The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR-74-1043•14EA/ca 7/17/74 i #. 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 3 RESOLUTION NO, __ ,77*A V3 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, PWRIDA ADOPTING "A PLANNING STUDY FOR COCONUT GROVE 'AS PRESENTED BAYmn 10 THE CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT FAIR THE MODIFICATION THAT TM ZONING FOR ISLE BE CHANGED FROM R-5 (HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE) TO R-3 (LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE). MODIFIED WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of June 5, 1974, item #1, following an advertised hear- ing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 20-74 by a six to zero vote recommending the approval of "A Planning Study for Coconut Grove" as presented by the City of Miami Planning DeptNldlD the modification that the zoning for Fair Isle be changed from R-5 (high density multiple) to R-3 (low density multiple); and WHEREAS, the Commission finds it advisable in the best interest of the general welfare of the city of Miami and its inhabitants to adopt "A Planning Study for Coconut Grove" as ,modified; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. "A Planning Study for Coconut Grove", as presented by the City of Miami Planning Department with the modification that the zoning for Fair Isle be changed from R-5 (high density multiple) to R-3 PA(w SSED BAND 1ADOPTED ty multiple) IS 23rd day of September, 1974. the same is hereby adopted. COP c= RALPH G. NGLE Assistant City Clerk PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: MICHEL E. ANDERSON. Assistant City _Adr.4.4-42 a_ MAYOR Attorney �� CORRECTNESS: APPRO AS TO RM ' It �.,�;6, JOHN S. LLQ', c' PPORTIVE DO U 4 F.N.i S CITY COMMISSION M iETING OF S E P VI —//'17hi� RESOLUTION NO.7 .,�pifl REMARKS: "DOCUMENT INDEX ITEM NO. e T ,l June 19, 1974 Honorable City Commission Attention: Mr. P. W. Andrews City of Miami, Florida Re: A PLANNING STUDY FOR COCONUT GROVE RECOMMENDED Initiated by Planning Department Gentlemen: The Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of June 5, 1974, Item #1, following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 20-74 by a 6 to 0 vote recommending the Approval of "A Planning Study for Coconut Grove" as presented by the City of Miami Planning Department with the modification that the zoning for Fair Isle be changed from R-5 (High Density Multiple) to R-3 (Low Density Multiple). A RESOLUTION to provide for the above has been prepared by the City Attorneys office and submitted for consideration of the City Commission. cm Attached: Minutes cc: Law Department ncer ly, David Simpson, Jr., rector Department of Administration Planning and Zoning Boards "SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENT T0: �� 40 +43 4 PL1NINI I!VDT 101 GOCOPIVT ILOVE ''SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENT TO. CITT OF MIAMI PLANIIMO DEPARTMENT ACkNOWLEDGMEIVTS The City of Miami wishes to acknowledge those persons, organizations and agencies whose valuable assistance, review and comment were a substantial contribution to this report: Coconut Grove Citizens Advisory Committee Mr. Ralph Aaron Mr. Wayne Allen Mrs. Esther Armbruster Mrs. Elizabeth Bettner Mr. William Brennan Mr. Richard Danzinger Mrs. Julie Allen Field Mr. Walter Greene Mr. Joseph R. Harrison, Jr. Rev. R. Allen Hingston Ms. Joanne Holshouser Mrs. Gladys Johnston Coconut Grove Organizations Mr. William Lee Mrs. A. C. Macintyre Mr. Thomas B. McGlinn Mr. Lester Pancoast Mrs. Marilyn Reed Mr. Martin Rein Mr. John Shoup Mrs. Roslyn Sparks Mr. Sherman Tobin Mr. Henry Truby Mr. Ted Tschumy Ms. Amber Watson Coconut Grove Association Coconut Grove Civic Club Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce Coconut Grove NDP Project Area Committee Central Grove Association Bayshore Homeowners Association Bayheights Association Black Grove, Inc. Tigertail Association Dade Heritage Trust PARTICIPATING PROFESSIONAL STAFF Dade County Department of Traffic and Transportation Mr. David R hina rd Mr. John Robinson Mr. Edward King City of Miami Public Works Mr. George Campbell City of Miami Planning Department Planning Director - George J. Acton, Jr. Planner -in -Charge - Joseph W. McManus Project Director - Jack Luft Project Assistance - James Ragsdale Report Graphics - Michael Monto TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY OF RECO1AMENDATIONS i INTRODUCTION 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRENDS 2 Development History 2 Land Use 3 Circulation 5 Environment 7 Facilities and Services 8 Zoning 9 Residential Projections 11 EXISTING PROPOSALS 13 NDP#4 13 Parks for People 13 Dinner Key Master Plan 14 Museum of Science 14 POLICY PLANNING 15 Definition of Issues 15 Community Goals 16 LAND USE PLAN 17 Objectives 17 Land Use Recommendations 18 Zoning Recommendations 19 CIRCULATION PLAN 27 Vehicular System 27 Pedestrian System 39 Bicycle System 42 FACILITIES PLAN 45 Parks 45 Schools 48 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS 49 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 52 APPENDIX C-2A Ordinance :attiea4 GOAL PLAN PROPOSAL To preserve the unique ecological Establish a register of environmental and geologic features of the Grove's preservation districts which would environment. describe areas of unique natural land- scape, geologic, topographic and/or scenic character, and provide for a special site plan review by a control board of design professionals, with specific development standards and guidelines. Create special environmental preserva- tion corridors along scenic routes such as Main Highway and Bayshore Drive so that public and private improvements to the roadway or abutting properties will be governed by strict preservation standards designed to maintain the character of the roadway. Extend the intent and enforcement of the tree ordinance to cover all areas of the City including residential street yard areas with a specially trained City official to administer site review, re- location and pruning standards and legal enforcement measures. To preserve the historical heritage of the Grove. Establish an historic district ordinance and a register of historic sites to provide full public preservation efforts for en- dangered sites and structures. Establish an historic trail that will identify and describe sites and structures of his- toric significance along Bayshore Drive and the Main Highway area. Encourage public acquisition of the property between the "Barnacle," the new state park, and existing Peacock Park for an historic structures relocation site and crafts and arts village for local artisans. i G PLAN PROPOSAL Assemble detailed displays in Peacock, Merry Christmas, Dinner Key Bayfront, the new park next to Carver Junior High and Wainwright Park (phis acquire site northwest of park) which graphically describe the natural and settlement history of the Grove, Bayfront and Biscayne Bay. To insure that future public and private development is compatible in use, scale and intensity with existing development and the natural environmental character of the Grove. To encourage the highest quality site, landscape, and site design, establish through the use of an overlay zone, site plan review of all development occurring along 27th Avenue, Grand Avenue, Douglas Road, Bayshore Drive, the Village Center, and on the Bayfront. Place height limits according to pre- vailing development and/or scale rela- tionships to abutting development, on properties along 27th Avenue, Bird Road, Bayshore Drive, Grand Avenue, and Douglas Road. Provide minimum landscaping and cross section design standards for all proposed or anticipated roadway improvements of major arterials. Clean up complicated patchwork zoning by establishing uniform areas of land use emphasizing compatible relationships and Logical transitions between uses, particu- larly along 27th Avenue, Bird Road, Douglas and Grand. To insure that private development does not overburden public services and transportation systems. ii Reduce zoning intensities along Douglas Road to alleviate further overcrowded housing, overburdened recreational facili- ties and inadequate parking space. GOAL PLAN P12OPOSAL Limit residential development capability along Dixie Highway, 27th Avenue and in the Village Center to reduce the middle Grove development potential to match the sanitary sewer and street system support capability. Reduce the development intensity of the Village Center to alleviate critically overburdened streets and intersections on 27th Avenue, Bayshore Drive, Tiger - tail, Oak, Grand Avenue, Main Highway and McFarlane Road. To stabilize the physical character and upgrade the condition of all residential neighborhoods. Preserve all single family zoning intact. Replace R-2 and R-3 zoning along Loquat and Franklin Streets with R -1 zoning. Replace R-2 zone along Thomas Avenue with R -1 zoning. Replace R-3 zone along Thomas Avenue with R -2 zoning. Replace R-C zone along S. W. 28th Terrace and W. Trade Avenue with R-4. Provide a transitional buffer zone of R -3A zoning between R-C and R- 1 on Bayshore. Upgrade street lighting to sodium vapor lamps only when consistent with the expressed desires of neighborhood residents. To update all zoning codes. Replace completely the C-2 zoning in the Village Center with an ordinance tailc.red to achieve its particular needs. Modify the R -2 ordinance to provide better townhouse redevelopment capability and improved duplex site and unit design. GOAL PLAN PROPOSAL Utilize special zoning techniques including ov'srlay zones and special public interest districts. To reduce substantially the amount of non -local traffic froth Coconut Grove streets. Retain present roadway width of Bayshore Drive and Main -Ingraham Highway. Confine regionally oriented land uses, such as major parks or offices to the periphery of the community or the high access central business core near 27th and Bayshore Drive. Relate land uses along major arterial roadways to local needs. -- Low density office -residential along Grand Avenue and 27th Avenue to replace regionally oriented com- mercial, office and residential. -- Low density residential along Douglas Road. ea MI, Replace high density office -residential along Dixie Highway with R-4 multi- family residential uses. Confine through traffic to arterial s treets by restricting access to local streets. -- close Dixie Highway median at Mundy, Plaza and Carter to prevent left turns from Dixie Hwy. and restrict right turns from Dixie. y. aouixirLhFlorida and Brooker streets c ose virgi is street at Coconut Avenue. Restrict through traffic on Franklin and Charles Streets with signing, possibly traffic diversions at intersections. Divert traffic at Poinciana and Plaza Street. On -coming delay/green left turn arrow for Dixie Highway southbound at 27th Avenue. COAL PLAN PROPOSAL One-way Alatka Street from Micanopy • Street to Bayshore Drive. Close Alatka Street at Dixie Highway. Close Haiisee Street at Dixie Highway. Close Kirk Street at 22nd Avenue. To provide necessary traffic systems Upgrade Douglas Road from Kumquat to improvements that are compatible with Dixie Highway with sidewalks, street the Grove. furniture, landscaping, curbs and gutters, and turning lanes at intersections. Upgrade 27th Avenue to provide for curbs and gt tters, controlled curb cuts, median turning bays at intersections, and street tree landscaping of parkways and median. Improve overcapacity intersections to ac- commodate additional turning lanes and improved signaling at Dixie and 17th, 17th and Bayshore Drive, 27th Avenue and Dixie, 27th and Bird Road, McDonald and Dixie, Bird Road and Dixie, Grand and Dixie, Main Highway and Grand Avenue, Main Highway and Douglas, Douglas and Ingraham, Ingra- ham, Ingraham and LeJeune. Provide pedestrian sidewalks on heavily pedestrian oriented streets including: Day Avenue, Virginia Streit, Douglas Road, 27th Avenue, McDonald Street and 22nd Avenue. Provide pedestrian crossing lights at Douglas Road and Day Avenue, Hibiscus and Grand, Poinciana and Main Highway, Battersea and Ingraham, Aviation and Bayshore, and 22nd and Bayshore Drive. Investigate a grade separated pedestrian crossing over Dixie Highway just north of Ponce de Leon. v• GOA L PLAN PROPOSAL Construct exclusive bicycle lanes along 27th Avenue, Bird Road, Aviation, Tiger - tail, Grand from Douglas to Dixie Highway, Douglas from Kumquat to Dixie Highway, and 17th Avenue from Dixie to Tigertail. Construct a separate bicycle path from Rickenbacker Causeway to McFarlane Road with an exclusive curb separated path up McFarlane Road and down Main Highway to the existing bicycle path. Provide for the widening, where possible, and resurfacing of the Main Highway Bike Path. Designate bicycle routes along Day Avenue, 28th Street, Tigertail Avenue and Shore Drive east, and Brickell Avenue to Wain- wright Park. Support the major redevelopment of the Dixie Highway corridor with a limited access expressway, exclusive bike lanes and bus lanes, and a long haul rapid transit system as the only long term solution to traffic problems in the Grove. To maintain and strengthen the Village Center. Improve roadway design of Village Center streets and intersections to improve traffic movements, pedestrian circulation and bicycle access to shops from existing bicycle paths: MO 40 one-way McFarlane south to the Bay. one-way Mary and Grand west to McFarlane. redesign Main -Grand -McFarlane intersection. On a trial basis, close Main Highway between Fuller Street and McFarlane to create a pedestrian plaza the length of the block: - - one way Fuller Street northbound. • trial period of 60 days followed by a public hearing on net impact of closure. vi GOAL PLAN PROPOSAL Provide major street tree and sidewalk improvements for Main Highway, McFarlane Road, Virginia Street, Grand Avenue and Douglas Road. Provide a public off-street parking garage in the vicinity of Fuller Street, and public parking lot near Rice Street and just east of Grand -Douglas intersection for off-street parking and retail remote Site parking. Designate certainVillage Center streets: Grand Avenue, Main Highway, Commodore Plaza, Virginia, Florida, Rice and McFar- lane. . . as pedestrian streets with mandatory retail on first floor, landscaping, street furniture, sign controls, and site plan review. Provide new zoning controls for Village Center including: reduced floor area ratio from 2 to 1, a 4 story height limit, manda- tory bicycle parking facilities, minimum 10 foot setback, maximum 20 foot setback, (variable for courtyards), minimum front footage for building walls and revised permitter uses. To provide residents with the maximum amount of self determina- tion in social, economic and physical development policies. Members of the environmental review board shall be comprised of residents of the com- munity, 5 with professional design back- ground and 2 lay members. Reactivation of COGZAC to provide a coordina- ted community response to all zoning, plan- ning, public works and parks department proposals affecting Coconut Grove. March 11, 1974 vii * IITIODUCTION INTRODUCTION Stretching four miles along Biscayne Bay, from Rickenbacker Causeway to the Coral Gables waterway, the Coconut Grove community contains 20,000 residents occupying 2,000 acres. The challenge has been to create a plan for the evolution of this community, that recognizes its diversity, yet sustains its unity, that accommodates change yet respects preservation. Very conscious of its historic heritage and equally appre- hensive of its future, Coconut Grove is a blend of romantic historicism, unabashed boosterism, cultural diversity, and social isolationism. Few communities possess the number of active civic organizations or outspoken iconoclasts that flourish in Coconut Grove. It is a community of contrasts that, taken as a whole, exhibits a remarkably singular identity. How then to forge a plan that accommodates inescapable change yet sustains the intangibles of character and identity so strongly possessed by this community? Taking advantage of the collective Grove conscience embodied in the local civic groups, the Planning Department has met with representatives of these organiza- tions and other interested individuals to define and shape the issues and goals to be addressed by the Plan. Several such working sessions and two major community meetings with residents -at -large on November 1, 1973, and March 11, 1974, served as the basis for the planning recommendations of this study. Though the issues at hand are complex and relate to virtually every phase of com- munity life, it was recognized at the outset that limitations of municipal jurisdiction over housing, social services and regional transportation systems would restrict the capability of the City to evolve comprehensive solutions. Thus the primary focus of this study is on those areas to which the City is best able to respond, namely, land use, zoning, local transportation systems, community facilities, capital improvements, and local environmental controls. The plan does however, acknowledge general issues related to County -wide programs, particularly those of housing, social services, renewal and regional transportation, and relates these to the total planning effort for Coconut Grove. -1- p p6pEM NODII TIN 00Mrffil AION IZI5TIII COIDITION$ EItISTING CONDITIONS AND TRENDS Development History It was in the middle to late 1800's that South Florida first began to attract permanent white residents. Of the small villages, camps and forts that caught a foothold on Florida's still wild coast like Lemon City, Fort Dallas, Coconut Grove, Cutler and Uleta, only the Grove has retained its identity to this present day. The early families such as Peacock, Monroe, Pent, Stirrup, and Frow home- steaded the virgin hammocks and mangrove coa.stline of the Grove and soon gave rise to one of the most industrious, diversified and spirited communities to be found in the region. These early residents were a fascinating mix of European nobility, New England intellectuals, Bahamian immigrants, Key West Conch settlers and American adventurers seeking new frontiers. Many of the homes and roads they built and trees they planted still remain; an invaluable link to the 20th Century spirit that remains an important factor in the life-style of the con- temporary Grove. Following the early settlement period, the Grove began to take shape as a some- what exclusive suburb of Miami. Distinguished families and personalities, including Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison, frequently visited the homes of Dr. David Fairchild, internationally known botanist; Arthur Curtis Hames - railroad tycoon; William Deering of International Harvester; William Jennings Bryan - perennial presidential candidate and Dr. Gilbert Grosvenor of National Geographic. Main