The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem #20 - PresentationDOWNTOWN I MI 1973 165 "OCUMENT INDEX 35 1TL.ki NO. deg; AN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING PLAN ore-4-'4•rft,e:4 1 r- HAINES LUNDBERG CO WAEHLER ERRATUM November 15, 1973 On the Proposed Zoning Map (page 39 of the report and page 3 of Appendix A) District designations should be changed as follows: C-3 shown in the District which includes portions of East and West Flagler Street should be C-3A. C-3A shown in the area south of S. E. 1st Street should be C-3. y Alat alb DOWNTOWN MIAMI 1973 1985 AN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING PLAN prepared for: THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA prepared by: WALLACE MCHARG ROBERTS & TODD Architects, Landscape Architects Urban and Ecological Planners Zoning: Haines Lundberg & Waehler Economics: Gladstone Associates ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Assistance in data gathering, planning analysis, and valuable local review and criticism was provided by: THE CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mr. George J. Acton, Jr., Director THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Mr. Lucius. Williams, Executive Director Review of the project was provided by: THE DOWNTOWN MIAMI ZONING STUDY ADVISORY BOARD Mr. George J. Acton, Jr., Chairman This Report was prepared by: WALLACE MCHARG ROBERTS & TODD 1737 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Partner -in -Charge: David A. Wallace Associate Partner -in -Charge: Richard W. Huffman Project Director: Richard Dagenhart ZONING CONSULTANTS Haines, Lundberg & Waehler 2 Park Avenue New York, New York 10016 Director of Regional and County Planning: Jack Smith Project Assistance: Millard Humstone ECONOMICS CONSULTANTS Gladstone Associates 2030 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Vice President: Christopher Weeks Report graphics were prepared by William Robinson and Jane Laughlin. Composition of Final Report by Margaret Dewey TABLE OF CONTENTS aft 4110 tolk .011 1 1.0 Introduction 2 2.0 Urban Development Plan 2 2.1 Urban Design Framework 3 2.2 The Land Use Element 10 2.3 Transportation and Parking Element 13 2.4 Development Intensity 14 2.5 The Downtown Environment and Pedestrian Circulation Element 19 2.6 Subarea Recommendations 24 3.0 Implementation Program 24 3.1 Introduction 26 3.2 Implementation Strategy 29 3.3 Phase I: Implementation Program 38 3.4 New and Revised Zoning Districts, Regulations and Zoning Maps 48 4.0 Regional Context 48 4.1 Definition of the Miami Region and the Study Area 48 4.2 Character of the Region and Downtown 50 4.3 Regional Developments Affecting Downtown 54 5.0 Downtown Miami 1973 54 5.1 Functional Areas and Linkages 55 5.2 Residential Sub -Areas 58 5.3 Context Area 58 5.4 Employment and Space Use 62 5.5 Existing Conditions Downtown 63 5.6 Existing Zoning 65 6.0 65 6.1 65 6.2 66 6.3 70 7.0 70 7.1 70 7.2 75 7.3 78 8.0 78 8.1 78 8.2 80 8.3 Future of Downtown Goals for Downtown Factors Influencing Downtown Employment Downtown Space Forecast 1973-1985 Basis for Change The Process of Change and Method of Analysis Non -Residential Susceptibility to Change Probability of New Downtown Projects Probability Growth Model Definition Constraints on Development Development Opportunity Areas 83 Footnotes Appendix A: Zoning Ordinance Appendix B: Technical Supplement • ( Li C I W r , ' .1- atjjakL, il,■ul■ iI■1ni 14 I_ I r i _ 11,11 li it ili'� ■:1 Iii -1F�C: .1"-I ■1l i, i 11 �1 37J1•a11 E cnitill III I. (� „ ''!,'nl mirm ....4.11 _:1A,,,, J.; Lt.:0,s, ‘ICI....111: 1, i grit. M- WI — 111J Il■ •I-iI LI '1 ■ 'III •.-+ "EII _ 11�' IL _J I: B ...1• '.'.lul 4. 17- ( ■a NCp• • 7 r i:1'1'P'.! 1 o1� r 1 L•--,:Pi; jinni J ,1.11 ,p,,i1111Ai �:.i I IIIni 0"L'IL''14;1 �'�:� ■L.* �. . -._ 11 4 j rIu �a d flu —• .� 1 t>' a i. i • Is ilk___ _ n - '10E1 ■ 1" LIM i • r I A 1°149 I EXISTING BUILDINGS ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 Downtown Miami is changing rapidly. Over one million square feet of new office space has recently been completed; Brickell Avenue, south of Downtown, is emerging as a strong commercial and residential concentration; and Plaza Venetia, a major retail development, is now underway in the Midtown Core. In addition to commercial develop- ment, Central Miami is growing as an institutional center with the Miami -Dade Community College, the new YWCA Building, the planned Government Center and recently proposed convention facilities. - If Downtown continues to grow at the current pace, employment in 1985 could be double that of 1970. Over five million square feet of new office space and as many as 7000 new dwelling units are forecast for Downtown by 1985. Public projecs such as the Miami River Walk will soon be underway and funds have been approved for the Regional Mas Rapid Transit Program. These actions provide a potential for Downtown Miami to become an attractive and vital city center; a center providing broad opportunities for work, living and leisure for all the citizens of the region. However, for this potential to become a reality, public projects are required to stimulate private development, and, in turn, private development must contribute to a better Downtown environment. This private con- tribution includes new developments interfacing with street capacity, parking locations and mass rapid transit stations, as well as an improved ped- estrian environment. In June of 1967 a Master Plan for Downtown Miami was prepared for the Downtown Developm Authority as a guideline for future development. Six years later some of these proposals have beco a reality; others have not. Public and private actio which vary from the plan require modifications of the original recommendations to meet the needs o the immediate future, and most important is the need for methods of implementing these develop- ment proposals. With the support of the Downto Development Authority Wallace, McHarg, Robert and Todd was contracted to prepare an Urban Development and Zoning Plan for Downtown Mia The Urban Development Plan, as presented i Section 2, provides detailed recommendations for guiding growth in Downtown to the year 1985. The Implementation Program, described in Secti 3, includes both direct public investment and a z strategy, that is based on concepts of "new zonin The proposed revisions to the City Zoning Ordin and Atlas are included in Appendix A of this rep 2.0 URBAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2.1 URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK Long-range development potentials in the Miami Region are strong, and Downtown can attract a substantial share of that growth. The cumulative effects of public and private investments now underway and planned will make Downtown more attractive and accessible than ever before. But to insure orderly development, the City must subscribe to a coordinated development frame- work. The following urban design principles form the basis of the plan. Develop Amenities and Catalysts Bayfront Park improvements and expansion and the Miami River Walk will dramatically increase the attractiveness of the water edge of Downtown, stimulating and enhancing private development. But internal improvements are also necessary. The Government Center, developed in conjunction with a linear park along the F.E.C. Railroad, will balance new private development occurring along Biscayne Boulevard. A large-scale residential development in the presently underutilized area north of the Com- munity College should be developed as a large in - town, water -related community. In addition, activ- ity streets, streets lined with retail and other active uses with high quality pedestrian improvements, should be developed connecting existing and new development and providing day and evening activities. Join Activity Centers and Areas of Highest Development Potential Downtown is composed of three major activity zones: the Flagler Street Core, Midtown Core and Hotel Row along Biscayne Boulevard. Brickell Ave- nue can be considered another office -retail -residen- tial zone outside the Study Area. The most signifi- cant opportunity areas lie within the corridor along Biscayne Bay and inland along Flagler Street. Rapid transit should connect these areas to reinforce the existing retail core and to provide regional transit connections as close as possible to major employ- ment concentrations. Locate New Development in Relationship to Infrastructure Capacity Infrastructure is the public network of streets, 7 2 transit stops and parking facilities which can be measured in terms of peak hour capacity. To ac- commodate the dramatic growth in the Study Area between 1973 and 1985, location of new develop- ment and parking concentrations should be related to street capacity, and transit stops should be loca- ted near employment concentrations. Connect New Development with a Pedestrian Circulation System With employment increasing almost 50% by 1985, pedestrian improvements are required to improve the environmental quality of Downtown, reduce conflicts between the pedestrian and auto- mobile, and take maximum advantage of direct connections between transit stations and surround- ing employment. Improvements include landscaped streets, arcades, second level walkways and elevated plazas. Develop Amenities and Catalysts 3 22 THE LAND USE ELEMENT Land Use and Activity Distribution The 1985 Development Plan is organized to respond to the two existing commercial centers along Biscayne Boulevard: the Flagler Street Retail and Office Core and the Midtown Core. Flagler Street is reinforced on the west by the new Govern- ment Center and its auxiliary development and on the east by major office growth in Dupont Plaza and north of Flagler Street along Biscayne Boulevard. The Midtown Core remains primarily retail with small increases in office and residential as spin-off development to Plaza Venetia. The linear development corridor extending from Dupont Plaza to Plaza Venetia includes a com- plementary mixture of activities. Included are retail,' office, hotel, residential and entertainment uses to stimulate Downtown activity along the length of Bayfront Park, one of the region's most important Join Activity Centers and Areas of Highest Development Potential amenities. Connected to this corridor is a major in - town residential community, the Miami -Dade Community College and a zone for Downtown serv- ice functions and off-street parking. The southern terminus of this corridor connects to the Miami River Walk and major residential -commercial devel- opment west of the Brickell Avenue Bridge. 1. OFFICE The amount of office space forecast between 1972 and 1985 is the equivalent of one First Federal Building annually for the next 12 years, and most of this space will locate near the existing office core. Office development will occur, if certain im- provements and controls are initiated to prevent negative impacts; and, therefore, new office space is the key to the Downtown Development Plan. Residential, retail and hotel development depend upon sustained office growth. Locate New Development in Relation to Infrastructure Capacity 2. RESIDENTIAL Residential development in Downtown Miami must be related to significant amenities of a quality to compete with other areas in the region. Bayfront Park and Miami River Walk will certainly be attract- ive for adjacent development in the near future. In the long range additional public action will be re- quired. New In -Town Residential Community: The economic forecast indicates that a large-scale, moderate density, mixed income community is a possibility Downtown. The most approp- riate location for such a development would be north of the Community College to 1-395 and east of the F.E.C. Railroad. This area presently contains only a very small residen- tial population, is underutilized, and has enough area for a significantly large development to include retail and other community services. The Illustrative Development Plan indicates a new community of approximately 7000 Connect New Development with a Pedestrian Circulation System 4 MMIIMI Central Commercial UM Commercial/ Residential NM General Commercial tT.:1 Parks and Recreation Industrial I I Public Facilities 181161 Residential (mod. density) 5 ME Residential (high density) 1985 LAND USE vi\ dwelling units with supporting facilities organ- ized around a major park and lake system. Implementation of this proposal would require public -private cooperation with the City pro- viding land assembly assistance, write -downs, or other actions. Although developing this community will be an enormous task, the benefits for Downtown would be significant. A large, socially, racially and economically mixed residential population will increase the attraction of Downtown to the regional popula- tion and, in turn, will stimulate further devel- opment. The community will also give existing NDP-3 residents a wider choice of living en- vironments and allow rehabilitation and selec- tive redevelopment of the NDP-3 Area with no relocation outside of Downtown necessary. Residential Development in the Flagler Street Core: Residential development in the exist- ing office and retail core is desirable and achiev- able. However, due to high land costs only condominiums can be anticipated, since high- rise apartments for sale are the only residential type that can compete with office development. In addition, to attract residents to the Core, the Downtown environment must be improved dramatically, including public parks, landscap- ing, evening activities and, perhaps most im- portant, resident security. Existing Residential Subareas: New develop- ment in Downtown will provide benefits to the existing population; increasing Downtown employment will provide increased job oppor- tunities. The proposed new community will provide new housing alternatives for existing residents; that is particularly important for the elderly now living in Downtown areas most susceptible to new development. Major new parks will provide expanded recreational opportunities. To complement this new development, the City in cooperation with existing residents, should establish programs for existing neigh- borhoods. In the short range this should in- clude investigations to avoid the negative im- pacts of increased traffic Downtown, street landscaping, and a program to improve public services in the central area. In the long range when Federal housing programs are clarified, rehabilitation and selective redevelopment should occur with the City and existing resi- dents cooperating in an action plan. 3. RETAIL AND ENTERTAINMENT Retail activity in Downtown is not expected to expand significantly; but, with a larger resident population and increasing employment, conditions of current facilities should improve and a moderate increase in space can be expected. The most impor- tant new retail activities are places of entertainment and restaurants of regional importance. These should be energetically encouraged. In addition, the con- tinuous retail activity along Flagler Street should be maintained; all new developments should have active spaces on the ground floor containing retail, per- sonal services, entertainment and restaurants. 4. HOTEL AND MOTEL Hotel development is expected in the form of renovation of existing space, but a modest amount of new space is likely as Downtown develops into an important commercial center. If the environment of Downtown is significantly improved, the new Port of Miami could stimulate Downtown tourism, which would encourage hotel development. The most appropriate location for new hotels and motels is along Biscayne Boulevard within easy walking distance of the retail core and the improved Bay - front Park. Location of New Development Opportunity areas are the probable receptacles for new development. The allocation of the space forecast into these areas, as shown on the Illustrative Plan, represents a probable future for Downtown Miami. Of course, other futures are possible, but the illustrative solution defines a desirable and fea- sible future state which serves as a basis for recom- mended public action and zoning controls. The areas of greatest commercial development potential during the 1973-1985 period will be in the Dupont Plaza Area and the Biscayne-2nd Avenue Corridor. To a lesser extent commercial develop- ment is certain to occur in and adjacent to the Government Center and the Midtown Core. The Biscayne Bayfront and Miami River Subareas have excellent potentials for residential development. 1. DUPONT PLAZA AREA Dupont Plaza is important for Downtown. Development will provide linkages to Brickell Ave- nue on the south and can stimulate development on the currently underutilized parcels along the Miami River. However, transportation improvements as 6 11 fit -LW _.1 L r : JL 7 L_i u�IJAL i[ ri T Lin lu 1 \�1J[III , �Lri[1 it_ JO I D\ Jl-1 r Jai` -7_ iL • �4 J it �` I. �� op L „\„„ L i Jl 4 11 Ltd_ -��_ 1L�; *A . II IP 11141,0 ;: 1 � I 1985 EMPLOYEE DISTRIBUTION • Existing Employees (250) • Under Construction and Committed O Proposed (net new) lilil I I illI DOWNTOWN MIAMI CONCEPT PLAN - SUB AREA ALLOCATION C-3 District Office Retail Motel/Hotel Residential Probability I 1,410,000 sq.ft. 25,000 sq.ft. On -Site Parking 2,795 spaces Biscayne/2nd Ave. Subarea Office 1,230,000 sq.ft. Retail 25,000 sq.ft. Motel/Hotel Residential On -Site Parking Dupont Plaza Subarea Office Retail Motel/Hotel Residential On -Site Parking Midtown Core Subarea Office Retail Merchandise Mart Hotel/Motel Residential On -Site Parking Government Center Subarea Office Government Office Retail On -Site Parking Miami Riverfront Subarea Residential Apartments Retail On -Site Parking Biscayne Bayfront Subarea Residential Apartments Retail On -Site Parking 11000 *Net New includes probability 111 plus 2,795 spaces 153,600 sq.ft. 612,000 sq.ft. 232,800 sq.ft. 240 rooms 200 D.U. 3,910 spaces 125,000 sq.ft. 103 spaces Probability i1 Net New* Total 250,000 sq.ft. 25,000 sq.ft. 500 rooms 200 D.U. 908 spaces 250,000 sq.ft. 25,000 sq.ft. 500 rooms 200 D.U. 908 spaces 851,200 sq.ft. 1,240 spaces 4,330,000 sq.ft. 206,500 sq.ft. 480 rooms 1,960 D.U. 9,763 spaces 2,310,000 sq.ft. 150,500 sq.ft. 240 rooms 1,300 D.U. 2,834 spaces 2,200,000 sq.ft. 56,000 sq.ft. 240 rooms 5,990,000 sq.ft. 256,000 sq.ft. 980 rooms 2,160 D.U. 13,466 spaces 3,540,000 sq.ft. 175,500 sq.ft. 240 rooms 1,300 D.U. 5,629 spaces 2,450,000 sq.ft. 81,000 sq.ft. 740 rooms 200 D.U. 5,000 spaces 5,908 spaces 625,000 sq.ft. 45,500 sq.ft. 1,033 spaces 250,000 sq.ft. 10,500 sq.ft. 207 spaces 700 D.U. 10,000 sq.ft. 800 spaces 778,600 sq.ft. 657,500 sq.ft. 232,800 sq.ft. 240 rooms 200 D.U. 4,943 spaces 375,000 sq.ft. 851,200 sq.ft. 10,500 sq.ft. 1,550 spaces 700 D.U. 10,000 sq.ft. 800 spaces 1,650 D.U. 1,650 D.U. 22,000 sq.ft. 22,000 sq.ft. spaces 1_000 spaces 1,650 spaces 3 650 spaces net remaining space forecast to 1985. described in Section 2.3 are required for any new development to occur. The four vacant blocks in Dupont Plaza plus the area proposed for Miami Center can accommodate almost 2.5 million square feet of new office space, 740 hotel rooms, 1300 dwelling units and as much as 80,000 square feet of retail space. If less office space were developed, additional residential space could be accommodated. 2. BISCAYNE-2ND AVENUE AREA This area is the most attractive for commercial development after Dupont Plaza. Although the front portions of many of the blocks are occupied by developments considered as "givens", almost the entire frontage along NE 2nd Avenue can be avail- able for intense new development. The Miami -Dade Community College, a recommended regional rapid transit station and a new Downtown urban park will RAPID TRANSIT 9 RECOMMENDED REGIONAL RAPID TRANSIT ALIGNMENT PEOPLE MOVER SERVING LINEAR DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR ALONG BAY FRONT PEOPLE MOVER SERVING DOWNTOWN PARKING AND EMPLOYMENT CONCENTRATIONS contribute to increased development potentials and a positive Downtown environment. This area has a capacity for more than 3.5 million square feet of retail space. A significant number of new dwelling units could also be developed. 3. GOVERNMENT CENTER AREA A Downtown Government Center has been proposed for some time, and a recent plan has been completed. This project will enhance Downtown by providing an "internal" catalyst for redeveloping the existing underutilized area. The possibility of a major Government Office Center has already begun to stimulate development along West Flagler Street. 4. MIDTOWN CORE AREA Plaza Venetia is a major new retail develop- ment which is now underway. Over 600,000 square feet of retail space will be developed, complemented by new office and residential space and a merchan- dise mart. This will transform the Midtown Core into a major regional employment concentration and should stimulate moderate amounts of additional office and residential development. 5. MIAMI RIVERFRONT AREA AND BISCAYNE BAYFRONT AREAS These two areas have the highest amenity potential in Downtown and are therefore approp- riate locations for new Downtown residential devel- opment. A total of over 2300 new dwelling units could be accommodated in the areas while vastly improving environmental quality. The Miami River Walk and the Old Port redevelopment into an expansion of Bayfront Park are necessary to stimu- late this development. 2.3 TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING ELEMENT The movement system for Downtown is planned not only to keep pace with development, but also to provide a pleasant, convenient system that anticipates and guides new development. In the short range automobile transportation and parking are the critical issues; in the long range the Location of mass rapid transit stations and internal transit movement become major concerns. It should be emphasized that transportation is critical for Down- town development. Before regional rapid transit is operating, street improvements and a parking pro- gram must be implemented in order to allow a significant amount of new development. Mass Rapid Transit Sustained office growth Downtown is depend- ent upon a high level of mass rapid transit service. Beyond 1980, dependence on the automobile com- parable to 1973 would produce traffic and parking demands far in excess of Downtown's capacity, re- sulting in a reduced attraction rate for office devel- opment. Therefore, mass rapid transit is a major com- ponent of the 1985 Urban Development Plan. The regional mass rapid transit system align- ment and Downtown station locations have not yet been determined, pending final design studies. The following principles are strongly recommended for guiding Downtown system alignment and station locations in future transit studies: 1. Regional rapid transit stations should be located as close as possible to existing and future employment and retail concentrations. 2. Employment concentrations Downtown should be interconnected with some form of mass transit. 3. Employment concentrations Downtown should be linked to new development north and south of the Study Area, particularly along Brickell Avenue. 4. Employment concentrations Downtown should be linked to regional intercept and fringe parking by regional rapid transit or other forms of mass transportation. 5. Transit guideways and stations in Downtown should, where possible, allow integration of future buildings using air rights and direct pedestrian connections from stations to sur- rounding buildings. The recommended regional rapid transit align- ment as shown on the Illustrative Development Plan enters the Study Area from the McArthur Causeway with the first stop at the Transportation Center and the new residential community. It then continues down the east side of NE 2nd Avenue, with air rights development over the guideway, to the second stop between NE 2nd and 3rd Streets, the center of a major new development concentration. The guideway then turns and continues down NE 3rd Avenue along the proposed two block park between Flagler Street and NE 2nd Street. The next stop is on Flagler Street between Miami Avenue and East 1st Avenue, and the station connects directly to 10 'ft • • '44 ' • X 7* • • s • sw 4th WE EXTENSION 1 LLIF 1418. 100.01..iNat BISCAYNE BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS *1- Ili NE...r.AVE EXTENSION . s • . - . •Inf • DUPONT PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS . • SE 3tcl AVE ROW EXPANSION VEHICULAR TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING MAJOR PARKING CONCENTRATIONS 0 VW 11 surrounding department stores and office build- ings. The last stop in Downtown is in the major employment concentration at the planned Govern- ment Center. In addition to the regional system, a people - mover is recommended to parallel the East 2nd and 3rd Avenue regional system. It continues to the north with stops at the Transportation Center and the Midtown Core and extends to the vicinity of the Julia Tuttle Causeway or beyond, preferably terminating at a regional parking intercept. The people -mover also continues to the south with a station at Dupont Plaza, crossing the Brickell Avenue Bridge and serving the Brickell Avenue development corridor. The southern extension would also ter- minate near a regional parking intercept in the vicinity of the Rickenbacker Causeway. An expan- sion of this system to serve areas within Downtown and to connect to fringe parking concentrations should be considered. The people -mover should also serve Downtown off site parking concentrations to the major office developments in Dupont Plaza and the Biscayne- 2nd Avenue Corridor. The recommended alignment turns from the main north -south people -mover at the Dupont Plaza station to the reconstructed SW 4th Street right-of-way. Stops are located near the rec- ommended off site parking concentrations under the 1-95 Expressway ramps. The route then continues north along NW 2nd Avenue serving West Flagler Street and the Government Center offices and park- ing concentrations. Turning east, the people -mover then reconnects with the north -south route and could continue to the New Port on Dodge Island. Vehicular Traffic Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates recommend the following immediate action to improve vehicular circulation Downtown: 1. Strictly enforce on -street parking regulations. 2. Prohibit curb cuts on critical Downtown streets. 3. Continue and expand operation of the staggered work hours program. 4. Widen S.E. 2nd Street. 5. Reconstruct and widen S.E. 4th Street. 6. Extend East 3rd Avenue to N.E. 1st Street. 7. Develop the Transportation Center. 8. Introduce regional intercept parking. 9. Introduce fringe parking. • In addition to these immediate actions, solu- tion to the transportation problems in Dupont Plaza is necessary before any new development can occur on those four blocks. The scheme proposed by Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates2 requires public expenditures to alter the 1-95 Expressway approach, construct approach ramps to parking garages, and improve through traffic movement. Clearly, this cannot be undertaken on a piecemeal basis; and, if development cannot locate in Dupont Plaza be- cause of delayed public action, it will move else- where, not necessarily within Downtown. Longer range vehicular transportation require- ments include widening of Biscayne Boulevard from NE 6th Street to 1-395; extension of NE 3rd Avenue to NE 5th Street to allow increased access to new development; and extension of NW 1st Avenue along the F.E.C. Railroad to serve the increased access requirements in Downtown, particularly the Government Center. Parking With the new development that is forecast for Downtown, parking becomes a critical concern of the Plan. Section 3 of the Appendix describes the current problem of parking and street congestion created by the One Biscayne Tower and the First Federal Building and illustrates the scope of parking and traffic demands in the immediate future. The following Downtown parking guidelines are rec- ommended as part of the Plan: 1. ON -SITE PARKING In the core area of Downtown which is currently zoned C-3, the probable new development will generate a demand for a total of approximately 1250 new spaces per year until the Regional Rapid Transit is in place. Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates have indicated that 1200 spaces per block in the new development opportunity areas is the maximum that can be permitted without exceeding street capacity. Therefore the on -site parking guideline is that for any new office development in the core area a maximum of 30% of total demand should be permitted on site. This translates into a requirement of 1 space per 1000 square feet with a maximum of 1200 spaces per block. Since short-term parking demand will meet or exceed 1200 spaces, the 1 space per 1000 square feet should be a minimum as well. 12 2. OFF -SITE PARKING With the above on -site requirement a demand for 6500 off site spaces will be required by 1985, given the development of the Regional Rapid Transit.(lt is assumed that the current modal split will continue until the Regional Rapid Transit is in operation; see the charts in Section 3 of the Appendix for calculations.) The following Rapid Transit areas are recommended for off -site parking Downtown: Transportation Center Vicinity of the Miami Dade Community, west of NE 2nd Avenue Within or adjacent to the Government Center Under and adjacent to the 1-95 Expressway ramps leading to Dupont Plaza Since some of these sites are beyond walking distance to office sites, a people -mover may be required within Downtown. Immediate consideration should be directed toward developing intercept parking concentrations in the region which will coincide with future Rapid Transit stations near major traffic arteries. In the short range these facilities can be connected to Downtown with express buses. Fringe parking near the Study Area should be implemented to connect with a major people -mover connecting to Downtown from the north and south. 3. PUBLIC MONITORING With 70% of the parking demand to be met off site, the public must institute a monitoring pro- gram to evaluate each new development and to recommend specific locations for garages to properly serve the increasing off -site parking demands. 2.4 DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY The block developed to the greatest intensity in Downtown to date contains One Biscayne Tower and the First Federal Building. The total office F.A.R. of this block is approximately 13.7 with an allowable F.A.R. of 30 under present zoning. No other block in the Study Area approaches this intensity, yet all of the blocks in the C-3 zone currently have an allowable height limit of 300 feet which translates into a maximum permitted F.A.R. of 30. According to Wilbur Smith Associates,3 the opening of these buildings will produce critical traffic problems on the surrounding streets, but the 'A problems can be alleviated without a major mod- ification of the existing street system. However, if another nearby block were developed to the same intensity with a similar parking concentration, the capacity of the street system would be far exceeded, requiring major public expenditures to meet the constraints of street capacity while remaining within economic feasibility. Without an appropriate intensity limit the following things could occur:4 An excessive number of automobiles would be attracted to new accessory parking spaces resulting in extreme congestion of surrounding streets. (A typical block in Downtown developed to an F.A.R. of 24 would generate over 11,000 automobiles.) Pedestrian movements on streets, side- walks and transit system would become unnecessarily overloaded at certain locations. (A typical block in Downtown developed to an F.A.R. of 24 will generate over 16,000 new employees.) Ecological problems of air pollution would become more severe in Down- town since light and air to surrounding streets and buildings would be impaired. The total office space forecast to 1985 could be developed on two and one-half typical Downtown blocks, resulting in massive congestion and ecological problems on the one hand, and disruption of the potential of Downtown to be revitalized on the other. (At present there are 160 acres zoned C-3 in the Study Area; this would permit a total of 190 million square feet of new develop- ment, over 38 times the total office space projected for Downtown to 1985.) Of particular importance to the future of Downtown are the four vacant blocks of Dupont Plaza. Conflicts between through and local traffic and congestion now prohibit development; but, given a solution to the traffic problems, this area will be the most attractive for development in the entire region. Indeed, it is a key for achieving the goals of the plan since development coordinated 13 with traffic improvements would increase the accessibility of the entire Study Area and would provide a major new development thrust Down- town. However, if these blocks were developed to the full intensity permitted by current zoning (F.A.R. 30) as many as 36,000 employees and 3,600 visitors would be attracted on an average working day. The resultant parking demand would be approximately 25,000 spaces, based on the 1972 journey -to -work modal split. Beiswenger- Hoch and Associates state that even with the proposed major traffic improvements the capacity of the new system restricts the four block area to a maximum of 5000 parking spaces. This is clearly a limiting factor for development intensity. Depending on the location of the nearest transit station the demand for parking could be reduced. The present modal split of 82% auto- mobile could possibly be reduced to a very optim- istic 50%, if a people -mover or rapid transit sta- tion were located on one of the four blocks, and if fringe, peripheral and intercept parking were established. For the Dupont Plaza area a minimum of 50% of parking demand must be provided on - site, since the surrounding area has limited street capacity. There are limited opportunity parcels for adjacent parking developments, and the available parcels for parking must also serve existing and future nearby office concentrations. Since Dupont Plaza is at least as favorably situated for intensive office development as any other part of Downtown and land costs are at least as high as any other block, it is evident that no higher F.A.R, should be permitted anywhere in Miami. Recommendations for maximum per- mitted development intensity in the C-3 zone are as follows: (Please refer to Section 4 of the Appendix.) Non -Residential and Hotel Buildings (maximum permitted F.A.R.) 8 Residential Buildings (maximum permitted F.A.R.) 4 Total Building (Incl. resi. & non-resi.) (maximum permitted F.A.R.) 10 If residential and public improvements, sub- ject to bonus provisions, are developed, maximum non-residential F.A.R. could be increased to 11 and the total to F.A.R. 15. If located near a regional rapid transit station, the non-residential F.A.R. could be increased to F.A.R. 13 and the total to F.A.R. 17. In addition the area presently zoned C-3, bounded by North 2nd Street, mid -block west of North 2nd Avenue, North 6th Street, North Miami Avenue, North 5th Street and the F.E.C. Railroad should be restricted to a maximum F.A.R. of 6. This area does not have significant development po- tential for high intensity uses, yet it is a very signif- icant area for location of Downtown services which depend upon proximity to the CBD. This area should be encouraged to remain as a services' district. Outside the C-3 zone intensity regulations should remain as presently required by the Zoning Ordinance, but certain areas, in particular along the Miami River and along Biscayne Boulevard from N.E. 6th Street to 1-395, should be designated as bonus areas. 2.5 THE DOWNTOWN ENVIRONMENT AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT An improved Downtown environment will stimulate growth and attract development. Sub- stantial improvements are required Downtown to compete for development with the lush beauty of many other areas of the region, Miami's sub- tropical climate requires outdoor protection from the intense summer heat but, at the same time, stimulates vegetative growth to provide this pro- tection and to produce an attractive environment. Miami is an automobile -oriented region with few areas for pedestrians to walk, relax and participate in urban activities without being threatened by the automobile. Downtown can become the urban ped- estrian center of the region. The Development Plan recommends a com- prehensive program for improving the Downtown environment. Public development, controls on pri- vate development, and cooperation between the public and private developers are necessary for implementation. Waterfront Parks and Amenities Biscayne Bay and the Miami River are im- portant amenities for Downtown. When the Bayfront Park improvements and expansion are completed and the Miami River Walk underway, Downtown Miami will have a system of water -related parks and 14 pedestrian ways equal to any other central city in the nation. These planned improvements should be completed as soon as possible. In addition a Bayfront Walk from the McArthur Causeway to Pace Park should be constructed if at all possible; and the City should develop an improvement plan for the entire Miami River, focusing on public access, pedestrian parks and walkways, adjacent activities, appropriate new development, and improvement of water quality. Downtown Urban Parks Major new Downtown urban parks should be constructed to the west of Biscayne Boulevard to improve environmental quality in high density em- ployment and residential areas. Three major public actions are recommended: 1. Develop a new Downtown park along the proposed N.E. 3rd Avenue extension from Flagler Street to N.E. 2nd Street. This will pro- vide open space, a large space for Downtown relaxation, and Tight and air to balance the Pedestrian Street landscaped street with MRT guideway 15 expected intense surrounding development;;`. Additionally, this open space can providea corridor for mass rapid transit or people - mover guideways. 2. Develop a linear park along the F.E.C. road from the river to N.E. 5th Street. This serve as an entrance to the planned Govern Center, provide open space for new employ:` and function as an informal pedestrian conn from Flagler Street to development along th- Miami River. In the long range the existing tracks below 6th Street should be removed, - landscaping should extend north to the NDP community and the proposed new communi 3. In conjunction with the proposed new cc. munity, develop a large-scale open space wit a system of lakes and canals to serve existing and new Downtown residents. Downtown Mini Parks Mini parks should be developed Downtown, Pedestrian Path soft edge at low use are hard edge at high use area ticularly along Flagler Street and N.E. 2nd Avenue, functioning as small-scale places for people to eat lunch, to relax from shopping, or to sit in the shade or sun. These parks should provide enclosure and isolation from street activity, be heavily landscaped with minimum paved surfaces, and be reasonably spaced so as not to disrupt the scale and activity of the street itself. These high quality parks would be the equivalent of other cities' plazas. Mini parks should be random occurrences with a variety of forms and textures and located in the highest inten- sity areas; therefore, it is appropriate that they should be developed in conjunction with new private con- struction with control and design review by the public. Pedestrian Improvements A comprehensive system of pedestrian im- provements should be undertaken Downtown. These include landscaped streets and paths, arcades and elevated pedestrian walkways and plazas. Arcade 1I1111Ut1uhti"ui tluHN111111111111,.... arcade with pedway with MRT guideway 1. Landscaped pedestrian streets are designed to provide a pleasant walking environment throughout Downtown, particularly within re- tail areas and connecting employment con- centrations with shopping streets and public facilities, such as the Miami -Dade Community College. 2. Landscaped pedestrian paths are designed to front directly on major amenities such as Biscayne Bay and the Miami River. Paths should also be developed within large parks, such as the proposed linear parks along the F.E.C. Railroad. 3. Arcades are designed for high volume ped- estrian channels to provide a high quality walk- ing environment with protection from sun and rain. They are lined, where possible, with retail, service, entertainment and public uses. 4. Pedways, or elevated pedestrian paths, are designed for areas with highest pedestrian volumes as well as high traffic volumes. They also serve to connect elevated plazas, secondary entrances to office buildings and department Pedway with arcade with MRT guideway 16 stores, and particularly, rapid transit stations. Pedways also provide public views to the Bay and the new Port of Miami. The City should develop an elevated walkway plan in conjunc- tion with, or immediately after, design decisions are made for rapid transit alignment and sta- tion locations in Downtown. Design Principles In planning and evaluating Downtown environ- mental improvements, the following design principles should be considered: 1. SHADE: Shaded pedestrian areas modify intense summer heat. On north -south avenues maximum solar radiation is from the west. Buildings can be used to shade the west side; vegetation, arcades and perhaps the mass rapid transit guideway should be used to protect Shade for Avenues Shade for Streets Breeze for Streets 17 the east side. On east -west streets maximum solar radiation during the summer is from tt north; vegetation, arcades and canopies shoo' be used to protect pedestrians on the south side. 2. BREEZE: In Miami's humid climate bree: are important for cooling effects and air cleansing. Breeze with shade is even more ef= fective. On north -south avenues with high pedestrian use capture wind by properly loc ting vegetation and positioning and sizing NJ' ings; wide pathways on the east side increase air movement on the street. East -west streets serve as breeze corridors with the streets acti increasing wind velocity; landscaped setback - are appropriate. 3. SURFACES: Extensive paved surfaces should be avoided near pedestrian areas. The pavement reflects heat, grass absorbs. In very high use areas, elevated planting areas charm Breeze for Avenues 6"' Grass for Heat Absorption Raised Grass Area pedestrian movement while reducing mainten- ance costs. 4. AUTO BUFFER: Use planting near the curb to reduce automobile noise and fumes in the pedestrian way. Vegetation and on - street parking can increase the pedestrian's sense of security. 5. VISUAL CONTACT: Pedestrian security during the evening hours is important for stimulating Downtown activity. Visual contact from the street to pedways and elevated plazas, and from buildings to the street and sidewalks, is important in both the Office Core and resi- dential sections. 6. ACTIVITIES: The most effective security device is Downtown activity. Street level and pedways should be lined with active uses in- cluding retail, personal services, entertainment, restaurants, etc. Vegetation for Auto Buffer On -Street Parking for Auto Buffer Visual Contact to Pedways Street Character Light and air are important ingredients for a successful urban pedestrian environment, but equally important is the form and scale of the street itself. Setbacks at the ground level should be controlled to provide continuity to shop fronts and building en- trances. Within the Downtown Core, Midtown Core and along Biscayne Boulevard the existing building line should be preserved. The exception is along NE 2nd Avenue and SE 3rd Avenue where the street right-of-way should be expanded to meet the needs of increased pedestrian movement and,poten- tially,the Rapid Transit guideway. The character of the street, its texture and furnishings are contributors to the pedestrian en- vironment. Mail boxes, newspaper vending machines, telephones, waste baskets and seating are important street furniture. They should be coordinated, perhaps Visual Contact to Streets 1 f Activities Along Pedestrian Areas m 4.10, li :il rr 111 '1 f( 18 with lighting standards, so that they are attractive and convenient. Signs communicate individual activities to the pedestrian and the driver, and, when properly designed, they also provide color and decoration to the street. The City should con- sider developing a sign ordinance that would allow signs to serve their needed functions but encourage positive contributions to the total environment. 2.6 SUBAREA RECOMMENDATIONS New development, which will predominantly locate in the defined opportunity areas, should respond to the particular opportunities and constraints for each area. Detailed recommen- dations for each Downtown subarea are outlined below. These form the basis for the implementa- tion program presented in the next section. Some of the proposals require direct public in- vestment; others, particularly controls for develop- ment intensity and pedestrian improvements, are elements of the zoning plan, presented in the next section, and the Proposed Zoning Ordinance, presented in Section 9. 19 Dupont Plaza Area 1. Encourage development of office, hotel and residential with retail activities on the street levels fronting S.E. 3rd Avenue. 2. Maximum development intensity should be F.A.R. 11 for non-residential buildings, F.A.R. 15 when combined with residential. (F.A.R. 13 and 17 respectively if a mass rapid transit station is located within the Dupont Plaza Area.) 3. Proceed immediately to make transportation improvements recommended by Beiswenger- Hoch and Associates. 4. If possible, develop a mass transit stop within the four block area. 5. S.E. 3rd Avenue should be developed as a landscaped street with arcades on both sides; the right-of-way should also be extended. 6. If a transit stop is developed, pedways should connect directly from the station to the Dupont Plaza Hotel, Miami Center, north to the existing Office Core and to surrounding Dupont Plaza development. 7. The tops of parking garages should be developed into pedestrian plazas, particularly facing Biscayne Bay. 8. All streets around the four block area should be heavily landscaped to screen the large parking garages. N.E. 2nd Avenue —Biscayne Boulevard Area 1. Encourage office, hotel and residential development and particularly encourage en- tertainment and retail uses on the street level on Biscayne Boulevard and N.E. 2nd Avenue. 2. Maximum development intensity should bed F.A.R. 11 for non-residential buildings; F.A.R 15 when combined with residential. (F.A.R. 13 and 17 respectively if a mass rapid transit station is developed in the area.) 3. On -site parking supply should be restricted to no more than 1200 spaces per block. 4. N.E. 3rd Avenue should be extended im- mediately to N.E. 1st Street to allow rerouting` of buses and, in the long range, should be extended to N.E. 5th Street to provide access to future accessory parking. 5. A regional mass rapid transit station should. be developed to serve the Dade County Com- munity College and the anticipated develop- ment concentration in the 2nd Avenue-Biscayr- Boulevard corridor. 6. N.E. 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard should be developed as landscaped streets with arcades; and, in addition, all streets surrounding the community College should be landscaped. 7; The N.E. 2nd Avenue street right-of-way should be extended on the east side to serve intense pedestrian movement and anticipate the Regional Rapid Transit. 8. The building line on Biscayne Boulevard should be preserved. 9. Mini -parks should be constructed in con- junction with private development to provide small scale areas for pedestrians. 10. A two block urban park should be devel- oped along the N.E. 3rd Avenue extension be- f tween Flagler Street and N.E. 2nd Avenue with, landscaped second level plazas overlooking the: Park. 11. Pedways, arcades and air rights develop- ment should be encouraged in conjunction with the rapid transit guideway. These pedes- trian circulation corridors should directly connect to the community college, adjacent development, to Bayfront Park at N.E. 3rd Street and extend north to the proposed new community. 