobile has hat a major impact upon the distribution
of activities and the overall tor of the urban region.
Resi,Ioutial.comnitnaifies such as Coral Gables,
Hialeah, South North tv1 mT i were
established edrl;' and have significantly influenced
Il'C ,t)1t )Ii, iltnrl of activities, particularly retail and
intl,istrial. In addition, topological features, attract-
iveness of the Atlantic Coast, and ttie location of
the Everglades have influence, 1 a linear distribution
nt smaller cities along the roast, rather than a single
urban core. Conserlucntly, Downtown Miami is of
Tess relative itllte r lance in Its region than central
areas of other sio111arly Sized metropolitan areas.
For example, employment in the Study Area i11
1972 was 84" b of the region's total, compared to
CBD's in Dallas - z%";,, Louisville - 17"�,, Baltimore -
r :
E-,tlilalu - 14(„ r) and Denver -
Although the tubauizrr f area of Dale County
Decal )ieS less than 10'.', of the total land urea, the
ensity of development is generally very low. The
notable exception )tion is the waterfront. Downtown
Miami and Miami Brach were the first high intensity
devt lolmumts in Southern Florida. The dense
coastal rlrovvth has now ritoved north, ant new high
density i1!.'Ve'IOI)tilents have begun along the western
shore of Biscayne Bay both nor th and south of the
Study Area.
Downtown Miami, which is small compared to
48
49
ti
t• i
Ir_
.y - 1 . 1., _ l .. ; " . r:4 .. _-
� • I .1
t ( ,=rt 1
1 I. • . _
I.
•
•
•
•
f•
IAMf BD
1-
ti
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
Existing Expressway Future Rapid Transit Extension
Proposed Expressway Intercoastal Waterway
Proposed Rapid Transit . .
{ r-
•
•1 . ..,.}`_ti._...._-.--,._...... •I.
1 1
•
•
•
•
•
Existing Expressway
Proposed Expressway
Proposed Rapid Transit
49
IAMCtBD
C
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
Future Rapid Transit Extension
Intercoastal Waterway
otfler (f(!(;vntown areas in similarly sit(s1 m(tiotis,
functions Orlinarity as thr' r(?glOt1at Offl(;E' (.OM. in
1971 4 / 01 trio total t('(liundl oflice employment
was locrited DowntOvvr),5 whereas thr' retail area
along Flagter Street Is !11)t significantly gloater than
the Dirdelantd Mall shopping center. Downtown does
have entertallitllerlt activities of regional importance,
such as the Miami PiniIi r manic:, but there are also
'early other (?Ilti'rtalrlttient c(71te('.`rttriatiofrs, par ticO-
idtIv 0rt Miarni Beach and along Biscayne Boulevard
between the Study Area and Julia Tuttle Catiseviy.
Goverrlllierit of liC(' space is also presently I(!c('lltrill
iced with the Cour t House and Federal of f ice Down-
town, City offices in Coconut Grovr! and many
Dade County office adjacent to the Civic, Center
west of the Study Arad. A major regional �fficearl(!
residential ConCerilratitrn IS also I0 )ilr(lalong
Brrckell Avenue. This in,ht;,)tos that Downtown Miami
is the Spec.iatiLecl core of the te(;iorr with ri)any of
the traditional d(_)wntovvn functions (Iecentrdllzc-.1
in adjacent areas Enid throurit1out Dale County.
4.3 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTS AFFECTING
DOWNTOWN
The futcrreOf tv1Idnii is.le;icntlerit
on thre re(lion. If legic)trai growth is sustainrrl tut the
Miami Regional and Downtown Population
1959 1964 1969
935,047
1975 1980 1985
1,440,000
1,267,729
1,640,000
1+,620,0001 500,000
"��"•1,520,000
1,400,000
14,965'
1.0% S udy Area share of regional population
'Section larger than current Study Area
1,000,000
500,000
n('::t 12 years, the Study Area will share in that
grprnpnrilor) Of new growth which is
d.�v(�I!)tutj Downtown will depend largely on public.
p(.)11(y ,rii 1 commitments to such regional facilities
as (miss rapid transit. The tour major factors affect -
it g ifu growth of Downtown are discussed below:
Population Growth and Residential Development
Ur, le County is the most rapidly growing area in
It!eState of Flor i(1a, ril! Florida is one of the most
rapidly tit own in states in the nation. Between 1960
anti 1970, Dade County population increased by
2h% from 935,047 to 1,259,102. During the same
period the central area of Midlni (the. Study Area and
cont iru0(is census tracts) lost population, decreasing
from approximately 32,000 to 29,000. However,
pinch of this loss was a result of highway construction
and demolition in the NDP-3 Area. Since 1970 con-
stru(:tion of high rise units an 13rickell Avenue and
!Jew teveioprnant in the NDP-3 Area have probably
replace=l tln loss6
Changes in four population sub -groups were
signif want ,luring Ow past (lecatle.
1. ELDERLY: The poptfiation 62 years and
older increased from 12"f, to 17% of the total
regional population.
Miami Regional and Downtown Employment
1959 19G4 1969 1975 1980 1985
1 728,000
656,000 720,000
576,000 ,-{ - _"� 640,000
520,141
608,000'
,'r540,000 l
560,000
429 400 ,
'368,382
41,000'
9.5%
'Revised Regional Projection
45,556'
8.4% Study Area share of regional employment
560,000
480,000
400,000
320,000
240,000
160,000
80,000
0
'Study Area larger in 1972.
50
2. SPANISH SPEAKING In 1970, 437, of the
population id the City of Miaini reported
Spanish as, their native language.
3. 131.-ACK: Between 1960 anti 1970, the BIacf.
poftlalation inc:reas(e,I from 12"t to 15'0of the
region's total. Over of the City of Miami
Is Bla( f..
4. YOUNG SINGLES AND COUPLES. Follow-
ing a rhrtit)tlal trend, the region showed a de-
clining hit last(', an increasing manly -it o1
young adults, an(I a continuing trend toward
later trimri�i(f('.
The increase of elderly, singles, and childless
couples is particularly important hit the future tit
Downtown, Since these are the gro)(it)S most atTlen-
able to high density, urban life styles. The Spanish-
speaking and Black populations ;are also important
to Downtown development because they ;in! the
major users (,)t DOWIit0Wll ret,ill anti enter idiriment
fac:iliti('s.
Employment Growth and the Regional
Economy
The growth of Dade County Irol)l 1950 to
1970 indicates a significant shill in employment
from heavy reliance on tourism, as represented by
retail trade anti setvi(;es, to a cir owing percentage of
manufactut inn employment as well as slight in-
crease in tirl;lilt:", Insurance and real estate. -Inc! total
!abut iorc(o in( rease f 2.9"4,7 and the Stu is Ateii enl-
f)loymerlt has increased 1tont approxinlat+'I;' 41,000
in 1964 to 004 45,500 in 19728 Upt;n L om1)1PIion
oft (0jects li0\.%: t1t1,101 conslluclitxt, DOVV1ltirNil
1'n11�1loynier(t Will be. ipproxirnatei; 52,000 t_)I
of the teglon's 1 )1,11.
Regional Transportation
The Miami recii(nai expressway tirc)granl has
essentially tc)IIowecf the traditional low density, de-
( 31)tralinrd activity distribution of the region. How-
ever, accessibility in)provenu;nts to Downtown (1.95
North-Sottth Expiessv,,r;ly, Airport Expressway and
East-West Expressway) were built in conjunction
\'itit the Palmetto at G(_)I+I('n Glades Expressways
\vhic:h serve the Miami iirharai,in(t trintt('. Thus,
negative impacts on the CBD were avoided ill con-
trast to Baltimore's Beltway and Boston's Route 128.
The i'xpresswayS have Met eased the (.)ppor -
51
tllnine:, girt i lilft;leece ! the location of regional
shopping centers and Irldlistt iat pat ks. However, this
has serve:1 to reinforce the tni fitional retail pattern;
and, Sider Miami had little significant manufacturing
t)1 for to the 1960's, tale decentralize(' pattern that
emerging IBIS not been detrimental to the economy
r)f Doyvrriovv'n. The future expressway systern fore-
casts 1111 even more decentralized region reaching
South tO Homestead and Vilest (1) the edge of the
Everglad(rs. East -west routes, however, will contirilie
to Inciease accessibility to the coastal area and Down-
town.
The Stt it ly Area presently has goo(I access to
the interstate highway system with 1-95 to the east
and 1395 to the north. In addition U.S. 1 {asses
through the Study Area as a major north -south
arterial linking the Brickell Avenue development
with the Study Area ant! forming the major non -
freeway access to Downtown. However, this north -
south movement along the Bayfront is also the
c:ritic:al congestion point in Downtown.
Voters recently approved a bon({ issue for a
new mass rapid transit system for the Miarni Region.
The preliminary study of route location indicated
a loop system beginning in North Miami, extending
south along Miarni Beach, then across the Bay to
the Study Area. The system suggested only three
stops in the Study Area all north of the recent
ofce ,ievelopmerat on Flagler Street and on Brick -
ell Avenue. Modification of the transit system will
he investigate!! as part of tl)e fletaile(1 plan-
ning effort for the Dade County Transit Study. The
actual construction of the system is still itt the distant
i(it(ne With tilt' possihllity of completion before
1980 tinlikely.
At present bus routes are the only forrn of
mass transit s(.rrving the St 1ly Area. The Alan M.
Voorhees report on Government Center Transporta-
tion,9 published in 1970, indicates only 10'.'0 of
Do.s'ntown Covet rnnent employees arrive by transit;
an!! lbe MUATS Report10of 1964 shows 80`» of
Downtown trips by auto. Clearly, the alignment and
DOWritow'n station locations of the mass rapid transit
system could alter this heavy dependence on the
automobile, resulting in reduced public transportation
costs awl increase,1 public benefits to Downtown
and the region.
Environment
Dade County is part of the Evergla(le's Basin
whictl begins north of Lake Okeechobee and extends
a
t
south over 1f)0 miles tO the E'i r(tla,ies National
Park. The (iorninant fe,iture of this area is the Ever-
glades or "River of Grdss", a (restlwal(?r sA,vattll) II)
the center )f the Florida peninsula, feat i)y summer
rainfall and overflow from bilk(') Okeer, 1OI)ee.
Urhdni/aliOn in South Florida has ,1irr?ctiy
alfecte(i the ecol(')(ty Of the hasirl; an, I, pis might he
expect(?(!, where population is most (tense, Onvir(On
mental changes ate rrmst si(initicant. Tim East Coast.,
where 90`'_, of the i)L)t)lliiititm is IOcator.f, has !wen
cirdin(sf, providing a 10 20 mile cc)rri 1 it that is
t(?iatiVely 1r(?'' twin f tl)Oi liil(1. Conservation areas
have been ilik('tl to provi,le storage areas tor irestl
water Supply an<i I )r tlt)o(1 vv;it(irs.
The major environmental Issrle is tl(?sh vvatet
supply fol hun)r)n ust?S. This supply floes not Como
directly 1tt)tll the stir face storage hut tri)In shallow
i(itiifi rs which are close to the surface. The con-
servation areas provide s il)t)I(?mr?ntS to SUrlaGe re-
charge, vvhich has decrease! yvitli the.IrainaOe of
uthanr?e(1 and agricultural �ir(kis. Even with the
cOnServahnn dI(5 S, there ate litti(:IIttirs IiI rn,]Iri-
taiilinO siifficinnt flesil ',Valet iti the aquifers 10
vent salt water intrusion per ia,.is of 1(.0it.
The issue Ot water supply is also linke i to the future
of the Everglades, oniy recent!'; has hie impottancc?
of a continued supply of fresh water to tl)e Park,
in a planner approximating the Distal lc hydrologic
cyt;'IP, been real171?it aS Slllllltl(.i)Iltll
As result Of fresh water supply «)r oh)ien)s,
and other environmental ploblerns, such as air
i,oll(Ition, the issue of limiting Miami's rtrO:^-rth has
peen raise,..1 Also, the filling ' if f',is(i �r,. f,.
� , �' Bay arid
alterations of t1)e emstinii sholohno i1JV'!1 rl`(:I?rltIv
come bail(,'! attack: hOtn ('irot(lnn)etital (!rOtil)S- Ttli1S,
,iev(?lol)nient Such as that ciirt(?i)tl, piann('i On
Claugtlton ISidn(i indv °i_c r 1rt'-
(liloticy, resulting in (!realer °poortunity 1nr Dny.n
toyvn d(?vr?lopments0 ijacent tO € avlr0rlt Rif f.: r,ver-
lookir)tl Biscayne Bay.
PREDOMINANTLY
S RESIDENTIAL COMMUNIT
PART OF NDP - 3
MENARY
D TtI
AREA BEING
FOR OOVERNL1
VIREO
CENTER
ESIDENT HOTELS
ELDERLY OCCUPANCY
O Office, Hotel
Retail Public Facility
Manufacturing. Wholesale and Storage
53
EDONt TOWER.
` AUDITORIUM
OST C• UNIT {`\
i-) •..;1.MARINA
• NW. 1
' ELEMENTARY -I
SCHOOL I
MIAMI CEMETARY
I91SCl44.1E . BAY R
IDENTIAL
MIDTOWN
RETAIL
CORE
MIAMI HERALD
HOTEL ROW
BAYFRONT PARK
LIBRARY
DOWNTOWN
OFFICE CORE
DOWNTOWN
RETAIL CORE
CLAUGHTON ISLAND'
FUNCTIONAL AREAS
1
5.0
DOWNTOWN
MIAMI
1973
v
r
manor
5.1 PUNCt ONAL AREAS AND LINKAGES
Reflecting the historic development of the
city and the f!Inc tional and economic requirements
of different uses, Areas can he delineated which Have
similar characteristics. Each of the sub -areas de-
scribe, I below are integrated parts of the existing
Downtown socio-economic and functional structure..
Some of these dreas, such as the Office Core, will
play a significant role in the future development of
Downtown. Oilier areas, which are becoming ob-
solescent with changing regional economic and
activity structures and evolving requirements of the
activities themselves, are becoming less significant
and will provide opportunities lot change.
The Downtown Office Cope
The general location of the Downtown Office
Core is along Flagler Street and S.E. 1st Street with
concentrations of office employment from the
County Court House to Biscayne Boulevard. Approx-
imately 4 million square feet of of lice space is in
this area, representing 42' of the regional Inventory
and srlppor ling 20,000 employees. The center of of-
fice activity is shifting to the east of East 2nd Ave-
nue, where most recent construction has occurred.
Intensity of office development along Flagler
Street generally falls within Floor Area Ratios
(F.A.R.) of 8 to 12. Along Biscayne Boulevard
intensities are higher: 100 North Biscayne Building
has an F.A.R. of 24. Building sizes along Flagler
Street are relatively small, averaging 150,000
square feet with average-: per floor leasable areas of
10,000 square feet. Recent office buildings
rn iented toward Biscayne Boulevard reflect size
ranges for prime nftice space built in other
cities: 100 North Biscayne, 325,000 square feet;
100 South Biscayne, 350,000 square feet; First
Federal Building, 480,000 square feet; and One
Biscayne Tower, 750,000 square feet.
Activity patterns within the Office Core
are weighted toward banking, savings and loan
institutions, and other financial activities.
Ground floor spaces ate generally active; that is,
thCry are occupied by retail, service establishments
or banking chambers. Recent buildings have
parking under or attached to the office space;
older structures rely on the large supply of sur-
face Larking to the north and south of Flagler
Street. However, as new office space is built, an
ever increasing demand for new parking will require
54
m(IltIple level ;tru(:tllr(!s to meet alll (Day par king tr
(�d i1 e111I111 ts.
Downtown Retail Core
The Downtown Retail Core is oho of a tii fiber
of siflnificdiit retail cnncentra(ioris in the region, in-
cluding It (:entree business districts stu:h as Cora!
Gables and 111ore recent regional shopping centers
such as Dr1 Inland Mall. The Flagler Street Area has
traditionally served as a retail center for the coi inal
area of Mianli. This function continues turkey, and
Downtown shoppers ale predominantly Blank: and
Spanish-speaking. Spanish-speakuiq. However, the groat ti(IlllbCr Of
patrons has kept Downtown retail sales relatively
stable?. The (trovinit concentration OI of lice workers
arir ilew iCSitf(tntiill development sh0111(1,IISo servo
t(.) keep retail steles stilk)ilite(J.
Four (iegar tII ??nt stores located near the inter-
section of Miami Avelino and Flagler Street form
the center of the Coro with apparel slops Iyind
east along Flagler and alon(i Miami Avenue. Other
reiail and service establishments aro located along
N.E. and S.E. 1st Streets and alonet the streets Inter
Sac:tinll Flagler. Acc:oriing to t11e Doxiadis Stlicfy,12
the C.B.D. hail S107,144,000 in sales in 1964. This
was about SG0 pet square font. The r.ropused ret<ii1
(l('veloplllerit at Pla/a V('netiaa may affect the DOl•,iti-
tt.)wrl Retail Core, h0vvever, increased of lice devel-
opment and good ir;insit access call sustain both
Ceill('I8.
The acci1Ss to Drat king by She; 411!1 s i5 an(1t11er
(:ritic.al factor in determining tll(+ hum eof the Hag-
ler Street b+isinesses. New of lice construction will
add demand to existing parking garages arid I)<)ssibly
slake auto access to the Retail Core oven more
difficalit than it is today.
Midtown Core
Jordan Marsh, Jeffersons and Sears Doomtiller-it
Stores form Iho n1_icleus of the Midtown Coro, cOm-
I)lenlented by the Lindsay Hotakins Education Con.
ter and the Miami Herald Btul(ling. tlritti theiaddition
of the proposed Pia/a Venetia, this illea will 1)tl Or III
I�)f the largest activity concentrations in the region
employing over 8,000. It is an automobile oriented
center relating to the region, par tic::ularly the residen
teal areas 111 Biscayne Bay aril Miami Beacli aciOSS the
Venetia) Causeway. Although the Midtown Core is
an inters(? recjion3l rie09lot)r11(?n1, tilt! pi0r10S4 (l rrt)i(i
55
trlrrsit network shows no plains for a stop) near the
Midtown Core. This weans the majority of the 8,000
employees will continue to rely on aldomobile access,
(r isiirtq ins routes, or the minibus system.
P.E.C. Railroad Manufacturing, Wholesaling
and Warehousing
The concentration of manufacturing, whole-
saling .lntl warehousing originally devoiofaecl along
the F.E.C. Railroad and the Municipal Railroadl in
c0iljnn, Dior! '.vith the old Port of Miami and as a
Sr?tviCe area to the Downtown Office and Retail
Cores. This corridot externs to the north of the
Study Area, to the Garment Center, and to the
west along the Seaboalr.l Coastline RailroadI an(i N.N.
20th Street. Since warehousing is the pre(lonlinant
use within this corn i�:1Or, the labor force is relatively
low, totaling less than 1,800 employees. Other
significant e'nllltoyni(?rlt areas exist along the railroad
north of the Shifty Area. MI101 01 th(? ,area is cur-
rently vacant Or rinclt'r(rtili/e 1.
Hotel Row
Hotel Row, hooting f3m,'iront Park along
Biscayne Boulevard from Flagler Street to N.E- 7th
Street, consists c)1 large, t>lift?r hotels which yvete
!10'o1i)t?1'(i for resort acio It111O ',dhotis near the Miami
RI?tdil Core aril BIsca1Vrie Bay. Miallll Beach has
r1-?(1(Ice; the area's significance il`i ]'•.willt(!i resort; MIL
)r1St'(t!li"lt1y, tell! Ilt)tt'IS Itavt-.' f!I1l(:tti!i('.1 pi ',Manly
Ir1 1e( erlt year aS aCCU!i1r110'I,atl''it1S for ViSitirlq
bl1811)1?SSrilell. Cur r+?Iltly, the heaiviest occupancy rate
IS 111 the 5(r111rner rllontfis, reflecting the iriciease of
tourists frr)m Latin America and Cuban visitors front
oiler areas of the United States vacationing in Miami.
5.2 RESIDENTIAL SUB -AREAS
There are four reSldentlal sub -areas in the
Study Area which are distinguishable 1)y population
(;1lclli1Ctr'riStiCS a)I)d 11(111$irlo lype13
NDP-3 Community
Lying sotith of 1-395 between 1-95 and the
F.E.C. Railroad, the NDP-3 Area within the Stilly
Arl?a has a population of approximately 7,000,
vo
occupying nlo(e than 2,100 thovelling units. Over
(19"� of th(' r(?sitlents ate Black. The majority of the
population is young with less than 10(', over 6'2_ years
of a(](?. Median family income is IOvv 4vit11 32(}.) Ot
the houselmI(Is fallinrl below the pr)ve.rty line. Over
°EA') 01 the labor force is unemployet_I Or tint interll-
l)IO�'( (1. 1110 rc?51l1Cnts are largely employed in retail
sales, seivic:es, arid (_Innlestic labor. A large prone),
tiun Of the families have female heads -of -household.
Housing types arr mixed with both single family
(.I('.tilCll(?(f anti walk-up illhlr tlll0llts rept esente(l Iri
significant nunlbets The Iesi(1Ontial (tensity of the
area averages 0V(_?i 40 l)eopl(? per gross rd(re. Met Ilan
household site is 3.3. The major non-resi(Iential
actlVltios 0(fliSistitl(1 of retail, entertillrlrnent, and
set vices lire located \within it commercial Strip along
N.\N. 2nd Street.
Area North of 1-395
An (u(?<I similar in physical composition to the
NDP-3 Area lies north of 1 395 below the Miami
Cenh(llery anti eilsl OI the F.E.C. R,iilrt)ir 1. H01,v(wer,
when comparett to the population within the NDP 3
Area, the resi(ltlrlts Stlt)\v greater (liversity: 15t a are
over 62 years of age, 1 3�'u are Black anti cii e
Spanish-speaking. Although the median fancily in-
come exceeds S7,100, over 20% of tire farllilies fall
below the pov(?r ty line.
Population Composition in the Study Area -- 1970
Thousands of Residents
4 t
2-
Total
7,678
3,219
n
I
Over 62 Black Spanish
2,965
20%
VINA
Downtown Residential Area
This area Iles within the Downtown Core and
nxt(?n(Is nor th to 1.395. The total population within
this area is n1pr Oxllllately 2,700 with an average
Ih(1usehold si/e of 1.2. The population is predomi-
nantly elderly With 45" (t over 62. Over 26" o of the
population is Black and 36";') is Spanish. The majority
of the population is located south of the F.E.C.
Rilllrod1, predominantly in residential or "retire-
ment" hotels. The inlnuai median family income is
over $5,200, but more than 20"'(1 of the households
fall below the Over ty line.
Biscayne Residential Area
The Biscayne Residential Area lying north of
1-395 and west 01 F3iSCityne Boulevar(I along the
Bay contains a Copulation of over 1,000. Less than
1('0 of the resitlr'rlts are Black; 26%are Spanish. Over
31% 01 the population is over 62. Although the
annual median family income is over $7,200, ap-
proximately of the residents fall below the
poverty lire(?. The Dousing types within the area in-
0lIt�le residential hotels nn(t many large single
family (iwellings c,onv(v tell to apartments.
Composition of Housing Stock Within the Study Area
w
Thousands of Dwelling Units
8 7,932
6
4
2
530
7%
j
6,173
78%
208
3%
I- -1
Total Single
Family
Units
10+ Owner
Units Occupied
56
i
,: i
,. • t. •i
CIVIW
CEP
.,s
y�v.
Vrt vs
e i♦i i
•
00.63.6"EBowl.,
LTILE HN.NA
.,
•
so
57
'y8 STREET COMERCiAL 4TRIP
•
Study Area
Retail Office
Commercial Strip
1.195
N71AL DEVELOPMENT
ON BI IGAYNE BAY
i
NTOWN
•
RTOOWN
� 395
••••••••••••••••••
••�
AYFRONT
ARK
CLAUGIITON
ISLAND
BRICKELL AVENUE
OFFICE.HOTEL. AND
RESIDENTIAL
RICKENBACKER CAUSEWAY
tit it
CBD CONTEXT: FUNCTIONAL AREAS
Warehouse, Manufacturing &Storage
Public Facilities
• • • • Proposed Rapid Transit
•
5.3 Cc NtExt AllEA
The functional dl('as within the Stuffy Area
also have soclo-(icOrlmlllc and functional linkages to
the surroundin; context drea. Those include the
following:
Context Area to the North
The Biscayne Boulevard Strip extending from
N.E. 17th Street to the Julia Tuttle Causeway an+i
be.vond is the location of many entertainment anri
restaurant activities yvithin the City of Miami. in-
d(lstrial areas along the F.E.C. Railroad and the
Garment Center between N.E. 24th an l N.E. 29th
Streets are major in -town, blue-collar employment
centers. The area from N.V. 14th to N.W. 22nd
Streets between N.W. 3rl Avenue and 1-95 is the
area of major NDP-3 offer Is to date, which consist
primarily of housing and 235.236 assiste,i
housing
Context Area to the West
The most significant activities west of the
Stuffy Area are the public facilities in the Civic
Center Area, including the Civic Center itself, the
Dude County Justice Buil�iirul, Jackson Memorial
Hospital, and the major sports facilities in Miami
incillfinct the Orange Bowl and Midnli St�l�tiurn.
Context Area to the Southwest
IO th''s011ttivwest of Stuffy Aron Is the
major conc.(,nirrtiorl of St)anisiespeaktug pota(ilati(>n
in the region. The area has furl tic)ntsi tIn
last ten years its d "halfway" housing iar(!d for Cuban
rrsltlgoes; the relatively low rents i.11l(1 Sparitsll-
speakinq businesses in the area allow families to
reestablish economic independence. Tarniarlir Trail
or S.W. 8th Street is the major commercial district
of this area anti includes many Cuban businesses,
services, (Titerlainnient lacilihos and restaurants.
Context Area to the South
Office, hotel and residential development along
Bracket Avenue to the south of the Study Area
functions as an extension of Downtown. There is
currently over one million square feet of existing
of lice space vwith 350,000 square feet under construc-
tion. Over 6,000 Linos of high rise luxury housing
are occupied or tinder construction. A recent Toning
study by the Miami City Planning Department14
surfrfesteti nor careful c:orrtrol of the Brickell
Avenue Area to return natural amenities, encourage
bettor tar ban ,lesign, and create control of off-street
parking.
Context Area to the East
The Port of Miami is a signif icant visual image
in Biscayne Bay awl is clearly visible along the full
length Of Biscayne Boulevard and Bayfront Park.
The new Port's potential (:economic relationship with
the Shady Area has not been exploited, but it
should increase hotel any I Iliotel occupancy and
could generate. a demand for additional rooms if
tour packages were arranged specifically to exploit
the Port -Biscayne Boulevard proximity.
5.4 EMPLOYMENT AND SPACE USE
The primary measure of activity within the
Study Area is employment and space use within
existing buildings, Although a detailed survey of
Do\vntown .as not a nart of this study, the Miami
City Planning Department produced detailed land
use information. 1973 employment was then gen-
erated by block from the following table:
Square Foot Per Employee by Uset5
Office and Finance Services
(Recent Office Space)
Manufacturing, Wholesale &
Warehouse
Retail
Transportation, Communication
& Utilities
Public & Institutional
Hotel and Motel
Gross Net
180 150
250
750
350
600
600
1 employee/room
Total employment in the Study Area in 1973
is 45,556. Employment activity in the Study Area is
dominated by office workers representing over 50%
of the total employees. Retail employment is 18%
with other categories employing less than 30%. This
58
a
a
—
a
•
•
• - i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
as
•- • •
• •
•
• •• •
• •
••i
•
•
•• •• • 1S•
•• •- • •••
• •• •• ••• •••• •
•• • •• ••• •• •
•
••••• �•� •_• • •• i ;
••••• ••• • •
•• ::i
•S •• ••••
•••
••
1972 EMPLOYEE DISTRIBUTION
• Existing Employees (250)
Under Construction and Committed
Proposed and Planned
59
s
d
• 111,6
66
•
. 6 6
we
es
,
6 - a
' f
• -
6 6 i 4 • a
- • • • 66 a '.
: 1 x •
•' I: • P
a a
1 :
II 6 IS III.
. , •
. • • E. was
I -
1 6 l' 66
# • a
• a .
• ""
a " .
. a. a i
. _ 1 • .
. g ill • .
is s
,..
' • • ••• e 0 '• 111 Al ••
.... ' •
I,
? .• ' •
' 0 - a . \ ill • . • • • '
• •
•
41 •
- -
• • • , • -
•••:-.7.17.%7 •
• •
ma a as
0
, a a as
• ...
,....
in Ea
I1D••
a
• •et...].1.•'•
1:• .• N.
.
iIr• Mi
a SD
ODMI mown
DID •• DION
Erns m :• NNONO D
• •la MOM •I : :.::::; ElWM •.1E
o laes et••
Ii•x\
•
1.:. .. •s
. • . I \\
\
-
,' ..
',.. •
• • •
• . •
• • • •4•1 •.• •
• ..y.W•011141.,
MEI grins up imissese i •
',.!,•_;•5•.:* • 4
• • nu E... OWN=
- , .. •WIDWIWr. SIM IDDIMION MOM =UM
ad
a
A r
• Existing Parking 50 spaces
• Under Construction & Con ted
Proposed& Planned
1 ...,
1., 6 6 • • 6.6 a 6
ow .• av •
• la • ...
a 2
.. . a- a ao .1i 66
I - or i • ILI 9 •
- , a - - so • a
2 2 i
• I
• .
i• . . . .. . . 6 i. ...
quu
• 666
11
1
o a
000
• ,
•
•
mans •
• t, ens
• •• ••••
• - a
••••• • •• •Elm
•• ••• •
maw .•
mir • nail
Eno
I •
1972 PARKING
•
60
OCCUPIED SQUARE FootAGE - 19/2
1'
t I!
2 880 100
111
1 t
.1
517 900
• ::t• • :I': : :
4 300 000
.• ::1:::1.
ti::::•:::
i;
2,284,100
is t
t: 21
tl•
CBD 9,087,500
1 055 500
431 500
s.
I: •
STUDY AREA 15,177,100
4.000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,554,000
1,000,000
.0. ... 4 .
Manufac
Wholesale,
Warehouse
750 sq.f t./
Employee
General
Retail
350 sq tt /
Employee
Services
250 sq.( t I
Employee
Office Transp
Commun
Finance
180 sq.t ./ 600 sq, f t
EmplOyee Employee
Public,
Institution
600 sq f
Employee
Entertain
Recreation,
Eating,
Drinking
350 sq.f t ./
Employee
1 Employee/
2 Rooms
3,640
8,230
2,070
23.830
STUDY AREA EMPLOYMENT - 1972
3,800
1,750
1,230
1,013
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
CBD 32,858 STUDY AREA 45,556
DOWNTOWN MIAMI EMPLOYMENT AND SPACE USE
61
conc(.entratiOn r)f e'n)piip,,,me''nt Is i.h,)rarteri:,tit. ir!
Central E31)sirlc ss Distrlc_ts In gene'rai dint reflr-r tom,
Dovvnte)wn Miilrlll's tirovving'spet`I,Iiization a'; tt}e.
region's Office:' Corer.
Employment Concentrations
Over 70"'Of the Shirty Arl1,1 r'rnplr(y,v t
in an aUPa b(}twee!n North ruui SO+lth Strr't't ,
from the F E C. Railroad 1c) [3iscriyne Rr)I11eygar I
This Downtown Core is! dominated by t)ftlir":':Oft.
although it substantial MI I1 her of retail
work in the four departin nt stores and related retail
along Flaglei Sheet. Thn (}then major nrtlt)loynxlnt
cc.mcentrahorl, with more than 12r'i, of the Study Area
r2mpdoyrn(1nt, is the Miditown Core. These wor kegs
are rlloStdy r('11r111 er1lpIOynes w1t11 a S(IhStantial rllimht'r
working at the Miami Herald in bath manufact(Irmg
find office sectors.
Space Concentrations
The intensity of space use is calculated by
the ratio of Hoot area within a building to thet land
ilpon \which it sets 1 his intensity is referred to as
Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) and is a component of
most zoning cocfris. As an example of F.A.R., rhr'
new tit1Ve10pnlel)1 (.)f twc) officer buildings at Flagler
Street and Biscayne Buirl(ry-dr(1 will have 1,230,000
square feet of of lice space on a site apirrc}xinlate.ly
90,000 square feret. The F.A.R., not inclr)ding 14Ir t:
mg, is 13.7. This Klock yA.Ill rontiain more employees
than any other (,)lock in the Sturdy Area. Cr>nc:e,ntr,1-
tinns of spac:e ilre also high along Flagler Stree.rt and
on Biscayne B011le,van.l below N.E. (jth Street. The
total o(.CIIpIi'd 11011-reSI(fe'rltlr)t 311a(.ti 111 the Si(rd'
Area was 15,177,100 sgllilrer feet in 1973
5.5 EXISTING CONDITIONS DOWNTOWN
Downtown con(ii1ions in 1973 provide a basis
for formulating goals and objectives, space lore-
e.asting, and determining what directions of change
are possible.
Downtown Miami is a Specialized Core of
the Region
The autrnnohile has been a major deter inerrant
ut the form arld character of the Miami Region; the
same is tr;lel fr)r Downtown. Traditional Downtown
,I(.tivitic,s exist both within the. Study Area rind in
its context area. Often rc)nlplementary activities are
wclr=t y separated, such as the daytime office ern-
t'Ir )`; tnent Orl Flagler Street and concentrations of
re,,t,I(Maots on North Biscayne Boulevard, Few
p('r)pl'',wlrn or expeci Downtown Miami to become
a tr,r central city; the region is too varied and
other existing activity concentrations will remain and
pre )st'('l Yet Downtown needs to balance its heavy
daynrul l Ise with (evening activity, its poorer neighbor-
hoods with a diverse relsi,fential population.