Highway, during the period of 1910 - 1930, was often referred to as "Million- aires Row" and the boom of the 1920's attracted even more wealthy northerners who built the Mediterranean, Spanish and Moorish styled homes that are to be found throughout South Grove and along Bayshore Drive. The first subdivisions began to appear about this time and soon replaced the many grapefruit and citrus groves that had been planted as a major export and local resource base for early residents. These early citrus groves had been planted at the expense of large areas of native hammock and pineland. Following clearance for these new homes, much of Coconut Grove from present day 17th Avenue to the Gables canal was barren and devoid of the lush tropical foliage so characteristic of the Grove today. Fortunately, men such as David Fairehild, Dr. John C. Gifford and Henry Curtis James had been actively importing rare and beautiful tropical plants from around the world and generously distributed them among friends and residents of the community. Con- tinued propagation of these and other native plants has transformed the once stark subdivisions into the dense tropical vegetation synonymous with Coconut Grove. The second major growth period for Coconut Grove occurred in the post-war decade of the fifties when population increased 30% from 15, 121 to 19, 602. Much of the North Grove area (Silver Bluff) was developed during this period. The Black Grove -2- neighborhood had remained to this time a low density single family area populated by descendants of one of the first black communities in Florida. The expansion of the fifties brought the "concrete monsters" and apartments that still line Dixie Highway, Douglas Road and Grand Avenue. With them the Black Grove experienced an influx of new residents who did not share the local heritage of earlier families and has ever since felt the social and economic pressures created by these over- crowded and dehumanizing structures. Population increases were gradual in the Grove throughout the 60's, when only 2,000 new residents were added. The stage was set, however, for yet another growth spurt that has continued to the present day. Throughout Dade County, the late 60's witnessed a tremendous influx of new residents and the development of massive new suburban subdivisions. At the same time, the increasing problems of traffic congestion and limited services available to suburban residents spurred the development of multi -family apartment and condominium units within inner- city areas. Coconut Grove, traditionally a single fancily residential community, suddenly felt the pressure of market demands for conveniently located, moderate cost housing. Apartments were rapidly developed in available zones and now account for 44% of all housing units in the Grove. This trend has continued un- abated except that the growing demand for owner -occupied inner-city housing has made the condominium conversions of heretofore rental units, a major component of the housing market. The historical evolution of Coconut Grove has left it squarely at the nexus of the most important issue it will face in decades to come: the future of its low density neighborhoods and the structure of the community necessary to support thern. To be sure, the transitional growth pressures felt by Coconut Grove are common to many neighborhoods within any large city, but the potential conflicts between existing and anticipated development are nowhere more extreme than in this his- torically, environmentally, and socially unique community. Land Use Distinct residential units or sub -neighborhoods are defined by arterial roadways and major concentrations of commercial and public open -space as shown on the accompanying map, Community Structure. The Grove is a model of traditional concepts for urban development with the Village Center - a well defined core of retail and office uses - flanked by multi -family high and moderate density residential. The Village Center is a focus for the larger low density community .that spreads in three directions along the spines of Main Highway, Grand Avenue, 27th Avenue, and Bayshore Drive. It is the lov. density neighborhoods that serve as the foundation for the structure of the Coconut Grove community, for they encompass the greatest amount of land and embody the physical and environmental hallmarks of Coconut Grove; namely intimate scale and a setting of dense tropical foliage. Of the developed area ii't Coconut Grove, and excluding land devoted to streets, over 67% is utilized for single family housing. -3- p NEM t4U4 ANNY-11 4tOT� ag S3' JguauuU' �—� L ....o — 400 NEIG RO� NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SCHOOI- CHURCH COMMERCIAL NODE OFFICES Una ARTERIAL STREET MON MAJOR EDGE • • ( MEE MN TT) 1POTY?RO 0.0 .000 nro IIH 1,••••••. Agee -77-77111 411.+S AV( uLJU boll. Pow. ijr- • .7% LJ 4 • • iNi3NPAINN ESTATES SINGLE DUPLEX MULTI • FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OFFICES COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL PARK 9111.03 MOM MAUR AK 19118 DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS Land Use Percent of Developed Area, excluding streets Grove South Typical Miami Suburb Single Family 67.2 74. 0 63. 5 Two Family 3. 3 1.0 2.4 Multiple Residential 4. 5 3. 5 2. 1 Commercial 4.0 8, 8 2. 8 Industrial 0. 9 2. 2 6. 1 Public, Semi -Public 9.6 5.8 17.0 Park 10.6 4.5 6. 1 Source: Field Survey, Spring, 1973 South Miami, A Guide for Controlled Growth, 1972 Harland Bartholomew, Land Uses in American Cities, 1953 Secondary convenience commercial centers exist at Douglas and Grand, 27th Avenue, and Bird Road and McDonald, and at Dixie Highway and 17th Avenue. As a rule, the Village Center and the surrounding convenience commercial centers are compact and well defined. Strip commercial uses, so prevalent throughout Dade County have not occurred in the Grove to any significant extent. Multi -family and apartment residential uses, while generally confined to the proximate area of the Village Center, have in recent years expanded in a linear pattern along Bayshore Drive, 27th Avenue and Dixie Highway further complicating vehicular access and egress movements along these busy streets. Consequently, the further these higher density residential uses reach out along arterial roadways and away from the support services and employment centers, the greater the dependence of these residents on the automobile, thus increasing vehicular trips on adjacent streets. The following map, Net Residential. Density, illustrates the general distribution of dwelling units in Coconut Grove. Another important aspect of residential development in the Grove concerns the type and ownership of units. The continuing demand for owner -occupied housing under tight economic market conditions has discouraged the continued development of single family housing in the Grove. Nationwide, the percentage of families owning a home increased from 62 to 63% between 1960 and 1970, and in Florida from 63% to 69% while the Grove decreased from 75% to 57%. Increasingly, the price of an existing home in the Grove exceeds the capability of middle -income buyers; new moderate -cost housing is rarely built. Alternatively, the home buyer is turning to townhouse and apartment condominium developments for an opportunity to own property. The compatibility of these new condominium units with existing low -4- Igretfil RON WORM Me ew1 ort,147 1/4 O 4 } `:zags=1- 4 O Agi D►ENTIAL mum UNITS PER ACRE ▪ 30 AND OVER ▪ 20 — 29.9 123 — 19.9 7 — 12A • 2 — 69 01- 1.9 ❑ NON-RESIDENTIAL t MI R AIM ~Mt 9 p6EM MOW � 01)111`Pi' gSPIN 4 a _JU JO „_. LL j„� II[J. En ( a MEM gal o.+ %Mason s b G • 4 4 • MIgNIVO H OU OWN JJi TRIN NB density housing is, however, a delicate issue that unless carefully resolved could easily change the character and scale of several neighborhoods. The existing patterns of home ownership are shown on the accompanying map, Percentage Owner -occupied Housing Units. Circulation Vehicular. The streets and roads of Coconut Grove provide an intimate scale, scenic beauty, and variety uriexcelled in the region. In days when traffic was minimal and unhurried, the motorist, pedestrian and cyclist could share equally the pleasures of the scenic roadways without conflict. Because of the necessity of providing access to abutting properties and of moving opposing streams of traffic through intersections, the ability of the road system to accommodate increasing traffic is being severely challenged. During rush hours, the tangle of automobile traffic at major intersections is choking the arterial roadway system causing a spillover onto focal streets, and into neighborhoods, and commercial centers and conflicting with pedestrians and cyclists. The following illustration, Traffic Conflicts, shows the extent of Coconut Grove intersections and roadways which were performing over their peak hour design capacity as of October, 1973. With traffic volumes increasing at an average rate of 5% per year County -wide, the present congestion will become aggravated even more in the near future. Most of the traffic volume (50 to 75%) at peak hour periods, 8:00 to 9:00 A.M., and 5:00 to 6:00 P.M., is generated by through traffic or regional movements neither originating in nor destined for Coconut Grove. As major land develop- ments along Old Cutler Road and continued expansion of Brickell Avenue offices continue to the south and north of Coconut Grove, this pressure from through traffic on Coconut Grove will become even greater. Ultimately it must be recog- nized that the through traffic problems of the Grove are directly attributable to the breakdown of Dixie Highway as a major regional movement corridor, and unless or until major improvements are made to that entire highway and supplemented with a rapid transit system, the Grove will receive little relief from traffic congestion on its major arterials. Closer examination of overburdened streets within Coconut Grove reveals that two principal factors serve to constrict the capacities of major streets: Intersection conflicts - the half mile grid system of major streets in the Grove intersected diagonally by Dixie Highway, the bayfront and local collector streets ,creates frequent and awkward intersection conflicts. -- Land service - the increasing intensity of uses and hence generation of traffic to and from them, is creating additional and critical turning movement conflicts with arterial roadway traffic. -5- A MEma NTAY Boy MgOIN RO71 JL uuuuL_J 1-+l1JO �a «- -'0 1 • e • • v4 4 gi li !1 gN1 •+ 0 •.ram• OVER CAPACITY INTERSECTION TWO OR MORE APPROACHES OVER CAPACITY APPROACH PROJECTED OVER CAPACITY INTERSECTION PROJECTED OVER CAPACITY APPROACH NON -LOCAL THROUGH TRAFFIC CONFLICT 44> PEDESTRIAN — TRAFFIC CONFLICT To the extent that properties must be afforded direct access to roadways, and intersections cannot be eliminated, the entire street system in Coconut Grove has a built-in limit to the amount of traffic that can be expeditiously moved. Since no amount of roadway improvements short of major expressways would satisfy the growing demands of through traffic, the justification for intersection improvements, roadway widenings or traffic circulation changes must be to improve local traffic circulation, and still preserve scenic drives, for local residents. Pedestrian. Somewhat ironically, in an area that prides itself on the pedestrian orientation of its Village Center and surrounding parks, the remaining community has only a rudimentary or non-existent system of walkways. Many children as well as adults regularly use major streets to reach schools, shops, parks and other attractions within the Grove. The increasing traffic on major streets makes this a most hazardous and unwarranted risk, particularly when pedestrians are forced to walk in the street to avoid obstructions, standing water and parked cars. The growing difficulty in crossing major roadways where no traffic lights are available is a serious danger that demands immediate attention. The basic rights of the pedestrian have been largely ignored to say nothing of his convenience and the enhancement of pedestrian areas. Two areas, in particular, at oppbsite ends of Grand Avenue, are highly frequented by pedestrians, and have become over the course of time important social activity centers where local residents maintain acquaintances, relax, recreate and in general experience the flow and vitality of the community in which they live. Grand Avenue and Douglas Road are in constant usage by pedestrians, yet the pedestrian or side- walk observer has only the barest of facilities and few amenities. The Village Center at Main Highway and Grand Avenue has some sidewalk space but even this is inadequate and in need of repair. Major attention should be given to these two areas as well as the primary link between them, Grand Avenue. Bicycles. Traditionally thought of as a child's toy, the rapid growth of cycling as a means of transportation for adults or as a family recreational pursuit under- scores the potential contribution yet to be made by the bicycle. Coconut Grove possesses one of the few bicycle paths in the region, along Main Highway. Part of a longer path linking the Grove to Matheson Hammock, this facility is heavily used by both cyclists and pedestrians. Only four feet wide, the path is as much a hazard as a haven for cyclists. Main Highway does present special problems due to its extremely narrow right-of-way, but when designing new paths or lanes, utmost care must be given to safe design or the cyclist will have been done a disservice. Environment Coconut Grove exhibits a sense of community and of place - a special identity - although it lacks a singular or distinct architectural style; possesses no dominant ethnic heritage and is comprised of a population exhibiting remarkable diversity in social, economic and cultural backgrounds. This diversity of society and wealth of cultural attractions (theaters, museums, historic places and parks) contributes to the unique character of the Grove. More than anything else however, two features of the Grove's environment - scale and setting - set it apart from the other communities in the region. The combination of low profile development - one, two and three story buildings - and narrow, meandering streets that restrict viewsand defy the pervasive conformity of the grid street system, create an intimate human scale quite unlike any other community in South Florida. The setting of home s and businesses amidst dense tropical foliage further enhances the seclusion of homes, streets and neighborhoods while providing a visual background that unites the com- munity's image. Accented by grade changes and exceptional rock outcroppings, the scale and setting of the Grove's environment becomes a rich and distinctive experi- ence for its residents or anyone moving along its intricate roadways. It is in the fundamental enrichment of the individual and in the quality of life, that the meaning of the Grove's environment becomes a precious and irreplaceable resource. Significantly, it is in the low density, single family neighborhoods that this environ- ment is most strongly evident. The major arterial roadways, such as Main Highway, and Bayshore Drive, have largely escaped the functional improvements that have drastically changed the face of so many other streets in South Florida, and remain a visible extension of the environmental character of the Grove. It is appropriate that these two distinct roadways should meet at the Village Center, itself reflective of the human scale of the larger community. However, just as the right combination of scale and natural detail can provide a sensitive, human environment that can inspire pride in an individual. so, too, is the converse true. A lack of human scale, a barren and deteriorated setting, and a coarse synthetic environment nevoid of natural detail can just as surely desensi- tize its residents. For example; the stark appearance of Douglas Road belies its role as a major entrance, development axis and social focus for the Black com- munity surrounding it. Likewise, the recent improvement of Grand Avenue has left this major link between the Black Grove and the Village Center, an esthetic stepchild when compared to its more notable sisters, Main Highway and Bayshore Drive. The continuation of Douglas Road and Grand Avenue in their present form in contradiction to the popularly conceived character of Coconut Grove, can only serve to diminish the image of the entire community. It is in the intimate scale of the buildings, streets and spaces; the abundance and variety of tropical plantings that provide its setting; and the accent of a diverse topography that forms the unique, if incomplete, environmental character of Coconut Grove. Facilities and Services A principal goal of this istudy is to determine the optimum limit or capacity of community facilities and services, and then to insure that population and develop- ment demands do not exceed these limits. Schools, parks, sewers, water, sani- tation, police and fire protection, social services, and community renewal and housing are among the major support services and facilities that are provided either by the City of Miami ox Dade County. To overburden these systems would necessarily mean the reduction in the quality of life for all residents of the community. Sanitary Sewers. Sewers were provided by 1965 to all areas in Coconut Grove east of McDonald Avenue. The area between McDonald Street and Dixie Highway was sewered in 1972. The only area of the Grove without sewers is the neighbor- hood south of Ransom School and Loquat Street. Due to the soil characteristics which permit excellent subsurface drainage, and the very low density residential development, the installation of sewers in this remaining area will not be scheduled until more critical sewer needs elsewhere in the City can be solved. In the remaining areas of the Grove which do have sewers, the question of existing sewer capacity as related to projected development demands becomes a central issue. The following map, Sewer Design Capacities, depicts sewer system design capacities for the Central Grove area. The total population for which the sewers were designed is then compared with the population projection based on what the existing zoning would allow if all potential development sites were built to the zoning limit. The result shows that in the Central Grove area, where the greatest potential for growth exists, the holding capacity under present zoning equals the design capa- city of the sewer system. When constructed, this system was sized to serve an anticipated maximum population based upon 60 persons per acre. This design capa- city is based on a 50-year life expectancy for the sewer system, but the population projections are only for a 10-year period. As the system was installed