12. Access from Biscayne Boulevard, Flagler Street and N.E. 2nd Avenue to adjacent pro- perty should be strictly controlled. Flagler Street 1. The existing retail function must be pre- served; all new development should be required to develop significant new retail space fronting on Flagler Street. 2. Maximum development intensity should be F.A.R. 11 for non-residential buildings; F.A.R. 15 when combined with residential. (F.A.R. 13 and 17 respectively if a mass rapid transit sta- tion is developed in the area.) 3. If possible a mass rapid transit station should be developed near the major department stores. 4. Arcades should be encouraged with ail new development. 5. Pedways should connect the proposed transit station to nearby department stores and office buildings. Dupont Plaza Area .• • m so • �e3 I A krr4wen , i1N$Pblif krIC44. ROV,EMENTS l , MIAMI RIVER WALK CLAUGHTON ISLAND ARCADE lllllllull PEDWAY TRANSIT `•••••• 6. Mini -parks and elevated plazas should be encouraged for serving Downtown shoppers. 7. Setbacks should not vary from the existing building line in order to preserve the pedestrian - retail character of the street. 8. Access to adjacent property from Flagler Street and Miami Avenue should be pro- hibited. Government Center Area 1. The Government Center Area should con- tain not only government office space but also retail uses on the ground floor facing N.W. 1st Court and Flagler Street. 2. Parking garages should be constructed with the Government Center to serve government employees and visitors and to function as a fringe parking concentration. 3. A regional rapid transit station should be developed as landscaped pedestrian streets with arcades. 4. West Flagler and N.W. 1st Court should be developed as landscaped pedestrian streets N.E. 2nd Avenue•Biscayne Boulevard Area • PARKING _•all/ll COMMUNITY • L,N al PARKING +i • 4, �-�� •• i\ • EGrot4LX APfl RANSIT.S'tV:10!N:-', a te • Z . • -• 41 O , t 20 with arcades. 5. Pedways should be developed on West Flagler Street and N.W. 1st Court to connect new de- velopment directly to the proposed rapid tran- sit stop. 6. A linear park should be developed along the F.E.C. Railroad right-of-way from Flagler Street to N.E. 6th Street. Miami River Area 1. Moderate density residential for sale and rent should be vigorously encouraged. 2. Retail, entertainment, or other active uses should be encouraged in buildings facing the Miami River. 3. The maximum permitted F.A.R. should be 2.4 for non-residential buildings and 5 for residential. 4. The Miami River Walkway should be com- pleted as soon as possible. 5. Frequent public access should be allowed to the Miami Riverfront. 6. Develop a linear park along the F.E.C. Rail- road right-of-way from the Miami River Walk to Flagler Street. Government Center Area rvCOURT *0W = r North Biscayne Boulevard 1. Residential development should be encour- aged in this corridor from N.E. 6th Street to 1-395; and retail, entertainment, and other ac- tive uses should front on Biscayne Boulevard and N.E. 2nd Avenue. Office and hotel developf' - ments would also be appropriate new developments. The potential for a new residential community should be investigated. 2. Maximum permitted F.A.R. should be 2.4 for non-residential and 5 for residential. 3. A regional mass rapid transit stop should be located near the Transportation Center and should connect to the proposed new community. 4. Northeast 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boule- vard should be developed as landscaped streets with arcades. 5. On N.E. 2nd Avenue air rights development, arcades and pedways should be developed in conjunction with the mass transit guideway. The pedways should connect to the proposed new community and to Bayfront Park. 6. A second level pedestrian promenade should be developed along Biscayne Boulevard. 7. Second level plazas should be encouraged to take advantage of the Bay view. Miami River Area f I TII 8. N.E. 8th and N.E. 10th Street should be developed as boulevards from the F.E.C. Railroad to Biscayne Boulevard in conjunc- tion with the proposed new community. 9. The N.E. 2nd Avenue right-of-way should be extended on the east side to serve pedes- trians and anticipate the regional rapid transit. 10. Access to property fronting on Biscayne Boulevard and N.E. 2nd Avenue should be strictly controlled. Midtown Core 1. Office and r€sjdential development should be encouraged along Biscayne Boulevard across from Plaza Venetia. 2. The maximum permitted F.A.R. should be North Biscayne Boulevard 11 • 7.• f3♦ � H 11 • • 5 for non-resi (If uses are co should be 6.) 3. A transit st Biscayne Boul 4. The Trans developed to tion for Dow 5. Biscayne street with re level; arcades development. 6. If possible developed to Park. 7. If the tra should conn ding develop at the Trans Midtown Core 3 North Biscayne Boulevard 1. Residential development should be encour- aged in this corridor from N.E. 6th Street to 1-395; and retail, entertainment, and other ac- tive uses should front on Biscayne Boulevard and N.E. 2nd Avenue. Office and hotel develop- ments would also be appropriate new developments. The potential for a new residential community should be investigated. 2. Maximum permitted F.A.R. should be 2.4 for non-residential and 5 for residential. 3. A regional mass rapid transit stop should be located near the Transportation Center and should connect to the proposed new community. 4. Northeast 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boule- vard should be developed as landscaped streets with arcades. 5. On N.E. 2nd Avenue air rights development, arcades and pedways should be developed in conjunction with the mass transit guideway. The pedways should connect to the proposed new community and to Bayfront Park. 6. A second level pedestrian promenade should be developed along Biscayne Boulevard. 7. Second level plazas should be encouraged to take advantage of the Bay view. Miami River Area 8. N.E. 8th and N.E. loth Street should be developed as boulevards from the F.E.C. Railroad to Biscayne Boulevard in conjunc- tion with the proposed new community. 9. The N.E. 2nd Avenue right-of-way should be extended on the east side to serve pedes- trians and anticipate the regional rapid transit. 10. Access to property Boulevard frontingon d and N.E.N E 2ndAvenue should be Biscayne strictly controlled. Midtown Core 1encoOffuraged anedresidential along Biscaynedevelopment Boulevard across be enco 9 from Plaza Venetia. 2. The maximum permitted F.A.R. should be North Biscayne Boulevard '"vislEytifFIESID�N1AL REtiIONT L f101-15 LT I.O , �(,+P Ot4NI r� t , TRA • • 5 for non-residential or residential buildings. (If uses are combined, maximum F.A.R. should be 6.) 3. A transit stop should be provided across Biscayne Boulevard from Plaza Venetia. 4. The Transportation Center should be developed to serve as a fringe parking loca- tion for Downtown employees. 5. Biscayne Boulevard should be a landscaped streetl; with retail space developed at ground es should be required for new level; eve , le development. 6. If possible a bayfront walk should be developed to link Bayfront Park with Pace Park. pedways 7. If the transit station is developed, p should connect to Plaza Venetia, to surroun- ding development and to the parking garages at the Transportation Center. Midtown Core • IpLAZA VENETIA. .�µJ jam..--r+z. Lid?. 1 it - 11. • i‘, 1 . ' i+ . LJj Li it jt... 1 �',l 1 f `_1f1r: I • • - • BuWrg Wal Along Street lines a�� Development Mullbject to Waterfront Area 1=1Landsceped Street Landscaped Path Along Waterfront • —PubNc Projects Street Extension Street Row Expansion 23 1 i J I tiif= • PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION --District Subject to Retal Requirements(Art xv-,) Arcade —Restricted (Artxxms<4,Vsual Corridor hi10) —121=81stlfcirlal Central JDupont Plaza Improvements ..::Urban Park 3.0 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 3.1 INTRODUC1 This plan an developed within set of assumption 1. After two d in downtown are discovering that marketable than facilities, service such as open spa buildings design and amenities c investment both ability of indivi the economic p Areas. 2. There has and attitudes re planning and e the quality of u is not only con environmental with achieving ment and rede concern there adapting old I 3. Major ne ments plann the Developm development and accessibl opportunity developmen the new, urb meeting the f locations; (2 overload pu relationships transit stops and amenitiq 4. A seriel developed itl stitute bread the quality to obtain oq prove the qp increase in amenities,: S and private imptementi responsive) design as of 111111 I I 11 JASE I WIEMENTATION to natal {rents(Art. xv-t) ass(Art XXII, 10)I I I I —. 'IN .- AIM gdeiCentrat improvements 1 1 I 3.0 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 3.1 INTRODUCTION This plan and implementation program were developed within the framework of the following set of assumptions and facts: 1. After two decades of booming construction in downtown areas, developers and designers are discovering that bare bones buildings are less marketable than those with adequate pedestrian facilities, services, and environmental amenities such as open spaces and landscaped areas. In brief, buildings designed with adequate facilities, services, and amenities constitute enlightened real estate investment both from the point of view of the market- ability of individual buildings and of increasing the economic potential and viability of Downtown Areas. 2. There has been a strong shift in public opinion and attitudes reflecting the increasing concerns with planning and environmental considerations, including the quality of urban development. In urban areas there is not only concern with conserving natural and environmental resources, but also a larger concern with achieving a high quality of new urban develop- ment and redevelopment. As a reflection of this concern there has been a vigorous process of adapting old laws to new values. 3. Major new public investments and improve- ments planned and recommended for the future in the Development Plan should stimulate private development by making Downtown more attractive and accessible than ever before. There is a great opportunity and need to insure that new private developments contribute their share to achieving the new, urban environment of Downtown by meeting the following conditions: (11 proper general o locations; (2) appropriate densities so as not to overload public streets and sidewalks; (3) proper relationships to the open space system and to future transit stops; (4) contain proper facilities, services and amenities. 4. A series of new approaches and tools have been developed in the last three or four years which con- stitute breakthroughs in zoning which can improve the quality of new development. These new thrusts to obtain optimum development can greatly im- prove the quality of new development, achieve the increase in needed public improvements and amenities, and improve the coordination of public and private investments. These innovative types of implementing tools are much more sensitive and responsive to achieving the improved quality of design as well as mandating or encouraging,by means 24 of incentives,public improvements and amenities and other community needs. A brief summary of these new approaches is in order to understand their application to Downtown Miami. They are frequently referred to as zoning or the "new zoning" since zoning is their primary legal and administrative vehicle. However, they have been derived from a variety of approaches and concepts, including planned unit development regulations, urban renewal plans, sub -division regulations, and special assessment districts for public improvements. Another key element in the development of these new approaches has been the evolution and increased sophistication of civic or urban design in the last ten years. At least a dozen major U.S. cities have instituted some form of incentive zoning, with varying degrees of sophistication. Perhaps the most intensive work on innovative zoning devices has been done in New York City, including incentive zoning and the exten- sion of the concept of the "special -Purpose district" or "special design district". Of these special purpose districts, the Special Greenwich Street Development District is perhaps the most advanced to date. A brief description of this district follows. The Special Greenwich Street Development District lies just inland from the Battery Park City project and south of the World Trade Center. The plan and special zoning regulations for this district make a significant advance in the use of zoning as an implementing tool of planning and development. As the Wall Street Financial District expands into this area, the special zoning regulations will require developers to provide their share of the public im- provements as specified in the special district plan. In return, developers will be entitled through bonus rentprovisionings thansto woulldlotherlarger wise bed possible. The plane includes a program of improvements to the network of subway stations serving the larger area, an elevated pedestrian circulation system passing through buildings and over streets and eventually connecting to the Battery Park City pedestrian circulation system, a series of spacious plazas and open-air cafes at intervals along the elevated pedes- trian system, and special provisions to assure ade- quate retail shops, restaurants and other servi ces. of Among the numerous uses of applications the "new zoning" are the following: 1. The new approaches are particularly suited to guiding urban areas undergoing private development or redevelopment are where ot juurban ti justified renewal or other approaches or feasible. Plans developed for such areas can be enacted into legislation to achieve precise planning and design results through zoning, thereby resulting in a better quality of develop- ment. In addition, there can be more flexible approaches where necessary as related either to traditional zoning districts and zoning lines or to such technical elements as parking regulations. 2. Either by itself or in combination with other planning implementation devices, the "new zoning" has the potential for the gradual devel- opment of entire planned systems of circulation, other public facilities and amenities as an area is privately developed or rebuilt. This is particularly important for Downtown Miami with its major public investment in the new rapid transit system, including the need for better pedestrian access to these facilities as new office and residential buildings are constructed. 3. Areas such as the waterfront areas adjacent to Biscayne Bay and the Miami River with special en- vironmental features to be preserved, protected or enhanced can have special environmental design planning and guidelines. 4. Developers can be required and encouraged through incentive zoning to build systems of public and private amenities such as landscape systems or planned systems of small urban spaces or mini -parks. In much the sarne way that in lower density residential districts, single family houses are encouraged to cluster by means of planned unit development regulations (called "residential development of a planned unit nature" in the Miami Ordinance), higher density residential and office buildings can be encouraged to group together, even though in separate ownerships, thereby achieving "mini - parks" by means of combined open spaces and perhaps also saving land to the benefit of both the developer and municipality. 5. In all or key parts of downtown areas, such as Flagler Street shopping area, retail facilities can be required to be replaced as new buildings displace older buildings containing these facilities. One of the most serious problems affecting many downtown areas is the rapid decline in facilities for eating and shopping as private redevelopment occurs while typically greatly increasing the floor space and the size of the visiting and working population needing these facilities. 6. A variety of other facilities and developments ' ig such as a variety of types of pedestrian arcades r 1 or key new activities can be encouraged to be built through incentive zoning. For example, new apartment buildings and new buildings containing mixed residential and office or hotel facilities in Downtown Miami. This is a good way to start the important build-uP of new residential development and population so vital to the long-term future of Downtown Miami. This section of the report contains the imple- mentation program for Downtown Miami including the proposed strategy for implementing the urban development plan followed by an explanation and description of the Phase I Implementation Program including public improvements and the Special District Plan and other innovative zoning approaches to guide private improvements and finally by the explanation of the new and revised system of zoning districts, regulations and zoning maps. The proposed zoning ordinance draft and zoning maps are con- tained in the Appendix. 3.2 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A strategy and program have been evolved for implementing the urban development plan which establishes the relationships and the framework for coordinating, phasing, and partially financing a planned system of public and private consists invof estments and improvements. The strategy following set of interrelated factors: A Strategy for Developing and Relating Public and Private Improvements The two types of improvements are: (1) committed and recommended public improvements by the City of Miami previously described in the urban development plan, and (2) the use of new implementing tools to require and encourage private developers to provide their share of semi-public and private improvements including pedestrian circula- tion facilities, services, and amenities especially as they relate to improvementplanned public improvements such as future transit stops and new parks. A Strategy of A carefully de staging has been ev improvements in w which can and shou are in Phase I and a I map. Those eleme mented in the futu in the following Ph The recomme ments are describe' development plan, are listed as follow implementation: 1. Completio particularly t 2. Proceed w tation recom Dupont Plaza extension, an north of N.E. 3. Extension Avenue and 4. Acquisiti Flagler Stree 5. Proceed program wit Boulevard, F Avenue and not likely. 6. Proceed provides for developmen transit ride f The semi-pu required or enco and are also con the proposed zo in Article XXVt- supplemented b Appendix.) The private. Phase It and indi be implemented actions or alloca on the followin 1. Making transit syst ning ancf City of Mi• location a 25 ans developed for such areas can to legislation to achieve precise design results through zoning, ting in a better quality of develop.. tion, there can be more flexible here necessary as related either to ning districts and zoning lines or heal elements as parking regulations. itself or in combination with other lementation devices, the "new he potential for the gradual devel- �tire planned systems of circulation, facilities and amenities as an area is eloped or rebuilt. This is particularly r Downtown Miami with its major ment in the new rapid transit system, need for better pedestrian access to as new office and residential constructed. ;h as the waterfront areas adjacent to and the Miami River with special en - features to be preserved, protected can have special environmental ing and guidelines. rs can be required and encouraged waive zoning to build systems of irivate amenities such as landscape ilanned systems of small urban ni-parks. In much the same way that +sity residential districts, single es are encouraged to cluster by 3nned unit development regulations dential development of a planned in the Miami Ordinance), higher iential and office buildings can be to group together, even though in aerships, thereby achieving "mini- eans of combined open spaces and saving land to the benefit of both 'rand municipality. cey parts of downtown areas,such reet shopping area, retail facilities red to be replaced as new buildings r buildings containing these facilities. Host serious problems affecting :own areas is the rapid decline in eating and shopping as private ant occurs while typically greatly le floor space and the size of the Norking population needing these of other facilitiesand developments iety of types of pedestrian arcades or key new activities can be encouraged to be built through incentive zoning. For example. new apartment buildings and new buildings containing mixed residential and office or hotel facilities in Downtown Miami. This is a good way to start the important build-up of new residential development and population so vital to the long-term future of Downtown Miami. This section of the report contains the imple- mentation program for Downtown Miami including the proposed strategy for implementing the urban development plan followed by an explanation and description of the Phase I Implementation Program including public improvements and the Special District Plan and other innovative zoning approaches to guide private improvements and finally by the explanation of the new and revised system of zoning districts, regulations and zoning maps. The proposed zoning ordinance draft and zoning maps are con- tained in the Appendix. 3.2 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A strategy and program have been evolved for implementing the urban development plan which establishes the relationships and the framework for coordinating, phasing, and partially financing a planned system of public and private investments and improvements. The strategy consists of the following set of interrelated factors: A Strategy for Developing and Relating Public and Private Improvements The two types of improvements are: (1) committed and recommended public improvements by the City of Miami previously described in the urban development plan, and (2) the use of new implementing tools to require and encourage private developers to provide their share of semi-public and private improvements including pedestrian circula- tion facilities, services, and amenities especially as they relate to planned public investments and public improvements such as future transit stops and new parks. A Strategy of Timing and Staging A carefully developed strategy of timing and staging has been evolved for both public and private improvements in which those elements of the plan which can and should be implemented immediately are in Phase I and are shown in the following Phase I map. Those elements which can only be imple mented in the future are in Phase II and are shown in the following Phase 11 map. The recommended public actions and improve- ments are described in the section on the urban development plan, and the specific improvements are listed as follows for Phase 1 or immediate implementation: 1. Completion of all planned public projects, particularly the Old Port-Bayfront Park. 2. Proceed with Beiswenger-Hoch transpor- tation recommendations with emphasis on Dupont Plaza traffic separation, N.E. 3rd Street extension, and widening of Biscayne Boulevard north of N.E. 6th Street. 3. Extension of the right-of-way of N.E. 2nd Avenue and S.E. 3rd Avenue. 4. Acquisition for an Urban Park north of Flagler Street along N.E. 3rd Avenue. 5. Proceed with a major public tree planting program with preliminary emphasis on Biscayne Boulevard, Flagler Street, west side of 2nd Avenue and areas where new development is not likely. 6. Proceed with a public parking program which provides for off -site parking needs of new development either within walking distance or transit ride from the high intensity areas. The semi-public and private improvements to be required or encouraged are shown in the Phase I map and are also contained in the Special District Plan in the proposed zoning ordinance for Downtown Miami in Article XXVI-1, Section 2, in the form of a map supplemented by zoning regulations. (See the Appendix.) The private improvements,as scheduled in Phase 11 and indicated on the Phase II, map can only be implemented after key future public decisions, actions or allocations of public funds have been made on the following two kinds or categories: 1. Making final decisions on the new rapid transit system which involves additional plan- ning and design work and then decisions by the City of Miami as to the type of system, its location and detailed alignments as well as the 26 ll _IFS L �c 11 __ -1' Tom• 111111 Lui 1 4444 4-1 1 ^^^ Arcade Am Mass Transit Station 2ncl Level Plaza pedway District SAW to Betel Regiments ME Urban Parks 27 r—� PHASE II IMPLEMENTATION Mani River Walk _._._ Special Projects ---- Street Extension !III IIIIIII I: - transit stops. For these reasons the following upper level facilities in the plan strongly related to the new transit system are proposed for Phase II — that is, not for immediate imple- mentation: Rapid transit plazas Pedways (a second level pedestrian system) Pedestrian bridges which ideally should be located at the new rapid transit stops and connected to the rapid transit plazas and pedway system 2. For sub-areas,such as the proposed Miami River Walk,involving possible relocation of existing activities,requiring possibly an urban renewal plan or obtaining additional public easements or similar actions, it should be noted that the legislative intent and legal framework for the upper level facilities are set forth in the proposed zoning ordinance. Finally, the ordinance contains a bonus system for proximity to transit stops to be made operable when the transit system and transit stops are definitively established. Only those sections of the proposed arcade system which were judged not to be related to or in danger of being displaced by the construction of the new rapid transit system are in Phase I (i.e., the Special District Zoning Plan). The remaining sec- tions of the arcade system shown in the urban development plan are in Phase II. When the rapid transit route alignments are established, the arcade requirements in Phase 11 should be extended to these additional streets, and special height and vertical connection requirements should be written for arcades to be provided below pedways or other upper pedestrian spaces. Those sections of the proposed landscaped paths along the Miami River which involve partial or total displacement of existing industrial or heavy service uses or the obtaining of additional public easements are shown in Phase II and the easterly section for immediate implementation is shown in Phase I. Finally, there is another element related to public improvements which should be deferred until Phase II and scheduled after the final alignment of the rapid transit system has been determined. The north -south street along which the rapid transit system will run will become a primary activity street and should have special retail requirements to preserve and strengthen retail activities on the street. A Strategy for I Planned Private In the last four have occurred in the these is a means of o comings or limitatio proaches of having t individual zoning lot preparation of a spec an interrelated syste private improvemen encouraged to be co occurs. A Special Distr Downtown Miami w urban development is not only a staged described in the pre mechanism for man improvements when Rather than piecem circulation facilities on individual zonin such facilities and a each other as a part. localized on the res( the Special District A Strategy of To implement' Program a combinal is proposed to be tm provements and an( elements, regulatog devices. These fall categories: 1. The Spec the special r ail of which 2. Special are to be bui the develops 3. The new their appli zoning regui The proposed leg. operating within by the plan and i the Special Distr* panded to includ 11I. , ,. �I L U L ' �1 4{4t I IIWi Om"i�'� i�'l� DPI 8i (l _ , Ci1iHMff1 � �fMiBlt• e.s�!i`nii_tn myII ISM 11111 - PHASE Mimi River Walk Piojects Sheet Examsion I IMMEt frA 1ON 11111l•I-I I transit stops. For these reasons the following upper level facilities in the plan strongly related to the new transit system are proposed for Phase II — that is, not for immediate imple- mentation: Rapid transit plazas Pedways (a second level pedestrian system) Pedestrian bridges which ideally should be located at the new rapid transit stops and connected to the rapid transit plazas and pedway system 2. For sub-areas,such as the proposed Miami River Walk, involving possible relocation of existing a ctivities,requir ing possibly an urban renewal plan or obtaining additional public easements or similar actions, it should be noted that the legislative intent and legal framework for the upper level facilities are set forth in the proposed zoning ordinance. Finally, the ordinance contains a bonus system for proximity to transit stops to be made operable when the transit system and transit stops are definitively established. Only those sections of the proposed arcade system which were judged not to be related to or in danger of being displaced by the construction of the new rapid transit system are in Phase 1 (i.e., the Special District Zoning Plan). The remaining sec- tions of the arcade system shown in the urban development plan are in Phase II. When the rapid transit route alignments are established, the arcade requirements in Phase 11 should be extended to these additional streets, and special height and vertical connection requirements should be written for arcades to be provided below pedways or other upper pedestrian spaces. Those sections of the proposed landscaped paths along the Miami River which involve partial or total displacement of existing industrial or heavy service uses or the obtaining of additional public easements are shown in Phase II and the easterly section for immediate implementation is shown in Phase I. Finally, there is another element related to public improvements which should be deferred until Phase II and scheduled after the final alignment of the rapid transit system has been determined. The north -south street along which the rapid transit system will run will become a primary activity street and should have special retail requirements to preserve and strengthen retail activities on the street. A Strategy for Implementing a System of Planned Private Improvements In the last four years, significant breakthroughs have occurred in the technical field of zoning. Among these is a means of overcoming numerous short- comings or limitations of traditional zoning ap- proaches of having to relate primarily to the individual zoning lot. The new approach calls for the preparation of a special district plan which contains an interrelated system of planned semi-public and private improvements which are either required or encouraged to be constructed as new development occurs. A Special District Plan has been prepared for Downtown Miami within the framework of the urban development plan. The Special District Plan is not only a staged or timed plan (Phase I), as described in the previous section, but is also the mechanism for mandating or requiring specified improvements whenever new development occurs. Rather than piecemeal or uncoordinated pedestrian circulation facilities and open spaces or other amenities on individual zoning Tots unrelated to each other, such facilities and amenities can now be related to each other as a part of a system which becomes localized on the respective zoning lots by means of the Special District Plan. A Strategy of Using a Combination of Devices To implement Phase 1 of the Implementation Program a combination of devices and approaches is proposed to be used which involves public im- provements and an array of Special District Plan elements, regulatory, financial and administrative devices. These fall generally into the following categories: 1. The Special District Plan elements plus the special retail regulations noted earlier -- all of which are mandatory regulations; 2. Special incentives and allowances which are to be built at the option or discretion of the developer; and 3. The new and revised zoning districts and their application by means of the revised zoning regulations and maps. The proposed legislative and administrative process operating within the planning framework established by the plan and implementation program including the Special District Plan can, in the future, be ex- panded to include additional approaches, devices 28 and tools. A Strategy of Using the Implementation Program as a Coordinating Device The Special District Plan and the other optional special inventives can result in a much more success- ful coordination and merging of public and private economic interests, plans and investments such as the new rapid transit system and the ancillary pri- vate facilities needed on new developments adjacent to rapid transit stops. In addition, a Special District Plan can have value in helping to coordinate some of the planning and review activities of a number of City Departments which deal with parking facilities, curb cuts, and other aspects of pedestrian,vehicular and transit facilities as related to new development. A Financial Strategy This financial strategy, as noted earlier, in- volves: 1. Public improvements conbined with re- quiring and encouraging private developers to provide public and private facilities, services and amenities; 2. Providing for the transfer and sale of air rights; and 3. Laying the groundwork for providing in the future for the establishment of a Special District Fund whereby developers can contribute cash in lieu of providing parking or other require- ments. This fund can be used for other public improvements within the District. The result of these various facets in this implemen- tation strategy is that zoning has become more than a key tool in the land use regulatory process; it has become the means for effectively legislating and implementing the plan for the design of Downtown Miami. 3.3 PHASE I: IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Introduction The remainder of this section will deal with the Phase J Implementation Program containing those elements which can and should be implemented immediately. Ttteelements of the Phase 1 program comprised of both public and private improvements, 29 the timing of the Phase I elements (as contrasted with the Phase II elements), and the listing of the recommended public improvements in Phase I were discussed previously in Implementation Strategy. The remaining elements of Phase I, consisting of three interrelated types of regulations, are summarized in the table which follows and are briefly identified as follows: Phase I Implementation Program Special Central Business Optional Features Changes in Zoning District Mandatory Re uirements with Bonus Provisions Re ulaticns 1. Parking 2. Landscaped Streets 3. Landscaped Paths Along Waterfront* 4. Arcades' 5. Waterfront Area Controls 6. Visual Corridors 7. Restricted Access B. Building Walls Along Street Line 9. Retail Requirement *Bonus Incentive 1. Residential or 1. New and Revised Mixed Buildings' Districts A. Regulations B. Mapping 2. Urban Open Spaces* 2. Chaannig s inMapof Exist- ing Districts 3. Through Block Connections• 4. Arcades• 5. Extra Usable Open Space for Residen- tial Developments' Parking Policy and Guidelines A unique element in the Special District Plan is the recommended adoption of the Parking Policy and Guidelines which provides the framework and guidelines for reviewing the parking facilities for all new non-residential developments in the Special District. The Other Elements of Special District Plan Plus Flagler Street Retail Regulations As noted earlier, all the elements of the District Plan and the Flagler Street Regulations have three primary characteristics: 1. They constitute a planned system of public and private facilities, services and amenities; 2. They are locational in nature, becoming localized on the respective zoning lots, blocks, streets and areas with their different oppor- tunities, problems, and needs by means of the District Plan or by special regulations incor- porated within zoning districts; 3. All of these elements are established as mandatory requirements to be followed when new development occurs. The Special District Plan contains the following seven elements plus the planning policy and guide- lines. In addition, there are the special retail regu- lations for Flagler Street: 1. AREAS SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS: WATERFRONT thethree areas designated for special waterfront controls, there are guidelines for coverage, setbacks, and landscaping. 2. VISUAL CORRIDORS: The extensions of a number of streets have been designated as visual corridors overlooking_ Biscayne Bay and the Miami River, and no new construction will be permitted to block these open corridors to the waterfront. 3. LANDSCAPED PATHS: Two categories of landscaped paths are designated: - Landscaped streets are designated for most of the streets in the core areas of Downtown Miami with the requirement that all new development must meet the specified landscape standards. - Landscaped paths along waterfronts are designated along sections of the Miami River to implement the first phase of the Riverwalk Plan and along sections of the Biscayne Bay waterfront. 4. ARCADES: In the first phase, sections of the total arcade system contained in urban developmentted plem nation The remaining ng secimmediater sections re i in Phase II. 5. RESTRICTED ACCESS: For designated streets in the Special District Plan which per- form such important•functions in the move- ment of vehicular traffic that traffic inter- ruption should be minimized, access to and from off-street parking facilities is prohibited. There are similar but less stringent restrictions on access to off-street loading berths. 6. BUILDING WALLS ALONG STREET LINES: In order to maintain the traditional character of certain streets by maintaining a common building facade line and to guide open space into ful amounts, a b these streets. 7. SPECIAL R preserve and str: center, a new di District) which of retail develo new building or. Special Incenti In addition to other public facilitie can contribute signi environment and su ment. The provision with the developer, proposed as incenti following types of f. 1. INCENTIV AS A MATTE facilities are ce. riate and need Miami CBD. - _Arcade_kgadeS ar area bonu addition to, Special Dis -Thourh. pedestrian may provi r, to another - Ex r. opment in encourage. - r,,n..a jointly by by means; design rev permit a spaces m bility of t urban d..: 2. INCENT MIXED Kt assist in m residential CBD, a seri including b and mixed ted I elements (as contr s the e timing of the phase � and the listing ith the Phase II elements), public improvements in Phase 1 were discussed p reviously in Implementation Strategy • ed P f Phase I, consisting were discuss elements o The remaining s of regulations. are of three interrelated type which follows and are summarized �in the table briefly identified as follows-. these A itmmta'ment'e c m Optional Feares Changes in Zoning with Bonuuss P Provisions Re uiations .New and Revised BA. 1 • Residential „ Districts ions Mixed Buildings 6. Regulations Special; Central Business District Mandatory irements 1 • Parking 3. Landscaped nd Paths. der{ront 4. 4.Arcades" 5. 6• Vtlatertront Area COOtrois 2. urban Open Spaces` 2. MaPPi o Exist- ing Districts ock 3• Connections* 6. Visual Corridors 7. Resvicted A CCOSS R. Building walls Along Street :Line S. .:Retail Requirement ,Boyuslnoentive Arcades* Sp ce Usable Open far Residen- tial ,Developments Guidelines ,rlcinBo1isI and Special district Plan ant in the Parking Policy A unique slam adoption of the ork and mended adop the framework all a the r om which providesthe f ,facilities and Guidelines the parking the ties for guidelines for reviewing meats cial new non-residential develop District. Dian ;al }ill 'The Odor elements Of he pistrict earlier, all the elementshave three AS +oted�a Plegufations ,the pte9lar Street � of public plan �n characteristics: ch They c constitute planned system primay n�ixwte s � ices and amenities; and �rivaie facilities, services o�iin9 2. They are 10CatioRal in nature, tteC active zoning lots, blocks, localized on the respective different r\ of the is and areas with their by means streets s and regulations incor- porated tunnies. problems, special District Plan or by districts. within zoning established asNhen l f these elements are be followed 3. requirements to mandatory nt occurs. new development C-' +� Street SOO Regulations of t following District Plan contains the ang guide- lines. Ds the planning Policy The Sp special retail regu- elementi plus are the sp ONT AREA Seven tines. In addition, Street TO WATERER lations for Fla AREAS SUBJECT CONTROLS.. In the three DEVELOPMENT V� PMEN {or�pec ai waterfront controls, Hated coverage, setbacks, and areas designated for there are guidelines RS: The extensions landscaping.ORRIDO been designated 2. VISUAL numbe CORRIDORS.. streets haVe Biscayne Bay of d number ° overlooking ew construction as visual corridors iver, and these open corridors and the permitted to block fitted oC1eS of will be Perm THS• Two categories to the waterfront. PA 3. LANDSCAPED designated ated for most landscaped paths are desig of Downtown — Landscaped streets are in the core areas all new of the streets requirement thatled Miami with the req must meet the specif development — landscape standards.waterfronts are River Landscaped paths along of the MiaRiver River Hated along sections e the designated first A eRivBay to implement the of the Biscayne andalk 4 along sections Planhale, sections of waterfront. In the first phase, in urban t ARCADE stem containedin immediate total arcade system the to development plan are Sections are implementation. P The remaining implementation For designated in Phase 11. ACCESS: which per- 5 RESTRICTED Special District Plan the move- ment in the p functions in such important traffic inter- ruption traffic that access to and went at should be minimized, ruption should b parking facilities is prohibited. street P less stringent restrictions from off-street butberths. There are rimALONG STREET on access to off -Street AL loading the traditional 6 BUILDING maintain c In order t° n' maintaining LINESd to guide aracter of certain streetsade line an ahcorninon building open space a building ropriate locations use into app line is designated for ful amounts, these streets. ENT; To REOUIREer Street retail 7 SPECIAL RETAIL Flag C_ d strengthen the proposed tthe preserve an district is pf op suitable amount center, a new will require a a any which to be provided District)ail development new building or enlargement. incentives and Allowances Spec went Special n s, there are mandatory elements, e amenities which In addition tom uses, and quality of the other Public facilities, to the q develop- ment. h intensity optional can contribute significantly high is ev environment and support these bonuses are went. The developer, and floor area with the daselc e fives for their construction. The IES incentives are proposed FACILIT proposed as es of facilities following INC TIVES FOR OPTIONAL in ti , AMA OF RIGHT: The following op AS A MATTER to be generally approp- riate provided facilities are wherever p of floor riate CBD ed by means Miami encouraged the means of in floor the Arm snus s, elsewhere in defined — area b de system addition to the arcs are public Special District Plan. tion which .lock c'nn• which the developer ough his lot from Thr'u'h connections one street pedestrian through — may Provide receive a floor area bonus. to another and ens ace for residential deyel- Extra usable ° zoning districts is designated floor area bonus — oncour in means of a . the provision encouraged by including rb n o ens ace are encouragedith adiacent owners, bonus but only jointly by floor area ial by means of a the issuance of a spec n review and determination that the open design the determ for suita- bility meetter standards and siting and spaces designated in the bilitY of location design.S FOR RESIDENTIAL AND urban NC INCENTIVES ENTg; To 2. INCE DING DEVELOPMENTS: the MIXED BUILDING goal of increasing Miami assist in meeting in and nee heMiam • residential series of ew features are proposed, f new for new residential CBD. a series o including bonus incentives and mixed residential and cownerciai buildings. 30 A New and Revised System of Zoning Districts, Regulations and Zoning Maps A third and major set of regulations in the implementation program is the preparation of a new and revised system of zoning districts, regu- lations, and zoning maps. A number of new dis- tricts and sets of regulations and an extensive re- vision of existing districts and regulations was necessary for two reasons: 1. Because there are serious deficiencies in the present regulations; and 2. A system of regulations is required which is designed expressly to carry out the basic goals, objectives and principles of the urban development plan. A detailed explanation of these new and revised zoning regulations is contained in Section 3.4. The following sections of this report con- tain a detailed explanation and description of each element of the Phase I Implementation Program. Parking Policy and Guidelines The Parking Policy and Guidelines,as described in the urban development plan,is a key element in both the plan and the implementation program. (The technical aspects of parking are supple- mented by a section of the Appendix.) Briefly, the policy focuses on developments' generation of parking demand and with the impact of parking facilities, existing and proposed, on the capacity of the street system. It therefore proposes parking requirements scaled to demand. It also proposes a limit on the number of spaces to be permitted on a given land area such as a city block. Where the required number of spaces exceeds the on -site limit, the remaining required spaces would have to be provided off -site. The special district regu- lations prescribe a quarter mile as the maximum walking distance from an off -site facility to the development it serves, with peoplegreater -tances mover permitted only if an approved system is provided. The Special *Central Business District Plan provides for the adoption of the Parking Policy and Guidelines. in accordance with the Special District's regulations, all non-residential develop- ments in the Special District will be subject to special review for consistency with this adopted Parking Policy and Guidelines. 