Parking Lots Interrupt the Continuity of
Downtown
Development intensity drops aim uptly north
and south of Flagler Street and west of Hotel Row
OtI Bisca'yrne Boulevard. This fringe area now has it
pr il)lary function as sill face parking lots. This is
of ten the (;ISO when speculation increases, since a
parking lot h"e(1uently offers a developer the greatest
silort-te)rn1 net re'tut n. However, this condition
interrupts Downtown a(tivities, leaving areas of
Downtown unsupported by other functions. This is
tile Case today witil Dupont Plaza and the vacant
land along Biscayne Rotdevard across from the old
Large Underutilized Areas Exist in Downtown
The Miami Riverh ont, the manufacturing-whole-
safirlq-yyarehnusing district north of N.E. bth Street,
and the area west of the F.E.C. Railroad along Flagler
Street await underutilized today. These areas ell
hive d pnlenlial for change or revitalization, but
rrlajur pribliC improvements are necessary to stimu-
late action. One example is the planned Government
Center.
Restricted Opportunity for Diverse Groups to
Live Downtown
The existing housing areas in Downtown serve
primarily low and moderate income minority groups:
elderly, Black and Spanish-speaking. New housing in
the surrounding area is primarily subsidized or public
housing; the exception is along the high amenity bay -
front 1)0r111 and south of the Study Area.
62
Potential Downtown Environmental Quality
Is Unrealized
The edge Of Biscayne f3ay (l( lets an excellent
damnify, and new develt)prnetit is responding. Im-
provertmril of the Miami River front and Hagler Street
area now underway. However, ad(litiona1 improve
merits ale requited to brin(1 the Downtown mutton
silent t(.) Its potential: extensive use of vertatlota to
shade pedestrian streets, covered pedestrian walk-
ways, Downtown parks tO provide areas for relaxa-
tion, .inrl reduction of conflict between pedestrian
and iraffi(, movement.
Traffic Congestion
To date Miami has not been faced with an
entae system of ovo.lr capacity streets, However, the
he(flnnrtlgs ate c?Vlde(11 in Dupont Plaza i.1rl(1 along
Notih Biscayne Boulevard. Pal king location in
relation to street CdpaCit`yy IS also i critical issue that
nllrst be dealt with immediately. Tim anticipa10 1
problems of peak heir traf tic, gerwratecl by parking
( oncentr,ations at One Biscayne Tower .ur.t the
First Federal BuiI(ling, must he solved in the short-
railge and he stimulus for continuous examination
of parking flr)Ilcics.
5.6 EXISTING ZONING
The present /'unm,l regulations for the Miami
CBD are in ream; rccst'r'i. to develop
tenet goals. Tile +.,So rc;lIilii+tious al OW C-3 District
are is (loOt1 ('xrar mle. The IIi(.1',Irit1 level setback re-
rluirenleuts of ()that i omineo i,at dish r(,ts are also
,.:•„„ l ('t'lI1C( [`'(:'-1 1Ve sit ii!r(' (l)Mil )f, 1 primarily
with this zoning reijoi,ations'shcJrlc:onliruls.
1. EXCESSIVE BULK ALLO11(ANCE: The
C 3 Distr ict has no floor area ratio c..ontrol and
only ;I :300 felo1 height limit. hr'Ith no coverage
rerl:iioent, buildings with FAR's of 30 are <a
pOssit)ility. Tiro, o:`i.( concentration of high in
tensity d vcrlof)nlunt permitted by 1tloso,ngirla-
ito1IS Can r(?S+11t in massive vehicular Ira( lc con-
gestion, light .roll air olistrur.tii_rns, ecological
tuol,iems of air pollution aft! IlnneC('ssaly nett
ostri an
2. EXCESSIVE LAND ALLOCATION FOR
HIGH INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT-. The 160
acres of net lanai (110a (1OVV /Un('(.1 C•.3 are VaStly
In i..a.t..ess Of the ianloilrlt needed to meet thirst(
63
of lice! space (iernan(ts. Even at an average FAR
of 10, only 12 acres would be needed t(:) meet
th( forecast of 5,200,000 square feet Of floor
space for the Stuffy Area by 1985. Such an over-
supply of C-3 zoned land tends to sterilize major
portions of the ,area hccause of unjustified future
expectations of growth potential, while permit-
ting spotty hiclh r ise development on inapprop-
riate sites.
:3. LACK OF A MEDIUM BULK DISTRICT:
There is no district except the C-3 which per-
mits development at greater hulk than FAR 2.
As arc stif t, any Hart of Downtown where a higher
bulk is justified would have to he zoned C-3,
an inappropriate district for an area such as
Playa Venetia.
4. ABSENCE OF CONTROLS FOR IMPLE-
MENTING PARKING POLICY: The C-3 District
contains no parking requirements. Although the
,amount and location of parking facilities pro-
vided voluntarily are conlrollecf by conditional
use procedure, illis is far short of what is
needed. In other districts developers are respon-
sihl(+ for providinc) the parkinrl they generate.
TIory should have a similar responsibility in the
C-3 District vvitllin limits and guidelines designed
to implement a special parking policy for the CBD.
5. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS UNDULY
RESTRICTED: Both the district regulations and
the district mapping discourage residential de-
velopment in the Study Area. The C-3 Distr ict
COntrolS at modeled t(n closely on the controls
appropriate (or outlying clevelopmer its. Sorne
ateas suite{ to residential ?levelopllaent are
zone} C-4 or C-5 which prohibit residential use.
6. EXCESSIVE LAND ALLOCATION FOR
INDUSTRY AND SERVICES: An unrealistically
large amount of land outside the C-3 Districts
has been allocated for service, and Ind(IStrial
IISes as reflected in C-4 and C-5 District mapping.
7. NEEDED FACILITIES, SERVICES AND
AMENITIES NEGLECTED: The C--3 District,
whcrc the hillileS1 density of developnic)rlt is
permitted, has no provisions requiring or en-
couraging needed pedestrian iacilities, services
and amenities, such as a planned systelil of
landscaped paths in non-residential develop-
ments. None of the districts mapped in or
near the Downtown and Midtown Cores re-
(lttire or encourage provision of the kinds of
sucf1 facilities that are needed and that can be
secured through innovative zoning devices.
I •
•
b
_ by
EXISTING ZONING
64
6.0
FUTURE
OF
DOWNTOWN
65
6.1 GOALS FOR OOWNtOWN
Tho future of Dowrltuwn has been forecast in
several previous Flans and reports. The 1967 Doxiadis
Plan16 and the 1060 Magic City Center Plant" are the
most Comprehensive, hilt oilier reports, such as the
Development Plan for N.D.P. Area 318, City of
Mi,lrni C.R.Pf9 , and the Miami Urban Area Trans-
portation Plarr20, Present detailed goals and recom-
mendations for they improvement of Downtown. From
an examination of previous plans the following goals
were the most frequently stated, have received wide
support, and relate directly to the Zoning Study:
(For a complete summary of previolISly published
goals See the Appendix, Section 1.)
Increase Downtown Employment
Increase Downtown Residential Development
Improve the Quality of the Downtown
Environment
Improve Movement Through and Within
Downtown
6.2 FACTORS INFLUENCING DOWNTOWN
EMPLOYMENT
The achievement of the goals for Downtown
depends upon certain factors which constrain or
llronulte development.
Development Is a Function of Regional
Population and Employment Growth
Since Downtown is an integral part of the Dade
County Region, its growth will correspond to regional
development. The Downtown share of the growth is
expressed as an "attraction rate". Thus the attraction
rate of the Study Area depends on its success in
competition with other areas such as Coral Gables,
North Miami Beach and Miami Beach.
Development Depends on Relative Accessibility
Downtown presently has the hest access In the
region by auto and by bus. However, congestion
is beginning to grow at peak hour, which can con-
strain future development intensity or discourage
1fentiill developers from locating within the' Stuffy Appendix, Set non 2, for ttlt
Area, In areas of high development intensity the
vehicular circulation system to and froln parking
concentrations is also irliptirtont in toting accessi-
bility. Unless employees r<lt) 1i10 i)arkillg within a
short distance horn their place of et111)foyment, the
relative attractiveness of that building site tlimin-
ishr's, Also, IlIP proposed tnass ra;)ir1 ttansit networf:
could (greatly iniptove the ;iCcessihility of the Study
Area; it !educe the reliarueoil the. I I11nnobile.
Development Depends on Specialized
Activities not Available Elsewhere in the Region
Recent public improvements such as the Bay -
front Park, Miami River \Valk and similar arneritties
will increase the rtt•t1EtCtiv(>ness (.)f Downtown fat
(:orrimer(:ia1 and residOniial development, In addition,
the establishment of a Government Center Vv'lll
of ter Special attraction for law offices, real estate
and finance ofiicr's and other businesses re(fuir mg
r;lsy access to these specialized activities.
Development Activities Require Specific
Economies Related to Location Which They
Can Afford
The nature of conducting business tot lay requires
corl;fin lard uses to locate in the Dov.intl)Wrl Core.
These are (nostl.,; prime office uses which can aflotti
tO pay the higll('st rent tot their location. As tt'ch-
1101ogy (;harl(les, other land lls0S may (-Orllpl'te for
the highest ititerisily areas or lua;/timent tt't;hnolt;gy
11)dV' teiilf((' irlr:? i1 (1l)Iln111 'lit tot stlCh (:11JS' 01)xltl)IIV.
HOWeVel, in 111eshot t•l,itot', 111p I(,cdtion,1t r(1(111ir('-
111e11iS of r11U51 (1t:tiVltlt's r:,]tl 10 rt'asotlaf)iy ptte.
(licfe(i oil l;Itl(1 v;rlur', ,1c, +sSII((I11V, an,( amenity
re+.lilirt'lnt'nts of the activity.
6.3 DOWNTOWN SPACE FORECAST 1973-1985
The 11)1i ist fug sp;1(:(' and (ictivih(s in tffe
Study Arita lot the 1')/3 193Ei period is based upon
work: l)r (11,11 'd 1)',' Gladstone Associates, "Long Range
Development Potc'nhals for tilt' nni,lnli CBD". The
foret.,,sts art. 1)i I111;11Ily Iel,1i(1 t() Otf100 d1'VekOpnlel)t
Sin(!' O111c1'S,uc ihc' most significant generators to
auxiliary ileV4 11p1non1 Mk) yrowih cunclilions. Olht'r
a(:tn/ities Wele !items( to I orte51On(1 10 111gh and
Hy,/ ►rin(1)IS (At p0it'l(1011 (111i0e t0( 0lof)rrterrt. (Si'(' the
Office
GIri'1stnrle Morita.)
The Miami Region is c;lirrently experiencing
a tiratl)ahc upsIrg(' In raffia' development. During the
19(i(J's the average annual regional growth was
d1:3,U09 sgtrat tt feet with a lotiv of 132,000 square
let'( in 1 O(.i0. In 1969 of licit development increased
1O ;ill historic high r;)f over 1,200,000 square legit,
;lull totla'y' another 1,60U,000 square feet of leasable
spa((' is under coristrti(:tion.
However, (luring the 1960's the terlt_lency was
to cons(ru(t r)tfice space outside Downtown. Informed
sources estimate that over 70', of office growth
of:1: bred outside the Ci D, rlolitlly in Coral Gables
and the vicinity of the a111)011. MOIII recently, the
pull Of levt.'lopment aw;l'' from the Downtown Area
has been increased Vvilh the int('-i1Se development of
Car rt.keil Avenue ;11)d the development of Several
s1lbur l,an off ice parks, located along expressways.
it is interesting, however, that ,11 the !)resent time
development activity in the DOWI1I(.)wri Core has
root:lied ;in all time. high. This is due, of course, to
two buildings: the First Federal building and One
Biscayne Tower, containing a total of over 1,000,000
square feet.
This dromafit: growth in Downtown and the
rerti(.)rl is subject to two possible interplOtdtions. 0n
Ito' one Gant(, ;1 cautions observer (flight conclude
that 1,600,000 square feet of new office space
t('icr(!sents a lisilstrous over •supply, !liven past trends
111 Miami, and tlliit three to five years will pass before
demand is able to (;itch up again with supply. The
Iesult could mean a stagnation of office building
activity in Miami for period of lvvo to three years.
Furthermore, the potentials for brickell Avenue,
Coral Gables, the airport, and off ice parks could con-
tinue to outweigh the potentials of the Downtown
Coro_ Consequently, the two nevv buildings Down-
town rnitilit be viewed as an aberration and indeed
could stifle rather than encourage further develop-
ment activity in tfie Downtown Core.
On the other hand, an optimist might view
Iliesc trends as a sharp break with the past --- the
beginning of a new vigorous growth period for
(If otter Miiinli and particularly for the Downtown
Core. A number of factors could be cited to support.
this optimism: the growing Miami economy, the
expansion of many existing firms, the relocation of
corporate hea':iquarters to Miami, the waterfront
Palk, the Port, Miami -Dade Community College, and
66
OFFICE
MODULE Foal
Federal Bldg
480,000 s.f. .
14
RETAIL/
SERVICE
MODULE Jefferson's
60.000 s.f.
HOTEL/
MOTEL
MODULE Havarti
Johnson's
200 Rooms
RESIDENTIAL•
HI RISE
MODULE Reza
Venetia
350 Urns
RESIDENTIAL-
LO RISE
MODULE Prototvde
50 Units
GOVERNMENT
OFFICE
MODULE_ Federal
8149. 240,000 S F.
COMMITTED
I'
1,300.000 5F
L_ J C
eni col
613.000 SF
)40 Rooms
860 Linos
LOW FORECAST
NET 1913.85 ADDITION
I I 1
eTP
2,500.000 SF
80.000 SF
200 Rooms
S II
1B00 Units
1g�
1,000,000 Si
HIGH FORECAST
NET I9738@
6,500,000 SF
C" e"10 CO
180.000 SF
c
600 Rooms
6100 Uni8
1.000.000 SF
MIAMI CBD SPACE FORECAST 1972 - 1985
I9S LOW SPACE FORECAST • COMMITTED 1 LOW FORECAST
1965 HIGH SPACE FORECAST = COMMITTED. HIGH FORECAST
67
the rapid transit system, Accepting this thesis, Miami
is just commit into its own following such pmeedents
as Atlanta or Washington; and the new ccinstHiction
represents Only the begiruling of a natural expansion
that is simply a few years behind that of Other sim-
ilar (:hies.
In interviews vwith informed citizens and busi-
ness leaders in Miami, both views were expressed
vviih certainty and conviction. In the short -mil Ow
pessimists may prove; correct in that there wilt hr'
high of hC(' VaCan(:y rates in tI)i clear future as the two
major Hew buildings 1t :nine nonce avaitahle for
occupancy: Both of the new huildin(js, for instance,
appear to be attracting their tenants primarily from
older hr,ildirigs currently located in Downtown.
Interviews with leasing agents of these lrtrilclincts re-
vealecl That n(wv f ours 1110Ving 10 Mianli are not yet
locating Downtown Elul elsewhere, art, 1 firms which
currently rent spacer in Coral Gables or near Ilie
airport dri riot wish lc) change their location. The
resell is that the only true competitive at ea vviih
Downtown is f3rickell Avenue, which is taking more
tenants away from Dcr:vrrtown than it is rell.irning.
Since the firms locating in the new buildings are the
typical firms found Downtown, attorneys, (inks,
CPA's, realtors, stockbrokers, ,uul since they are
vacating older space DowntrAvri, vacancy rates could
Increase dramatically in the near Hittite, tlal h,lllarly
Downtown.
On the oth(lr hand, Downtown Miami will
plohably begirt to experienced ji titi l of new ,11111
vigorous growth in Ijie next three to bye years gen-
erangl primarily try other! spice. It c(t itd o plic.att
it pent(?rn \J111(:II ;Vas esLahJI5t1' _I .`Htin(t the 1960's
ire many oilier Easter n cities, notably Boston,
Philad(�Iphia, Wasilinittrtn, aft) Atlanta. The fael
that two prestige buildings were constructed Down-
town is evidence of a change, and there are plans
underway for more builtlirrjs. The mass rapid transit
system, Bayfront Park, new parking and knot ove f
vehicular access, the Pori, an'i an overall improv(,,
merit in 1he Downtown environment will increase
the attractiveness of Downtown relative to nlore
distant areas, which also have increasing land costs
and diminishing anlo(mts of deVel(ipable land. Long -
ter r potentiate retrain strong for office development
Downtown.
Residential
The housing market in the Miami Region is
exceptionally strong. During Elie 1960's, over 15,000
r lvvelhrlgs were corlstrt l(::t''t 1 each year; almost 70%
of these were multi -fancily units. Housing develop-
ment reaclierl a peak in 1969 when almost 27,000
units wore conshucie1.21 This development, of
course, has been primarily a suburban phenomenon;
little new }lousing was built in the Miami Central
Area; the major exceptions are the subsidized housing
in the NDP-3 Area and high rise, tipper income
housing on Brickell Avenue to the south.
The residential forecast is based on tfleassump-
tion that living Downtown in close proximity to
one's omployment appeals to a small bit significant
rnirlority of people: "empty nesters", young single
and married professionals, aft! other groups accus-
tomed to urban living; and, given an attractive living
environment. Downtown, these people can be
attracted to Downtown.
With office development approximating the
low forecast, there is a potential for development of
upper income housing in the Study Area, assuming
increase)] vitality of Downtown, mass transit, and
improvements of the Bayfront and Miami River
frontage. These units would be focused on the
waterfront and vvoiitd take the form of high and
rliedl(Inl rise rental and piIrChase apartments. By
1985, there is a poteritial for as many as 2,000
units. While apartments or condominiums constructed
along Biscayne Boulevard would compel() with
similar developments along Br ickell Avenue, the
&rfeti incentive of easy walking (listance to employ-
ment an!! new Bayfront Park could attract high
irlterisity tI;r,.
W1'ith office development approaching the high
forecast, much more significant residential develop-
ment Is possible, perhaps a large scale, moderate
density, Inixel incolno developri enl st.ich as a never•
town•itl-town. The significant increase in Downtown
employment would produce a "captive" market for
Downtown residential living, This assumes that a
significant nurnber of people, if given the oppor-
tunity, would live close to their work and close to
a vital Downtown. To achieve such a dramatic
change, major public intervention in the form of
land assembly, financing and policy incentives
would be required.
Retail
Retail development in Downtown in the 1973-
1985 period is forecast in two types. Space designed
to serve the Downtown work force will be constructed
on the ground floor of new office buildings. For
68
example, with an annual increase of 400,000 square
feet of office space, the high forecast, as much as
15,000 square feet of retail space could be antici-
pated on an annual basis. Retail space will also he
constructed to serve nF)w Downtown residents. An
increase of 2,000 high rise luxury dwelling units
could support 30,000 sclueite feet 01 ni w retail space;
a larger mixed Income residential development of
7,000 units could support as much as 1'20,000
SCivarte feet of new retail stare,
Hotel and Motel
As a 1011r1St Centi.r , Miami has mote hotel
space than other cities of similar sire. Nevertheless,
a revitalized Dowri1ov.vn vii) )notldbly ri'.Stilt in a
irioderatri increase in hotel units; however, rather
than a substantial increase in number, of I(.,Orns,
renovation and replacement t)i older hotels wail
prat)ably occur. With the low office spa(-:(r forecast
240 rooms could be expecte(.i; that hi(lh forecast
could he ihtce times that estirnirtt'.
Miami Regional and Downtown Office Forecast
25.600,000
JI
Regional High
10,000,000
15,800,000
Regional Low
9,500,000
Study Area Hi
6,900,000
4,300,000 Study Area Lo
1972 1975 1980
(Source: Gladstone Associates,
69
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
Conclusions
T11tsitlnlhcancir h Dowr,to+,vn c)rowth over
the nWY.t 1(,Ca, Siluulcl riot be un(itrrestimated. An
enitiloyrni:nt increase of over 50',b an( 1 a pop(rlation
111( rease (1t 40`.n (Jr more it flcates a potential
for i1 vital regional canter. Downtown Miami could
(:onlhirly intense ilevi lopment, day and night urban
activity-, a diverse population and unequaled ameni.
ties. viiver, to achieve this IieVV Downtown,
action must be taken to impr(.)V(, e.xiStitlrl qualities
an(I to proceed rapidly with necessary public im-
proVi.t 1II'Rts in Ot(lei to attract nr:Av development,
,tn;l to cot inol growth so Downtown will become
proitressively a Inot.' attractive arid desirable center
to work, live and play.
Downtown Employment, 1973-1985
100 4
90 I
80
v 70
0
E 60
0
50
c
o 40
30
in 80 838
Ln
n 73,098 N.
tN 1 Net (-Iisi
ti, Added d
a 12,830) a.
E Committed E
w . 6,625) u'
— d Govt. C. v
2 — (8,080) Z
To 7.2
0 ►0-
20 -
10
Existing
Empl.
(45,563)
Net
Added
Empl.
(20,570)
88,578
0
ri
a
i
O
Committed
(6,625) w
Govt. C. d
(8,080) Z
0
H
Existing
Empl.
(45,563)
Net
Added
Empl.
(28,310)
Committed
_ (6,625)
Govt. Center
(8,080)
Existing
Empl.
145,563)
1985 Low Forecast Moderate Forecast
High Forecast
� 7,0
BASIS
a FOR
w CHANGE
r
r
r
7.1 THE PROCESS OF CHANGE AND METHOD
OF ANALYSIS
DOvntni°vrt Is constantly uri(ierquinq a process
Of ('liailtle. The most visible chanties are structural:
older Puddings ate demolished to make way for
newer, larger ones; expressways ate built and land is
cleated. F(.luiltly irnoortant are; activity changes:
businesses expand ,art(! contract their space, move,
Mild go out of business. Those "invisible" movements
occur vw'ithin the physical structure of the city. For
example, it residence may have acc)rrrlaodated in its
liietime a rich family, several poorer families, stood
Vil(-lent illl!I I1(_)W IS Used dS professional offices or by
whul,!salo distributor. A business may begin in a
small left, expand into an Alder of lice building and
eventually (tc(: ipy a floor, Of perhat)s several floors,
of a,rio.v i)r erne of lice building.
The constant process o1 growth, adaptation an(I
decline t;han(les the city in response to evolving
economic and social needs. When structural changes
lag het intl activity change or when the social, eco-
nomic or environ1i11etltal irlapacts O1 new development
are not teemed in the irltorest of the public, then
public intervention in any nurllher ui forms for
many different purposes is warranted. Determining
an({ (valuating the direction of change in Downtown
is a prerequisite for designing public intervention
nlet.hattisnls, whether for tonitl+l, rlrhiln renewal, or
direct 1)11h1ic invesireeni and tlevclOpmcrlt.
The rtletklork)logy tO describe the basis for
Ohuge for the Miami Ct3D was first developed by
\V'MRT lot the Lower Manhattan Plan and further
developer h)r the Baltimore Menocerlter22 and
Central City Los Angeles' Plans.23 The "Susceptibility
to Change"' and "Probability of New Developments"
analyses, which ale Include,f Ire this chapter, describe
the possible areas of new gro\vtfr and the probable
direction of neyv itt?VelOt)rnerlt. This iS the basis for
evaluating the short-range 1utute. In the next section,
"Probability GI 0wttl M0(f0I" ecorwnaic and trans-
om tation constraints are developed which are com-
hint:d with the space forecast and the basis for
ll1i1ll(1(! analyses tO define opportunity areas. This
forms tlie basis for the Urban Design Concept Plan
and the Zoning Plan.
7.2 NON-RESIDENTIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY TO
CHANGE
"Susceptibility to Change" analysis first clas-
sifies a building in terms of likelihood or desirability
70
!"1 Long Range Givens
1::11 Middle Range Givens
71
EXISTING GIVENS
ki
9
7a"1 ' �`•1
1- 1
.a?I n .1 4 1
'a11'
m
1S -
fair
711
n
•
RESIDENTIAL
72
1
I:)1 Its permanence. tA111.1t is its life expectancy in
terrns of the sir u(:t(n(I's dlhysival condition-) The
analytic method is an apf)roxunation of proper 1v
appraisal procedures that a5slltTle5
rnnlerrl building is more resistdutt to demolition
than an old, small, Obsolescent huil(llnl. All build-
ings were (: sidr'retl incllvidually. Thou respe(_tiv
locations and the fact that they are in various ionint
classifications, hr+ve varir)trs present nmarket poten-
tials and tax pressures were not expli(itly considered
in terms ul investment leasil)ility arrl development
opportunities.
Resitlerltr rl uses respond to fill CPS in a
diIferent mariner thin non-residential uses. Although
most under housing is very susceptible to rtringe, the
residents of any given nei(tlit)Orfltood are usually
deeply concerned about such change and should l
Involved I11 any tf?comm1?rltleltrOns, FOr this reason,
c)rily I lOrl-re`.iidetitiill uses were examined for sus
Cept11)111ty.
Br Hiding si,e, a combination of heitlht and gross
square footage per flour, was the first cx)usideration.
This assumes that, oilier considerations remainnirl(t
equal, tall, largo buildings,rre less likely to chsrntn
thin) lo'r,,, small Loll (.111) 1s and therelore Itav(-. a longer
life expectancy. Eleven conhinations of hei(111t and
floor spa'e were established to cldssi Iv each structure.
I-1 lorl('i111',' ,in l architecturally significant
builtiirlgs Wew the second rllajor consideration. These
vl'(q(' II1Ir11ediittO;' classified as least slisceptrhle t0
chant(.,anei not subjected to fur tiler evaluation,
In ad(lition 1(.) the (:,Il(1t1Or ies af.)ove, a weighting
`i`,'st/'rll was e' tlltJllsiietd Inn ,1 Srrr des kit "S'.'t't111(.1,lr•y/
cl iar.a(aer ist ics. These t.har a( ter ist l( s, d(_'r lv' l holm
serc)rrfan/ alto' elation so:uces, are lisle,d (.)elt)w with
their plus and r,Thnts.
Secondary Evaluation Characteristics
1 Building Age:
f3tlll(1111i1 ,age \'v,Is Colio( led It o11) a t)tllli,finq pel-
nnl s(rrvey r ()u(ducle(.l le,' NI" Minna Planning Depart-
ment for the follovvint time span:
1968 to present +4
194(i l() 1967 +
1921 to 1945 0
Pr(.? 1920
1. Cou(ditiun/M,lin1'r), ice:
Built dings were rated ,)1:(. )? lint to ,a fielcd s(Irvey
conducted ny the IVIrarni Planning Deparin»,nt. The
toilovviu(1 c{utility t'AIt'rlorit'; were established:
Sound a
73
Deteriorating 0
Dilapidated
Fvet)roc111ng:
Fireproofing ('hilrca,.:1!'rlsllcs \Nett' collected and
hit based owon the Sanhnrne Atlas information:
Fireproof COnStrrrctic)n +
Fire Resistant Construction) 0
Nonfireproof Construction -
4, Elevators.
As fur tfmr qualifier for buildings over three
slot les, the existence and type of elevator (information
frtlni the Sarlhorne Atlas) v-vas weighted as follolvs'.
Masonry Enclosed Sha(t
Frame Enclosed or Open
Shaft
5. Renovation:
Recent major renovations received 1 heavy
positive rating:
Recent Major Renovations +4-
4
Burbling sr. area the Sf?(:'orldary characteristics
)ISt�lrssed ahove were (:t)eiTI)In?il 10 t)rY)d1ICe girl ('val(la-
tion matt ix its follo‘tis:
Evaluation Matrix
Least Most
E3uildingSi�e Catea ries Susceptible Susceptible
1. 19 floors or more All
2. 10-19 floors, 10,000stt.(t./
floor , 200,000 sq.ft, + (l(a No
3. 10-19 l lour s, 10,000 sq.i t./
floor :3+
4. 10-19 floors, less than
10,000sq.ft./floot 4+
5. 5-9 floors, 10,000 sq.f
floor, 100,000 sq.(t. dfa 3+
6. 5-9 tl0l)rs, 10,000 spit./
floor, 50,000-100,000
sq.(1. (tla 4+
7. 5-9 floors, fess than
10,000 sq.ftifdoor 4+
8. Less than 5 floors,
100,000 + sq,f t. gia
9. Less than 5 floors, 50,000-
100,000 sq.I1. gfa
10. Less than 5 floors,
10,000-50,000 sq.f t. gfa
11. Less than 10,000 sq.f t.
gfa
2+
3+
4+
None
Norio
2 or more
2 or more
1--or rum,
2.... or more
1 - or more
1 + or less
1— or less
1+or less
2+ or more
2+ or less
Each structure in Downtown was evaluated
aCCOr(dlil(1 to the ahove matrix. For example, a building
•
r
a
•
•
1py
1
1
r
11th ST ARTERIAL
•
DIXIE PARK
EXPANSION
lOth:110t AH I ti-nit t4::t$V • "' •
a so so airoda os a so WWWW W • WWW a,
RANGE
PARK- I
..... !alp
al..21. • wwwwww
d ... ... rim ..
6th• 7th ARTERIAL COUPLE
R*CE BLDG
.666.Art6 ... . errire466‘4
TR ANSPOR TATi0f4*-
- 'CLNTER
FRIENDSHIP
PLAZA soss•
1
,
OLD PORT
REDEVELOPMENT
7
: 1 til'‘4,4411,
ltar.. a a..
. .. _ rltef.e:':
r ...... 1
b ' '' - .. ..:41,
i grit-rW kr " ' -.7":-.d''''.
= SWITCHING N'. (7).";:, , f''.! .
STATIC!N
. AI *:-.j ;.. -lif.
tt•j)-*/-
:
• ....).' AS4.
-,... -,-..,.
:)_; • r,j.,-'•0
MAMI-DADE r
COMMUNITY
SOWN
COL...4.9111M
IV)::.-4
• . •
A
WEST FLAGLER
*INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS RR&
ist ARTERIAL. COUPlirq 4;•.111:3""ta
—
0--
L
0—
YWCA
MIAMI CENTER
RIVER ,VALK
, P-----
'-
, i) - . .
I '
sie
BAYFRONT PARK
EXTENSION
BISCAYNE BLVD
REROUTING
PROBABILITY OF NEW DOWNTOWN PROJECTS
Under Construction and Committed
Proposed and Planned
Recently Proposed
74
in the building siir' number 4 (10-19 floors, ies, INVENTORY AND CLASSIFICATION OP
than 10,000 square' feet per floor) must have ai total DOWNTOWN PROJECTS
of Iota pluses ?(J (tti qualify for the "Least S.lscel)tible
to Change" category. However, should it accumulate Probability
a (leficil oI 1, the Sti ic:ture Would he r,onsidere(1 1. On(' E3ist.ayne Boulevard
"Most Susceptible to Change" Offlr e.
The structures whirl) rl(laid kit l in the Least gross floor area 1,050,000 sq.ft.
Susceptible to Change category are referrer) to as harking 250,000 sq.ft.
Long -Range Givens, thns(r which are in the Most (710 spaces)
Susceptible to Change (:lass are Shori-Range Givens moss office area 750,000 sq.ft.
Nrl(.1 the shift:tures between a ro referrei_t to as M1(iilte- timoiOyt'('s 3,750
R;nige Givens. These classdicdhons give,) general
irl(licati(.)rr tit Downtown structures' relative life si)arl. 2. Filst Ft'.rler,rl E}IIIi;11r1O
The Susceptibility to Change analysis can he Office:
considered a "Matrix for Action", indicating general (.Dross floor area 800,000 sr' .ft.
areas of investment opportunity. However, it rs pr rkillq 585 Spaces
obvious that all of these areas will not he redeveloped gross ufll(.e area 480,000 sq.ft.
in the gear future. The smaller or short-range givens' employees 2,400
‘which are not located in the most desirable moils for
development are likely to remain and, in the long r lin, YMCA Building
could he more resistant to change than well located citos:; flroor are,' 97,200 sq.ft.
"middle-ran(1e givells". oat Lino None
e11)loy(in:) 200
7.3 PROBABILITY OF NEW DOWNTOWN
PROJECTS
Co lain investments s(:ilerllrted for Downtovvit
Miami's immediate !inure are,llnlost assule:i. Their
not hal)peninrlscen)s,ihliost inituohible. M,In',
vlllrrrs art' loss assured but they still have a si hstantiai
chance of oc:urrlrlg, if vve (',lil rely Oil c)ntinued
favorable investment Climate ail 1.111! L'Ilcl11Ve 1'f lord
of public and private,ic.tiorl.
The (()I1 el)1 of probability is a substitute for
r(rr Lain knowteilrle. Ina plarluititt tiautev.,or Drub
ability analysis is used to ev,llu,ile tit(, likelihOotl (,f
future events vwhit:h are (let n,lent or) combinations
of r:a:rsal relationships rind (han(:r� Suhj' Live jud(l
nen1, announced s(-hedules, inlun n 1 ;);;inii)n hast'd
un intnIVievVw,arid sl,eclli,ltinn nave hl iI) ISl'(f 1 )
classify Downtown projects and t)I,Inne,1 develo1)-
nlents into throe levels O1 tnr)b,1t)ititl'. The t)roh,ihility
1(111kin1is,ue as follows:
Probability I: Under cor)stroCiion in firmly
committed.
Probability II: PropOse(I an 1 l)laiined with a
gutl(1 chance. (.)1 hr;ing i mance,I.
Probability III: Proposed but nut t.c)nuuitted
of f inau;eti, \with some ill clht
Is to v.'h(!illet the {)reject v-v'ill
be re,il i/ed ,Is t 0pi )S '=i.
75
Miami -Dade Community Coll(,ge (Star One)
dross floor cited 190,(i1(3 sq.ft.
isu king None
ertlltloyees 1 ob
1490 E isc(1yne
)fits.; n!)O1
i?at h l ng
fitfll:(s fldi( )t antra
retail fi(-)�;r tit(,issirrne�l)
etnnii:)'/nnS
[3. Pi<l. a Veneti,I
gross floor area
Oflite:
leasahlr' area
eniptO'/r es
Retail Si)ops:
leasable area
employees
Doom Intent Store:
leasable: area
employees
Met chan,_Ilse Mart.
leasable area
en11)10ye(:!5
Hotel
gross floor area
198,000 sct. f t..