in 1965, the system could operate at capacity for as long as 30 years. If redevelopment beyond the most probable construction anticipated for the next 10 years were to occur, the demand would exceed the system capacity. Rezoning to greater intensities would only further strain a potentially overburdened system. System design capacities for the low density neighborhood west of McDonald Street provide ample support capacity for anticipated development. The area between 22nd Avenue and Alatka Street is sewered to support 20 persons per acre or approximately 7 dwelling units per acre - single family development. Expected development in this area will not overburden the sewer system as long as the 7 unit per acre design capa- city is maintained. The proposed Fair Isle development will, however, push the system to capacity for the area between the ridgeline and the Bay, from Pelican Canal to Rockerman Road. The lift station at Crystal Court which serves this bay - front section, cannot support a greater load than that generated by the proposed Fair Isle project and the development of the remaining vacant land on the bayfront at 7 units per acre. To increase the load at the Crystal Court lift station would mean the overburdening of the system in the remaining North Grove neighborhood. -8- 01 0 J 4 Z 0 0 u i f (3 SEWER SUPPORT CAPACITY 3 study area existing no. dwelling units - 2733 support capacity of sewers - 3800 d.u. holding capacity of existing zoning- 4149 d.u. Schools. Four public schools are located in Coconut Grove: Coconut Grove Elementary, Carver Junior High School, Carver Elementary, and Francis Tucker Elementary. Silver Bluff Elementary serves the north Grove neighbor- hood but is not in the study area. Of these five schools, only Silver Bluff is over- crowded. Expected decreases in elementary school enrollments in future yea_ should alleviate this situation. Only Coconut Grove Elementary has passed its theoretical life expectancy of 50 years, after which it may be considered for removal or replacement, according to School Board policy. Dade County School Board five-year plans for school construction, based upon projected population growth and classroom needs, do not show any additional construction for the Coconut Grove area. Long range studies do indicate the eventual elimination of Carver Elementary School, and the possibility that Carver Junior High School may be eliminated when a new junior high is built in the area of Douglas Road and 26th Street. In general, the issue surrounding public school properties in the Grove is not one of capacity, but of physical, maintenance, recreational space, and safe convenient access. Three Grove schools are located on Grand Avenue and one on Douglas Road, both busy thoroughfares, that have inadequate pedestrian safety features. Private schools such as Ransom, Carrolton, St. Hugh's and Vanguard are also suffering from hazardous access problems created by the heavy traffic on Main Highway and Douglas Road. Parks. Of the developed area in Coconut Grove, excluding streets, over 10% is devoted to public recreational space, most of which is along the Bayfront. Dinner Key Park, when completed, will total over 96 acres, better than half of all park properties in the Grove. There are three sizeable parks in west and south Grove; Merrie Christmas, Virrick Park, and the old incinerator property. North and Central Grove by contrast have only two, inadequately developed neighborhood parks., so that they are particularly lacking in play space for pre-school and ele- mentary school children. Social Services. Comprehensive social service programs in the community are provided by a number of Dade County agencies, including the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Welfare, Health, Youth Services, and the Office of the Manager. Though the City is not directly involved in the operation of these programs, cooperative efforts between the City and County have led to the creation of an integrated social service center to be located on Douglas Road at Dixie Highway. This center will combine under one roof, all the major social services available to the residents of Dade County. Zoning Zoning controls two principal aspects of development: type of use and intensity of use. In examining the patterns and relationships of zoning districts in the Grove with respect to type of use permitted, considerations of compatibility, market demand and community needs must gauge the propriety of the district. In some instances, the existing or emerging character of an area is only narrowly related to the potential -9- uses of the zoning district it is in. In still other cases, the market demand for certain uses allowed in a district is so low as to effectively hinder the development potential. Ultimately, however, it is the community need against which the potential use of land must be measured if a compatible and efficient system of land use is to be created. A second important test of the propriety of any zoning district is the relationship between the intensity of the uses permitted to surrounding development and the support capacity of municipal services to that use. Relationships to abutting property are often described in terms of scale, noise, restricted light and air activity conflicts, whereas relationships to municipal services reflect the burden on sewer systems, street networks, schools, parks and social services. The following map, Existing Zoning, illustrates existing zoning in Coconut Grove and those areas in which zoning districts do not ;satisfactorily meet the criteria of compatibility, market demand, community needs, and/or intensity relationships. Specifically, the following areas exhibit one or more of these characteristics: The R-C residential, office and high density zoning along Dixie Highway would permit conflicting commercial uses, increased traffic conflicts with Dixie Highway and abutting neighborhoods, and critical burdens to the sewer system. The juxtaposition of C-1, C-4, R-4, R -CA, C-2 and R-2 zoning in the three blocks between 28th Street and Bird Road along 27th Avenue creates incompatible relationships, intensity conflicts, market instability and is unrelated to the community need for a cohesive, visually compatible approach to the Grove via 27th Avenue. The C-4 zoning at Bird Road and 27th Avenue, Dixie Highway and 27th Avenue and along Grand Avenue is incompatible with abutting retail uses, inconsistent with community objectives for upgrading the character of these areas, and improperly related to market demands. The R-2 duplex zoning of properties fronting on Bird Road is incon- sistent with community needs, established development trends and market demands. Lack of height limitations in the R-4, R-C and C-2 zones threatens scale relationships between and within existing areas of development. The R -C zoning along Bayshore Drive east of Aviation is in conflict with surrounding development scale and land use intensity. -10- MEE NM TO AMIN atott,., loyc _LLk_ AWE • • ZONING CONPLICTII CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT • FEBRUARY 1973 EXISTING ZONING IR-1 I 1n-is 1 OEM R-3A R-PD =31 133 ONE FAMILY DWELLING ONE FAMILY DWELLING NAO FAMILY GAVELLING LOW °mare MULTIPLE LOW DENSITY AMPTUENT MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE LOW OEISSITY PLANNED OEVELOPMENT NIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE RESICENTIAL OFFICE 1R-cal I C-1A I c-1 1c-2 1 ECM COI RESIDENTIM. MACE FR.ANNEDI SHOPPING MTV DISTRICT LOCAL COMMERCIAL COMMUNINF COMMEROAL GENERAL COMMERCIAL UGHT INDUSTRIAL. RUM ANC RECREATOTML WATERFRONT INCREATIONIAL as& Naos. ..- OR Ow Os 10 Ma OD The C-2 zoning in the Village Center and the Douglas Road and Bird Road shopping districts does not protect or reinforce the existing development scale, pedestrian relationships or retail function of these areas. The R-4 multiple family housing along Douglas Road is inconsistent with community needs, overburdens municipal support systems, and is incompatible with surrounding development. The C-1 commercial zoning along Plaza, Carter and Hibiscus near Dixie Highway is incompatible with adjacent residential, does not reflect community needs, and is an improper application of the zone. The R-3 multi -family zoning along Thomas Avenue east of Douglas Road is inappropriate to the development potential of the site, does not meet community needs and conflicts with facing duplex uses. The R-2 and R-3 zoning along Franklin Avenue, Royal Road and Loquat Street is in use conflict with the surrounding single family neighborhoods, and contrary to the need for stabilizing single family neighborhoods. The R-4, R-3 bayfront strip development of multi -family uses along Bayshore Lane and Bayshore Court is in conflict with the use, char- acter and scale of adjoining single family neighborhoods, is a burden to the capacity of municipal streets and sewers and does not meet the needs of the immediate community. The R-5 zoning on Fair Isle is in direct conflict with the use, char- acter and scale of single family neighborhoods through which access and egress must be obtained, and it severely burdens the capacity of street, park, school, and sewer systems of the general community. The R-4 zoning on the Mercy Hospital tract is inappropriate to the intended use, in conflict with surrounding land uses, would, if developed to its potential, place an excessive burden on municipal support systems and services. Residential Projections To better, ascertain the long range projected impact of development allowed by existing zoning, the holding capacity or total development potential of Coconut Grove was calculated. To do so, all the potential development sites in the Grove were identified by sorting out vacant, underdeveloped, blighted and conflicting use properties. These lots were then hypothetically "developed" to their full potential to see how many dwelling units the land would support under current zoning. These properties most likely to be developed. such as vacant land, were -11- assigned a high probability rating and those somewhat less likely, were termed moderate. The table below and following map, Residential Development Proba- bilities, show the general impact of this probable development on a sub -area basis to better reflect the geographic differences in potential. The general finding was, that if all these properties were developed, the Grove would gain over 4, 000 new dwelling units, an increase of 50% over 1973 or almost 9, 000 additional resi- dents, up 44% from an estimated 1973 population of 20, 640. RESIDENTIAL PROJECTIONS (based upon existing trends and present zoning envelope) HOUSING UNITS Existing Units Under Construction Total Units, 1975 Most Probable New Units Total Units, 1980 Moderately Prob. New Units Total Units, 1985 POPULATION ESTIMATES North Middle South Dinner Grove Percent Grove Grove Grove Key Total Increase 1026 5735 1376 4 8141 1100 332 - - 1432 17.6 2126 6067 1376 4 9573 265 1339 57 - 1661 17.5 2391 7406 1433 4 11234 12 698 200 Z8 938 8.3 2403 8104 1633 32 12172 North Middle South Dinner Grove Percent Grove Grove Grove Key Total Increase 1973 2775 13850 3005 1010 20640 1975 4535 14425 3005 1010 22975 11.3 1980 5125 17955 3140 1010 27230 18.5 1985 5160 19320 3620 1075 29175 7.1 9 46flIU9'JE MAY IIR 0011N AIOIN 00.0 430.1.10 MAR 1 LI \\ )r ��7C )t l >444164444,4404 iipM/ s • • • MENEM • exrs-riN0 1-IOUS%NO UNI'r9 ppfR.opegApe®L$ RLE9tOENTIAI- c€s LOPMENT ® �M nT �vMPROMABLA E E9lO0ENTlA1- VTI x DWELLING uw,s EXISTING PROPOSALS Several programs for parks and housing improvement, renewal, and public facilities development have been operating within the Coconut Grove area prior to and during the development of this plan. Neighborhood Development Program, Coconut Grove - NDP #4 Now in its sixth year, the Grave Neighborhood Development Program (NDP) has undertaken and completed projects that include street and sidewalk improvements, housing rehabilitation, sewer installations, clearance of blighted structures and replacement with new homes, land acquisition for new parks, and cooperative efforts to establish expanded social service programs and facilities. Current efforts include the proposed improvement of streets and storm drainage for the area north of Grand Avenue. Additional rehabilitation of homes in the Charles Street and Plaza Street areas is recommended as is redevelopment of Low density housing along Oak and Frow Streets west of Douglas Road. Housing and Urban Development programs in Coconut Grove and throughout the County have been severely restricted by the dwindling Federal funds with which to operate. Indeed, notice has been given that NDP programs, nationwide, will be eliminated by July of 1974 (with a six month extension for Dade County programs) to be replaced in 1975 by the Federal Better Communities Act. The precise form or provisions of this new program is unknown, but it must be assumed that the general direction and funding of NDP activities will be sustained and hopefully strengthened. Parks for People Begun in 1973, the Parks for People Program is an extensive effort on the part of the City of Miami to initiate new parks and to upgrade, expand or redevelop existing parks in the City of Miami. The proposals for improvement to parks in Coconut Grove total $2, 168, 500 and include: MI ON Bicycle Path, including the existing route along Douglas Road, Main Highway and South Bayshore Drive and a proposed route along the FEC Railway. Blanche Park, including tennis courts, comfort station, paving, parking, landscaping, and irrigation. Grand Avenue Park, including landscaping, structural improvements, construction of all purpose courts, park furniture and football field repair. Kirk Munroe Park, including land acquisition and development of acquired land. -13- IND MD ow MO 00 Merrie Christmas Park, including general park improvement and park furniture. Peacock Park, including multiple purpose courts, park furniture and irrigation system expansion. Virrick Park, including land acquisition, benches, park furniture, walkway paving, irrigation and parking. Wainwright Park, including land acquisition, development of passive recreational facility and multi -purpose building. Dinner Key Master Plan Coconut Grove is a community that considers Biscayne Bay an extension of itself. Its century -long affair with sailboats, the Bay and the Ocean are nowhere more evident than in Dinner Key, the largest sailing marina in South Florida. Dinner Key's present day diverse mixture of office, industrial, recreational, • and com- mercial development has not diminished the extraordinary potential of this facility. To redirect the development of Dinner Key into a regional recreational and marine oriented facility, the Dinner Key Master Plan was prepared and adopted in June, 1972. ultimate development of the Dinner Key Master Plan will include demolition of existing substandard and obsolete structures; improvement of the marina and the mooring basins to provide space for a total of 1, 250 boats; and construction of parking facilities for 1, 500 automobiles. Included within the proposed park will be boat sates and services, a restaurant, bait and tackle shops, and the existing private sailing clubs. The park will provide active and passive recreation areas, a sports pavilion, a com- munity activities pavilion, an outdoor performing arts area, as well as pedestrian and vehicle access to the picnic islands. Museum of Science Much more than its name implies, the Museum of Science is a complex of scientific, historic and cultural arts facilities that include a planetarium. a civic theater, natural history and science exhibits, an historic museum, and an educational center. Many fairs, club exhibits and society expositions are held every year. Over 200, 000 people visit the Museum Complex annually, necessitating plans for expansion. A five-year master plan includes expansion of the Museum of Science into buildings currently occupied by the Dade County Parks Department; construction of two new exhibit halls; closure of S. E. 32nd Road between South Dixie Highway and South Miami Avenue for development of additional parking; development of court- yard, formal gardens and other open space for public access; and tram routes for visitors to the science, history and art museums. -14- fl MEM g4Q04 40� @1Th ALIN p I J uuuuLJL_S -- ]DEAL DO nr-f a • Jv� ?• i`+ ow ow MIAY VA Iffinte isro fB D POLICT ILAININI POLICY PLANNING Definition of Issues The mass market has often determined the form and physical design of our cities, for it is thought by many that to be a sound investment, development must appeal. to the greatest number of people at any given time. This necessarily means that the lowest common denominator of mass market appeal becomes the standard for design of the product. Thus, it is exceptional when a community environment evolves reflecting the aspirations of its individual residents. When this does occur, however, it usually is strikingly apparent, and the name for it is character. Coconut Grove has character and it is largely due to the sum of the efforts of its individuals in shaping their environment. To create a plan for this community every effort has been made to bring the residents into the planning process. The first question put to the representatives of Grove civic organizations was to define the major issues or problems facing Coconut Grove in the future. These representatives, other interested individuals, and the community - at -large through a series of meetings with the Planning Department, defined the fol- lowing ten issues in order of importance, as the greatest concerns facing the Grove: 1. Traffic congestion and through traffic conflicts. 2. The increasing numbers and density of population. 3. Protection of the environment and preservation of the Grove's historic heritage. 4. Preservation of the low density neighborhoods and the Village Center Shopping District. 5. Increasing conflicts between low scale buildings and high-rise, high density development. 6. Quality of development, both public and private. 7. Land use relationships. 8. Control of the community's destiny by the residents. 9. Sustaining the integrity of zoning. 