31 The feasibility of incorporating pre-set parking requirements and controls into the zoning regula- tions was explored and found wanting. The limited capacity of the street system requires that the number of parked cars in a given area also be limited. However, the limits appropriate for any one develop- ment will depend on variables which, if worked into a zoning ordinance, become excessively rigid. These variables include: 1. The traffic conditions themselves, both present and future, which can vary consider- ably by area; 2. The area potentially available for parking jr within a given block, which will depend on the {L character of durability of existing development as well as market forces; and 3. The policy of encouraging transit use, which will be more germane to the one area than another depending on transit route alignments. Moreover, it is clear that the parking needs gen- II_ erated by the highest intensity office development cannot be met in full on the development site itself without overloading the street system. This makes _� it necessary to provide for the balance in off -site locations which are themselves subject to capacity limits. It is logical to require all developments to provide parking facilities related to the demand they generate. Parking requirements could be established for the C-3 Districts, just as they are for other districts in Miami. But the ability to satisfy the requirement on the development site itself would have to depend on street conditions, site capacity and proximity of rapid transit facilities. Therefore, a special site plan review would be required in any contained in the Guidelines they can be administered case. If, as we propose, parking requirements are with the required amount of flexibility. In the future, they should periodically be modified to allow for reduced requirements for developments in close proximity to a rapid transit station. We are,therefore, recommending that the new .approach to parking in the CBD be, in effect, an extension of the conditional use procedure presently required in the C-3 District. The major difference is that the new procedure will be in the context of a parking policy and guidelines and the guidelines will be addressed to required as well as permitted parking. The Guidelines will assist the Planning Board, the Parking Authority, and City Commission in reviewing development proposals for consistency of the accessory par with the Plan. In the future, cash -in -lieu provisions might be developed which would be closely analagous to regulations under many municipal subdivision control ordinances which require school and park site dedications or, where there is no possibility of providing a site in a satisfactory location, a cash contribution toward public acquisition of a site elsewhere. As in the case of cash contributions toward acquisition of park site, the public parking facility provided with the help of funds contributed by a developer must be within a service radius of the developer's building. The Policy and Guidelines should periodically be reviewed and kept up to date. It should be construc- tion tied in to the City's parking garage tion program and revised as necessary in the light of development trends, program achievements f deficit and future opportunities, parking supply or surplus, and the capacity and potential ridership of the rapid transit system. The Parking Policy and Guidelines would take effect upon its adoption by the City Commission. The adoption procedure proposed is the same as that for an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance. The Parking Policy and Guidelines is re- quired by Article XXVI-1 to be made available to the public in the same manner as the ordinance itself. It should be designed to guide developers as well as City officials involved whothe plans Da- tion of the controls. The applicant erect a building of a given size should have a good idea of his responsibilities and options in the pro- vision of accessory parking. These can be clarified further by preliminary discussions with Planning Department staff. Applications for approval of proposed parking facilities under Article XXVI-1, Section 8, will be submitted to the Planning Board. Theyshould sho ll include all relevant information on location, ber of spaces and their layout, size and location of the main development being served and proposed cash contributions, if any, toward thef onwill ofrefer- public parking facility. The application be red to the Parking Authority for its report on the facility's relationship to the Parking Policy and Guidelines. The Board should make recommendations after to the City Commission on the application making the findings required by the ordinance. The Commission, after public notice and hearing, would pass upon the application by resolution. Building Department approvals of development plans for the principal use will depend on Commission approval Other Eleme Special Retail Then follows a the various element regulations listed ea the Proposed Zonin The mandator are provided for in District. They inclu and a partial syste District Plan. The s pleted when the ra • established. Landscaped Landscaping District Plan along District and along plans and setectio are subject to the Planning Departm 1. LANDSC development has a lands required to • area. Unless adopted for later in this sist of shad stated: in include min at the time of trees rel The numb under the • depend ores it is Impo tree plant gram alon street fron without pr future.. 2. WA1E with front Florida Ei Bay noel to proui The feasibility of incorporating pre-set parking uirements and controls into the zoning regula- ns was explored and found wanting. The limited �acity of the street system requires that the mber of parked cars in a given area also be limited. wever, the limits appropriate for any one develop- nt will depend on variables which, if worked into zoning ordinance, become excessively rigid. These riabies include: 1. The traffic conditions themselves, both present and future, which can vary consider- ably by area; 2. The area potentially available for parking within a given block, which will depend on the character of durability of existing development as well as market forces; and 3. The policy of encouraging transit use, which will be more germane to the one area than another depending on transit route alignments. Moreover, it is clear that the parking needs gen- *rated by the highest intensity office development :annot be met in full on the development site itself without overloading the street system. This makes it necessary to provide for the balance in off -site locations which are themselves subject to capacity limits. It is logical to require all developments to provide parking facilities related to the demand they generate. Parking requirements could be established for the C-3 Districts, just as they are for other districts in Miami. But the ability to satisfy the requirement on the development site itself would have to depend on street conditions, site capacity and proximity of rapid transit facilities. Therefore, a special site plan review would be required in any case. lf, as we propose, parking requirements are contained in the Guidelines they can be administered with the required amount of flexibility. In the future, they should periodically be modified to allow for reduced requirements for developments in close proximity to a _rapid transit station. We are,therefore, recommending that the new approach to parking in the CBD be, in effect, an extension of the conditional use procedure presently required in the 'C-3 District. The major difference is that the new procedure will be in the context of a parking policy and guidelines and the guidelines will be addressed to required as well as permitted parking. The°Guidelines will assist the Planning Board, the Parking Authority, and City Commission in reviewing development proposals for consistency with the Plan. In the future, cash -in -lieu provisions might be developed which would be closely analagous to regulations under many municipal subdivision control ordinances which require school and park site dedications or, where there is no possibility of providing a site in a satisfactory location, a cash contribution toward public acquisition of a site elsewhere. As in the case of cash contributions toward acquisition of park site, the public parking facility provided with the help of funds contributed by a developer must be within a service radius of the developer's building. The Policy and Guidelines should periodically be reviewed and kept up to date. It should be closely tied in to the City's parking garage construc- tion program and revised as necessary in the Tight of development trends, program achievements and future opportunities, parking supply deficit or surplus, and the capacity and potential ridership of the rapid transit system. The Parking Policy and Guidelines would take effect upon its adoption by the City Commission. The adoption procedure proposed is the same as that for an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance. The Parking Policy and Guidelines is re- quired by Article XXVI-1 to be made available to the public in the same manner as the ordinance itself. It should be designed to guide developers as well as City officials involved in the administra- tion of the controls. The applicant who plans to erect a building of a given size should have a good idea of his responsibilities and options in the pro- vision of accessory parking. These can be clarified further by preliminary discussions with Planning Department staff. Applications for approval of proposed parking facilities under Article XXVI-1, Section 8, will be submitted to the Planning Board. They should include all relevant information on location, number of spaces and their layout, size and location of the main development being served and proposed cash contributions, if any, toward the provision of a public parking facility. The application will be refer- red to the Parking Authority for its report on the facility's relationship to the Parking Policy and Guidelines. The Board should make recommendations to the City Commission on the application after making the findings required by the ordinance. The Commission, after public notice and hearing, would pass upon the application by resolution. Building Department approvals of development plans for the principal use will depend on Commission approval of the accessory parking facility plans. Other Elements of Special District Plan and Special Retail Regulations Then follows a more detailed explanation of the various elements of the Special District Plan and regulations listed earlier. (See Article XXVI-1 in the Proposed Zoning Ordinance.) The mandatory ground level pedestrian facilities are provided for in the regulations of the Special District. They include landscaped streets and paths and a partial system of arcades as shown on the District Plan. The system of arcades can be com- pleted when the rapid transit route alignments are established. Landscaped Streets and Paths Landscaping requirements are shown on the District Plan along most of the streets in the Special District and along designated waterfronts. Planting plans and selection of trees and other plant materials are subject to the approval of the Public Works and Planning Departments. 1. LANDSCAPED STREETS: Every new development with frontage on a street which has a landscaped path designation will be required to provide landscaping in the sidewalk area. Unless a special landscaping plan has been adopted for the particular street as described later in this section, the landscaping will con- sist of shade trees complying with specifications stated in Section 4 of Article XXVI-1. These include minimum caliper and height of trees at the time of planting and minimum number of trees related to the lot's total street frontage. The number of trees planted along any street under the provisions of Section 4 will obviously depend on the amount of building activity. It is important that the City match the developers' tree plantings with its own tree planting pro- gram along the already permanently built-up street frontages and those other frontages without prospects for development in the near future. 2. WATERFRONT PATHS: Developments with frontage on the Miami River east of the Florida East Coast property or on Biscayne Bay north of Venetian Causeway are required to provide a public easement at least 20 feet 32 wide for a landscaped walk along the water's edge. In the absence of a special adopted land- scape plan, these developments are required to provide shade trees conforming to the requirements on the north side of east -west streets augmented by shrubbery. Maintenance responsibility is to be borne by the property owner. In line with existing zoning regulations developers are permitted a floor area bonus in return for their dedication of the easement and their planting and maintenance respon- sibilities. 3. SPECIAL LANDSCAPING PLANS AND ADOPTION PROCEDURE: The Miami Central Business District abounds in opportun- ities for special landscaped treatment of public ways. Along River or Bay frontages or, with property owner collaboration and support, along certain streets special landscaping plans could be substituted for the minimum shade tree requirements. For example, uniform trees of a special variety could be selected for a designated street. This plan would then be followed by developers of frontage along that street and by the City in its matching program. A special landscaping plan can be adopted by the City Commission in the same manner as an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance and there- after would supplement or replace the general regulations within the designated area. Arcades The purpose of the arcade provisions is to provide in a sheltered setting additional pedestrian space to supplement the sidewalk area. On the busiest of the downtown streets, arcades are needed to relieve sidewalk congestion. The Special District's arcade requirements apply to these streets. When the rapid transit route alignments are established the arcade requirements should be extended to additional streets, and special height and vertical connection requirements should be written for arcades to be provided below pedways or other upper level pedestrian spaces. The new proposed definition of Arcade in Article II establishes minimum requirements for arcades, whether mandated or optional, in order to qualify fora bonus. The Special District regu- lations establish somewhat higher standards for arcades which.are:mandated by the District Plan. This is because more generous space standards are required where pedestrian traffic is so heavy as to justify the mandating of arcades. In addition, at least ten percent of the arcade area is required to be landscaped to enhance the public benefit in terms of comfort and amenity. Bonus floor area for arcades is four square feet per square foot of arcade area, which is the same as that allowed for arcades provided voluntarily under the regulations of the underlying C-3, C-3A, C-3B, C-3C or C-3D Districts. Therefore, the deeper the arcade (up to the maximum depth of 20 feet established in the definition) the greater its area and the greater the bonus. Waterfront Areas The special regulations designed to assure maximum visual employment of the waterfront are contained in Section 6 of Article XXVI-1. 1. AREA AFFECTED: All land in any block having some or all of its area in close proximity to the Biscayne Bay or Miami River Waterfront is subject to the special waterfront area controls. The principal areas affected are the Biscayne Bay waterfront area north of Interstate 395 and the Miami Riverfront area east of Inter- state 95. Blocks close to Biscayne Park are not included because these are the blocks where the highest bulk (C-3) commercial development is permitted. The special water- front development controls on yards and land- scaping would be too stringent in this area. On the other hand, the short block fronts and the ground level setback requirements of the C-3 District will provide a good measure of visual contact with the park and waterfront from inland locations. 2. COVERAGE, YARDS AND LANDSCAPING: The waterfront development controls limit building coverage above ground level to be- tween 50 and 60 percent of the lot depending on its size. The coverage restrictions apply at actual ground level, not three feet six inches above it as provided elsewhere in the Miami Zoning Ordinance. At least 40 percent of the uncovered portion of the lot is required to be landscaped and not more than 35 percent of the uncovered portion may be devoted to access drives and convenience parking. In addition, a setback of at least 18 feet is required from any interior side or rear lot line, and buildings are limited to a maximum hori- zontal dimension of 200 feet. 3. VISUAL CORRIDORS: N.E. 10th and N.E. 8th Streets are extended as visual corri- dors to Biscayne Bay. This means that no building can block these open corridors to the waterfront. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVALS: In order to encourage a high quality of site planning and to achieve most effectively the purposes of the waterfront area regulations, provision is made for appropriate modification by the City Commission of any yard, coverage or dimensional regulations imposed either by the special waterfront controls or those of the underlying districts. The granting of modi- fications is conditioned upon their resulting in better view protection or better arrange- ment of landscaped open space without sacrifice of view protection. Visual corridors are inviolable. Another clause provides for the waiver of the special yard requirements and building dimension restrictions in cases where views of the water are blocked by intervening existing buildings which do not themselves conform to the maximum build- ing dimension, so that the intent of the regulations is thwarted. Street Functions Certain streets in the Miami CBD perform such important functions in the movement of vehicular traffic that sources of traffic interruptions should be minimized. Biscayne Boulevard, Flagler Street, N.E. and S.E. 2nd Avenue and North and South Miami Avenue are such streets. Along these streets (listed in Section 10 of Article XXIII) direct vehicular access to or egress from off-street parking facilities is prohibited. The same rule applies in the case of off-street loading berths or service entrances unless it can be demonstrated to the Building Department that it is impossible to provide access or egress for berths or service entrances on some other street. Requirements for Building to Street Line In order to maintain the traditional character of Biscayne Boulevard and Flagler Street and pre- vent new buildings with a variety of setbacks from breaking the existing, line is designated for An allied goal i- is gathered into usef A proliferation of se create broken street It should also such as restaurants,t along streets where • shopping frontage. important for Flagl: Retail Requi A common sh. buildings construct: of American cities i facilities including is frequently largel ticket offices. Com vided on upper flo • the employed pop ignored, and the st - would be extremel become the fate of The destruction of shopping district was attempted to of its zoning ordin. To preserve a retail center, a ne will require a suita' ment to be provid: ment. Use, bulk a same as in the C-3 area, egyal to 75 for retail uses and drawn from a list regulations. Since floor space alloca individual uses an corridors or other requirement will of two stories to retail and restaur• or other uses per can also occupy • as the minimum on the retail list. Street and Miam', are required to la restaurant uses. quired where pedestrian traffic is so heavy as to stify the mandating of arcades. In addition, at 3st ten percent of the arcade area is required to landscaped to enhance the public: benefit in terms comfort and amenity. Bonus floor area for arcades is four square feet r square foot of arcade area, which is the same that allowed for arcades provided voluntarily der the regulations of the underlying C-3, C-3A, 3B, C-3C or C-3D Districts. Therefore, the deeper e arcade (up to the maximum depth of 20 feet tablished in the definition) the greater its area d the greater the bonus. Waterfront Areas The special regulations designed to assure aximum visual employment of the waterfront are ntained in Section 6 of Article XXVI-1. 1. AREA AFFECTED: All land in any block having some or all of its area in close proximity to the Biscayne Bay or Miami River Waterfront is subject to the special waterfront area controls. The principal areas affected are the Biscayne Bay waterfront area north of Interstate 395 and the Miami Riverfront area east of Inter- state 95. Blocks close to Biscayne Park are not included because these are the blocks where the highest bulk (C-3) commercial development is permitted. The special water- front development controls on yards and land- scaping would be too stringent in this area. On the other hand, the short block fronts and the ground level setback requirements of the C-3 District will provide a good measure of visual contact with the park and waterfront from inland locations. 2. COVERAGE, YARDS AND LANDSCAPING: The waterfront development controls limit building coverage above ground level to be- tween 50 and 60 percent of the lot depending on its size. The coverage •restrictions apply at actual ground level, not three feet six inches above it as provided elsewhere in the Miami Zoning Ordinance. At least 40 percent of the uncovered portion of the lot is required to be landscaped and not more than 35 percent of the uncovered portion may be devoted to access drives and :convenience parking. In addition, a setback of at (east 18 feet rr istequired from any interior side or rear lot line, and buildings are limited to a maximum hori- zontal dimension of 200 feet. 3. VISUAL CORRIDORS: N.E. 10th and N.E. 8th Streets are extended as visual corri- dors to Biscayne Bay. This means that no building can block these open corridors to the waterfront. 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVALS: In order to encourage a high quality of site planning and to achieve most effectively the purposes of the waterfront area regulations, provision is made for appropriate modification by the City Commission of any yard, coverage or dimensional regulations imposed either by the special waterfront controls or those of the underlying districts. The granting of modi- fications is conditioned upon their resulting in better view protection or better arrange- ment of landscaped open space without sacrifice of view protection. Visual corridors are inviolable. Another clause provides for the waiver of the special yard requirements and building dimension restrictions in cases where views of the water are blocked by intervening existing buildings which do not themselves conform to the maximum build- ing dimension, so that the intent of the regulations is thwarted. Street Functions Certain streets in the Miami CBD perform such important functions in the movement of vehicular traffic that sources of traffic interruptions should be minimized. Biscayne Boulevard, Flagler Street, N.E. and S.E. 2nd Avenue and North and South Miami Avenue are such streets. Along these streets (listed in Section 10 of Article XXIII) direct vehicular access to or egress from off-street parking facilities is prohibited. The same rule applies in the case of off-street loading berths or service entrances unless it can be demonstrated to the Building Department that it is impossible to provide access or egress for berths or service entrances on some other street. • Requirements for Building to Street Line In order to maintain the traditional character of Biscayne Boulevard and Flagler Street and pre- vent new buildings with a variety of setbacks from breaking the existing building facade, a building line is designated for these streets. An allied goal is to insure that open space is gathered into useful amounts in useful places. A proliferation of setbacks of plazas will not only create broken street lines but also unusable areas. It should also be noted that retail facilities, such as restaurants,typically do not tend to flourish along streets where setbacks or plazas break-up the shopping frontage. This concern is particularly important for Flagler Street. Retail Requirement A common shortcoming of most new office buildings constructed in the central business districts of American cities is the dearth of space for retail facilities including restaurants. Ground floor space is frequently largely taken over by banks or airline ticket offices. Company restaurants may be pro- vided on upper floors, but the needs and wants of the employed population are for the most part ignored, and the street scene is monotonous. It would be extremely unfortunate if this were to become the fate of the Flagler Street retail center. The destruction of New York City's Fifth Avenue shopping district was well on its way when the process was attempted to be arrested by an amendment of its zoning ordinance. To preserve and strengthen the Flagler Street retail center, a new C-3A District is proposed which will require a suitable amount of retail develop- ment to be provided in any new building or enlarge- ment. Use, bulk and density regulations are the same as in the C-3 District, but a minimum required area, equal to 75 percent of the lot area, is specified for retail uses and public eating establishments drawn from a list of 48 uses set forth in the District regulations. Since the required retail space is net floor space allocated for physical occupancy by individual uses and does not include elevator cores, corridors or other spaces used in common, this requirement will ordinarily result in a minimum of two stories to be occupied in whole or part by retail and restaurant uses. Banks, airline offices or other uses permitted by the District regulations can also occupy any space in the building as long as the minimum required space is allocated to uses on the retail list. At least 70 percent of Flagler Street and Miami Avenue ground floor frontages are required to be devoted to the retail and restaurant uses. 34 As previously noted, 2nd Avenue or another north -south street selected as the location of the rapid transit route will become a prime pedestrian activity street. When that determination is made, the designated street should be remapped in the new C-3A District in order for new construction to provide a suitable amount of retail. Special Incentives and Allowances in addition to the bonuses for mandatory ped- estrian circulation improvements,such as arcades, along certain streets and landscaped paths along Bay or River fronts, the proposed ordinance offers bonuses for other public amenities whose pro- vision is optional with the developer. In general, these amenities contribute significantly to the quality of the environment and support high inten- sity development. Bonus allowances function as incentives for the provision of these amenities. The present C-3 District offers bonuses in the form of floor area ratio premiums for apartment buildings providing certain ground level amenities. Apartment buildings are restricted to FAR 2.0 if they provide no such amenities but may attain an FAR as high as 7.0 by providing amenities in the maximum amount creditable for bonuses. In the same district, non-residential development has no FAR limit, but only a height limit of 300 feet, so that the same bonus system is not available to en- courage the provision of public amenities in con- nection with new office building construction. There is no reason why high bulk commercial devel- opment should not share in the provision of the pedestrian spaces and amenities for which it gener- ates a need and which in the long run will greatly benefit the entire district. Under the proposed zoning regulations, bonus allowances for optional public amenities are pro- vided in sections of the district regulations entitled "Floor Area Premiums". These provisions apply in the C-3, C-3A, C-3B, C-3C and C-3D Districts. For arcades and through -block connections, bonuses are allowed as a matter of right. For urban open spaces they are allowed only by a special permit procedure. incentives for Optional Amenities as a Matter of Right There are certain amenities which can be con- 35 sidered to be generally appropriate wherever pro- vided in the Miami CBD. These are arcades, through - block connections and extra usable open space (for residential uses). The definitions of these amenities include standards which can be easily administered by the Building Department and which will assure their usefulness and satisfactory design treatment. 1. ARCADES: Under the proposed definition in Article II, arcades are required to have a clear height of at least 12 feet and a depth of at least eight feet. Landscaping or works of art may occupy portions of an arcade's area provided that a clear width of at least six feet remains for pedestrian circulation. They must be at sidewalk level and freely accessible from the sidewalk. Floor area bonuses for arcades are set forth in the District regulations. The standard bonus is four square feet of floor area for each square foot of arcade. The deeper the arcade the greater is the floor area bonus, but the maximum depth which may be credited for purposes of a bonus is 20 feet. It will be noted that the district yard regu- lations require front setbacks of 10 feet and street -side setbacks of five feet for the first nine feet of building height. The setback area can be landscaped or used for parking. Because of this mandatory setback the incentive to provide an arcade with somewhat higher standards and serving a useful public circulation function should be very strong indeed. 2. THROUGH -BLOCK CONNECTIONS: A developer who provides a public pedestrian connection through his lot from one street to another contributes to the improvement of pedestrian circulation, and the proposed zoning regulations award him a standard bonus of six square feet of floor area for each square foot of through -block connection area. The connection must be at least 150 feet away from the nearest parallel street. It may be open or enclosed. Standards for both open and enclosed through -block connections are set forth in the proposed definition in Article II. 3. EXTRA USABLE OPEN SPACE: In the C-3B, C-3C and C-3D Districts a bonus of four square feet of residential floor area is allowed for each square foot of usable open space in excess of 50 percent of the lot area. A similar provision is contained in the existing R-CB District, which is mapped in the Brickell Avenue area. The district regulations require 120 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit. Open space equivalent to half the lot area would typically be required for a residential FAR of 4.0. Whether or not open space in excess of 50 percent of the lot area is re- quired for the number of dwelling units being constructed, the provision of such large amounts of open space benefits the surround- ing area by reducing building coverage, admit- ting more light and air, and providing additional landscaped space. This bonus does not apply in the C-3 or C-3A District. However, the bonus for lots adjacent to a public open space, as presently provided for apartment buildings in the C-3 District, is carried over into the proposed C-3 and C-3A Districts. Urban Open Space Bonus A well -designed landscaped open space, even a small one, can be a great public asset in a downtown area. Many different kinds of public open spaces are exemplified in the central business districts of of cities in this country and abroad. The plazas in New York City along Park Avenue and the Avenue of the Americas have in many cases provided useful ground level space off the crowded sidewalks where people can stroll or sit down. But they have also resulted in broken street lines, and also,unless care- fully designed,can result in unusable areas. The Central Business District of Miami would be better served by a variety of small, carefully de- signed urban open spaces in selected locations rather than a procession of plazas. The open spaces should be landscaped with trees and shrubs and offer shaded sitting areas. Fountains would be de- sirable for their cooling spray. It is proposed that bonus incentives for urban open spaces be subject to special permit control. Special review is needed to determine suitability of location and acceptability of the siting and urban design. Approval procedure would be similar to that established for conditional uses, with the City Commission making the final determination after a public hearing and review of recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Board. The proposed standards for urban open spaces are contained in a proposed definition in Article II and in Article XXXII-1. These relate to the dimen- sions of the open space requirements for access from sidewalks or upper level pedestrian ways, use of the open space and lan noted that the pro future establishme and station locatio of transit station pl ways. Some urban the future upper le level space beneath commercial use. Special permi are provided in the The proposed spec' in a new Article X for incentive bonus parallels the condit XXXII. Special findin a bonus can be gra urban open space. the City Commissi findings required b a set of guidelines i reviewing urban op findings are addre 1. Isthere ap the location a will satisfy? 2. Is the locat space consiste importance in opment? 3. Is the entir open space, in various eleme The guidelin istration of these b detailed design req of the standards in Building Will The require line for certain str an important. alli appropriate locatiO! Urban OPen Adjacent The special ed to be generally appropriate wherever pro - in the Miami CBD. These are arcades, through- k connections and extra usable open space (for lential uses). The definitions of these amenities ode standards which can be easily administered he Building Department and which will assure usefulness and satisfactory design treatment. 1. ARCADES: Under the proposed definition in Article I I, arcades are required to have a clear height of at least 12 feet and a depth of at least eight feet. Landscaping or works of art may occupy portions of an arcade's area provided that a clear width of at least six feet remains for pedestrian circulation. They must be at sidewalk level and freely accessible from the sidewalk. Floor area bonuses for arcades are set forth in the District regulations. The standard bonus is four square feet of floor area for each square foot of arcade. The deeper the arcade the greater is the floor area bonus, but the maximum depth which may be credited for purposes of a bonus is 20 feet. It will be noted that the district yard regu- lations require front setbacks of 10 feet and street -side setbacks of five feet for the first nine feet of building height. The setback area can be landscaped or used for parking. Because of this mandatory setback the incentive to provide an arcade with somewhat higher standards and serving a useful public circulation function should be very strong indeed. 2. THROUGH -BLOCK CONNECTIONS: A developer who provides a public pedestrian connection through his lot from one street to another contributes to the improvement of pedestrian circulation, and the proposed zoning regulations award him a standard bonus of six square feet of floor area for each square foot of through -block connection area. The connection must be at least 150 feet away from the nearest parallel street. It may be open or enclosed. Standards for both open and enclosed through -block connections are set forth in the proposed definition in Article 14. 3. EXTRA USABLE OPEN SPACE: In the C-3B, C-3C and C-3D :Districts a bonus of four square feet of residential floor area is allowed for each square foot of usable open space in excess of 50 percent of the lot area. A similar provision is contained in the existing R-CB District, which is mapped in the Brickell Avenue area. The district regulations require 120 square Li I 1 Li feet of usable open space per dwelling unit. Open space equivalent to half the lot area would typically be required for a residential FAR of 4.0. Whether or not open space in excess of 50 percent of the lot area is re- quired for the number of dwelling units being constructed, the provision of such large amounts of open space benefits the surround- ing area by reducing building coverage, admit- ting more Tight and air, and providing additional landscaped space. This bonus does not apply in the C-3 or C-3A District. However, the bonus for lots adjacent to a public open space, as presently provided for apartment buildings in the C-3 District, is carried over into the proposed C-3 and C-3A Districts. Urban Open Space Bonus A well -designed landscaped open space, even a small one, can be a great public asset in a downtown area. Many different kinds of public open spaces are exemplified in the central business districts of of cities in this country and abroad. The plazas in New York City along Park Avenue and the Avenue of the Americas have in many cases provided useful ground level space off the crowded sidewalks where people can stroll or sit down. But they have also resulted in broken street lines, and also,unless care- fully designed,can result in unusable areas. The Central Business District of Miami would be better served by a variety of small, carefully de- signed urban open spaces in selected locations rather than a procession of plazas. The open spaces should be landscaped with trees and shrubs and offer shaded sitting areas. Fountains would be de- sirable for their cooling spray. It is proposed that bonus incentives for urban open spaces be subject to special permit control. Special review is needed to determine suitability of location and acceptability of the siting and urban design. Approval procedure would be similar to that established for conditional uses, with the City Commission making the final determination after a public hearing and review of recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Board. The proposed standards for urban open spaces are contained in a proposed definition in Article II and in Article XXXII-1. These relate to the dimen- sions of the open space requirements for access from sidewalks or upper level pedestrian ways, use of the open space and landscaping provisions. It should be noted that the proposed regulations anticipate the future establishment of rapid transit route alignments and station locations and with them a planned system of transit station plazas and upper level pedestrian ways. Some urban open spaces may be related to the future upper level pedestrian system while ground level space beneath them can be put to economic commercial use. Special permits for urban open space bonuses are provided in the C-3, C-3B, C-3C and C-3D Districts. The proposed special permit provisions are contained in a new Article XXXII-1 which is designed to provide for incentive bonuses requiring special approval. It parallels the conditional use provisions of Article XXXII. Special findings are required to be made before a bonus can be granted by the Commission for an urban open space. To assist the Planning Board and the City Commission in making the rather broad findings required by the special permit regulations, a set of guidelines is included which will be used in reviewing urban open space bonus applications. The findings are addressed to three principal questions: 1. is there a public need in the local area which the location and design of the urban open space will satisfy? 2. Is the location and siting of the urban open space consistent with functions of predominant importance in the local area such as retail devel- opment? 3. Is the entire development,including the urban open space,in harmony with the Miami Plan's various elements and objectives? The guidelines will aid in the consistent admin- istration of these broad criteria and include some detailed design requirements to carry out the intent of the standards in the definition of urban open space. Building Walls Along Street Lines The requirement of a common building facade line for certain streets, as explained earlier, is also an important, allied control to guide open space into appropriate locations in useful amounts. Urban Open Spaces Provided Jointly by Adjacent Owners The special permit regulations include a provision 36 for joint applications by adjacent owners for pooled urban open spaces. A single open space provided by two adjacent owners could be far more useful than two separate and independently provided areas, each barely complying with minimum dimensional re- quirements. Provisions allowing the transfer of development rights between one owner and the other afford additional flexibility in the arrange- ment of the open space and its relationship to the two buildings. incentives for Residential and Mixed Building Developments The objective of a gain in residential population in and near the Miami Central Business District is supported by several new features in the proposed zoning regulations. These include: 1. New districts, such as the C-3D and C-3E Districts providing,in the former case for FAR differentials favoring residential,and in the latter a district permitting both residential and non-residential uses in an area formerly re- stricted to non-residential use; 2. More widespread mapping of existing districts permitting residential use; 3. Liberalized regulations on floor area ratio, usable open space, yard and other controls suited to high density urban living environments, and 4. Bonus incentives. This section of the report will discuss the bonus incentives. The other features will be discussed in the section on New and Revised Districts and Their Mapping. Bonus incentives for residential use take the form of differentials in the bonus allowances as between residential and non-residential floor area. For the provision of mandatory district plan elements, more :bonus floor area is allowed if the bonus floor area .is allocated to residential use. In the C-3 and C-3A Districts the bonus floor area is increased by 100 percent and in the C-3B, C-3C and C-3D Districts by 50 percent. Bonus floor area for op- tional provision of arcades or through -block con- nections is subject to the same percentage increases if the bonus floor area is allocated to residential use. The excess usable open space bonus is only for residential floor area. For urban open spaces in the C-3B, C-3C and C-3D Districts there is no bonus differential in favor 37 of residential use since these amenities are of pri- mary importance in areas of predominantly com- mercial development. However, in the C-3 and C-3A Districts, as an incentive for the construction of mixed residential and non-residential buildings, bonus floor area for urban open space is doubled if allocated to residential use. The differential in bonus rates is partly needed to overcome an inherent economic handicap borne by residential development in competing with office building construction in areas such as the Miami CBD. This is why it is necessary to provide such a large differential in order both to overcome this handicap and provide a positive incentive for resi- dential or mixed building developments. In each district there is an absolute maximum FAR which cannot be exceeded by any building no matter how much bonus floor area has been earned. The maximum for a building which contains both residential and non-residential uses is higher than that for a building used only for one or the other use (see tabular summary of district bulk regulation in Section 3.4). This provides a slight additional incentive for mixed buildings. Bonus Economics In developing a bonus system the recommended scale of bonuses is the result of two main determin- ants: 1. The public benefits of the various features and 2. The cost to the developer of providing these features. The public benefits of the features proposed in the plan are explained in other parts of this report. In general these features alleviate the effects of high development intensities by providing extra space for pedestrian circulation and areas for rest and relaxation in pleasant surroundings. These benefits fully justify the extra development intensity allowed in return. Some of the features are mandated as part of the District Plan while others are optional and depend on bonus incentives. To make their pro- vision by developers attractive, the scale of the bonus must be great enough to at least compensate for the costs incurred. In order to determine how much bonus floor area is required to defray the cost of providing some feature such as an arcade, the estimated value to the developer of a unit of bonus floor area is related to the estimated cost of providing a unit of the feature. A measure of the value of a unit of bonus floor area is provided by the residual land value analysis conducted by Gladstone Associates, which is sum- marized in Section 8.2 and supplemented by a state- ment in the Appendix, Section 2. This analysis shows "unsupportable land costs" of $4 to $6 a square foot for prime office use, which means that a devel- oper will pay no more than $4 to $6 in land costs for each square foot of floor area he builds. For the right to build an extra unit of floor area it can be assumed that the developer will pay the same amount, whether he earns the right to the additional floor area by acquiring more land or by providing a bonus feature such as an arcade. In effect, bonus floor area is valued at $4 to $6 per square foot. The same analysis by Gladstone Associates shows that the unit value of bonus floor area in a high rise apartment building is somewhat less — $3.50 a square foot — than that for prime office space. Therefore, more square feet of bonus floor area must be offered to builders of residential space to compensate them adequately for providing a 3.4 NEW AND public amenity. In order to provide an extra in- REGULATI centive to encourage residential or mixed buildings, lntroducti a substantially higher bonus rate is offered in the proposed regulations if the bonus floor area is al- located to residential use. Construction costs and in some cases mainten- ance and operating costs are items to be considered in estimating total costs of each kind of feature to developers. Space inefficiencies in the building itself are another kind of cost caused by provision of some features — a cost which is subject to considerable variation depending on the size and shape of the site. This kind of cost is associated especially with the provision of urban open spaces on building sites of moderate size. In addition to estimated costs, other factors can affect the incentive to provide a given type of feature and hence the required scale of bonuses. For example, each of the districts where the arcade bonus applies also has a ground level setback requirement, ten feet on front streets and five feet on side streets. No bonus is allowed for these minimum setback re- quirements. The extra cost of providing setbacks which conform to the arcade requirements is little more than nominal, so that almost any bonus will provide the required incentive for an arcade. Incentive zoning has been in effect for a number of years in many cities of the United States, and the experience gained in these cities provides many useful lessons. Tw First, an overly ge amenity will tend of that amenity t•- Arcades are rare i not. Bonuses mus competition amo floor area market. floor area ratios m under the bulk re' city, a floor area r while developmen rarity. No incenti such a situation. 2.5 of this report intensity be restri The proposed bas Central Business lower than the lev and are in fact to system effective. The prop duct of a plannin ing basic steps: 1. Analyzi projected 2. Preparin' 3. Developi implementa and phasing; — the Speci — the opti — the new regulatio 4. Devisin lations. 