1 75 Sl )iiCes
36, 7'..)0 so .1 t.
184
100,000 sq.1 t.
_..8(i
2,433,860 soft.
93,500 sq. f t.
584
378,450 sq.it.
1,080
134,2.00 sglt.
383
232,800 sq.ft.
518
188,700 sq.11.
r
Hotel (continued). •
employees
Parking:
gross area
Street, North 1st Street, and South 1st Street.
120
(240 rooms) 6. Rapid Transit
1,307,308 sq.f t. 7. Range Par ks No. 1 and No. 3
(approx. 3,735
spaces) 8. Expansion t.f Dixie Park
44 VV. Flagler Street t Of fire Building 9. Miami River Walk
gross floor area 180,000 sq.ft.
employees .800 10. Miirnii Centel Hotel 400-500 rooms
8. Parking Garage (Miami -Dade Jr. College)
gross area 525,000 sq. f t.
(1,500 spaces)
Probability III
1. Latin Center
2. Riveriront Development (SE 2nd Avenue to
9. Police Bliilrling Unknown West Flagler)
(currently being tar(:xiraurrned by Stanford Re-
search Associates) 3. Waterborn Transit
10. Southern Bell Telephony Switching Station 4. Rerouting of Biscayne Boulevard over Miami
River
11. Intr.-rseCtion Improvements
Flagler rinri Miami Avenue
12. Miami River Walk: First Stage
13. 1-395 Transportatic:rn Center Phase I
Probability II
1. Revitra Builr.iin!t (140 West Flagler)
Of lice:
gross f lucar at ea 1 25,400 sq.f t.
parking 100,800 sq.ft.
net leasable aie a 120,400 sq,ft.
ernployees 627
2. Old Por t Rcsdevelopn erlt iuul Bayfront Park
Expansion (Planned by Ed Stone, ..Ir.)
3. Government Center (Plan Sy G.B.Q.C.)
gross floor area 1,616,000 sq.f t.
employees 8,080
(Including those presently in the Govt. Center)
parking (approx. 1,600
spaces)
4. Friendship Plana and Joint Use Parking Trans-
portation Center Phase II
5
Ar renal Ifraprovernents (NUP Plan arm Dade Co.
Dept. of Public Works) North 6th and 7th
Streets, 10th and 1 1 th Streets, Nor tla 14th
5. West 1st and 2nd Avenue Couple: Topics Proposal
6. Intr,rirma Expressway
7. Milani Center Phase II
The "Pt obal ility of Nevv Downtown Projects"
niap displays the results of the probability analysis.
76
GOVERNMENT
CENTER
MIN. OFFICE F.A.R. REQ'D. TO SUPPORT LAND COST
F.A.R. 10-18 F.A.R. 2 or Less
r :... ;';I F.A.R. 6-10
( 1 F.A.R. 2-6
77
8.0
PROBABILITY
5 GROWTH
MODEL
r
8.1 DEFINITION
The tut+rre direction of change in Downtown
Miami can he defined on the basis of probability, a
substitute for c:er fain knowledge. The probability
growth model is simple and non -mathematical,
combining:
Areas available for new development (sites
unoccupied by givens); '
Probability of new Downtown projects;
The Space Forecast;
Constraints on development (infrastructure
capacity and investment feasibility); and
Current public policy (including zoning).
In Downtown Miami the future relationships
of development to street capacity, parking location,
and mass transit are of critical importance. This
chapter defines the constraints on future development
and describes Downtown opportunity areas, a major
product of the growth model.
8.2 CONSTRAINTS ON DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 5 assigns probability to known Down-
town projects. Probabilities 1 and 2 can be considered
as givens; probability 3 and the remaining space fore-
cast will generally develop within the defined Oppor-
tunity areas. Exact locations and development inten-
sity are constrained by transportation and invest-
ment feasibility factors.
Investment Feasibility Constraints
Investment feasibility concentrates on the eco-
nomic factors affecting investment in real property.
Although it is only one of a set of factors influencing
the future of Downtown, investment feasibility is
of primary importance to private l levelopers.
Property acquisition is perhaps the most signifi-
cant factor affecting the location, distribution, and
size of development. Purchase costs for property
within the Study Area include land and existing
improvements, expressed on a dollars per square
foot of site area basis. Estimates of cu►rent acquisition
costs per city block within the Study Area were pre-
78
pare, 1 by first excluding long-range givens and then
conll)arirlg krlovvn real estate transactions to 1971
assessment values. If feCerll St11PS significantly ex('e( I
eel 120`h6 of the assessment, th(?I1 of le(te(I nart:els
surrounding that site were proportionately raised.
Gladstone Associates conducted a residual lane!
Value analysis to determine economically feasible
acquisition costs for dif(erect activities at various
intensities of development. These values are pre-
sented below. A generalized profornla statement is
presented in the Appendix, Section 2.
T Use
2. Prime Office
3. Prime Office
4. Prime Office
5. Prime Office
6. Structured parking
7. Luxury rental high
rise (@850 s.f./unit) 12 $42
8. Luxury sales
(@1,000s.f./unit) 12 $72
9. Luxury rental garden
apts. (@850 s.f./
unit) 3 $14
10. Luxury sales town-
houses 1@1,250 s.f./
unit) 1 $10
$90 $4.50
Supportable Land Costs — Miami CBD
Land Costs/ Unit Supporta�lle
ype of F.A.R. Square Foot Ground Value
1. Prime Office2 20
16.6
15
10
5
6
$75
$67
$45
$22.50
$15
$4.50 1$4-6)
$4.50
$4.50
$4.50
$1,000/space
$3,000/unit
$6,000/unit
$4,000/unit
$12,500/unit
s.f.
s.f.
s.f.
s.f.
s.f.
Source: Gladstone Associates.
)These figures are usually derived from proforma analyses. They
have been derived here from conversations with local investors and
developers and from typical values in similar cities.
2This particular case is based on estimates or a recently completed
office building in Downtown Miami. In figuring land costs, office
space and parking have been considered separately.
In cc.anlpar ing existing Downtown land cost With
unit stippor table ground value, it is clear that private
investors can be expected to meet the auticitlate41
(demands for mince structures in Downtown dtn ing
the coming years. Although there may be dilficullies
associated with site assembly, location land SO on,
there is no reason to expect that the investments
themselves will not be practical. Office developers
sfaould be able to outbid all competitors for sites in
Downtown as they become available for further de-
velopment.
Other activities will face more severe constralnis.
High rise apartment buildings appear to be excellent
invest MOM prospects; but, with less generous site
acquisition budgets, they will not be located in highly
c(rn!rallied areas where of lice buildings can and proh-
79
ably will develop unless mixed use office -residential
development packages can be assembled. Low rise
and townhouse developments without land write-
down must, of necessity, content themselves with
Tess costly sites located away from Bayfront Park,
Biscayne Bay and the Miami Riverfrorit. Retail
development has evert more constrained aCgtllSl-
tion hudgets; and, since the market for new retail
space is relatively low, mixed use retail -office and
retail furl) r150 r0S1!terltial will be the patterns.
Other uses, such as manufacturing, wholesaling ailed
warehousing, face severe testi'icticnl': aryl will he
able to develop only on the leilst expensive lan 1.
Structural parking, when built alone, also facers
IiIllltati011S,t)I t runny oppor ttlllltleS are available
Downtown since parking itself does not compete
\Mill other uses for the same location,
A block -by -block analysis of the Study Area
in terms of investment feasibility indicated that
certain blocks are excellent oppartimity areas for
high intensity development. The minimum intensity
of development for a satisfactory economic return
will tested for key blocks. The result was drninirnunl
economic Floor Area Ratio for various uses. Below
this minimum, development is not likely to occur.
At present the area of highest economic potential
appears to be the four vacant parking lots at Dupont
Plaza. Leaned was recently sold at approximately $UO
per square foot. A combination of parking garage
and of Tice could prove economically feasible at
F.A.R. 14.
Most blocks in the Study Area, not presently
occupied by long -ranger givens, can be assembled
for between $1 2 and $70 per square loot. Feasible
development for office buildings,incauding on -site
parking, could be built on such land at F.A.R.'s of
4 to 14.
Transportation Constraints
The movement requirements of high intensity
development vary with the type of use. Residential
development requires easy access to public streets
throughout the day; whereas, office development re-
quires access at peak hour in the morning and evening.
The State of Florida Department of Transpor-
tation and the firm of Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates
were given the responsibility for investigating
transportation in Downtown Miami and producing
a conceptual transportation plan. Using block -by -
block land use information, transportation demand
1
f
f
was calculated at peak hour. Comparing derrrand in
a specific !)lock with capacity indicates potential
constraints. In 1972, prior to the opening of One
Biscayne and First Federal, most of the streets in
the Study Area were operating under capacity at
peak hour, However, with no increase in system
capacity, major iieyelol)rnent opportunity areas, S ICI
as Dupont Plata, will be constrained by the inahitity
of the present movement system to serve new
development.
The planned regional mass rapid transit system
can reduce bailie constraints by promoting a greater
percentage of work trips by public transportation.
However, there is little possibility of the system)
heir''( available before 1980, and alignments and
stations have not yr't been determined. Therefore, the
period before rapid transit is in operation is critical
for proper location of new development and parking
garages in relation to street. capacity.
The One Biscayne --First Federal block contains
1,230,000 square feet of of ice and 1,420 parking
spaces. They employment in tliis block will exceed
6000 persons. Even if a lower percentage than the
estimated current 80°6 arrive by automobile, it is
clear that the provided spaces will not meet the total
parking (lemancl. Yet an analysis by Beiswenger-Hoch
and Associates indicates that peak hour egress from
the (garages can barely b' handled by the existing
struols. Furthermore, parkin!" 1ur additional high
intensity development wilI Only increase congestion.
The traffic constraints on development are disclassrrci
iri more detail in the Beiswe?nger-Hoch and Associates
Plarl.24
The ,.leveIoprllent of tin' Dupont Plata Area
will continue to be constrained unless commitments
to major trattic improvements am nna.le. Even then
i Associates has indicatef
6eiswenyr'r-Hoch am ( that
parking in excess of b000 cars will c)verir)a:i the now
Dupont Plata Area system capacity.
Although the Dupont Plata Area is iTIOSt con-
strained, c)tlier areas such as N.E. 2nd Street c)rid
Biscayne Boulevard are at capacity now, and 'ilium
development of an intensity over F.A.R. 12 could
overload the street system. Areas which are presently
under capacity are located far away from of lice coil-
centratiorls and carry little probability for now
development.
Transportation constraints can he eliminated
in a number of ways, such as: ad,_linq new lanes,
prohibiting intense development in congested areas,
and promoting staggered work hours. However, the
most Minot tacit tool is public monitoring and control
of on -site and oft -site parking supply, since the
IocrliOrl of parking, rather than employment, is the
major generator of congestion.
Public actions have opened opportunity for
leveloprnent by providing the amenity and incentive
for private development. In contrast, however, the
present n )lull of the Study Area does not follow
the development potential of the opportunity areas.
For example, some areas zone(' C-3, which permits
intensive growth, rank very low in terms of oppor-
tunity; whereas, other areas with excellent potential
are constrained to F.A.R. 2. Identifying opportunity
areas is then the f irst step in setting the development
framework for the future, Within these areas the
probable 9irowth of the Study Area can be accom-
rnOriate,1.
8.3 DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY AREAS
Baser' (.)n ai)alysns of Investment feasibility,
transportation, utilities, public improvements, and
subjective factors, the following areas have been
identified for future growth. These parcelsare un-
occupied by long -and middle range givens as well
as Probability I and II development. In addition
present residential areas were considered.
Dupont Plaza Area
These vacant blocks with direct access to 1.95,
the growing Of lice Core at 3rd and Flagler, and the
f3a'front Par k a Idition are undoubtedly the highest
opportunity areas in Downtown. Unfortunately, the
critical transportation factors are presently major
deterrents to development. Major transportation
improvements are required to stimulate new devel-
oprnent; an,l appropriate architectural design is
necessary to insure a high quality (public environment.
N.E. 2nd Avenue —Biscayne Boulevard Corridor
This area, extending north from Flagler Street
to N.E. Gti) Street, contains moderate intensity
use presently. The construction of Community
College, site availability, and the potential hay and
park view are all positive factors for future devel-
opment. However, the uncertainty of mass rapid
transit alignment and station locations is a short-
range constraint.
80
West Hagler Street
This area, near the proposed Government
Center extending south to the Expressway maps,
has pc)terltial for moderate intensity development.
The land cost is less Ulan areas along the bay, and
the Government Center could produce moderate
amounts of office development spin-offs. The Inairl
constraint at present is a zoning category which per-
mits only F.A.R. 2.
Midtown Core
The development of Plan Venetia could induce
moderate amounts of (")f irce tfevelopment and the
Midtown Core (:orald in the long-range become a
secondary Office core. Howev(n traffic congestion
which will result front s(rch a large center r;ould re-
duce the potential. The present /onin(I needs im-
mediate attention SIMML( the recent re -zoning to C-:3
at the Plaza Venetia site could cause speculation on
adjacent lands.
North Biscayne Boulevard
Construction of the Baylront Park extension
'will surely encourage interest in the area along BIS-
(;aynce BoulevdW1. The major constraint, as in the
Vilest Fiagler Street Area, is present zoning witf)
maximum permitted intensity of F.A.R. 2. With
careful planning the attractiveness of this hay front-
age area can also influence development to the west
of N.E. 2rld Avenue.
Miami Riverfront
Moderate 'anti costs, proximity to the Flagler
Street Core, and the construction of the Miami
River \A'aik should stimulate residential development
in this area. One of the major problems for residen-
tial development will be pressure of off -site parking
space demands fr Dupont Plan.).
81
MIAMI FTVERFRONT
p
pp
r
r ,
al :In
`I ill
. tie
46vIDTOWNr3
31 11,3,
e.t33 I 3
ext
biSCAYNE BOULEVARDej: -•
• .e.,44
•
0 CI
1
:aar
I 711
4 71 I
1 DUPONT
•
u
OPPORTUNITY AREAS
82
POOtNdtES
1. Beiswen(frar-Hoch arud AsSociates, Doytintcrwra
MiarnrA Conceptu:al Ttai3 ortation Plan, September
1973.
2. Ibid.
3. Wilbur Smith Associates to Beiswenger-Hoch
and Associates, Merno: Traffic Improvements: SE
1st Street between 3rd Avenue and Biscayne Boirle•
yard, December 29, 1972.
4. This statement was developed jointly by WMRT
and Haines, Liindberdt and Waehler.
5. Memo from Hunter Moss and Company to the
Building Owners' and Manaiers' Association, 1971.
6. U.S. Census ofHousing PopralatirJ, 1970.
7. Metropolitan Dade County Regional Planning
Department Research Retorts, 1972.
8. Doxiadis Associates, Inc., Downtown Miami
Plan 1957.
9. Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc., Plc!
Transportation Impact of a Downtown Miami
Government Center, September 1970.
10. Metropolitan Dade County Planning Depart-
ment, Miami Urban Area Trarrs ort.ati':3n Sturdy,
1968.
11. Dade County Port Authority, SoutltFlorida
Regional Airport Site Selection Study: Environmental
Ir pact Statement, October 1972; Hunter Moss and
Company Metropolitan Miami, 1962.
12. Op. Cit., Doxiadis Associates, Inc.
13. The source of this information was the 1970
U.S. Census of Population and Housinu.
14. City of Miami Planning Depar nhent,
June 1970.
15. Prepared l:ry WMRT from information provided
by the Miami Planning Department t acrid ;a telephone
survey conducted by the Downtown Development
Authority.
1(.. Op. Cit, Doxiadis Associates, Inc.
17. City of Miami and Metropolitan Dadc, County
Planning Department, ma.ic City Cr_ntr�r Goals, 1960.
18. Candeub, Fle�issig and Associates, NDP-3 Central
Miami, June 1971.
19. Community Renewal Projrarn, 1967.
20. Qp Cit,.., Metropolitan Dili If.? County Planning
Dr,par t ment.
21. "Market Memo -The Gre atei Miami Area",
HI.nISO ati4_Home, November 1972.
22. Wallace, MuHary, Robet is ,anll Toidll, Bal_tirnorr,
MetroC_entrr Plan.
23. Wallace,,McHarg, Roberts and Todd, I)owrt-
Los Aracwl(s 1972-1990.
24. Qn. Cit., Beisweniter-Hoch and Associates.
83
1
tP
1
• APPENDICES
A PROPOSED ZONING
ORDINANCE
B TECHNICAL
SUPPLEMENT
1
APPENDIX A
PROPOSED
ZONING
ORDINANCE
1
TAttLE OF CONTENTS
Article II: Definitions
so( 11u11 2 1i!mis Dt'hrn'ti (Rovistid)
A Article III: Zoning Districts
�1 Srt_hilt, 1 Classes and Symbols (devised)
Article IV: General Provisions (Revised)
`.so, tiO(1 )1 Ex( ittsiuns Itr ni Height Limits anil
Y;lrti Rcquirerr'ltts
e, tinn 21 Ow ;halation f3osicientidl and Non -
Residential Buildings
Article XV: Central Commercial • C•3 District
S��cirnrt 1 Purl) )St. of District (Revised)
.t_u:v;him 2. Use R1,1ci1a0ur.ts (fieviSe(I)
Set hi)I 4 Area (Revised)
Snetiun !) Yards and ttiIt1 !TnInd DIstdnce between
Residential Buildings ()Revised)
Sci.hutt (3• Height Ifinvisn'l)
Section 7 Floor Arad Rahn (Newt
S .(ion 8. Flour Area Prnmiirrtrs (New)
Sec.hun 4t: Usiit)te Open Spai (Ntr:vl
Article XV-1: Central Commercial - C-3A
District (New)
`itrt_hon 1 Use Rtsgtildtit)ns
Article XV-2: Central Commercial - C-3B
District (New)
Set burl 1 Use Rertiii itlons
So tIon 2: Limitations on lis(is
Se; lion :3. Area
St:i.tion 4. Yaplsanti I:iinirnutn Distanceht:'tween
Rosi,lential Buildings
Sei non b Height
Jf'c con O Floor Art?a 13dtii)
5isr thin 7: Floor Area Prernito'is
St,t_tion fi: Usahlo ()lien SI)di_'tL
Article XV-3: Central Commercial Service • C-3C
District (New)
Six trim 1 Use Regulations
Se( Owl 2 Limitations on Uses
Section .i Aria
Section 4. Yards and kiinirnirrti Distari(
Residential Buildings
Section !) Height
Section (i Fluor Area Ratio
Section 7: Flour Area Premiums
Section b: Usable Open Space
Ile tWeen
1:3 Article XV-4: Residential -Office Central Commercial-
C-3D District (New)
13 So, nun 1 (!se Rrxautations
14 S'c non 2 Limitations, on Uses
14 thin '3 Area
14 Sei non 4 Yards arid Rtinrnuim Distance between
Residential Buildings
Sienon 5 Height
`;er non 6 Fluor Area Ratio
Se( hon 7 Floor Area Premiums
Set Grin 8 Usable Open St ion'
15
lfi
113
1(i
ita
1(i
11,
1/
1/
Article XV-5: Mixed Central Commercial -
Residential • C-3E District (New)
Socticm 1 Use Itiegtrl.attons
Section 2 Limitations on Uses
Section 3 Area
Section 4 Yards
Sei:tinn 1). Height
S! iron i3 Floor Area Ratio
1 / Article XXIII: Off -Street Parking and Loading
1 / Sol lion 1 Off -Street Parking Required (Revised)
1/ Ser;non 2 Location, Character and Si,e (Revised)
1 / Section 4 Amount of OffStreetParking (Revised)
iti Sec Lion 10 Ai cess Restrirtiuns for Off -Street
Parking and Loading Facilities (New)
18 Article XXVI-1: Special Central Business District
(New)
l i Sei:n+)n 1 Purpos,! and (3r rat Pt,ivisions
18 S+a hurt 2 Central Eusiness Distr t Plan'
1` Ser,tiia Adot limn of Design Plaris and Parking
Pi y
{1 tio!14- Lands, aped Paths
.41 litrrt 5 Arcades
21 Snriicv! t) Vdaterfiunt tsrP;t Devulopei«grit Ciiratrols
>2 non / Fiii!Idin,:a t''d.11ls alotaq Ccr tarn Street Lines
2') Si,i_lion 8 Off•Strcet P,itl Ina in Cot Business
DiS;tt is t
:2
Article XXXII-1: Special Permits (New)
sp, tin!) 1 Urban 01r.n Spires
�4 Article XXIV: Signs
24 S,!i lion 4 Signs in the: C 1, C. 1A, C•2, G , C 2A,
C 3B, C 3C, C 3D, C of \',r R and 1^J I Distil. Is
• Provides ti r
al A system of inten-wino:t rf yrountt level pedestrian
;poi:es and arcades.
b) A system of landsi;aped paths at ground level.
c) A syste!rn of inteu.unnectiny upt(er level pedestrian
Spares, could transit Slant))) pla, as, pedestrian ways and
bridges and vertical circulation elements.
ARTICLE 11: DEEINftIONS
Section 2: Terms Defined
(1 hP Iuuv!sions which follow are all new.)
(1) A) ARCADE
For the purpose of this Ordinance an ARCADE is
a r;ruitinuous area open to the street or to an urban
open sear c, which is accessible to the public at all
tunes and conforms tra they fralloWing requirements:
(1) It shall adjoin a fall!( lot line or urban open
',Mare t orol Lary, extend for the full length of,
or ;1 rnininuun of 100 feet along, such front
lot line or urban open space boundary, and
at no point be above the level of ,adjoining
faul�lic sidewalk, or urban open space.
121 It shall be covered by a perrraanent canopy
or part of it building allowing at least 12 feet
of hearlroorn.
(3) It shall have a minimum um depth of eight feet
and a rnaxitnutn creditable depth of 20 feet
(fur fuarposes of bonus floor area) measured
perpendicular cular to the front lot line or urban
open space boundary.
(4) Portions of an arcade that are ohstrur.ted by
ctalunuu, building services or similar features
,lo not qualify as arcade area (tor purposes of
bonus fluor ;area), bill landscaping or works
of art may occupy qualified arcade area, pro-
vided that a minimum clear width of 6 feet
remains fur pedestrian c:irculaiion along the
length of the arcade, and that public access
from the street or urban open spare i5 nowhere
obstructed for a length of more than 40 feet
or for an aggregate length of more than 65
percent of the arcade's total length within the
left. Access openings between obstructions shall
not be less than six feet in width. All planting
shall he raised and (.cubed.
(8(..1A)
THROUGH BLOCK CONNECTION
For the prirpose of this Ordinance,, a THROUGH
BLOCK CONNECTION is a portion of lot which is
i:c•essible to the public and provides a pedestrian
connection nection between two streets which are parallel
or approximately parallel to each other or between
urban ()pert spaces or arcades abutting such streets.
It shall be located so that at neither end is it closer
Mali 150' to a street intersecting the street with
which it connects. At each of its ends it shall be at
the same elevation as the sidewalk, arcade or urban
open space which it connects for a distance cif at
(east 25 feet therefrom. A through block connection
may be open, covered or enclosed. If open, it shall
have a minimum width equal to not less than 1/6
of the height of the highest abutting wall within
30' of its center line or 30 feet whichever is more.
If covered or enclosed, it shall have a minimum
width of 20 feet. Columns, lighting standards,
vertical circulation elements, plantings, ornamental
fountains, sculptures, displays, kiosks or open cafes
are permitted obstructions at the pedestrian level,
2
•
• .
t
• • '
L.
•
• -• r - • ... • '
Boaclary
C iDistract Debonatton
3
1 -‘7
E 64.
L_
r
035 •• C-813
,".t0.430 •.a:
PROPOSED ZONING MAP
•• 01 all MOO
1
f
provided that a continuous way not Tess than 1r,
feet wider remains free of utstruc.tions and avail.
able fit unimpeded pedestrian circulation. The
ceiling height of ,t covered Or end( sell through
tiluck connection shall at no point be less than 20
fret above the walking surface. Pedestrian bodges,
balconies or me/vanities are per overhead
°Fishtictions provided that they do not cover in te;
ailgregatti more than pett:Mt of the pert!, of ihY
through WOO, connot:tinn.
(f.)1 B) URBAN OPEN SPACE
For the put pose of this Ordinance, are urfrtn open
s)ae:e is a landscaped public.: open area which c.“1
fortes to the, following requirements.
(1) Is accessible to the wail it: at ail times.
(2) Ex tends along a street liner tot a length of
at least 30 feet and is directly accessible from
the public sidewalk fora length of at (cast
30 feet, or is directly connected by an en-
trance at least 10 feet wide with an upp let
(evil pedestrian way designated as sut.h 011 t)u
Stied,! District Plan as set forth in Ar tide
XXVI-1 'mil provided in ac ioriance therewith.
(3) Has a bast hurvcmtat dinuenston (1f nut less
than 30 hart.
Is not more than three beet ,hover +it below
they level of the public sidewalk which it
adjoins or the level of the upper level pe,des-
nian way with which it c crnnetas.
(`)) Is iandscafred r.rtit trees, shrubs or other
plant materials and Inay include Cafe furniture.
seulptctrce, fountains or Sitnllar features, poi
viclecl that the sin fa' e area occupied by shot!
pelantln:p cir featires does not exceed two -
thuds of the area of the urbarn ()pen spat I�
(Oki that the I,nlarn et of the 'Atkin oteen sp,act•
atca is ftir 'WI!, Sit tin) and
similar piar.,uils.
14)
(In Iht'p)leevtsri)n5svhncln follerVv, matle.t untwrllne�d
IS lit:, .y ‘;
(03-A) USABLE OPEN SPACE (ORD. 7ti08)
For the plurp?oser of this Ordinance, ce, USABLE OPEN
SPACE shall mean outdocit area, excluding parking
and other service areas, which is Mill/end tot out-
rlern living, recreation or landscaping and which r;:
open and unobstructed (torn its lowest level to then
sky except for roof overhangs not in excess of three!
(:3) feet. Ail open space shall be accessible to, anal
ut,aOle by, all residents tesidinl on the lot. USABLE_
OPEN SPACE may include areas at the ',,!round level
and/or on roofs, decks and h,,alconies, provide) that
Sec-) areas meet other criteria set forth in this
definition. The rnininntrnn dimension for USABLE
OPEN SPACE at the ground level shall he ten (10)
feet Mid the rninirnum area shall be one h111010d
(100) square feet. lbe minimum elirnenseons for
USABLE OPEN SPACE located on roofs or decks
shall be twenty (20) feet and the rninirnum area
shall he four hundred (400) srlu<)re feet. Except
as otherwise_provided for the C-3, C 3A C•30,
C, C-3D Districts, at least ones -half of the
regime 1 USABLE OPEN SPACE shall be at the
'going, level. Not more than twenty (20) percent
of the reetquired open space shall be uti roof balcony
or tier k area that Is above twenty-five (25) feet in
height.
*
in the )crovisunnswlrtc:h follow, matter :Hider lined
is new .)
ARTICLE III: ZONING DISTRICTS
Section 1: Classes and Symbols
*
C-3 Central Commercial
C.3A Central Commercial
C-313 Central Commercial
C 3C Central Cc-nnunetr�ial Service
C.JD fie side_nb4rl_--Uflice Central Curtlnee7tcial
r.C-;3E f11tei_f Central Coertrnerc.rll, -Residential
C-4 General Commercial
*
(In the provisions evlricll fu(tow, !natter underlined
is nee,v nriitt�r in brae ktrts [1 is old, to be iielowl.)
ARTICLE IV: GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 21: Exclusions from Height Limits and Yard
Requirements
* * *
(21 YARD REQUIREMENTS
In tile: "C-3" anrt "C-iA" (Cc+viral Connnnerciai)
[District] Distt icts, hotels and motels shall he
excluded tronn the yard requirements tor
residential buildings. Hotels and nnote is shall
comply with ( those yard regiiiremeents as set
tor th by other laws or C)redinanc s,' thc_yard
roc uirernents for non-residential use.sin,such
Distr icts. — -
*
Section 27: Combination Residential and Non -Residential
Buildings (Ord. 7508)
The following regulations shall apply to any building con-
taining boat a residential and a non-residential use::
4
•
t.0 f he provisions of paragraph; (1 ) (2) of
this Sec lion shall not apply to apartments,
hotelsand motels in the 1 -3 C _3A,
C-3C and C-:3f.? L)istncts
(In the wove -aim!, which follow, matter underlined
is now, natter in lir,ic:kc:ts 11 is ciltl, t+� br, deletcxl.)
ARTICLE XV: CENTRAL COMMERCIAL - C•3 DISTRICT
The following ri t..inations shall apply in the C-3 District.
Section 1: Purpose of bisIrict
The C•3 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT is intended
to atgily to the 1i drt of the downtown business section of
the City, which wives all portionsof the City, and the men o•
politan area. The businesses and servic «s of the Centaetl Com-
mercial Dish in include many of those supplied in other types
of currimerr:ial districts and in addition thereto many services
and facilities not available elsewhere. High land values,
limitations of space, and public convenience justify a greater
intensity of isc? than in other conirnarr,ial districts. Residential
development is also c ncoiu__igtd for ttte purlmse of ai c orn
rnodatinrlpeople disposrrd to urban Irving. rn r Ir,se jnnxirnity
topiace of er»Iticyrnertt and therebyjarornnting a balanced
downtown community and reduced strain on the transpor-
tation system.
Section 2: Use Regulations
No blinding rn situ( tire, or pat thereof, shall he erer,teci,
altered or used, or land or water 115ee1, in v'1 lC or in part,
for rather than one or more of the: foliowiri l ied
uses in ai:cr)rciatic e with the limitations htrreaftei si w1,ified,
(1) Any non-residential USE. petrmittett in the
C-2 District, except Gasoline Stations,
accessory parking fac.itities, parking AS and
Parking garages, srilije,1 to the USE REGU-
LATIONS si:e:crhest in the said Distr
(ORD. 78!i6)
(a) Hotels and Motels subject to the
provisions in Set;tion 21 and 27 of
ARTICLE IV. (ORD 7508) (ORD.78561
(2) Auc.t On galleries.
(3) Dance Halls.
(4) Detective Agencies.
(5) Night Clubs.
(6) Blue Punting and Photostating; .lob Printing;
Piihlishinq, Lithographing or Engraving
Establishments.
(7) Accessory uses and structures.
i)i► ,Acc_essorypar4:i911 facilities for apartment
uilclin_gs, with vehiclet rparitit s molt ex
ceeding6Open:ent o1 the number of
dwelliri2 units.
(9)_ The loliowirgaccessory par kiri facilities
Lirkiri totsor parkinggrarayes, sul j i:t to
approval by the City Cunrrru55ion in accordance
5
with the provisions of Section 8 of Article XXVI.1:
(t) Accessory parking facilities for non-
residential uses or hotels.
(b) Accessory parking facilities for apart-
ment buildings with vehicle capacities
exceeding 00 12ercent of the member of
dwelling units.
(r.) Parking lots ear garages for the parkins
of automobiles by the_public_
00) [(t311 The following USES if approved as a
"CONDITIONAL USE":
[(a) Parking Tots and parking garages.]
(u) [ (h) ] Motor Bus Terminal
UAW)] Heliports
(cL).[(d)] Apartment Building(s) not exceeding
a density of one dwelling unit for each
one hundred fifteen (115) square feet of
lot area [ subject to the following regu-
lations: (ORD. 7455)
1. MINIMUM LOT AREA/DWELLING
UNIT:... .
7. SPACING BETWEEN BUILDINGS ON
THE SAME SITE:
Not withstanding the provisions of
ARTICLE IV, Section 15, the min-
imum spacing between any portion
of a building which has exposed
window area and an adjoining building
on the same site shall be eighteen
(18) feet.]
(111[(0)]Other uses: Other uses or enterprises
similar to the above
Section 4: Area
[(1)
f
Non -Residential Use
(all There shall be no required arca or width
of lot [for non-residential use] in this
District.
[Section 5: Yards
(1)
Non -Residential Use
(a) I here shall be no required yards except
where a lot in the C-3 District abuts upon
a lot in any "R" (Residential) District;
a yard at least ten (10) feet in width
shall be provided adjacent to the "R"
District.
Section 6: Height
(1) No building or structure or part thereof shall
be erected or altered to a height exceeding
three hundred (300) feet.]
Section 5: Yards and Minimum Distance between
Residential Buildings
11) FRONT AND STREET -SIDE SETBACKS:
in all instant t , exreett( ,f5 Iv eVe;te°t f:tr
Art ,t.i. s in i>.rtir le XXVI-1, Sett ion 5 and
eexia jit as hereafter aftetr provided, d t minimum (milt
stall a_1. of tt n (10) ft of for the fir t terse (9l
rein of blinding height and a mummer.) street
side sow, k of five (5) feet for.the first nine
(0) f .t-t of bnildirtg he Itt, shall he ptuvide d
and maintained in accordance with lily
h,lfowitig.re gtnrontertts:
(a) The rtjci irctd setback area shall be
treated with landse_apinq so as to
present, in perJaetoI( a neat and
order at tearanc:e.
(bi The required setback area shall
not be used for off-street
parkirx .
(2) Vhere a lot is adjoined by a building whitki
has le ss than the above rrttuire d se that, k„the
following exceptions shall he made
(a) If the lot has a lot line dimension o1
less than fifty (50) feet ahuttur an <
street, then the setbae;k leg' until along
that jtarttt afar street shall not be_gre attar
th n the ifeet2eti of either a.jounng
Setbac.