10. Provision of local neighborhood parks. Even though the ten issues listed above are set forth as separate and distinct state- ments, they are intricately related in cause and effect. One concern cannot be dealt with independently if a comprehensive effort is to be made to rebolve community problems. -15- Community Goats Goals express community physical, social and economic aspirations and constitute a fundamental approach for developing planning proposals. The concerns of resi- dents were translated into Goal Statements through meetings and discussions. Basic goals defined by local residents are, as follows: To insure that future public and private development is compatible in use, scale, and intensity with existing development and the natural environmental character of the Grove. To identify historic sites and structures in Coconut Grove and to protect them whenever possible against alteration or destruction. To stabilize the physical character of all residential neighborhoods and prevent the intrusion of conflicting uses, greater intensities, and non -local traffic. To maintain and strengthen the low scale, pedestrian oriented. retail shopping districts. To create design standards and guidelines to insure the quality development of public and private properties. To provide greater protection for trees, rock outcroppings, slopes, the bayfront and other unique features of Coconut Grove's environment. To reduce density and intensity of development to insure that streets and public services are not overburdened. To provide necessary roadway improvements, intersection improvements and traffic circulation changes that are compatible with the need of local residents, and restrict those changes that are detrimental to the Grove. To provide convenient and adequately developed neighborhood parks. To update all zoning codes to avoid general conflicts and promote the specific needs of the area. To work with residents to achieve the maximum amount of self determi- nation in social, economic and physical development policies concerning the Grove. To improve social services, police protection and City services to all residents and neighborhoods. OP. GO 1 MP dm MD -16- VI> 0 eth LAND 131 ?LAN LAND USE PLAN Objectives Coconut Grove has, with a few exceptions and despite some haphazard growth in recent years, a logical, efficient and compatible structure of land uses. The foundation of this structure is its well defined, and generally uniform low density sub -neighborhoods bordered by supporting retail, office uses and apartments. The key objectives of the Coconut Grove land use plan relate directly to these sub -neighborhood units and in general recognize and reinforce the role of Coconut Grove as an inner-city residential community, as follows: OM OD INO DO DM To identify and protect the dominant residential character of all neighborhoods by restricting encroachment of incompatible land uses and densities. To maintain lowest residential densities within the core of sub - neighborhoods while confining higherintensity uses to the periphery, when such uses are appropriate. To confine retail uses to compact, well defined centers that relate conveniently to surrounding residential uses. To accommodate vital high intensity office, residential, and commercial uses in a central core area that is compact and in proportion with com- munity service and facility support capabilities, and in a manner that will complement economically without conflicting environmentally with adjoining neighborhoods. To provide needed open space and recreational opportunities for neigh- borhood units as well as for regional demands. To promote needed accommodations for locally employed residents, particularly in the professions, by encouraging a mixture of commer- cial or office uses with residential uses. To promote residential housing types that are compatible with low density neighborhoods, foster homeownership, and reflect the best in contemporary site and housing design. To provide for compatible transitions in use and intensity between low density neighborhood units and peripheral uses, and along major road- ways where continuity in use and visible character is essential to main- tain a well defined and harmonious community. -17- Land Use Recommendations With these objectives as a fra:r►ework, the future land use plan for Coconut Grove was constructed to serve as a general basis for the more specific zoning recom- mendations. The Future Land Use Plan, as showri on the following map, provides for the following measures: 1. Retention, intact, of low density neighborhoods. 2. Retention of existing two-family housing areas. 3. Development of low density apartments along Bird Road. 4. Development of moderate density multi -family uses along limited sections of Dixie Highway. 5. Retention of existing moderate density apartment development along 27th Avenue south of Bird Road, and between Day Avenue and Oak Street. 6. Retention of high density office -residential development along Bayshore Drive, but only between Aviation and McFarlane Road. 7. Elimination of moderatedensity apartrnent uses along Douglas aced with and south of Grand Avenuealong Thomas Avenue to be replaced low density two-family housing. 8. Replacement of highway commercial uses at the Dixie Highway inter- sections with Douglas and 27th Avenue with low density apartment uses and community commercial uses respectively. 9. Provision of mixed use low density office -residential uses along 27th Avenue and Grand Avenue to give needed continuity and transition of use to these major Grove entrances. 10. Confine the Douglas Road retail uses to a more proximate and con- venient relationship with the emerging retail uses along Grand Avenue. 11. Confine the Village Center retail uses to the existing districts along Main Highway and the Virginia Street area, but extend these uses one block west along Grand Avenue. 12. Retain existing retail services at Bird Road and 27th Avenue but strengthen the total retail usage of both sides of the street. 13. Restrict bayfront development between Pelican Canal and Mercy Hospital to moderate density low rise residential. -:5- OIMAND AV. ••••171. OrIlt 41 7 3 11 11:3 JETIE:57 7 NUE MTN Ta 00Trgri' AlOYA jULiLi LJ .J LJL.JL_JLJL.JLJ1JLJ -- CIO LJ I P5C`,,3151 111 le 0,041.1 I= r. I Gos ..••••. itmnis IN•••••• • jf— C L I i (77.(\9673Uci • • • 4 LAN SINGLE FAMILY TWO FAMILY LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL — OFFICE LOCAL COMMERCIAL. GENERAL. COMMERCIAL. HIGH DENSITY OFFICE RESIDENTIAL. PARK IS OPEN SPACE INSTITUTIONAL ft sot uortXTCig 88111,91= NfillJ 14. Provide for the limited expansion of Wainwright Park to afford better visibility and access. 15. Develop a neighborhood recreational facility at 22nd Avenue and 28th Street. 16. Expand public open space to link State owned lands and Peacock Park near the Village Center. The refinement of these general land use concepts into specific land use controls is presented in the following section on zoning. Zoning R ecommendations A general land use plan translates goals and objectives into a development concept for the future. That general concept must then be refined into a set of specific land use controls that permit the plan's implementation. Zoning districts are general use classifications that may be applicable anywhere in the municipality, and as such, do not often meet the specific needs of one special location. In preparing the specific zoning proposals for Coconut Grove therefore, three alternatives were used, as follows: OM Om al• ON Existing zoning districts as defined in the zoning ordinance were applied wherever they were appropriate and could substantially meet the needs of the area. When existing districts were not suitable, existing districts were revised or completely new districts were designed to accomplish specific land use objectives. If traditional zoning controls were too limited to adequately implement land use concepts, then new zoning techniques were developed and applied. These three approaches were utilized to create a zoning map that reflects citizens' goals and objectives: fosters a balance between use, intensity and the support capacity of community services and facilities: while responding to special needs of unique areas in the Grove. The following map, Proposed Zoning, shows the zoning districts necessary to achieve the land use plan concepts. The shaded areas represent all changes in existing zoning envisioned by the Plan and include: 1. Replace R-2 and R-3 zoning along Franklin, Royal Road and Loquat Street with R-1 zoning. This area actually belongs to two different -19- p MEE MN 4% IPOEV AON It • ter« Mom« . ; mmeea rnep L_ ._i_ R-1__ CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT • • P-R • • 4 ZONINS CHANGES • A- PRIL, 1974 '1TTO'PP1111. 4 • . •� [ INSTITUTIONAL, 1 R-3 PROPOSED ZONING IR-1' I I R-113 I IR-2 I R-3 IR-3AI IR-41 I IR-P0I IR-5 I IR-c 1233 ONE FAMILY DWELLING ONE FAMILY DWELLING TWO FAMILY DWELLING LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE LOW DENSITY APARTMENT MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE LOW DENSITYNT PLANNED DEVELOPME HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL OFFICE RESIDENTIAL OFFICE IR-GAI I c-1A I Ic-1 1 (c-2 I Iz-1 I IP-R I I W-R I SPECIAL NE100040O0 COMMERCUIL RESIDENTIAL OFFICE 01tiN45 SING wave LOCAL COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL GENERAL COMMERCIAL LIGHT MOU$TRIAL PURR AND REGREATRYIAL WATERFRONT RECREATIONAL aoo. mace Non' Moo' � �, »1 hI L,,.. .. neighborhood units, both of which are predominantly single family in character. Intrusion of additional rental housing would hasten a decline in home ownership in both neighborhoods. 2. Replace R-2 zoning along Thomas Street with R-1. Thomas Street is a local residential street that is functionally part of a neighborhood which includes William, Franklin and Charles Streets. The existing homes on this street are primarily single family, thus R-2 zoning can only serve to diminish the existing character of the single family owner occupied neighborhood of which it is a part. 3. Replace R-3 zoning along Thomas between Douglas Road and Plaza with R-2. The shallow lots make this property unsuitable for higher density apartment development. Dwelling unit densities in this sector of the Grove must be controlled and reduced due to the high incidence of overcrowding within units. 4. Replace existing R-4 and C-2 zoning along Douglas Road between Day and Oak Street with R-2 duplex zoning. Existing zoning would permit residential densities of 60 units per acre - far too high in view of severe overcrowding existing today in this area. In addition, existing zoning could lead to strip commercial development that would undermine efforts to establish a strong retail core at Grand Avenue and Douglas Road. R-2 residential would accommodate the County Housing and Urban Development Department proposals for low density owner -occupied housing, endorsed by the local NDP Project Area Committee. 5. Replace C-4 commercial at Douglas Road and Dixie Highway with R-3A zoning. The proposed HUD project for the elderly housing on this site could be accommodated by provisions of the R-3A zoning, except for height restrictions. A modification of the R-3A zone to accommodate structures of over 30 feet in height is under consideration for applica- tion in other areas of Miami where slight increases in height are desirable from a site planning standpoint. When such a zone becomes available, it should be applied to this site. 6. Existing pockets of C-1 zoning along Plaza, Carter, and Hibiscus Streets are illogical spot zones that present no realistic potential for development. The R-2 zoning predominant in the adjoining neighborhood should replace this. 7. Replace R-C zoning along West Trade Avenue with R-4 zoning. Develop- ment in this area is at R-4 density but without adequate open space. Redevelopment at R-C densities would create even further overcrowding and vehicular congestion. This is an improper location for office or commercial uses, also permitted by R -C.. -20- 8. Eliminate R-C zoning on Bridgeport .Avenue and replace with R -2. Isolated from existing multi -family development to the east, the con- struction of multi -family units on Bridgeport would create serious vehicular conflicts with the remaining low density housing to the south, and complicate already dangerous access conflicts with Dixie Highway traffic. 9. Replace R-C zoning along S. W. 28th Terrace with 11-4 zoning. Due to severe access limitations from Dixie Highway and the proximity to low density neighborhoods: high -density, office -commercial uses would create serious conflicts with other development along the street and with adjoining neighborhoods. Existing multi -family development in this R-C zone approximates R-4 densities but would be better com- plemented by new development of lower building intensity as provided in R -4. 10. Replace C-4 commercial zoning at 27th Avenue and Dixie Highway with C-2. Existing development at this intersection is marginal and con- stitutes a visually blighting influence on Coconut Grove's major entrance. Billboards, highway commercial uses and excessive retail signage con- tribute to the depressed character. Eventual redevelopment of this intersection should stress community oriented retail with stringent landscape and site development standards. 11. Replace R-2 zoning on lots abutting Bird Road with R-3A zoning. Emerging R-3A uses on Bird Road provide better site design and controlled access than could be achieved with scattered small lot devel- opment under R-2 zoning provisions. The increasing traffic along Bird Road will require buffering uses between it and adjoining tow density neighborhoods, an appropriate function of the R-3A district. 12. Replace R-C zoning along Bayshore Drive east of Aviation with R-3A zoning. Abutting R-1 properties to the east must be protected from additional high-rise, high -density development that threatens the deli- cate character and visual scale relationships between the bayfront public lands and the facing estate residential uses. Eventual redevel- opment of this critical area must assure the sensitive transition between high -intensity R-C property to the west and one of the truly unique, beautiful and historic roadways remaining in South Florida - South Bay - shore Drive. 13. Replace R-4 zoning along the Bayfront between Pelican Canal and Mercy Hospital with R -3. The adjoining single family neighborhood to the north, which shares the same access streets with these bayfront properties requires that considerations of scale relationships, use and intensity -21- temper permitted heights and densities of the• R-4 zones. F irtlif•r considerations of traffic congestion along Bayshore Drive demand restraint in future development of the bayfront. The City Planning Department voiced these same concerns in 19(68 when zoning revi- sions were made, but the City pursued only partial rectification of the problem in rezoning only half the R-4 properties in question to R-3, thus eaving conflicting abutting uses. This partial approach to the problem convinced the Courts, when the rezoning was appealed, that the R-3 was unjustified by virtue of the remaining precedent in adjoining R-4 properties. The City should rezone all R -4 bayfront properties to R -3. 14. The R-5 zoning on Fair Isle should be rezoned to R -4. It is recognized that an effective building permit for the development of Fair Isle is in force and, as such, will permit development conforming to R -4 provi- sions of the zoning ordinance. However, the development for which the present permit has been issued provides for approximately 1000 dwelling units and 200 hotel rooms to be built, which is considerably under the more than 2000 dwelling units that could be developed under provisions of the R-5 ordinance. The Department further recognizes that the 1000 dwelling units antici- pated for Fair Isle can be expected to accommodate an average of 2 to 2. 5 persons. The hotels' guests will bring the minimum expected population of Fair Isle to approximately 2400-2500 persons. The municipal sanitary sewer system supporting Fair Isle is designed to serve approximately 2500 residents, or the present expected minimum population of Fair Isle. In addition, the 1000 dwelling units and two hundred hotel rooms on Fair Isle can be expected to generate a minimum of 6000 vehicle trips per day that will exit onto Bayshore Drive. As Bayshore Drive currently (1973) handles a 24 hour volume in excess of 16, 000 vehicles (60% over capacity) the addition of traffic generated by the 1000 units will constitute a critical overburdening of the roadway. Clearly, the anticipated development of Fair Isle, in terms of density, should not exceed what has been proposed. In any project of this size, particularly one that is staged over a period of several years, the pos- sibility exists that development plans may change. It is conceivable that additional uses or intensities beyond those now proposed may be requested at a later date. All of this would be possible under R-5 zoning. The recommended R-4 zoning, which permits on the average, 5() dwelling units per acre or less, would guarantee that development of this 20 acre island would not exceed the present anticipated development of 1000 dwelling units. -22- 15. The R-4 zoning at Mercy Hospital should be replaced with a general institutional use classification. At present, institutional uses such as hospitals, private schools, private health care facilities and social lodges, etc. require R -4 zoning as a prerequisite for development. The conflict arises when the R-4 zone is applied to a tract of land in order to accommodate a particular public use, as with Mercy hospital, and then multi -family apartment development occurs in conjunction with the principal use. Though not the case with Mercy Hospital, this situa- tion has occurred elsewhere and should not be permitted, particularly in this case where additional multi -family development along i3ayshore Drive would further burden an already over taxed bayfront roadway system. In addition, the very existence of an R-4 zoning district gives rise to pressures for additional rezonings of adjacent properties to R-4, by virtue of their proximity, even though the intended use of the original district is not moderate density residential. The institutional use district recommended for the Mercy Hospital Tract is presently under considera- tion by the Planning Department. 