5. Drawin The new a lations and zoni mentatiort pros the urban devel+ major new prog is a great need t ments meet the 1. Locati. of residential use since these amenities are of pri- mary importance in areas of predominantly com- mercial development. However, in the C-3 and C-3A Districts, as an incentive for the construction of mixed residential and non-residential buildings, bonus floor area for urban open space is doubled if allocated to residential use. The differential in bonus rates is partly needed to overcome an inherent economic handicap borne by residential development in competing with office building construction in areas such as the Miami CBD. This is why it is necessary to provide such a large differential in order both to overcome this handicap and provide a positive incentive for resi- dential or mixed building developments. in each district there is an absolute maximum FAR which cannot be exceeded by any building no matter how much bonus floor area has been earned. The maximum for a building which contains both residential and non-residential uses is higher than that for a building used only for one or the other use (see tabular summary of district bulk regulation in Section 3.4). This provides a slight additional incentive for mixed buildings. Bonus Economics In developing a bonus system the recommended scale of bonuses is the result of two main determin- ants: 1. The public benefits of the various features and 2. The cost to the developer of providing these features. The public benefits of the features proposed in the plan are explained in other parts of this report. In general these features ,alleviate the effects of high development intensities by providing extra space for pedestrian circulation and areas for rest and relaxation in pleasant surroundings. These benefits fully justify the extra development intensity allowed in return. Some of the features are mandated as part of the District Plan while others are optional and depend on bonus incentives. To make their pro- vision by developers attractive, the scale of the bonus must be great enough to at least compensate for the costs incurred. in. -order todetermine howmuch bonus floor area is required to defray the cost of providing some feature such as an arcade, the estimated value to the developer of a unit of bonus floor area is related to the estimated cost of providing a unit of the feature. A measure of the value of a unit of bonus floor area is provided by the residual land value analysis conducted by Gladstone Associates, which is sum- marized in Section 8.2 and supplemented by a state- ment in the Appendix, Section 2. This analysis shows "unsupportable land costs" of $4 to $6 a square foot for prime office use, which means that a devel- oper will pay no more than $4 to $6 in land costs for each square foot of floor area he builds. For the right to build an extra unit of floor area it can be assumed that the developer will pay the same amount, whether he earns the right to the additional floor area by acquiring more land or by providing a bonus feature such as an arcade. In effect, bonus floor area is valued at $4 to $6 per square foot. The same analysis by Gladstone Associates shows that the unit value of bonus floor area in a high rise apartment building is somewhat less — $3.50 a square foot — than that for prime office space. Therefore, more square feet of bonus floor area must be offered to builders of residential space to compensate them adequately for providing a public amenity. In order to provide an extra in- centive to encourage residential or mixed buildings, a substantially higher bonus rate is offered in the proposed regulations if the bonus floor area is al- located to residential use. Construction costs and in some cases mainten- ance and operating costs are items to be considered in estimating total costs of each kind of feature to developers. Space inefficiencies in the building itself are another kind of cost caused by provision of some features — a cost which is subject to considerable variation depending on the size and shape of the site. This kind of cost is associated especially with the provision of urban open spaces on building sites of moderate size. In addition to estimated costs, other factors can affect the incentive to provide a given type of feature and hence the required scale of bonuses. For example, each of the districts where the arcade bonus applies also has a ground level setback requirement, ten feet on front streets and five feet on side streets. No bonus is allowed for these minimum setback re- quirements. The extra cost of providing setbacks which conform to the arcade requirements is little more than nominal, so that almost any bonus will provide the required incentive for an arcade. Incentive zoning has been in effect for a number of years in many cities of the United States, and the experience gained in these cities provides many useful lessons. Two are worth mentioning here. First, an overly generous bonus for one kind of amenity will tend to result in the infinite repetition of that amenity to the virtual exclusion of all others. Arcades are rare in New York City, but plazas are not. Bonuses must be scaled with a view toward the competition among various amenities in the bonus floor area market. Secondly, the basic permitted floor area ratios must not be too high. For example, under the bulk regulations of a large mid -western city, a floor area ratio of 40 is theoretically possible, while developments at an FAR exceeding 10 are a rarity. No incentive would be remotely possible in such a situation. For the reasons discussed in Section 2.5 of this report it is important that development intensity be restricted by realistic bulk controls. The proposed basic floor area ratios for the Miami Central Business District are therefore considerably lower than the level in the mid -western city cited and are in fact low enough to make the incentive system effective. 3.4 NEW AND REVISED ZONING DISTRICTS, REGULATIONS AND ZONING MAPS Introduction The proposed zoning ordinance is the end pro- duct of a planning process involving the five follow- ing basic steps: 1. Analyzing the land and space needs of the projected users of land in Downtown Miami. 2. Preparing the urban development plan. 3. Developing the general framework of the implementation program, including the timing and phasing aspects and the broad outlines of: — the Special District Plan — the optional bonus features and — the new and revised districts and district regulations. 4. Devising the details of all of the above regu- lations. 5. Drawing the proposed new zoning maps. The new and revised system of districts, regu- lations and zoning maps is a key part of the imple- mentation program and strategy for carrying out the urban development plan. To accompany the major new programs of public improvements, there is a great need to insure that new private develop- ments meet the two following basic conditions: 1. Location in the proper areas, and 38 of residential use since these amenities are of pri- mary importance in areas of predominantly com- mercial development. However, in the C-3 and C-3A Districts, as an incentive for the construction of mixed residential and non-residential buildings, bonus floor area for urban open space is doubled if allocated to residential use. The differential in bonus rates is partly needed to overcome an inherent economic handicap borne by residential development in competing with office building construction in areas such as the Miami CBD. This is why it is necessary to provide such a large differential in order both to overcome this handicap and provide a positive incentive for resi- dential or mixed building developments. In each district there is an absolute maximum FAR which cannot be exceeded by any building no matter how much bonus floor area has been earned. The maximum for a building which contains both residential and non-residential uses is higher than that for a building used only for one or the other use (see tabular summary of district bulk regulation in Section 3.4). This provides a slight additional incentive for mixed buildings. Bonus Economics In developing a bonus system the recommended scale of bonuses is the result of two main determin- ants: 1. The public benefits of the various features and 2. The cost to the developer of providing these features. The public benefits of the features proposed in the plan are explained in other parts of this report. In general these features alleviate the effects of high development intensities by providing extra space for pedestrian circulation and areas for rest and relaxation in pleasant surroundings. These benefits fully justify the extra development intensity allowed in 'return. Some of the features are mandated as part of the' District flan while others are optional and depend on bonusincentives. To make their pro- vision by developers attractive, the scale of the bonus must be +great enough to at least compensate for the costs incurred. In order to :determine how much bonus floor area :is i-equired to defray the cost -of providing some feature such es an arcade, the estimated value to the developer of a unit of bonus floor area is related to the estimated cost of providing a unit of the feature. A measure of the value of a unit of bonus floor area is provided by the residual land value analysis conducted by Gladstone Associates, which is sum- marized in Section 8.2 and supplemented by a state- ment in the Appendix, Section 2. This analysis shows "unsupportable land costs" of $4 to $6 a square foot for prime office use, which means that a devel- oper will pay no more than $4 to $6 in land costs for each square foot of floor area he builds. For the right to build an extra unit of floor area it can be assumed that the developer will pay the same amount, whether he earns the right to the additional floor area by acquiring more land or by providing a bonus feature such as an arcade. In effect, bonus floor area is valued at $4 to $6 per square foot. The same analysis by Gladstone Associates shows that the unit value of bonus floor area in a high rise apartment building is somewhat less — $3.50 a square foot — than that for prime office space. Therefore, more square feet of bonus floor area must be offered to builders of residential space to compensate them adequately for providing a public amenity. In order to provide an extra in- centive to encourage residential or mixed buildings, a substantially higher bonus rate is offered in the proposed regulations if the bonus floor area is al- located to residential use. Construction costs and in some cases mainten- ance and operating costs are items to be considered in estimating total costs of each kind of feature to developers. Space inefficiencies in the building itself are another kind of cost caused by provision of some features — a cost which is subject to considerable variation depending on the size and shape of the site. This kind of cost is associated especially with the provision of urban open spaces on building sites of moderate size. In addition to estimated costs, other factors can affect the incentive to provide a given type of feature and hence the required scale of bonuses. For example, each of the districts where the arcade bonus applies also has a ground level setback requirement, ten feet on front streets and five feet on side streets. No bonus is allowed for these minimum setback re- quirements. The extra cost of providing setbacks which conform to the arcade requirements is little more than nominal, so that almost any bonus will provide the required incentive for an arcade. Incentive zoning has been in effect for a number of years in many cities of the United States, and the experience gained in these cities provides many useful lessons. Two are worth mentioning here. First, an overly generous bonus for one kind of amenity will tend to result in the infinite repetition of that amenity to the virtual exclusion of all others. Arcades are rare in New York City, but plazas are not. Bonuses must be scaled with a view toward the competition among various amenities in the bonus floor area market. Secondly, the basic permitted floor area ratios must not be too high. For example, under the bulk regulations of a large mid -western city, a floor area ratio of 40 is theoretically possible, while developments at an FAR exceeding 10 are a rarity. No incentive would be remotely possible in such a situation. For the reasons discussed in Section 2.5 of this report it is important that development intensity be restricted by realistic bulk controls. The proposed basic floor area ratios for the Miami Central Business District are therefore considerably lower than the level in the mid -western city cited and are in fact low enough to make the incentive system effective. 3.4 NEW AND REVISED ZONING DISTRICTS, REGULATIONS AND ZONING MAPS Introduction The proposed zoning ordinance is the end pro- duct of a planning process involving the five follow- ing basic steps: 1. Analyzing the land and space needs of the projected users of land in Downtown Miami. 2. Preparing the urban development plan. 3. Developing the general framework of the implementation program, including the timing and phasing aspects and the broad outlines of: — the Special District Plan — the optional bonus features and — the new and revised districts and district regulations. 4. Devising the details of all of the above regu- lations. 5. Drawing the proposed new zoning maps. The new and revised system of districts, regu- lations and zoning maps is a key part of the imple- mentation program and strategy for carrying out the urban development plan. To accompany the major new programs of public improvements, there is a great need to insure that new private develop- ments meet the two following basic conditions: 1. Location in the proper areas, and 38 r ' Jl )iII ELLELIj 1 tipm Malmo _ ��' ' inmICE 1 iri urns INS Ilona 011 NMNIBI ,;1i F11I1��,amma a NJ s 7 IIIIe1Ml ANL 11 l �,��erux uwxV l ifr+ 1111 riy+ r—� —District Boundary Ci District Desigabon 39 MOW 1'"I C3t0 PROPOSED ZONEIG MAP IIIIIIIIIIII 7 2. Development at appropriate densities so as not to overload public streets, sidewalks, and transit facilities. The new and revised zoning districts and maps are the mechanics for accomplishing this. The proposed land uses, density limits, and parking density limits and guidelines were developed together as integral parts of the core concern with present and future traffic congestion and several problems of Downtown accessibility in the future. Closely allied to appropriate density limits are guidelines for the required accessory parking facili- ties as related to a critical issue in the core office district where traffic and parking congestion will be most severe. (See the discussion of development intensity and also vehicular parking in the urban development plan.) In addition to developing a new system of zoning regulations to carry out the basic goals, objectives and principles of the urban development plan, it was necessary to correct a number of serious deficiencies in the present zoning regulations. These deficiencies are discussed in Section 5.6, Existing Zoning, and can be summarized as follows: 1. The allowance of excessive density for prime office development; 2. The allocation of too much land for high density development; 3. The lack of a medium density district; 4. The total absence of a parking policy and guidelines for its administration; 5. The undue restrictions on residential devel- opment; and 6. Excessive allocation of land for industry and service uses. These deficiencies were corrected and key parts of the urban development plan wereimplemented andlemethods: by the use of the following approaches 1. By establishing appropriate density limits (the maximum permitted floor area ratios) for the various sections of the Downtown Area, especially the prime office core, as related to street and sidewalk capacities, pollution stand- ards, light and air, and public convenience and amenity, as well as from the point of view of both the projected demand for office space and land values. 2. y relating the amount of acreage high st bulk office building developmeont r to the the projected demand for office space and land values. 3. By allowing service uses in t lower densities. 4. By allowing in those areas o which are adva standpoint of a posed transit sy 5. By encoura dential and co the CBD. The remainder explanation of the o lations, the new and primary regulations use, density and par posed, new zoning Organization The new and r to the present strut Most of the regulat district wilt be fou lations specifically ever, the parking a the City's zoning d Article (Article X general provisions Article III (Zonis and Article IV (G XXVI-1 (containi Central Business special permit ad parts of the Study districts existing a of these Articles Otf-Street Under Artic street parking re' districts of the Ci no accessory par ted except by co Under the p there will be aC ments in all zoni. exception. How �rI Ems, IN MEM NNNNNN MEM YMNIIN WWII E. INNIIN IHEINEEIx EE OHM ifi M Nil PROPOSED ZONING M 11jllIjlllj fl 2. Development at appropriate densities so as not to overload public streets, sidewalks, and transit facilities. The new and revised zoning districts and maps are the mechanics for accomplishing this. The proposed land uses, density limits, and parking density limits and guidelines were developed together as integral parts of the core concern with present and future traffic congestion and several problems of Downtown accessibility in the future. Closely allied to appropriate density limits are guidelines for the required accessory parking facili- ties as related to a critical issue in the core office district where traffic and parking congestion will be most severe. (See the discussion of development intensity and also vehicular parking in the urban development plan.) In addition to developing a new system of zoning regulations to carry out the basic goals, objectives and principles of the urban development plan, it was necessary to correct a number of serious deficiencies in the present zoning regulations. These deficiencies are discussed in Section 5.6, Existing Zoning, and can be summarized as follows: 1. The allowance of excessive density for prime office development; 2. The allocation of too much land for high density development; 3. The lack of a medium density district; 4. The total absence of a parking policy and guidelines for its administration; 5. The undue restrictions on residential devel- opment; and 6. Excessive allocation of land for industry and service uses. These deficiencies were corrected and key parts of the urban development plan were implemented by the use of the following approaches and methods: 1. By establishing appropriate density limits (the maximum permitted floor area ratios) for the various sections of the Downtown Area, especially the prime office core, as related to street and sidewalk capacities, pollution stand- ards, light and air, and public convenience and amenity, as well as from the point of view of both the projected demand for office space and land values. 2. By relating the amount of acreage for the highest bulk office building development to the projected demand for office space and land values. 3. By allowing a greater variety of permitted service uses in the area which is rezoned for lower densities. 4. By allowing moderately higher densities in those areas outside the present C-3 District which are advantageously situated from the standpoint of access by highway or the pro- posed transit system. 5. By encouraging residential or mixed resi- dential and commercial development in or near the CBD. The remainder of this section contains the explanation of the organization of the zoning regu- lations, the new and revised zoning districts, the primary regulations in each district (including the use, density and parking regulations) and the pro- posed, new zoning maps. Organization of Zoning Regulations The new and revised district regulations conform to the present structure of the Miami Zoning Ordinance. Most of the regulations affecting development in a district will be found in an Article containing regu- lations specifically applicable in that district_ How- ever, the parking and loading regulations for all the City's zoning districts are contained in a separate Article (Article XXII I). Other Articles containing general provisions are Article II (Definitions). Article III (Zoning Districts — Classes and Symbols), and Article IV (General Provisions). New Articles XXVI-1 (containing the regulations of the Special Central Business District) and XXXII-1 (providing for special permit administration) have application in parts of the Study Area containing several zoning districts existing and proposed, and the provisions of these Articles have already been described. Off -Street Parking Regulations Under Article XXI I I at present the same off- street parking requirements apply in all zoning districts of the City except the C-3 District. In C-3 no accessory parking is required and none is permit- ted except by conditional use permit. Under the proposed revisions of Article XXII I there will be accessory off-street parking require- ments in all zoning districts of the City without exception. However, in the revised C-3 and new 4o C-3A, C-3B, C-3C and C-3D Districts, the parking requirements will be different from the rest of the City. A minimum of 0.4 parking space per dwelling unit will be required, and for non-residential uses and hotels the requirements will be determined by the City Commission in accordance with the Parking Policy and Guidelines. (See earlier discussion of Parking.) In the C-3E District off -site location of required accessory parking will also be subject to Commission approval under the Plan and Guidelines. The C-3E District and all existing districts which continue to be mapped in the Study Area will have the same parking requirements as the rest of the City. Description of Proposed Districts and Their Mapping The new and revised district regulations apply- ing specifically to the C-3, C-3A, C-3B, C-3C, C-3D, and C-3E Districts are set forth in Articles XV through XV-5, respectively. There follows a sum- mary of the proposed regulations for these Districts and how they are mapped. A tabular summary of the bulk regulations for all districts mapped in the CBD appears below. Proposed Miami CBD Zoning District Bulk Regulations C-3 District (Article XV) The C-3 District will be mapped to include all the area presently mapped C-3 except the following: 1. The area north of N.W. and N.E. 2nd Street and west of a line 200 feet west of N.E. 2nd Avenue. 2. The Flagler Street retail area. 3. The area south of the 1-95 Expressway ramps and west of S.E. 2nd Avenue. The C-3 District's use regulations will remain es- sentially unchanged, being well -suited to the variety of activities needed for high intensity development in the core of the Central Business District. The basic control on building size is the floor area ratio limit. Maximum floor area ratios are shown in the table below. New limits are introduced for non- residential uses and hotels in lieu of the 300 foot height limit, which is too crude to be helpful as a planning and development control and is proposed to be eliminated. The present floor area ratio limits for residential uses are raised slightly from a range of 2.0 to 7.0 to one of 4.0 to 8.0. The difference between the lower and the higher figure in the range of maximum FAR's reflects the potential floor area bonus allowances. For non-residential uses the attainment of the maximum FAR 13.0 depends upon Maximum Floor Area Ratio Minimum Lot Area Minimum Usable Open District Commercial Residential Entire Bldg. Per D.U.. Sa.Ft. Space/D.U., SQ.Ft. C-3 and C-3A (Present C-3 Except for northwest quadrant) 8.0 to 13.0 C-3B (Plaza Venetia and Adja- cent area to south & west) C-3C (Northwest portion of present C-3) C-3D (Plaza Venetia -East, N. Biscayne, and Miami Riverfront Area) C-3E (East of N.E. 2nd Ave., North of N.E.7th St.) 2.0 1.5 to 1.65 C-1, C-2 {Existing) 2.0 1.5 to 1.65 C-4, C-5 & •1-1 (Existing) 2.0 R-4 (Existing) 1.0 to 1.1 R-5 {Existing) 2.0 to 2.2 4.0to8.0 10.0to 17.0 115 2.0 to 5.0 2.0 to 5.0 3.0 to 6.0 220 2.0 to 5.0 2.0 to 5.0 3.0 to 6.0 220 50 120 120 1.5 to 2.4 1.5 to 5.0 2.5 to 6.0 220 120 600 200 600 200 750 200 450 200 Note: floor area ratios do not include floor area for off-street parking facilities since the Miami Zoning Ordinance excludes area in off-street ,parking facilities from the floor area definition. The amount of on -site parking spaces will be determined on the basis of the Parking Plan and Guidelines. it would not' be likely to exceed seven parking levels or the equivalent of six points of FAR on any site. 41 the development's proximity to a rapid transit station. If the development is more than 1000 feet walking distance from a station on the rapid transit system, the maximum FAR with all bonuses is 11.0. When Phase I I of the Implementation Program is in effect, the District Plan will include major new ele- ments related to the transit system, so that develop- ments close to transit stations will typically be required to provide upper level pedways or bridges over streets for which additional floor area bonuses will be earned. The higher maximum FAR of 13.0 also takes into account an anticipated reduction in the percentage of employees using automobiles for the journey -to -work, so that the impact of automobile traffic on the street system will be no greater than that generated by a building with FAR 11.0, which is not served by rapid transit. As part of the implementation program's emphasis on new residential construction, the C-3 District (and other new districts as well) provides for a higher maximum FAR for buildings which combine both residential and non-residential uses than for single use structures. The range of maximum FAR's for an entire mixed building is 10.0 to 17.0, of which the non-residential portion may not exceed 8.0 to 13.0 or the residential portion 4.0 to 8.0. For example, a non-residential building which provides no features qualifying for bonus floor area could have a maximum FAR of 8.0. The building's total FAR could be raised to as much as 10.0 by adding upper stories for apartments. Floor area bonus provisions (contained in Section 8) provide extra incentives for residential or mixed buildings by doubling bonus floor area if it is allocated to residential use. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit is lowered slightly from 125 to 115 square feet in line with the increase in maximum residential FAR from 7.0 to 8.0. Usable open space requirements are reduced from 90 (under existing regulations) to 50 square feet per dwelling unit, and all restrictions on the levels or heights at which it may be provided are eliminated. The revised requirements are more con- sistent with the high densities and urban living environment which the rest of the district regula- tions clearly contemplate. The proposed yard requirements of the C-3 District, reflecting the need for ground level open space, incorporate the front and street side setback regulations of the C-2 District. Present requirements of interior side yards for residential buildings are eliminated, but residential building walls having windows are require line at least 25 feet one -sixth of the hei• more. Present rear y residential buildings ings, would remain back of residential • from interior side to rear lot lines. A revi- also been prepared f buildings in high de In the case of and non-residential quirements for resid' floor level of the to use. These yard reg all the new districts, of Article IV, Secti• residential and non - apply in the C-3 Dis applicable in the C- tricts, since they ar having more than 21 residential use. C-3A District The proposed Street retail area ha District, except for ments. These requirl the Section 3.4 of t Plan. C-38 District The C-3B Dis Midtown Area nort Avenue, extending includes most of PI the tier of blocks b mapped south of F.E.C. Railroad an district will replace Area. It will also re the Plaza Venetia The use regul generally the same this high activity apartment buitdi C3 District (Article XV) The C-3 District will be mapped to include all the area presently mapped C-3 except the following: 1. The area north of N.W. and N.E. 2nd Street and west of a line 200 feet west of N.E. 2nd Avenue. 2. The Flagler Street retail area. 3. The area south of the 1-95 Expressway ramps and west of S.E. 2nd Avenue. The C-3 District's use regulations will remain es- sentially unchanged, being well -suited to the variety of activities needed for high intensity development in the core of the Central Business District. The basic control on building size is the floor area ratio limit. Maximum floor area ratios are shown in the table below. New limits are introduced for non- residential uses and hotels in lieu of the 300 foot height limit, which is too crude to be helpful as a planning and development control and is proposed to be eliminated. The present floor area ratio limits for residential uses are raised slightly from a range of 2.0 to 7.0 to one of 4.0 to 8.0. The difference between the lower and the higher figure in the range of maximum FAR's reflects the potential floor area bonus allowances. For non-residential uses the attainment of the maximum FAR 13.0 depends upon Ratio Minimum Lot Area al Entire Bido. Per D.0 Sa.Ft. ) 10.0to 17.0 115 3 3.0 to 6.0 220 0 3.0 to 6.0 220 0 2.5 to 6.0 220 65 600 65 600 1 750 .2 450 11- 1 L- Minimum Usable Open L Space/D.0 Sa Ft. 1 L 120 120 1 1l .: 120 l 200 200 r 1 200 200 r id 50 ICllitiessince :theAlliami Zoning Ordinance excludes area in offstreet tsitettarking spaces evil be determined on the basis of the Parking Plan refs orthesquivalent of six points of FAR on any site. the development's proximity to a rapid transit station. If the development is more than 1000 feet walking distance from a station on the rapid transit system, the maximum FAR with all bonuses is 11.0. When Phase II of the Implementation Program is in effect, the District Plan will include major new ele- ments related to the transit system, so that develop- ments close to transit stations will typically be required to provide upper level pedways or bridges over streets for which additional floor area bonuses will be earned. The higher maximum FAR of 13.0 also takes into account an anticipated reduction in the percentage of employees using automobiles for the journey -to -work, so that the impact of automobile traffic on the street system will be no greater than that generated by a building with FAR 11.0, which is not served by rapid transit. As part of the implementation program's emphasis on new residential construction, the C-3 District (and other new districts as well) provides for a higher maximum FAR for buildings which combine both residential and non-residential uses than for single use structures. The range of maximum FAR's for an entire mixed building is 10.0 to 17.0, of which the non-residential portion may not exceed 8.0 to 13.0 or the residential portion 4.0 to 8.0. For example, a non-residential building which provides no features qualifying for bonus floor area could have a maximum FAR of 8.0. The building's total FAR could be raised to as much as 10.0 by adding upper stories for apartments. Floor area bonus provisions (contained in Section 8) provide extra incentives for residential or mixed buildings by doubling bonus floor area if it is allocated to residential use. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit is lowered slightly from 125 to 115 square feet in line with the increase in maximum residential FAR from 7.0 to 8.0. Usable open space requirements are reduced from 90 (under existing regulations) to 50 square feet per dwelling unit, and all restrictions on the levels or heights at which it may be provided are eliminated. The revised requirements are more con- sistent with the high densities and urban living environment which the rest of the district regula- tions clearly contemplate. The proposed yard requirements of the C-3 District, reflecting the need for ground level open space, incorporate the front and street side setback regulations of the C-2 District. Present requirements of interior side yards for residential buildings are eliminated, but residential building walls having windows are required to be set back from the lot line at least 25 feet (instead of 10 feet as now) or one -sixth of the height of the wall, whichever is more. Present rear yard requirements, none for non- residential buildings and 25 feet for residential build- ings, would remain unchanged, but the rule for set- back of residential building walls with windows from interior side lot lines would apply also from rear lot lines. A revised building spacing formula has also been prepared for more appropriate spacing of buildings in high density areas. In the case of buildings which combine residential and non-residential uses, the yard and setback re- quirements for residential uses would apply at the floor level of the lowest story used for residential use. These yard regulations are generally similar for all the new districts, except the C-3E. The provisions of Article IV, Section 27, applying to combination residential and non-residential buildings, do not now apply in the C-3 District and should also be made in- applicable in the C-3A, C-3B, C-3C and C-3D Dis- tricts, since they are overly restrictive for buildings having more than 25 percent of their floor area in residential use. C-3A District (Article XV-1) The proposed C-3A District for the Flagler Street retail area has the same regulations as the C-3 District, except for the special retail use require- ments. These requirements have been discussed in the Section 3.4 of this report describing the District Plan. C-3B District (Article XV-2) The C-3B District is mapped primarily in the Midtown Area north of 1-395 and east of N.E. 2nd Avenue, extending north to N.E. 17th Terrace. It includes most of Plaza Venetia but does not include the tier of blocks bordering Biscayne Bay. It is also mapped south of East Flagler Street between the F.E.C. Railroad and 1.95. For the most part the new district will replace the C-1 District in the Midtown Area. It will also replace the C-3 District mapped for the Plaza Venetia project and portions of C-4 Districts. The use regulations of the C-3B District are generally the same as for the C-3 District as befits this high activity central business area. However, apartment buildings are permitted as a matter of 42 right rather than subject to conditional use approval as in C-3. The structure of the bulk regulations is similar to that for the C-3 District. As indicated on the table, "Proposed Miami CBD Zoning District Bulk Regulations", the range of maximum FAR's for residential and non-residential uses is the same: 2.0 to 5.0. However, the attainment of a non- residential FAR exceeding 4.0 depends upon the development's proximity to a rapid transit station. As a general rule, it should be possible to handle the impact of each development in the C-3B Dis- trict on the development site itself. However, such criteria as on -site accommodation of parking for office buildings become difficult to achieve at FAR's higher than 4.0 in the absence of ameliora- ting factors such as good transit service. When the rapid transit route alignments and station locations are fixed, just as in the C-3 District, there will be new obligations on developers who build along a transit line or near a station to provide connecting pedestrian ways or bridges under Phase II of the Implementation Program. In return for these extra obligations extra bonus floor area will be re- quired, and the increase in maximum FAR to 5.0 will be needed to provide adequate bonus capacity. The range of maximum FAR's for a mixed building is 3.0 to 6.0, providing the same kind of incentive for combining residential and non-resi- dential uses as that described for the C-3 District. Extra incentives for residential use are pro- vided by increasing floor area bonuses for provision of mandatory or optional public facilities by 50 percent if the bonus floor area is allocated to residential use. Residential density controls require a mini- mum lot area of 220 square feet per dwelling unit, which would allow almost 200 families per net acre. The usable open space requirement of 120 square feet per dwelling unit, well in excess of the 50 square feet required in the C-3 District, is a good standard for developments just outside the core of the CBD. Section 8 of the District regula- tions provides liberal controls on the levels at which the open space can be provided. Yard regulations are the same as for the C-3 District. C-3C District (Article XV-3) The northwest portion of the present C-3 District north of N.W. and N.E. 2nd Street and 43 west of a line splitting the block between N.E. 1st Avenue and N.E. 2nd Avenue is proposed for a C-3C (Central Commercial Service) District designa- tions. Lacking significant development potential for high intensity uses, it is very well located for the large variety of services which support high intensity development. The uses permitted in the C-3C District will include, in addition to those permitted in C-3, an extensive list of services oriented toward businesses, employees and residents, including numerous kinds of contractors' shops and auto- motive services. The District may provide good loca- tions for off -site parking facilities serving high bulk office buildings and retail development in the C-3 and C-3A Districts. Apartment buildings are per- mitted only if approved as conditional uses. Open storage of materials and equipment is permitted subject to restrictions on location and to screening requirements. C-3C bulk regulations and yard and setback requirements are the same as for the C-3B District. Developments are not likely to make full use of bonus incentives, but if desired they are available. C-3D District (Article XV-4) The C-3D District is called a "Residential - Office Central Commercial District". Residential development is especially favored by the District regulations. The C-3D District is mapped in three areas, all of them exceptionally well located for residential or office development: 1. Along the left bank of the Miami River between the F.E.C. Railroad property and S.E. 2nd Avenue and the Brickell Avenue Bridge. The District replaces the C-3 District east of Miami Avenue and the 1-1 District between Miami Avenue and the railroad property. 2. Opposite proposed Bayfront Park (the Old Port) and extending to the west side of N.E. 2nd Avenue. The area is presently mapped C-2 along Biscayne Boulevard and C-4 to the rear. 3. Biscayne Bay frontage in the midtown area including the east portion of Plaza Venetia and a block to the south. The area is presently zoned C-3 and C-1. The District's use regulations permit residential, office and local retail uses, restaurants and cafes. Entertainment uses are not permitted. The bulk regulations differ from those in the C-3B and C-3C Districts in that the maximum FAR's for non-residential uses are limited to a range of 2.0 to 2.4. This restriction is designed to limit the bulk of commercial development and related accessory parking structures so as to provide comparatively favorable conditions for residential development. A maximum residential FAR of 5.0 can be earned by providing mandatory or optional amenities earning bonus floor area. The usable open space requirement of 120 square feet per dwelling unit includes a requirement that at least 80 percent be provided at ground level or heights no greater than 50 feet above ground level. The yard and setback regulations are the same as those for the C-3, C-3B and C-3C Districts. A major part of the C-3D Districts is subject to the Waterfront Area Development Controls in Article XXVI-1, Section 6, which include special yard requirements, restrictions on ground coverage and landscaping requirements. Other provisions of that section allow the City Commission to waive or modify district yard or distance between building regulations as well as certain of the Waterfront Area Development Controls to achieve better view pro- tection and better arrangements of landscaped open space. (See discussion of Waterfront Area Develop- ment Controls in Section 3.4.) C-3E District (Article XV-5) The C-3E District is the only new district being proposed with a maximum bulk or low as FAR 2.0. This district is mapped in areas west of N.E. 2nd Avenue and north and south of 1-395 where C-4 and C-5 Districts are presently mapped. These areas are characterized by mixed residen- tial and non-residential uses including some industrial uses. The area south of 1-395 is the location of the proposed new In -Town Residential Community. The C-3E District would permit residential uses where the C-4 and C-5 Districts do not. The District is designed with the limited purpose of allowing residential uses (as well as non-residential) in areas where residential development is appropriate and where there is an appreciable amount of residential use today. Residential uses will thus be afforded the limited advantages of conforming use status. However, there should be no illusions that mapping the C-3E District will in and of itself result in redevelopment for residential use. A large part of the In -Town Residential Community site is proposed to remain in a C-5 classification for the present,since present land use conditions in that to the introduction of the survival of existin', The use regulatio residential and comma. presently predominate is mapped. Many of t which are presently p District mapping will District department st ments (over 10,000 sq excluded because the establishments in the consistent with the p centration of shoppin In any district d protection for the ma area, some highly inc• be made non-confor C-3E District include use approval of additi non -conforming uses. As in the C-3C materials and equipm restrictions on Iocati • ments. The maximum f uses is 2.0. For resid to the C-2 regulation ratio is 1.5 to 1.65 d= unit size, the minirnu is 600 square feet an space per dwelling u Changes from The present ex area north of 1-395. i 1. The C-4 Dis to two strips al north of the M. boundary of the area between. tit Venetian Causer Herald plant. 2. The area bed I-1 industrial, b is changed to C part of this are low -density r iently related t The area shout� oval on 's ne: e on. ich re - :he ions a ling le re- 5.0 .city. of si- ict. o- vision 50 ini- unit, at 20 if the a the gula- t which :E-3 C-3 and west of a line splitting the block between N.E. 1st Avenue and N.E. 2nd Avenue is proposed for a C-3C (Central Commercial Service) District designa- tions. Lacking significant development potential for high intensity uses, it is very well located for the large variety of services which support high intensity development. The uses permitted in the C-3C District will include, in addition to those permitted in C-3, an extensive list of services oriented toward businesses, employees and residents, including numerous kinds of contractors' shops and auto- motive services. The District may provide good loca- tions for off -site parking facilities serving high bulk office buildings and retail development in the C-3 and C-3A Districts. Apartment buildings are per- mitted only if approved as conditional uses. Open storage of materials and equipment is permitted subject to restrictions on location and to screening requirements. C-3C bulk regulations and yard and setback requirements are the same as for the C-3B District. Developments are not likely to make full use of bonus incentives, but if desired they are available. C-3D District {Article XV-4) The C-3D District is called a "Residential - Office Central Commercial District". Residential development is especially favored by the District regulations. The C-3D District is mapped in three areas, all of them exceptionally well located for residential or office development: 1. Along the left bank of the Miami River between the F.E.C. Railroad property and S.E. 2nd Avenue and the Brickell Avenue Bridge. The District replaces the C-3 District east of Miami Avenue and the 1-1 District between Miami Avenue and the railroad property. 2. Opposite proposed Bayfront Park (the Old Port) and extending to the west side of N.E. 2nd Avenue. The area is presently mapped C-2 along Biscayne Boulevard and C-4 to the rear. 3. Biscayne Bay frontage in the midtown area including the east portion of Plaza Venetia and a block to the south. The area is presently zoned C-3 and C-1. The District's use regulations permit residential, office and local retail uses, restaurants and cafes. Entertainment uses are -not permitted. The bulk regulations differ from those in the C-3B and C-3C Districts in that the maximum FAR's for non-residential uses are limited to a range of 2.0 to 2.4. This restriction is designed to limit the bulk of commercial development and related accessory parking structures so as to provide comparatively favorable conditions for residential development. A maximum residential FAR of 5.0 can be earned by providing mandatory or optional amenities earning bonus floor area. The usable open space requirement of 120 square feet per dwelling unit includes a requirement that at least 80 percent be provided at ground level or heights no greater than 50 feet above ground level. The yard and setback regulations are the same as those for the C-3, C-3B and C-3C Districts. A major part of the C-3D Districts is subject to the Waterfront Area Development Controls in Article XXVI-1, Section 6, which include special yard requirements, restrictions on ground coverage and landscaping requirements. Other provisions of that section allow the City Commission to waive or modify district yard or distance between building regulations as well as certain of the Waterfront Area Development Controls to achieve better view pro- tection and better arrangements of landscaped open space. (See discussion of Waterfront Area Develop- ment Controls in Section 3.4.) C-3E District (Article XV-5) The C-3E District is the only new district being proposed with a maximum bulk or low as FAR 2.0. This district is mapped in areas west of N.E. 2nd Avenue and north and south of 1.395 where C-4 and C-5 Districts are presently mapped. These areas are characterized by mixed residen- tial and non-residential uses including some industrial uses. The area south of 1-395 is the location of the proposed new In -Town Residential Community. The C-3E District would permit residential uses where the C-4 and C-5 Districts do not. The District is designed with the limited purpose of allowing residential uses (as well as non-residential) in areas where residential development is appropriate and where there is an appreciable amount of residential use today. Residential uses will thus be afforded the limited advantages of conforming use status. However, there should be no illusions that mapping the C-3E District will in and of itself result in redevelopment for residential use. A large part of the In -Town Residential Community site is proposed to remain in a C-5 classification for the present,since present land use conditions in that part of site are clearly inimical to the introduction of new residential uses or even the survival of existing ones. The use regulations of the C-3E District permit residential and commercial uses of the types which presently predominate in the areas where the District is mapped. Many of the service and industrial uses which are presently permitted by C-4 and C-5 District mapping will not be permitted in the new District department stores and large retail establish- ments (over 10,000 square feet of floor area) are excluded because the sporadic appearance of such establishments in the C-3E Districts would be in- consistent with the purpose of promoting the con- centration of shopping in major centers. In any district designed to provide reasonable protection for the majority of uses in a mixed use area, some highly incompatible uses will inevitably be made non -conforming. The use regulations of the C-3E District include a provision for conditional use approval of additions to buildings containing non -conforming uses. As in the C-3C District open storage of materials and equipment is permitted subject to restrictions on location and to screening require- ments. The maximum floor area ratio for non-residential uses is 2.0. For residential uses (by cross reference to the C-2 regulations) the maximum floor area ratio is 1.5 to 1.65 depending on average dwelling unit size, the minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 600 square feet and the minimum usable open space per dwelling unit is 200 square feet. Changes from C-4 Mapping North of 1-395 The present excessive mapping of C-4 in the area north of 1-395 is changed as follows: 1. The C-4 District is proposed to be confined to two strips along N.E. 2nd Avenue, an area north of the Miami City Cemetery at the boundary of the Study Area and a two block area between the approaches to McArthur and Venetian Causeways which includes the Miami Herald plant. 2. The area between N.E. 1st Court and the 1-1 industrial band along the F.E.C. Railroad is changed to C-3E, R-4 and C-1. The central part of this area is occupied by well -maintained low -density residential development conven- iently related to the Midtown business area. The area should remain predominantly residential. 44 3. Blocks on both sides of N.E. 2nd Avenue between N.E. 14th Street and N.E. 16th Street are changed to C-3B to provide for westerly expansion of the Midtown Core. Areas Where No Changes Are Proposed In the following areas no substantial changes from existing zoning are recommended: 1. The area of the Proposed Miami Dade County Government Center is proposed to remain in its present classifications — C-4 and R-4 — until plans are crystallized for the Gov- ernment Center Project. The interim overlay district around the site should be made per- manent when the Government Center zoning is changed with any modifications which then appear appropriate. 2. Zoning of The Riverfront Area west of the proposed C-3D District is proposed to remain unchanged pending adoption of plans for the area. 3. The area north of the Government Center site which includes the NDP-3 Area should remain in its present zoning pending renewal action. 4. Portions of the existing C-5 zoning between N. Miami Avenue and the F.E.C. Railroad and along the Municipal Railroad and F.E.C. spurs are proposed to remain unchanged for the present because of existing development. 5. The area north of the Midtown Core is appropriately zoned and should remain in its present classifications. Phase 11: Revisions and Updating As a key part of the strategy of timing and phasing discussed earlier, it will be important per- iodically tareview and update the zoning districts, regulations and zoning maps as major public im- provements are committed or completed and new programs of developrnent or :redevelopment occur in Downtown Miami. rt trt. • 1-77.471 !III, I. �Trti} r I- -I ,.