(It) if )tie lot has a left line dimension of
fifty(50) fete t or !tore ah tttinj any
str hilt tint r reater_ ihan.Sir t -five
(65) feet, then the setback required
rilong thatJtat he-ufar street shill not
ht� fji eatet th an the. de e fie r t tl any aei
itlni tasetfeat4 , only~~ si till adjoining
Siethae t is ley, than live (b) feet ire
>.^dhie h r )Set the requited Sethae.� small
he t;v t (b) feet.
(3) _ INTERIOR SIDE YARD. No irate t!eer' do
gat t is rexjrrtreett However, tt arty ,j ten area
e xte raiIng an inter eer e;I t tut itn,t
tttovitlel, it tih tit tt+ tt least tort (11.)) tee,i evieie-+.
Fc r re stdenhaf ttrl<trngs ru re.sidenti,t1 poi bons
of buildings, any,taortiutt of a buildin_g wall
whit lt has windows shall he ,;t bay 1. h ont an
ette riot side lot lie a dishiruce elf not krss
than twetlty rivet (25) feint (it 1)11tt-tii),th_(1/61
of the hteiuht of said building s tall which.
e.vegr .is gn0ate r. The minimum with i 1 may tt'
redue ed by nine--h,tif (` ) ;vheu the lot lint is
immediately adjacent to a jtohlit flail.. Fur
retsnb ntial put bons ui buildings whir.h cunt-
bmt tctitcienttal and non-residential uses, the
height r1f ihi building will shall he measure,
from the floor level of the lowest storyr used
fin rtrsitiential use.
(4) REAR YARD:
(a) Fur non-residential nttal hurldirr•1 no tear
yard 1s tequireilexte tt where a lot in
the C•3 District abuts triton a(rti in any
13'1Re sidc.nhal) lDistnr.t; a yard at
least ten (10) feet in width shall 1.1e
provided adjacent to the "R" District.
IT any open ut.a alcn y i rear lot line is
ttr Aided, tt shall he at least ten (10)
tetitwale
(b) Fttr residential buildings or residential
portions of httildinys, a rear_yard shall
bepnwideI havrny a rn(nernten depth of
twentyhve (25) feet„ awl any portion
of a hulldmy wall_whrch has windows shall
he set hack from a rear lot line a drstartce
of not fess titan twenty:tive (25) feet
or. one -sixth (1/6) of the height of said
buildingwall„_whichever isgreater, Tfie
ntinirnurn setback net y be reduced by
one-half ('.;2) when the lot line is int-
rne.liately adjacent to a public park.
For residential portions of huilrtincgs
evhich combine residential and non_
tesidentlal uses, the required rear yard
tot the resitfentialj,ttiun may be1tro-
vided at any level not higher than the
flour level of the lowest story used for
residential use, and the heilit of a building
wall containing windows sltall be rrtea-
sureci front such floor level of the lowest
story t ISei-1f or residential us
(5) MININ.MUM DISTANCE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL
BUI EDiNGS:
The jxuvisions of Article IV Section 15 shall
aj2ltly_in this Dtstttc t except that the fortnula
for determining minimum hot t/ontai distance
between any two buildings ()II the site is
n o.tttied to read as follows:
LA Eilus L.3 alp; HA_plus Hf3-
(i L_ 8
All provisions of Article IV Section 15 which
refer to the formula in said Section shall in-
stead reier in this District to the formula
;as tttricftfied herein.
Section_6; _Height
There shall be no .absolute height limit in this Dist' ici ext.j
ds-rt d;tirftri tty Artit:let IV Section 37.
Section 7: Floor Area Ratio
(1) Not Uses
Fxc_p1 as provided in Section 8, the floor
area ratio for non-residential uses or hotels
shall not exceed 8.0.
(2) Residential Uses
Exctltt as provided in Section 8, the floor
area ratio for residential uses, except hotels,
shall not exceed 4.0.
Except as provided in Section 8, the floor
area ratio for all uses in a building shall not
exceed 10.0.
DI_
Section 8: Floor Area Premiums
The flour area ratios permitted in Section 7 may be increased
6
In dc,:orddrii I. witli. lfre ptoyisions of_ tly,l•ii.i lion
t 1) I or lilt; on i.vhirli itublit fdi ilitr...., an.
spe. it ally_itiandated f ts tht....Airovi;,,,,,,,
Atli, h.: XXV1-1,_tleut area bonuses, II arq • Section.9: Usable Open Space
•,11,11i he el fli.f.i)ff Lin, e Vilth V15141IIS (,I
Slid Alilt 10, eXt_PH thOt IHHISIt, JI,r )i ,,olat ..! i f-..r ed, I. 4.-....11.ri.j dnit ,t niitir,nitritof)() sitijarefee(of irstitr)c
f.,_it residentidl uses_tlidy. he do :Holt • .i ....1 .ii.d,,' '11'011 IM: liff!,i 'ill Olt? site._f")ot,,,vithstartclitig
W
i.r.ut.ii,iti.. tit W.. denition , if ti,..„itil1. open_spai,e in Arndt.? II, i cktiondl fedtores riot.:.,Liet.ifit,ally ittdrLt,iti.it fi
by_theprovisionsof far titIt. X XyLivill (.;., ihn, :), tt,...t., .it, ,,, i,..stt i, ti.ns,n, ow 1,,,,,is or helghts
entitle the lot to liontis ft, lot are folio...v.., dt ...'ti the .isabli. npen .iliat ,. retpiretnents way he satisfied
(,i) _ For dit.d...1t..s..ortfurrnitiu to th, def unto iii fit !h.. (.;•31)1.;trii t.
of is set forth in At t lo II,
Se, twit ',.). four ii,,ut.itt. li.ot i..1 rii in-ie.,. 'if fii: loll. iviiii 1 I toviyiint, ar...111 now rnaterial.)
detittd1 Hoot ated et
of tesidenttal hoot ,tred for t...dt.li siloar- ARTICLE XV-1: CENTRAL COMMERCIAL - C-3A
fof
DISTRICT ft of citt ado arod \vitliin '2(1 feet of
the tjjj. lino or told!' plit.o
botinditty whirl' it ,pijoilis
0)1_ For_throllgirdilo, k_i_otitio.,_tior_is i.i.iti. Ili, C-3A Centr,11 C.,)!.,Iswri id! Distrit t is designed tit presctrve
fttrinind to the definition of throwiti „Ind onlidni I. d ei,itor tel.ttl Leiner t^.(11110. a, (.onintryldring [ugh
blim-k (mittle( limn ..is set Ht tit tri Ar lit le ritonsity tw...." ilevolorittiord ,IS in the C-3 Distrit t For this
II,.Set tion 2 ti sgoitit. le..., of non i , it r ,oSt: ,I stte( tat telatl requirement apt thes 1)(3 all tieW (level-,
leSitlrIll.1)11 floor atelt ()! l',)._ s‘tpdre l(,)±t, ltlinetits nt ettldnietiletilS.
of tosidentkil floor rfrOti t,tt ..,it h STIcir,. Ihu fdl.',V.,111,1 ti!Vlitti,MS sh-ill dprily in the (2,--.),A District
foot of Ifitoijilli blin. t. i onnei tioi, dr,...d.
1.•,_-_)_ 1-ot urban iii_irti±,pdi,es i otif ot. riling to Section 1: Use Regulations
the fielmitif,ff f ft urban tg,f•ff sif,f f, ,r.,n.-.et
if )f lit in At i. it II Sei. brio 2 Ind No bldin 1 or striii-turn, or part thereof, shdll be oroi. tett,
of .tneted ,,r i!,,l, ,tr 1;1)1)1,11 ',',..',11(q 11S.!,1, In whIlIW Of in ticit t,
re( rrIV:nlja111)11)Vill Ity sp., 1,11.1....t !nit
Ore City Cr,,intission in d, , .11ihitt, e for oll.,..t thatrie ot !nun. of the tolloWitid ,,pei ilitsl us)(S
"./ith tht.i)rovisions tit Ar t ',Ai . XXN 1...1,_ tr1,-)t-t frIllt t. VVItil tin 111111{,01011,,11.!te,lfter stif.i if red.
Stit:.tion 2- )_,1,111()iliihill! ti4:1 ,)11)())110. (1) Any USE, 4ernittre.1 it) tIB C-:), DIstni 1 Stibjet 1
(lential flo) li ansi Pt 'Ili sti.),Ire fo,,t rif te the applthle t egolati(rns spccif ied in said
residential tleor ,tred for ed, li si.irdtt! Distil( t and to the h)llowittc; additional tr.f.iti-
foot ...1 Uli,i111 clpo.q1 ',pa I., illi!d. 1,1titHIS ,i.:Si,pli!d Illpteserve and Sltengthen
(3) F ut hit!, ,i(Q) i ent to a pul.lii operiA...i, e tother the retail i lkit,i).ter t)1 the distrir..t-
thitri_irliiiblik_2_,treoll of it least fit ty '..-)0)ft.it (d) For dll tri...*: buildings, altt,rations pt
in ‘.'.(rilli, HANS lipnt trteit rpt tost)lential use k'fillit irtniqltS, 'floor spdi i? ,?quivdItlit tr)
,g1Iv,.. 1,, iyittod in Ow dnhi,Jtit ut ,,:P, ,.._vldt- dt lo04t /I) pt:tc.etit Ili the 1(11 iited shall
ot for' h 1.,.•..ii scuidti. re, 1 ul OW Ht's ,11r1. ilt? 111(),.:.11.t.',..1 1)1 f W1..1114111( 1,' by tine or
(4) N•it....,itlist,trirding it prov.-.1uri1; i .f par,12,ty..lis plow:15.2S listeLi below. Only the net
(1).„12.1,ind 11.ti ei th.s S.... tion, total ili 'or died flour stt,ice for lease iid ,tt tual ptlysit al
. itio,...,111 lil'I!IILI tin i`tfThHi!ilS ,,h;J!1 fltit ext ))1?)t ()).r.lit(attry by individual lises anti n()t.
;tit, tietits set ter th as tolt.r.A...., in,.ludtrig ttri i idol s anti trthiti spat:es uset.f
ii.) I-..r nuti.n..sideritial et hot..! tuirlitinjs in t ()Pinion will be ((Ander! in deter ruining
d t,illtiitUS. 11,0 li Ill / thk CIMUt if i t Of SPii(..(! F) allto,dted.
'Hilo) iiltiinatfritr,ift 0 iS Ir`Y; (kill List of Uses VVItit:11 Niay (ki iris
1,trirt..) fert N.^,,.,iii.in,...Lilistani t. f toei ,i Rt.tiorwil Floor SEire
ii..irgildtt..ii ...Litton i,,i.......atiirri. of d Antique stubs
legiorial 1.11.+1 If .Itl'o I Sj'tit!"!, Ur I 3.0 Art Tiller !us, c•oninwridal
if d tnairi building entrari, - is ley; th,in Al tists' supply stores
1,1100 feet '.•,idlt.trig distan, e 'noel Nili 11 Bal.....cr‘i gtror.is shop
!within ple,7,111.fle. Barber slit if fs
(t) i , )1' 1 oSidi!t I tdi 1'1 id' iIIII.; , if 1, it I I. tli.,; ()1 B(rattly par Itrts
ki,11161122,!0V f VI liutel,, P, (t. 131.)()L stores
t.) f-it entrit. turil.lithr,wilit 11 in. tilde t)oth Candy trt it:c cream stores
toydentral dud non residentidl ur hotel Cdrttet, rug, lintrIciini, or trifler flour
pet now, 11,01 if rp, .ridin bitilding covering stoics
entrditi t. is Ies,; thdri 1.,pf.10 feet vi„,d1t.ittLi Cigar or tobacco stores
distion e In int d iii-dinited t,t,ition Clothing tri clothing at:cesstny stirrt.ts
trie//aritne tit a ri4g.iti4Ial ralail tr,insit Dep.:Jr tit -lent stcit es
7
,1 1/,() d ,.thitnj..irlditgktritratti.€i
4 50if Id) i liutlf) feet ‘,/,t1t.i1ra,fistrinr,
fri station
(t
Dn)q stores
Dry cleaning agencies or pressing
establ ishrnerl is
Dry goods or fabrics stores
Eating or drinking Palaces, including those
which provide outdoor table service
or incidental musical entertainment
Florist shops
Foots stores, including supermarkets,
grocery stores, pleat markets, or
detlh:atesserr stores
Furniture stores
Furrier shops, custom
Gift shops
Hardware stores
Inieerior der.olating establishments
lewetty o1 ,art metal craft shops
Laundry agencies
Leather goods or luggage stores
Locksmith shops
Millinery shops
Music stores
Newsstands, open r1r enclosed
Optical stores
Package liquor stows
Photographic equipment r11 supply stores
Photographic studios
(1) 1.ctrd stores
Sowing machine stor11s, selling huus,:ht)l)(
machines Only
Shoo or hat repair shops
Stale Stores
Spot Ling goods sti)rr,s
Stamp w eoin stares
Stationery stones
Tailor nr ,liessnlahing ships, rut,ton)
Television, radio, phonograph, or house-
hold appliance stores of rt:lsaa shorts
-1 'st'u,es
Ty1i WI 1 ter sit des
Var rely stores
`;;tllpai'et stores
VV,itt h t,t rltx.l, stores, or tt ;t,ur
For the putpus1"t t)t n,t'ettng it!t triininnittt
spate rttgnitt!!ut.'ntS Ittt sup h ,r.;)';, space
tvlii he ct)1!ntea as qualitytri,; only it
at t cssltt)Ie tt) thr. I)ubhc ,111 1 sltu,ltud ,as
I(Olt iyds
1 Spa,-e dire( try act essittle from anti
on th,' same level ,:'ilh a public.
sidewalk, other put)lit pedestir,lu
Way o, at1 art:atie,
2. Space directly al cessible horn and
on the saute level with the main
lobby of a building
Space. on levels immediately
!hove t)r below other qualifying
spate and publicly accessible by
escalator
For buildings with frontage tin [.ast
0,, West F laglt'r Street or on Meth or
South Miami Avenue at least /0 percent
of sut:la frontage shall be allocated for
occupancy by uses listed in sub -paragraph
(a) of this Section. The remainder of
such frontage may be devoted to other
permitted uses not listed in sub-
paragraph (a), to building entrances,
lobbies, through block connections or
Other pedestrian Spaces, or to escalators
or stairs providing public access to
other levels, provided that rto single
segment of frontage devoted to such
other uses, spaces or facilities may
exceed 70 feet in Length.
The following Provisions ate all new material.)
ARTICLE XV-2: CENTRAL COMMERCIAL - C-3B
DISTRICT
Purpose:
Thor purpolStl Of the C-313 District is to provide for central
commercial and hitch density residential development in areas
near the core of the central business district. The District
permits the same uses as the C-3 District but at somewhat
lcnver development intensities. Permitted floor area ratios
are generally consistent with ability to accommodate generated
parking demand on site.
The folkxvulg regulations shall apply in the C-3B District.
Section 1:
No building or
altt)1ed or used
for other than
(1)
(7)
Use Regulations
structure, or portion thereof, shall be erected,
, or land or water used, in whole or III part,
OHO ur 111ure of the following specified uses:
Any noir-residential list! permitted in the C-3
District, subject to the- USE REGULATIONS
sin:it:died in said District.
Any residential use permitted in the R-3
District, subject 10 the USE, AREA, anti
YARD regulations specified in said District.
Apartment building or apartment hotel not
exceeding a density of one (1) dwelling unit
for each two hundred twenty (220) square
tout of lot area.
Hotel or Motel
AccessO;y parking facilities for apartment
buildings, with vehicle capacities not exceeding
GO percent of the rlunitaer of dwelling units.
The billowing accessory parking facilities,
parking lots or parking garages, subject to
approval by the City Commission in accordance
i.vitil the provisions of Section 8 of Ar title
XXVI.1.
(a) Accessory parking facilities for non-
residential uses or hotels.
(b) Accessory parking facilities for apartment
bciiidings, with vehicle capacities exceeding
GO perc;ent of the number of (fwelliny
11t11ts.
(c) Parking lots or garages for the parking
of autonlubiles by the public.
The following uses if approved as a "CONDI-
8
Section 2:
(1)
(2)
(3)
TIONAL U:iF"
(a) Alotot biis terminal
lktl Hrlipori
Limitations on Uses
F\cent for atrton)r)laiit park anr! rind 'rotor
hies terminals, hehp ut�;, all a+.tiviti, s, nulud�ny
salt,, display, Itrehabrtinri an:t st�na pi, ,hall
Ix'tttnriu, red entirely',.ithei a r osri!ileti�ly
enclost'd building
Ni) see unit -hand or used ',hall
t)ft !rt?`I t, rt ,a(t', tilS1,(ay.'t1 or ,ti vest, ,??ir.tVt in
nnnurtiou wadi an .1r111,V1t slur,, ,u t ur
aui lion gallery.
All I;rrulu, is shall he wild at r tail on the
Itte wises.
Section 3: Area (All new r, area al)
Thera',hai1 hit no nunninant oritirir„d area kit %% ith of !tit
ua !his Distritt.
Section 4: Yards and Minimum Distance Between
Residential Buildings
111 f RONT AND Sl RELI SIDE St. Tf3A(:KS.
In all install, es, except •i prtn��.i��il tin
Ate ;a ll s i!t Atli; I.' XXVI-1, Sei anon f) an.;
exetitit di; 1tt)u'dtitt lnovi�ltv..l, a nuntnnt�n
front 1. of ten (1(.)) feet f,)t the first
nine (Sl) tt?tit of and tt honor in
!diem side setha. 1 cif f:v+t (5) feet foi t! i•
first tame (()) feet of htlil,iing li. l.l)tt, shall
pr,ivii!ed ar+d rn:nnt;)in,i 1 in dirdan:,� vith
this full,%t nri nig:nroments
(a) Thir rccloireii ,ttti,at I ;anti shall fat
treated with Iant);;optic) so as ter
present, nt pkirpetaity, a neat ,)n,i
rfetly apterurxu t'
(I;) The requite.' sells; is sutra Shall
not bt'ttstSI for ott',utter earl -in:I.
(2) \tthttrc a lot is adjt)inen (ty d btnld;n
ha:> it ,s than the above tttti_tittal 1., tart:
following exicit)t itusshall kit' indite
(a) It the iot has a lot line ilirrion5i('t � )1
less than fifty (50) feet abottivv;,any
sin.'et, then the s,ttbiii.t. n'giuted ;along
that pat tu:nlar sttt't't Sltail not 1?,'
grr:dttt than the docper of 1:11)114
adjunung setback,
(I)) It WO loi has a Irtt line diinenslon of
h(ty (50) feat its enure.abutting any
street, f)ol not yruatt'r than sixty -live.
((3ti) feat, then the st'tbat.f, requited
along that particular sheet shall not be
gloater than the iteettt'r of any ad-
joining stttl)atk, unless sui.tt adjuininy
setha,.f. is lass than five (5) feet, in
which case the required setbaia:
shall be fly(' (5) foot.
9
(3) At)rtve a height of 100 feet above grade, no
point tin a bidding shall be closer to the
centerline i_)f a street than one-half (Y,) the
height of said point above grade, provided
that such restriction shall not require a set-
I:catk greater than 25 feet from the street
line,
(i1) IN1 [ 131013 SIDE YARD: No interior side
yard is nxtiailed. Howe-vcr, if any opera area
+tx test+.atoll a(tntl an inter ittt side lot line is
cu avid+rrf, it shall be at least ten (10) feat.
'.vide. For rtrsiticnttal lnatltfingsor r.srt:fential
portions of builLlirt+ts, any portion of a building
wall :vhit 11 has \vintft.t vs shall be set back
from an interior side lot lint, a tfistancu of riot
less than twenty-five (25) feet or one -.sixth
(116) of the 11 6iglit of said building wall,
'. )tti hevttr is greater, The minimum setback
may be reduced by ctnt,-halt (',) when the lot
line is irnrntnfialely adjacent to a public park,
F ui residential portions tit buildings which
ci)nbine rt'sidt'ntial and lion -residential Uses,
that height of the building wall shalt he measured
front the floor level of the lowest story used
for residential use.
('..i) BLAB YARD.
fa) For rein-wsiiiiintiat buildings, no rear
yard is required except where a lot in
the C-3[3 Dist! it t abuts upon a lot in any
"R" (Residential) District; a yard at
least trio (10) feet in width shall be
I,uovidtrd ;i;lja, ent to the? "R" Distnc1.
Howtwnr, if ,any open area along a rear
lot lint: is provided, it shall be at least
ttvi (10) feet wide.
(1;) For residential buildings ur tesideliti,tl
portions of buiifutri:;, a friar yard shall
tot pnavrded having a minimum fttptft of
twtinty fiver (25) feet, any! atey ni non
of a bitt) brig wall ,vliit.it has k.vin,fuws
tihall be Sul kik t, horn a rear lot line,i
distally of nt,t i tt . than twenty tv,
(2.U) feet or o')t? SIX th (1/6) iif this h,iiylit
of said ht'vr=r
gteaU'a. The ntininiuin selhat t_ may lit,
reduced by one -halt 1112) when they lot
line is immediately aifjaterlt to a ptahlii_
pail.,For residential po!lionso1 hinklings
:dhich t utnbincr residonlial and non-
trsir_htntial uses, the lei uiretl rt,ai y,ut1
tit the residential portion may be ptt)vid,tt)
at any level not hither than the flout level �w
i)f Un lowest story ustr,f foi tesi!firntial
use, and afire height rrf ,i buiidttt; sdoll
t rnttaining wiru.ltnvs Shill I,e ttteasureil
fiurn stash flout Itty it of thte lowest story
used tot residential use.
(0) MINIMUM DISTANCE 131: FWELN RLSIDENTIA
BUILDINGS. The provisions of Ar tit le IV,
Sir lion 15 shall apply in this District ttxta?pt
that this torirnit,a ft)r determining minimum
hori/ontal distance l.tetweett any Iwo buildings
,nl ttl' u;i.,iritfied (11 reir
LA (fur, 1._13 Ili\ ,s, tit;
All > rovi sirin5,)t l\rtl. lr IV , non
refer 1.; ?flit ft`r 7/'i)l:) 1n 541',1 f)1'.. flit? '';I1,111
nt5t'sr1 refer OW, f))snu 1 1„ ti-,' f,:r'nt0,1
a','n' hfir'! hrr,'It1
Section 5: Height
Thewr= �,h,tli h„ no dbs')I,)le humht limo in this Liistri' t,
as tequlrr',11 Ar 1, ir' IV, S''+ tin)?
Section 6:
11)
(2)
13)
Floor Area Ratio
N,m.R) ,I 1''ntial Uses
Except as provided in Se lulu i, the floor
area 'alto for non-residential uses shati riot
r'xcI)trrl 2.0.
H,lsidential Uses
Excr;r(tt as provided in Set.tirin 7, the fir),>r
area rail() for residential uses spate nu?
CX(1'e(i 2.0.
Except as provide,' in Sei.non 7, the floor
area rater) for ail .,Is:'s in a buildinq shall nt)t
exceed 3.0.
Section 7: Floor Area Premiums
!fur goof ,3r,),) !,)tins pr'rrnitti-it u) `ii',.non i) relay I),) ini raas,'�1
u1 ail (urlan,.r' with the provisions of this S+rc.hrm.
(1) For Tilts on +:Jhich ; vhli> Id( -'Idles die Spec 1)1 .airy
,u,lndatr'(l by the prn+,1isl')ns lit r"v!tl,.le XXVI-1,
fl'1,1r a)r;l honed if any !,hall tie 11 a' cold,)rn ,r
V",'till 1111' I '7')VI51,) 7I9.11f',lid Ati.ii ir', r'yI11;)1 111,1f
?,nos tl1nlr'3ru.r„Il,r,u"f thr.'1,•,111>''r anal
f'tt 101 )1 ,il')s, S'';,)',' ltr intlr;ls''1
by !)lO (i„t"'MI
t 2) O101011a1 h'd ,rr<; 111)t i'1'1 1(11.afl•, r'1,111tf,it''.1 fi'ti
the, pt<t; ISi+)))', ,>f Ar ticic XXVI 1 '.V,II entitle
the lot to Limos hi or
tar 1 in den ddc, + nnt'n^Ian'; to the definition
t iiri.itdc as, set fur th in At ti ,le 11,
Se, lion 2. fo.tr'Ui),>tc feel ,,of non.
!es,denttdl Hoot died nr six SO.1;11'0 f11et
11f teyld''n11a1 flu(;! ;rend f,)) 11,11 h St)'late
foot of a)1 avf,' area '.,'lthin 20 feet of
the s,neet line or 'urban open spa( lr
bu;Tidal y ^dlli(h 11 adjoins.
Fit throrl1;fi her)' k none)«)) ?ions' orllt)rn)uut
it1 1h1"fefin)1ir111 <)f llnough bir)rt.' in
nu'.t)rnl as set l,nth In At been II, Set;tion
2: 0 sqgar, feet of nnn-resi(f1'))nal floor
area in r,) sOo.nl' feet of residential floor
;lea for e'i>.h sc),ia!r.l foot of th1u)r;h
(nine( noir UIr',).
For urban „i))'n',pac„', r,,'n1urrnur) I(3
the detuntlon if urban ()pen space' as
see for tit ul Attu le II, Sr') lion 2 and
n'i.civiny ,){;pluv.)l 1y sptx:ial permit of
the City Cr)rl>r!)is's)rin in d -r or>lani.e with
the provisit)n5'1f Arlin le XXXII 1,
(:I)
U1,rl 1 i7 square feet of residential
tit)'t rl'si=1('ri1.1,11 flour area for each
4l-r.ian into cif ,rhan or erl space tuna.
( -I) f Itr th,:,t pi>ri)on of total usable open
Gi`dl r• in ex,,.'ss ,)f f;O percent of the
hot area, fir, it square feet of residential
"limo' area for rt,1r-?1 r)xdcss square foot
f usable open space, provided that an
urban open space for which bonus
flour area is allowed shall not be inclu-
ded in the total usable open spare for
pt>rposes of determining the excess u-
sable open space eli(11bl(.r for bonus.
N('rw11(.slandin,l the provisions of paragraphs
(1) and (2) of this Section, total floor area
ratel, hiding all premiums shall not exceed
On, Inuits set for th as follows
(a) Fitt Min resiOe')ltial buildings or portions
of buildings: 4.0 if no main ltuilciinq
entr)nl (' is less than 1,000 feet walking
distaure f r„ ' > ,, designated station
nu✓r;fninr+ of a regional rapid transit
systirtl,,lr h.O if a main kidding
Art ittan ,' is less thou 1,000 f,)et walking
distance from such Station} rr t'iJdllirle.
(b) I:oi residential buil'iinysor portions
c)t b(I)1t11n')s J.O.
(c) Fin entire buildings which ended,)
both residential and non-rl,si(Icntidl
portions. 6.0.
Section 8: Usable Open Space
f-t'r „at h :l'.V''Itlllt)'.it a nnnitnil 11 r)f 120 sc;uale feel ,?t
usat.lO (11101 s;'a(r• I1,111 h,! i)rl)vi(I)" i un the site. In this
(Distr I. I, nnIV.r'ihst,>ndinq th'..i tn'ovisi>1ns of the definition
1 usable ')1!F'!) spat e as set for th in Ar tide II, ;iu, t1o11 2,
th'. rr)(1,>i! ')141nt on nits?! ibution if usable ,)pen sill? ,. by
lev'•1 are as follows
I1) At least bU percent at or below the floor
level of the, lowest residential story 1-:on-
taming dwelling (111i7S.
(2) Not 11)o1rc than 20) lr'rLent et a level higher
lh;ifl either.
(a) 120 feet aboveground level, or
(b) the flrx)r level of the lowest residential
story cot itaining dwelling units,
whichever level is higher.
Ni It less than b0 pen;,'nt c)f total usable open sptu:e shaft be
f,>r)rf sea)>ell including trees and shrubl)t ry.
(The following provisions are all new material,)
ARTICLE XV-3: CENTRAL COMMERCIAL SERVICE
C-3C DISTRICT
Put r pose:
The purpose of this District is to provide for the wide range
of Setvu:es required by central business district firms, their
employees and visitors in close proximity to the core of
highest development intensity.
The following regulations shall apply in the C-3C District.
10
Section 1: Use Regulations
No building or situ tine, or poi lrttrt thereof, shall1),! ere, ted,
ahered ur used, or land ttr wah'r used, in whole ctr in part,
for other than one or mow of the following specified uses.
(1) Any nonresidential use per t'nitterl in the C-3
District, subject to the USI: REGULATIONS
specified in said District.
(2) 1Itti'I or Mittel
(3) howling alleys limited to not more than
sixteen (1(i) lanes pet eslablishnunt.
(41) Cater mgSetvir.e,Social, Honte or Airline
(5) Electrical, glaring, heating, painting, paper
hanging, plumbing, rooting, or ventilating •
contractors' establishments, limited to 2,500
sot ate feet of floor area per establishment.
(6) Monuments (sale and display only)
(7) M(trteary, undertaker or embalming establish-
ment, and itrm:rat horns:
(8) Pawn shop
(9) Pest control agency
(10) Rehr:shiner t stands, drive-in
(1 1) Sign painting shops, limited to 2,500 square
feet of floor area per establishment
(12.) Taxidermist shops
(13) Trade, or other schools for adults
(14) Upholstering shops dealing directly with
consumers
(15) Venetian blind, window shade, or awning
shops, Lesion), limited to 2,500 square feel
ui floor area pot establishment.
(16) Window cleaning contractors' establishments,
including direr waxing and other similar
itttildinca maintenance services
(17) The following automotive service uses.
(a) Automobile glass and mirror shops
(1)) Aulontobile seal covet or runner little
loll establishments, selling ut instal-
lation
(c) Tire sales establishments, inc hiding
installation services
(18) Acxesscny pat kmg facilities lot midi, mien!
buildings, with vehtcl' c:a rarities nett exeeedirtq
60 percent rtf tluI number of dwelling units.
(19) The following ,ir.cessory pat king hit111lies,
pat king lots ur par kind gal atles, subject t()
approval by the City Cnrn(ISSittrt in Gtr:r.urti,tn(e
With WO provisions of Section 8 of Atticle
XXVI-1:
(a) At;ccssory par I.:inlf facilities for non-
residential uses or hotels.
(b) Accessory parking facilities for apart
nu;nt htaildings, with vehicle (:apat hies
exceeding (30 percent of the; number of
dwelling units.
(t ) Pat 1.inq lots of garags for the parking
of automobiles by the politic..
120) The following uses if approved as "CONDI-
TIONAL USES":
(a) Anal hrtent building tit apartment hotel
not exctteding a density of one (1)
dwelling unit for each 220 square feet
11
(b)
(c)
(d)
of lot area
Armory
Boxing or sports arena, fronton, or
skating rinks
Gasoline stations subject to the
limitations applicable in C-2 Districts
(Article XIV, Section 1, paragraph
(21)(g))
Section 2: Limitations on Uses
(1) Except for drive-in businesses, parking lots,
parking garages or accessory parking facilities,
all activities, including sale, display, preparation
and storage, shall be conducted entirely
within a completely enclosed building.
(2) All products shall be sold at retail on the
premises.
(3) Storage of merchandise and/or materials
shall be pertnitted within the rear portion
of a building when in conjunction to the
operation of an office, store, or other
commercial use, located within the front
portion of the same building, and provided
that:
(a) The office, store, or commercial use
occupies a minimum of twenty-five
(25) percent of the total floor area
of the building or structure.
Section 3: Area
There shall bit net ntinnnunt requited area or width of lot in
this Dist lot.
Section 4: Yards and Minimum Distance Between
Residential Buildings
(1) FRONT AND STREET -SIDE SETBACKS: In
all instances, except as provided lot Arcades
in Article XXVI-1, Section 5 and except as
hereafter provided, a minirrrunl front setback
of ten (10) feet for the first nine (9) feet of
building height and a minimum street -side
setback of five (5) feet for the first nine (9)
feet of building height, shall be provided
and maintained in accordance with the
following requirements:
(a) The required setback area shall be
treated With landscaping so as to present,
in perpetuity, a neat anti orderly
appearance.
(b) The required setback area shall not be
used for off-street parking.
(2) Where a lot is adjoined by a building which has
less than the above required setback, the
following exceptions shall be made:
(a) If the lot has a lot line chmensiora of
less than fifty (50) feet abutting any
street, then the setback required along
that particular street shalt not be greater
than the deeper of either adjoining
setback.
(b) If the lot has a lot line dimension of
fifty (50) feet or more abutting any
street, but not greater than sixty-five
(65) feet, then the setback required
along that particular street shall not
he greater than the deeper of any
adjoining setback, unless such adjoining
setback is less than five (5) feet, in which
case the required setback shall be five
(5) feet,
(3) Above a height of 100'above grade, no point
on a building shall be closer to the centerline
of a street than one-half ('/a) the height of
said point above grade, provided that such
restriction shall not require a setback
greater than 25 feet from the street line.
(4) INTERIOR SIDE YARD: No interior side yard
is required. However, lever, if any opert area extending
along an interior side lot line is provided, it
shall he at least t n (10) feet wide. For
residential buildings or residential portions of
buiidrrtgs, any portion of a building wall which
has windows shall be it bark front ari interior
side opt line a distance of not le';s than twenty.
five (25) feet or one -sixth (1/6) of the height
of said building Ewalt, whichever is q_ recta. The
minimum setback may he reduced by one-
half ('.'..► when the lot line is immediately
adjacent to a public: park. For residential
portions of iuildings which combine residential
and non-residential uses, the height of the
building wall shall be measured ft ron the
floor level of the lowest story used for
residential use.
(5) REAR YARD:
(a) For non-residential buildings, no rear
yard is required except where a lot in
the C-3C District abuts upon a lot in
any "R" (Residential) District; a yard
at least ten (10) feet in width shall be
provided adjacent to the "R" District.
However, if any open area along a rear
lot line is provided, it shall be at least
men (10) feet wide.