16. Replace existing retail C-2 zone with a new C-2A district. Three retail centers, zoned C-2, provide the Grove with needed commercial services, but play an even larger role as a social and physical focus for the surrounding community. While the use and development intensity provisions of the C-2 zone provide general direction for development in keeping with its retail function, the more sensitive issues of street scale, pedestrian -retail relationships, street amenities and physical design. details arenot addressed. All these factors must be controlled and directed if the existing role of the Grove's retail centers is to be pre- served and strengthened. To do this, a new district termed C-2A Special. Community Commercial has been drafted, which includes: ON. fa • OP US an 00 Floor Area Ratio of 1.0. Height Limitation of four stories. Provisions for designating certain streets as "pedestrian streets," where all first floor uses fronting on said streets must be retail. and a minimum of 70% of the lot frontage must be devoted to building space. Sidewalk cafes, flower sales, art exhibits, handicrafts and other handmade art objects which are not mass produced are permitted outdoor uses. Sign controls and guidelines encouraging creativity in design but restraint in size and number. -23- • Limitation on uses compatible with local shopping needs to reinforce service retail uses. Minimum 10 foot and maximum 20 foot building setbacks with courtyard capabilities, to enhance pedestrian amenities but maintain retail -pedestrian relationships. Permitted off -site parking for retail and office uses. Mandatory on -site bicycle parking facilities. Mandatory site plan review by City Planning Department. The C-2A District as described above would be applied to the Douglas - Grand -Bird Road-27th Avenue, and Main -Grand -McFarlane Road shopping areas. The following map, Village Center Shopping District, illustrates the designated pedestrian streets proposed for the Village Center. Two recommended locations for off-street parking facilities, constructed and operated by the Off -Street Parking Authority, are also shown on this map. These facilities would be essential to the concept of permitted off -site parking in the C-2A District. The parking facility between Fuller Street and Commodore Plaza would be a three story - four parking level garage that could park approximately 200-250 vehicles. The perim- eter of the first floor facing Fuller Street and Grand Avenue could contain retail shops. To finance this structure, a special taxing district could be created coincident with the C-2A zone to offset somewhat the high land prices which may otherwise be prohibitive to this proposal. Provision of this parking structure wout.d, most importantly, provide a central vehicnla r lot that could be used by existing and proposed development alike. This would alleviate the possible danger of having to cover 30 to 50% of the Village Center with non -productive parking lots instead of needed retail floor area. Parking lots operated again by the Off -Street Parking Authority are also recommended for the area near Mary Street and Grand Avenue, and in the Douglas -Grand shopping area, mid -block between Douglas and Plaza Street on Grand Avenue. The latter parking lot would allow for addi- tional beautification of Grand Avenue in the retail area by eliminating on - street parking. 17. Replace mixed zoning along 27th Avenue from 28th Street to Bird Road with new R -CC district. There are presently six different zoning district:, that apply to properties fronting on 27th Avenue in these three blocks, which can only lead to a conflicting and chaotic mix of uses most inap- propriate for this major roadway. Twenty-seventh Avenue, in its role as a major entrance. should be flanked by low scale. moderate intensity uses that will offer the greatest opportunity for high quality development that reflects the Grove's character. To a limited extent this type of -24- A AA EN P1?? Q{AMIE P\P FLORIDA ORAND TMOMAS PROW AVE CHARLES AVE FRANKLIN AVE I(3I0 _ lop 1 ‘ 7 I ^ AAN N.MrqNg MCRAE NgVgag DESIGNATED PEDESTRIAN STREET PUBLIC OFF — STREET PARKING o' ill' «s Mkt 05' 1;3:•'n liN;c ffi sluff . I4,10A ' development has occurred in the form of professional offices in the existing 27th Avenue R-CA district. To further promote this high quality office development, while enhancing the opportunities for mixed use residential -office capabilities, an R-CC none which eon,- bines basic provisions of R-CA office use with 12-3A low density apart- ment residential was drafted. Application of this zone to 27th Avctni will provide much needed direction for the quality redevelopment of :, vital. approach to Coconut Grove. 18. Replace existing C-2 and C-4 zoning on Grand Avenue between Plaza and Margaret Streets with R-CC. Existing zoning along Grand Avenue, particularly C-4 would permit a wide range of commercial and industrial type uses more suited to highway commercial areas than the heart of Coconut Grove. Long recognized as the major link between Black Grove and the Village Center, the 3/4 mile length of Grand Avenue from Douglas Road to Main Highway presents an excellent potential for new development. Grand Avenue, like 27th Avenue, is an important and highly visible entrance to the community that needs to be developed with quality, low scale uses that will effectively bridge the distance between the two retail centers. The need to attract and accommodate new medical clinics, professional and business offices within Black Grove could best be accomplished along Grand Avenue, with R -CC zoning. 19. Provide building height limits, site plan review procedures and design guidelines for critical development areas along Dixie Highway, 27th .Avenue, Bayshore Drive, Grand Avenue and Douglas Road. Just as Main Highway and Bayshore Drive serve to bind together the unique environment of Coconut Grove, so too is it equally important that other major roadways reflect and reinforce its substantial environmental char- acter. By providing reasonable height limits, site plan review and design guidelines for new development along 27th Avenue, Bayshore Drive, Grand Avenue and Douglas Road, efforts can be directed towards assuring that these major roadways will also contribute to rather than detract from, the urban scene of which they are a part. To provide the unified guidelines necessary to achieve a compatible and cohesive visual effect along these diverse roadways, traditional zoning techniques are inadequate. Rather than attempt a revision of all applicable zoning districts along each of these streets, an overlay zone technique is proposed. A single zone that would contain all regulations common to Grand, Douglas, 27th Avenue and Bayshore Drive would simply overlay the traditional R-4, R-C, C-2. etc. zones that control Land uses along these roadways. The overlay zone proposed for Coconut Grove is :shown on the following map, Coconut Grove - Special Overlay District. Provi- sions of this special zone are as follows: a. All development within the area covered by the overlay zone would require site and development plan approval by the Planning Depart- ment. -25- � AATEm0 g4R1N QOa 001PW gROIN f // C-2 R-PD • • • A \ • • AMgi I��p1�;15�ji�f(Jh jm( ga �1��-.J---[�111 R-1 R-1B I IR-2 I IR-3 I IR-3AI IR-4 IR-PDI IR-C I ONE FAMILY DWELLING ONE FAMILY DWELLING TWO FAMILY DWELLING LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE LOW DENSITY APARTMENT MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE DVEDENSITY LOPMENT PLANNED HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL OFFCE RESIDENTIAL OFFICE r. ry f7F MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT • APRIL, 1974 I IIMMIMMM FM�MWMMMM IR-GAI IC-IAI IC-1 I 1201 FIEN UZI iw-RI SPECIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL RESIDE4TIAL OFFICE SHOPPING CENTER pipLercire LDCYL. COMMERCIAL ODMMUNITY COMMERCIAL GENERAL ODMMERCIAL LIGHT IP/DUSTRIAL PARK ANO RECREATIONAL WATERFRONT RECREATIIRNL Soo• KM. soon. IYOW b. A set of design guidelines would apply to all new construction within the zone. These guidelines are concerned primarily with quality site development, preservation of the landscape, provision of adequate pedestrian access, relationships to municipal serv:.ces and facility support capacities, and com- patible architectural design. c. All development along Bayshore Drive would have to observe a minimum 30 foot setback from the zoned right-of-way tine. d. In all zones except for R -C zoned uses along Bayshore Drive, no structure could exceed four floors in height. If more restrictive height restrictions exist within the principal use zones, then they would take precedence. e. New structures within the R-C zone along Bayshore Drive would be limited to ten floors in height. CIICULATION PLAN CIRCULATION PLAN The single most important issue confronting Coconut Grove in the minds of citizen task force members, and echoed by the general public at community meetings, is increasing traffic congestion and conflicts caused by rush hour through traffic. Regarded as the principal threat to the environment of Coconut Grove the concensus of local opinion is that through traffic must be reduced in the Grove. A second area of concern arises, in part from the first; walking and bicycling have long been a favored form of transportation in the Grove but increasing traffic is threatening pedestrians and cyclists. Resident appeals for improved walkways, crosswalks, and bike paths stem from the desire to preserve and enhance these alternatives to the automobile. The following sections. deal with each of these three transportation modes - vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle, and offer a coordinated approach to the design and implementation of a comprehensive circulation system for the Grove. Vehicular System Two controlling facts dominate any approach to the redesign of arterial roadways in Coconut Grove: 1. Through traffic cannot be routed around Coconut Grove. There are very few alternative routes that a vehicle moving between downtown Miami and Old Cutler Road could take. South Dixie Highway, the principal corridor of long distance regional traffic movements is now overburdened with an average of over 60, 000 vehicles per day, which is the same number it carried four years ago. To be sure, the traffic demands have increased significantly since 1970, but even four years ago, Dixie Highway was over capacity. Coral Way handles almost half as many vehicles as Dixie Highway, 29, 000 per day and is also seriously overburdened. LeJeune Road is not only operating at over -capacity but its intersection with Dixie Highway is among the most dangerous in Dade County. The reason Bayshore Drive and Main Highway are carrying an increasing amount of through traffic is due to the breakdown of these alternative routes. To speak of bypassing through traffic around the Grove is to ignore the fact that there is no existing corridor to route such traffic. 2. No amount of improvements to the existing Coconut Grove arterial roadway system could satisfy the Bayfront corridor through traffic demands. Unlike Coral Way or LeJeune Road, Main Highway and Bayshore Drive were never designed to handle substantial through traffic movements. The preponderance of intersection conflicts along these routes precludes their ever effectively serving as more than a link to adjoining communities. To attempt major roadway improvements in order to resolve through traffic demands would be as ineffectual as an attempt to route traffic around the Grove. Guided by these two constraints, the following criteria for proposed circulation system improvements are offered: -- a) The basis for vehicular system improvements must be to achieve safer, more efficient roadways for local circulation needs, in a manner compatible with the Grove's environment. b) Through traffic movements must be confined to arterial roadways, and prevented from using shortcut or bypass routes through low density neighborhoods. c) Vehicular system improvements must respect the needs of other transportation modes in the same right-of-way, namely pedestrians, cyclists and mass transit. d) Modifications to roadways or traffic patterns should not take away from what little existing capability there is to handle through traffic. The following map, Proposed Circulation System - Vehicular, shows the general roadway improvements and traffic controls proposed for Coconut Grove. Major intersection recommendations are proposed as follows: 1. LeJeune Road and Ingraham Highway - add an additional lane to the north side of westbound Ingraham intersection approach to better facilitate right turns. Adjust signal phasing. Peak hour access to Ingraham from LeJeune Road cannot be prohibited due to high volumes on LeJeune, particularly at the Dixie Highway intersection. 2. Ingraham Highway and Douglas Road - provide turning lane for Douglas southwestbound to Ingraham Highway. Retain warning signals and center stacking lane for Douglas southbound to Edgewater. 3. Main Highway and Douglas Road - phase traffic signal to better accommodate Main Highway to Douglas Road turning movement. -28- 4. Grand Avenue and Dixie Highway - realign Grand Avenue to create 90 degree intersection with Dixie and Ponce de Leon, as per Decade of Progress proposal. 5. Bird Road and Dixie Highway - provide two lane through movement, westbound on Bird Road by adding one lane to the north side of the Bird Road approach to intersection (westbound), and one lane to the north side of the Bird Road west of the intersection. 6. McDonald and Dixie Highway - provide an additional lane on the west side of McDonald Street, north and south of the Dixie Highway intersection, to reduce through traffic conflicts with turning vehicles. .7. 27th Avenue and Dixie Highway - provide a right turn lane for northbound traffic on 27th Avenue. Allow left turns from Dixie westbound to 27th Avenue southbound by providing a left turn arrow and on -corning green delay. Left turns would be prohibited during peak hours. By permitting left turns from Dixie Highway to 27th Avenue, the conflicting movement of vehicles with residences along 26th Avenue and congestion at the 27th Avenue and 28th Street intersection would be relieved. 8. 27th Avenue and Bird Road - provide left turn lanes for eastbound traffic on Bird Road and northbound traffic on 27th Avenue. Provide distinctive pedestrian crosswalk markings. 9. 27th Avenue and Tigertail - provide left turn lane for both directions on Tigertail Avenue, and 27th Avenue. 10. 17th and Dixie Highway - provide left turn lanes for both north and southbound traffic on 17th Avenue. 11. 17th Avenue and Bayshore Drive - provide a right turn lane from 17th Avenue to South Bayshore Drive. The short amount of green time available to southbound 17th Avenue traffic at this intersection, makes it difficult for even the relatively light volume of traffic (2190 vehicles per day southbound) to make the turns to Bayshore Drive. The addition of a short right turn lane to the west side of 17th Avenue at the intersection, would allow for a double stacking during the red phase, with a right turn permitted after stopping, and separation of turning movements during the green phase. It is the delay at this intersection that forces traffic bound for Mercy Hospital to shortcut through the adjoining neighborhood along Halissee Street which is an unacceptable situation. -29- A MEE MIN EA 001Pq \FR • vitorfaagtft• Mit •••••ITC •••C . • • • , • . • • • . NITOD ROWE ANN 1INTHAra INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT STREET CLOSURE OR TRAFFIC CONTROL ror wit 4M SI 1111112 AWN - Mt?, 314 11' • . . 1 • • . . . • 12. Main Highway and G.'and Avenue and McFarlane Road - much more than a traffic intersection; Main, Grand and McFarlane is the hub from which radiate the major roadway axes of the Grove, the physical focal point for th.e community, and the heart of the Village Center shopping district. With almost 24, 000 vehicles passing through this intersection daily, scores of pedestrians crossing it, and numerous cyclists weaving through the people and the cars, it is the busiest, most complex, and perhaps the least efficient intersection within Coconut Grove. Any redesign of the Main, Grand and McFarlane intersection must respond to these factors and additionally consider the design of roadways leading to and from it. The following considerations formed the basis for the intersection design and traffic circulation changes. a. The intersection's most immediate and extensive relationship exists with the Village Center commercial area, and secondarily to area -wide through traffic movements. b. Chaotic and hazardous pedestrian movements across all four legs of the intersection must be simplified to provide greater convenience and safety. c. Complicated and conflicting vehicular turning movements and signalization must be simplified to provide greater safety and efficiency for local traffic movements. d. The growing conflicts between bicycles and vehicles within the Village Center and particularly this intersection must be resolved. e. McFarlane Road with its 80 feet of pavement width must be redeveloped to acconunodate a more balanced and sensitive link between the Bay and the Village Center, including the provision of pedestrian walkways, bikeway facilities and landscaping. f. Additional space for Village Center beautification proposals is needed. g. Growing congestion and traffic hazards at the intersection of Virginia and Grand need to be resolved. -30- h. Existing traffic movement capacities of the intersection cannot be reduced in any attempts to resolve the above issues. To achieve the above conditions, the following circulation system is proposed as shown on the following maps, Main -McFarlane -Grand - Proposed Intersection Design, and Proposed Village Center Circulation: a. McFarlane!Road is converted to one-way southbound movement with widened sidewalks and an exclusive two-way bicycle lane along the west curb connecting to the Siegendorf Bicycle Path along Bayshore Drive. b. Grand Avenue is modified to westbound movement from the Mary and Bayshore intersection to Main Highway intersection. c. On -street parking is eliminated at all times from Main Highway between Fuller Street and McFarlane Road and the McFarlane Road bicycle path is extended down Main Highway to connect to a widened walkway system on the south side of Main Highway and ultimately to the Main Highway Bicycle Path. d. An exclusive automatic pedestrian signal phase when all vehicular traffic would stop is provided. e. The curb to curb width of the pedestrian crosswalks would be narrowed at McFarlane Road from 80 feet to 45 feet; at Main Highway from 50 feet to 40 feet; and at the west approach of Grand Avenue from 50 feet to 40 feet. f. Existing sidewalks on Main Highway are widened at the intersection frori 8 feet to 15 feet; on McFarlane Road from 6 feet to 10 feet; and on the north side of Grand Avenue from 12 feet to 20 feet. Traffic movements through the intersection are simplified by providing: Grand Avenue westbound - north lane continuous through movement except for a pedestrian phase; center and south lane southwest to Main Highway with south lane alternative left to McFarlane Road. g• -31- • / RIP • / • / / / • / / / // // • / // 4'7 / / / / x/ • • • ------- •-•". •"" ............._ ------ ,.... / \II / it • • • ‘ \ \ • • 111111111 4r. 6sioup4 \ • if \\ „, / In. c . \ \ / • • • • \ \ • \ \ \ \ \ 416\ • • • Ny•• • • • • . • • , • • , • • / • • • • / ' • • • main - mcfarlane - grand proposed intersection design = • • i 11,171101' Grand Avenue eastbound - two lanes southeast to McFarlane Road, with south lane alternative to Main Highway. -- Main Highway - one continuous through lane, for pedestrian phase, to McFarlane Road. except These circulation patterns would result in a system that would move morning peak hour traffic at approximately the same level as the existing system, would improve the capacity for afternoon peak hour movements, reduce the existing midday and weekend congestion on Main Highway and Grand Avenue, and eliminate conflicts on McFarlane Road. The following diagram describes the three signal phases for the proposed intersection design. MAIN - McFARLANE - GRAND / PROPOSED INTERSECTION / SIGNAL PHASES ( lltP*4 : Age.. - - %M LAi tektacui A.M. g/c = .59 v/c = .88 P. M. g/c = .51 v/c = .72 • • • 4*01 0 kW. Gi04.10 PA • �-��4.0p Exclusive Pedestrian Phase g/c = .12 g/c = .20 • • • g/c = .20 v/c = .88 g/c = .20 v/c = .52 -32- An additional modification that could be made would be to permanently close Fuller Street and convert it to a pedestrian plaza. The opportunities for creating an out- standing public space that would enrich the social focus and physical env:.ronrnent of the Village Center are too great to be ignored. Fuller Street is not a vital part of the Village Center circulation system, and in fact, by fostering left turns to and from it, conflicts with the safe flow of traffic in the vicinity. The mounting congestion on arterial roadways and increasing through traffic demands has forced traffic to seek new routes that often lead through low density neighborhoods. This situation will continue to worsen unless corrective action is taken. Indicated by graphic symbols on the map depicting vehicular proposals are the following local street system improvements: 1. Poinciana Street - Close Poinciana Street at Plaza Street so as to divert traffic eastbound on Poinciana to Plaza Street northbound and by so doing, eliminate Poinciana as a major connection to Main Highway for LeJeune Road rush hour traffic and University of Miami traffic. 