� STUDY AREA ,,.., DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .... NDP-3 i -, 1l1 i I I J i_ �J nu IL_ L1i1 1iI t1 -,, 4 .f.4- n Lt '17;"Tr"! C...,,..1 L. IL INIIN 1111 i. MI pll B trl}. wow STUDY AREA mow DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..« NDP-3 STUDY AREA BOUNDARY 111111111111,1�'� 46 a REGIONAL ACTIVITY CONCENTRATIONS * Business Districts = Industrial Area • Major Shopping Center ;: Conservation Area a Highrise Office (t000.000 i 47 IIIIIIIII111., 4.0 REGIONAL CONTEXT 4.1 DEFINITION AND THE STU The Study Area, located in a region co Florida. This region i smaller but contiguou along the Florida east beyond. Biscayne Bay the F.E.C. Railroad a boundaries of the Ur• Study. This boundary vious planning studies ment Authority's juri definition of Downto the linear developme Boulevard and to the 4.2 CHARACTER DOWNTOWN Since Miami and coast urban corridor mobile has had a maj of activities and the o Residential communi Hialeah, South Miami established early and decentralization of ac industrial. In additio iveness of the Atlanti the Everglades have i of smaller cities along urban core. Consequ Tess relative importan areas of other similarl: For example, employ 1972 was 8.4% of th CBD's in Dallas - 26 15%, Buffalo - 14% a Although the ur occupies less than t01 density of developm notable exception is Miami and Miami Be developments in Sou coastal growth has nq density developmen shore of Biscayne Ba, Study Area. Downtown_ Mia BD 4,1 MTY CONCENTRATIONS :Area 11HI 11 1 'I '1 1 I L 4.0 Li REGIONAL Li CONTEXT L L 1 L L t__ L �-. C: [:. 4.1 DEFINITION OF THE MIAMI REGION AND THE STUDY AREA The Study Area, or Downtown Miami, is located in a region coterminous with Dade County, Florida. This region is, in turn, linked to other, smaller but contiguous, urban areas extending north along the Florida east coast to West Palm Beach and beyond. Biscayne Bay, the Miami River, 1-95, 1395, the F.E.C. Railroad and North 20th Street form the boundaries of the Urban Development and Zoning Study. This boundary conforms generally to pre- vious planning studies and the Downtown Develop- ment Authority's jurisdiction; however, a functional definition of Downtown Miami would also include the linear developments to the north along Biscayne Boulevard and to the south along Brickell Avenue. 4.2 CHARACTER OF THE REGION AND DOWNTOWN Since Miami and the Southern Florida east coast urban corridor are relatively young, the auto- mobile has had a major impact upon the distribution of activities and the overall form of the urban region. Residential communities such as Coral Gables, Hialeah, South Miami and North Miami were established early and have significantly influenced decentralization of activities, particularly retail and industrial. In addition, topological features, attract- iveness of the Atlantic Coast, and the location of the Everglades have influenced a linear distribution of smaller cities along the coast, rather than a single urban core. Consequently, Downtown Miami is of less relative importance in its region than central areas of other similarly sized metropolitan areas. For example, employment in the Study Area in 1972 was 8.4% of the region's total, compared to CBD's in Dallas - 26%, Louisville - 17%, Baltimore - 15%, Buffalo - 14% and Denver - 14%. Although the urbanized area of Dade County occupies less than 10% of the total land area, the density of development is generally very low. The notable exception is the waterfront. Downtown Miami and Miami Beach were the first high intensity developments in Southern Florida. The dense coastal growth has now moved north, and new high density developments have begun along the western shore of Biscayne Bay both north and south of the Study Area. Downtown Miami, which is small compared to 48 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION -- Existing Expressway — Future Rapid Transit Extension — Proposed Expressway intercoastal Waterway Illll I I I 1 I I •••••• Proposed Rapid Transit 1 other downtown areas in similarly sized regions, functions primarily as the regional office core. In 1971 47% of the total regional office employment was located Downtown;5 whereas the retail area along Flagier Street is not significantly greater than the Dadeland Mall shopping center. Downtown does have entertainment activities of regional importance, such as the Miami Philharmonic, but there are also many other entertainment concentrations, particu- larly on Miami Beach and along Biscayne Boulevard between the Study Area and Julia Tuttle Causeway. Government office space is also presently decentral- ized with the Court House and Federal office Down- town, City offices in Coconut Grove and many Dade County offices adjacent to the Civic Center west of the Study Area. A major regional office and residential concentration is also developing along Brickell Avenue. This indicates that Downtown Miami is the specialized core of the region with many of the traditional downtown functions decentralized in adjacent areas and throughout Dade County. 4.3 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTS AFFECTING DOWNTOWN The future of Downtown Miami is dependent on the region. If regional growth is sustained for the Miami Regional and Downtown Population 1959 1964 1969 1975 935,047 IMP 1,440,000 i. 1.267.729 1,620 000 II 1,520,000 1,400,000 1980 1985 1,640,000 14,965• 1.0% Study Area hare of regional population *Section larger than current Study area 1,000,000 500,000 next 12 years, the St growth. The proport developed Downtow policy and commit as mass rapid transit ing the growth of D Population Gr Dade County i the State of Florida, rapidly growing stat and 1970, Dade Co 26% from 935,047 period the central ar contiguous census t from approximately much of this loss w and demolition in t struction of high ris new development i replaced the lose Changes in fou significant during t 1. ELDERLY:; older increase regional popul Miami Regional and 1959 1964 5201 429 400/ 368,382 41,000' 9.•% 'Study Area larger I G . t TRANSPORTATION Rapid Transit Extension a? tal Waterway I III I I I I I I I I other downtown areas in similarly sized regions, functions primarily as the regional office core. In 1971 47% of the total regional office employment was located Downtown:5 whereas the retail area along Flagler Street is not significantly greater than the Dadeland Mall shopping center. Downtown does have entertainment activities of regional importance, such as the Miami Philharmonic, but there are also many other entertainment concentrations, particu- larly on Miami Beach and along Biscayne Boulevard between the Study Area and Julia Tuttle Causeway. Government office space is also presently decentral- ized with the Court House and Federal office Down- town, City offices in Coconut Grove and many Dade County offices adjacent to the Civic Center west of the Study Area. A major regional office and residential concentration is also developing along Brickell Avenue. This indicates that Downtown Miami is the specialized core of the region with many of the traditional downtown functions decentralized in adjacent areas and throughout Dade County. 4.3 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTS AFFECTING DOWNTOWN The future of Downtown Miami is dependent on the region. If regional growth is sustained for the Miami Regional and Downtown Population 1959 1964 1969 1975 935,047 1980 1985 14,965• 1.0% S)udy Area share of regional population *Section larger than current S udy Area 1,000,000 500.000 next 12 years, the Study Area will share in that growth. The proportion of new growth which is developed Downtown will depend largely on public policy and commitments to such regional facilities as mass rapid transit. The four major factors affect- ing the growth of Downtown are discussed below: Population Growth and Residential Development Dade County is the most rapidly growing area in the State of Florida, and Florida is one of the most rapidly growing states in the nation. Between 1960 and 1970, Dade County population increased by 26% from 935,047 to 1,259,102. During the same period the central area of Miami (the Study Area and contiguous census tracts) lost population, decreasing from approximately 32,000 to 29,000. However, much of this loss was a result of highway construction and demolition in the NDP-3 Area. Since 1970 con- struction of high rise units on Brickell Avenue and new development in the NDP-3 Area have probably replaced the loss Changes in four population sub -groups were significant during the past decade. 1. ELDERLY: The population 62 years and older increased from 12% to 17% of the total regional population. Miami Regional and Downtown Employment *Revised Regional Projection 41,000• 9.5% ��.455.556• 8.4% Study Area share of regional employmen *Study Area larger in 1972. 560,000 480,1300 400,000 320,000 240,000 160,000 80,000 2. SPANISH-SPEAKING: In 1970, 43% of the population of the City of Miami reported Spanish as their native language. 3. BLACK: Between 1960 and 1970, the Black population increased from 12% to 15% of the region's total. Over 23% of the City of Miami is Black. 4. YOUNG SINGLES AND COUPLES: Follow- ing a national trend, the region showed a de- clining birthrate, an increasing number of young adults, and a continuing trend toward later marriage. The increase of elderly, singles, and childless couples is particularly important for the future of Downtown, since these are the groups most amen- able to high density, urban life styles. The Spanish- speaking and Black populations are also important to Downtown development because they are the major users of Downtown retail and entertainment facilities. Employment Growth and the Regional Economy The growth of Dade County from 1950 to 1970 indicates a significant shift in employment from heavy reliance on tourism, as represented by retail trade and services, to a growing percentage of manufacturing employment as well as a slight in- crease in finance, insurance and real estate. The total labor force increased 29%7 and the Study Area em- ployment has increased from approximately 41,000 in 1964 to over 45,500 in 19728 Upon completion of projects now under construction, Downtown employment will be approximately 52,000 or 9.5% of the region's total. Regional Transportation The Miami regional expressway program has essentially followed the traditional low density, de- centralized activity distribution of the region. How- ever, accessibility improvements to Downtown (1-95 North -South Expressway, Airport Expressway and East-West Expressway) were built in conjunction with the Palmetto and Golden Glades Expressways which serve the Miami urbanizing fringe. Thus, negative impacts on the CBD were avoided in con- trast to Baltimore's Beltway and Boston's Route 128. The expressways have increased the oppor- 51 tunities and influenced the location of regional shopping centers and industrial parks. However, this _ has served to reinforce the traditional retail pattern; and, since Miami had little significant manufacturing T prior to the 1960's, the decentralized pattern that is emerging has not been detrimental to the economy r of Downtown. The future expressway system fore- 14 casts an even more decentralized region reaching South to Homestead and West to the edge of the to increase accessibility to the coastal area and Down - Everglades. East -west routes, however, will continue town. The Study Area presently has good access to the interstate highway system with 1-95 to the east L and 1-395 to the north. In addition U.S. 1 passes through the Study Area as a major north -south arterial linking the Brickell Avenue development with the Study Area and forming the major non - freeway access to Downtown. However, this north - south movement along the Bayfront is also the critical congestion point in Downtown. Voters recently approved a bond issue for a new mass rapid transit system for the Miami Region. r The preliminary study of route location indicated a loop system beginning in North Miami, extending south along Miami Beach, then across the Bay to the Study Area. The system suggested only three T stops in the Study Area all north of the recent 1. office development on Flagler Street and on Brick - ell Avenue. Modification of the transit system will be investigated as part of the future detailed plan- ` ning effort for the Dade County Transit Study. The actual construction of the system is still in the distant future with the possibility of completion before 1980 unlikely. At present bus routes are the only form of mass transit serving the Study Area. The Alan M. Voorhees report on Government Center Transporta- I tion,9 published in 1970, indicates only 10%of Downtown Government employees arrive by transit; and the MUATS Report10of 1964 shows 80% of Downtown trips by auto. Clearly, the alignment and Downtown station locations of the mass rapid transit system could alter this heavy dependence on the automobile, resulting in reduced public transportation costs and increased public benefits to Downtown and the region. Environment Dade County is part of the Everglade's Basin which begins north of Lake Okeechobee and extends 1 1- south over 100 miles to the Everglades National Park. The dominant feature of this area is the Ever- glades or "River of Grass", a freshwater swamp in the center of the Florida peninsula, fed by summer rainfall and overflow from Lake Okeechobee. Urbanization in South Florida has directly affected the ecology of the basin; and, as might be expected, where population is most dense, environ- mental changes are most significant. The East Coast, where 90% of the population is located, has been drained, providing a 10-20 mile corridor that is relatively free from flooding. Conservation areas have been diked to provide storage areas for fresh water supply and for flood waters. The major environmental issue is fresh water supply for human uses. This supply does not come directly from the surface storage but from shallow aquifers which are close to the surface. The con- servation areas provide supplements to surface re- charge, which has decreased with the drainage of urbanized and agricultural areas. Even with the conservation areas, there are difficulties in main- taining sufficient fresh water in the aquifers to pre- vent salt water intrusion during periods of drought. The issue of water supply is also linked to the future of the Everglades; only recently has the importance of a continued supply of fresh water to the Park, in a manner approximating the historic hydrologic cycle, been realized as significant?' As a result of fresh water supply problems, and other environmental problems, such as air pollution, the issue of limiting Miami's growth has been raised. Also, the filling of Biscayne Bay and alterations of the existing shoreline have recently come under attack from environmental groups. Thus, development such as that currently planned on Claughton Island may occur with decreasing fre- quency, resulting in greater opportunity for Down- town developments adjacent to Bayfront Park over- looking Biscayne Bay. of the Black of the liami Follow- ) de- vf uvard dtess ire of 3men- Danish- ortant e the nment 0 to ment :ted by ntage of lht in - The total Area em- ly 41,000 impletion [town ) or 9.5% tram has ensity, de - Mon. -How- ttown :0-95 ssway and junction cpressways Thus, led in con- isfloute 128. eoppor- tunities and influenced the location of regional shopping centers and industrial parks. However, this has served to reinforce the traditional retail pattern; and, since Miami had little significant manufacturing prior to the 1960's, the decentralized pattern that is emerging has not been detrimental to the economy of Downtown. The future expressway system fore- casts an even more decentralized region reaching South to Homestead and West to the edge of the Everglades. East -west routes, however, will continue to increase accessibility to the coastal area and Down- town. The Study Area presently has good access to the interstate highway system with 1-95 to the east and 1-395 to the north. In addition U.S. 1 passes through the Study Area as a major north -south arterial linking the Brickell Avenue development with the Study Area and forming the major non - freeway access to Downtown. However, this north - south movement along the Bayfront is also the critical congestion point in Downtown. Voters recently approved a bond issue for a new mass rapid transit system for the Miami Region. The preliminary study of route location indicated a loop system beginning in North Miami, extending south along Miami Beach, then across the Bay to the Study Area. The system suggested only three stops in the Study Area all north of the recent office development on Flagler Street and on Brick - ell Avenue. Modification of the transit system will be investigated as part of the future detailed plan- ning effort for the Dade County Transit Study. The actual construction of the system is still in the distant future with the possibility of completion before 1980 unlikely. At present bus routes are the only form of mass transit serving the Study Area. The Alan M. Voorhees report on Government Center Transporta- tion 9 published in 1970, indicates only 10% of Downtown Government employees arrive by transit; and the MUATS Report10 of 1964 shows 80% of Downtown trips by auto. Clearly, the alignment and Downtown station locations of the mass rapid transit system could alter this heavy dependence on the automobile, resulting in reduced public transportation costs and increased public benefits to Downtown and the region. Environment Dade County is part of the Everglade's Basin which begins north of Lake Okeechobee and extends 1 south over 100 miles to the Everglades National Park. The dominant feature of this area is the Ever- glades or "River of Grass", a freshwater swamp in the center of the Florida peninsula, fed by summer rainfall and overflow from Lake Okeechobee. Urbanization in South Florida has directly affected the ecology of the basin; and, as might be expected, where population is most dense, environ- mental changes are most significant. The East Coast, where 90% of the population is located, has been drained, providing a 10-20 mile corridor that is relatively free from flooding. Conservation areas have been diked to provide storage areas for fresh water supply and for flood waters. The major environmental issue is fresh water supply for human uses. This supply does not come directly from the surface storage but from shallow aquifers which are close to the surface. The con- servation areas provide supplements to surface re- charge, which has decreased with the drainage of urbanized and agricultural areas. Even with the conservation areas, there are difficulties in main- taining sufficient fresh water in the aquifers to pre- vent salt water intrusion during periods of drought. The issue of water supply is also linked to the future of the Everglades; only recently has the importance of a continued supply of fresh water to the Park, in a manner approximating the historic hydrologic cycle, been realized as significant?' As a result of fresh water supply problems, and other environmental problems, such as air pollution, the issue of limiting Miami's growth has been raised. Also, the filling of Biscayne Bay and alterations of the existing shoreline have recently come under attack from environmental groups. Thus, development such as that currently planned on Claughton Island may occur with decreasing fre- quency, resulting in greater opportunity for Down- town developments adjacent to Bayfront Park over- looking Biscayne Bay. 52 \,PREDOMINANTLY BLACK 'RESIDENTIAL • ;PART OF NDP - 3 J -r\\ lI _ 1 r' da ::raffia n C=3 Office NM Hotel NEI Retail Public Facility Manufacturing, Wholesale and Storage NTIAL MIDTOWN RETAIL 1 CORE HERALD HOTEL ROW T PARK DOWNTOWN OFFICE CORE DOWNTOWN RETAIL CORE I FUNCTIONAL AREAS Ili) 1 1 1 1 5.0 DOWNTOWN MIAMI 1973 5.1 FUNCTION Reflecting the city and the functi of different uses, a similar characteris scribed below are i Downtown socio-e Some of these area play a significant r Downtown. Other solescent with cha activity structures activities themsely: and will provide o' The Downto The general I. Core is along Flagl concentrations of County Court Ho imately 4 million this area, represen and supporting 20 fice activity is shif nue, where most r Intensity of • Street generally fa (F.A.R.) of 8 to 1 intensities are hig has an F.A.R. of 21 Street are relative) square feet with a 10,000 square fee oriented toward ranges for prime cities: 100 North 100 South Biscay Federal Building, Biscayne Tower, Activity pattj are weighted towal institutions, and d Ground floor spat they are occupied or banking chain { parking under or older structures r face parking to t Street. However, ever increasing d TIT fMIOTOWN COREL iMurx HERALD OLD PORT TEL -ROW PARK TOWN CORE NOWNTO RET CORE 4"/ FUNCTIONAL AREAS lIIIIIIIIIII 5.0 DOWNTOWN MIAMI 1973 5.1 FUNCTIONAL AREAS AND LINKAGES Reflecting the historic development of the city and the functional and economic requirements of different uses, areas can be delineated which have similar characteristics. Each of the sub -areas de- scribed below are integrated parts of the existing Downtown socio-economic and functional structure. Some of these areas, such as the Office Core, will play a significant role in the future development of Downtown. Other areas, which are becoming ob- solescent with changing regional economic and activity structures and evolving requirements of the activities themselves, are becoming less significant and will provide opportunities for change. The Downtown Office Core The general location of the Downtown Office Core is along Flagler Street and S.E. 1st Street with concentrations of office employment from the County Court House to Biscayne Boulevard. Approx- imately 4 million square feet of office space is in this area, representing 42% of the regional inventory and supporting 20,000 employees. The center of of- fice activity is shifting to the east of East 2nd Ave- nue, where most recent construction has occurred. Intensity of office development along Flagler Street generally falls within Floor Area Ratios (F.A.R.) of 8 to 12. Along Biscayne Boulevard intensities are higher: 100 North Biscayne Building has an F.A.R. of 24. Building sizes along Flagler Street are relatively small, averaging 150,000 square feet with average per floor leasable areas of 10,000 square feet. Recent office buildings oriented toward Biscayne Boulevard reflect size ranges for prime office space built in other cities: 100 North Biscayne, 325,000 square feet; 100 South Biscayne, 350,000 square feet; First Federal Building, 480,000 square feet; and One Biscayne Tower, 750,000 square feet. Activity patterns within the Office Core are weighted toward banking, savings and loan institutions, and other financial activities. Ground floor spaces are generally active; that is, they are occupied by retail, service establishments or banking chambers. Recent buildings have parking under or attached to the office space; older structures rely on the large supply of sur- face parking to the north and south of Flagler Street. However, as new office space is built, an ever increasing demand for new parking will require 54 multiple level structures to meet all day parking re- quirements. Downtown Retail Core The Downtown Retail Core is one of a number of significant retail concentrations in the region, in- cluding older central business districts such as Coral Gables and more recent regional shopping centers such as Dadeland Mall. The Flagler Street Area has traditionally served as a retail center for the central area of Miami. This function continues today, and Downtown shoppers are predominantly Black and Spanish-speaking. However, the great number of patrons has kept Downtown retail sales relatively stable. The growing concentration of office workers and new residential development should also serve to keep retail sales stabilized. Four department stores located near the inter- section of Miami Avenue and Flagler Street form the center of the Core with apparel shops Tying east along Flagler and along Miami Avenue. Other retail and service establishments are located along N.E. and S.E. 1st Streets and along the streets inter- secting Flagler. According to the Doxiadis Study,12 the C.B.D. had $107,644,000 in sales in 1964. This was about $60 per square foot. The proposed retail development at Plaza Venetia may affect the Down- town Retail Core, however, increased office devel- opment and good transit access can sustain both centers. The access to parking by shoppers is another critical factor in determining the future of the Flag- ler Street businesses. New office construction will add demand to existing parking garages and possibly make auto access to the Retail Core even more difficult than it is today. Midtown Core Jordan Marsh, Jefferson and Sears Department Stores form the nucleus of the Midtown Core, com- plemented by the Lindsay Hopkins Education Cen- ter and the Miami ^Herald Building. With the addition of the proposed Plaza Venetia, this area will be one of the largest activity concentrations in the region employing over 8,000. It is an automobile oriented center relating to the region, particularly the residen- tial areas in Biscayne Bay and Miami Beach across the Venetia% Causeway. Although the Midtown Core is an intense regional development, the proposed rapid 56 transit network shows no plans for a stop near the Midtown Core. This means the majority of the 8,000 employees will continue to rely on automobile access, existing bus routes, or the minibus system. F.E.C. Railroad Manufacturing, Wholesaling and Warehousing The concentration of manufacturing, whole- saling and warehousing originally developed along the F.E.C. Railroad and the Municipal Railroad in conjunction with the old Port of Miami and as a service area to the Downtown Office and Retail Cores. This corridor extends to the north of the Study Area, to the Garment Center, and to the west along the Seaboard Coastline Railroad and N.W. 20th Street. Since warehousing is the predominant use within this corridor, the labor force is relatively low, totaling less than 1,800 employees. Other significant employment areas exist along the railroad north of the Study Area. Much of the area is cur- rently vacant or underutilized. Hotel Row Hotel Row, fronting Bayfront Park along Biscayne Boulevard from Flagler Street to N.E. 7th Street, consists of large, older hotels which were developed for resort accommodations near the Miami Retail Core and Biscayne Bay. Miami Beach has reduced the area's significance as a winter resort; and, consequently, the hotels have functioned primarily in recent years as accommodations for visiting businessmen. Currently, the heaviest occupancy rate is in the summer months, reflecting the increase of tourists from Latin America and Cuban visitors from other areas of the United States vacationing in Miami. 52 RESIDENTIAL SUB -AREAS There are four residential sub -areas in the Study Area which are distinguishable by population characteristics and housing type13 NDP-3 Community Lying south of 1-395 between 1-95 and the F.E.C. Railroad, the NDP-3 Area within the Study Area has a population of approximately 7,000, occupying more than 2,100 dwelling units. Over 99% of the residents are Black. The majority of the population is young with less than 10% over 62 years of age. Median family income is low with 32% of the households falling below the poverty line. Over 65% of the labor force is unemployed or underem- ployed. The residents are largely employed in retail sales, services, and domestic labor. A large propor- tion of the families have female heads -of -household. Housing types are mixed with both single family detached and walk-up apartments represented in significant numbers. The residential density of the area averages over 40 people per gross acre. Median household size is 3.3. The major non-residential activities consisting of retail, entertainment, and services are located within a commercial strip along N.W. 2nd Street. Area North of 1-395 An area similar in physical composition to the NDP-3 Area lies north of 1-395 below the Miami Cemetery and east of the F.E.C. Railroad. However, when compared to the population within the NDP-3 Area, the residents show1 greater3% are Bldivckeandrsity: 29%115% are over 62 years of age, are Spanish-speaking. Although the median family in- come exceeds $7,100, over 20% of the families fall below the poverty line. population Composition in the Study Area —1970 e 8 0 16'- 144966 14 - 12 - 10- g 8- a- 4- 2- 7,678 619 3,219 2,966 20% Tool Ova 62 Black Spanish Downtown R This area lies w extends north to 1-3 this area is approxi household size of 1. nantly elderly with population is Black of the population is Railroad, predomin ment" hotels. The a over $5,200, but m fall below the pove Biscayne R, The Biscayne 1-395 and west of Bay contains a pop 1% of the residents 31 % of the populat annual median fam proximately 18%o poverty line. The h clude residential h family dwellingse' Composition of H 8 7 932' j 6 c O t 4 2 Torsi er al transit network shows no plans for a stop near the Midtown Core. This means the majority of the 8,000 employees will continue to rely on automobile access, existing bus routes, or the minibus system. F.E.C. Railroad Manufacturing, Wholesaling and Warehousing The concentration of manufacturing, whole- saling and warehousing originally developed along the F.E.C. Railroad and the Municipal Railroad in conjunction with the old Port of Miami and as a service area to the Downtown Office and Retail Cores. This corridor extends to the north of the Study Area, to the Garment Center, and to the rs west along the Seaboard Coastline Railroad and N.W. 20th Street. Since warehousing is the predominant use within this corridor, the labor force is relatively r- low, totaling less than 1,800 employees. Other significant employment areas exist along the railroad north of the Study Area. Much of the area is cur- rently vacant or underutilized. er- 12 his ail wn- ;I- lr ag- I1 ibly tment Dom- Cen- dition one lion nted esiden- marls roes the rapid Hotel Row Hotel Row, fronting Bayfront Park along Biscayne Boulevard from Flagler Street to N.E. 7th Street, consists of large, older hotels which were developed for resort accommodations near the Miami Retail Core and Biscayne Bay. Miami Beach has reduced the area's significance as a winter resort; and, consequently, the hotels have functioned primarily in recent years as accommodations for visiting businessmen. Currently, the heaviest occupancy rate is in the summer months, reflecting the increase of tourists from Latin America and Cuban visitors from other areas of the United States vacationing in Miami. 52 RESIDENTIAL SUB -AREAS There are four residential sub -areas in the Study Area which are distinguishable by population characteristics and housing type13 NDP=3 Community Lying south of 1-395 between 1-95 and the F.E.C. Railroad, the NDP-3 Area within the Study Area has a population of approximately 7,000, occupying more than 2,100 dwelling units. Over 99% of the residents are Black. The majority of the population is young with less than 10% over 62 years of age. Median family income is low with 32% of the households falling below the poverty line. Over 65% of the labor force is unemployed or underem- ployed. The residents are largely employed in retail sales, services, and domestic labor. A large propor- tion of the families have female heads -of -household. Housing types are mixed with both single family detached and walk-up apartments represented in significant numbers. The residential density of the area averages over 40 people per gross acre. Median household size is 3.3. The major non-residential activities consisting of retail, entertainment, and services are located within a commercial strip along N.W. 2nd Street. Area North of 1-395 An area similar in physical composition to the NDP-3 Area lies north of 1-395 below the Miami Cemetery and east of the F.E.C. Railroad. However, when compared to the population within the NDP-3 Area, the residents show greater diversity: 15%are over 62 years of age, 13% are Black and 29% are Spanish-speaking. Although the median family in- come exceeds $7,100, over 20% of the families fall below the poverty line. Population Composition in the Study Area — 1970 Thousands of Residents 16- 14 — 12- 10- 8- 6- 4- 2- 14,965 3,219 7,678 2,965 20% Total Over 62 Black Spanish Downtown Residential Area This area lies within the Downtown Core and extends north to 1-395. The total population within this area is approximately 2,700 with an average household size of 1.2. The population is predomi- nantly elderly with 45% over 62. Over 26% of the population is Black and 36% is Spanish. The majority of the population is located south of the F.E.C. Railroad, predominantly in residential or "retire- ment" hotels. The annual median family income is over $5,200, but more than 20% of the households fall below the poverty line. Biscayne Residential Area The Biscayne Residential Area lying north of 1-395 and west of Biscayne Boulevard along the Bay contains a population of over 1,000. Less than 1% of the residents are Black; 26% are Spanish. Over 31 % of the population is over 62. Although the annual median family income is over $7,200, ap- proximately 18% of the residents fall below the poverty line. The housing types within the area in- clude residential hotels and many large single family dwellings converted to apartments. Composition of Housing Stock Within the Study Area 8 c 6 0 4 a s 1- 2 6,173 78% 530 7% Total Single 0+ Owner Family Units Occupied Units 56 -MODEL CITES w�'tikae • IMF E HFtMA •••••• Study Area S Retail Office Commercial Strip 57 • e ..• wss lAL DEVELOFNEM ME BAY .......1 / r YFRONr D 0 LI BRICKELL AVENUE OFFICE,HOTEL,AND RESIDENTIAL RICKENBACKER CAUSEWAY a, •. CBD CONTEXT: FUNCTIONAL AREAS Warehouse, Manufacturing &Storage — Public Facilities •••• Proposed Rapid Transit - 1 5.3 CONTEXT AREA The functional areas within the Study Area &so have socio-economic and functional linkages to the surrounding context area. These include the following: Context Area to the North The Biscayne Boulevard Strip extending from N.E. 17th Street to the Julia Tuttle Causeway and beyond is the location of many entertainment and restaurant activities within the City of Miami. In- dustrial areas along the F.E.C. Railroad and the Garment Center between N.E. 24th and N.E. 29th Streets are major in -town, blue-collar employment centers. The area from N.W. 14th to N.W. 22nd Streets between N.W. 3rd Avenue and 1-95 is the area of major NDP-3 efforts to date, which consist primarily of public housing and 235-236 assisted housing. Context Area to the West The most significant activities west of the Study Area are the public facilities in the Civic Center Area, including the Civic Center itself, the Dade County Justice Building, Jackson Memorial Hospital, and the major sports facilities in Miami including the Orange Bowl and Miami Stadium. Context Area to the Southwest To the southwest of the Study Area is the major concentration of Spanish-speaking population in the region. The area has functioned during the last ten years as a "halfway" housing area for Cuban refugees; the relatively low rents and Spanish- speaking businesses in the area allow families to reestablish economic independence. Tamiami Trail or S.W. 8th Street is the major commercial district of this area and includes many Cuban businesses, services, entertainment facilities and restaurants. Context Area to the South Office, hotel and residential development along Brickell Avenue to the south of the Study Area functions as an extension of Downtown. There is currently over one office space with 3 tion. Over 6,000 un are occupied or and study by the Miami suggested more care Avenue Area to ret better urban design parking. Context Area The Port of M in Biscayne Bay an length of Biscayne The new Port's pot: the Study Area has should increase hate could generate a tour packages were the Port -Biscayne 5.4 EMPLOYME The primary Study Area is empl existing buildings. Downtown was no City Planning Dep use information. 1 erated by block fr Square Foot Per E Office and Financ (Recent Office Manufacturing, W Warehouse Retail Transportation, C & Utilities Public & Instituti Hotel and Mot& Total emplo is 45,556. Emplo dominated by off of the total empll with other catego CTIAREASONAL Owe iliilil_! „i1 5.3 CONTEXT AREA The functional areas within the Study Area also have socio-economic and functional linkages to the surrounding context area. These include the following: Context Area to the North The Biscayne Boulevard Strip extending from N.E. 17th Street to the Julia Tuttle Causeway and beyond is the location of many entertainment and restaurant activities within the City of Miami. In- dustrial areas along the F.E.C. Railroad and the Garment Center between N.E. 24th and N.E. 29th Streets are major in -town, blue-collar employment centers. The area from N.W. 14th to N.W. 22nd Streets between N.W. 3rd Avenue and 1-95 is the area of major NDP-3 efforts to date, which consist primarily of public housing and 235-236 assisted housing. Context Area to the West The most significant activities west of the Study Area are the public facilities in the Civic Center Area, including the Civic Center itself, the Dade County Justice Building, Jackson Memorial Hospital, and the major sports facilities in Miami including the Orange Bowl and Miami Stadium. Context Area to the Southwest To the southwest of the Study Area is the major concentration of Spanish-speaking population in the region. The area has functioned during the last ten years as a "halfway" housing area for Cuban refugees; the relatively low rents and Spanish- speaking businesses in the area allow families to reestablish.economic independence. Tamiami Trail or S.W. 8th Street is the major commercial district of this area and includes many Cuban businesses, services, entertainment facilities and restaurants. Context Area to the South Office, hotel and residential development along Brickell Avenue to the south of the Study Area functions as an extension of Downtown. There is currently over one million square feet of existing office space with 350,000 square feet under construc- tion. Over 6,000 units of high rise luxury housing are occupied or under construction. A recent zoning study by the Miami City Planning Departmentt4 suggested more careful control of the Brickell Avenue Area to return natural amenities, encourage better urban design, and create control of off-street parking. Context Area to the East The Port of Miami is a significant visual image in Biscayne Bay and is clearly visible along the full length of Biscayne Boulevard and Bayfront Park. The new Port's potential economic relationship with the Study Area has not been exploited, but it should increasehotel and motel occupancy and could generate a demand for additional rooms if tour packages were arranged specifically to exploit the Port -Biscayne Boulevard proximity. 5.4 EMPLOYMENT AND SPACE USE The primary measure of activity within the Study Area is employment and space use within existing buildings. Although a detailed survey of Downtown was not a part of this study, the Miami City Planning Department produced detailed land use information. 1973 employment was then gen- erated by block from the following table: Square Foot Per Employee by Uset5 Office and Finance Services (Recent Office Space) Manufacturing, Wholesale & Warehouse Retail Transportation, Communication & Utilities Public & Institutional Hotel and Motel Gross 180 250 750 350 150 600 600 1 employeelroom Total employment in the Study Area in 1973 is 45,556. Employment activity in the Study Area is dominated by office workers representing over 50% of the total employees. Retail employment is 18% with other categories employing Tess than 30%. This 58 r i ��- JLW I 1 1 Mk r OD o:i L----=J J . l n -1 re-.' Li i la] ir L r r r r r 1r I ni 1972 EMPLOYEE DISTRIBUTION s Existing Employees (250) -0xier Construction and Committed o Proposed and Planned 59 t { [#Jitiu Rui,;=4 [I±iLjE4 ]mL1 T ILJ Jr 1 NIPLOYEE DISTRIBUTION 1111I111I11 in I 11 --111j I -� 'CCP� I _ �., uwH $ (LJ! ■ TI1III_ TT IN II l • Existing Parkng 50 spaces o Under Construction & Committed o Proposed&Planned n { 1972 PARKING 11111IIIIIIIk' 60 OCCUPIED SQUARE FOOTAGE — 1972 Manufac Wholesale, Warehouse General Retail 350 sq.ft./ Employee Services 250 sq.ft./ Employee 1 H 2,070 Office Transp g� Commun Finance Utilities 180 sq.ft./ 600 sq.ft / Employee _ Employee 3 800 8,230 23.830 STUDY AREA EMPLOYMENT — 1972 CBD 9,087,500 STUDY AREA 15,177,100 Public, Institution Entertain Recreation, Eating, Drinking 600 sq. ft./ 350 sq.ft./ 1 Employee/ Employee Emp�l�oy�ee,! 2 Rooms lI'��((�� 1�Wii I_1 1,013 1,�� 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 CBD 32,858 STUDY AREA 45,556 DOWNTOWN MIAMI EMPLOYMENT AND SPACE USE 61 concentration of employment is characteristic of Central Business Districts in general and reflects Downtown Miami's growing specialization as the region's Office Core. Employment Concentrations Over 70% of the Study Area employees work in an area between North and South 2nd Streets from the F.E.C. Railroad to Biscayne Boulevard. This Downtown Core is dominated by office workers, although a substantial number of retail employees work in the four department stores and related retail along Flagler Street. The other major employment concentration, with more than 12% of the Study Area employment, is the Midtown Core. These workers are mostly retail employees with a substantial number working at the Miami Herald in both manufacturing and office sectors. Space Concentrations The intensity of space use is calculated by the ratio of floor area within a building to the land upon which it sets. This intensity is referred to as Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) and is a component of most zoning codes. As an example of F.A.R., the new development of two office buildings at Flagler Street and Biscayne Boulevard will have 1,230,000 square feet of office space on a site approximately 90,000 square feet. The F.A.R., not including park- ing, is 13.7. This block will contain more employees than any other block in the Study Area. Concentra- tions of space are also high along Flagler Street and on Biscayne Boulevard below N.E. 6th Street. The total occupied non-residential space in the Study Area was 15,177,100 square feet in 1973. 5.5 EXISTING CONDITIONS DOWNTOWN Downtown conditions in 1973 provide a basis for formulating goals and objectives, space fore- casting, and determining what directions of change are possible. Downtown Miami is a Specialized Core of the Region The automobile has been a major determinant of the form and chara same is true for Dow activities exist both w its context area. Ofte widely separated, suc ployment on Flagler restaurants on North people want or expec a traditional central c other existing activity prosper. Yet Downto daytime use with eve hoods with a diverse Parking Lots In Downtown Development in and south of Flagler on Biscayne Boulevar primary function as s often the case when s parking lot frequent) short-term net return interrupts Downtow Downtown unsuppor the case today with 1 land along Biscayne port. Large Underutil The Miami Rive saling-warehousing di and the area west of ! Street are all underut have a potential for c major public improv late action. One exa Center. Restricted Oppq Live Downtown The existing ho primarily low and m elderly, Black and S the surrounding are housing; the excepti front north and sou 100 p nun ies aft./ Ire CBD 9087500 STUDY AREA 15,177,100 4,000,000 1,750 1,554 000 431 Entertain Recreation, Eating, Drinking 350sq.ft./ 1 EmployeeI !Employ�ee��' 2 -Roorta.,,! 1t.2 tgYid 1OT 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 5.000 10,000 15,000 20,000 CBD 32,858 STUDY AREA 45,556 rMID SPACE USE concentration of employment is characteristic of Central Business Districts in general and reflects Downtown Miami's growing specialization as the region's Office Core. Employment Concentrations Over 70% of the Study Area employees work in an area between North and South 2nd Streets from the F.E.C. Railroad to Biscayne Boulevard. This Downtown Core is dominated by office workers, although a substantial number of retail employees work in the four department stores and related retail along Flagler Street. The other major employment concentration, with more than 12% of the Study Area employment, is the Midtown Core. These workers are mostly retail employees with a substantial number working at the Miami Herald in both manufacturing and office sectors. Space Concentrations The intensity of space use is calculated by the ratio of floor area within a building to the land upon which it sets. This intensity is referred to as Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) and is a component of most zoning codes. As an example of F.A.R., the new development of two office buildings at Flagler Street and Biscayne Boulevard will have 1,230,000 square feet of office space on a site approximately 90,000 square feet. The F.A.R., not including park- ing, is 13.7. This block will contain more employees than any other block in the Study Area. Concentra- tions of space are also high along Flagler Street and on Biscayne Boulevard below N.E. 6th Street. The total occupied non-residential space in the Study Area was 15,177,100 square feet in 1973. 5.5 EXISTING CONDITIONS DOWNTOWN Downtown conditions in 1973 provide a basis for formulating goals and objectives, space fore- casting, and determining what directions of change are possible. Downtown Miami is a Specialized Core of the Region The automobile has been a major determinant of the form and character of the Miami Region; the same is true for Downtown. Traditional Downtown activities exist both within the Study Area and in its context area. Often complementary activities are widely separated, such as the daytime office em- ployment on Flagler Street and concentrations of restaurants on North Biscayne Boulevard. Few people want or expect Downtown Miami to become a traditional central city; the region is too varied and other existing activity concentrations will remain and prosper. Yet Downtown needs to balance its heavy daytime use with evening activity, its poorer neighbor- hoods with a diverse residential population. Parking Lots Interrupt the Continuity of Downtown Development intensity drops abruptly north and south of Flagler Street and west of Hotel Row on Biscayne Boulevard. This fringe area now has a primary function as surface parking lots. This is often the case when speculation increases, since a parking lot frequently offers a developer the greatest short-term net return. However, this condition interrupts Downtown activities, leaving areas of Downtown unsupported by other functions. This is the case today with Dupont Plaza and the vacant land along Biscayne Boulevard across from the old port. Large Underutilized Areas Exist in Downtown The Miami Riverfront, the manufacturing -whole- saling -warehousing district north of N.E. 6th Street, and the area west of the F.E.C. Railroad along Flagler Street are all underutilized today. These areas all have a potential for change or revitalization, but major public improvements are necessary to stimu- late action. One example is the planned Government Center. Restricted Opportunity for Diverse Groups to Live Downtown The existing housing areas in Downtown serve primarily low and moderate income minority groups: elderly, Black and Spanish-speaking. New housing in the surrounding area is primarily subsidized or public housing; the exception is along the high amenity bay - front north and south of the Study Area. 62 Potential Downtown Environmental Quality Is Unrealized The edge of Biscayne Bay offers an excellent amenity, and new development is responding. Im- provement of the Miami Riverfront and Hagler Street are now underway. However, additional improve- ments are required to bring the Downtown environ- ment to its potential: extensive use of vegetation to shade pedestrian streets, covered pedestrian walk- ways, Downtown parks to provide areas for relaxa- tion, and reduction of conflict between pedestrian and traffic movement. Traffic .Congestion To date Miami has not been faced with an entire system of over capacity streets. However, the beginnings are evident in Dupont Plaza and along North Biscayne Boulevard. Parking location in relation to street capacity is also a critical issue that must be dealt with immediately. The anticipated problems of peak hour traffic, generated by parking concentrations at One Biscayne Tower and the First Federal Building, must be solved in the short- range and be a stimulus for continuous examination of parking policies. 