(b) For residential buildings or residential
portions of buildings, a rear yard shalt
be provided having a minimum depth of
twenty-five (25) feet, and any portion
of a building wall which has windows
shall be set back from a rear lot line
a distance of not less than twenty-five
(25) feet or one -sixth (1/6) of the height
of said building wall, whichever is
greater. The minimum setback may be
reduced by one-half (V,) when the lot
line is immediately adjacent to a public
park. For residential portions of
buildings which combine residential and
non-residential uses, the required rear
yard for the residential portion may be
provided at any level not higher than
the floor level of the lowest story used
for residential use, and the height of a
building wall containing windows shall
be measured from such floor level of
the lowest story used for residential use.
(6) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS' The provisions
of Article IV, Section 15 shall apply in this
District except that the formula for deter-
mining rninintutn horiiontai distance between
any two buildings on the site is modified to read
as fulloWS:
LA plus LB plus HA_ plus HB
6 I 8
All provisions of Article IV, Section 15 which
refer to the formula in said Section shall
instead refer in this District to the formula as
modified herein.
Section 5: Height
There shall he no absolute height limit in this District,
exempt as required by Article IV, Section 37.
Section 6:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Floor Area Ratio
Non.Residential Uses
Except as provided in Section 7, the floor area
ratio for non-residential uses shall not exceed
20.
Residential Uses
Except as provided in Section 7, the floor aiea
ratio for residential uses shall not exceed
2.0.
Except as provided in Section 7, the floor area
ratio for ail uses in a building shall not exceed
3.0.
Section 7: Floor Area Premiums
The floor area ratios permitted in Section 6 may be increased
in accordance with the provisions of this Section.
(1) For lots on which public facilities are
specifically mandated by the provisions of
Article XXVI-1, floor area bonuses, if any,
shall be in accordance with the provisions of
said Article, except that bonus floor area
12
allowed thereunder anti aka att!d tot
rr!st:baltial uses may he int teased try `r(I
pe tout.
(21 (°Mortal hzah;ir!s nt,(ar;t ifn filly tei.ln,)atirf
fay the pr:)v!sions of Arhe.le XXVI 1 will
cntittt• the' lot to florins Hiatt ,tare as follt>:vs
(tr) Fot al, adios ctmforrninu to the r_fefrruttt)n
of an tide as seat for th in At tit le II,
Ste iioan 2 foot sot Taw fr!e!t of ntxt
rc'sirlrantial floor elate or six Scware feet
of residential floor ante iot r;at.h square;
fcarit rif ar-arfit area within 2t) fi't!t of
the sucet finr; or urban open spare;,
boon;tary which it a;ittatis
tit) Ft/I t1r1a119h blot f: exanne4ct r s rnn-
fornunq to the rfttfiration of +kook ih
falrrr k connection as set forth in Article
II, Sot( turn 2 (i square feet of lit di-
rt!sidtrntial floor aria or ¶ scittdre fleet cif
trsrft'ntial tl()(ar area for each sgraane
fora of through blot t our ationn rued.
IL) For urban +alien spares t.untorrrnny to
the definition of urban open spec+� as
sot forth in Ar tit It II, Suction 2 ancf
u�rrtivinq aptroval by Sp;r tat teem it of
the City Ciamniissiun nr ar crxclant e with
the; pr+ivisioris of Arta le XXXIi 1, Section
1: I3 situate feet tot residential or nun
residential dolor area for each square
foot of ;arflan open spate arGar,
For ttrat taurnon of total rr;ablem open
spat c in t;:tct!SS ref !it) prltunt t)f thi; lit
area, frxtr set,r'ur feat of residential
flour an a for teach err:ess square tout of
usable ;open +,teat o', (aruviderf that are !iri�ain
•I;Wf fair ',Atha 11 lamas floor rate et
,allowoe f shall Hilt tics in; ltiiir f ui the'
renal miS t hti1.n SHar., f,,t 1,:Iri;'Strs
rat t!i!trrr.umn.t tie _xrt';S ilS,tlile ni,t'n
Stta1.0 tilri..ublr' fUr I)l;rIt S.
(3) Ntattvithtitri ndinq the prinrisitsris of (aar.rtrrrphs
(1) root (2) ref this Set ucin, natal tIoxit area
mhos itir111c111.0 ail pact turns shall not ex; et•;f
the limntssttt teal as ftalltreds.
tail Ftar loan esitiontial 1;itklrtags it put turns
of briilctings• 4.0 if no roam building
entrant to Is It's!; than 1,(100 feet welkin'(
tlistant fru!n a fdtt'd static+rr
rue,•rruru0 of a regional tepid trnisit
systt!et, on Ei.O it a Walt) huildmq entrance
IS less (Iran i,000 feet wiil,inrt tiistanr
from sorb station rner,/ainr! C.
(b) For rtssi.ti!mtia l buildings or portions of
butlditrisr 13,0.
(c.) i or entire ttiuldinit5 which iot:ludc 0nth
residential and non residential portions'.
G.O.
(d)
Section 8: Usable Open Space
For taro ii dwelling ;snit a mrnunurn of 120 square feet of
o!ratle ;lien spa t! shall be provide; + on the site. In this Distract,
13
notwothstandinq the: provisions of the itefinition of usable
oaten shut tr as set both tti Ar tale II, Sot, lion 2, the require-
ments ;in d+siribtit«in of isthlr= upert Space by level are as
ftalLi;vs
(1) At least 50 percent at or below the fluor level
of the lowest residential story t.untaining
dwelling units.
(2) Not more than 20 percent at a level higher
than either:
(a) 120 feet above around level, or
(h) the flour level of the lowest residential
story containing dwelling units,
whichever level is higher.
PJvt less than 50 percent ut total usable open space shall be
lanclstape d including trees and shrubbery.
I, he Inll(1wilia priviSions ale all nt;w material.)
ARTICLE XV-4: RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE CENTRAL
COMMERCIAL-C-3D DISTRICT
Pin pose
['his Distrust is designed as a residential -office -cornnreic.ial
district fur parts oaf the! central ursine+ss rfistrit.t enjoying the
she.!; irtl advantages of proximity to waterfronts and parks.
Rusicittntial ctavrrlol;rnent is ena)uraged in this district fun
the purpose of acrorninodatinq people disposed to urban
tivinLI dose to plaices eat ernpl0ynrt;t.
1 ho foltuwinq nt!qulaf ions shalt apply in the C-3D District:
Section 1: Use Regulations
NI) buikiirl If structure, or part thereof, shall be erected,
altered or ust'd on land or water used, in whole or in part,
irit other than one or more of the following spet:ifie rises:
(11 Any use permitted in an R-3 District, subject
to the USE, AREA, and YARD r;uulabotis
spit. it;i,f in said disin c:t.
(2) A(tart!nent building and apartment hotel not
r:cer,t.fing a density of one (1) dwelling unit
for each 220 situate fret of lot area.
(:),I Yore( or Motel.
(4) Oficu for the conduct of real estate, niuttgage
furrowing, accountants, fax Cons+,tltants,
engineers, dental or medical (into:luchnq clinics),
ur raffice of othet professions, or businesses
not involving sane or handling or merchandise
on the prennises.
(5) Bank and Finance Offices, exclusive of drive-
in tellers.
(I) Broaricasting Stations for Radio rind TV.
(7) The following retail or service uses:
At t Galleries
Art Supply Store
Bake Shop
Rambo Shop
Beauty Par lot
Camera Shop
Delicatessen
Flutist Shot?
Gift aruf Cairo) Shop
Health S(ia
1.1
• ,*
hAVt:Itti Stitt„
L�t;lu;aty an,! L/1;t (I+'anuett;Adt•r!( d
te,:al ;a'rt f.)"ntai Lail(tr;it�tt�.
fatty, 1!rt
Nhisi, Store
Nt•wsstan,l
O!'ti( at ;„;tvvlcrt
Photo rat.ht't
Statiintt'ry 1.-;ti1!t.!
'travel Ageni.v,r
Prrvatr Cob, 104190, iT 3ternity, :Jorily, air:
other similar use`;, not ttperatt•ti for profit
Restaurant 10,i Rooms ut Caft's If._xt lu_iitt
danrina or e'ntertainmentl
Dori Storer
130lok Shire-- use Ly the gttrnerdl t•0t1)110
merit, fruit or vegetable .'idrket,
!r. iitcrf to 2,0O0 stl,iare ft,tttt of flet,u ar('u
pt l e'Stablishnt('nt
D(1)l1t.a1'm r enter, ttitt nu Itt (itt:t tyt,tatttlin_1
and let ie'r 1111'SS
(h) At ' {larking farilthes for r110,1ittlieni
ttullt.11n,is, with vehicle 0 apak ities not •„ e(.01ing
(i0 ttert tent .-tf 1(00' nurnbttt of clweliino tioits.
(1.0 The' ttrlti)lvitt t a, Itessury p‘irkttt.t 1au_tittus,
park Intl i+!t` ttr Itdrk111(1 (1,11 ige'S, Stlhlet t to
;allt4ovat 1ty ilia' City Ctunrttissutn rt ri ; ctr,ian;.e.
with Irn) itritvisttms itt S000 11,NI `clot Ai belt.
XXVI-1
(a) Ai ecss;ny p._iiklrn_I ta, it!tiits for eon
residential uses ctr ite iteets.
fit) At lessi,ty parking fat itttles l0 V (It att
"Wilt Ituilttintis, Awith vittlt....I0 e.,10,10 oius,
ex, fi0 puree nt t_if th,• n:11,itit'1
of ti+.vt1llttl<q+tnit
(t 1 Parl.uttl 1')1s ur ;latdi S ttu the p, f,t1
aullttrufttlet, Ity flit: ltttlli(
(10) A. t c;,s,e:1y i_tst,s; ut Sturm ins
Section 2:
(1)
(2)
Limitations on Uses
All .it itVitt''S,'r11111 Itn't „ttet; 'ic.t lay, t,rr.
ttatul1,)!t ti,1%1 , sh;tll ht -;,t 1141: tt, t
:ntl't ly A' thUt,I tu'�Ili+'l, tt, en, lus,'d L.:11Oet.1
Ntt S..( tint(-hdn_I .tr ,151'1 tell-r1 tl,-ltt ti>e s,t,.ttl tte
tt1101e".1 It tr ;.it. , ,11sl tl,lyt,ti ,tr !,tt,ilrt
(a) All tool-.10 t& small btt t, 1t1 at iet,i11 on thr
preeitt;es
Section 3: Area (All New Material)
T ht;l c ',Mall 1.1
this L)istr i, t
nn ntuur,utnt rt�q,iret( alga or wlEItli 111 for to
Section 4: Yards and Minimum Distance between
Residential Buildings
(1) E RONT AND STRE:E 1 SIDE SETBACKS
to all instances, 1.i t:ept tts prt>videci tu? Arraties
In Attit It, XXVI 1, St'( bun 5 troll extent as
tt'reattt'r provided, a minimum front setbat:k
of ten (10) feet for the fir,;! nine (01 feet rtt
building height anti a !ninitnunt street -side
setback-, of five (5) feet for the first nine (9)
feet of building height, shall be provided and
maintained in accordance Witlt the following
requirements,
(al The required setback area shall be,
treated with landscaping so as to present,
in perpetuity, a neat and orderly appear-
ance.
(b) The required setback area shall not be
used for off-street parking.
( I Where a lot is adjoined by a building which
has lass than the above required setback, the
following exceptions shall be trade:
(a) 11 the lot has a lot line dimension of
less than fifty (50) feet abutting any
street, then the setback required along
that particular street shall not be
greater than the deeper of either
adjoining setback.
(b) If ttte lot has a lot line dimension of
fifty (50) feet or more abutting any
street, but not greater than sixty-five
(65) feet, then the setback required
along that particular street shall not be
greater than the deeper of any adjoining
setback:, thrills such adjoining setback
is less than five (5) feet, in which case
the required setback shall be live (5)
feet.
Above a height of 100 feel above grade, no
point on a building shall he closer to the center-
line of a street than one-half (Vi) the height of said
point aboverirade, nrnvirinrl that sirr•h rnStrirlion
shall not require a setback !treater than 25 meet
from the street line.
(4) INTERIOR SIDE YARD Nu interior si(ie
yam is required. However, if any open area
extending along ,ltt interior side lot fine is
1)rovirfe0.1, it shall be ill leus1 ten (1t) fleet
wide;. For tesidentidi buildings or residential
pottions of buildings, any portion of a building)
c alf which has ,..tndowsshall he set batik trotn
Oil interior side lot lint' a distance of not less
that) twenty-five 1.25) feet or one -sixth
(116) of the height of said buttdtnu %^,edit,
whichever is greater. The minimum sutbac1,
Wray be redo ed by erne -hall (') when the:
lot line is tnitnediately adjacent to a public:
park. Fut rresuf('ntial portions of buildings
whr1:lt cuntbIlle sidential dntf nett) reSttIt'ntiai
ust's, the height of the' building wall shall be
!tu'asuti!d hunt the flour level Of III!' lowest
story used for residential use.
(1)) REAR YARD
(,a) Fur n(.)n-residentiat buildings, no roar
yard is regtinir,i exc-ept Where a Int In
the C-3D Drstl ita abuts upon a lot in
arty "R" (Residential) Dish ic t; a yard
at least ten (10) feet in width shall he
provided ,ttljac:(nit to thtt "R" District.
14
•
I+)'ever rf :ny gruel en.l
I,tt Itnte is provided, it shall he at least
ten (10) feet mile
(h) 1-or resitlent tat hilail+nets ur r+,st,lcrttiat
portions of buildings, a rear ydtd shall
he proviffecl hourly a minimum depth of
twenty five (25) fteet,,rnel any pttrtiern
trf a building wall which has wnt+lows
shall be !let back from a rear lot line a
distant) of not less than twenty- five
(25) feet or one six th )1I(1) of the
height of said buil,imi; wall, whu:hev'fr
is greater. The minimum setback. may
be reduced by one-half (>) when the
lot line is immediately adjacent to a
public park. f:or residential portions of
buildings which c.ornhine resicfentidl
and non residential uses, Ole required
rear yard OH the residential poi non may
be provided at any level not higher than
ihr;, floor level of the lowest story used
for residential use, and the height ;if a
building wall containing wincfovrs shall
hoe rneasuted frith such floor ICvel of
the lowest story used for residential use.
(6) MINIMUM DIS1ANCE BETWEEN RESIDLN
TI AL BUILDINGS: -the Ixrlvisions of Article
IV, Section 15 shall apply in this District
except that the formula Ivor determining
minimum hori/ontal distance between any
two buildings on the site is nindif led to read
as follows:
S LA jlllls LB plus HA f�tis_HB
All provisions of At title IV Section 15 >,vhich
refer to the formula in said Sot_tiun drill instead
refer in this District to the formula as
modified herein.
Section 5: Height
Them shall he no absolute height limit if OHS D+SIti+.t, cxrt .1
as required by Ar title IV, Section :31.
Section 6:
11)
(2)
(3)
Floor Area Ratio
Nun -Residential Uses
Except as provided in Sot -bun 1, the flour
area tatiu for non-residential uses shall not
exceed 1.5.
Residential Uses
Except as provided in Set non 1, the flue;r
area ratio for naidenlial ustesshall nut
excee(1 1.5.
Lx(Iczpt as III rvi::fed in Section 7, the: flour
area ratio for all uses in a )mildind shall nc>t
c:xccxed 2.E).
Section 7: Floor Area Premiums
I foe floor area ratios permitted in Section 6 may be increased
in accordance with the provisions of this Seectiun.
15
(1)
(2)
I+ets h<avrnet an Area of at (cast 20,00(1
sill law feet, the floor area ratio for residen-
tial uses and the floor area ratio for all uses in
a uniting may he increased by 1.0.
Tor lots on which public• facilities are specific-
ally mandato! by the provisions of Article
XXVI 1, floor area bonuses, if any, shall be in
c.ordance with the provisions of said Ar title,
except that bonus floor area allowed there-
under and allocated for residential uses may
be increased by 110 percent.
(3) Optional features not specifically mandated by
the provisions of Article XXVI-1 will entitle
the Ito to bonus floor area as follows
(a) For ,reaches c:onforniing to the definition
of arcade as set forth in Article II,
Section 2. lout square feet of non-
residential floor area or six square feet
of residential floor area for each square
foot of arcade area within 20 feet of the
street line or urban open spaca hneutdary
which it adjoins.
For through block connections cun-
forniing to the definition of through
block connection as set forth in Article 1I,
Section 2: 6 square feet of non-residential
floor area or 0 square feet of residential
floor area for each square fool of through
block connection area.
1.) for urban open spaces conforming to the
definition of urban open space as set
forth ire Article I1, Section 2 and
receiving approval by special permit of
the City Commission in accordance with
the provisions cif Article XXXII-1, Section
1 0 square feet of residential or iron-
resicfenual flour area for each square
tout of urb,ur open space area.
(d) For that portion of total usable opus
space in excess of 50 percent of the lot
area, four st.tuare feet of residential
floor area fur each excess square foot
of usable open space, provided that air
Mbar' open space for which bonus floor
area is allowed shall not be included in
the total usable open space for ).purposes
of determining the excess usable open
space eligible for bonus.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs
(1), (2) and (3) of this Section, total floor area
ratios including all premiums shall not exceed
the limits set forth as follows:
(a) For non-residential buildings or portions
Of buildings: 2.4
(b) For residential buildings or portions of
buildings: 5.0.
(c) For entire buildings which include both
residential and non-residential portions:
G.0-
(b)
R
tti
•
Section 8: Usable Open Space
For eat 11 dwelling fruit a mine -mite of 120 square feet of
tl5ablr open Spat c Shall he prnvrdt.el on thtr site. In this
District, notwithstanding the nowt -wins of the detinrtion
nt usable 0p011 r. a; set forth in Arhrlit II, Sot:tam 2
the requirements on distribution of a.abbe open spat ei by
level areas follows.
(1) Al (east HOpercent art mill rud level or not
more than !i(:) feet ahtwe tatimi f level
(2) Not snore than 21) percent above a height
ot'.)0 lent
Not less than',() percent of total usable open space shalt he
landscaped including trews and shrubbery.
(The following provisions are all new material.)
ARTICLE XV-5: MIXED CENTRAL COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL - C-3E DISTRICT
Pr irpus(t
The purpose of this District is to provide foi medium density
residential development in parts of the centa( business dish ict
which are presently developed in a mixed pat tern of wlittlt
soling, services and residential uses. The prelio iiiiaance nt
wholesale and service uses require that they be sec ognved
as permitted uses, although many will he replaced by
residential development in the future.
The following regulations shall apply in the C-3L District.
Section 1: Use Regulations
Nrr 1ruildirrg or strtx:lurc, or part theraut, shall be met test,
altered or ))sea, Of land or waler used, in whets 1.1r in tart,
for other than one or more of the following stet.third ess
in ai. onlanct' with the limitations hereatter spe(.itte(t.
(1) Any use permitted in the C•2 Distrlr_t, exctrot
departnnrr)t stores, other retail sUirtis h;rvrn:g
WOW that) 10,000 square toot =)1 floor ;ucra
per establishment, aulitt.:rleers, parking lots,
par king garages or atcessory mg fa: iltties
when provided on a site other than they site
of the maim use, sublei_t tci the USF RI (t.;
t_A'IIONS spe(.tfied in the said District.
(2) Bowling ,llk y% limited to not more than 1f1
lanes per estirhtsllrrtent.
(3) 1.Iet iri(,:al, gla✓ing, heating, painting, paper
hanging, lilunrhinq, roofing, or ventilating
contractors' estahhshn)ents, limited to 2.,13(11)
square feet of fluor toed per establishment.
(4) Post contort agency
(b) Refreshment stands, drive in
((i) Sign painting shops, limited to 2,1300 square
feet of floor area per establishment.
(/) 1;rxidertr ist shops
(8) Vcnetiari blind, window shade, or awnina
shops, custom, limited to 2,1)00 square trust
of floor area per establishment,
(0) Wind, r.N cleaning contractors' establishments,
including flour waxing and other similar
building Maintenance services.
(10) Wholesale establishments, 'Malec' to 1.,),000
square (crust of floor area per establishment.
(11) Ulncolsteruul shops dealing directly with
consurtit'rs.
(12) At t essory uses and strictures.
113) Parking lots, parking garages or accessory
parking facilities when provided on a site
other than t1)e site of the main use, subject
too the approval of the City Cornnrissinn in
actor darice with the provisions of Section 8
rrf Article XXVI 1.
(14) The following rises If approved as a
"CONDITIONAL USE",
(a) An addition to a conforming or non•
conforming building or structure which
contains a non -conforming RESIDENTIAL,
COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USE,
subject to the provisions of ARTICLE
XXVII I, Section 1, (1)(a) through (f)
or Section 2, (21(a) and/or Section 2,
(3)(a).
(b) Cater inq Service., Social, Home or
Airline.
Section 2: Limitations on Uses
(1) Except for drive-in businesses, parking lots,
parking garages or accessory parking facilities,
all activities, including sale, display, preparation
and storage, shall be conducted entirety within
a completely enclosed building.
(2) All products shall be sold at retail on the
premises or at wholesale subject to the
limitations on site applicable to wholesale
establishments as set forth in Section (1)
paragraph (10).
(3) Storage of merchandise and/or materials shall
be permitted within the rear portion of a
building when in conjunction to the operation
of ar) office, store, or other commercial use,
located within the front portion ut the same
building, and provided that:
(a) The office, store, or commercial use
occupies a minimum of twenty-five
(25) percent of the total floor area of
the building or stucttare.
Section 3: Area
(1) Non -Residential Use
(a) There shall be no required area or width
of lot for non-residential use.
Section 4: Yards
(1)
Non -Residential Use
(a) INTERIOR SIDE OR REAR YARDS:
No interior side yard or rear yard shall
be required, except that, where a lot in
a C-3E District abuts a lot in an "R"
District (Residential), a yard of at least
ten (10) feet in width shall be provided
16
:l e site rrti,ii ertt to the 1-I" f)istr;, t
In a i,f,fuin, hi set
foot (no ,:rry (21 f,(1.
ARTICLE XXIII OFP STREET PARKING AND
LOADING
„f fi._i,f,iung height rrh,ive (\ve„ty five Section 1: Off -Street Parking Required
121)1 t,,,-t .-rtt SuI,':, dtliai •e11 in art "f .
f)istr+r1 i 11 !_Very use or strx lureunstittitetf, ( (mstructeed,
lie) f: RUNT ANf) S IRE E. 1 l f)E. ;-1E Tt ACW,:; ere( •-i or stto orally tr o l after the eef-
lc, aHl instau; , etc,,ee)et as hiire,aft,er fen, ttV date of Inns Or_tin ni'e shall provide
orovided, a minimum faint seethai t of eitf ;truer oarkUY1 fa( Owes in a,_c rdaitce with
tiln 110) fieert f,ir rho first nine (c!) f,ee!t (3t,�visirn0S of this Athcie for the use of
cif h,ii(.f,n,) h,•icih: drill a tnttii:nttu)e,tnt ,ii r u)ial ts, rerri(ileiyeos, Vi;iteirs, iu patrons
side setbar k of five (J) f ect f!ir the fir st [ except within the C,-3 (Central CUmrnorceal)
nine (0) feet of Mill tun i height, shalt District[ . .
he provided and maintained in it r, rit * k #
•
an,:(' with WO fe,ll,ek,e,•rr,;t rr ,),iitotiietnts Section 2: Location, Character and Site
1 It n, t tise,i feu.,ff-stte,eet t,,irt:inil,
Ow r01,11fed saetha, 1- area shall i}e, (i) i OCA1l(7N
t.re•ateed with iarnrscai;in,l so its to (al In G3, C 3A, C.33C-3C C-3D until
present, in peril:luny, a meat and C 31.. Districts, they location of the follow -
or rlei l , iii,I>uarari( rr
1 mile eitP,Jrrrir s Of regiircid ar.ce155izy off-
2. If iir.e;ri fun Isarkirn), Owre. t,r:r,:.f street l,iirf:n fai.ihtie shall be subject
son iii,-1 area shaft lit orie.(trs,,ii, e'+;i opt to_ flue all roVai of the City CUri?inission
fe>i )>,ereiiitte l driv0v:ay r>ieniti')S, by ill ac , ,irdance with ihe_pruvivons of
millet a living hee;irlie, or a,leei otdtivee Artide X XVI1, 5rx tiro 8.
wall of at least tl.rcee, (3i feet fir 1. In C::, C-3A,_C 3f3,, C-3C or C-:3D
lii'ieilit. Dfsira.is
(, l V'dfie•ie• a lot is aill oiled ie, a biiiie.frti,) a ei11-stietttlarkinrl Niue lities ace;es-
vrtii, 11 has Icss than the: ;ihuvee iii(i.iired Bury to apartment 1)iiilnititgs where
srtba, 1 , the fotlu',viri l erv:e e•(itiuris provided of t the site of lhr;e main
shall lie mai.ic
1. If the lot his a lest ling ditrie-:•ne,i,>n b t street iarkint facihhesa_curts-
of less than fifty (5O1 feet abutting site to nips-n sidenti,il use's cir
any street, then the serpiii I•. i.equitee,-i huteeis whether jroviried on or off
atut 2 that liar tirlifi-it 1,ttere.t e;hdli nut the site of t)ie main use.
he,itreitti•r filar) flit:1111,i't n1 ,1ithi.r 7. hi C-3E Distrit ts1, of 1.street ,p>arking_
ado seethac-l- f ii iti tie!S do ieSscvy__tu amyusee whtoe
2. I1 tine 1e>t has a lest line +linueusion of provided riff the site of the plain use.
fifty (5(11 feet or more ah+ittin:) any (hi In .ill districts Miler ihan C-3, C-3A C-3B,
street, but riot ilreeater than sixty five C-3C, C-3D and C 3E. Districts, Mr? citf-
f6(J) feet, then thie seethai i. rr-qui+iej.t street parking fai fhties required by this
along that Ho ti,..ciiir streait that( nut Ar to shall be heated uri the sonic lot
bee.)realer ihar. thee riiicroir i.f any or parcel of Kind that they Lire intended
a_f(oinina wetbacks .once e,e.r h art• to serve, pnividt i, hc:eweever, ... .
porting sethorI.. ie; le,tis 01;in (ivee fh)
flint, in v.,hir.h i it the" reecl,ttre'el Sept * *
hae 1. ;brill to: l vee (ill feet.
In hi no instanr ee shall arty point oil a Section 4: Amount of Off -Street Parking
hiitliiiny bee eloser to th,e (('1itorline of
a streee:t than tine -,'riff (t/.e) the he'ighi of Lxe.ept as otherwise provided in paragraph (34), the oft -street
said point above grade parking required by this Article shall be provided and main-
tained on the basis of the [following] minimum requirements
Section 5: Height s<it_fiirt s m poracj aphs (1) to (33), inc_lusive as follows:
Theere1 shall hi! no absulntie 101 (11t limits in this District
exc_ee(et as reequired by Article IV Seer. lion 37-
Section 6: Floor Area Ratio
The flour area ratio shall not exceed 2.0.
On the; teilln'eving provisions matter underlined is rie:w,
matter in brut keels [j is old, to lee (1tboled.)
17
* *
*
(34) The required amount of off-street parking for non-
residential uses and hotels in C-3, C-3A, C-3B, C-3C
or C-3D Districts shall be as determined for each
development by the City Commission in accordance
with the_irovisions of Article XXVI-1. The required
amount of off-street parking for apartment buildings
or residential portions of combined residential and
non-residential buildings shall be 0.4 parking space
Ater -dwelling unit
(T1u) foik)�.v!n,:((J,n!si,>re; dre all new mate,1,11.1
Section 10: Access Restrictions for Off -Street Parking
and Loading Facilities
Vein, illdr de = e'`•`', lrr eltnss for permitted or required e)tf-str,'ll
par):ina fa( Mhos shall et n,, eace lor.ated on the streets
1F,,re) bl'It Yv Vet!il eila/ ,1, e.trrPSS fr!t )n'r'Ilittel (a
rel.)i Urr'Il dl., ,,,,Si)ry oft-ytree't lira(ilr)g berths UI frit the sr'IVle:e.
entrance IL) ,) 1)Irilltuey may not he lo, died on the streets
hsh':1 i)at(rt;v, I!nhss th1' , l ulin { sr(I Irrrvisor of the /32.11111!r)ll Do
pdtl'nent C+ahfies that 11111f' Is; II() v.v,)y h:) ph/Vol,: surd
Ili'I 1115 tN r'S With di i eSS t)I L'illt.'iS,')I1 5e)t!n'. Other
sttee't.
(1) f3!sray'e Booleva 1 irr:iw(n,n li,sr:,rytn Enl_11u
varrl 1"day an, I N (... 2n Str(ret
(2) S.F. ? Avenue hc,twe,r,Il the hlia!ni Rivet ,r)ei
r1a.Uer Street
(31 N E 2 Avorit betv,reett FlaOler `.iheet and
N.E.2()SIII. t
Fldgtet Street between Interstate Hir(f!wrry
.)Ei and BIs( dyne BoolrNant
(!-u Srnith Avenue between the N i,uni
Rive! and Thaler 511 4 t
�Jt,rtfr Miar:li idIII.? SU,eet
drnl N.A1r. and N.E. 213 Street
(The fr)llo era Proviso iris, are all new material.)
ARTICLE XXVI-1: SPECIAL CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT
Section 1: Purpose and General Provisions
El i irpr .i'5 of the regeslatn)ns ,vhl' h follow ale,.
( 1) T,1 tee;)e)(,' .l I a {ti),(n ire! i(!,iailv,'rf WI_'(1e5lridn
i(al;ltli,n yn,i a,tn nititr Ill the (;�ty'r; I.erntrdi
ir.i';inerss,tislrl, t, Isr ['rim,: r,e) lldtiun of
)lur rii,d striae al,1 v)u, ,11ar traitic: flow,
optir.ite!rl(l.)„y I1 `,,,I 1, ,,test! idn dr ; ess to r,lpid
transit statiol)ti,in,1 t'� pubh( ,e))ert sp<('r.1nd
sltt1W,,1 ar(:,(s flrr (l'aesUian
vd: at street level and nid-'.n(!n) ),ut)hI 11se'
did Wlt,y!n,'tlt n1 the'.;'dtettrtnt.
12)) Tu implement a L,ar) Inrl pt Whit h Is host rf
m the' trd((i(- (.,Deal ith I,1 till) street system
dud evhu ll will d, iommodati. the ,l!o;'✓th and
develop!nent of the City's 1.(rr)tt,Il business
fi t! a 1;
(3) To laorn))tI desitdhte ion(-tional aril aestllcrlir.
retdln:)nships fef t?uildeirls to streets, drill
(Al Orris to prem)Iltrr orcfei ly development of the
entail l ;stew rlistr14 1, <rnleanl c it,.11tI,i(tive
111::i5 and e ur)()rnt( Vltiillty, avoid e1;i.('sslve
n,lfti( , ingestion, and thereby promote
safety, health dnri gencrrdl :ve:lfare Within the
City.
The provisions of this Arline supplement but do not ()tire!•
wise IflSir ll 1 I !(; 4IiitlunS rtX( l'pt dS
sfter;iltl;dh; t+rovi(fe'f it) 5enti(l)s 51(nrl 1) 1/e1(}ty.
Section 2: Central Business District Plan
(1) Pre Slier idl Cerlual Business District Plan,
hereinafter also reflirrrii to as the District
Pldn, identifies the physicat improvements to
be i)rovided (!n lots in the Dishic:t. The District
Plan is set too th in the form of a nlap etn•
en'eliatety fOIhnviny paragraph 3 of this Ser;tion
and IS verbally c1e5,;ribed in the Sections
h t )) ),v. The Snot !al Celina' Business
Dt�trl( t Plan is hr.,nrby iu(.orpoiated and made
par t of this Ordindn(r The District Plan is
I tniGlu)e'ri within aW !lira l) 111,,10(I by the
f'r1;,arni fitver, hitetstate Highway 95; N.W.
Hitt Snect, N.1"I. 1st Avenue, the center line
of the blot-(: i!(-teierrn N.4'J. 5th Street, a line
150 ft'et west of and parallel to N. Miami
Avenue, they south prripe! ty Imo of the Florida
Last Coast 0aitred,f, a hIII! 15O ft'e)t west of
,and parallel ti) N.E. 2nd Avenue, a liner 100
feet north of alit) palallert to N.E. 12thI Street,
t( r enter line of blocks between N E. 1st
t (It l is ex tellsiOn and N. E, 2nrf Avenue,
• the south boundary of the Miami City
C(rrlicrtety, N.L. 2nd Avenue;, a line 100 feet
north of and parallel to N.E. 18th Street,
NY, 4)1 Avenue, N.E. 1f3th Street, th1)
easterly e)xte!nsi+lrl o1 N.E. lfit1) Street to
B(sedyne Bdy and the shoreline. of Biscayne
Bay.
(2) The physi,,al imprin'ernents provided for in
the Distri,. t Plan are elements of a crimpre-
hersive syste m of pi;( e1',(trail ways and arnen-
ItI1!';. It is the intent of tins Altiiae.; that upon
th(r (ietern'un,ltion of dllgr1111latls,lnd SG,tir)n
le), alums for rapid transit routes serving the
Central Business District t the system shall
in, lode) ')I(;!mints 10a11!(1 to the' raf)id tiansit
Slatiunb. The I:lart5 Of Ittl)it(IVO'runts provided
for in the; Dist!i(.t Plan or which may toe pro-
vided for by amendment thereof areas follows
(a) A system of inter( onnei.tet) ground level
1/eilc'5tnan spares diet arr_,adcs.
NO A system of landscaped streets and paths
at ground level.
(r) A system of inteW.onne(.tirlq tapper level
pedestrian spates, rapid transit station
plaids, pedestrian ways and hi
and vertical circialaticnl elements linl:irtq
tipper level an() groom! level systl)n)s.
(3) Tfte) Special Central Business District Plan is
Set fur th on the neap w) i li follows.