2. Charles and Franklin Streets - Discourage excessive and hazardous through traffic by providing stop signs for all east -west movements across these two streets at both Plaza and Hibiscus Streets. All crosswalks should be boldly striped. If these measures do not satisfactorily reduce the incidence of non -local traffic, then diagonal intersection closures should be made at Franklin and Plaza, and at Charles and Plaza. 3. Frow, Florida and Brooker Streets (Gables Section) - Eventually close the intersections of these streets with Dixie Highway to eliminate dangerous intersection conflicts with expressway traffic. 4. Mundy Street, Plaza Street, Carter Street - Eliminate left and right turns from Dixie Highway to these three streets by closing the island breaks in the Dixie Highway median and posting "no right turn" signs for Dixie northbound traffic, respectively. To reduce the necessity of exiting onto Dixie Highway and to improve access to homes, Shipping Street should be extended through to Plaza Street. 5. Virginia Street - Close Virginia Street immediately south of Coconut Avenue to isolate high density residential along Dixie from the low density neighborhoods to the south. In connection with this -33- measure, the left turn bays in the Dixie Highway median, opposite Bridgeport Avenue and S. W. 30th Court, should be closed. b. Kirk Street - Close Kirk Street immediately north of its intersection with 22nd Avenue, permitting Tigertail Court to exit northbound on Kirk to Tigertail. 7. Alatka Street - Close Alatka Street at Dixie Highway. One way Alatka Street southbound from Micanopy to Bayshore Drive. 8. Halissee Street - Close Halissee Street at Dixie Highway to prevent access or egress to or from this local street. The following recommendations are made for major corridors: 1. Main Highway - It has been pointed out in previous sections that Main Highway represents an invaluable historic, environmental and scenic resource belonging not just to Coconut Grove, but to all the residents of South Florida. A genuinely unique part of the urban scene, its importance transcends its value solely as a major traffic arterial. The existing character of the Main Highway corridor and its extensions as Douglas Road and Ingrahaxn Highway should not be compromised by widening. Measures to assure this policy will be discussed in the subsequent Environmental Controls. 2. Bayshore Drive - Like Main Highway, Bayshore Drive is a valued part of Coconut Grove, possessed of a special character most notably in the two lane section extending from Halissee Street on the north to Aviation on the south. The principal issue surrounding Bayshore Drive is whether this section should be widened. The recent widening of Bayshore Drive from Aviation to McFarlane Road is illustrative of the functional issues and the justification related to widening. The existing and projected use of land on both sides of this particular section of roadway is of a high traffic generating nature, necessitating many closely spaced turning movements that would effectively block a two lane roadway. Uncontrolled shoulder parking was visually distractive and hazardous to traffic. The roadway was also blocked with standing water. All of these issues dictated that additional lanes, curbs, gutters and turning bays be provided in this section of the roadway. None of these issues are relevant to the two lane section of Bayshore Drive remaining between Aviation and Halissee. The one -34- conflict that occurs along this stretch is at 17th Avenue where the traffic signal reduces through volumes. When Fair Isle is developed, this will introduce a second, more severe, restriction at the Fair Isle Drive and Bayshore Drive intersection only one block south of 17th Avenue. Turning bays to accommodate turns at these intersections and the signalization of the Fair Isle inter- section, will severely restrict present volumes on Bayshore Drive, particularly at peak hour. But the fact remains that four lanes on Bayshore Drive will do little to improve overall traffic flows. The following chart prepared for the Dade County TOPICS report illustrates the peak hour traffic conditions as of 1970 along Bayshore Drive. tit* •11 • OLD CUTLER NOM It art 1• ar1 41101104 alt .t vt iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii::: ii;iiiMiai \1 1/ 111 •llal 101 11 an AVIATION TO HALISSEE . OUTBOUND as tt..V flN1a1 ..1 81 101 a ..... 111 DEMAND / CAPACITY CHARACTERISTICS BAYFRONT CORRIDOR 41681 111.1 .Y.•MI 111., C•.1Cu,. .OLU.I. .p:1 N1. I f 111.at +.1 • V. 1 1970 TOPICS REPORT -35- The one segment of the Bayfront Corridor that operates most effectively is the Aviation to Halissee section. The existing four lane section from Mercy Hospital to Federal Highway actually operates at a lower capacity and efficiency due primarily to the signalization and traffic conflicts that occur at Mercy Hospital, LaSalle High School, Museum of Science and Vizcaya. When these numerous conflicts are closely spaced over a lengthy section of roadway, four lanes become necessary to accommodate intersection movements. When they are not, as along Bayshore Drive from Halissee to Aviation, the extra lanes are not necessary. 3. 27th Avenue - A major entrance to the Grove, 27th Avenue abounds in functional and :visual conflicts that diminish the image of the area. In addition, the multi -family apartment development between Bird Road and Tigertail generates .numerous turning movements that increase traffic hazards. Left turns from any direction at 27th Avenue intersections with Bird Road and Tigertail are difficult and create congestion. Unlike many arterial roadways, however, 27th Avenue does not have a significant increase in traffic volumes during rush hours. Its average volume of 12, 600 vehicles per day is spread evenly between the hours of 7:00 A. M. until 9:00 P.M. , with a relatively light single lane peak hour volume of 470 vehicles occurring from noon until 1: D0 P. M. The recognized need for creating a visually compatible entrance to the Grove prompted the proposal for a special overlay district in this area and it is only proper that needed public development of 27th Avenue itself reflect the same concern for scale, landscaping and quality design expected of abutting private development. The following recommendations for the improvement of 27th Avenue are based upon the need to maintain an efficient yet esthetically compatible entrance to the Grove: Develop the roadway to include a landscaped median with left turn bays at Tigertail, Bird Road, Dixie Highway and Bayshore Drive. b. Limit the moving traffic lanes to 12-15 feet in width, consistent with the demands of traffic. Provide a four foot wide bicycle lane on each side of the paved roadway, appropriately striped and signed for exclusive bicycle usage from Bayshore Drive to Dixie Highway. Provide curbs to control drainage and vehicular access points. a. c. d. -36- es Provide substantial and diversified landscaping along both sides of the roadway and within the median. f. Eliminate unsightly overhead utility wires and wooden poles. Provide pedestrian walkways on both sides of the street from Dixie Highway to Bayshore Drive with intersection crosswalks boldly striped the width of the crosswalk. 4. Dixie Highway - The future of Coconut Grove will depend on large part on immediate and comprehensive solutions to regional population growth problems, regional traffic facilities and regional attitudes about modes of personal transportation. Present traffic volumes on Dixie Highway are approximately 60, 000 vehicular trips per day in the vicinity of Coconut Grove. The present demand for vehicular trips exceeds 100, 000 per day. In ten years, traffic projections anticipate a demand for 218, 000 vehicular trips per day along the Dixie Highway corridor. To the extent that Dixie Highway does not now handle an excess demand of 40, 000 vehicle trips per day and it fails to meet the increase of over 100, 000 trips demanded by 1984, presents a burden that surrounding communities and roadways may have to bear. If these pro; ections are accurate, the Dixie Highway corridor would have to be expanded to three times its present capacity in ten years, just to achieve the same shortfall of 40, 000 vehicular trips experienced today. The situation requires that Dixie Highway be developed as a limited access expressway with rapid transit capabilities. g• 5. Rapid Transit - The intended route of the rapid transit system is along Douglas Road south to Dixie Highway and then southwest along the F. E. C. railway, with a station near Douglas Road and Bird Road. The impact on land use, densities and development potential in the vicinity of the station will be dramatic, particularly for the Douglas Road area of the Grove. The most appropriate approach is to recognize that once a .:np :.r' stations are fixed and a completion date is known, detailed impact studies with recommended plans for land use, zoning and trans- portation systems near these stations, be made. 6. Zoned Right -of -Way - The Grove has many narrow streets, some with as little as 15 feet of pavement width, and most without curbs or sidewalks. For the majority of these local streets, there is no future prospect of ever widening them or installing sidewalks. -37- Most of these roadways are, however, zoned for a 50 to 70 foot right-of-way. This means that for a 50 foot zoned street, the base building lines are set 25 feet from the centerline of the btreet and the required front yards of 20 feet are measured from the base building line. Due to the narrow improved width of most streets, private lots many times are not dedicated to the full zoned right-of-way width leaving large front yards of 30 and 40 feet that cannot be built upon. This can be a definite disadvantage for the shallow lot. One of the principal justifications for the zoned right-of-way is to provide future opportunities for roadway widening if necessary. In those cases where roadway widening is not needed or may be undesirable, and the existing zoned width unduly restricts private development rights, the zoned right-of-way width should be reduced. For major streets like Main Highway or Ingraham Highway, a reduction in zoned width would be a confirmation of official policy not to widen the roadway. The following streets are recommended for reduc ions in zoned right-of-way widths: a. b. c. d. e. f. g• h. i. j• k. 1. Douglas Road south of Franklin Street Main Highway south of Franklin Street Ingraham Highway Poinciana Avenue Hardie Avenue McDonald Street from Jackson to Oak 22nd Avenue from Dixie Highway to Bayshore Drive 17th Avenue from Dixie Highway to Bayshore Drive. Bonita Avenue Bayview Road B raganza Street North Bayhomes Drive 2n_ PLANNI SY@ gVIEW WA1 gAOUR AlOW • uuL_i J ; , P--11 rr LJUUbLJ „mr DI 1 1 I I I 1 '_";__ADDDDDDDDDIDi2D!CGi. CrCC itL1i --i1._1•e--r—.ii—_o0-nrzi--T,t_C_js1l—;.,r1—:'.N.; 1(i_---,• _Th-_-_--__`__-_7_-_1"1q• sL1t1, =1 I1til 1 dr11 ) ,1Il1aI ly E\ I iC, I-1 1 —j I1 ! — - \` .—: .- ............. ,ram, onne...A J • IL\.L1 t11i—__L1LH,-71-1 J > 1-71/\ :71 rt ; =7' LJLJ •41./.13* 1 • • • 4 • — 2011N@ MRNig VMT PROPOSED REDUCTION IN ZONED wicen4 r w s117 CM 4212111317 rn. Park Lane n. Irvington Avenue o. Cornelia Drive p. Greenwood Road q. Emathla Street r. Chucununtah Road s. Coacoochee Street Pedestrian System The design of the pedestrian system in Coconut Grove takes into account the following factors: OD OM law WO Most residential areas in Coconut Grove do not want sidewalks. Many people in Coconut Grove want or have to walk to shops, entertainment, churches, schools, the library, parks and public transit stops. Increasing congestion and traffic on major streets has created serious hazards for pedestrians, both adults and children. Most major roadways in Coconut Grove do not have sidewalks and those areas that do have them, provide virtually no amenities. The design of roadways and intersections in the Grove give only minimal consideration to the safety or convenience of the pedestrian. There is a great need for street side open space or fiat:.=. %.•. serve as an extension of the pedestrian environment, part, _uis • within retail areas. Pedestrian -vehicular conflicts were shown earlier on the map, Circulation Conflicts, which served to identify priority areas for facilities. The following recommendations shown on the map, Proposed Circulation System - Pedestrian and Bicycle , respond generally to the design considerations listed above, and specifically to pedestrian conflicts. Pedestrian walkways should be constructed along the following streets: -39- 4 p60EM B40D8 01)TFil TR�!1N Imo awe uuuUl_JUL_) L�% 11111 0-----.1 51411111.11110111 mow ][17/- • 0 • 4 4 • • SNOW WilAINDOIN Ate. NIEVRIN WAR PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY PEDESTRIAN ACTIVATED LIGHT PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS BICYCLE PATH BICYCLE LANES BICYCLE ROUTE 1. 27th Avenue - both sides 2. Bird Road - both sides 3. Virginia Street - both sides 4. McDonald Street - east side 5. Day Avenue - south side 6. Grand Avenue (Douglas to Dixie) - both sides 7. Douglas Road (Franklin Avenue to Dixie Highway) - both sides 8. 22nd Avenue - east side It is recommended that pedestrian actuated crosswalk lights be installed at the following locations: 1. Grand Avenue at Hibiscus 2. Main Highway at Poinciana 3. Ingraham Highway at Battersea Road 4. Bayshore Drive at Aviation 5. Bayshore Drive at 22nd Avenue (upon completion of park) 6. Grand Avenue at Jefferson 7. Douglas Road at Day Avenue In addition, it is recommended that a pedestrian overpass spanning Dixie Highway in the vicinity of Ponce de Leon Boulevard be constructed to eliminate the frequent and extremely hazardous pedestrian crossing of Dixie Highway. For those areas that serve as gathering places, a social focus or activity center, the simple function of a sidewalk should be expanded and enhanced with widened walkways, landscaping, benches, public information systems, trash containers, public phones, colored and textured paving and bold crosswalk markings. The following illustrations Village Center Roadway Improvements & Beautification -40- and Douglas Road and Grand Avenue Street Improvements depict what might be done to incorporate these features in the prime pedestrian oriented areas of th€: Grove. Not shown but considered an equally desirable area for such improvements is the Bird Road shopping district from Mary Street to 27th Avenue. Specific proposals for the Village Center include: 1. New sidewalks with textured paving 2. Widened walkways on McFarlane Road. 3. Curb extensions (peninsulas) at intersections to reduce crosswalk width. 4. Bold striping of pedestrian crosswalks, 20 feet wide at major intersections. 5. "STOP FOR PEDESTRIAN IN CROSSWALK" signs at all non - signalized crosswalks within retail area. 6. Addition of pedestrian scale lights. 7. Benches and bicycle racks in widened walkway areas and at intersection peninsulas. 8. Plantings of major shade trees at key locations along Main Highway, Grand Avenue and Virginia. 9. Plantings of flowering trees, closely spaced, between shade trees. 10. Planters with ferns along Fuller Street and beneath canopies along portions of Main Highway and Grand. 11. Major tree plantings along McFarlane Road, perhaps Royal Poincianas. It is recommended that Grand Avenue be treated as follows: 1. Replace damaged trees in Grand Avenue planters. 2. Reduce pruning of existing trees, which prevents their reaching a mature effective form. 3. Fill planters with epoxy frozen aggregate to eliminate the catch i -41- VILLAGE CENTER ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT & BEAUTIFICATION 1111a:. ". • IUI 1111111 11111111111111d badin forted by the curbs, yet permit water to reach tree roots. 4. Provide matching aggregate walkway panels that coincide with tree planters. 5. Construct benches adjacent to existing planters. 6. Provide additional flowering trees along walkways between existing planters. 7. Provide bold crosswalk striping at all intersection crosswalks. The Douglas Road/Grand Avenue Shopping District would benefit from the following: 1. Widen sidewalks on Grand Avenue from Plaza Street to Douglas Road by eliminating on -street parking and providing a public off-street parking lot at a mid -block location. 2. Provide intensive landscaping with major street trees along both sides of Grand Avenue from Plaza Street to Douglas Road. 3. Provide pedestrian scale lights in this retail shopping area. 4. Install benches, public informational systems, bike racks, public phones, etc. in area with widened walkways. 5. Provide complete roadway improvements to Douglas Road including new sidewalks, curbs and gutters. 6. Improve intersections to include walkway peninsulas to shorten cross- walk widths. 7. Major shade trees planted at key locations along Douglas Road with flowering trees in intervening spaces. 