5.6 EXISTING ZONING The present zoning regulations for the Miami CBD are in many respects well suited to develop- ment goals. The use regulations of the C-3 District are a good example. The ground level setback re- quirements of other commercial districts are also well conceived. We are here concerned primarily with the zoning regulations'shortcomings. 1. EXCESSIVE BULK ALLOWANCE: The C-3 District has no floor area ratio control and only a 300 foot height limit. With no coverage requirement, buildings with FAR's of 30 are a possibility. The over concentration of high in- tensity development permitted by these regula- tions can result in massive vehicular traffic con- gestion, Tight and air obstructions, ecological problems of air pollution and unnecessary ped- estrian crowding. 2. EXCESSIVE LAND ALLOCATION FOR HIGH INTENSITY.DEVELOPMENT: The 160 acres of net' land area now zoned C-3 are vastly in excess of the :amount needed to meet future office space demands. Even at an average FAR of 10, only 12 acres would be needed to meet the forecast of 5,200,000 square feet of floor space for the Study Area by 1985. Such an over- portions of the area because of unjustified future supply of C-3 zoned land tends to sterilize major expectations of growth potential, while permitji - ting spotty high rise development on inapprop- riate sites. 3. LACK OF A MEDIUM BULK DISTRICT: There is no district except the C-3 which per - As a result, any part of Downtown where a higher an inappropriate district for an area such as Plaza Venetia. 4. ABSENCE OF CONTROLS FOR IMPLE- MENTING PARKING POLICY: The C-3 District I contains no parking requirements. Although the amount and location of parking facilities pro- vided voluntarily are controlled by conditional L use procedure, this is far short of what is needed. In other districts developers are respon- sible for providing the parking they generate. They should have a similar responsibility in the C-3 District within limits and guidelines designed 5. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS UNDULY 1., to implement a special parking policy for the CBD.( RESTRICTED: Both the district regulations and the district mapping discourage residential de- velopment in the Study Area. The C-3 District controls are modeled too closely on the controls appropriate for outlying developments. Some areas suited to residential development are zoned C-4 or C-5 which prohibit residential use. 6. EXCESSIVE LAND ALLOCATION FOR INDUSTRY AND SERVICES: An unrealistically large amount of land outside the C-3 Districts has been allocated for service and industrial uses as reflected in C-4 and C-5 District mapping. 7. NEEDED FACILITIES, SERVICES AND AMENITIES NEGLECTED: The C-3 District, where the highest density of development is permitted, has no provisions requiring or en- couraging needed pedestrian facilities, services and amenities, such as a planned system of landscaped paths in non-residential develop- ments. None of the districts mapped in or near the Downtown and Midtown Cores re- quire or encourage provision of the kinds of such facilities that are needed and that can be secured through innovative zoning devices. mits development at greater bulk than FAR 2. bulk is justified would have to be zoned C-3, L L ____JL__ I L__ J� 1\ I' n iami Dp- trict re- ilso ily Fhe DI and rerage urea gh in- regula- FiC con- gical ped- FOR he '160 vastly future tY office space demands. Even at an average FAR of 10, only 12 acres would be needed to meet the forecast of 5,200,000 square feet of floor nt space for the Study Area by 1985. Such an over- n- supply of C-3 zoned land tends to sterilize major Street portions of the area because of unjustified future ron expectations of growth potential, while permit- I ting spotty high rise development on inapprop- n to riate sites. k- 3. LACK OF A MEDIUM BULK DISTRICT: xa- There is no district except the C-3 which per- mits development at greater bulk than FAR 2. L TI Asa result, any part of Downtown where a higher bulk is justified would have to be zoned C-3, I an inappropriate district for an area such as Plaza Venetia. 4. ABSENCE OF CONTROLS FOR IMPLE- MENTING PARKING POLICY: The C-3 District I the contains no parking requirements. Although the ng amount and location of parking facilities pro- vided voluntarily are controlled by conditional i that use procedure, this is far short of what is 'd needed. In other districts developers are respon- - I rldng sible for providing the parking they generate. They should have a similar responsibility in the Ion- C-3 District within Limits and guidelines designed ation to implement a special parking policy for the CBD. 5. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS UNDULY i RESTRICTED: Both the district regulations and the district mapping discourage residential de- velopment in the Study Area. The C-3 District i controls are modeled too closely on the controls appropriate for outlying developments. Some areas suited to residential development areI - zoned C-4 or C-5 which prohibit residential use. I 6. EXCESSIVE LAND ALLOCATION FOR INDUSTRY AND SERVICES: An unrealistically large. amount of land outside the C-3 Districts has been allocated forservice and industrial uses as reflected in C-4 and C-5 District mapping. L-- Ill 7. NEEDED FACILITIES, SERVICES AND AMENITIES NEGLECTED: The C-3 District, where the highest density of development is 1411 permitted, has no provisions requiring or en- couraging needed pedestrian facilities, services L I 111 and amenities, such as a planned system of landscaped paths in .non-residential develop- ments. None of the districts mapped in or near the Downtown and Midtown Cores re- L OP quire or encourage provision of the kinds of l. such facilities that are needed and that can be secured through innovative zoning devices. 64 6.0 FUTURE OF DOWNTOWN 6.1 GOALS FOR DOWNTOWN The future of Downtown has been forecast in several previous plans and reports. The 1967 Doxiadis PIan16 and the 1960 Magic City Center Plan11 are the most comprehensive, but other reports, such as the Development Plan for N.D.P. Area 318, City of Miami C.R.P19 , and the Miami Urban Area Trans- portation PIan20, present detailed goals and recom- mendations for the improvement of Downtown. From an examination of previous plans the following goals were the most frequently stated, have received wide support, and relate directly to the Zoning Study: (For a complete summary of previously published goals see the Appendix, Section 1.) Increase Downtown Employment Increase Downtown Residential Development Improve the Quality of the Downtown Environment Improve Movement Through and Within Downtown 6.2 FACTORS INFLUENCING DOWNTOWN EMPLOYMENT The achievement of the goals for Downtown depends upon certain factors which constrain or promote development. Development Is a Function of Regional Population and Employment Growth Since Downtown is an integral part of the Dade County Region, its growth will correspond to regional development. The Downtown share of the growth is expressed as an "attraction rate". Thus the attraction rate of the Study Area depends on its success in competition with other areas such as Coral Gables, North Miami Beach and Miami Beach. Development Depends on Relative Accessibility Downtown presently has the best access in the region by auto and by bus. However, congestion is beginning to grow at peak hour, which can con- strain future development intensity or discourage potential developers from locating within the Study Area. In areas of high development intensity the vehicular circulation system to and from parking concentrations is also important in rating accessi- bility. Unless employees can find parking within a short distance from their place of employment, the relative attractiveness of that building site dimin- ishes. Also, the proposed mass rapid transit network could greatly improve the accessibility of the Study Area and reduce the reliance on the automobile. Development Depends on Specialized Activities not Available Elsewhere in the Region Recent public improvements such as the Bay - front Park, Miami River Walk and similar amenities will increase the attractiveness of Downtown for commercial and residential development. In addition, the establishment of a Government Center will offer special attraction for law offices, real estate and finance offices and other businesses requiring easy access to these specialized activities. Development Activities Require Specific Economies Related to Location Which They Can Afford The nature of conducting business today requires certain land uses to locate in the Downtown Core. These are mostly prime office uses which can afford to pay the highest rent for their location. As tech- nology changes, other land uses may compete for the highest intensity areas or movement technology may reduce the requirement for such close proximity. However, in the short-range, the locational require- ments of most activities can be reasonably pre- dicted based on land value, accessibility, and amenity requirements of the activity. 6.3 DOWNTOWN SPACE FORECAST 1973-1985 The forecast for space and activities in the Study Area for the 1973-1985 period is based upon work prepared by Gladstone Associates, "Long Range Development Potentials for the Miami CBD". The forecasts are primarily related to office development since offices are the most significant generators to auxiliary development and growth conditions. Other activities were forecast to correspond to high and low ranges of potential office development. (See the Appendix, Section 2, Office The Miami Regi a dramatic upsurge in 1960's the average an 413,000 square feet feet in 1960. In 196 to an historic high of and today another 1, space is under constr However, durin to construct office s sources estimate that occurred outside the and the vicinity of t pull of development has been increased w Brickell Avenue and suburban office park It is interesting, how development activityl reached an all time h two buildings: the F. Biscayne Tower, con square feet. This dramatic g region is subject to the one hand a cant that 1,600,000 squa represents a disastro in Miami, and that tl1 demand is able to ca result could mean a activity in Miami fo Furthermore, the p Coral Gables, thee' tinue to outweigh t Core. Consequently town might be view could stifle rather th ment activity in the On the other h these trends as a sh beginning of a new greater Miami and p Core. A number of this optimism: the! expansion of many' corporate headqu park. the Port, Mi 6,11 GOALS FOR DOWNTOWN The future of Downtown has been forecast in several previous plans and reports. The 1967 Doxiadis Plante and the 1960 Magic City Center Plan» are the most comprehensive, but other reports, such as the Development Plan for N.D.P. Area 318, City of Miami C.R,PPs and the Miami Urban Area Trans- portation Plan", present detailed goals and recom- mendations for the improvement of Downtown. From an examination of previous plans the following goals were the most frequently stated, have received wide support, and relate directly to the Zoning Study: (For a complete summary of previously published goals see the Appendix, Section 1.) increase Downtown Employment Increase Downtown Residential Development improve the Ouality of the Downtown Environment Improve Movement Through and Within Downtown 62 FACTORS INFLUENCING DOWNTOWN EMPLOYMENT The achievement of the goals for Downtown depends upon certain factors which constrain or promote development. Development Ise Function of Regional Population and Employment Growth Since Downtown is an integral part of the Dade County Region, its growth will correspond to regional development. The Downtown share of the growth is expressed as an "attraction rate". Thus the attraction rate of the Study Area depends on its success in competition with other areas such as Coral Gables, North Miami Beach and Miami Beach. Development Depends on Relative Accessibility Downtown presently has the best access in the region by auto and by bus. However, congestion is beginning to grow at peak hour, which can con- strain future development intensity or discourage i L potential developers from locating within the Study Area. In areas of high development intensity the vehicular circulation system to and from parking concentrations is also important in rating accessi- bility. Unless employees can find parking within a short distance from their place of employment, the relative attractiveness of that building site dimin- ishes. Also, the proposed mass rapid transit network could greatly improve the accessibility of the Study Area and reduce the reliance on the automobile. Development Depends on Specialized Activities not Available Elsewhere in the Region Recent public improvements such as the Bay - front Park, Miami River Walk and similar amenities will increase the attractiveness of Downtown for commercial and residential development. In addition, the establishment of a Government Center will offer special attraction for law offices, real estate and finance offices and other businesses requiring easy access to these specialized activities. Development Activities Require Specific Economies Related to Location Which They Can Afford The nature of conducting business today requires certain land uses to locate in the Downtown Core. These are mostly prime office uses which can afford to pay the highest rent for their location. As tech- nology changes, other land uses may compete for the highest intensity areas or movement technology may reduce the requirement for such close proximity. However, in the short-range, the locational require- ments of most activities can be reasonably pre- dicted based on land value, accessibility, and amenity requirements of the activity. 6.3 DOWNTOWN SPACE FORECAST 1973-1985 The forecast for space and activities in the Study Area for the 1973-1985 period is based upon work prepared by Gladstone Associates, "Long Range Development Potentials for the Miami CBD". The forecasts are primarily related to office development since offices are the most significant generators to auxiliary development and growth conditions. Other activities were forecast to correspond to high and low ranges of potential office development. (See the Appendix, Section 2, for the Gladstone Memo.) Office The Miami Region is currently experiencing a dramatic upsurge in office development. During the 1960's the average annual regional growth was 413,000 square feet with a low of 132,000 square feet in 1960. In 1969 office development increased to an historic high of over 1,200,000 square feet, and today another 1,600,000 square feet of leasable space is under construction. However, during the 1960's the tendency was to construct office space outside Downtown. Informed sources estimate that over 70% of office growth occurred outside the CBD, mainly in Coral Gables and the vicinity of the airport. More recently, the pull of development away from the Downtown Area has been increased with the intense development of Brickell Avenue and the development of several suburban office parks, located along expressways. It is interesting, however, that at the present time development activity in the Downtown Core has reached an all time high. This is due, of course, to two buildings: the First Federal Building and One Biscayne Tower, containing a total of over 1,000,000 square feet. This dramatic growth in Downtown and the region is subject to two possible interpretations. On the one hand, a cautious observer might conclude that 1,600,000 square feet of new office space represents a disastrous over -supply, given past trends in Miami, and that three to five years will pass before demand is able to catch up again with supply. The result could mean a stagnation of office building activity in Miami for a period of two to three years. Furthermore, the potentials for Brickell Avenue, Coral Gables, the airport, and office parks could con- tinue to outweigh the potentials of the Downtown Core. Consequently, the two new buildings Down- town might be viewed as an aberration and indeed could stifle rather than encourage further develop- ment activity in the Downtown Core. On the other hand, an optimist might view these trends as a sharp break with the past — the beginning of a new vigorous growth period for greater Miami and particularly for the Downtown Core. A number of factors could be cited to support this optimism: the growing Miami economy, the expansion of many existing firms, the relocation of corporate headquarters to Miami, the waterfront park, the Port, Miami -Dade Community College, and 66 OFFICE MODULE: first ROAM BIM M0,000..1. RETAIL/ SERVICE MODULE: Jefferson's I10p00..1. COMMITTED t RETD197affiRAWASWI ETG 91FO386 ADDITION 1.300.000 SF enli S 613.000 SF I% 1 2.600.000 SF 00.000 SF 180.000 SF HOTEL/ MOTEL MODULE: Horrd Jonnon's 000 Room RESIDENTIAL - HI RISE MODULE:Rau v.-N. ZoUNb RESIDENTIAL— LO RISE MODULE`PremlWPe SO Units GOVERNMENT, OFFICE MODULE: fo6a/ 70E9. 140p00 S.F. ri 740 Roan APP 200 Room 1800 Unfb egg 1.000,00D 6F of B00 RoOnS egg 1.000,000 SF MIAMI CBD SPACE FORECAST 1972 -1985 7Si L.OW 1PACE FORECAST =COMMITTED + LOW FORECAST ION MIORS►ACE FORECAST COMMITTED♦ HIGH FORECAST 67 the rapid transit system. Accepting this thesis, Miami is just coming into its own following such precedents as Atlanta or Washington; and the new construction represents only the beginning of a natural expansion that is simply a few years behind that of other sim- ilar cities. In interviews with informed citizens and busi- ness leaders in Miami, both views were expressed with certainty and conviction. In the short -run the pessimists may prove correct in that there will be high office vacancy rates in the near future as the two major new buildings become more available for occupancy. Both of the new buildings, for instance, appear to be attracting their tenants primarily from older buildings currently located in Downtown. Interviews with leasing agents of these buildings re- vealed that new firms moving to Miami are not yet locating Downtown but elsewhere, and firms which currently rent space in Coral Gables or near the airport do not wish to change their location. The result is that the only true competitive area with Downtown is Brickell Avenue, which is taking more tenants away from Downtown than it is returning. Since the firms locating in the new buildings are the typical firms found Downtown, attorneys, banks, CPA's, realtors, stockbrokers, and since they are vacating older space Downtown, vacancy rates could increase dramatically in the near future, particularly Downtown. On the other hand, Downtown Miami will probably begin to experience a period of new and vigorous growth in the next three to five years gen- erated primarily by office space. It could replicate a pattern which was established during the 1960's in many other Eastern cities, notably Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, and Atlanta. The fact that two prestige buildings were constructed Down- town is evidence of a change, and there are plans underway for more buildings. The mass rapid transit system, Bayfront Park, new parking and improved vehicular access, the Port, and an overall improve- ment in the Downtown environment will increase the attractiveness of Downtown relative to more distant areas, which also have increasing land costs and diminishing amounts of developable land. Long- term potentials remain strong for office development Downtown. Residential The housing market in the Miami Region is exceptionally strong. During the 1960's, over 15,000 dwellings were con of these were mult ment reached a pe. units were construe course, has been p little new housing Area; the major ex in the NDP-3 Area housing on Brickel The residents. tion that living Do one's employment minority of peopl: and married prof- - tomed to urban Iiv environment Dow attracted to Down With office d low forecast, ther upper income hou increased vitality improvements of t frontage. These u waterfront and w•_ medium rise renta'. 1985, there is a p. units. While apart along Biscayne B•. similar developme, added incentive o ment and new Ba intensity use. With office forecast, much m. ment is possible, . density, mixed in' town -in -town. Th employment wou Downtown resid significant num . tunity, would liv: a vital Downtow change, major pu land assembly, fi would be requir: Retails Retait devel 1985 period is f to serve the • • on the ground fl tfl 5,ODA00 SF 180.0003F clinging Soo Rano 800 Urdu 114011000 T 1972-1985 the rapid transit system. Accepting this thesis, Miami is just coming into its own following such precedents as Atlanta or Washington; and the new construction represents only the beginning of a natural expansion that is simply a few years behind that of other sim- ilar cities. In interviews with informed citizens and busi- ness leaders in Miami, both views were expressed with certainty and conviction. In the short -run the pessimists may prove correct in that there will be high office vacancy rates in the near future as the two major new buildings become more available for occupancy. Both of the new buildings, for instance, appear to be attracting their tenants primarily from older buildings currently located in Downtown. Interviews with leasing agents of these buildings re- vealed that new firms moving to Miami are not yet locating Downtown but elsewhere, and firms which currently rent space in Coral Gables or near the airport do not wish to change their location. The result is that the only true competitive area with Downtown is Brickell Avenue, which is taking more tenants away from Downtown than it is returning. Since the firms locating in the new buildings are the typical firms found Downtown, attorneys, banks, CPA's, realtors, stockbrokers, and since they are vacating older space Downtown, vacancy rates could increase dramatically in the near future, particularly Downtown. On the other hand, Downtown Miami will probably begin to experience a period of new and vigorous growth in the next three to five years gen- erated primarily by office space. It could replicate a pattern which was established during the 1960's in many other Eastern cities, notably Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, and Atlanta. The fact that two prestige buildings were constructed Down- town is evidence of a change, and there are plans underway for more buildings. The mass rapid transit system, Bayfront Park, new parking and improved vehicular access, the Port, and an overall improve- ment in the Downtown environment will increase the attractiveness of Downtown relative to more distant areas, which also have increasing land costs and diminishing amounts of developable land. Long- term potentials remain strong for office development Downtown. Residential The housing market in the Miami Region is exceptionally strong. During the 1960's, over 15,000 dwellings were constructed each year; almost 70% of these were multi -family units. Housing develop- ment reached a peak in 1969 when almost 27,000 units were constructed?' This development, of course, has been primarily a suburban phenomenon; little new housing was built in the Miami Central Area; the major exceptions are the subsidized housing in the NDP-3 Area and high rise, upper income housing on Brickell Avenue to the south. The residential forecast is based on the assump- tion that living Downtown in close proximity to one's employment appeals to a small but significant minority of people: "empty nesters", young single and married professionals, and other groups accus- tomed to urban living; and, given an attractive Living environment Downtown, these people can be attracted to Downtown. With office development approximating the low forecast, there is a potential for development of upper income housing in the Study Area, assuming increased vitality of Downtown, mass transit, and improvements of the Bayfront and Miami River frontage. These units would be focused on the waterfront and would take the form of high and medium rise rental and purchase apartments. By 1985, there is a potential for as many as 2,000 units. While apartments or condominiums constructed along Biscayne Boulevard would compete with similar developments along Brickell Avenue, the added incentive of easy walking distance to employ- ment and new Bayfront Park could attract high intensity use. With office development approaching the high forecast, much more significant residential develop- ment is possible, perhaps a large scale, moderate density, mixed income development such as a new - town -in -town. The significant increase in Downtown employment would produce a "captive" market for Downtown residential living. This assumes that a significant number of people, if given the oppor- tunity, would live close to their work and close to a vital Downtown. To achieve such a dramatic change, major public intervention in the form of land assembly, financing and policy incentives would be required. Retail Retail development in Downtown in the 1973- 1985 period is forecast in two types. Space designed to serve the Downtown work force will be constructed on the ground floor of new office buildings. For 68 example, with an annual increase of 400,000 square feet of office space, the high forecast, as much as 15,000 square feet of retail space could be antici- pated on an annual basis. Retail space will also be constructed to serve new Downtown residents. An increase of 2,000 high rise luxury dwelling units could support 30,000 square feet of new retail space; a larger mixed income residential development of 7,000 units could support as much as 120,000 square feet of new retail space. Hotel and Motel As a tourist center, Miami has more hotel space than other cities of similar size. Nevertheless, a revitalized Downtown will probably result in a moderate increase in hotel units; however, rather than a substantial increase in number of rooms, renovation and replacement of older hotels will probably occur. With the low office space forecast 240 rooms could be expected; the high forecast could be three times that estimate. Miami Regional and Downtown Office Forecast 10,000,000 .,000 1972 1975 1980 1985 .(Source:GladstoneAssociates) 25,600,000 Regional High 15800,000 Regional L 9,500,000 Study Area Hi 6,900,000 Study Area :Lo 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 Conclusions The significance for Downtown growth over the next decade should not be underestimated. An employment increase of over 50% and a population increase of 40% or more indicates a potential for a vital regional center. Downtown Miami could combine intense development, day and night urban activity, a diverse population and unequaled ameni- ties. However, to achieve this new Downtown, action must be taken to improve existing qualities and to proceed rapidly with necessary public im- provements in order to attract new development, and to control growth so Downtown will become progressively a more attractive and desirable center to work, live and play. Downtown Employment, 1973-1985 100 - 90- 80 - 01)0,838 ei t° 73,098 c'- E 70 -N Net M o Added d > Empl. > E 60 — a _ (12,830) ° w E Committed E j w __�6,625) w 50 — m Govt. C. 3 z — (8,080) z 40-o 1- 30 - 20 - 10 - Existing Empl. (45,563) 88,578 Net t� Added Empl. (20,570) c CommittedEa (6,625) UJ Govt. C. (8,080) Z 8 1°- Existing Empl. (45,563) LI' LII L ..I 1. [lj [71 _I . i LI ..., I L..ie•:I 1 LI Net Added I Empl. (28,310) I Committed (6,625) L Govt. Center I (8,080) Existing ' I Empl. L LI J Low Forecast Moderate Forecast High Forecast LA " 7.0 BASIS FOR CHANGE 7.1 THE PROCESS OF ANALYSIS Downtown is c• of change. The most older buildings are de newer, larger ones; e cleared. Equally imp• businesses expand an and go out of busin occur within the phy example, a residence lifetime a rich family vacant and now is u a wholesale distribute small loft, expand in eventually occupy a of a new prime offic: The constant p decline changes the economic and social lag behind activity c nomic or environme are not deemed in t public intervention: i many different purp and evaluating the d is a prerequisite for mechanisms, wheth: direct public invest The methodol change for the Mia WMRT for the Lo developed for the Central City Los A to Change" and "Pr analyses, which are the possible areas o direction of new d evaluating the shor "Probability Grow portation constrai bined with the spa change analyses to forms the basis forl and the Zoning Plal 7.2 NON RESIGI CHANGE. 1 "Susceptibili sifies a building in I square shas ntici- so be ts. An nits ailspace; nt of )0 tel theless, in a ether ms, Will recast cast 1,900 000 0000.000 Si000l000 10010, 000 D000A00 Conclusions Me significance for Downtown growth over the next decade should not be underestimated. An employment increase of over 50% and a population increase of 40% or more indicates a potential for vital regional center. Downtown Miami could combine intense development, day and night urban activity, a diverse population and unequaled ameni- ties. 'However, to achieve this new Downtown, action must he taken to improve existing qualities and to proceed rapidly with necessary public im- provements in order to attract new development, and to control growth so Downtown will become progressively a more attractive and desirable center to work, live and play. Downtown Employment, 1973-1985 100 — 90 - 80 80.> a 73 098 us 70 —ri Net t7 Added i' /11229301 t )"'d W Govt. C. -- (8,080) 2 3D — 30 - 10 Existing Empl. 45 563) Net Added Empl. (20.570) 88,578 Committed? (6,625) "" Govt. C. (8.080) z 0 Existing Empl. (45,563) CT1 7.0 [� OASRIS CHANGE 6 T L k. TI l i l 1_ _ [.. rr1 Committed 1 (6,825) (rag— Existing Center Existing Empl. (45,5631 Net Added Empl. (28,310) Low Forecast Moderate forecast High forecast 7.1 THE PROCESS OF CHANGE AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS Downtown is constantly undergoing a process of change. The most visible changes are structural: older buildings are demolished to make way for newer, larger ones; expressways are built and land is cleared. Equally important are activity changes: businesses expand and contract their space, move, and go out of business. These "invisible" movements occur within the physical structure of the city. For example, a residence may have accommodated in its lifetime a rich family, several poorer families, stood vacant and now is used as professional offices or by a wholesale distributor. A business may begin in a small loft, expand into an older office building and eventually occupy a floor, or perhaps several floors, of a new prime office building. The constant process of growth, adaptation and decline changes the city in response to evolving economic and social needs. When structural changes lag behind activity change or when the social, eco- nomic or environmental impacts of new development are not deemed in the interest of the public, then public intervention in any number of forms for many different purposes is warranted. Determining and evaluating the direction of change in Downtown is a prerequisite for designing public intervention mechanisms, whether for zoning, urban renewal, or direct public investment and development. The methodology to describe the basis for change for the Miami CBD was first developed by WMRT for the Lower Manhattan Plan and further developed for the Baltimore Metrocenter22 and Central City Los Angeles' Plans.23 The "Susceptibility to Change" and "Probability of New Developments" analyses, which are included in this chapter, describe the possible areas of new growth and the probable direction of new development. This is the basis for evaluating the short-range future. In the next section, "Probability Growth Model", economic and trans- portation constraints are developed which are com- bined with the space forecast and the basis for change analyses to define opportunity areas. This forms the basis for the Urban Design Concept Plan and the Zoning Plan. 7.2 NON-RESIDENTIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY TO CHANGE "Susceptibility to Change" analysis first clas- sifies a building in terms of likelihood or desirability 70 ETA b; i I�� 1 FU L J I JIIPLEl "OW 77 �ii111 LEI JL IL if Asa Tr j r 1 ri LAN IA ',Id } EXISTING ING GIVENS IIIIIJI11111# ILA I� J� T 1 i ii Lam\ r EMI 1 :„.4y.;1°A _;_,Alkury IL __Jj� c_ If J, 1! -- 0• I - 'L , k,'� c tl , I� M "4:,1 ■v ■- u1 NI mil } ill I•'J Is for i l! 2111 I DO I ni II MIN r u1 RESIDENTIAL 111111111111n 72 of its permanence. What is its life expectancy in terms of the structure's physical condition? The analytic method is an approximation of property appraisal procedures that assumes a new, large, modem building is more resistant to demolition than an old, small, obsolescent building. All build- ings were considered individually. Their respective locations and the fact that they are in various zoning classifications, have various present market poten- tials and tax pressures were not explicitly considered in terms of investment feasibility and development opportunities. Residential uses respond to market forces in a different manner than non-residential uses. Although most older housing is very susceptible to change, the residents of any given neighborhood are usually deeply concerned about such change and should be involved in any recommendations. For this reason, only non-residential uses were examined for sus- ceptibility. Building size, a combination of height and gross square footage per floor, was the first consideration. This assumes that, other considerations remaining equal, tall, large buildings are less likely to change than low, small buildings and therefore have a longer life expectancy. Eleven conbinations of height and floor space were established to classify each structure. Historically and architecturally significant buildings were the second major consideration. These were immediately classified as least susceptible to change and not subjected to further evaluation. In addition to the categories above, a weighting system was established for a series of "secondary" characteristics. These characteristics, derived from secondary information sources, are listed below with their plus and minus ratings. Secondary Evaluation Characteristics 1. Building Age: Building age was collected from a building per- mit survey conducted by the Miami Planning Depart- ment for the following time spans: 1968 to present ++ 1946 to 1967 + 1921 to 1945 0 Pre 1920 — 2. Condition/Maintenance: Buildings were rated according to a field survey conducted by the'Miami Planning Department. The following quality categories were established: Sound + 73 Deteriorating 0 Dilapidated — 3. Fireproofing: Fireproofing characteristics were collected and rated based upon the Sanborne Atlas information: Fireproof Construction + Fire Resistant Construction 0 Non -fireproof Construction — 4. Elevators: Asa further qualifier for buildings over three stories, the existence and type of elevator (information from the Sanborne Atlas) was weighted as follows: Masonry Enclosed Shaft + Frame Enclosed or Open Shaft 5. Renovation: Recent major renovations received a heavy positive rating: Recent Major Renovations ++ Building size and the secondary characteristics discussed above were combined to produce an evalua- tion matrix as follows: Evaluation Matrix Building Size Categories 1. 19 floors or more 2. 10-19 floors, 10,000 sq.ft./ floor, 200,000 sq.ft. + gfa 3. 10.19 floors, 10,000 sq.ft./ floor 4. 10-19 floors, less than 10,000 sq.ft./floor 5. 5-9 floors, 10,000 sq.f t./ floor, 100,000 sq.ft. gfa 6. 5-9 floors, 10,000 sq.ft./ floor, 50,000-100,000 sq.ft. gfa 7. 5-9 floors, less than 10,000 sq.ft./floor 8. Less than 5 floors, 100,000 + sq.ft. gfa 9. Less than 5 floors, 50,000- 100,000 sq.ft. gfa 10. Less than 5 floors, 10,000-50,000 sq.ft. gfa 11. Less than 10,000 sq.ft. qfa Least Most Susceptible Susceptible All None No — 2— or more 3+ 2-- or more 4+ 1— or more 3+ 2— or more 4+ 1— or more 4+ 1+ or less 2+ 1— or less 3+ 1+ or less 4+ 2+ or more None 2+ or less Each structure in Downtown was evaluated according to the above matrix. For example, a building ( I f— � �* li -J \� v1v. �m st.+wt jl IL iL __JL_ J 6th- L I 0, Ali mil Ili r-1 1111 PROBABILITY OF NEW 00 S.— Under Construction and Conxnitted d.-- Proposed and Plamed CM.. Recently Proposed ire. Deteriorating 0 Dilapidated — 3. Fireproofing: Fireproofing characteristics were collected and rated based upon the Sanborne Atlas information: Fireproof Construction + Fire Resistant Construction 0 Non -fireproof Construction — 4. Elevators: As a further qualifier for buildings over three stories, the existence and type of elevator (information from the Sanborne Atlas) was weighted as follows: 'Masonry Enclosed Shaft + Frame Enclosed or Open Shaft 5. Renovation: Recent major renovations received a heavy positive rating: Recent Major Renovations ++ Building size and the secondary characteristics discussed above were combined to produce an evalua- tion matrix as follows: Evaluation Matrix Least Most Duildina Size Categories Susceptible Susceptible 1.19floors or more All 2. 10-19 floors. 10000 sq.ft./ floor, 200,000 sq.ft. +gfa No — 3. 10-19 floors, 10,000 sq.ft./ floor 3+ 4.10-19 floors. Jess than ith 10000sq.ft.lfloor 4+ 5. 5-9 floors,10,000 sq.ft./ floor,100,000 sq.ft. gfa 3+ 6. 5a floors.10,000 sq.ft./ floor,'50,000-100,000 sq.ft. gfa 7.59 floors, less than 10,000 sq.ft./floor S. Less than 5 floors, 1100,000 + sq.ft. gfa 9. Less than 5 floors, 50,000- 10%000 sq.ft..gfa 10. less than 5 floors, 10 000-50 000 sq.ft. gfa 11. Less than 10000 sq.ft. es - art vev Wits gfa None 2— or more 2— or more 1— or more 2— or more 4+ 1— or more 4+ 1+or less 2+ 1— or less 3+ 1+ or less 4+ 2+ or more None 2+ or less Each structure in Downtown was evaluated according to the above matrix. For example, a building I J! JL JL_J 11 Ylm sc r J� jl 1[M 6m-7111T AMER �L J ---- iL IL 1I TE I L-J Li jf OMB W:t5 XI lin II Hi ail 211 II -■a 1=7 :L' — 1111111111EZ:37 PROBABLITY OF NEW DOWNTOWN PROJECTS OLD PORT REDEVELOPMENT o� BRIPARK EXTENSION RDIOURSD 0.— Under Construction and Committed d■_ Proposed and Planed an— Recently Proposed dill I I I I l i 74 in the building size number 4 (10-19 floors, less than 10,000 square feet per floor) must have a total of four pluses to qualify for the "Least Susceptible to Change" category. However, should it accumulate a deficit of -1, the structure would be considered "Most Susceptible to Change". The structures which qualified in the Least Susceptible to Change category are referred to as Long -Range Givens; those which are in the Most Susceptible to Change class are Short -Range Givens and the structures between are referred to as Middle - Range Givens. These classifications give a general indication of Downtown structures' relative life span. The Susceptibility to Change analysis can be considered a "Matrix for Action", indicating general areas of investment opportunity. However, it is obvious that all of these areas will not be redeveloped in the near future. The smaller or "short-range givens" which are not located in the most desirable areas for development are likely to remain and, in the long run, could be more resistant to change than well located "middle -range givens". 7.3 PROBABILITY OF NEW DOWNTOWN PROJECTS Certain investments scheduled for Downtown Miami's immediate future are almost assured. Their not happening seems almost improbable. Many others are less assured but they still have a substantial chance of occurring, if we can rely on a continued favorable investment climate and cumulative effect of publ is and private action. The concept of probability is a substitute for certain knowledge. Ina planning framework prob- ability analysis is used to evaluate the likelihood of future events which are dependent on combinations of causal relationships and chance. Subjective judg- ment, announced schedules, informed opinion based on interviews,and speculation have been used to classify Downtown projects and planned develop- ments into three levels of probability. The probability rankings are as follows: Probability 1: Probability 11: Probability 111: Under construction or firmly committed. Proposed and planned with a good chance of being financed. Proposed but not committed or financed, with some doubt as to whether the project will be realized as proposed. INVENTORY AND CLASSIFICATION OF DOWNTOWN PROJECTS Probability I 1. One Biscayne Boulevard Office: gross floor area parking gross office area employees 2. First Federal Building Office: gross floor area parking gross office area employees 3. YMCA Building gross floor area parking employees 1,050,000 sq.ft. 250,000 sq.ft. (710 spaces) 750,000 sq.ft. 3,750 800,000 sq.ft. 585 spaces 480,000 sq.ft. 2,400 97,200 sq.ft. None 200 4. Miami -Dade Community College (Stage One) gross floor area 190,616 sq.ft. parking None employees 166 5. 1490 Biscayne Boulevard gross floor area parking office floor area (assumed) employees retail floor area (assumed) employees 198,000 sq.ft. 175 spaces 36,750 sq.ft. 184 100,000 sq.ft. 286 6. Plaza Venetia gross floor area 2,433,860 sq.ft. Office: leasable area 93,500 sq.ft. employees 584 Retail Shops: leasable area 378,450 sq.ft. employees 1,080 Department Store: leasable area 134,200 sq.ft. employees 383 Merchandise Mart: leasable area 232,800 sq.ft. employees 518 Hotel: gross floor area 188,700 sq.ft. Hotel (continued): employees 120 (240 rooms) Parking: gross area 1,307,308 sq.ft. (approx. 3,735 spaces) 7. 44 W. Flagler Street Office Building gross floor area 180,000 sq.ft. employees 800 8. Parking Garage (Miami -Dade Jr. College) gross area 525,000 sq.ft. (1,500 spaces) 9. Police Building Unknown (currently being programmed by Stanford Re- search Associates) 10. Southern Bell Telephone Switching Station 11. Intersection Improvements Flagler and Miami Avenue 12. Miami River Walk: First Stage 13. 1-395 Transportation Center Phase I Probability II 1. Revito Building (140 West Flagler) Office: gross floor area 125,400 sq.ft. parking 100,800 sq.ft. net leasable area 120,4004sq.ft. employees 27 2. Old Port Redevelopment and Bayfront Park Expansion (Planned by Ed Stone, Jr.) 3. Government Center (Plan by G.B.Q.C.) 0 sq.ft. gross floor area 8 000 employees (Including those presently in atphP rox. . Govt. Center) parking spaces) 4. Friendship Plaza and Joint Use Parking Trans- portation Center Phase 11 5. ArterDept. ofal Improvements P Public Works) NorthPDade Co. 6th and 7thlan and Streets, 10th and 11 th Streets, North 14th Street, North 1s 6. Rapid Transit 7. Range Parks No. 8. Expansion of Di 9. Miami River Wal 10. Miami Center H. Probability lit 1. Latin Center 2. Riverfront Deve West Flagler) 3. Waterborn Tran 4. Rerouting of Bi- River 5. West 1st and 2n 6. Interama Expr- 7. Miami Center P The "Probabilit map displays the res total :ibie iulate red as st ivens liddle- ral e span. be eneral is veloped givens" eas for ong run, Icated 1 'town Their ibstantial inued effect to for prob- ood of 'nations e.judg- 3n based d to elop- robability )r firmly ed with a }financed. mmitted tteldoubf ct*ect will Md. INVENTORY AND CLASSIFICATION OF DOWNTOWN PROJECTS Probability 1 1. One Biscayne Boulevard Office: gross floor area parking gross office area employees 2. First Federal Building Office: gross floor area parking gross office area employees 3. YMCA Building gross floor area parking employees 1,050,000 sq.ft. 250,000 sq.ft. (710 spaces) 750,000 sq.ft. 3,750 800,000 sq.ft. 585 spaces 480,000 sq.ft. 2,400 97,200 sq.ft. None 200 4. Miami -Dade Community College (Stage One) gross floor area 190,616 sq.ft. parking None employees 166 5. 1490 Biscayne Boulevard gross floor area parking office floor area (assumed) employees retail floor area (assumed) employees 6. Plaza Venetia gross floor area Office: leasable area employees Retail Shops: leasable area employees Department Store: leasable area :employees Merchandise Mart: leasable area employees Hotel: gross floor area 198,000 sq.ft. 175 spaces 36,750 sq.ft. 184 100,000 sq.ft. 286 2,433,860 sq.ft. 93,500 sq.ft. 584 378,450 sq.ft. 1,080 134,200 sq.ft. 383 232,800 sq.ft. 518 188,700 sq.ft. Hotel (continued): employees 120 (240 rooms) Parking: gross area 1,307,308 sq.ft. (approx. 3,735 spaces) 7. 44 W. Flagler Street Office Building gross floor area 180,000 sq.ft. employees 800 8. Parking Garage (Miami -Dade Jr. College) gross area 525,000 sq.ft. (1,500 spaces) 9. Police Building Unknown (currently being programmed by Stanford Re- search Associates) 10. Southern Bell Telephone Switching Station 11. Intersection Improvements Flagler and Miami Avenue 12. Miami River Walk: First Stage 13. 1-395 Transportation Center Phase I Probability 11 1 Revito Building (140 West Flagler) Office: gross floor area parking net leasable area employees 125,400 sq.ft. 100,800 sq.ft. 120,400 sq.ft. 627 2. Old Port Redevelopment and Bayfront Park Expansion (Planned by Ed Stone, Jr.) 3. Government Center (Plan by G.B.Q.C.) gross floor area 1,616,000 sq.ft. employees 8,080 (Including those presently in the Govt. Center) parking (approx. 1,600 spaces) 4. Friendship Plaza and Joint Use Parking Trans- portation Center Phase II 5. Arterial Improvements (NDP Plan and Dade Co. Dept. of Public Works) North 6th and 7th Streets, 10th and 11 th Streets, North 14th Street, North 1st Street, and South 1st Street. 6. Rapid Transit 7. Range Parks No. 1 and No. 3 8. Expansion of Dixie Park 9. Miami River Walk 10. Miami Center Hotel 400-500 rooms Probability III 1. Latin Center 2. Riverfront Development (SE 2nd Avenue to West Flagler) 3. Waterborn Transit 4. Rerouting of Biscayne Boulevard over Miami River 5. West 1st and 2nd Avenue Couple: Topics Proposal 6. lnterama Expressway 7. Miami Center Phase II The "Probability of New Downtown Projects" map displays the results of the probability analysis. 76 it I+ JL {. , r! tttzeryfip Of! 1 fl 1 :I :I MIN, OFFICE FAFI REM. To SUPPORT LAND COST (La I Cea E.1 d F. un G4J Aeeaaamae .AS Moan 6awt-FaduArq Long MSG Dneu And Cmvntte0 Derebpnonel 1111111 FAR 10-18 IBM FAR 8-10 M FAR 2-6 FAR. 2orLess III11 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 k' j 8.0 y PROBABILITY y GROWTH MODEL C 1 8.1 DEFINITION The future dire Miami can be define substitute for certai growth model is sim combining: Areas available unoccupied by Probability of The Space Far Constraints on capacity and i Current public In Downtown of development to s and mass transit are chapter defines the and describes Dow product of the gro 8.2 CONSTRAIN Chapter 5 ass town projects. Pro as givens; probabile cast will generally tunity areas. Exact sity are constrain-• ment feasibility fa Investment F investment f nomic factors aff Although it is only: i the future of Down of primary imports Property acq cant factor affect' size of developme within the Study improvements, ex foot of site area costs per city bl 1E013 TO SUPPORT LAND COST gettswipaOharg Larw area.. And can.a.rd o.r.mvn.IV l�111111111{ • • • • • • • • 8.0 PROBABILITY GROWTH MODEL 8.1 DEFINITION The future direction of change in Downtown Miami can be defined on the basis of probability, a substitute for certain knowledge. The probability growth model is simple and non -mathematical, combining: Areas available for new development (sites unoccupied by givens); Probability of new Downtown projects; The Space Forecast; Constraints on development (infrastructure capacity and investment feasibility); and Current public policy (including zoning). In Downtown Miami the future relationships of development to street capacity, parking location, and mass transit are of critical importance. This chapter defines the constraints on future development and describes Downtown opportunity areas, a major product of the growth model. 