Section 3:
(1)
Adoption of Design Plans and Parking Policy
and Guidelines
A design plan, such as a landscape plan, whose
requirements apply to the provision of plan
elements by developers Inay be At/1)iard for
such purpose by the City Commission follcnving
the Sanu) ploredure required for amendments
18
J
• 11
I)
-11114 it
ill[ ..-1 1 .Ill \ 1 I ,
I .: ]ll[_.._ ail: _. t1\ \. ;.
III[- l ..:I( •,\\\\
11[--1 F .11- 31\\\
-.
t,,,,,, 'TSt1 Otl;►_� 6.*,.I:l ._Ii11I II':tI
•
'L�y 7::
1 11C :...:1 L _1111 ,Ili
�� Ik,r_._:.� _.11, : t .1
SPECIAL CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PLAN
• • • • Building Walls Along Street Lines District Subject to Retail RequirementstArl xv-i)
Area Sect to Waterfront Area •^^^AN Arcade
Development Controls
—• Restricted Access( Art. xxul, ScG 10)
c- a Lar>ciscaped Street �1= Visual Corridor
Landscaped Path Along Waterfront Boundar f Special Central
E3uslnes8 u str Ict
19
to the 'nn:nri Orttn.in( m; set forth Lie
Art!e ire XXX
rot the !impose if ti lde ina kind re(iciatinu
ihke provision lit if sheet pat F mkt facilities
by rtevei wets a Parkin(' Polu y ;arid Gukte'linees
may l.)e adopted by the City COW, til ,inn
f1111(1vnnit the satire pro( odklre required for
amendment); to the Zoning Ordinance as set
forth in Artick) XXX, the; Parking Policy
dnd Guidelines Shall he Ccxu ;erned anunui Other
(huigswith the nnpaca Of parking facilities,
existing and proposed, on the: capacity of the
street system, with off•sireet pat ktng demand
and nee(I generated by developments or en
Idrg(erniettts, and with the compatibility of
such fac•ilitic's, considering their (Jinni it as
well as locution, with the optimum future use
and (Ieveloptnent of sot rounding areas.
(3) At least once each year, a list of all sui:h plans,
polie:ics and guidelines currently in force shall
he c:unipiied, published and made available
to the public: in the same manner that this
()rdinane-c is shut() available. Every such plan,
policy or guideline currently in turce shall be
;available fit pubic(' tnspeetiun in the of hit) of
the Planning Deleartrnent.
Section 4: Landscaped Streets and Paths
(1)
(2)
xcept ds ()therwise provikkerl n) parrr.)t()ph (3)
heteoi, Landscaping ( (informing to the rrxlnitr,•
tnenis of paragraph (2) shall he p1 )vided fly
the developer Of kitty lot havtriq street bon l,i p!
r)r A1ian)i Biel') or Biscayne Bay homage
shown oti the. District Plan as the Itii_;ition r)f
d landS('ape:1 street Or Idndsc)t)t•i1 pith aic)riit
tvuti rhUnt.
Ldn;ist:aped streets ter Oalfc, te(1uire,l by thy,
provision); cif this S('1 nun shall collet k-onforrrk
to isi kit(c t)t;in 1nr ,in ;ilea V.fni h )nc lip fw,
the lei tilt 11)(• Uevt'lot)tnienl tvlli,-h IIdn shall
have been ado(11(;,ii (e With !lit'
t�ruvisiotrs (if S(•ia,on 3 of the; Ar tic tie, Or, ;n
trio cash of i let 1 )1 nu hided in °ail h ten d�ivtited
G¢)dscsa(ut tilde, ;hail ( onfornt ti) 111,2 toll0',' Ity
tt:di llretnertts.
(a) f-nr (JewelOprnerriS rue the, o)ith stile of
any east -west street Lit ont either SHY id
kitty north-soutfl street, lot eat h Q1h lei
hostage. three() shill he planted tv rtheo
the street tight of way abatted by: the
tiovel(rpriletit one simile het. 1:' t,t mote
fleet in height and of twit ,awl one half
in( .h caliper or nt( Ito.
(b) For devclupnnin(s tin thin site th snfie (if
any isdst-west street, i(n ea( h 31) fleet ot
fruiting(' there shill be, 1t1int,t(.i :i tltri
Nu' street right kit way abkit led by the
(leveloptnent one shad,. tree 1:? Ili mole
feet in 111.1,1111 and of two and kale halt
inch caliper or rni(te.
(,) I or dev(•inl,nicenit; ::nth 1! 1111i,
Miami River or f3ist:ayne Bay, a landscaped
path for pedestrians shall be provided
along the waterfront in a )Iut)iic, easement
with a minimum ).vttltft of 20 feat
measured ftcr,n the water's edge. Within
such easement landscaping shall be pro-
vided in accordance with a plan approved
by the Depar inmost of Public Works and
the Planning Department of the City of
tv1iarni and consisting of, or generally
equivalent in cost and overall effect to,
the tree plantings required under the
provision of paragraph (b) hereof for
the itr)rth side of east -west streets,
augtnentecl by shrubbery valued at :30
percent Or more of the trees' total value.
(3) The requirements for landscaped streets set
for th in paragraph (2) shall be subject to
nx)diiication by the Departient of Public
Works and the Planning Deparlinen t along
any side of a street havtrtg a sidewalk width
of Tess than ten feet. In such instances one palm
tree for each 13 feet of frontage may be re-
quired in lieu of the: shade trees required by
the provisions of paragraph (2), or, if the sidewalk
width or either conditions are found to be
inimical to the Siltisfru:la)ry development of
(it' street tree in furtlterarn:e Of the purposes
Of this At tide, the requirenment may be waived.
All planting plans anti plant materials selection
shall be, subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works anti the Piannirnl Depar lenient
of the City Of Miami. All nee and other planting
shall be in accordance with such approved
Plans . Approval of plans shall be conditioned
Lipkin compliance with requirements of the
dt}'roving author Ines fur trtacinq of newly
pLutted tees dnd for access of ward) to the
rOld systems (Ind upon approved program lot
iunhntung trait terldrICeS whether by the City
itself err by the limpet ty i)v.net. Landst,ipeti
piths along then f\-liartit Rivet or Biscayne Bay
\Nate! ft ont shill be maintained by the pi oiler ty
i(5)1Cr
f or those; developments pruvrding lanrise;aped
i'uths along the 1Veganai Rivet ur Biscayne f3ay
‘:.(rt, 11)00t, the 111) )) an:a permitted by the
,applicable distt iCt )tout died r,tti() regulati(ms,
rii.I ling arty premiums earned, may be
mi.reasietl by one squat() tout heir each square
font of the area Of the easement fur such
Lintisctipetl path_ However, the; fluor area ratio
including all premiums shall not exceed the
maximum established by the applicable
ri;gilatinns of the underlying district.
(4)
(i)
Section 5: Arcades
(1) An at earl() ,is dcef ineti in Ar tide 11, Section 2
deli e:i)nfornting to thin requirements of
pat,rytaph (2) of this Section shall be provided
by this developer of any lot that Includes
20
trt`ut ho1'1ag" or urban open 51'a'''' ff,lfrf.3'
,'n 1vt11' 11 ;lie ,ar'rl,il' ±.; sh,a1'i'1 i>rl the !it lei 1al
Central hus,nriss Disti3, t f iari.
12) Art aI' ride rt»!I ittirf b', Ili', In•'v1"n!i ,,,f ;h�S
Ser(if,f1 tihali r.r�(tf,.lr!,1 I'r ih" foll;,;V,t1•1 ,p0. 1.)1
fir;iyn re4111ir'!1t,t,tits
(al il:. !nu1+n!on1 rint)lh ,0.; 'wav,",f h,nl:fln�1
„1fum,nS Shrill hi, 12 f,'1•t r' .i'. trcrf (1.'!-
tl+!llili,'ul,lr t11 th,'',nr','t line' ')r,irllan o(Ir'n
h,lufl1blry ',Vluc 11
(tl) At li!ast 10 1101,1'nt +tf ihr urc.a'h' ,"a
r,1a1i h'r I,t1r':15, apf'd 1vtih nrn111+!nt111
t,, sh'1hs, grets ;lr „that( 'xlit.il_11.
etahvn, 1Vhirh 111,111 f1'! s'! ,uIOrt'1,.1
thilt a ftit tI'.tear wi'flh ut of 1•!,IS
10 fet't n'nrlins fur 1'!clest! Ian irr.ula
tion aI''Il lht' I''n,tth a1f the ar,_ado,
( 11 thus, de'velu(:nu'nts ploy i'Gnq ren,nre 1
arc'a!les 1hw fl000r trios) permitted I!y the,
,11111111ah1,! liis111 ,1 tlu''r au"a rape !'«lulabon
may Ire reaseil by fora u! sei' h
itteatiet nn,,;ir1t t;rrrnittl!,111'' th,!,1111,11,.a1')''
distrust re!'hilatiutt5, for oar h ;it cite toot :,f
,1Ir:,1'1" iir 0,1. 11''.\'1"ire, (h'` il„r IMP)
i1!, (3 din'1 al! I'!,"Iii_rm)s sbui( n -1 ,'•.' ,:1'ri iiri
mrdtiurnrtlrl 11,r11t'';t0Leil,h,' il ,lief.
,lists..l 11 ii!ati'!ns
Section 6: Waterfront Area Development Controls
21
(1) Any 110.!r!1'1i1r1',1!n1 uo I,in,.i „in; h i'; shl,vVn ,tn
the St1,!1 i,ii C,'rtU,li E3usnrss t)r;tru t Pl;lr,
,1 Are,1 S,rb3c?< t In 1 4at,'rfnlrit Are.,
' ,'rnt C,in!r'l. Sf1,1!i , „1,'i,iy 1;Vit11
11 Ibis
! . Va,uai
0!
�1' •:'t,.,lrl,''ii.`,1,!1 { „!ri r.t :11 SI ,1, 1' fnlrrn^i
fret it tr' �1's l'rr 111r;,
,n '!i1' ,i,ir,li ,lrc,a t,' ti'r' „u1, ,! ,'I( ,it i)
rrt
1,01.01.1;1r:, ,IX, :'I,•.,, 1111, :n t ,1!,n(r,it i
(';)if! f,'r,!1,f !-�'..,: ff c,rti ur s!,,d 4,'
,', tit
1 }' ".,',!1. 1' r tl"' 1, 1i,)w;ii,l r; r,•r,th .t
,1r ('ibrr 111,I1i
ut, r:,lls, t!.Iit'ule,s ,1rr;urlr'r r,!! f,n,nt,aln',,
s1'.1u (•I,1�' (rllitn l'.ailitu,l''r)t_
' It a vn: i,)i ' "r r'!, It ,11,111 h•'
r!,t!1,'! (,a) PI,' '",1,11"!(fill erl'a1.111,''!f the street
K 1''n,f'!1i f ly s,1r_h vttiu,ll ' of I ii1''! dt lh,' point
%%file 1! the sheet ('„r;11n,1L',, IIt flit tl,e! -(!r'.1n,f
t'1v'11 of amp fr„!!t pair. ur In;bli,.,tati,
^a!ru lrolvc:r'a"f !ry' tii'rvi'1ua11.1'trnl'.!, ..'h,' h
r�; •I IS
1 ;) I . IV( ;)5 (n' :, i'al ul riara•I!acli (:1), ifi'.•
fi'IIUl:;r1 t i1,' ' iS„ill i steali ilt'!il'E (,tale:v.'lori
il, 1n A'' as`,;'itaiii i to 1'1lat'•rfront Area
O'rvl'l,lt,r','!nf C,lmtuils.
1;11 i1i�;1'd.' lit ,'..iurl
;'1)1) h'''i in r;±,Ii:irtl'Ir'1 }11rri; r)i1t,ai
'11!' it!11!.,, 111
(•1
(b) Ah')v0 grr,l.lnd h111ld'n9s shall niainGiln
'Iir,1 nur'1 ;;,!1h311 k of 18 feet from
interior 51^iK',rnrt r'!,fr Int 1110S.
t�rtbl!Ie!i1 I,0 1 overage for Ow
1rr ulrip,ll !}uil'I)!1!l and any above gruunIl
arcesiir'ry part..sirlu.tore shall not be
!nine than fifty ('.rip) percent of the total
int ar0a, unloSS the lot Is of least omc!
litin,irr,rt and frfty' (15t0) feet in width
r'f'!t,tlt, and f',tty-five thousand
('10,000) Srf3r,u'i feet in area, in which
, , s;1 lot coverage may be incrr?ase11 to
fifty-five! (h1'1) ruerix?nt a ono (11 percent
in+_rr1,ase will be a(Iu1Ve1i for each addi-
tional seventy -live. hundred (7,6O())
square feet of lot area up to a rnaxinnnla
Of sixty (GU) percent lot 1.uve?ra!le!.
Li) 1 lire 1arx:',>vc!re11 portions 11f 10w lint,
ulr,ln,hnct th'_? ?neat of any !nxfurgrw;uul
parkin') structure, shall be Iar,fs'.aped
with tree!,, shrubs, grass or other
suitable ground i c,v'!r So that ,ur h
v,!TA ,11iun r,uv'!rs,it least 40 percent. of
the area riot , ()voter( by buildings, and
1Ir," ss dr Ives and 111nv''flil!u,_t' parkRnl
shall be I,nlite'd to nut n11111.1 than 31)
p1,'rce111 of s11ch un, ,1v''r'!':1 put tinny of
the lot,
(i') N;.a p,att 11t 1u1 underground pad: 'nil
!Aim:Lure shall 1 ' blithe! than Ili'! average
ist,ihlisl)'!11 elra,11! of Ow twiare';t ,abutting
sheet or the nearest abutting landscaped
path, if ,any, provided Along the (V'lia,ni
River or the! 13!s';awne! Bay r:ale!Ifront.
11) No building ?;I,,4? he rite!( te?,f ).vithirt
UI' tnll,;win•lvisual r.rarri,i•n15.
1. f h'visual corridor h1),n)ib!d by it"?
!aster 1',' r?x tension ut the north and
south street lines of N.E. 8tl'I Street,
the east street line of 13isl dyne
Boul''vald ,anti the U.S. Pier head Line
2. The visual rn rielur 0uu'cied 0',' the
eaSt''i ly " x tension of the 'with and
,Matta street linos of tu.L. 10th Steer t,
the east street line of Biscayne
E3,au)c!vdrd awl the U.S. Pie/head Line.
The provisions o1 paragraph (3) of thisSoction,
e'31,?pt sIlhparagirtph (f) ihereof, or the yard
or distance between buildings reyp(ations of
the u'r3,!r dying district play be waived or
modifii!d by authuriiatiuta of the City Com-
mission, prnvide,l that development complies
with a devuduprnent playa which has been
appi oved by the Planning Board and the City
Cominissicin and with all applicable provisions
of the underlying district and of this Section
not spec,ifica)ly waived or modified by the
Commission. Such waivers or modifications
shall be limited to those which are necessary
or dc!Sirable in order to achieve ate following
proposes:
(a) better production of views from)
dr,r)
twit tIdt:!!)tit ()I din
111, !I ni I • t ) j I{
h
f thrit
Ana .0101,0..0 alas Or, A11.101 171t
111 ty rh,,
rlVattd, h,
plan
11 V.,fhtr alp turind r,ssrtry
1.1.1,r....1 It t tffttlat(. tho 1,0
this troll And tr, drry ,)at tl7l f47IItaft •
this
71 p1r,ru,1015, (3)(,)1 ()it) lI!lit!, tiwt
if ti finds that tht. f,)r '10V.1.4'1.101,t
trt)-1 .111
Why h
.AMP in palaalrit.l. (ia And 1, 1)1,1i
Vti'VVti t)f thi, in .1 mariniii try, th,
ji,ird 1, lie ...id' the
',Hs
11
Section 7: Building Walls Along Certain Street Lines
f 1) ari,i tithe!
Ain1777? .l,hl)',i it triii did
1.)iStr 1).111,1.n." oto, ,)I a
I o V..1 tl i l'ont rcl. I eel I,Stod 111 hi I . I
maid" this mod
Pri trii• Dv,ir t F1741 tr„,
have vv,111 vd1),
tif h
..!1 1111 •
,t t , {! •111
t. '• ‘.1.,,,I Ar
XXXII 1, 1, t
t, .1 .1, r t'l.
„)11,
I21 iif tii .111
lig,. with thii ria
fia I1.)ilta ,,rihr., ,,t
td.110, cownl n 21)
Av.,,Itp• itt 13.),111.v. V 1
Ha 1 1, ,t,i 14, Iti A*
EMI",i 1IA 't
r otliu I3isi <writ.
tionleviird I I riti
3010,01d 10() It...t rim 01,0
N E_ 18th Stwt.t
0
Section 8: Off -Street Parking in Central Business District
(1) PE RNII D PARKING
11, Ott-tittiol poi 4... ing G:),A,
CAD tn C:3E. Dist! lu
tont Iii)( pom. Hut It!tt by other r
0
OW; !nay pro,,,:ded 111 a.,(,(1r.1•
pli)V.,1.1')ris of till.; SO. twgi atld
t.) .10 or, )Val by the City Corrimrssion.
12) f-d-r PARIKING
enlarged non-resirltititial
ings iir itels in C-'3(2, ()!
C :31) Is„r essory of strePt par
shall be rimvii foil on or oft the site of
tho br lbal "Ise ;is reiliiitt.(1 by the C,ty
(.:on'm'ssion acc main' vilth rI Pad: ehT
y and Gtnileliniis piirsiiantdo
if the; At ticle Complidth o with
so"1 iniments .Ind all idler proViSitlrlS
7)1 1110; 11,n1 r../ant)t) t.) aLTPSSOty
,rtt...,1 pat kitia fa. ihtir!:,, Shall be a 0)11(iitIoli
t() th.' 517 development
CONDITIONS f-()R APPROVALS
1;i) A pat Is; ty tildy be approved
by Oro Cr ”ranissilill attOr hoar it1,1
.. it) by tho PlanInno
Boald, 1 tho Commission finds that
the par Tina loi Ny' (implies ‘vith the
provisions ol this Sivtion di17,1 is con.
vvith the Port mg Policy and
An iipt)lii ittion for dt,tiriival Ilid
ina la 'lily the provisions of
lore 511,111 submitted to the
Budr rt. It ir site,
showina the WI dtion such tar ility,
11, liryoat k ordina to City of (\limn"
stathlanis, el Oh" case of an accessory
larhi 'lily its tolationship to tho
nom 'Ise, and so'', other infolnidtion ds
th, Boa, d may regain'. All applications
shall tetetted by tho Bod'd to the
City of Pirritria Authority for ils
its reldtionship to the Parkini;
Pi ill, y aide Guidelines. It
Shalt roput t thert?011 Within
rirw ur17w0}1 hip!) Ow *hie IA referral, the
its pit orniniiiiriatiott and the
on in its diitei initiation shall
Tv, ortsiderati( 10 such report
!nay sabstailtiate their findings on
the basis sik h report If stirit agency
foes not report within tine month, the
Corninissii)n may rIlak0 f 0'411 detet-
!iliniili()11 With( 'tit tetf 1.!tice thereto.
0, I In no case shall an accessory of 1.-sttecd
pdrl.eq; factlity be located more than
"'ne-quat ter mile walking distance from
1114! lit:art:St entrance to the buildit-q
ill I opied by the Maill LiSt!, except that
boot ion 'treater distance may be
pe!mittecl If a people mover system
appl' we' i by the Commission lh:rmits
the distance to be coveted by 1)ei117S11 ians
in six minutes or less.
(d) The number of SiNiCeS in an approved
( essory off-stwet par kina
22
•
(v)
tvheithel provided on ur ntl the site c11
the mans use, will he cterfitcrti Iowan{
the satisfaction of tl)e minimum off.
street parking Ie1tuiremenis as set forth
n Sr't.lit Itt 4 of At hole XXI II for uses
C•3f3, G:3C and C•:.D
I)isirir Is in ,is Stipulated by the Cunt -
mission in at.rordd111 ( With the, Parking
Policy and Guidelines. No a ttifil.ate of
t k cupanr y shall he issued fair that ftur i Ion
til the main building's flour area 'object
to this provision of pails mg shares in an
oft site parking facility liti it such off
site parking tat:tlity hits been rc)!nplete,a
and has lei:elver! this approval of the
Building Department. Whale a people
mover system is required for rfoalif i1.a
tine of the off -site parking facility undo;
the provisions of this Section, 11ut
issuance of the eel' tifwatt, of ocx.lrp It) y
shall also depend upon cornt)letion and
Kidding Dana! tment digit oval of the
people nil vei system.
Ai ressrtry parking facilities may be
Ole( lively t)tnvidt'cl to serve two ill
!note buildings in at.curtlan ct With ihc'
prfvisions , ff Article, X XII I, (Sol hurt'.).
(the following itiovisiun'i are all neW material.)
ARTICLE XXXII-1: SPECIAL PERMITS
Those i ',p_flahons of the "(.Uis Plitt-{ENSIV[ ZONING
OHDINnNCL" eonituiting hulk nr intensity of nsc lode
fn sonu! 11is11)r.IS spat ial alloA,111( e5 in the loin) of prennu!n�;
ut floor any 1 bonuses for fat aniitilities ill .Iih1•)
aUlIIIn[t'ti of a development will, h IVS;ert nl oinp'nsiti, flit
the irnpa!;t tit a given hw11 „i b:Iil.. 01 tnirns)ty ,tf
Ccitant id( Itt 's or ann)nihe5 ?lily or may t)eit Ito heneflt lift
in a tot al ,neat 11 'itentiing oti 1111'0 IttrMom, ,Ilnl i or tr,;annt'ni.
anti thelrttt n�cllnie tip?, 1,11 i ur).rf,!r,at r,ri ati lit their
lu,alti l aintn tot plt'n)i'.t!tli or 1)t5Iii5 fllftt) ;i)I,I. npl,rov.,i
ire gt,it)iii 11 SPLCI!VL_ 1,1 1.0V111 „f tin, City Conn
!tIISS,'111 ;Misr le, Umt!'ient]atlUll ray ih,• MummaHoard and !)
Pnhhr: t arincl, provi,ic'ei that ittt C,ir,ttlntSi,tti foal: the
�ttecn,al tiudings recluttett Ity this AtIit
The Commission may attar h an, t,n,iitttr,e, to its,tit(+)rival
of an apl,litahoti tot St.!, 1,11 Pe'rriu[ un1ier t11r prrNiSions
„1 ifusAte( i1 determines tolie ne,e55aly fin 111e
propel furl, boning of sip h 1,,t ility of anl,'I)11 )' I11 )itfatiorl
to suuounding ;tevelnt,silefit of ittr ,i.tnevinti the pulpuses
,)1 tltis tt itt lot c.r.
The giant of ;) SPLCI,L PLRtv111 by the: city Coint))i'siorl
shall he I:'' RLS(1LUTION ,and shall not be by Uniinaueu
aim:tiding the Count lehrnslve llntiny Chdua.ini..er.
Section 1: Urban Open Spaces
(1) For ttrh,rn open spates ill C '' C a13 C'3C;
to C :it) t)lsittrt, the Cn!lilnl:sion,,ifter t'�it111�
Hear Mg ti?VI' v of teeotrirtitltlatinns liy
the Pt,utning,ir1,1 L,ttltti-t 1 ti ittf, !! i giant
23
stn.rt;tl p 111111; tilt bonus lino( area in the.
Iitunts Sett (firth in thte applicable district
regulations, provided that they following
t in, hugs ;ire made.
(a) That the location of they urban open
spare and its design will satisfy ;1 public_
need in the local area.
(b) That the location and siting of the
or )art open space is c:ottsistent with
funt,tiuns of predi ntinant intpmtantxr
in the local area, including but not
limited to existing or potential retail
development.
(c.) That the development and its urban
open space are in h,irrnurty Wittt the
vittlou`: f!lett >nts or objeclivfes of the
h11AMI PLAN.
(2) Development plans for Cuban rapen spaces may
be submitted by owners of single lots or
jointly by owners of tWo or more adjacent
lots who undertake to ptovule a common
urban open space and distriblite total allowi
able floor area in arcurdance tvitl) the rieveloo
meal plan its for a single: lot. tVherit styli,t
Ilevelotxnent plan is submitted thistly by
owner s ut iSt) Ut rrtOiY. ildiar;erit IOlt, dltVi'I•
nttrment I nlhts stay lit, tt,tsferred from ones
owner to another so that one or mote of the
lots will have more that the floor ,area that
t;-'oulci othr)rwisi: bit permitted on such lot or
lots by then al it.flu.able distllt:t regulations,
provided that the total floor :Ilea permitted
by the disnirl roof tations for all the lots is
not exceeded. Apt novail of jointly submitted
titans shall be r,onditutned liplin sut)!nission
to the Planning ftloarif of t.ertibed (tinges of
(;?1
ilie lt,inslt') inStrlantettt ir!ttall'1t suf-
ii,;n nt in folio and C (intent to i lI,'ct
sue It moister and establishing n)alnten,
ant 1,9stt,ttt'.;Ihihtrrts for this mbar! inter,
space, ;uui
It ) iA m ai, e of resti 1 lions W1 1:1t shall is'
tll,!ttt by ilk' owr113rr. of the rt)Stw1.ilve
lots e) the {tare de;ktnatt,t try late for
the tiling of cti''lts tit r1'Strir I!MNIS un
teal propy'ty, which non. a :,hail set
i, tt th Chet tl!stt is itlin5 uttl im Cur thr'r
dtvelot ,merit of 0,1, h Inn
CO In rcviewilg talons for urban open spaeeti an�i
,)r,IVfr)g at a l,'i'.talnrtie:titi,Itlot) Itt ,ii!ten?Unanort
U), Board ,roil the Commission shall be guided
by the following t onsu1etatiorls
(,1) l_ocatillu ,,rill Siting
l.l) ban opus spar iS Should be ;dell
distributed Ihruughuclt areas of high
activity. lousy should be spat o 1 ,a )eason-
abie distani c apar t and (n t tipy fin)iti'tl
lertgl)ts of select frunta,lcss so as 11)
prevent excessive In isiks in the street
hint atn.I, tvhS)e retail shopping is mi-
p,xlattt so,t5 to eau5c minirrfurrt inlet•
tupli,t) of sntret flont.lyl! cfe`'otelf to
•
r
t ho.in•idt I
iti !,o far
i•re, attiand !evil of.wriiti,r,
pin nip lot s,.1,-.11
thi (1,1,0 ,
171,01101
Untatt ttp141 ',pat t"; Ltillt,t1(intt !anti!,
't‘tallt It!
ttt Inn.] 31il't
olve s11,1,1,!.1,) h
b() ,rit Lit oion sp,p,p, and
dope/01,1a ori min exposure or toilet
I.otintlins are th (1ti .1)
Sitting tiiis
ill 'oast one seat (f)r ea,..11
foot (if tabari or 11.11 111 .1 1 "St't,11.S"
'Modify intetpretQlf to in; lode tit only
Iteth.I/e,, in !hilt sl,111 Sig tl M111119
intt)vi 111 Ity
)tit; itHS hy tio!St.Inttlt
fit! ',MIMI (Mkt lit)t t(11. itt
!JOU.
(h)),11) Wen Sikeik4111 Ikk( dik”! .it
r)I1Wf .-khk/kilki Ilt)1111,111Y ikk. "to,..ferdt,
swe dticf IWittt'd tu ra !WNW not tttt'alttl
than 1.att tt'1,1 t',1t tl 1,11nttl..
S110111(1 140Vit1t! lantiSt aPt"t (4. ((4'!';
itipsistinii prim( !hilly (0
0),),11. tree!,
(4) XCL_I) I I()NS 10 FiLOIJI RE MI N I T.; FOR
BUILDING TO 1 1-11:, S-11:3LE
Non!? 31112
cfoited Itit' 1111.', In at t.tttilarl t•
VVIttl pritVI'.1011`; (0 Atli, >X \II 1, ‘..Stl't tIn7t
1, the Cilnt1t11!1‘,Infi tittItttttaltitt' t ,t`tttt.t
It.'ittfilt;1111'111 141 Itt•PnIt ;1!1 kirl
si,dt \vh ic h gnal it ;es (, f),,i
irted tinder Ow ;,1,,visit11)1. th‘s!...3t.4 non.
\Aihor h
1111) 3.. ( iipy
thile 40 feel of the street flontaq.% tn,ty not
f)e atigi loss thdri 1(10 loot In w: tiodte,t
Int41‘11.4 Ong Stit't't Of It'SS than 1)00 tnett
thi!nUtitt:St Pitt (//nn SPat.e (itliol
010 Sdfla,
Striirt. 111 addilir)r) waking the findings
required lot qtritItilly a soot ial iftlinit for
bonus flung the Corninissirm, in wanting
a waiver the pi ovistrItis of At tirit! X XVI- 1,
Section 7, shall find that the aclvnntaqt.'s 1'
the of the pi ol)osecl SPtit-t:
Will otitweigll any adverse i•f fet,ts t osul t int;
from interruption of tlu ()ttil)1i1v)
(In the (U ovisions whirl; follow, matter wirier linlycl
is new.)
ARTICLE XXIV: SIGNS
Section 4: Signs in the C-1 , C-1A, C-2, C-3, C-34, C-313,
C-3C„,C-3ID, C-3E, VV-R and W. I Districts
it!)ir),tt“i f or tietillitterl as
k“:kro !iy.s ol I )..vs
(:)1 P,ttn,t slams, ,y,:iner-ideritifir alu)i, shall
I 'In» (1) for each ori the
area littlitt?d tO flirty
(40) sqll1l hIt tOt ei-1(11 tate. HOWOVOI, pro
lot hnii slam iri the C.:3 ,)) the C.BA
[)(Sitlf.t 41\.• 17#_, int reasod atpd ;15i f (-Wows'
ftot,i
1 dre11 Boiltimo Awd
1 \vo (2) )1 If !SS 80 squaw tetq
t‘..,1‘4re th,oi two (2) It hot
th,in thr*s' 1:i) feet (it) sqtiote hyt
1\1(1t0 01,1,1 ti,f0C
!Mt t(),Ir
(11) fr,.1
40 1103 ow feet
f) 1)1 TACI-If 1) ;1(;1',JS
(d) C, C C ,intl C 31)
D,:dr ,ouns dt e pet nit tte,
(t,) c, 1,(2
hed yans, ownet-itiontiti, anon,
otw (1) swim and 10
t4.1\' (40) flit 11dioci (fia
(),,3,u44ss 14 fin ,',)4.I) tlity
(01)) ‘it thititagi?.
,114?,1 tnt slam inilV
but nklidri#2 (1) Sik) S)),111
eX, keki IllInd101( /()()) lkki'kdr° fO't
In 1333(11 ta(
24
APPENDIX B
1.0
SUMMARY
OF GOALS
1
1.1 MAGIC CITY CENTER — ECONOMIC
APPRAISAL AND PROJECTIONS
Pi hlishof April 1960, by llhe City of Miami
,1n,1 Men( tan Da, le Courtly, this report followed
the rlutdir,itiorl Magic City Center Goals and rep-
resented what yyen! c: ansicierPii realistic goals to
guide r,(immunity action.
1. OFFICE EMPLOYMENT:
Increase C.B.D. office employment at the
same: rate as the region. In 1954 the CBD employed
5.8 of the Dade County labor force in CBD office
work (18,189). Given regional growth projections
to 1985, the plan pr oposed 49,700 of lice workers
in 1085 representing 7,960,000 square feet of space.
2. GOVERNMENT AND CIVIC:
Centralize. Government services in CBD in-
cluding civic and educational use (totaling 1,7(i5,000
square feet).
3. RESIDENTIAL:
Encour age the CBD to become the residence
for a siieable proportion of those employer) there.
The goal for 1985 is 12,500 units, most of which
would probably be rental.
4, RETAIL:
Goals for increase in CBD retail sales include
$400,000,000 sales by 1985, which is triple the
1954 volurne but conservative as compared to
regional estimate of $5.7 billion by 1985 (6.5% in
the CBD).
5. PORT REDEVELOPMENT:
A naiaj0i objective of the repOrt indicated sotlw
increase in nlianiilar:ttiritng and wholesale trade as
related to port development; however in comparison
to other land use r:at0gorles, growth of rims sector
was projiLaed to the srmiallest.
Key assumptions behind the goals include the
following:
1. Region will grow to a population of 2,500,000
by 1985, an increase of 176% over 1960 (more recent
projections indicate closer to 1,800,000).
2. Hotel -motel space will remain the same as in
1960 (7,700 hotel -motel rooms in Core Area).
3. 25% of CBD employees will choose to live near
work.
4. Rates of office employment to total CBD em-
ployment will remain at approximately 3 to 5
(18,000-30,000 employees).
5. Growth of CBD retail will be dependent on
growth of CBD itself.
6. No assumptions regarding transportation variables.
r
0
0
r�
•
R
tit►
0
r
0
1.2 DOWNTOWN MIAMI MASTER PLAN
This Plan was prepared by Doxiadis and Asso-
ciates, Incorporated, in June 1967, for the Down-
town Development Authority. The objectives of
the Plan are as follows:
1. Exploit the Study Area's central location and
resocirces to create a strong commercial center.
2. Concentrate Government activities so as to
achieve maximum efficiency of service and to
attract new ancillary uses.
3. Increase opportunity for employment.
4. Establish a homogeneity of function through
a clarified concept of Land +ise and hierarchy of
functions.
5. Moderni?e transportation patterns SO as to
avoid conflicts between movement of people,
(foods, and vehicles.
6. Create an overall frame r?mpI)asi/ing thc'
district character of the Sti)dy Area.
7. In addition, project goals were developed for
Special areas including: the Bayfront Area, the
Government Center, the COI-IVO/111On Center, the
Transportation Center, major streets and places.
Key assumptions behind goal statements
include the following:
1. Between 1959 and 1969 CBD employment
dropped from 9.8% of the region to 6.8%. The
Master Plan projects growth by comparing this
ratio to other cities.