8. Public acquisition of the vacant land on the northwest corner of Grand and Douglas Road, and development as a streetside plaza with landscaping, benches, checkers tables, informational and advertising displays and conveniences such as mailboxes, drinking fountains and public phones. Bicycle System Having only recently emerged as a major recreational pursuit nationwide, bicycling is ranked third among the active pursuits of South Florida residents next to swimming and fishing.A logical outgrowth of this popularity has been its increased use as an efficient, low cost forrr. of transportation. To accom- modate and encourage the continued growth of cycling in all its forms, the following facilities are proposed: elb Bicycle Paths - a path separated from vehicular roadways for recreational use, a minimum of 6 feet wide and preferably 8 feet wide. Bicycle 'Lanes - located on streets as part of the curb to curb paving, lanes are striped and signed portions of the street reserved for exclusive use of bicycles and a minimum of three feet wide. Usually developed with one lane on each side of a street, they carry cyclists with the direction of traffic and the cyclist is subject to all motor vehicle laws (stop signs, hand signals, etc. ). Bicycle routes - the identification of certain st; eets by signs as recommended routes for cycling. They are the minimum possible facility both in terms of cost and effectiveness. Indicated on the preceding map for proposed bicycle system improvements are the following recommendations: 1. Bicycle Paths (Class I Facility) - In accordance with the "Parks for People" bond issue, paths should be constructed from McFarlane Road to S. W. 32nd Road along the south side of Bayshore Drive, and along the F. E. C. railroad right-of-way from LeJeune Road to Downtown (City of Miami portion). 2. Bicycle Lanes (Class II Facility) - Exclusive, marked, on -street bike lanes should be provided on the following streets (both sides): a. Grand Avenue from Dixie Highway to Douglas Road. b. Douglas Road from Franklin Avenue to Dixie Highway. c. Main Highway and McFarlane Road from Franklin Avenue to Bayshore Drive (southside only - curb separated)* d. S. W. 27th Avenue from Dixie Highway to Bayshore Drive. e. Bird Road from Dixie Highway to Aviation. f. Aviation from Bird Road to Bayshore Drive. *Note: The details of this recommendation are shown on the Village Center walkway improvements and beautification map. If a parking structure is developed in the Village Center, the elimination of on -street parking and extension of the bicycle lanes along the south side of Main Highway rather than on the existing sidewalk as shown, should be seriously considered. g. Tigertail Avenue from 27th Avenue to 17th Avenue. h. 17th Avenue from Dixie Highway to Tigertail Avenue. 3. Bicycle Routes (Class III Facility) - Signed bicycle routes should be provided along the following streets: Poinciana Street, Edgewater Drive, and Tigertail and Shore Drive East from 17th Avenue to Bayshore Drive; and Day Avenue. -44- • IICILITIII PLAN FACILITIES PLAN Parks An important element of Coconut Grove has been, is now, and will continue to be its substantial system of parks and open spaces. While ready access to major regional marine -oriented parks and recreation facilities is important, there remains a need for neighborhood facilities that major open spaces do not provide. In addition, the unique nature of some existing areas presents the opportunity for expanding and enhancing the traditional roles of public parks and open space, to provide a new and truly exceptional dimension to Miami's park system. The following recommendations are identified by location on the accompanying map, Proposed Park and Open Space Facilities: 1. The most critical park needs are within the neighborhood bounded by Dixie Highway, Grand Avenue and Douglas Road. HUD) efforts to acquire and develop the triangular tract of land at Brooker and Oak Avenue must be supported and assisted in every way possible. 2. Virrick Park combines a community building and variety of active recreational facilities for all age groups making it a potential site for needed Day Care Its play facilities for school children should be renewed to inco.e',. rate contemporary adventure play equipment. 3. .A plaza for passive recreation should be provided at the corner of Douglas and Grand Avenue, as described in the preceding section on pedestrian systems. 4. Blanche Park at Shipping and Virginia Streets should be developed as a neighborhood playground for elementary and pre-school children with imaginative play equipment. 5. Kirk Munroe Park on Oak Avenue should be immediately expanded to include additional tennis courts. 6. The old Fire Station site on 22nd Avenue and 28th Street should be developed as an adventure playground for elementary and pre-school children. 7. Steele Park on Bayshore Drive should provide rest stop and convenience facilities for cyclists on the Bayshore Drive Bicycle Path, including: shaded benches, bicycle racks. drinking fountain and signs showing the area -wide bicycle paths and lanes available. -45- p TWEE MN 4N �0�0�14 AtO\N NNW BTKIMISTE err tier AV OA MUM WENN - The rich history and environmental diversity of Coconut Grove makes the thought of a park serving as an environmental and/or historical educational facility an appropriate approach. Witnebs the phenomenal success of the Museum of Science and History which attracts and serves over 92, 000 students each year even with its limited facilities. Educational pictorial displays similar to those found in Everglades National Park which highlight the ecology and wildlife of the area could be created that would tell the unique story of Coconut Grove and the evolution of its settlement ar►d natural environs. A cooperative effort by the City, the Museum of Science, University and Community College staff and students, Dade Heritage Trust and the South Florida Historical Association among others, would surely foster an outstanding series of exhibits of great value to residents and visitors alike. Specific applications might include: 1. Merrie Christmas Park - appropriate displays and descriptions of the early quarries (which account for the form of the park's topo- graphy) that provided rock to build South Grove's first streets; tile legacy of David Fairchild's still existing orchards of rare fruit trees; the work of William Fuzzard in creating Main Highway in 1891; the tropical gardens of Arthur Curtis James on Poinciana Street: the Sunshine Fruit Company's promotion of Coconut Grove in 1912; the homes designed by Dr. Gifford in a unique South Florida style; the eccentric European noble►nen who settled Coconut Grove in the 1890's; the "castle homes"of Count De Gazzelle on Park Lane and North Bay - homes Drive, and much snore. 2. The new park at the Old Smoky incinerator site - an account of the first Black settlement in Florida along Charles Street in the 1880's; the Bahamians who migrated to Coconut Grove and the culture they brought that remains today; early Black families who helped build the early Grove village such as the Stirrups, Browns, Sampsons, and Andersons; the first mango, avocado and other types of fruit trees brought to Florida by Black residents who planted them along Charles and Franklin Streets and some of which remain today; the first library in the Grove on Charles Street; and the native Bahamian architecture still standing throughout Black Grove. 3. Virrick Park - descriptions of the early homesteads of Joseph Frow, Flora McFarlane, Charles Peacock; the old Coconut Grove Railroad Station; the early citrus groves that replaced early pineland and ham- mock; the early Seminole Indian settlements in the area; the Coconut Grove landing of John Cabot, the English explorer in 1498; the cougars that terrorized early residents, etc. 4. Peacock Park - displays recounting the establishment of Peacock Inn in Coconut Grove, the first settler Edmund Beasley, early Bahamian lighthouse keepers on Key Biscayne, Joseph Frow and Temple Pent, -4h- Ned Pent one of the first "barefoot mailmen" in South Florida and Grove resident, the old bayfront Indian Trail, the fresh water springs in Biscayne Bay, thr Coontie Starch Factory, the existing homes of Arthur Peacock, William Wagner and Commodore Munroe, early pirate camps along the ridge lines, etc. 5. North Park (Dinner Key) - the marine ecology of Biscayne Bay and native fishes, the Pan American Clipper base, the early square- rigged sailboats that anchored off -shore and ferried supplies to shore, the natural springs that flourished along the ridges, a description of early sailboats designed to ply the shallow waters of Biscayne Bay, the early community of Silver Bluff, and more. 6. Wainwright Park - detailed displays of the various plant communities hammocks, pineland mangrove - that are or used to cover the area, depicting ancient Tequesta. Indian sites of 2000 years ago that are in the area, descriptions of hurricane and natural disasters and their effects on the ecology, mention of neighboring William Jennings Bryan and his home Villa Serena. Such displays would transform our parks into living reminders of a past that could be grasped by visiting school children, residents and the thousands of yearly visitors to the Grove from all over Florida, the U. S. and South America. The precious few historic structures that remain from the late 1800's and early 20th Century when Miami was still a raw pioneer community are threatened daily by the unrelenting pressure of development and land speculation. Many have been lost, not because owners or developers didn't care, but because there was simply no place to move them. Los Angeles, Philadelphia, New York and many other cities face identical problems and for a solution have established historic parks where threatened structures can be relocated if necessary to save them. Ideally, a relocation site should possess intrinsic environmental characteristics amenable as a setting for these buildings. Such a site in Miami must also be protected from storm damage, a drawback for Watson Island and Downtown Bay - front Park so that as a result, reproductions of historic buildings have been proposed there. Fortunately a site that is accessible, well located, possessed of outstanding natural amenities, of adequate size and on high ground exists adjacent to the newly established State Park at the "Barnacle" on Main Highway. With the new historic State Park on one side and the City's Peacock Park on the other side, this 5-acre site would be unequaled as a location for a public Historic Park wherein endangered historic structures could be located. Adjoining properties to the south of the Barnacle are also well suited for this purpose and could be considered as alternatives. In addition, the various structures, once relocated could well serve as a crafts village where local artisans could lease, for nominal fees, space to ply their crafts. This would be a practical, active, compatible use of t'ne site that would return revenues -47- spent on rehabilitation and relocation. The long term value of a historic village park to the existing and future residents of Miami cannot be overestimated. The final major recommendation of this study concerns Wainwright Park and its relative isolation, both visually and functionally. Located on the Brickell Avenue extension, its only access is via S. E. 32nd Road and through a resi- dential neighborhood. Immediately to the north of the park is a triangular 2. 3 acre tract of land that is similar in character to Wainwright Park but less heavily vegetated and directly accessible to Federal Highway. The acquisition of this property would serve the following purposes: OP OM O D MO ON OP PO AO Schools allow vehicular access to the principal park property (egress would remain via Brickell and 32nd Road). reduce vehicular volumes through abutting neighborhoods. assure the visibility of the park. provide additional space for parking and prevent the removal of any perimeter hammock vegetation for such a purpose. accommodate display pavilions featuring graphic information about the natural history of the park and ecology of Biscayne Bay. Although beyond the control of the City, it is recommended that: 1. Coconut Grove Elementary should be maintained in its present location as a convenient and vital force within the local community. Renovations will be necessary but should not require totally new construction. 2. The combination of Carver Elementary with Francis Tucker Elementary is a positive move to eliminate unnecessary duplication of facilities and would be particularly fruitful if the Carver School could then serve needed special education or pre-school programs. 3. Carver Junior High School is a highly valued part of the community as evidenced by the extremely active, effective and well supported PTA that exists in a school that has only one grade and thus a complete turnover of students every year. Its long term operation on its present site is supported by the residents and should be retained. -48- UIRDUEITAL IOITROL$ (Vitt NMENTAL CONTROLS major concern of this study has been the identification of the physical features at comprise the special environmental character of Coconut Grove, and the !eservation and enhancement of such features. Protection of the natural land - :ape as opposed to building scale (height) or development intensity (floor area ttio) cannot be effectively achieved with traditional zoning districts and ordinances. Estead, a new ordinance termed "An Environmental Preservation Ordinance," has !en designed and is proposed as a response to a recognized need for environmental. )ntrols. It is the specific intent of this ordinance: ▪ To preserve and protect trees and other significant environmental features within the City of Miami. • To require the design and construction of all development activity he executed in manner consistent with the preservation of trees and other significant environmental features to the greatest extent possible. To provide guidelines and review procedures for controlling development activity which may alter. destroy or be detrimental to existing trees. significant environmental features and scenic areas. To provide the framework and legal mechanism for publicly identi fyi ng and preserving environmentally significant areas or sites. 'urthermore, the specific application of this proposed ordinance will be to: All vacant and undeveloped property. Alt property to be redeveloped. • All property where there is to be any addition or alteration. All rights -of -way public or private. The street yard areas of all properties developed with single-family and two-family dwellings. and the yard areas of all other developed property. Special features of the ordinance include: 1. establishment of a five member board of review comprised of design professionals and environmentalists which shall review and grant or deny permits for tree removal and certificates of approval for development activity in established Environmental Preservation Districts. Z. establishment of an administrative assistant to the Review Board who shall schedule meetings and provide notification to the public of such meetings, and be responsible for administering ordinance provisions for the protection of trees in all areas of the City except Environmental Preservation Districts. 3. the creation of Environmental Preservation Districts which identify specific sites on an official register as possessing unique natural and/or man-made environmental features worthy of strict preserva- tion efforts. 4. specific criteria for removal, relocation and protection of trees throughout the City. 5. the creation of scenic transportation corridors to protect the scenic character of unique roadways such as Main Highway. The following map, Proposed Environmental Preservation Districts shows those properties within Coconut Grove that should be considered for designation as Environmental Preservation Districts upon adoption of the ordinance. Possessed of a great concentration and variety of historic strt ctures and sites, Coconut Grove has nonetheless suffered important losses of it ; irreplaceable historic heritage. The reponse to this problem recommended by this study is the creation of a Historic Preservation Ordinance. Major provisions of the ordinance are: 1. Creation of a Citizens Historic Preservation Advisory Committee comprised of 10 members who would offer technical assistance to the Miami Zoning Board who would make rulings on preservation hearings. 2. Establishment of a register of historic sites that would then come under the terms and provisions of the ordinance. 3. Creation of Design Review Standards for compatibility of alterations and additions to historic landmarks. -50- A MEM g40D8 IIOd T101-fil AIOIN 7 64.100 r n1 ]'MJI 1� C J ]I 11- J J t J 1 ��.✓lu,C�-Jd1-11-i I] jai?) ( 1 tiinrnwrn Mara 1-Enhl ( I 1 D� D I lQ =� ;oil 'N 1 1 as 40* 4 vJ • 1 • JJ— �a C4-I nf�i ii��`�.✓/ • 4 440 NOTOO Ali S p1$TRICT — SCENIC CORRIDOR n 0 N T tor • ffft 1? Witiffffi 4. Classification of historic structures and sites according to their significance to the cultural and historic heritage of the community. 5. Based upon classification, the ordinance would prevent unnecessary demolition of structures by requiring a 60 to 180 day waiting period during which efforts can be made to acquire or move the structure to a suitable site. 6. For sites of archeological significance, a mandatory period of up to 90 days would be provided for the archeological excavation of the site to recover historic objects and artifacts, before new construction could occur. The following Coconut Grove sites and/or structures are recommended for consideration as officially registered historic places, and are shown on the accompanying map, Historic Places: A. Pan American Terminal Building - 1928 B. Ransom School - 1902 C. Plymouth Congregational Church - 1917 D. Trapp Residence - 1898 E. El Jardin (Carrolton School) - 1918 F. Albert Peacock Residence - 1899 G. Tea Chest - 1925 H. Coconut Grove Housekeepers Club - 1921 I. Kampong (Fairchild Estate) - 1928 J. Doctor Simmons Office - 1872 K. First Public School Building - 1897 L. Kirk Munroe Estate (Semple Home) - 1920 M. DeHedouville Residence - 1891 N. Gilford Residence - c. 1915 O. Day House - c. 1900 P. Coconut Grove Bank Building - 1923 O. Stirrup House - 1898 R. Charles Street Historic District - 1890-1910 S. First Telephone Exchange - 1917 T. Sunshine Real Estate Office - 1910 U. Gifford House - c. 1920 V. Haden Residence - 1897 W. Greenwood House - 1896 X. Wagner Residence - 1895 y. Biscayne Bay Yacht Club - c. 1910 Z. DeGarino Residence - 1912 -5 1 - .40111 A MEE RIM B5 MMYR 110\TIR 7 0.4•0410 Mel A,D 1 5 e _�G}JLJC aL 1.-------1-' —A ----- .,".„,"2,-------=-, it 1_ _ _3 . IJ "utJUL tn�L �m. JflfE a, L77LL- _ t �LJ .._,� ��---��.—. � i 1,4J - _ IF 1!__- I ix - s { i — V✓' ram;, , . • s 4 • Ell HISTORIC SITE HISTORIC DISTRICT tar kw grft 81IMNNW MOM ,r brVELIOPMCNT IIROGRAM fio ae ewt'the ilAwnivig proposals made within -this rnentatob ptograi4n is tetommai ded after ado ition PRIOIVer'r tiV.