8.2 CONSTRAINTS ON DEVELOPMENT Chapter 5 assigns probability to known Down- town projects. Probabilities 1 and 2 can be considered as givens; probability 3 and the remaining space fore- cast will generally develop within the defined oppor- tunity areas. Exact locations and development inten- sity are constrained by transportation and invest- ment feasibility factors. Investment Feasibility Constraints Investment feasibility concentrates on the eco- nomic factors affecting investment in real property. Although it is only one of a set of factors influencing the future of Downtown, investment feasibility is of primary importance to private developers. Property acquisition is perhaps the most signifi- cant factor affecting the location, distribution, and size of development. Purchase costs for property within the Study Area include land and existing improvements, expressed on a dollars per square foot of site area basis. Estimates of current acquisition costs per city block within the Study Area were pre- 78 pared by first excluding Tong -range givens and then comparing known real estate transactions to 1971 assessment values. If recent sales significantly exceed- ed 120% of the assessment, then affected parcels surrounding that site were proportionately raised. Gladstone Associates conducted a residual land value analysis to determine economically feasible acquisition costs for different activities at various intensities of development. These values are pre- sented below. A generalized proforma statement is presented in the Appendix, Section 2. Supportable Land Costs — Miami CBD Land Costs/ Type of Use F.A.R. Square Foot 1. Prim Offioe2 20 $90 2. Prime Office 16.6 $75 3. Prime Office 15 $67 4. Prime Office 10 $45 5. Prime Office 5 $22.50 6. Structured parking 6 $15 7. Luxury rental high rise 09850s.fdunit) 12 $42 8. Luxury sales 101,000s.f.lunit) 12 $72 8. Luxury rental garden apts. (850 s.f./ 3 unit) $14 10.Luxury sales town- houses (911,250 s.f./ 1 unit) $10 Source: Gladstone Associates. These figures ere usually derived from proforma analyses. They have been derived here from conversations with local investors and developers and from typical values in similar cities. 2This particular case is based on estimates of a recently completed affioe budding in DowntownMiami. In figuring land costs, office space and parking have been considered separately. Unit Supportable Ground Value $4.50 s.f. $4.501$4-6) s.f. $4.50 s.f. $4.50 $4.50 s.f. $1,000/space $3,000/unit $6,000/unit $4,000/unit $12,500/unit In comparing existing Downtown land cost with unit supportable ground value, it is clear that private investors can be expected to meet the anticipated demands for office structures in Downtown during the coming years. Although there may be difficulties associated with site assembly, location and so on, there is no reason to expect that the :investments themselves will not be practical. Office developers should be able to outbid all competitors for sites in Downtown as they become available for further de- velopment. Other activities will face more severe constraints. High rise apartment buildings appear to be excellent investment prospects; but, with less generous site acquisition budgets, they will not be located in highly centralized areas where office buildings can and prob- ably will develop unless mixed use office -residential development packages can be assembled. Low rise and townhouse developments without land write- down must, of necessity, content themselves with less costly sites located away from Bayfront Park, Biscayne Bay and the Miami Riverfront. Retail development has even more constrained acquisi- tion budgets; and, since the market for new retail space is relatively low, mixed use retail -office and retail -high rise residential will be the patterns. Other uses, such as manufacturing, wholesaling and warehousing, face severe restrictions and will be able to develop only on the least expensive land. Structural parking, when built alone, also faces limitations, but many opportunities are available Downtown since parking itself does not compete with other uses for the same location. A block -by -block analysis of the Study Area in terms of investment feasibility indicated that certain blocks are excellent opportunity areas for high intensity development. The minimum intensity of development for a satisfactory economic return was tested for key blocks. The result was a minimum economic Floor Area Ratio for various uses. Below this minimum, development is not likely to occur. At present the area of highest economic potential appears to be the four vacant parking lots at Dupont Plaza. Land was recently sold at approximately $60 per square foot. A combination of parking garage and office could prove economically feasible at F.A.R. 14. Most blocks in the Study Area, not presently occupied by long-range givens, can be assembled for between $12 and $70 per square foot. Feasible development for office buildings, including on -site parking, could be built on such land at F.A.R.'s of 4 to 14. Transportation Constraints The movement requirements of high intensity development vary with the type of use. Residential development requires easy access to public streets throughout the day; whereas, office development re- quires access at peak hour in the morning and evening. The State of Florida Department of Transpor- tation and the firm of Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates were given the responsibility for investigating transportation in Downtown Miami and producing a conceptual transportation plan. Using block -by - block land use information, transportation demand was calculated at peak hour. Comparing demand in a specific block with capacity indicates potential constraints. In 1972, prior to the opening of One Biscayne and First Federal, most of the streets in the Study Area were operating under capacity at peak hour. However, with no increase in system capacity, major development opportunity areas, such as Dupont Plaza, will be constrained by the inability of the present movement system to serve new development. The planned regional mass rapid transit system can reduce traffic constraints by promoting a greater percentage of work trips by public transportation. However, there is little possibility of the system being available before 1980, and alignments and stations have not yet been determined. Therefore, the period before rapid transit is in operation is critical for proper location of new development and parking garages in relation to street capacity. The One Biscayne —First Federal block contains 1,230,000 square feet of office and 1,420 parking spaces. The employment in this block will exceed 6000 persons. Even if a lower percentage than the estimated current 80% arrive by automobile, it is clear that the provided spaces will not meet the total parking demand. Yet an analysis by Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates indicates that peak hour egress from the garages can barely be handled by the existing streets. Furthermore, parking for additional high intensity development will only increase congestion. The traffic constraints on development are discussed in more detail in the Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates Plan 24 The development of the Dupont Plaza Area will continue to be constrained unless commitments to major traffic improvements are made. Even then. Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates has indicated that parking in excess of 5000 cars will overload the new Dupont Plaza Area system capacity. Although the Dupont Plaza Area is most con- strained, other areas such as N.E. 2nd Street and Biscayne Boulevard are at capacity now, and future development of an intensity over F.A.R. 12 could overload the street system. Areas which are presently under capacity are located far away from office con- centrations and carry little probability for new development. Transportation constraints can be eliminated in a number of ways, such as: adding new lanes, prohibiting intense development in congested areas, and promoting staggered work hours. However, the most important tool is public monitoring and control: of on -site and off -site parking supply, since the location of parking, major generator of c' Public actions development by pro for private developm present zoning of the the development po For example, some intensive growth, ra tunity; whereas, oth are constrained to F areas is then the firs framework for the f probable growth of modateu. 8.3 DEVELOPME Based on anal transportation, utili subjective factors,t identified for futur occupied by tong -a as Probability land present residential - Dupont Plaza These vacant the growing Office Bayfront Park addi opportunityareas irl critical transportat deterrents to devel improvements are opment; and appr necessary to insur NEB 2nd Alt This area. extj to N.E. 6th Street use presently, Thal College„ site avail park view are all., p1 opment. Howevef transit alignment range constraint. r,0811..,,• ,.pawl ,,...,p..., ivens and then [ions to 1971 ificantly exceed- lcted parcels nately raised. a residual land cally feasible ies at various lues are pre - la statement is 2. 3D Melt supportable Ground Value 114$o af. 4:50 45461 s f. $4.50 s f. $45O sf. ti4.50 £.f. St A00/apace S3,000/unit 116;000/unit S4,000/unit Iy500/unit toe analyses. They blood investors and itias. traeentlycompleted Islandcoan.0Ra:a rely. own' land cost with s dear that private the anticipated iowntown during may ttion and so on, be investments )ffioe developers etitors for sites in ble tor further de - re severe constraints. liar to:beexcellent ass; generous site be located in highly i'dings can and :prob- ably will develop unless mixed use office -residential development packages can be assembled. Low rise and townhouse developments without land write- down must, of necessity, content themselves with less costly sites located away from Bayfront Park, Biscayne Bay and the Miami Riverfront. Retail development has even more constrained acquisi- tion budgets; and, since the market for new retail space is relatively low, mixed use retail -office and retail -high rise residential will be the patterns. Other uses, such as manufacturing, wholesaling and warehousing, face severe restrictions and will be able to develop only on the least expensive land. Structural parking, when built alone, also faces limitations,but many opportunities are available Downtown since parking itself does not compete with other uses for the same location. A block -by -block analysis of the Study Area in terms of investment feasibility indicated that certain blocks are excellent opportunity areas for high intensity development. The minimum intensity of development for a satisfactory economic return was tested for key blocks. The result was a minimum economic Floor Area Ratio for various uses. Below this minimum, development is not likely to occur. At present the area of highest economic potential appears to be the four vacant parking lots at Dupont Plaza. Land was recently sold at approximately $60 per square foot. A combination of parking garage and office could prove economically feasible at F.A.R. 14. Most blocks in the Study Area, not presently occupied by long-range givens, can be assembled for between $12 and $70 per square foot. Feasible development for office buildings, including on -site parking, could be built on such land at F.A.R.'s of 4to14. Transportation Constraints The movement requirements of high intensity development vary with the type of use. Residential development requires easy access to public streets throughout the day; whereas, office development re- quires access at peak hour in the morning and evening. The State of Florida Department of Transpor- tation and the firm of Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates were given the responsibility for investigating transportation in Downtown Miami and producing a conceptual transportation plan. Using block -by - block land use information, transportation demand was calculated at peak hour. Comparing demand in a specific block with capacity indicates potential constraints. In 1972, prior to the opening of One Biscayne and First Federal, most of the streets in the Study Area were operating under capacity at peak hour. However, with no increase in system capacity, major development opportunity areas, such as Dupont Plaza, will be constrained by the inability of the present movement system to serve new development. The planned regional mass rapid transit system can reduce traffic constraints by promoting a greater percentage of work trips by public transportation. However, there is little possibility of the system being available before 1980, and alignments and stations have not yet been determined. Therefore, the period before rapid transit is in operation is critical for proper location of new development and parking garages in relation to street capacity. The One Biscayne —First Federal block contains 1,230,000 square feet of office and 1,420 parking spaces. The employment in this block will exceed 6000 persons. Even if a lower percentage than the estimated current 80% arrive by automobile, it is clear that the provided spaces will not meet the total parking demand. Yet an analysis by Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates indicates that peak hour egress from the garages can barely be handled by the existing streets. Furthermore, parking for additional high intensity development will only increase congestion. The traffic constraints on development are discussed in more detail in the Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates Plan.24 The development of the Dupont Plaza Area will continue to be constrained unless commitments to major traffic improvements are made. Even then Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates has indicated that parking in excess of 5000 cars will overload the new Dupont Plaza Area system capacity. Although the Dupont Plaza Area is most con- strained, other areas such as N.E. 2nd Street and Biscayne Boulevard are at capacity now, and future development of an intensity over F.A.R. 12 could overload the street system. Areas which are presently under capacity are located far away from office con- centrations and carry little probability for new development. Transportation constraints can be eliminated in a number of ways, such as: adding new lanes, prohibiting intense development in congested areas, and promoting staggered work hours. However, the most important tool is public monitoring and control of on -site and off -site parking supply, since the location of parking, rather than employment, is the major generator of congestion. Public actions have opened opportunity for development by providing the amenity and incentive for private development. In contrast, however, the present zoning of the Study Area does not follow the development potential of the opportunity areas. For example, some areas zoned C-3, which permits intensive growth, rank very low in terms of oppor- tunity; whereas, other areas with excellent potential are constrained to F.A.R. 2. Identifying opportunity areas is then the first step in setting the development framework for the future. Within these areas the probable growth of the Study Area can be accom- modated. 8.3 DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY AREAS Based on analyses of investment feasibility, transportation, utilities, public improvements, and subjective factors,the following areas have been identified for future growth. These parcels are un- occupied by long -and middle -range givens as well as Probability I and II development. In addition present residential areas were considered. Dupont Plaza Area These vacant blocks with direct access to 1-95, the growing Office Core at 3rd and Flagler, and the Bayfront Park addition are undoubtedly the highest opportunity areasin Downtown. Unfortunately, the critical transportation factors are presently major deterrents to development. Major transportation improvements are required to stimulate new devel- opment; and appropriate architectural design is necessary to insure a high quality public environment. N.E. 2nd Avenue —Biscayne Boulevard Corridor This area, extending north from Flagler Street to N.E. 6th Street, contains moderate intensity use presently. The construction of Community College, site availability, and the potential bay and park view are all positive factors far future devel- opment. However, the uncertainty of mass rapid. transit alignment and station locations is a short- range constraint. 80 West fIagler Street This area, near the proposed Government Center extending south to the Expressway ramps, has potential for moderate intensity development. The land cost is less than areas along the bay, and the Government Center could produce moderate amounts of office development spin-offs. The main constraint at present is a zoning category which per- mits only ;F.A.R. 2. Midtown Core The development of Plaza Venetia could induce moderate amounts of office development and the Midtown Core could in the long-range become a secondary office core. However, traffic congestion which will result from such a large center could re- duce the potential. The present zoning needs im- mediate attention since the recent re -zoning to C-3 at the Plaza Venetia site could cause speculation on adjacent lands. North Biscayne Boulevard Construction of the Bayfront Park extension will surely encourage interest in the area along Bis- cayne Boulevard. The major constraint, as in the West Flagler Street Area, is present zoning with maximum permitted ;intensity of F.A.R. 2. With careful planning the attractiveness of this bay front- age area can also influence development to the west of N.E. 2nd Avenue. Miami Rh/affront Moderate land costs, proximity to the Flagler Street Core, and the construction of the Miami River Walk should stimulate residential development in this area. One of the major problems for residen- tial development will be pressure of off -site parking space demands from Dupont Plaza. 1 71,E -11 a. iI No. Mwwyin1, 1011 1 nn Onmi.n ...ohu.i.in ni n11.n10101m1..1nii1i.I.cP...Y.0,1.1M.iii1. Sent ramps, Iprnent. iy, and der -ate Fhe main vhich .per- m1d .induce and the omea ingestion could re- eds im- ng to C-3 elation on pension along is !s in the wg with ,. With sbay ni- to the west , A Li LLL 111.., •n ... OPPORTUNITY AREAS IIIII.IIIIfI•IVI) 82 FOOTNOTES 1. Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates, Downtown Miami: A Conceptual Transportation Plan September, 1973. 2. Ibid. 3. Wilbur Smith Associates to Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates, Memo: Traffic Improvements: SE 1st Street between 3rd Avenue and Biscayne Boule- vard. December 29, 1972. 4. This statement was developed jointly by WMRT and Haines, Lundberg and Waehler. 5. Memo from Hunter Moss and Company to the Building Owners' and Managers' Association, 1971. 6. U.S. Census of Housing and Population, 1970. 7. Metropolitan Dade County Regional Planning Department Research Reports, 1972. • 8. Doxiadis Associates, Inc., Downtown Miami Plan, 1967. 9. Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc., The Transportation impact of a Downtown Miami Government Center, September 1970. 10. Metropolitan Dade County Planning Depart- ment, Miami Urban Area Transportation Study, 1968. 11. Dade County Port Authority, South Florida Regional Airport Site Selection Study: Environmental Impact Statement., October 1972; Hunter Moss and Company, Metropolitan Miami 1962. 12. Op. Cit., Doxiadis Associates, Inc. 13. The source of this information was the 1970 U.S. Census of Population and Housing. 14. City of Miami Planning Department, Brickell, June 1970. 15. Prepared by WMRT from information provided by the Miami Planning Department and a telephone survey conducted by the Downtown Development Authority. 16. Op. Cit Doxiadis Associates, Inc. 17. City of Miami and Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department, Magic City Center Goals, 1960. 18. Candeub, Fleissig and Associates, NDP-3 Central Miami, June 1971. 19. Community Renewal Program, 1967. 20. 9p. CiL, Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department. 21. "Market Memo -The Greater Miami Area", douse and Home, November 1972. 22. Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd, Baltimore MetroCenter Plan 23. Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd, Down- t_os Anoeles 1972-1990 24. Op. Cit , Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates. APPEN A PROP+� ORDIN B TECH SUPPL Downtown Plan, September, wenger-Hoch wements: SE liscayne Boule- Dimly by WMRT ompany to the aciation, 1971. pulation, 1970. iionaI Planning mown Miami Les, inc., Tim Iwn Miami r0. Inning Depart- ation$tudy, South Florida [dy. Environmental lunterMoss and 52. Inc. ra was the , Q *meat, oination provided tend a telephone. via Development inc. lalleadeCounty r,r tterlags, 9960. OW, --a- ID, 1967. County Planning -Miami .Area"" Todd, Baltimore ad Todd, - od Associates. APPENDICES A PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE B TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT APPENDIX A PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Artide II: Definitions 2 Section 2: Terms Defined (Revised) 4 Article III: Zoning Districts 4 Section 1 : Classes and Symbols (Revised) 4 Artide IV: General Provisions (Revised) 4 Section 21: Exclusions from Height Limits and Yard Requirements 4 Section 27: Combination Residential and Non - Residential Buildings 5 Article XV: Central Commercial - C-3 District 5 Section 1: Purpose of District (Revised) 5 Section 2: Use Regulations (Revised) 5 Section 4: Area (Revised) 5 Section 5: Yards and Minimum Distance between Residential Buildings (Revised) 6 Section 6: Height (Revised) 6 Section 7: Floor Area Ratio (New) 6 Section 8: Floor Area Premiums (New) 7 Section 9: Usable Open Space (New) 7 Artide XV-1: Central Commercial - C-3A District (New) 7 Section 1: Use Regulations 8 Artide XV-2: Central Commercial - C-3B District (New) 8 Section 1: Use Regulations 9 Section 2: Limitations on Uses 9 Section 3. Area 9 Section 4: Yards and Minimum Distance between Residential Buildings 10 Section 5: Height 10 Section 6: Floor Area Ratio 10 Section 7: Floor Area Premiums 10 Section 8: Usable Open Space 10 Article XV-3: Central Commercial Service - C-3C District (New) 11 Section 1: Use Regulations 11 Section 2: Limitations on Uses 11 Section 3: Area 11 Section 4: Yards and Minimum Distance between Residential Buildings 12 Section 5: Height 12 Section 6: Floor Area Ratio 12 Section 7: Floor Area Premiums 13 Section 8: Usable Open Space 13 Artide XV-4: Residential -Office Central Commercial- ARTICLE I1: DEFIN C-30 District (New) 13 Section 1: Use Regulations Section 2: Terms 14 Section 2: Limitations on Uses (The provisions which 14 Section 3: Area 14 Section 4: Yards and Minimum Distance between (6-A) ARCADE Residential Buildings For the purp 15 Section 5: Height a continuous 15 Section 6: Floor Area Ratio open space, 15 Section 7: Floor Area Premiums times and co 16 Section 8: Usable Open Space (1) It shalt space b 16 Article XV-5: Mixed Central Commercial - or a mi Residential - C-3E District (New) lot line 16 Section 1: Use Regulations at no p 16 Section 2: Limitations on Uses public 16 Section 3: Area (2) It shalt 16 Section 4: Yards or part 17 Section 5: Height of h 17 Section 6: Floor Area Ratio (3) It shall and a. 17 Artide XXIII: Off -Street Parking and. Loading (for pu 17 Section 1: Off -Street Parking Required (Revised) perpen 17 Section 2: Location, Character and Size (Revised) open ' = 17 Section 4: Amount of Off -Street Parking (Revised) (4) Porto 18 Section 10: Access Restrictions for Off -Street colum_ Parking and Loading Facilities (New) do not bonus of art videcf t remai length from obstru or for percen lot. A not be shalt 18 Artide XXVI-1: Special Central Business District (New) 18 Section 1: Purpose and General Provisions 18 Section 2: Central Business District Plan* 18 Section 3: Adoption of Design Plans and Parking Pol icy 20 Section 4: Landscaped Paths 20 Section 5: Arcades 21 Section 6: Waterfront Area Development Controls 22 Section 7: Building Walls along Certain Street Lines 22 Section 8: Off -Street Parking in Central Business District 23 Artide XXXII-1: Special Permits (New) 23 Section 1: Urban Open Spaces 24 Artide XXIV: Signs 24 Section 4: Signs in the C-1, C-1A, C-2, C-3, C-3A, C-3B, C-3C, C-3D, C-3E, W-R and W-I Districts * Provides for: a) A system of interconnected ground level pedestrian spaces and arcades. b) A system of Landscaped paths at ground level. c) A system of interconnecting upper level pedestrian spaces, rapid transit station plazas, pedestrian ways and bridges and vertical circulation elements. (89-A) THRQUGl For the pur BLOCK CO accessible to connection or approxim urban open It shall, be than 150' to which it con the same eie4 open space v( Ieast.25 feet may be open have a minin of the height! 30' of itscef if covered o width of 20 vertical ctr fountains, are perm' TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Article 11: Definitions 2 Section 2 : Terms Defined (Revised) 4 Article 111: Zoning Districts 4 Section 1 : Classes and Symbols (Revised) 4 Artide IV: General Provisions (Revised) 4 Section 21: Exclusions from Height Limits and Yard Requirements 4 Section 27: Combination Residential and Non - Residential Buildings 5 Article XV: Central Commercial -C-3 District 5 Section 1: Purpose of District (Revised) 5 Section 2: Use Regulations (Revised) 5 Section 4: Area (Revised) 5 Section 5: Yards and Minimum Distance between Residential Buildings (Revised) 6 Section 6: Height (Revised) 6 Section 7: Floor Area Ratio (New) 6 Section 8: Floor Area Premiums (New) 7 Section 9: Usable Open Space (New) 7 Article XV-1: Central Commercial - C-3A District (New) 7 Section 1: Use Regulations 8 Article XV 2: Central Commercial - C-3B District (New) 8 Section 1: Use Regulations 9 Section 2: Limitations on Uses 9 Section 3. Area 9 Section 4: Yards and Minimum Distance between Residential Buildings 10 Section 5: Height 10 Section 6: -Floor Area Ratio 10 Section 7: 'Floor Area Premiums 10 Section 8: Usable Open Space 10 Artide XV-3: Central Commercial Service - C-3C District (New) 11 Section 1: Use Regulations 11 Section 2: °Limitations on Uses 11 Section 3: Area 11 Section 4: Yards and Minimum Distance between Residential Buildings 12 Section 5: Height 12 Section 6: Floor Area Ratio 12 Section 7: Floor Area Premiums 13 Section 8: Usable Open Space C 13 Article XV-4: Residential -Office Central Commercial- C-3D District (New) 13 Section 1: Use Regulations 14 Section 2: Limitations on Uses 14 Section 3: Area 14 Section 4: Yards and Minimum Distance between Residential Buildings 15 Section 5: Height 15 Section 6: Floor Area Ratio 15 Section 7: Floor Area Premiums 16 Section 8: Usable Open Space 18 Article XV-5: Mixed Central Residential - C-3E District l(New) 16 Section 1: Use Reguiations 16 Section 2: Limitations on Uses 16 Section 3: Area 16 Section 4: Yards 17 Section 5: Height 17 Section 6: Floor Area Ratio 17 Artide XXI I1: Off -Street Parking and Loading 17 Section 1: Off -Street Parking Required (Revised) 17 Section 2: Location, Character and Size (Revised) 17 Section 4: Amount of Off -Street Parking (Revised) 18 Section 10: Access Restrictions for Off -Street Parking and Loading Facilities (New) 18 Article XXVI-1: Special (New) Central Business District 18 Section 1: Purpose and General Provisions 18 Section 2: Central Business District Plan` 18 Section 3: Adoption of Design Plans and Parking Policy 20 Section 4: Landscaped Paths 20 Section 5: Arcades 21 Section 6: Waterfront Area Development Controls 22 Section 7: Building Walls along Certain Street Lines 22 Section 8: Off -Street Parking in Central Business District 23 Article XXXII-1: Special Permits (New) 23 Section 1: Urban Open Spaces 24 Article XXIV: Signs 24 Section 4: Signs in the C-1, C-1A, C-2, C-3, C-3A, C-3B, C-3C, C-3D, C-3E; W-R and W-1 Districts • Provides for: a) A system of interconnected ground level pedestrian spaces and arcades. - b) A system of landscaped paths at ground level. c) A system of interconnecting upper level pedestrian spaces, rapid transit station plazas, pedestrian ways and bridges and vertical circulation elements. ARTICLE 1I: DEFINITIONS Section 2: Terms Defined (The provisions which follow are all new.) (6-A) ARCADE For the purpose of this Ordinance an ARCADE is a continuous area open to the street or to an urban open space, which is accessible to the public at all times and conforms to the following requirements: ine or urban (1) It n spacell boujoin aundaryfront lot l theextendforh full length of, or a minimum of 100 feet along, such front lot line or urban open space boundary, and at no point be above the level of adjoining public sidewalk or urban open space. (2) It shall be covered by a permanent canopy or part of a building allowing at least 12 feet of headroom. (3) It shall have a minimum depth of eight feet and a maximum creditable depth of 20 feet (for purposes of bonus floor area) measured perpendicular to the front lot line or urban open space boundary. (4) Portions of an arcade that are obstructed by columns, building services or similar features do not qualify as arcade area (for purposes of bonus floor area), but landscaping or works of art may occupy qualified arcade area, pro- vided that a minimum clear width of 6 feet remains for pedestrian circulation along the length of the arcade, and that public access from the street or urban open space is nowhere obstructed for a length of more than 40 feet or for an aggregate length of more than 65 percent of the arcade's total length within the lot. Access openings between obstructions shall not be less than six feet in width. All planting shall be raised and curbed. (89-A) THROUGH BLOCK CONNECTION For the purpose of this Ordinance, a THROUGH BLOCK CONNECTION is a portion of lot which is accessible to the public and provides a pedestrian connection between two streets which are parallel or approximately parallel to each other or between urban open spaces or arcades abutting such streets. It shall be located so that at neither end is it closer than 150' to a street intersecting the street with which it connects. At each of its ends it shall be at the same elevation as the sidewalk, arcade or urban open space which it connects for a distance of at least 25 feet therefrom. A through block connection may be open, covered or enclosed. If open, it shall have a minimum width equal to not less than 1/6 of the height of the highest abutting wall within 30' of its center line or 30 feet whichever is more. If covered or enclosed, it shall have a minimum width of 20 feet. Columns, lighting standards, vertical circulation elements, plantings, ornamental fountains, sculptures, displays, kiosks or open cafes are permitted obstructions at the pedestrian level, 2 II,ii 0111111'1111111 i i I Aiming 1 elm RI *Km 1 \, fit... t M i i .'. ism Ep ' 1 Y �� '� nssssNu � w \\intim ion LtiLliI1I 1 U'/ car- !rrr:. Illhh1731. fl4 IF/A 111.1)111111 F/111 IT DI 1111 `a, I 'm Mai gi -4 4 11 • \`' a `�IIflNlll = lain ppm .MNNI miuuu MNI 1 MM MMMII It In= EN 1111 ININI m w =" Noting N NVEn• l 111F gN =111 K.V?1,A141 NI NE I MNNt11111 SIM 1110 —rV_—-RIM We MIN Faiizam C� � 1 I��--._ wow• .ills. 11* A Naha,,, 'i maiN —District Bo r>dary Ct •District Designation 3 1 Lc e riEl \, II� ri PROPOSE) ZONNG MAP Illtl i l l l l l l r (91-B) provided that a continuous way not less than 15 feet wide remains free of obstructions and avail- able for unimpeded pedestrian circulation. The ceiling height of a covered or enclosed through block connection shall at no point be less than 20 feet above the walking surface. Pedestrian bridges, balconies or mezzanines are permitted overhead obstructions provided that they do not cover in the aggregate more than 15 percent of the area of the through block connection. URBAN OPEN SPACE For the purpose of this Ordinance, an urban open space is a landscaped public open area which con- forms to the following requirements: (1) Is accessible to the public at all times. (2) Extends along a street line for a length of at least 30 feet and is directly accessible from the public sidewalk for a length of at least 30 feet, or is directly connected by an en- trance at least 10 feet wide with an upper level pedestrian way designated as such on the Special District Plan as set forth in Article XXVI-1 and provided in accordance therewith. (3) Has a least horizontal dimension of not less than 30 feet. (4) Is not more than three feet above or below the level of the public sidewalk which it adjoins or the level of the upper level pedes- trian way with which it connects. (5) Is landscaped with trees, shrubs or other plant materials and may include cafe furniture, sculpture, fountains or similar features, pro- vided that the surface area occupied by such planting or features does not exceed two- thirds of the area of the urban open space and that the balance of the urban open space area is suitable for walking, sitting and similar pursuits. On the provisions which follow, matter underlined is new.) (93-A) USABLE OPEN SPACE (ORD. 7508) For the purpose of this Ordinance, USABLE OPEN SPACE shall mean outdoor area, excluding parking and other service areas, which is utilized for out- door living, recreation or landscaping and which is open and unobstructed from its lowest level to the sky except for roof overhangs not in excess of three (3) feet. All open space shall be accessible to, and usable by, all residents residing on the lot. USABLE OPEN SPACE may include areas at the ground level and/or on roofs, decks and balconies, provided that such areas meet other criteria set forth in this definition. The minimum dimension for USABLE OPEN SPACE at the ground level shall be ten (10) feet and the minimum area shall be one hundred (100) square f USABLE OPE shall be twent shall be four h as otherwise pi C-3C and C-3 required USA ground level. of the require or deck area thi height. (In the provisions which is new.) ARTICLE III: ZON Section 1: Classes and C-3 Central Com C-3A Central Com C-3B Central Comm C-3C Central Com C-3D Residential—s C-3E Mixed Central C-4 General Com (In the provisions whic is new; matter in brack ARTICLE IV: GEN Section 21: Exdus Requi (2) YARD In the' (Distric exclu residen comply forth b r uire Distric Section 27: Combis Buiildin( The following regulati9 taining both a resident V l fir . �:.... , �tl L' .i 14 If Of wa+ +x• It1 ath !sr1 DuhlIM INIIH IM IMP AAl111 t an a ma !i Ifthithi MIME MINA .MN NI811 MINI* NE IINN II4IW W IhM uum,t msg. w Mt )t WW N*w MM IIIMNI 4 IMI WPM ow WNW WEINN mum 1. FflOPOSEDZONING MAP IIIIIIII11IIL (91-B) provided that a continuous way not Tess than 15 feet wide remains free of obstructions and avail- able for unimpeded pedestrian circulation. The ceiling height of a covered or enclosed through block connection shall at no point be less than 20 feet above the walking surface. Pedestrian bridges, balconies or mezzanines are permitted overhead obstructions provided that they do not cover in the aggregate more than 15 percent of the area of the through block connection. • • • URBAN OPEN SPACE For the purpose of this Ordinance, an urban open space is a landscaped public open area which con- forms to the following requirements: (1) is accessible to the public at all times. (2) Extends along a street line for a length of at least 30 feet and is directly accessible from the public sidewalk for a length of at least 30 feet, or is directly connected by an en- trance at least 10 feet wide with an upper level pedestrian way designated as such on the Special District Plan as set forth in Article XXVI-1 and provided in accordance therewith. (3) Has a least horizontal dimension of not less than 30 feet. (4) Is not more than three feet above or below the level of the public sidewalk which it adjoins or the level of the upper level pedes- trian way with which it connects. (5) Is landscaped with trees, shrubs or other plant materials and may include cafe furniture, sculpture, fountains or similar features, pro- vided that the surface area occupied by such planting or features does not exceed two- thirds of the area of the urban open space and that the balance of the urban open space area is suitable for walking, sitting and similar pursuits. • • • (In the provisions which follow, matter underlined is new) (93-A) USABLE OPEN SPACE (ORD. 7508) For the purpose of this Ordinance, USABLE OPEN SPACE shall mean outdoor area, excluding parking and other service areas, which is utilized for out- door living, recreation or landscaping and which is open and unobstructed from its lowest level to the sky except for roof overhangs not in excess of three (3) feet. All open space shall be accessible to, and usable by, all residents residing on the lot. USABLE OPEN SPACE may include areas at the ground level and/or on roofs, decks and balconies, provided that such areas meet other criteria set forth in this definition. The minimum dimension for USABLE OPEN SPACE at the ground level shall be ten (10) feet and the minimum area shall be one hundred (100) square feet. The minimum dimensions for USABLE OPEN SPACE located on roofs or decks shall be twenty (20) feet and the minimum area shall be four hundred (400) square feet. Except as otherwise provided for the C-3, C-3A, C-3B, C-3C and C-3D Districts, at least one-half of the required USABLE OPEN SPACE shall be at the ground level. Not more than twenty (20) percent of the required open space shall be on roof balcony or deck area that is above twenty-five (25) feet in height. • • • (In the provisions which follow, matter underlined is new.) ARTICLE I11: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 1: Classes and Symbols C-3 C-3A C-3B C-3C C-3D C-3E C-4 • • • Central Commercial Central Commercial Central Commercial Central Commercial Service Residential —Office Central Commercial Mixed Central Commercial —Residential General Commercial • • • (In the provisions which follow, matter underlined is new; matter in brackets [) is old, to be deleted.) ARTICLE IV: GENERAL PROVISIONS • • • Section 21: Exclusions from Height Limits and Yard Requirements • • • (2) YARD REQUIREMENTS In the "C-3" and "C-3A" (Central Commercial) [District) Districts, hotels and motels shall be excluded from the yard requirements for residential buildings. Hotels and motels shall comply with (those yard requirements as set forth by other laws or Ordinances) the yard requirements for non-residential uses in such Districts. r • • Section 27: Combination Residential and Non -Residential Buildings (Ord. 7508) The following regulations shall apply to any building con- taining both a residential and a non-residential use: 4 * « + hs (1)and (2) of (3) The provisions of paragraphs apartments, this Section shall not apply C pa meat hotels and motels in the C-3, A C-3C and C-3D Districts. k s (In the provisions which follow, matter underlined is new, matter in brackets [) is old, to be deleted) ARTICLE XV: CENTRAL COMMERCIAL - C-3 DISTRICT The following regulations shall apply in the C-3 District. Section 1: Purpose of District The a apply CENTRAL rt of th downtownL )STRICT is business section of toh City, tY to the heal the City, which serves all portions of the City, and the metro- politan area. The businesses and stervo� s pplof he Ce traeral Com- r types mercial District include many of commercial districts available elsewhere. High land values, n thereto many services and facilities greater limitations of space, and public convenience justify a intensity of use than for commercial urdi ose of Residential mode ment is modatin• •eo•le dis•osed to urban livin• in close •roximit to lace of em to men and reduand rced strain one the trans or - downtown communr tatio_____Svstem Section 2: Jse Regulations No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in art, for other than one or more of the following specified uses in arc) Anynce ith the non-residential�USE permitted ons hereafter sptithe C-2 District, except t Gasoline Stations, accessory parking facilities, parking lots and ect to the USE parking garages, ecifiedjithe said District LAT{07NS (ORD.856) (a) Hotels and Motels subject to the provisions in Section 21 and 27 of ARTICLE IV. (ORD. 7508) (ORD.7856) (2) Auction galleries. (3) Dance e�vel (4) Agencies. 15) Night Clubs. (6) BluePrinting tand Photstating; hographing or E g�aving ling; Publishing; ;Establishments. (7) AcoessorY uses and structures. B Access° rkin facilities for ies not exist ;buildin with vehicle ac ceedin fz0 scent ofi the number of dwel{i_ n. n o arkin facilities g Tile followaccess rkin lots or arkin ar sub'ect to as rov lb t e Ct Commission in accordance with the rovisionsaofSection 8 of Article XViI : a Accessor residential uses or Accessorf Parkinfacilities fora art ( y ment buildin s with vehicle cal acities exceedin 60 ercent of the number of dwelfin units. Parkin lots or garages for the Parkin of 10 [(8)] The following USES if approved as a "CONDITIONAL USE": garages.) [(a) Parking lots and parking gera 9 W(b)) Motor Bus Terminal �((c)) Heliports Wild)) Apartment Building(s) not exceedin a densit of one dwetlin unit for each one hundred fifteen 115 s uare feet of lot area [ subject to the following regu- lations: (ORD. 7455) 1. MINIMUM LOT AREA/DWELLING UNIT:.... 7. SPACING BETWEEN BUILDINGS ON THE SAME SITE: Not withstanding the provisions of ARTICLE IV, Section 15, the min- imum spacing between any portion of a building which has exposed window area and an adjoining building on the same site shall be eighteen (18) feet.} 11 [ s9m1iOr erto the abovOther uses or enterprises Section 4: Area [(1) Non -Residential Use (a)) There shall be no required area or width of lot [for non-residential use) in District. [Section 5: Yards CO Non -Residential Use (a) There shall be no required yards except where a lot in the C-3 District abuts upon a lot in any "R" (Residential) District; a yard at least ten (10) feet in width shall be provided adjacent to the "R" District. Section 6: Height (1) No building or structure or part thereof shall be erected or altered to a height exceeding three hundred (300) feet.) Section 5: Yards and Minimum Distance between Residential Buildings (1) FRONT AND STREET -SIDE SETBACKS: In all instances exce t as rovided for Arcades in Article XXVI-1 Section 5 and exce t as hereafter rovided a minimum front setback of ten (10 feet for the first nine (9) feet of buildin hei ht and a minimum street - side setback of five 5 feet for the first nine fell_ of buildin hei ht shall be rovided and maintained in accordance with the following requirements: a The re uired setback area shall be treated with landsca in so as to resent to er etui a neat and orderly Doearance. b The re uired setback area shall not be used for off-street rkin 2 Where a lot is ad oined b a buildin which has less than the above re uired setback the followin exce tions shall be made: a If the lot has a lot line dimension of less than fift (50) feet abuttin an street then the setback required alon that articular street shall not be reater than the dee er of either adioinin setback. b If the lot has a tot line dimension of fif (50} feet or more abuttin an street but not greater than sixty five 65 feet then the setback r uired alon that articular street shall not be"rester than the des er of an ad "oining setback unless uch ing setback is less than five (51 feetin which case the r uired setback shall be fiv_ a N fit. 3 INTERIOR SIDE YARD: No interior side and is r uired. However if an o en area extendin elan an interior side lot line is rovided it shall be at least ten 10 feet wide. For residential buildrtion of saa idenbuilintrticms wall of buildin an ch has windows shall be set back from an why a interior side lot line a distance of not less -five of the hei ht of said buildin wall which- ever is reate T minimum setback may be reduced bb one half h when the lot tine is immediate) adjacent to a ublic ark. For residential onions of buildin which com- bine residential and non-residential uses the hei ht of the buildin wall shall be measured from the floor level of the lowest sto used for residential use. 4i REAR YARD: 1"" a For non-residential buildin no rear and is recluired exce't where a tot in the G-3 District abuts u on a lot in an "R" Residential District; a and at least ten 10 feet in width shall be 25 feet or one -sixth 1/6 MINIM, BUI LDI There . It • = n • asr=•uwed la A 1) and (2) of apartments, C-3A, C-3B, dined Ieted) L C-3OISTi;ICT C-3 District. (ICT is intended iness section of ty, and the metro - the Central Com- )lied in other types reto many services land values, 3e justify a greater iistricts. Residential those of accom- n close proximity lOting a:bnlanced :on the transpor- shall be+erected, whole or in ,part, ng specified matter specified. iermitted an the he Stations, parking lots and ,the USE 1iEIGU- I aaid District. ul eject to the n-21and 27 .of D. now (ORD.7856) telling; Job -Printing; 0 Or Engraving tures. iessorartment iost3lties n c otc- rof Idna4acilities, to �r rrGrssron to accordan with the provisions of Section 8 of Article XXVI-1: (a) Accessory parking facilities for non- residential uses or hotels. (b) Accessory parking facilities for apart- ment buildings, with vehicle capacities exceeding 60 percent of the number of dwelling units. (c) Parking lots or garages for the parking of automobiles by the public. '10 [(8)] The following USES if approved as a "CONDITIONAL USE": [(a) Parking lots and parking garages.] iaj.,[(b)] Motor Bus Terminal j [(c)] Heliports jpi[(d)] Apartment Building(s) not exceeding a density of one dwelling unit for each one hundred fifteen (115) square feet of lot area [ subject to the following regu- lations: (ORD. 7455) 1. MINIMUM LOT AREA/DWELLING UNIT. 7. SPACING BETWEEN BUILDINGS ON THE SAME SITE: Not withstanding the provisions of ARTICLE IV, Section 15, the min- imum spacing between any portion of a building which has exposed window area and an adjoining building on the same site shall be eighteen (18) feet.] ]11) 1(9)JOther uses: Other uses or enterprises similar to the above, • • • Section 4: Area [(1) Non -Residential Use (a)] There shall be no required area or width of lot [for non-residential use] in this District. [Section 5: Yards (1) Non -Residential Use (a) There shall be no required yards except where a lot in the C-3 District abuts upon a lot in any "R" (Residential) District; a yard at least ten (10) feet in width shall be provided adjacent to the "R" District. Section 6: Height (1) No building or structure or part thereof shall be erected or altered to a height exceeding three hundred (300) feet.] Section 6: Yards and Minimum Distance between Residential Buildings (1) FRONT AND STREET -SIDE SETBACKS: In all instances, except as provided for Arcades in Article XXV1-1, Section 5 and except as hereafter provided, a minimum front setback of ten (10) feet for the first nine (9) feet of building height and a minimum street - side setback of five (5) feet for the first nine (9) feet of building height, shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the following requirements: (a) The required setback area shall be treated with landscaping so as to present, in perpetuity, a neat and orderly appearance. (b) The required setback area shall not be used for off-street parking. (2) Where a lot is adjoined by a building which has Tess than the above required setback, the following exceptions shall be made: (a) If the lot has a lot line dimension of Tess than fifty (50) feet abutting any street, then the setback required along that particular street shall not be greater than the deeper of either adjoining setback. (b) If the lot has a tot line dimension of fifty (50) feet or more abutting any street, but not greater than sixty-five (65) feet, then the setback required along that particular street shall not be greater than the deeper of any ad- joining setback, unless such adjoining setback is less than five (5) feet, in which case the required setback shall be five (5) feet. (3) INTERIOR SIDE YARD: No interior side yard is required. However, if any open area extending along an interior side lot line is provided, it shall be at least ten (10) feet wide. For residential buildings or residential portions of buildings, any portion of a building wall which has windows shall be set back from an interior side lot line a distance of not less than twenty-five (25) feet or one -sixth (1/6) of the height of said building wall, which- ever is greater. The minimum setback may be reduced by one-half (1/2) when the lot line is immediately adjacent to a public park. For residential portions of buildings which com- bine residential and non-residential uses, the height of the building wall shall be measured from the floor level of the lowest story used for residential use. (4) REAR YARD: (a) For non-residential building, no rear yard is required except where a lot in the C-3 District abuts upon a lot in any "R"(Residential) District; a yard at least ten (10) feet in width shall be provided adjacent to the "R" District. If any open area along a rear lot line