2. The Study Area includes the CBD aioi areas
north to 20th Street. In 1959 there were 11,000
people residing in this area. The Master Plan assumes
25`Yu of the future employees will live rued( work
and projects 18,000 residents in 1972, 32,000 in
1985 and 51,000 by the year 2000. (Tl)e resident
population in the area has decreased since 1959.)
1.3 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR N.D.P. AREA 3
The following objectives of the N.D.P. Plan
are specific parts of a very elaborate list of goals
and objectives for N.D.P. Area 3, as prepared by
Candeub, Fleissig and Associates for the Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development and Metro-
politan Dade County, Florida.
1. HOUSING:
Demolish substandard units (a total of 2,319
structures have deficiencies), and create new neigh-
horhoods with the following mix:
2,500 units of new or rehabilitated public
housing or rent supplement;
3,600 units of new of rehabilitated moderate
income (235-23(3) housing;
1,000 units of middle income housing; and
1,100 Units of low and moderate housing for
the elderly.
2. COMMERCE:
Provide services for rehabilitation of existing
non-tesiel0ntial structures, off-street parking and
sites for the following in the CBD: Junior College,
Transportation Center, offices, shops, apartments
and hotels.
3. EDUCATION:
Provide Increased educational improvement
with the addition of one "Super School", grades
1-9 for 2,500 students.
4. RECREATION:
Provide additional recreation including thirty
acres associated \..vith the Miami River and one
large playfield associated with the Super School.
5. HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES:
Expand health facilities at Jackson Hospital
and acid nnilti-purpose center programs on N.W.
14 th Street and N.W. 1 l th Street.
6. TRANSPORTATION:
Provide super block system with gree.nway
network for peg lc?strian circulation. Separate
residential and non-residential movement and
reserve R.O.t.\r. for future mass transit.
Key assumptions behind the goal statements
include:
1. The Garment Center south of 29th Street will
grow some 70"6 in the next ten years as a wholesale -
retail area.
2. Jackson Hospital Area will continue to expand.
3. Thcv Miami River frontage will attract middle
income families.
4. Residential development for low and moderate
incomerf families must come before major land use
changes.
5. East -west arterial movement to Downtown
needs ill-1provement.
G. First activities will be in the area south of the
fashion center and north of 14th Street.
1.4 CITY OF MIAMI — CRP
Program for Community Renewal, which was
prepared in 1967 for the. City of Miami.
2
1. (-OUSING:
Increase sslpply of dwelling units including
27,000 low and Inoc.ierate income Units. 0f this
1 7,000 new construction. Provide teLIL
meal assistance to neighborhood groups for property
maintenance and expand base of non-t)rofit sponsors.
2. PUBLIC FACILITIES'
faith primary (mnfntk1sis on improvement of sewer
systems and recrealion facilities an objective of
capital improvements (tur) 1965 to 1973 totalled
$44,825,000.
3. ECONOMIC:
Encourage plantred industrial districts,
possibly by non-profit devcrloprnent corporation;
strengthen Miami's 1)0SiIi0t1 (IS is marketing center
through development of a planned wholesale
produce market; encourage prestige office develop-
ment in Downtown, Brickeil Avenue, Biscayne
B010m/drd, and Corot Way; promote tourism by
development of a convention -cultural Center and
tourist information area in Downtown; enhance
Downtown by internal improvements to its traffic
circulation, parking facilities, and physicals appear-
ance; and provide i)ublic and supporting iacilities
for edslcational programs including Mianli Dadr,
Junior CoIlecie-
Key assumptions behind goals include the
following:
1. Two segments of the Miami population will
continue to grow: young (sander 18) primarily
Cuban and Black; elderly (over 65) with a sizeable
propor tion being low income.
2. Tllcrle is, and will continue to be, a high
mobility in Miami which generates a sacs: of com-
munity consciousness.
3. Summary of conditions in 1067 indicates in-
creasing population, increase in family income,
increase In denial -hi for services. SO(IIC('S of IeVenue
brave remained constant. Municipal spending has
[weft governed by limitation of available funds
rather than by the deed for public facilities. These
conditions necessitate extensive public programs.
4. In the City there has been a general increase In
total assessed value of 7:3 (1957-67) offset by
a decrease in tax rate.
1.5 MiAMI URBAN AREA TRANSPORTATIiON
STUDY
Prepared by Metropolitan Dade County Plan-
ning Department. The Dade County Master Plan
3
developed a series of very general goals an'1 objec-
tive's for a projected growth to 1,955,000 by the
year 1985. O1 three alternative growth models
only Alternative II recommended a "Superurban"
(tensity in Central Miami. The final MUATS Report
indicate a Downtown Study Area population of
1(3,000 and an employment force of 58,700 by
1985, a slight reversal of existing trends.
Summary of the Master Plan objectives include:
1 A new emphasis on mass rapid transit.
2. An increase in airport use and site.
3. An increase in Port use.
4. Industrial parks in outlying arc -gas.
5. Commercial centers spread throughout the
region.
Key assumptions behind goals are as follows:
1. Key to the Dade County Platt and the transpor-
tation plan which follows is the statement of a
"Freedom of Choice" goal which implies possible
second home life styles, new town developments and
continuing suburban expansion.
2. There is no stated goal for reinforcing the CBD.
In tact, the assumption of a need for 130 square
miles o1 land for residential expansion implies
much more emphasis on "estate" density of 0 to
1.9 dwelling units per acre and low density 2.0
to 12.9 dwelling units per acre than a sizeable pro-
portion of moderate or higher density residential
rase.
3. The recommendation of 34 square miles for
industrial parks further reinforces geographic
expansion and assumes that the major thrust of
new industrial employment will be outside the
city limits of Miami.
1.6 BRICKELL AVENUE STUDY
A planning and zoning study of the Brickell
Avenue Area south of the Study Area; it was pre-
pared by the City of Miami Planning Department.
The primary objectives of the Study were to
develop zoning strategies to encourage office
and residential development which would have more
open space than the CBD, and incentives for land-
scaping, parking and other "natural amenities". The
Study does not indicate any competition between
the CBD development and Brickell Avenue. In fact,
the objectives tend to indicate an addition to
Central Miami rather than taking from.
A
1
at
a
1. SUMMARY OE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
FOR THE STUDY AREA
In general there are folic rlc)n conffictinra goats
wfaich kilo published in nearly every planning r('nort
0 concerning tire? Stu(iv Area:
Increase Downtown employment;
Increase Downtown residential development;
Improve the Downtown environment; and
Improve movement within and through
Downtown.
0i
4
a
•
0
0
In 11111asur1119 these goals and sl)e.cifyirlt,l objec-
tives, the (r?riorts vary. MUATS recommended a
modest ertll)luynlc?tit increase? irons 43,047 in
1964 to 58,700 in 1985. Tile Doxiadis Plan reconl-
rlle!nrled 81,100 (tinptnyees in the Study Area t'v
1985. The residential growth of ttte Study Area has
Linen the exact opposite of all rr;cr.)nunen'iations.
\hene the region grew from 935,000 in 19(30 to
1,268,000 in 1970 and the City of Miami grow frnnl
295,000 to 335,000; the. Sillily Arno d(:?creas(?rl by
met 1,000. In getie'raI all plans recolnilierid rndxi
milni public use of tivdte?rfront,r(?as a1111 irrlproV('-
rllenis to flit! D()v('r)tuwrl r1f4.1Sirid?) enVlror1rrler)1.
Mosi titans 110111:cltr1 some ci(?Srre for iraffl(: ser)ara-
tio)f) especially 1rl the are,' of Bis(.a'y'rt' [j011t('V 1f!l,
All plans Suggest it more varied and aCtiV(' DOwnto\Vrl
than nO'•t' exists.
There or(' st1rtib[atlt `i('(:ti()ris of the Sl,i'fy Area
�wt11Lh Ili1'." !U) rei_I)nietieroldtiuns exCett the
Di)T1‘.1,fi; f_afi 1 U`at' PK,iri. 1l:''.;r' ar'?ess include nearly
all Modred so,it'tof 13913an,1'1�t411)1)1 i11f1M141116.
pat R.iil1(1/,1
tb'. dI«?ll <1!r)Iln f l-),.i . ( t , it, .J ,glue College known
public Ilse I11 NUk' ,t'"a .';est and east of
rile Mt(itOV'yfi Core r,ii .."'4 („ i'?I'=flat ,itin t)fh('!' on
the t)oxiJ'iis Pldltt. fi' the ,'it', '1,, Knit' 11' s' drt'aS
ail i1t)' c:11.1 '=1 fi i :' ( �,t�{(!!+t i;tltl!P! t (>'f'' l^'hic:h IS
In r wino t wait the 1)o...iolils uses In nearly ail the
areas Illlilt;atl.,i above
An evaluation of the current status Of proposals
r" (:Ornmt')1 h d for the Stud,' Area reflect'ttll)le
nlentatiun activity to :Lit('. Sitlt1(1 1967, Central
Miami has l)r()(_(t?(ie:i 1,70l1V tO111iar11 implementation
of some of the re.?c:ornrnendations l,rr)r)os(s1 in the
plans t,r(r),Irt"i fOr He Miami Cc)re Al (?a
1. BAYFRONT PROJECT:
Presently .ind('ivvay. Plates have t)eett Prepared
E I [) Solon, J(In((ir, showing public else
i01 11!e?'111111` 131r/110111 trO111 the Miarrli River tO
N'1(;Ar 01111 Ca�.IS4�ti'il,'. Th((' plans ilrt? a Ill(')i11hC?!hell,
tiovv'eVer, of the Doxiadis Plan which showed Hotel
and resident use for o substantial Dart of this area.
2 MIAMi RIVER WALKWAY•
Presently underway. Fun'Is for first stages of
the walkway plan have been appropriated. At
present, the YMCA is being constructed north of
the river and proposals for ii Latin C niter have been
discussed. The proposal for residential rfevelr)prnent
aloriq the river is still a strong possibility, rc'com-
trierid(?d by both the plan for NDP-3 and the Btickell
Avenue Study.
3- TRANSPORTATION CENTER:
The key to the Transpc_)rtation Center as pro,
posed by the Doxiadis Plan was interchange of
various transportation modes including rapid transit,
arterial highway movement, and terminal facilities
for bus mutes. The Transportation Center has re-
cently been funded and is located !l0dr the McAr thur
Causeway.
4. DOWNTOWN MIAMI STREETS AND PLACES
The Doxiadis Plan noote major recommenda-
tions in terms of Street closings, plazas and elevated
walkways. The key to these r'ecornnl(?ndations was a
SeC(.)tld le'Vel I)(?rie'Sillarl walkvva',' system above Bis-
cayne BOFtlevar(i llltl at the Government Center with
t)I?!festrion mall along Fltl(ller Street. At ;)resent no
a0bor1 has t.wer1 taken on these recotnmenddtioris.
The Dade Culuniy,_Floriela TroLcs Program by
VVllbllr Smith and Associates of 1971 recommends
revision to street right-of-rvay and the Maurie:e A.
Ferro' Report, Miami--3 Proposals for Downtown, in
Sent'?ruber 1970, recommends "sky bridges" but
both proposals rely on public financing Only
modest street improvements including landscaping
1)1 Bis(:a\'ne Boulevard and Flamer Sri of are
1t1, rer\wa')'.
5. CONVENTION AND CULTURAL CENTER:
Doxiadis recommends the area a(iidCent to
MIamnrlroi and the existing public library become is
convention and cultural center. This is no long_ er a
consideration since the most recent plait by Edward
D. Stone, Jr . and Associates changes this recon'.
men;lation. The Stone plan submitted to the City
Conlrltission September 21, 1972, recommends d
program of recreation, civic and cultural activities
hilt minimum commercial and no Convention
facilities.
At present the Convention Center, if funded,
will become port of the Government Center.
(3. GOVERNMENT CENTER:
Since 1960, recommendations for a Govern-
ment Center have been strongly stated. The specific
site has changed and the program modified in the
4
•
1970 Miami -Daje County Governmental Center
Stud by Geddes, Brectier, Onalls and Cunningham.
At present more detailed studies are underway; bl-lt
funds for the first building (Police Building) are
appropriated, and the policy of centrali/ing local
Government in Downtown Miami remains.
7. MASS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM:
The recent passage of the bond issue assures
implementation and begins the next stages of
design.
8. COMMUNITY COLLEGE:
The construction of Dade County Community
College was part of the recommendations included
in the plan for NDP-3 Area. This facility is nearly
complete its a Community Collage on N.E. 211,1
Avenl ie.
5
k
tric
B-2.0
ECONOMIC
FORECAST
(Prepared by Gladstone
Associates)
2.1 INtRODUClIoN
This report surrinlari,e?s findings for the first
flilase of the Downtown Miami Zoning Study. The
Of)fe(1IVe has been to determine the nature and
extent of the market forces affecting the future
ileve?luprnent of the Miami Central Business District
(CBD). Though Miaini is experiencing some over-
building of office hi Hidings at the present time, a
flhr?nornerlon probably he reflected in
!min vacancy rites it) tfle months ahead, the findings
inclic:ate that in the longs tin, development poten-
ti<,Is rennin shnng for the greater Miarlai Area and
for the Central Business District as well.
Sfle?;ficlliv, Ino'v development in the Downtown
Care will her generatc?r,l by office buildings, most
r)i vvfrich will he located on or near Biscayne Boule-
vard. As in the? past, 111e ifeveloprnent will occur in
shin t5 with some slackening of when supply
rienlati 1, hilt with the long-term tre?n(i
tilvot111rl (lolltit1lle'd Lievelopellent. The (feVelopn1erlt
e11 new office space will also generate potentials
for retui1 space (Around level in new of lice buildings)
awl ar) Illr;reaseel di?Viand for high-rise apartment
houses and condominiums serving a variety of
types of people working in the Downtown Cote.
Tin?sr finriings, vvhich are disc:eissed in afore
�lc�t;ui In the following p,ifte15, cite (MSC() on a c0r11-
hinalie111 of sources: an analysis of demographic
;encf ex:rinr_ltnic fiends based largely on census data;
review of re:?leve?nl reports and studies of the
MI,ilni CBD; interviews with local realtors, developers,
inverstois, inc business leaders; and Gladstone
Associates' experience in the area of downtown
rlevele)prne.'.nt.
2.2 OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
The key to development in the Downtown
Cotes lies in new of lice space in so much as this is
Ole of Unary generator of employment, real estate
values, mid subsidiary real estate development. The
following tattle shows the trends of of fice space
construction during the 1960's in the Miami SMSA.
llrhile on the average, 413,000 square feet were
constructed during the 1960's, there was considerable
variation from year to year with almost 1,300,000
square feet of space being constructed in 1969, and
a low of 132,000 in 1960.
Also during the 1960's, the tendancy was to
Cost r e rct off ice space away tronl the Downtown Core.
Informed sources estimate over 70 percent was con-
6
Annual Office Space Construction Miami SMSA:
1960-1970 (Cr)nst,(nt 1910 (full,ars)
yndt Amount V,)!ur''
11)00 132 O0O 1 f t S 3, 700,000
1961 :Th(1,000 `;(1,1 I $ 1),400,000
196? 3)9,000 sr 1 f I . S 9,200,000
1963 ;'86,0O0 ; 1.1 t . $ 8,000,000
1964 E)75,000 sg.f t. $ 16,100,000
1965 293,000 5(1 f t S 8,200,000
1966 200,000 sq. f t . S 5,600,000
11)67 296,000 so I. S 8,300,000
1968 307,000 sdi t . $ 8,600,000
1961) 1,29:3,000 s(f. f 1 S 36,200,000
1970 4 79,000 t $_..1 ',40U,000_
1960 1970
Toldl 4,546,000 sg.1 t St 26,700,000
1960-1070
Aver air 413,000 sq. I1. $ 1 1,500,000
1 Fstinlate: Gladstone Associ,ltes
Source): Construction Review
shu(.tell uiitsitl(:?.of tilt: CBD mainly in Corm
Gables and in the VICuuty Of iheanon? t.
Moro recently, the i)ult of (i('y'(?Iopment aw;i,
(rorn the? Dw.vntown Art?,i has been increased svilh
the intense 11(?vc'!I)Ineent of Br ickell Avenue and they
dev'('lonrnent of s"vr'rai SA),lrkin (,ffl':(� n,lrks ioc, "
t('.(1 (1101111 t'RI)1 SSWdyti. I IS interesting, !l(,';oV,er,
that even volt) the develOprn ent (lt 1)f tii,t,',
Br I( kelt Avenue, the nevv s ibtlr ham 111 f1(.0 par
and the, continued Strong attraction of Coral Gables,
it the present tlrtif' 3e'VeiOpme111 a1-lively ill I('
DOvwnlown COW has rr?,lcb(r_f rill di tint(? 1110 1111s
is du(?, of 1:o11ts(?, to iv1'O buildings - they First
Federal Buil(lino and One Bisl:ir,n1? Tovn.
TI)Oi(fb not complete?, the follo\vinyl table,
"New Office Buildings Opening 1972-1073",
illustrates the r(?cent ul)S iryt? of of fro! (fr?vull3prllerrt
,activity. At the present tinge, 1:)WI 1,(i00,000 squun!
feet of leasable nevv off ice space i)rr? under consti u1.
Lion, nlOre than half of which art? IOcat451 in ill
Downtown Coe. This f ignre represents d supply
Of I111)1e thail 10(lr liineS (h(? dVF'1,ig(! ali111 of supply
()tiered (lurirlrt the 1960's.
This situation is subject 10 two possil)Ie
interpretations. On the one hand, d Cautious (*se?rver
7
inig!)I ( Oncl(i,fc that 1,609,000 sgiiar(2 fe!-!i Of
1lt'\v office spdC:e' r?plesents a (.lisdste'roils Ov('r-
siit)!?fy, tliven I)dst twri,.is in Miami, and what ihree
to five years will pass before, (lemarl(1 is able 1()
catch I damn V'ilh supply. Toe r(,sult uoul(:I mean
a stagnation of of lice building Activity in Miami
lot ,.l period ut two to three years. Fur tiler !lion!,
this observer might ail, th(it the potentials for
Br i(:kelf Avenue, Coral Gal)Io:?s, the Airport, and
the of hip ; arks continuo to outweigh the p0tr2ntidls
for me Dov',ntu\vrl Corry. COrlse(tue'ntly, two
new hulk dings DOwrltoV'.ti illlght 1)e vie\,vE't.i OS an
dh'rLiton and indeed (:O111(1 stifle) rather than on-
c-eu tail(' further ,tt?vefupme?rit activity in the
Do\vn1O\vn Core.
On the other !l.ln�l, an optimist might view
thr'se trends.iis a shirt) break with the Past the
I eginninq of d rlew'.i(torous (iIOwth period for
treater Midrni an, f par tic(Ilatly for the Downtown
Core. A number of td(_tors could he cited to
sut)Ix)rt this optimism the rlruwinll Mi,inli
ix,or ollly, the t?\I) lrisic.,n of Illdlly existing firms,
tilt t(?1Ocati0n of corporate hea(lqu,lrters to Miami,
th'? t'Vaterfront Pork, the Port, Dole Co(iiity Cr)in-
(llUl)lty C01)09e', an, 1 0101,11)ICl 11,10S1t svStoill.
(.Jt11(1 tlis the?sis, Mi,inli is just (:uminq Into its
Own 10ll)v°dill'.l yi(:h pre?ce;lerlts ds Atlanta Or Wash
Irn-I1On, ,ul(I tilt u(?w 1:onsll(i(tion represents only
thy? beginning Of a natural expansion that is sirllply
,i t '* ,'e ais behind that of other similar tines.
in the (::(),.ir5'? O1 interviews Vv11t i)1fO1111C?(I
C1t1''ns d11(.1 I)ii5lrl''SS leaders In (\l1a1111, both views
were expressed `.",'(th 1:4?t tight` ,Ind conviction. In
111(; sliOr 1 1 (1(1 * 2 b011(.'v1_ 1!n' p.'S;11111515 Illi1'.' !)f0ve
correct In that tilere will probably tw twill office
va(:ari(.:'; rates Iil tile, rl",ir future as the two major
I1o'; ' bilii(1rngs i}e?corm(? available 1Or occupancy.
Both of the ll(?w f)uildings, for instance?, appear
1() be ai11a1:tirlq their tenants I)rinlarily toll older
buil(lirulscur rently IO0at(.(I in the Downtown COI(1.
Intel vi(?v1's with leeising agents of these buildings
to veale'i that new firths !I -loving 10 Miami We 1101
y(?1 louotiliq Downtown brit elsowh(',re, a(111 flrllls
\vhich currently ferlt Sp0Ce 111 Coral Gdhles ()1 near
tO tiro airport do not wish 10 (:hang(' their IOcaUOn.
The result is that the only true com;)(?titive area
with the Downtovvn Cor(, is Brickell Avenue'?, which
at the current time is taking more tenants away
from the CBD than it is fe111rninq. Siricc the firms
locating in the new buildings an? the typical firms
found DOAl)town attor rieys, Minks, CPA's,
((.al tot s, stOCktl oker s -- and since t he?y ,u e
\',le,illllll OI(1(v space DI)V''l1to\'\/il, the vacancy Ia1(?s
rs
NEW OFFICE BUILDINGS OPENING 1972-1973
Stor iris Total Nr2tAt
Rentable Parking
Total Ofht.4r Area Space Rent Range
Miami CBI)
One E3iscayne Tower (Guitertei) 40 24 605,000 750 $8.00+
Miami First Federal :36 19 208000 ---
815,000
Brickell Area
Riverside (Florida East Coast Pro).) 12 10 175,000 500
Crown Executive Plaid (Sheridan) 10 9 94,000 160 $8.00+
Ear ir.:kelt Executive Pl,va (Haltityn) 10 0 -- —
"700" Brickell Building 10 9 71900 300
Subtotal 343,000
Coral Gables/South Miami Area
5901 Building 4 3 30,000 105 $6.50
1570 Madruga Blurting (Gonsalos) 41,000 — $6.50-S8.50
1320 Sol ith Dixie (Sans Adler) 2:35,000 275
Continental Building (Babcock) 6 6 32,000 64 $7.50-$8.00
Douglas Palermo 4 3 _ 2Q 0t.0. 50 $7.75-$B.50
Subtotal 358,000
South Dade Area
Bank of Kendall Building 4 3 36,000 $7.50.$8.50
S.A.C. Col .51) t Lion 3 75 000
61,000
Si.lhtotal
Other Areas
550 (DartliuI)u)
Total
O�if�f ti),ls' ,frarn,itlt.,ill';' in Ow
tlr i:i,lrl,' in ti,r' CBD.
On 1H O(iltrr t, •„', tf,,lt ttt,! With)
CBE:) f)t',tin toe.u:j,eril'in_t'.1 peti�)�1
;old vigolt)'i gr,)1':tf, in Ow next thief., tO
•;ears enetate't trim„tit-,' by or
In Ow, r!;•-per l'!ni-,' It ^.'III r,!jili(,llt'il p.itti'rll'e:'( 4). 1
\1415 e5l,lldistled �_f,irmg 6 . 1�160'`, In titan`,' other
Lister Phria.h:•It)iva, I.1`asil
trl(ttOrl, aft Atlanta.
The i,lr l
Itlslt.it_10,f III this(u!I915pliin,l1,)t_i,�''.l icnr��u1
1+fiilrl'1'' Flit it'ti't!IlOtr!,th(?lr',Iltrll1,h,:,ltlt)Iltitfliii
�11iil1S ati'., ii 1 t ,' I, t+)t rltot,',.1ttl(:'r illlll'IIIU;s
l .t'n. 1110 tllas5 transit s�'�tr In, t)1 1 rr �..,
1"v`a1011totit Pill 6., rli'1N chit tranSpi)i t,iti()1I
34,000
t609,000
sy,torns, the Port - these facilities will inr.reas(,
tflf!attractivenessof this area vis ayis more rlistililt
,ieas, which also have increasing land costs and
diminishing amounts of developal-rle land.
Out cr)I,,.I�.lsion, therefore, is that the long term
f''vrrit-nirn(!nt potentials li)r 1)IIice space rer)lain
Stri,)I)g Ca ll tica,t�)r l;,- irl _the CBI , and that these poten-
tials, if teitli/''(1, haul' a positive et feet on
other lyt,es 01 development, thll ticillarl'' residen-
tial ,ler(llonnlent, as is disci below. The follow -
in,) LIuM(' p:lts for ill Our hest estimate of oitice
development projections (the rnediunl range) and
also presents the projections of the cautious ob-
server and the optimistic ol)server as well.
8
Projected Annual Office Space bemand rent This upper-incorne housing world he' focused
Miami SMSA: 1970-1985 tin Square. Fent)
High Medium Low
Miami SMSA 1,200,000 700,000 450,000
Study Area 400,000 300,000 200,000
Source: Gladstone Associates.
2,3 SPIN-OFFS
Because a vital Downtown Corn is predicated
on the continuer1 development of t)fIice space,
other types of devefopnlent, called spei-olts, .Ire
also dependent upon t1)is development. Unless
office development continues, it is ;Inlikely< that
shin-o11 dm;elopnu'nt activities will take place on
their own.
2.4 RETAIL
It is unlikely that the CBD volt srlppc)t t ad, ti
tional retail anal front that generated tv continued
of lice development. The trertc1 toward the deverim-
rneni tit sukttuban shopping renters, malls, tic., will
he too sitt)nct to rllnw ft)r ad iitional CBD retail
space. Moreover, the dowelopinerii of Pia/a Venetia,
which will contain a t;onsi�1er,tble amount of
retail spate, will st eve the Corr, and itu then unlit
the potentials for Otiler larger rirt,iil dovelot)rnertts
Downtown.
Retail sttace v ill, iic)-wever t:onstructeii on
around levels of new t>tlictr h iitdintls an t will be
designed to slave lilt Dowritetcwn wIOrk furGO. For
ntww 1)n1idirnt corlstruc(ticf, it IS titre Div that
sor)re of tilt' cttuund flt)ot si)at:e volt btu re►a1i.
Given au average ;_mull 11 iru:reases of 300,000 sguari!
feet of office space in lhtr DowrltovVn Con', 5,000-
10,000 square feet of retail space (.ould be antici-
pated on an aru)nal basis. This inure, hovvever
will be larger if, as we anticipate, High-rise luxury
apartments are r1e've)lopec! ;ls vwell.
2.5 RESIDENTIAL
I is lel1 Ihew is a potential Will kit lot t1r
d,volot)rnt�'nt of ut)pe'r•ini onle housinii Do\w,•nluwn,
ssrinling aeceieratr)ei 011 ie:i! cl.wolt)t)r10 t, rnc:rt'atiecf
vitality of tilt business core, the mass tr,r,it, an,
approprlate iteiltrrlerll of the water bout develop
9
at.11ace'nl to the water front area and would take the
formof medium rise anti high rise rental and pur-
chase ,1, r hnenis. Residents would include young
single anti rn irr ieki professionals as well as "empty
nesters" Iri the 45 io 00 age bracket.
The taf)le on the following page illustrates
residential development trends for the greater Miami
Area during the 1960's. On the average, over 15,000
units were constructed each year in the Miami
SMSA, almost 70 percent of which vwere ntulti-
fril)lll'ti' units. Housing development re'aclleCI a peak
in 1909 WI t'n almost 27,000 units were constructed.
\-\'bile these figures do not ,listinguish between
the SMSA aiP1 the Downtown Corn, it is obvious
from inspection that very little new housing devel-
opment has ocCrlrred Downtown. On the contrary,
as illustrated in "Population Trr n ls, Miami SMSA:
1950-1970", the population of the Downtown
Study Area has A lee:lined from :32,000 to 29,000
persons !iLlr mg pe'r iod ��rtlr n the Miami SMSA has
rXt),,Iwr1C:ed Sirc.)rlrl t)r)peltalle)ti g;ii rs.
As in(lic:.ito,1 by past trends, it is obvious that
greater P,1i1uni had strong growth trends in h(.)usirlrt
and population during ing the 1960's, while they
Duwntowrl Core Arno MIS experrencing (feel Ines.
\1`hile a ,:lramatin reversal of these trends occurring
is unlikely vwithin a natural market frarnework, the
exodus should siren, down, with the possibility of
mod,!r ice pop+nation increase ncr ilrrintl by 1980.
(Seep "Population Trends Miami SNISA: 1950-1970"
anti "Population Forecasts Mlarlll SMSA: 1970-
1985". )
air projections ate predicated on the asSutitt)-
tion that living Dtr,Yritown in close proximity to
one's entploytnent appeals to a small but sirmificant
minority of to onle "empty nesters", Young sinrle
and trrarried professionals, and other groups
accustomed to uthan living -- and that given an
attractive living erivircmiticrnt Downtown, these,
people can be attracted radz to the City. They are
predicated also on the belief that a view of Bis-
cayne Bay yields ,I strong nurrket alibi( Lion. A 'lrhile
agar tin rlts or condorniniunts constructer) along
Blsrayrlt' Boirlt'vard would compete with similar
(ievelrl rnents along Bric:kell Avenue, in the 'pilg-
rim there is a market for residential developments
in both locations.
In addition, assuming a major public inter-
vention in the form of land assembly, financing
and public incentives, a possibility exists for a low
tlerrsity, nixed income residential conununity in
the Northern area of the CBD. This passibility is
•
r
Annual Multi -Family and Single Family Unit Construction Miami SMSA: 1960-19/0
Single Family
Value' Average*
Year Units ($000's) Value
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
7,498
5,993
4,621
4,128
3,858
3,716
3,007
3,777
4,733
4,980
5602
146,516
102,132
84,090
80,959
71,015
72,356
61,718
76,278
102,095
132,006
_ 104 023
1960.1970
Tolal 51,913 1,033,188
1960-1970 Averagr
Annual 4,719
19,541
17,042
18,197
19,612
18,407
19,466
20,525
20,195
21,571
26,507
18,569
93,926 19,904
t4tilti-Family
Value* Average*
Units ($000's) Value
4,031 40,257 9,989
4,092 45,575 11,138
5,665 59,975 10,587
5,639 47,875 8,490
8,632 74,876 8,674
13,065 117,951 9,028
10,750 100,847 9,381
11,127 132,139 11,876
18,028 209,949 11,646
21,940 311,670 14,206
13 241 157,720 11,911
11(5,210 1,298,834
10,565 118,076 11,176
•Constant 1970 dollars.
Source: U.S. Census: Gladstone Associates.
again contingent upon accelerated office develop-
ment in the CBD.
In this analysis we have discussed horising in
terms of natural market forces. We have assrirru;d
that no public. intervention will take place and
Wirt the current factcirs yviach aItis t rfevr'Ioprnent
will not change. Another way of phrasing these
conclusions is to say -- unless there is substantial
public intervention regarding housing in the Study
Area, It is likely that SOI11U moderate tlNelol)rlleilt
of luxury high-rise buildings will take )race -- brit
nothing more.
Population Trends Miami SMSA: 1950-1970
2.6 MOTELS AND HOTELS
As i tourist Center, Miami has Considerably
Inure hotel space's than other regions of similar
sire. Nevertheless, a revitalized Downtown will
(;robably result in a Substantial increase In the
number of hotel units in Miami Proper. More
likely, however, will be the renovation and replace-
ment of older hotels, a phenomen which will
affect construction activity but not substantially
increase the lumber of roofS available Down-
town.
Average Annual Change
50-60 60-70
r 1950 1960 1970 Number Percent Number Percent
Miami SMSA 495,084 935,047 1,267,792 43,996 8.9% 33,275 3.6%
Study Area NA 32000 29,000 - - -300 -1.0%
• Source: U.S. Census; WMRT.
10
Population Forecasts Miami SMSA: 1970-1985
Average Annual Change
70-75 75-80 80-85
1970 1975 1980 1985 Number % Number % Number
Miami SMSA 1,2(7, 792 1,423,857 1,574,357 1,711,857 31,213 2.5 30,100 2.1 27,500 1.75
Study Area 79,000 28,500 29,500 32,000 100 -0.4 200 0.7 500 1.7
Source Gladstone Associates
2.7 CONCLUSIONS
The key to a revilaliirirf Miami Cf3D lies in
office (ievelopn e!it. CF3D office c(lnstruc.
tioll took place at a riloil('rate rate dui in t the
1960's, a major breakthrough may he at Hand
tlirough a silbstantiaily accelerated pace of
activity. In the short -tun, relatively hi(i11 vacancy
rates slay occur. In the tiieifium-tt'.rrrl, til'?SP_'
likely to be of (sot by recent devreIopnlents
such as tlw proposed rapid transit, the proposed
development of the waterfront, and the proposed
itTlprovements aluug the Miami River. Stein-olfs
from office development will Ira:hole 1110(ir;rat0
int.riNiSC'S 1r1 !10\V developrilerli dovoto i to retiall
anti residential.
The tables vrl the follotvin(1 paq0S s?l0w
past t,'nil)l0'/i1)f ni tr(;nds for the MIOI1l11 Area,
�lnri forecasts in the Study Area to 1085.
Projected Annual Residential Demand Miami SMSA: 1970-1985
1970 - 1971 1975 • 1980 1980 - 1985
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent
Sinylrr Family 2,659 24% 2,420 22% 2,090 20',.
Multi Family 8,421 75'.„ 8,580 78"„ 8,360 80"':i
TOTAL 11,080 100"<< 11,000 100" 4, 10,450 100'
Note' Ass(Iines a 5.0 percent vEl(.allCy late. (wet. 1.5 percent demolition rate.
Source: Gladstone Associates.
11
Non -Agricultural Employment Trends by Industry Miami SMSA: 1960.1970
Industrial Category
Contract CanstruLtiurt
Mani, fact! rrinrt
Transportrlticrrr, Communication and
Other Utilities
Wholesale and Retail Trade
Finance, Instiranc:c urcl Real Estate
Services
Government
TOTAL
Employment.