<701AME1V13AflON and "l yrl5tto : 1.)n t I. Apply tone to Village Center 2. Atio"pt 3. Adt pt A l l'other finning changes 4. Applys?cisl Overlay District., 'a11n r; n toning change s 5. Design new institutional use zone and apply to Mercy Hospital and LaSalle School area Circulation System Improvements 1. Hold community meeting and prepare detailed designs for Douglas R c,ad Improvement: make improvements frorn Franklin to Dixie Highway and redesign Grand Avenue planters and provide additional street trees along Grand. 2. Prepare detailed designs for Main Highway Beautification from Franklin to McFarlane Road and rnake improve- ments. 3. Make local street improvements including: Charles and Franklin Avenue Ialissee Street Alatka Street Mundy Street Carter Street Plaza Str ee t Virginia Street Kirk Street • Frow Avenue - Florida Avenue Brooker Avenue study, the following imple- cf the plan: FUNDING Establish street and sidewaft improvement district and asses (75% municipal and 25% property owner) for total project cost. Establish street and sidewalk improvement district and assess (75% municipal and 25 '0 property owner) for total project cost. IORITY OF RECOMMENDATION FUNDING Improve Poinciana Street, after license plate check to determine origin of through traffic. Revise circulation of traffic at Main - McFarlane -Grand intersection, after Main Highway beautification. Prepare design drawings for Village Center Street improvements and provide roadway improvements on McFarlane Road, Grand Avenue and Virginia Street and landscaping, after confirmation of circulation validity. Prepare final drawings and make improve- ments to 27th Avenue from Dixie to Bay - shore Drive and Bird Road from Mary Street to 27th Avenue, following Village Center improvements. Acquire property and develop parking garage for the Village Center, following Village Center improvements. Make major intersection improvements, following local street system improve- ments at: -- 17th Avenue and Bayshore 17th Avenue and Dixie Bird R oad and Dixie Main Highway and Douglas LeJeune and Ingraham -- Douglas and Ingraham destrian System Improvements Establish street and sidewalk improvement district and assess (25% property owner and 75% municipal payment) for costs. City highway improvement funds. Establish street and sidewalk improvement district and assess (25% property owner and 75% municipal payment) for costs. Off-street Parking Authority bonds plus special assessment district plus tease of retail floor space in structure. Dade County improvement funds. Municipal highway improvement funds. Construct pedestrian overpass on Dixie County and State road improve - Highway and Ponce. -53- ment funds. PRIORITY OF RECOMMENDATION 2, Install pedestrian activated cros 3wa1k signals at: Grand and Hibiscus Battersea and Ingraham .Aviation and Bayshore Main Highway and Poinciana 3. Install pedestrian walkways on Bird Road, McDonald. 4. Install pedestrian activated crosswalk signals at Douglas and Day Avenue, following development of Social Service Center. 5. Install crosswalk signals at Grand Avenue at Jefferson, following Grand Avenue improvement. 6. Install crosswalk signals at Bayshore Drive and 22nd Avenue, after Dinner Key North Park is completed with facilities. Construct pedestrian walkways on Virginia Street and Day Avenue, after completion of Village Center Beautification and roadway improve- ments. Construct pedestrian walkway on 22nd Avenue after completion of North Park Dinner Key facilities. Bikeway Improvements 1. Construct bike path on Bayshore Drive from McFarlane Road to Wainwright Park. 2. Construct bike lanes on Tigertail. 17th Avenue, Bird Road, and Aviation. FUNDING County road improvement funds. Sidewalk assessment (75% City - 25% property owner) or general revenues. County road improvement funds. County road improvement funds. County road improvement funds. Sidewalk assessment or general revenue funds. Sidewalk assessment. Parks for People Bond Issue. Street improvement funds. -54- PRIORITY OF RECOMMENDATION 3. Construct interim bike lanes on 27th Avenue until 27th Avenue improvement can be initiated and on Grand Avenue from Dixie to Douglas until Grand Avenue widening is made. 4. Construct bike path improvement of existing Main Highway path. 55. Construct bike path on FEC corridor. Park System Improvements 1. Develop incinerator park, and 22nd Avenue park site. 2. Improve Blanche, Steele, Munroe parks. Acquire street -side park at inter- section of Douglas and Grand Avenue. 4. Acquire site for Historic Park adjacent to'"Barnacle. " 5. Acquire site adjacent to Wainwright Park. Develop natural history displays for area parks following full development of existing parks. FUNDING Street improvement funds. Street improvement funds. Street improvement funds. Parks for People Bond issue for 22nd Avenue park site. Parks for People Bond issue. State acquisition - Land and Water Conservation Fund. National Endowment for the Arts. Federal grant - Dept. of Interior - and joint effort by schools and Museum of Science with City. -55- 61 -0 AIPENDIX CICLE XIV- 1 - SPECIAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL - C-ZA DISTRICT tion 1. - INTENT It is the purpose of the Special Community Commercial District to promote the development of commercial areas which have a unique mixture of land uses and special design character. This district is intended to strengthen and promote the special use and scale interrelationships between retail commercial land uses and pedestrian activity; to maintain continuity of prime retail, service, and related use frontage; to encourage innovative site planning and architectural design; to encourage those activities which generate an active pedestrian street life; and to create opportunities for combining residential and commercial uses. :lion 2. - USE REGULATIONS No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part for other than one or more of the following specified uses in accordance with limitations here- inafter specified. (1) Any use permitted in the R-4 district subject to the Minimum Floor Area and Useable Open Space Regulations specified in said district. (2) Antiques. (3) Art Galleries, Museums and Libraries. (4) Art, Music and Dance Studios. (5) Art Supplies. (6) Bakery Goods Shop. (7) Banks and Finance Offices. (8) Bicycle Sales and Rapairs. (9) Boat Accessories. (10) Book and Stationary Store open to the general public. (11) Chess, Pool and Billiard Halls. (12) China and Crockery. -1- (13) Confectionery or Ice Cream Store. (14) Clothing. (15) Custom Dressmaking. Millinery or Drapery Store, provided that no products are prepared for the purpose of supplying other businesses located elsewhere. (16) Dry Cleaning Agencies or Pressing Establishments. (17) Drug Stores. (18) Employment Office. (19) Film Exchange and Photographic Supplies. (20) Florists. (21) Fruit and Vegetable. (22) Gifts. (23) Grocery. (24) Hardware. (25) Health Studios. (26) Hobby. (27) Home Appliance. (28) Interior Decorating. (29) Jewelry and Watch Sales, Repair and Service. (30) Laundry Agencies. (31) Letter Service and Mimeographing. (32) Leather Goods - Sales and Incidental Assembly and Repair. (33) Liquor Package. (34) Locksmith. (35) Medical or Dental Laboratory. (36) Medical or Dental Offices and Clinics. (37) Meat Market or Delicatessen. -2- (38) Music. (39) Newsstand or Sundry. (40) Office SupNiee. (41) Offices - Professional or Business. (42) Optical Stores. (43) Personal Service Shops such as Barber Shops, Beauty Parlors, and Shoe Polishing Stands. (44) Pet Shops. (45) Photographers. (46) Real Estate. (47) Religious Associations. (48) Restaurants, Tea Rooms or Cafes (including outdoor cafes and dining areas). (49) Shoe Repair Shop. (50) Sporting Goods. (51) Tailor Shope. (52) Telegraph Office. (53) Theatrical Studios. (54) Ticket Agency. (55) Variety. (56) Sale and incidental servicing of Radio, Television, Phonograph, and Home Appliances, provided that: (a) All servicing shall be confined to the rear one-half of the premises. (b) The area of the building devoted to service activity shall be effectively screened from the front portion of a building so as to not be viewed from any portion of the area of the building devoted to sales or display. -3- (57) The following USES if approved as a CONDITIONAL USE: (a) Theaters. (b) Charitable sale of second hand or used merchandise by no.z-profit organizations. (c) Coin operated Laundries - provided that: 1. Self-service laundry machines shall not exceed, for all washing units combined, a total rated capacity of 500 pounds and provided further that no machine shall exceed a rated capacity of twenty-five (25) pounds. 2. Self-service dry cleaning machines shall not exceed, for all dry cleaning units combined, a total capacity of forty (40) pounds, and pro- vided further that no machine shall exceed rated capacity of ten (10) pounds and shall be classified as a Class IV system, as defined by Florida Fire Prevention Code, 1958, Section 80, 3d. (d) Dry Cleaning Establishments: (e) 1. Any dry cleaning establishment shall not use more than one (1) clothes cleaning unit and which shall have a rated capacity of not more than thirty-five (35) pounds. 2. Alt dry cleaning and related activities shall be solely for the retail trade of the subject premises. 3. All vents and exhaust outlets that are used for removing fumes and/or heat from cleaners, washers or dryers shall be confined either to the roof area of a building or the portion of an exterior wall area that is 8 feet or more above grade, and all such outlets shall be constructed so as to discharge in a vertical direction. Gasoline stations limited to the following activities: Dispensing of gasoline and motor oil, incidental auto- motive services such as washing, cleaning, polishing, battery changing, lubrication, brake adjt stment, and transmission adjustment, minor automotive repair work such as tires, brake, ignition and cooling systems, and accessory parts, incidental replacement of automotive -4- (f) items such as tires, batteries, windshield wipers, and minor engine parts, and incidental sales of automotive accessories and ornamental parts such as mirrors, floor teats, polishes, solvents and other related fluids and oils. Gasoline station activities in district shall not include: major automotive repair activities such as engine and transmission overhauling and rebuildings, paint and body work, major parts replacement, automobile, truck and trailer rentals, new and used vehicle sales and commercial vehicle storage. Mortuary, Undertaker or Embalming Establishments and Funeral Homes. (g) Plant and Shrubs Sales. (h) Lodges, Fraternity or Sorority Houses not used for profit. (i) Bars, Taverns, Saloons or Private Clubs. (58) Accessory Uses and Structures. (59) Other Uses: Other uses or enterprises similar to the above which, in the judgment of the Director of the Building Department are con- sistent with the intent of the District and are not more objectionable to the general welfare than the uses fisted. "Other Uses" so determined shall be regarded as "Listed Uses. In no instance, however, shall the Zoning Inspector determine. nor the regulations be so interpreted, that a use shall be permitted in a district when such use is specifically listed as first permissible in a less restrictive district. -ction 3. - LIMITATIONS ON USES (1) All activities including retail sales, displays, food preparation areas, and storage shall be conducted entirety within a completely enclosed building with the exception of the foll,ming uses: (a) Automobile parking lots. (b) Arta and crafts exhibits including demonstrations and performances. (c) Restaurant dining areas with table service. (d) Sale of flowers. (e) Sale of objectsof art, handicrafts but not mass produced itrr�n. I'i11111 1iglili .5- (2) All products shall be sold at retail on the premises. (3) No second hand or used merchandise shalt be offered for sale, displayed or stored, except in antique shops c.r by charitable organizations as specifically listed in Section 2 of this Article. Section 4. - PEDESTRIAN STR EET (1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this district, where a lot with frontage on a street is listed in paragraph (2) of this section, development of that lot shall provide: (a) At least 70% of such frontage shall be allocated for ground level occupancy by uses listed in Section (2) of this district. excluding parking, offices for business or professional use, and residential uses. The remainder of such frontage may be devoted to business or professional offices or residential uses. to building entrances, lobbies, through block connec- tions or other pedestrian spaces, or to escalators or stairs providing public access to other levels, or to access drives to parking facilities. If two or more sides of any property are designated as a "pedestrian street," such as a corner lot, the provisions of this paragraph shall apply only to that side which may be termed the front. (b) A minimum building setback of 10 feet and a maximum setback of 20 feet. .A building wall may encroach upon the 10 foot setback area, if a space equal to that displaced by such encroachment is provided as a courtyard, plaza or other such ground level public open space, accessible to the general public during normal business hours. Up to 50%u of the public open space as provided by required setbacks, may be utilized for outdoor dining, flower and handicraft and art displays and sales as provided for in Section (3), paragraph (1) of this district. (2) The provisions of this section apply to all lots with the following street frontages: (a) Frontage on both sides of Grand Avenue from Douglas Road to Plaza Street, and from Margaret Street to Rice Street. (b) Frontage on the northwest side of Main Highway from Franklin Avenue to Grand Avenue, and on the southeast side from Fuller Street to Grand Avenue. -6- (s) N'o required setback area shall be used for parking. (b) The, 14etbeek area shall be landscaped with a minirrntin of one shade ttee for every 30 feet of yard frontage or portion thereof, or every 600 square feet of yard area, whichever requires the greatest number of trees. (c) Section 7. - HEIGHT Within the required setback area, appropriate street furniture including benches, waste receptacles, planters or fountains should be provided. (1) There shall be an absolute height limit of forty-five (45) feet of four (4) stories, whichever is less. Section 8. - FLOOR AREA RATIO (1) The floor area ratio shall not exceed 1.0. Section 9. - PARKING (1) On -site parking requirements shalt be in accordance with the requirements of ARTICLE XXIII of this Ordinance, except for following provisions: (a) All of the required on -site parking for permitted uses (except residential) may be leased or provided off -site within 600 feet of the premises they are intended to serve, so long as the remote parking site does not violate the terms and provisions of this District. (b) All of the required on -site parking for residential user; must be provided on the premises they are intended to serve. (c) A minimum of one bicycle parking space for each vehicular space required by ARTICLE XXIII of this Ordinance lup to 10 spaces) shall be provided on -site with secure storage apparatus to which a bicycle may be locked. Section 10. - SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL (1) Any development permitted by this district shall be require d to have the site and development plan reviewed by the Planning Depart- ment before a building permit is issued by the Building Department according to ARTICLE IV, Section 42. The purpose of development plan review is to assure that development is in accord with the intent of the district. -8- Page 20 • Planning Study Modifications as ,Discussed With Planning Advisory,, Committee Plan proposal of A-3A revised to R-3 to accomodate HUD elderly project. ' Page 21 #12 - Plan proposal of R-3A be changed to R.-CC. Satre intensity .but allows business and professional offices as well as residences. Page 21 #13 - Plan recommendation remain R-3 but with Planned area development opportunities to permit up to FAR of 0.9. and height of 48' or 4 stories. . Page 22 - #14 - Plah proposal. of R-4 changed to R-3 but with Planned area. - development opportunities to permit up to an FAR of 1. 0, 'a height of up to 90 feet or 8 stories, and a density limit not to exceed 500 units and based on the traffic .isepod on Bayshore and surrounding community. Map following Page 24 - Village Center Shopping District Page 23-#16- . Page 30 #12 - Page 33 - # 1 Amend pedestrian street designation to include north side of Grand Avenue from Virginia Street to Mary Street. Add to C-2A District area the rear half of lots adjacent to Elementary -School)presentiy zoned R-2. Modify C-2A District to accomodate boizus incentive provisions to encourage multiple use development, additional pedestrian oriented plazas and outdoor retail activities, underground parking, and performing ayte facilities,with a maximum FAR of 1. 75. No change in height limit of 4 floors. Amend recommendations for the design of the Main -McFarland �r''and Grand iitersection to include•an alternative design that would: _. - Provide for 2 way traffic on all streets in Village Center. - Retain all advantages of one-way street system including wider walkways, exclusive pedestrian signal phase; bike land and McFarlane Road improvements, and landscaping. Poinciana Street traffic diversion should be located at Brailanza Street rather than Plaza to more effectively control conflicting through traffic. Page 36 - # 3- 6 Lane limitations on 27th Avenue should be two moving lanes until at such future date it can be established that 4 lanes would be essential to move traffic. Page 38 Atnend list of streets to be considered for reductions in zoned right of way to include: Page 40 - #3 Page 40 - #8 Page 40 Page 51 - Center Street • - Mary Street from Oak to-W. Trade - Virginia Street from Oak to Coconut Aveneue - Matilda Street - Allamanda Street - Gifford Lane - Florida' Ayenire from Brooker to Douglas and from McDonald to Matilda - Day Avenue from Virginia to 27th Avenue - Shipping from Virginia to 27th Avenue - Bird Road from Dixie to Mary Street - W. Trade from Virginia to 27th Avenue - Catalina Street - Louise Street - Oak from Brooker to Douglas Road - Percival from Brooker to Douglas Road • Delete recommendation for sidewalks on Virginia Street. Sidewalk should be on west side instead of east side. • Recommend additional consideration for pedestrian overpass over Dixie Highway near Alatka Street. Addition of Villa Sevena to list of historic structures. t' .. • "r E f e -------- t1 ♦ ♦ ` ♦• ♦ ♦ \ b ;3'ii w N t644 / main - mcfarlane - grand • / ♦ \. ♦ \ ♦ • \ • ♦ \ \ \ • • \ \ \ \ / \ \ \ \ \ \ • \ ♦ \ \ \\ \♦ \ \ \ \ / • e proposed intersection design • • • • • ♦ • \ Y