1960 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971
23,300 23,900 24,800 27,900 32,600 32,100 30,800
41,700 59,500 65,700 71,400 76,600 75,700 76,100
35,300
07,600
20,800
63,300
35,600
307,600
39,600
104,100
26,100
82,000
50,400
385,(00
45,300
1 1 1,500
27,500
88,800
53,100
416,700
49,900
1 19,200
28,800
97,700
54 ,:300
449,200
54,c300 56,500 58,100
126,000 132, 700 137,000
31,000 33,900 36,000
106,700 1 14,700 1 18,800
55,70C) 57,600 60,300
484,000 503,200 517,100
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Average Annual Employment Change Miami SMSA: 1960-1971
1960 - 1966
Percent Rate of
Industrial Category Number of Total Growth
Ctrntrirt:t Construr,tion 100 0.4`?t,
Manufacturing 2,9(37 7.1
Trirnstrortatiorr, Communication
& Other Utilities 717 h.5":;
Wholesale & Retail
1967 - 1970 ____ 1970 - 1971
Percent Rates of Percent Rate of
Number of Total Growth Number of Total Growth
2,430 84"-1,300 -•9.4%-4.0°<,
3,:3 33 1 1.G",', 5.1 "., 400 2.9 0.5%
2.0 3,733 13 0,„ 8.2
Tra(le 2,750 71.1 7,066 24.5 0.3“;',
Finance, Ins;rranc,t &
Real Estate 88 ]
Services 3,1 16 24 0"<, 29.9')
Government 2,467 19.0
7,133
8,633
1,500
7.7'
7;,
1,600 1 1.5'..' 2.8"
4,300 30.9% 3.2r',
2,100
4,100
2,700
29
19.4%
6. G%
3
5.Of'..)
TOTAL 13,000 100.0' i, 4.2 28,828 100 0.9 13,900 100.0% 2.8%
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Employment Trends and Forecast Miami SMSA, CBD, Study Area: 1960.1985
1960 1965 1971 1975
NI inkier "4, '1, N,unher Nnmher %
1980 1985
Number % Number %
Miami SMSA 307,600 100 385,600 100 517,100 100 585,850 100 689,600
CBD 31,000 10.07 29,0001 7.5 32,858 6.3 41,009 7,0 44,824
Sttigy Area NA NA 42,0002 10.8 45,0003 3.7 5' ,0004 9.3 62 064
1. This figure is based on 1959 estimate.
2. This figure is also estimate, from 1964 figure of 29,000 for CBD and 41,000 for Study Area.
3. Figure is estimate based on 1972 estimate of 45,556 for Study Area.
4. This is based on the full occupancy of the First Federal Building and One Biscayne Tower.
Source: WMRT: Gladstone Associates; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
100 790,050 100
6.5 47,403 6.0
9.0 68,734 8.7
12
Supportable Ground Values, typical New Office'
Building Prirt a Location, Miami CBb
Lot Sim
Off ice Space
Pat king
Retail
Private Club
37,500 sq.ft.
604,000 sq. fl.
250,000 sq.ft. (750 spaces at 333 sq.ft./space)
25,000 sq.ft.
20,000 sq.ft.
Net Leasable Space. 904,800 sq.f t.
Unleasable (A/C, elevatc)r, storage, etc.) 100,000 scgft.
Total Space 1,104,000 sq.tl.
Total FAR
Office (and club) FAR
Parking (aril retail) FAR
Land costs (@$100/sq.1 t . )
Lass costs for parking
(@$1,000/space. )
Less costs for retail
(@$8.00/sq. f t.)
Costs for Office (rend Club)
29.46
16.6
6.(3
$:3, 750,000
$ 750,000
$ _ 200,000
$2, 705,000
$2,795,000 S74.53 sq.f t. cost/square foot for of Lice (club)
37,500 sq.1 I.
$100.00 -- $74.53 = $25.47 sq.lt. cost/square foot for parking (retail)
Land Cost F.A. R. Unit Suppor table Ground Value
Office (Club) $75
Parking (Retail) S25
16.6 $4.50 sq.ft.
6.6 $1,000/park i nit space
$8/rr'tait sq, f t.
1. While these figures are based on One Biscayne Tower, they are not exact and in some
cases, estimates have been made.
13
B34O
DOWNTOWN
TRANSPORTATIO
AND PARKING
3.1 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CAPACITY
The capacity of the transportation system can
he measured in ncunher of trips per hour, which can
be accommodated in any given corridor. In Down-
town Nliarni the critical trips are work trips by
automobile. Thus the street capacity to handle the
Uips is the key measure of the 1973 system capacity.
e were over 130,000 vehicles entering the
CBD per day in 1971. (Downtown Miami A Con-
ceptual Transportation Plan, September 1973, Beis-
wenger-Hoch and Associates.) About 10% of these
vehicles write on the street at peak hour. If they
were distributed evenly the 13,000 vehicles could
easily l,e handled. However, demand to move south
along U.S. 1 rind west on the 1-95 distributor is
greater than other demands. Thus certain links of
the System are overloaded. The following example
diagrams the capacity for traffic movements on a
typical C.B.D. htcac�k:
Assume 3 lane one way streets on all faces
1 lane used for parking
50% tirnect traffic lights
At a moderate level of Service G00 automobiles
could be handled per lane or 1200 per block face.
However, al.i:lit ion of a parking garage could alter
the capacity depending upon where curb cuts occur
or exit tralfic is heacled. Weaving motion and
multiple On cuts Carl adcf to congestion,
Wither Smith Associates has indicated that
capacity of a typical block for exiting parking
is 1200 czars, based on not overloading the street.
Many hhn:ks in Downtown already exceed this
number and often the peak hour auto volume
exceeds street capacity in these areas.
Capacity for automobile movement is highest
now in the Dupont Plaza Area and on Biscayne
Boulevard. Volume of traffic at peak hour within
the Study Area is also highest here. New develop-
ment will increase this volume and require addi-
tional street capacity. (See Beiswenger-Hoch design,)
3.2 TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS OF
NEW DEVELOPMENT
Of all types of land use, high rise office places
the greatest demand upon the capacity of the
movement system. Using the example of the new
office development at Biscayne Boulevard and
Flagler Street, Wilbur Smith and Associates developed
a series of specific criteria required to handle peak
hour traffic exiting from the buildings. The following
14
calculations suggest other irnpa(.ts ).vherl these
kh ill twigs are fully occupied.
1 Biscayne — First Federal Block
Sit(! Area 90,000 square feet
Parking Sf 'laces. 1400
0f fir t! Are,i: 1.2 rrlilh0n s(fuare feet
Total Employees: 6150
Assume 1971 I711) ,il split will apply 1e) these
new employees an(1 Iliat 82I's, will ,drive 1)y auto,
with 1.31 pet sons per c.ar. (Th(! Transpor ration
(a)act of a Downtown Miami Govett71lI nt Center,
Se;)tr.ertll)er 1970, Alan M. Voorhees and Associates,
Inc..)
4943 auto trigs pills visitors
;3750 auto at rivals plus visitot s
This total is 2.8 times the total on site parking
available. If other blocks can tiancite only 1 '0()
autos, twO more garuf(!s al ne;lrly tle si; e of
those on tale site will he needed to meet this de
eland.
Assume 1985 modal split will be inhprov(!4
by t ansit, public policy, etc. 50''i, ar r ive by auto
with 1.5 persons per a, to. (Dowrituvwrtt>.Mi<lrtti: A
Cat,n(- !Lltual Traris xot talit)n_PLIn, Set lwinner 19 73,
Be!isv1'eliger Hoch and Associates.1
3075 auto trips tilusvisitors
2050 auto i1rri',ils plus '.'lSltl)rs
This is Ouly 650 curs more than t e 1400
or) site and could he within the t:al:laCity
O1 nearby parking fa(.ilities
The implications of this Ilxathlple are) that
I)arkin; Llerrl,ul'_1 1tunl new of lice structures will
he Vigil 1)ut0re trrulsit systems are in operation.
To r11e(!t this d(?rnane1 pat king concentrations
should not over(rrowd streets. Pet i1)heral par' king
and pubic, monitoring of locution Should begin
as soon as possible. Location for such lots is
siggested in tale Reiswenger-Hoch Repot t.
The One Biscayne —First Federal block pro-
vides appioxinlalnly one prat king space per 4 or 5
employees. Any ITIOUe spaces on silo would surely
congest S.E. 1st Sheet a1 peak hour. Thus for
development intensity comparable to this block,
no more than 30% of the 1971 parking dentiind
15
should be built on site. TIlls meads one stlace per
1000 S(flhire fet,q i1f Of fire deve'ionrrlerlt.
A general guidetlioe fOr new pdrkinq should
therefore he. f)rOvisiotl of on site parking of one
space per 1000 square feet ii()t to exc"()(I 1200 total
spaces per block. Excess {,irking derriari l in the
short ranger rnllst h,, t)llbhcly rrlonitored.
3.3 PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE
STUDY AREA
13. 1 .,Vertt!r V-1(1(;11 aril Associates I) 0 3) )?e.:I
1 tit;-tl�•r,ll plan for parkin) in the year 1985. The
I1.11lv'�Irl1; chart siIOWS the yearly pilrkln(f teAtoire
nle!1II' tilt tll'' (!mire Shirty Area front 1973 to
1081).
Assumptions:
1 hi 1972 those desiring parking spa! -es yvithin
t)t' SlitrIv Area t-:t,n1(1 find ih'!n), thus Ih(! supply
)i ,.3.3,000 5pii!;k.'S In(:I'itling (';11h Ilarkin(.I `•; OS
e'(lut! 10 t.1('r)lall%1. (Rolsworin'r-Hoch and Associates,
S('pt)!rriber 197:31
2. The demdrl't for lhir king for employee!, IS
run al at peak hour Residential demand drld rl'larl
�1r'rnand art! (Of peat; and less ('rilie;al
:3. As ll 'Y' (Onstr 1 doll is l'1llt 1110r)ti OI 1f10
�!\I tlnO Sf ll''S +:vlll l)e? r!!n1()vt!(I all(1 Ih1' I(N:atIf.)11
11 I'!n orl f ill (:han(tt',
4. Proje,,ted averages one
nt�yv 400,00O square fool h11ildinvt r)r'r yi!ar. f3('fc)r„
rn,tss transit is bout a modal St)111 of J.32. is nlOre
tiro1:;1111''; however, at ter transit Is in !)1k'ra11011 •1
1)11) 1.11 sr+lit of .113 IS f ossi1)1e.
The (_11,1r 1 on the following f1,1(111 u11llLiit's
tial WItllOut Hart;,?! ,a l' 7111Ind of about 1250
spaces \\ III he ,i' Il l('I f t!,lc.h yea?. l'l'ht!n transit is
hunt ;.t tt 1''irenl(rnt of 681) sp0e,('s per year will
meet tlio demand. It is entirely possible therefore
that by 1980 all the r pat king for 1985
will have 1144n built in the Study Area.
The pi Oposed r 0(lulrernoll of 30uparking
on site nlaxirnurn woiild Amount to less than 400
spaces pet year , leaving O\'er 850 spaces to be
monitored by public policy. Careful control of
parking Iodations can Stimulate new development
vithout overcrowding streets.
The Reiswehnger-Hoch and Associates report
suggests potential locations for off site parking;
however a more detailed parking program including
implementation re'gl.11r(!rllentS and inlmitlistriltlVe
rr
110
r
s
policy should be pre;elrer1 to meet the tenoe
demands. li'\ritProllt (.dretall monitoring, street
congestion Lou1(1 discourage cicwelol)ment
Downtown.
60,000
50,000
40,000
Probability 1
Space
33,000
Spaces
1972
1975
11-40
•
ross‘tr • < Qa<�
st4
mare' P 685 P ti�ilfli7
eve 4`sr� 1T TTM
ve`•oard RTTifTT1D
rflMS
• On Site Parking(400 per Year)
ea1\
peg
�
NET ADDITIONAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
(Assuming 33,000 Total for Study Area in 1972)
1980
56,000
50,000
1985
43,500
Spaces
16
111 11PU1111hIIIIIIII
B-4.0
DEVELOPMENT
INTENSITY
21
14
12
8
7
3.5
Imo
Parking
6
.82 ms
.................
000
Floor Area Ratio
.5ms
The tour parking lots in the Dupont Plaza
area enjoy excellent access from I-95, Biscayne
Boulevard, S.E. 2nd Avenue and Brickell Avenue.
Presently around 1500 cars park in these lots and
in the Bayfront Area. The new transportation
system proposed by Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates
will increase the street capacity in this area to
handle all through movements as well as an addi-
tional 3500 cars for employee parking. However,
any more than these spaces would exceed the peak
hour capacity of the new design. The following
calculations refer to parking and transit require-
ments for now development in the Dupont Plaza
area.
Site Area excluding rarnps, etc. 300,000 sq.ft.
Parking spaces per level @, 350 sq.ft.-850 sq.ft.+
Therefore total levels of parking = 6
Parking available for new employees = 3500
At .82 modal split and 1.31 per auto, 3500
cars would be required for 1 million square feet
On -Site Parking
PARKING REQUIREMENTS AT DUPONT PLAZA
17
Parking Spaces
12,000
8500
... 5000
1500
PP
of office space. For economic feasibility however,
these blocks require over 2.2 million squaw feet
of office space to meet land cost. This would mean
that less than 50%of the parking demand wotiId be
met by the 3500 spaces, and that transit must be
designed into the four block area since other pat king
areas within walking distance are not readily avail-
able.
The chart on the previous page illustrates the
relationship between development intensity (FAR)
and parking for new office space at Dupont Plaza.
The first six levels of development are parking with
office space above.
The reference to economic floor refers to
development required to support ground value of
$60 per square foot and a six level parking garage.
This is FAR 8 with office space alone on top of
FAR 6 for the garage.
Development Intensity Required for $60 Land
Assume a typical block is 100,000 square fret
with a parking structure of six levels.
Land at $60 per square foot x 100,000 =
$6,000,000.
If parking prays $1000 per spacer and in the
Dupont Plana area the Six level garage produces
1800 spaces, this wil! produce $1,800,000
revenue.
rnue.
Six levels x 300
$1,800,000
1800 st z. Ices x $1000 =
If retail space In Ile structure occupies
25,000 square feet (according to Gladstone
Associates this else can pay $8 per square
foot), this will pay $200,000.
25,000 square feet x $8 = $200,000
If of lice is ct.mstruc:ted at a Flour Area Ratio
of 8 (according to Gladstone Associates of f ice
can pay $5.25 per square foot on $60 land),
this use can produce revenue of $4,200,000.
8 x 100,000 square feet x $5 25 =
$4 , 200, 000
Thus in summary:
LAND COST
Less Parking
Less Retail
Less Offic()
Means that the FAR
ficient to rneet land costs
$6,000,000
1,800,000
200,000
4 200 000
-- 200,000
8+6 for parking is silt -
at Dupont Plaza.
1. The 3500 additional parkins spaces represent
100`.'4, of demand for about 1 million square feet
of office at tnodel split .82 or FAR 3.5.
The 3500 additional parking spaces represent
100% of clernand for about 2.0 million square
feet of office at modal split .50 or FAR 7.
Neither of these are economic, so clearly
100° .of parking cannot be reel on site with either
modal split.
2. If 50" 6 of demand were met on site the 3500
spaces could support FAR 7 at a modal split .82
or FAR 14 at a modal split of .5.
This means that with good transit access and
of parking demand off site, an economic
FAR 14 can be suppot ted.
3. If 1/3 of demand was met on site the 3500
spaces could support FAR 12 at a modal split of
.82.
Because of the shortage of adjacent areas to
Dupont Plaza for much additional parking, at least
50" . of the demand for parking should he met on
site.
Therefore, a minimum and maximum intensity
can be obtained for the Dupont Plaza area. Minimum
is the economic floor of FAR 8 for office development
or hotel. Maximum is the FAR 14 with excellent
transit access reducing the modal split to .5. However,
the probability of the transit stop at Dupont Plaza
is in the distant future and the maximum in early
years should be closer to the minimum until such
access is assured. Thus FAR 11 is the recommended
niZIxin uril.
Since park hour parking seems to be the major
factor in Dupont Plaza, those uses which probably
do not contribute to peak hour problems such as
residential and commercial should be permitted in
addition to such uses which produce peak traffic.
For example, residential development of an addi-
tional FAR 4 in Dupont Plaza would total 1000
to 1200 dwelling units. Although storage of the
automobiles for these units might be a problem,
the traffic peak for the garage would not occur at the
same hour as those entering Downtown for their jobs.
18
TRW, OPtlitW
The intensity of development in Dupoiit Plaza
therefore shall be PAR 8 for offHee or 12 for
office and fesiderataaf; or FAR 11 for office and
15 for office and residential with high transit access..
1n summary, dev(IOprii0ti1 ih Dupont Plaza
is based: On the C?Gorat7l'YIK' r i iitlUrf intensity of
FAR 8 tot (Alice and FAIR 6 for parking;
The. rnaxirnum is governed by the amount of
offsitepacking required and could be increased to
FAR 11 for office with good transit acr;ess.
The addition of residential use which dons
not add th peak hour traffic could extend the
minimum and maxirnuni to the following`
Residential and Office Use V1/itllout
FAR 12
Residential and Office Use with Mass; Rapid
Transit: FAR 15
The Dupont Plaza offers the possibility
of rnaxitituni development intensity without Over-
loading street capacity: No other ;area in the Down
town otters the potential of direct access from
parking garage to Expressway Tlit,US the ititr.nsity ".
guidelines presented should be thei maximum for
the entire Study Area.
19
e",I I II r {'ar 71 IIR1A_F !163-Ct.Ril
eg OF Hal
MOTEL RESIDENTIAL
MRT STOP
PEDWAY SYSTEM 21 LEVEL
PEDESTRIAN WAY
a
eg OFFICE
ellP MOTEL
(91/ RESIDENTIAL
21
- ,)
r- •
1
7).
L*4
1
,4:31 1
DESIGN CONCEPT 2
MRT STOP
PEDWAY SYSTEM 2ndLEVEL
PEDESTRIAN WAY
•
1'
tor
p
tl!P OFFICE
—011, MOTEL
eMIP RESIDENTIAL
•
r•...-11r),_
DESIGN CONCEPT 3
MRT STOP
PEDWAY SYSTEM 2nd LEVEL
PEDESTRIAN WAY •w •6 •• ..•
22
e. OFFICE
MOTEL
RESIDENTIAL
23
tri
#1.44.440
#4r--Nip
3
ill .... '..z
,"
:;• ,..1 • :,_,
,-..
I .-1....;::"..-9".? ., ..;•1...,),,,
..." ••••••_,r-* ''.."' . .0.••
4';;1 .' I•••44---.1.:4:
• , ..... „..,../
Y.1 ,..,,, ...1
..,.
:.. r,:,.1,-;
•••••• nr;
DESIGN CONCEPT 4
f‘.ART STOP
PLDWAY SYSTEM 2r 'd LE VLL
44,••=.*0 PEDESTRIAN WAY
4*0i,t<o...,-.s;50:1iatA.V:,V:etrW,AW;,;A-=4wiN-4nt,Pt.4d4Zk4W,t6vA,AV0.r=t4mw,or.0,,grkya,k-n.
0-
r.
Midtown Core Subarea
Olfcr
Retail
March Mart
Hot« -I MotF:l
Reprdennal
On Sop Parking
Government Center Subarea
Of'ce 3 750)00 nit .ft.
Govt. O+f,ry, 851,200 sit ft
RFrtad 10,500 sti.ft.
t i-S o' Part oq 1,b50 ,Paces
Miami Riverfront Subarea
Re. ,- Atli: 700 D u
Ret,ul 10,000
On -Site P,trkrnq 00 :miter?s
SUB -AREA SPACE
778,600 tq ft
657,500 sq.ft.
232,800 srt.lt
240 !(toms
200D11
4,943 spaces
Biscayne Bayfront Subarea
Resr. opts 1,650 D.U.
Retail 22,000 sq.tt
On -Site Parking 3,650 spar.rps
Biscayne/2nd Ave. Subarea
Ottice :3,540,000 ui.ft.
Retail 175.500 so. II
Mot. 1. Hot. I 240 roonis
Rrsrrlerttr,tl 1,300 D U.
On•Site Parkuru 5.629 spares
C-3 District
Office
Retail
Motet/Hot' I
Residential
On•Site Park 1.9
Dupont Plaza Subarea
5,990,000 so t t
256,000 sq 1t.
980 roorns
2,160 D.0
13,466 spaces.
Of hen 2,450,000 sq 1t.
Retail
Mo., IlHotr l
Residential
On Sat.. Parking
81,000 so It.
740 rooms
200 D.0
5,908 spaces
24
a
•
a
a
a
.16
O. •
•
•
• -
2
• •• 00
• •• ••
•• •-
00 00 000 GOO,
•• WO WOO IMO
• OM 000 *00
a
i
a
erg,
a
a
•••• • •
me i efrio • ••
••• • •Oil :••
-• •• •
• •••• :.
;, 2 ..•••
A
a
1
•
• • •
• •
• •
•••
•
•
i••i•
i -
a ..,.............**...m....—...--.1111M111-•-•-•-110( '
• d-
de
i
•
ALTERNATIVE DOWNTOWN MASS RAPID TRANSIT PROPOSALS
• Existing Employees (250) RELATED TO 1985 EMPLOYMENT
• Under Construction and Committed
Proposed (net new)
25
Z:4
-an
I
, •
GOVERNMEt T
• • ,
1-ALTERNATIVE 2r
„
••• ***** ossesosoiki,
• •
•
•
t
I
-Al TEFiNATIVE 1
COMM
COLLE
OOOOO ••• •
EXISTING RE AIL STRIP
MIDTOWN RETAIL CORE
PROPOSED ACTIVITY STREETS
r
REC4iMENDED MASS
• RAPID, 'TRANSIT
...elt
„,,• ' ,- — i . - OOOO :t........ OOOO !...,,, ,. P,REOC)MMENDEO
t_11:AGLER -STRE T I., P. R t 'SYSTEM
- • ,— .. .: , - RETAIL CORE
1
\
i I----7--- , CENTER i
r1MAM I ,
%
"-lintY141eKII
I !,
?A,
•
1
..i..
i /
/
ALTERNATIVE DOWNTOWN MASS RAPID TRANSIT PROPO-
SALS RELATED TO RETAIL STRUCTURE & PUBLIC FACILITIES
26
® S40-60ft [= S4-81t
O S20-40ft O S t 4ft
[= S 8-20ft
27
TOTAL ASSESSMENT*
•
Sanitary Sewer
—= Storm Sewer
Storn Outtaii
41
UTILITIES
28
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Miami City Commission
Miarrii Department of Nanning
Downtown Development J\ t:horit:y
Downtown Miami Zoning Study Board
Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd
Haines Lundberg & Waehler
Planning, Urban Design and Zoning Consultants
KeyAction Recommendations
December 13, 1973
Downtown Miami faces major public and private changes in the next
few years. The Consultants" Report "Downtown Miami: 1973-1985;
An Urban Development and Zoning Plan" outlines procedures for
the City, the business community, and property owners to
respond to these changes, most notably that of the proposed
mass rapid transit system.
This Memorandum outlines Key Action Recommendations --both those
in the above document, and a recommendation for action in the
Dupont Plaza Area, offered as supplemental to the Plan and Zoning
Ordinance.
ACTION RECO,IME ;D; TION 1: ZONING (Appendix)
Adopt the Propossd Zoning Ordinance after appropriate public
hearings and review.
ACTION RECOhMENDATION 2: PHASE I COMPOSITE (pp. 26, 27)
"The recommended public actions and improvements are described in
the section on the Urban Development Plan, and the spccific
improve:r.c_nLs are listed as follows for Phase I or immediate
implementation:
1. Completion of all planned pubJic projects, particularly the
Old Port-Rayfront Park.
2. Proceed with Bciswenger-Hoch transportation recommendations
with emphasis on Dupont Plaza traffic separation, N.C. 3rd
Street extension, and widening of Biscayne Boulevard north of
N.E. 6th Street.
3. Extension of the right-of-way of N.E. 2nd Avenue and N.E.
3rd Avenue.
MLi`i4RAt DUM
i'acj twO
4. Accluisi.tion for an Urban Park north of Fiagle./ St I_c:t.t alo!)u
I.F. 3rd Avenue.
5. Proceed with a major public tree planting progra!a with
preliminary emphasis on Biscayne Dou1evard, Nagler Street,
west side of 2nd Avenue and areas where new de"elopment is
not likely.
6. Proceed with a public parking program which provides for
off -site parking needs of new development either within
walking distance or transit ride from the high intensity
areas.
The semi-public and private improvements to be rorlui.red or
encouraged are shown in the Phase I map ancl arc also contained
in the Special District Plan in the proposed zoning ordinance
for Downtown Miami in Article XXVI-1, Section 2, the form of
a map supplemented by zoning regulations.
The private improvements, as scheduled in Phase IT and indicated
on the Phase II map, can only be implemented siftel key future
public decisions, actions or .. 1iocnti.ons of public funds have
been made on the following two kinds or. categories:
1. Making final decisions on the new rapid transit system which
involves adc_'.i tional planning and design work and then .deci-
sions by the City of Miami as to the type of system, its
location and detailed alignments as wall as the transit:
stops. For these reasons the: followincj upper lcvrt facili-
ties in t:hE. plan strongly related to the r.cA: Lr'ans.i t syst: m
are proposed for Phase II --that is, not for immediate imple-
mentation:
Rapid trdnsit plazas
Pedways (a second level pedestrian system)
Pedestrian bridges which icicall.y should be located at
the new rapid transit stops and connected to .the rapid
transit plazas and pedo:a.y system
2. For sub -arc,::, such as the proposed Miami River Walt:, involving
possible relocation of exis'.ing activities, requiring, possibly
an urban rene-ea.l plan or a'.;taini.ng aclditionul p'ihlic easements
or similar action, it Should b.o notea thet t11 .Legi nlativo
intent and legal fr r.!e..'orh for the upper level f nci l.] t ies are
set forth in the proposed .:C)n i ng ordinance. F i 111 .1'I' , the
ordinance CUti;I%o1;i:. . � f,;.IG:] ;i+v to t1i'=►
;� o [' caw':h (' hI- i si t. st st: s
SLC)�)�, to �)E`' I'.1% � )t) .!'. ) C: � 1 Il t. t.7c1 1 � ,� .,._C'+,; �lI1C�i t i dil��Lt
stops are definitively E. tabl iF,hc•d. "
1
Ir1MORANDUM
Page three
ACTION RECOMMENDATION 3: DUPONT PLAZA AREA
Create a special development program for the four. -block Dupont
Plaza Area eftended west to I-95, from 1st Street to tilE Miami
River.. With the powers of the Packing Authority and the Downtown
Development Authority combined, and with a detailed public plan,
develop adequate parking garages in conjunction with the pro-
posed I-95 Ramp modifications. Lease or sell the air rights
over parking structures where appropriate for development con-
sistent with the Plan and the Proposed Zoning Ordinance.
ACTION RECOMMENDATION 4: NEW -TOWN -IN -TOWN
Authorize the Downtown Development Authority to ini.tiate feasi-
bility studies leading to an Application for Federal Loan Guarantee
under Title VII of the New Communities Act of 1969 for the North
Biscayne Boulevard Area (see p. 21) and/or other appropriate
funding.
It is our opinion that the above Key Action Recommendations must
be acted on at an early date if Downtown Miami i ; to respond in
the most efficient and harmonious way with the opportuniti.es
offered by the private investment market and the crass rapid
transit system now under design.
ERRATA SHEtT
The follow,nn changes should hce incluch'cl es nor 1
of the Urban Dtvicelopmeot and Zoniixl pl;n,:
Section 2 of the main report should be modified
on page 5:
-- (:ommunity College should be shown as public
facilities land use
Sec.:ion 3 of the main report should be modified
as follows:
— Page 26: under A Strategy of Timing and
Staging number 2 should read Extension of
N.E. 3rd Avenue rather than N.E. 3rd Street
— Page 39: The map should be alterr'd to show
the lrea on Biscayne Bay north of Sixth S:reet
as C-1 rather than PR.
Tha map should be altered to show the area
on Biscayne Bay south of Chopin Plaza and
east of Biscayne Boulevard as C-30 as a
waterfront district.
L
HAtN S Lt obt ftt Erg WAt:It1.t
EllItATUIll .
November Y 5g 1913
On the Proposed Zoning Map (page 39 of the report and page 3 of
Appendix A) District designations should be changed as follows:
C-3 shown in the District which includes portions of
East and West Flagler Street should be C-3A.
C-3A shown in the area south of S. E. lst Street should
be C-3.
L
PROPOSED
ZONING
cn M. MUER, 1073
R - 4
0-4
C-3B
1-1
, ‘I
A-4
t
i 5,.............. 1
Li 1 \ Rr.•
fr R-4 1 C.-1 i P2-6I
7c•-a
I-1,
r_411-4
R-41.ii I ,
I
0-313
r•
0-351
c4
_ •
Girroci airmia
C-30
C-3A
-3D
C,ab
• - -
•
MIAMI CBD
a
ITOPOSI E) ZONING 1'ii, i i.
MIAlv1I UI�.
District
Desc .ipli
C-3
The present C-3 Central Commercial District mapped cis now except for
cutbacks in northwest and south portions. No basic change in the use regu-
lations, but new floor area ratio controls replace present 300 foot height
limit. Parking required. Maximum F.A.R. with bonuses 17.0
C-3A
A new district for the Flagler Street area with no basic differences from the
proposed C-3 except for the addition of a retail use requirement.
C-3B
A new district to be mapped in the Midtown Area and south of Flagler Street
opposite the Government Center. Use regulations substantially the same as
the C-3 but bulk and development intensity are more limited. Maximum
F.A.R. with bonuses 6.0.
1
C-3C
A new district replacing the northwest quadrant of the present C-3 and per-
milting a wider range of service uses than the C-3 in line with existing
development and future needs, but with lower limits on bulk and development
intensity. Maximum F.A.R. with bonuses 6.0.
i
1
I
C-3D
A new district for apartment and office buildings to be mapped along the Miami
River, along Biscayne Boulevard and N. E. 2nd Avenue opposite the Old Port
and along 13iscayne 13ay in the Midtown Area. Maximum F.A.R. with bonuses
6.0.
C-3E
A new district to he mapped west of N. 1:. 2nd Ave'. , which will permit resi-
dential uses but exclude many of the service and industrial use36 now permitted
in the area by the existing; C-4 and C-5 Districts; maximum I.A.R. 2.0.
I1-4
No changes in present district regulations; propnsu'l for mapping west of
Midtown Commercial Area and where now mapped in the NE)P area.
R-5
No changes in present district regulations; minor (expansion of present mapping
to include Women's Club in northeast corner of Study Area.
C-1
Same as present C-1; mapping limited to areas north and west of Midtown Core.
C-2
Same as present C-2, mapped only west of F. E.C. Railroad.
C-4
Same as preserd. C-4, but less widely mapped.
G-5
Same as present C-5, but less widely mapped.
1-1
Same as present 1-1 with only minor changes in mapping; cut back along Miami
River and expanded north of I-305.
W-1
incSaas present W-1 with no change in mapping.
Residential
DOWNTOWN MIAMI
PERMITTED AND REQUIRED PARIONIG ENT
C-3, C-3h, C-38, C-3C and C-3D DrSTRICTS
Maximum Spaces
Minimum Spaces Required
Permitted on Site
0.4 space per D.U.
Non -Residential:
Offices
0.6 spaces per D.U.
(Permitted number of spaces may
be increased by City Commission
under proposed guidelines
Under proposed guidelines:
On site: one space per 1,00C sq. ft.
of floor area
b. Off site: may be stipulated ((total :- = rung
demand now 3.3 spaces per 1,000 :-:t , ft.
without transit service)
Under proposedguidelines-
One space per a, OOt sq
of floor area
l3t�Ni`S ft1TES FOR Ptfl3I.IC AMENITIES
Square feet of floor area per square foot
of public amenity area
Non- Residential
Residential C-313, C-3C, C-31) C-3, C-3A
Landscaped Paths 1 1.5 -
Arcades 4 6 8
Through Block Connections 6 9 12
Urban Open Spaces 8 8 16
Excess Usable Open Space - 4
January 8, 1974
MAXIMUM FLOOR AIIEA RATIO Al1D LAND COSTS IN StL1 CTEh R.5. CITIES
CITY
BASIC F. A.11. MAXIMUM LAND COSTS IN C13D
($_ PER SQ. rT.)
New York 15 (Max. 18) $300 - $400
Los •Angeles 13 80 - 100
Chicago 16
Philadelphia 12 120
Boston 10
Houston (No limit,
no zoning)
San Francisco 14
Pittsburgh None (10 story
height limit)
Washington, D.C. 8.5
Baltimore 8
Minneapolis 14
Seattle 10
Denver 10
New Orleans 20
Miami (existing) None (300 ft.
height limit)
(proposed) 10 (Max. 17) * GO - 100
* F. A.R. Max. 17 for mixed buildings including, F.A.R. 4 for residential. If on -site
parking were included 4.5 more points of F.A. R. would be added.
REPORT ADDITIONS
The following is a lisle: of addit.i:,il:, i.t;t it.y plan
and ordinance presented in becember.
1. Zoning districts along the Miami River west of the
expressway should be revised as a single district.
At present W-I seems most appropriate, however,
future study might suggest other possibilities.
2. Shade tree spacing should be 30 feet minimum on
frontage not presently developed. Underground
utilities and present street equipment should be
considered in locating these trees„
3. Commercial blood banks should not be permitted in
C-3 and C-3A Districts except as conditional. use.
4.. The proposed urban park north of Flagier 1Jti-ciL
and west of N.E. 2nd Avenue should include street
right-of-way vacated by the existing N.E. 3rcl Avenue
but not necessarily be limited to this area. Public
costs and detail designs will determine the size.