is provided, it shall be at least ten (10) feet wide. (b) For residential buildings or residential portions of buildings, a rear yard shall be provided having a minimum depth of twenty-five (25) feet, and any portion of a building wall which has windows shall be set back from a rear lot line a distance of not less than twenty-five (25) feet or one -sixth (1/6) of the height of said building wall, whichever is greater. The minimum setback may be reduced by one-half (1/2) when the lot line is im- mediately adjacent to a public park. For residential portions of buildings which combine residential and non- residential uses, the required rear yard for the residential portion may be pro- vided at any level not higher than the floor level of the lowest story used for residential use, and the height of a building wall containing windows shall be mea- sured from such floor level of the lowest story used for residential use. (5) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL BU I LDINGS: The provisions of Article IV Section 15 shall apply in this District except that the formula for determining minimum horizontal distance between any two buildings on the site is modified to read as follows: S= LA plus LB plus HA plus HB 6 8 All provisions of Article IV Section 15 which refer to the formula in said Section shall in- stead refer in this District to the formula as modified herein. Section 6: Height There shall be no absolute height limit in this District, except as required by Article IV. Section 37. Section 7: Floor Area Ratio (1) Non -Residential Uses Except as provided in Section 8, the floor area ratio for non-residential uses or hotels shall not exceed 8.0, (2) Residential Uses Except as provided in Section 8, the floor area ratio for residential uses, except hotels, shall not exceed 4.0. j3) Except as provided in Section 8. the floor area ratio for all uses in a building shall Lot exceed 10.0. Section 8: Floor Area Premiums The floor area ratios permitted in Section 7 may be increased 6 C� in accordance with the provisions of this Section, (11 For lots on which public facilities are specifically mandated by the provisions of Article XXVI-1. floor area bonuses. if any, shall be in accordance with the provisions of said Article. except that bonus floor area used for residential uses may be doubled (2) Optional features not specifically mandated by the provisions of Article XXVI-1 will entitle the lot to bonus floor area as follows: (a) For arcades conforming to the definition of arcade as set forth in Article II, Section 2: four sauare feet of non-resi- dential floor area or eight square feet ' of residential floor area for each sauare foot of arcade area within 20 feet of the street line or urban open space boundary which it adioins. (b) For through block connections con- forming to the definition of through block connection as set forth in Article I I . Section 2: 6 sauare feet of non- residential floor area or 12 sauare feet of residential floor area for each sauare foot of through block connection area (c) For urban open spaces conforming to the definition of urban open space as set forth in Article II. Section 2 and receiving approval by special permit of the City Commission in accordance with the provisions of Article XXXI I-1. Section 2: eight sauare feet of non-resi- dential floor area or 16 sauare feet of residential floor area for each sauare foot of urban open space area. (3) For lots adiacent to a public open space (other than a public street) of at least fiftv (50) feet in width. bonus floor area for residential use only is permitted in the amount of one sauare foot for each two sauare feet of the lot's area. (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (1). (2) and (3) of this Section. total floor area ratios including all premiums shall not exceed the limits set forth as follows: (a) For non-residential or hotel buildings or portions of buildings: 11.0 if no main building entrance is less than 1,000 feet walking distance from a designated station mezzanine of a regional rapid transit system. or 13.0 if a main building entrance is less than 1.000 feet walking distance from such station mezzanine, (b) For residential buildings or portions of buildings. except hotels: 8.0. (c) For entire buildings which include both residential and non-residential or hotel portions: 15.0 if no main building entrance is less than 1.000 feet walking distance from a designated station mezzanine of a regional rapid transit system, or 17.0 if a main building entrance is less than 1,000 feet walking distance from such station mezzanine. Section 9: Usable Open Space For each dwelling unit a minimum of 50 square feet of usable open space shall be provided on the site. Notwithstanding provisions in the definition of usable open space in Article II, Section 2, there are no restrictions on the levels or heights at which the usable open space requirements may be satisfied in the C-3 District. (The following provisions are all new material.) ARTICLE XV-1: CENTRAL COMMERCIAL - C-3A DISTRICT Purpose: The C-3A Central Commercial District is designed to preserve and enhance a major retail center while accommodating high intensity new development as in the C-3 District. For this •purpose a special retail requirement applies to all new devel- opments or enlargements. The following regulations shall apply in the C-3A District: Section 1: 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 of more of the following specified uses in accordance with the limitations hereafter specified. (1) Any USE permitted in the C-3 District subject to the applicable regulations specified in said District and to the following additional regu- lations designed to preserve and strengthen the retail character of the district: (a) For all new buildings, alterations or enlargements, floor space equivalent to at least 75 percent of the lot area shall be allocated for occupancy by one or more uses listed below. Only the net floor space for lease and actual physical occupancy by individual uses and not including corridors and other spaces used in common will be counted in determining the amount of space so allocated. List of Uses Which May Occupy Required Floor Space Antique stores Art galleries, commercial Artists' supply stores Bakery goods shop Barber shops Beauty parlors Book stores Candy or ice cream stores Carpet, rug, linoleum, or other floor covering stores Cigar or tobacco stores Clothing or clothing accessory stores Department stores Drug stores Dry cleaning agencies or pressing establishments Dry goods or fabrics stores Eating or drinking places, including those which provide outdoor table service or incidental musical entertainment Florist shops Food stores, including supermarkets, grocery stores, meat markets, or delicatessen stores Furniture stores Furrier shops, custom Gift shops Hardware stores Interior decorating establishments Jewelry or art metal craft shops Laundry agencies Leather goods or luggage stores Locksmith shops Millinery shops Music stores Newsstands. open or enclosed Optical stores Package liquor stores Photographic equipment or supply stores Photographic studios Record stores Sewing machine stores, selling household machines only Shoe or hat repair shops Shoe stores Sporting goods stores Stamp or coin stores Stationery stores Tailor or dressmaking shops, custom Television, radio, phonograph, or house- hold appliance stores or repair shops Toy stores Typewriter stores Variety stores Wallpaper stores Watch or clock stores or repair shops (b) For the purposes of meeting the minimum space requirements for such uses, space will be counted as qualifying only if accessible to the public and situated as follows: 1. Space directly accessible from and on the same level with a public sidewalk. other public pedestrian way or an arcade 2. Space directly accessible from and on the same level with the main lobby of a building 3. Space on levels immediately above or below other qualifying space and publicly accessible by escalator (c) For buildings with frontage on East or West Flagler Street or on North or South Miami Avenue at least 70 percent of. oc (a) suc per par lob oth or oth seg oth ex (The following provisio ARTICLE XV-2: CE DI Purpose: The purpose of the C-3 commercial and high de near the core of the cen permits the same uses as lower development inte are generally consistent parking demand on site. The following regulatio Section 1: Use R No building or structur altered or used, or land for other than one or m (1) Any non District, specified (2) Any resi' District. YARD r (3) Apartme exceedin for each feet of I (4) Hotel or (5) Access() buildin' 60 perce> (6) The foil parking I' approval with tha XXVI-1: (a) A res (b) AO bu 60! un (c) Pa of (7) The toll lions of if any, wisions of x area used nandated -1 will as follows: he definition isle 1 I., non-resi- luare feet Mt aware :0 feet of n sriace ions con- fthrough LIs in Article of .non- sauare feet each square section area. forming to wi space as set lalinermit of ide ;XXXI I-1. st of non-resi- 'ore feet of arhuare MIL an sum er Fifty < t Wdent,al.use t Hof Ofle square L1ha ot'.S & . e. of namaraohs aeW floor area i 1Lpors tieWmUWw slUn liajthg to temp 'Lien- LQL portions of incl u e both iential or tsotel •amrs 000 watt ina uadon its system, or 17.0 if a main building entrance is less than 1,000 feet walking distance from such station mezzanine. Section 9: Usable Open Space For each dwelling unit a minimum of 50 square feet of usable open space shall be provided on the site. Notwithstanding provisions in the definition of usable open space in Article II, Section 2, there are no restrictions on the levels or heights at which the usable open space requirements may be satisfied in the C-3 District. (The following provisions are all new material.) ARTICLE XV-1: CENTRAL COMMERCIAL - C-3A DISTRICT Purpose: The C-3A Central Commercial District is designed to preserve and enhance a major retail center while accommodating high intensity new development as in the C-3 District. For this purpose _a special retail requirement applies to all new devel- opments or enlargements. The following regulations shall apply in the C-3A District: Section 1: 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 of more of the following specified uses in accordance with the limitations hereafter specified. (1) Any USE permitted in the C-3 District subject to the applicable regulations specified in said District and to the following additional regu-. Iations designed to preserve and strengthen the retail character of the district: (a) For all new buildings, alterations or enlargements, floor space equivalent to at least 75 percent of the lot area shall be allocated for occupancy by one or more uses listed below. Only the net floor space for lease and actual physical occupancy by individual uses and not including corridors and other spaces used in common will be counted in determining the amount of space so allocated. List of Uses Which May Occupy Required Floor Space Antique stores Art galleries, commercial Artists' supply stores Bakery goods shop Barber shops Beauty parlors Book stores Candy or ice cream stores Carpet, rug, linoleum, or other floor covering stores Cigar or tobacco stores Clothing or clothing accessory stores Department stores Drug stores Dry cleaning agencies or pressing establishments Dry goods or fabrics stores Eating or drinking places, including those which provide outdoor table service or incidental musical entertainment Florist shops Food stores, including supermarkets, grocery stores, meat markets, or delicatessen stores Furniture stores Furrier shops, custom Gift shops Hardware stores Interior decorating establishments Jewelry or art metal craft shops Laundry agencies Leather goods or luggage stores Locksmith shops Millinery shops Music stores Newsstands, open or enclosed Optical stores Package liquor stores Photographic equipment or supply stores Photographic studios Record stores Sewing machine stores, selling household machines only Shoe or hat repair shops Shoe stores Sporting goods stores Stamp or coin stores Stationery stores Tailor or dressmaking shops, custom Television, radio, phonograph, or house- hold appliance stores or repair shops Toy stores Typewriter stores Variety stores Wallpaper stores Watch or clock stores or repair shops (b) For the purposes of meeting the minimum space requirements for such uses, space will be counted as qualifying only if accessible to the public and situated as follows: 1. Space directly accessible from and on the same level with a public sidewalk, other public pedestrian way or an arcade 2. Space directly accessible from and on the same level with the main lobby of a building 3. Space on levels immediately above or below other qualifying space and publicly accessible by escalator (c) For buildings with frontage on East or West Flagler Street or on North or South Miami Avenue at least 70 percent of such frontage shall be allocated for occupancy by uses listed in sub -paragraph (a) of this Section. The remainder of such frontage may be devoted to other permitted uses not listed in sub- paragraph (a), to building entrances, lobbies, through block connections or other pedestrian spaces, or to escalators or stairs providing public access to other levels, provided that no single segment of frontage devoted to such other uses, spaces or facilities may exceed 70 feet in length. (The following provisions are all new material.) ARTICLE XV-2: CENTRAL COMMERCIAL - C-3B DISTRICT Purpose: The purpose of the C-3B District is to provide for central commercial and high density residential development in areas near the core of the central business district. The District permits the same uses as the C-3 District but at somewhat lower development intensities. Permitted floor area ratios are generally consistent with ability to accommodate generated parking demand on site. The following regulations shall apply in the C-3B District. Section 1: Use Regulations No building or structure, or portion 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: (1) Any non-residential use permitted in the C-3 District, subject to the USE REGULATIONS specified in said District. (2) Any residential use permitted in the R-3 District, subject to the USE, AREA, and YARD regulations specified in said District. (3) Apartment building or apartment hotel not exceeding a density of one (1) dwelling unit for each two hundred twenty (220) square feet of lot area. (4) Hotel or Motel (5) Accessory parking facilities for apartment buildings, with vehicle capacities not exceeding 60 percent of the number of dwelling units. (6) The following accessory parking facilities, parking lots or parking garages, subject to approval by the City Commission in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article XXVI-1: (a) Accessory parking facilities for non- residential uses or hotels. (b) Accessory parking facilities for apartment buildings, with vehicle capacities exceeding 60 percent of the number of dwelling units. (c) Parking lots or garages for the parking of automobiles by the public. (7) The following uses if approved as a "CONDI- 8 TIONAL USE": (a) Motor bus terminal (b) Heliport Section 2: Limitations on Uses (1) Except for automobile parking Tots and motor bus terminals, heliports, all activities, including sale, display, preparation and storage, shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed building. (2) No second-hand or used merchandise shall be offered for sale, displayed or stored, except in connection with an antique store, art or auction gallery. (3) All products shall be sold at retail on the premises. Section 3: Area (All new material.) There shall be no minimum required area or width of lot in this District. Section 4: 'Yards and Minimum Distance Between Residential Buildings (1) FRONT AND STREET -SIDE SETBACKS: In all instances, except as provided for Arcades in Article XXVI-1, Section 5 and except as hereafter provided, a minimum front setback of ten (10) feet for the first nine (9) feet of building height and a minimum street -side setback of five (5) feet for the first nine (9) feet of building height, shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the following requirements: (a) The required setback area shall be treated with landscaping so as to present, in .perpetuity, a neat and orderly appearance. (b) The required setback area shall not be used for off-street parking. (2) Where a lot is adjoined by a building which has Tess than the above required setback, the following exceptions shall be made: (a) if the lot has a lot line dimension of less than fifty (50) feet abutting any street, then the setback required along that particular street shall not be greater than the deeper of either adjoining setback. (b) if the lot has a lot line dimension of fifty (50) feet or more abutting any street, but not greater than sixty-five (65) feet, then the setback required along that particular street shall not be greater than the deeper of any ad- joining setback, unless such adjoining setback is less than five (5) feet, in which case the required setback shall be five (5) feet. (3) (4) Above a height of 100 feet above grade, no point on a building shall be closer to the centerline of a street than one-half (1/2) the height of said point above grade, provided that such restriction shall not require a set- back greater than 25 feet from the street line. INTERIOR SIDE YARD: No interior side yard is required. However, if any open area extending along an interior side lot line is provided, it shall be at least ten (10) feet wide. For residential buildings or residential portions of buildings, any portion of a building wall which has windows shall be set back from an interior side lot line a distance of not less than twenty-five (25) feet or one -sixth (1/6) of the height of said building wall, whichever is greater. The minimum setback may be reduced by one-half ('h) when the lot line is immediately adjacent to a public park. For residential portions of buildings which combine residential and non-residential uses, the height of the building wall shall be measured from the floor level of the lowest story used for residential use. (5) REAR YARD: (a) For non-residential buildings, no rear yard is required except where a lot in the C-3B District abuts upon a lot in any "R" (Residential) District; a yard at least ten (10) feet in width shall be provided adjacent to the "R" District. However, if any open area along a rear lot line is provided, it shall be at least ten (10) feet wide. (b) For residential buildings or residential portions of buildings, a rear yard shall be provided having a minimum depth of twenty-five (25) feet, and any portion of a building wall which has windows shall be set back from a rear lot line a distance of not less than twenty-five (25) feet or one -sixth (1/6) of the height of said building wall, whichever is greater. The minimum setback may be reduced by one-half (1/2) when the lot line is immediately adjacent to a public park. For residential portions of buildings which combine residential and non- residential uses, the required rear yard for the residential portion may be provided at any level not higher than the floor level of the lowest story used for residential use, and the height of a building wall containing windows shall be rneasured from such floor level of the lowest story f`- used for residential use. (6) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS: The provisions of Article IV, ' D' Section 15 shall apply in this District except that the formula for determining minimum horizontal distance between any two buildings on the site is modified to read as follows: S = LA plus LB plus HA plus HB 6 8 All provisions of Article IV, Section 15 which refer to the formula in said Section shall instead refer in this District to the formula as modified herein. Section 5: Height There shall be no absolute height limit in this District, except as required by Article IV, Section 37. Section 6: Floor Area Ratio (1) Non -Residential Uses Except as provided in Section 7, the floor area ratio for non-residential uses shall not exceed 2.0. (2) Residential Uses Except as provided in Section 7, the floor area ratio for residential uses shall not exceed 2.0. (3) Except as provided in Section 7, the floor area ratio for all uses in a building shall not exceed 3.0. Section 7: Floor Area Premiums The floor area ratios permitted in Section 6 may be increased in accordance with the provisions of this Section. (1) For lots on which public facilities are specifically mandated by the provisions of Article XXV1-1, floor area bonuses, if any, shall be in accordance with the provisions of said Article, except that bonus floor area allowed thereunder and allocated for residential uses may be increased by 50 percent. Optional features not specifically mandated by the provisions of Article XXVI-1 will entitle the lot to bonus floor area as follows: (a) For arcades conforming to the definition of arcade as set forth in Article II, Section 2: four square feet of non- residential floor area or six square feet of residential floor area for each square foot of arcade area within 20 feet of the street line or urban open space boundary which it adjoins. For through block connections conforming to the definition of through block con- nection as set forth in Article 11, Section 2: 6 square feet of non-residential floor area or 9 square feet of residential floor area for each square foot of through block connection area. For urban open spaces conforming to the definition of urban open space as set forth in Article 11, Section 2 and receiving approval by special permit of the City Commission in accordance with the provisions of Article XXXII-1, (2) (b) (c) Sec or squ (d) For sp lot flo of ur f10 d pur sab (3) Notwiths (1) and ( ratios inc the limi (a) Fo of en dis me sys en dis (b) Fo of (c) Fo bo Po Section 8: Usable For each dwelling unit usable open space shall: District, notwithstandi of usable open space as the requirements on di level are as follows: (1) At least level of twining: (2) Not ma than eit (a) 1 (b) th s which Not Tess than 50 per landscaped including (The following: provisi ARTICLE XVr 3 Purpose: The purpose -of this Di of servicesrequired b employees and vie( highest development i The following reguleti and motor s, including Ie, shall fpletely se shall be , except in Irt or m the of lot roan BACKS: Ifor n 5 and limum :he first d a minimum for the tt, shall be lance with all be as to tend all eking. ing which etback,the le: mrion of tting any wired along lot be rither anion of tting any sixty five xaquired shall not be any ad. h:adjoining feet, in tback (3) Above a height of 100 feet above grade, no point on a building shall be closer to the centerline of a street than one-half ('h) the height of said point above grade, provided that such restriction shall not require a set- back greater than 25 feet from the street line. (4) INTERIOR SIDE YARD: No interior side yard is required. However, if any open area extending along an interior side lot Tine is provided, it shall be at least ten (10) feet wide. For residential buildings or residential portions of buildings, any portion of a building wall which has windows shall be set back from an interior side lot line a distance of not less than twenty-five (25) feet or one -sixth (1/6) of the height of said building wall, whichever is greater. The minimum setback may be reduced by one-half ('h) when the lot line is immediately adjacent to a public park. For residential portions of buildings which combine residential and non-residential uses, the height of the building wall shall be measured from the floor level of the lowest story used for residential use. (5) REAR YARD: (a) For non-residential buildings, no rear yard is required except where a lot in the C-36 District abuts upon a lot in any "R" (Residential) District: a yard at least ten (10) feet in width shall be provided adjacent to the "R" District. However, if any open area along a rear lot line is provided, it shall be at least ten (10) feet wide. (b) For residential buildings or residential portions of buildings, a rear yard shall be provided having a minimum depth of twenty-five (25) feet, and any portion of a building wall which has windows shall be set back from a rear lot line a distance of not less than twenty-five (25) feet or one -sixth (1/6) of the height of said building wall, whichever is greater. The minimum setback may be reduced by one-half (1/2) when the lot line is immediately adjacent to a public park. For residential portions of buildings which combine residential and non- residential uses, the required rear yard for the residential portion may be provided at any level not higher than the floor level of the lowest story used for residential use, and the height of a building wall containing windows shall be measured fillININIUM DISTANCE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAIfrom such floor level of the lowest story used for residential use. (6) fiMNIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS: The provisions of Article IV, Section 15 shall apply in this District except that the formula for. determining minimum horizontal distance between any two buildings 11 on the site is rnodified to read as follows: S = LA plus LB plus HA plus HB 6 8 All provisions of Article IV, Section 15 which refer to the formula in said Section shall instead refer in this District to the formula as rnodified herein. Section 5: Height There shall be no absolute height limit in this District, except as required by Article IV, Section 37. Section 6: Floor Area Ratio (1) Non -Residential Uses Except as provided in Section 7, the floor area ratio for non-residential uses shall not exceed 2.0. (2) Residential Uses Except as provided in Section 7, the floor area ratio for residential uses shall not exceed 2.0. (3) Except as provided in Section 7, the floor area ratio for all uses in a building shall not exceed 3.0. Section 7: Floor Area Premiums The floor area ratios permitted in Section 6 may be increased in accordance with the provisions of this Section. (1) For lots on which public facilities are specifically mandated by the provisions of Article XXVI-1, floor area bonuses, if any, shall be in accordance with the provisions of said Article, except that bonus floor area allowed thereunder and allocated for residential uses may be increased by 50 percent. (2) Optional features not specifically mandated by the provisions of Article XXVI-1 will entitle the lot to bonus floor area as follows: (a) For arcades conforming to the definition of arcade as set forth in Article II, Section 2: four square feet of non- residential floor area or six square feet of residential floor area for each square foot of arcade area within 20 feet of the street line or urban open space boundary which it adjoins. (b) For through block connections conforming to the definition of through block con- nection as set forth in Article I1, Section 2: 6 square feet of non-residential floor area or 9 square feet of residential floor area for each square foot of through block connection area. (c) For urban open spaces conforming to the definition of urban open space as set forth in Article II, Section 2 and receiving approval by special permit of the City Commission in accordance with the provisions of Article XXXII-1, Section 1: 8 square feet of residential or non-residential floor area for each square foot of urban open space area. (d) For that portion of total usable open space in excess of 50 percent of the lot area, four square feet of residential floor area for each excess square foot of usable open space, provided that an urban open space for which bonus floor area is allowed shall not be inclu- ded in the total usable open space for purposes of determining the excess u- sable open space eligible for bonus. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (1) and 12) of this Section, total floor area ratios including all premiums shall not exceed the limits set forth as follows: (al For non-residential buildings or portions of buildings: 4.0 if no main building entrance is less than 1,000 feet walking distance from a designated station mezzanine of a regional rapid transit system, or 5.0 if a main building entrance is less than 1,000 feet walking distance from such station mezzanine. (b) For residential buildings or portions of buildings: 5.0. (c) For entire buildings which include both residential and non-residential portions: 6.0. Section 8: Usable Open Space For each dwelling unit a minimum of 120 square feet of usable open space shall be provided on the site. In this District, notwithstanding the provisions of the definition of usable open space as set forth in Article I1, Section 2, the requirements on distribution of usable open space by level are as follows: (1) At least 50 percent at or below the floor level of the lowest residential story con- taining dwelling units. (21 Not more than 20 percent at a level higher than either: (a) 120 feet above ground level, or (b) the floor level of the lowest residential story containing dwelling units, whichever level is higher. Not less than 50 percent of total usable open space shall be landscaped including trees and shrubbery. (The following provisions are all new material.) ARTICLE XV-3: CENTRAL COMMERCIAL SERVICE - C-3C DISTRICT Purpose: The purpose of this District is to provide for the wide range of services required by central business district firms, their employees and visitors in close proximity to the core of highest development intensity. The following regulations shall apply in the C-3C District. 10 Section 1: Use Regulations No building or structure, or portion thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or fi n part, for other than one or more of the following spec (1) Any non-residential use permitted in the C-3 District, subject to the USE REGULATIONS specified in said District. (21 Hotel or Motel (3) Bowling alleys limited to not more than sixteen (16) lanes per establishment. (4) CateringService,Social, Home or Airline (5) Electrical, glazing, heating, painting, paper hanging, plumbing, roofing, or ventilating contractors' establishments, limited to 2,500 square feet of floor area per establishment (6) Monuments (sale and display only) (7) Mortuary, undertaker or embalming establish- ment, and funeral home (8) Pawn shop (9) Pest control agency 110) Refreshment stands, drive-in (11) fSign painting eet of floor rheapper limited 00 square establishment (12) Taxidermist shops (13) Trade, or other schools for adults (14) Upholstering shops dealing directly with consumers (15) Venetian blind, window shade, or awning shops, custom, limited to 2,500 square feet of floor area per establishment. (16) Window cleaning contractors' establishments, including floor waxing and other similar building maintenance services (17) The following automotive service uses: la) Automobile glass and mirror shops (b) Automobile seat cover or convertible top establishments, selling or instal- lation (c) Tire sales establishments, including installation services (18) Accessory parking facilities for apartment buildings, with vehicle capacities not exceeding 60 percent of the number of dwelling units. (19) The following accessory parking facilities, parking lots or .parking garages, subject to approval by the City Commission in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article XXVI-1: (a) Armory parking facilities for non- residential uses or hotels. (b) Accessory parking facilities for apart- ment buildings, with vehicle capacities exceeding 60 percent of the number of dwelling units. (c) Parking lots or garages for the parking of •automobiles by the public. (20) The following uses if approved as "CONDI- TIONAL USES": apartment hotel 4a) Apartment building or notexceeding a density of one CO dwellingunit tor each 220 square feet !1 Section 2: of lot area (b) Armory (c) Boxing or sports arena, fronton, or skating rinks (d) Gasoline stations subject to the limitations applicable in C-2 Districts (Article XiV, Section 1, paragraph (21)(g)) Limitations on Uses (1) Except for drive-in businesses, parking lots, parking garages or accessory parking f eiliti ,ton all activities, including sale, display, preparation and storage, shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed building. (2) All products shall be sold at retail on the premises. (3) shall Storage of merchandise within the rearor pterials ortion shall be permitted of a building when in conjunction to the operation of an office, store, or other commercial use, located within the front portion of the same building, and provided that: (a) The office, store, or commercial use occupies a minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the total floor area of the building or structure. Section 3: Area There shall be no minimum required area or width of lot in this District. Section 4: Yards and Minimum Distance Between Residential Buildings (1) FRONT AND STREET -SIDE SETBACKS: In all instances, except as provided for Arcades in Article XXViI, Section 5 and except as hereafter provided, a minimum front setback of ten (10) feet for the first nine (9) feet of building height and a minimum street -side setback of five (5) feet for the first nine (9) feet of building height, shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the following requirements: (a) The required t eated with lansetback area dscaping so aslbe to present, in perpetuity, a neat and orderly appearance. (b) The required setback area shall not be used for off-street parking. (2) Where a lot is adjoined by a building which has less than the above required setback, the following exceptions shall be made: (a) If the lot has a lot line dimension of less than fifty (50) feet abutting any street, then the setback required along that particular street shall not be greater than the deeper of either adjoining setback. (b) If the lot has a lot line dimension of fifty (50) feet or more abutting anV street, but not greater than sixty - ye (65) feet, then the setback required along that particular street shall any not be greater than the deeper adjoining setback, unless such adjoining setback they required setbackthan five 5) shaltlt be five which (5) feet. (3) Above a height of 100'above grade, no point buildingon a closer of a streetthan one-half(centerline h1 the height of said point above grade. provided that such restriction shall not require a setback greater than 25 feet from the street line. (4) INTERIOR SIDE YARD: No interior side yard is required. However, if any open area extending along an interior side lot line is provided• it shall be at least ten (10) feet wide. For residential buildings or residential portions of buildings, any portion of a building wall which has windows shall be set back from an interior side lot line a distance of not less than twenty- five (25) feet or one -sixth (1/6) of the height of said building watt. whichever is greater. The minimum setback may be reduced by one- half (%) when the lot line is immediately adjacent to a public park. whichFor combineresidential residential portions of buildings and non-residential uses, the height of the ured from floor level f the lowest story usedthe for residential use. (5) REAR YARD: no rear (a) For non-residential buildings, yard is required except where a lot in the C-3C District abuts upon a lot in any "R" (Residential) District; a yard at least ten (10) feet in width shalt be provided adjacent to the "R" District However, if any open area along a rear lot line is provided, it shall be at least ten (10) feet wide. r residential (b) For residential buildings ooar yard shall portions of buildings. a bel twel of sha( a (25) of 11 gre red! line part boil non yari prof that for bui! bel thei (6) MIN)MU RESIDED of Article District el miningnt any two as Poll S = All provii refer to tl instead r modified Section 5: lit There shall be no abs01 except as required' by A Section 6: Floors (11 Non -Rea Except ratio for 12) Residen Except ratio for (3) Excep ratio: for` 3.A Section 7: floor The floor area ratios in accordance (1) For lots specifi Article`- shalt).* said erected, part, i uses: the C-3 1TIONS an line paper ating 0 2,500 ment establish- ) square with wring are feet lishmertts, miler $hops avertible instal- luding arxment otaxceeding ng units. tcilitjes, laject to in accordance f Article torrnon- #or part- ¶!sBpacities t,number:of hegtarking fc. O NDl- tnanthotel tail KAMMfeat (bl lc) id) of dot area Armory Boxing or sports arena, fronton, or skating rinks Gasoline stations subject to the limitations applicable in C-2 Districts (Article XIV, Section 1, paragraph (21)(g)) Section 2: Limitations on' Uses (1) Except for drive-in businesses, parking lots, parking garages or accessory parking facilities, all activities, including sale, display, preparation and storage, shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed building. (2) All products shall be sold at retail on the premises. 43) Storage of merchandise and/or materials shall be permitted within the rear portion of a building when in conjunction to the operation of an office, store, or other commercial use, located within the front portion of the same building, and provided that: (a) The office, store, or commercial use occupies a minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the total floor area of the building or structure. Section 3: Area There shall be no minimum required area or width of lot in thisDistrict. Section 4: Yards and Minimum Distance Between Residential Buildings (1) FRONT AND STREET -SIDE SETBACKS: In all instances, except as provided for Arcades in Article XXVI-1, Section 5 and except as hereafter provided, a minimum front setback of ten 110) feet for the first nine (9) feet of building height and a minimum street -side setback of five (5) feet for the first nine (9) feet of building height, shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the following requirements: (a) The required setback area shall be treated with landscaping so as to present, in perpetuity, a neat and orderly appearance. (b) The required setback area shall not be used for off-street parking. (2) Where a lot is adjoined by a building which has less than the above required setback, the following exceptions shall be made: (a) If the lot has a lot line dimension of less than fifty (50) feet abutting any street, then the setback required along that particular street shall not be greater than the deeper of either adjoining setback. (b) If the lot has a lot line dimension of fifty (50) feet or more abutting any street, but not greater than sixty-five (65) feet, then the setback required along that particular street shall not be greater than the deeper of any adjoining setback, unless such adjoining setback is less than five (5) feet, in which case the required setback shall be five (5) feet. (3) Above a height of 100'above grade, no point on a building shall be closer to the centerline of a street than one-half (h) the height of said point above grade, provided that such restriction shall not require a setback greater than 25 feet from the street line. (4) INTERIOR SIDE YARD: No interior side yard is required. However, if any open area extending along an interior side lot line is provided, it shall be at least ten (10) feet wide. For residential buildings or residential portions of buildings, any portion of a building wall which has windows shall be set back from an interior side lot line a distance of not less than twenty- five (25) feet or one -sixth (1/6) of the height of said building wall, whichever is greater. The minimum setback may be reduced by one- half (h) when the lot line is immediately adjacent to a public park. For residential portions of buildings which combine residential and non-residential uses, the height of the building wall shall be measured from the floor level of the lowest story used for residential use. (5) REAR YARD: (a) For non-residential buildings, no rear yard is required except where a lot in the C-3C District abuts upon a lot in any "R" (Residential) District; a yard at least ten (10) feet in width shall be provided adjacent to the "R" District. However, if any open area along a rear lot line is provided, it shall be at least ten (10) feet wide. (b) For residential buildings or residential portions of buildings, a rear yard shall be provided having a minimum depth of twenty-five (25) feet, and any portion of a building wall which has windows shall be set back from a rear lot line a distance of not less than twenty-five (25) feet or one -sixth (1/6) of the height of said building wall, whichever is greater. The minimum setback may be reduced by one-half (h) when the lot line is immediately adjacent to a public park. For residential portions of buildings which combine residential and non-residential uses, the required rear yard for the residential portion may be provided at any level not higher than the floor level of the lowest story used for residential use, and the height of a building wall containing windows shall be measured from such floor level of the lowest story used for residential use. (6) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS: The provisions of Article IV, Section 15 shall apply in this District except that the formula for deter- mining minimum horizontal distance between any two buildings on the site is modified to read as follows: S = LA plus LB plus HA plus HB 6 B All provisions of Article IV, Section 15 which refer to the formula in said Section shall instead refer in this District to the formula as modified herein. Section 5: Height There shall be no absolute height limit in this District, except as required by Article IV, Section 37. Section 6: Floor Area Ratio (1) Non -Residential Uses Except as provided in Section 7, the floor area ratio for non-residential uses shall not exceed 20. (2) Residential Uses Except as provided in Section 7, the floor area ratio for residential uses shall not exceed 20. (3) Except as provided in Section 7, the floor area ratio for all uses in a building shall not exceed 3.0. Section 7: Floor Area Premiums The floor area ratios permitted in Section 6 may be increased in accordance with the provisions of this Section. (1) For lots on which public facilities are specifically mandated by the provisions of Article XXVI-1, floor area bonuses, if any, shall be in accordance with the provisions of said Article, except that bonus floor area 12 allowed thereunder and allocated for residential uses may be increased by 50 percent. (2) Optional features not specifically mandated by the provisions of Article XXVI-1 will entitle the lot to bonus floor area as follows: (a) For arcades conforming to the definition of arcade as set forth in Article 1I, Section 2: four square feet of non- residential floor area or six square feet of residential floor area for each square foot of arcade area within 20 feet of the street line or urban open space boundary which it adjoins. (b) For through block connections con- forming to the definition of through block connection as set forth in Article l I, Section 2: 6 square feet of non- residential floor area or 9 square feet of residential floor area for each square foot of through block connection area. (c) For urban open spaces conforming to the definition of urban open space as set forth in Article II, Section 2 and receiving approval by special permit of the City Commission in accordance with the provisions of Article XXXII-1, Section 1: 8 square feet of residential or non- residential floor area for each square foot of urban open space area. (d) For that portion of total usable open space in excess of 50 percent of the lot area, four square feet of residential floor area for each excess square foot of usable open space, provided that an urban open space for which bonus floor area is allowed shall not be included in the total usable open space for purposes of determining the excess usable open space eligible for bonus. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Section, total floor area ratios including all premiums shall not exceed . the limits set forth as follows: (a) For non-residential buildings or portions of buildings: 4.0 if no main building entrance is less than 1,000 feet walking distance from a designated station mezzanine of a regional rapid transit system, or 5.0 if a main building entrance is Less than 1,000 feet walking distance from such station mezzanine. (b) for residential buildings or portions of buildings: 5.0. (c) For entire buildings which include both residential and non-residential portions: B.O. Section8: Usable Open Space For each dwelling iunit a minimum of 120 square feet of usableopen space shall be provided on the site. In this District, notwithstanding the provisions of the definition of usable open space as set forth in Article 11, Section 2, the require- ments on distribution of usable open space by level are as follows: (1) At least 50 percent at or below the floor level of the lowest residential story containing dwelling units. (2) Not more than 20 percent at a level higher than either: (a) 120 feet above ground level, or (b) the floor level of the lowest residential story containing dwelling units, whichever level is higher. Not less than 50 percent of total usable open space shall be landscaped including trees and shrubbery. (The following provisions are all new material.) ARTICLE XV-4: COMMERCIAL-C-3D DISTRICT AL Purpose: This District is designed as a residential -office -commercial district for parts of the central business district enjoying the special advantages of proximity to waterfronts and parks. Residential development is encouraged in this district for the purpose of accommodating people disposed to urban living close to places of employment. The following regulations shall apply in the C-3D District: Section 1: 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: (1) Any use permitted in an R-3 District, subject to the USE, AREA, and YARD regulations specified in said district. (2) Apartment building and apartment hotel not exceeding a density of one (1) dwelling unit for each 220 square feet of lot area. (3) Hotel or Motel. (4) Office for the conduct of real estate, mortgage financing, accountants, tax consultants, engineers, dental or medical (including clinics), or office of other professions, or businesses not involving sale or handling or merchandise on the premises. (5) Bank and Finance Offices, exclusive of drive- in tellers. (6) Broadcasting Stations for Radio and TV. (7) The following retail or service uses: Art Galleries Art Supply Store Bake Shop Barber Shop Beauty Parlor Camera Shop Delicatessen Florist Shop Gift and Card Shop Health Spa L LA Jewelry Store Laundry and Dry Cleaning Agency Medical and Dental Laboratory Museum Music Store Newsstand Optical Service Photographer Stationery Store Travel Agency Private Club, lodge, fraternity, sorority, and other similar uses, not operated for profit Restaurants, Tea Rooms or Cafes (Excluding dancing or entertainment) Drug Store Book Store —for use by the general public Food, meat, fruit or vegetable market, limited to 2,000 square feet of floor area per establishment Duplication center, not including typesetting and letterpress (8) Accessory parking facilities for apartment buildings, with vehicle capacities not exceeding 60 percent of the number of dwelling units. (9) The following accessory parking facilities, parking lots or parking garages, subject to approval by the City Commission in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article XXVI-1: (a) Accessory parking facilities for non- residential uses or hotels. (b) Accessory parking facilities for apart- ment buildings, with vehicle capacities exceeding 60 percent of the number of dwelling units. (c) Parking lots or garages for the parking of automobiles by the public. (10) Accessory Uses or Structures Section 2: Limitations on Uses (1) All activities, including sales, display, pre- paration and storage, shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed building (2) No second-hand or used merchandise shall be offered for sale, displayed or stored. (3) Alt products shall be sold at retail on the premises. Section 3: Area (All New Material) There shall be no minimum required area or width of lot in this District. Section 4: Yards and Minimum Distance between Residential Buildings (1) FRONT AND STREET -SIDE SETBACKS: In all instances, except as provided for Arcades in Article XXVI-1, Section 5 and except as hereafter of ten (10)rfeetfor the first nine (9) feet ovied. a minimum front k of building h: setback of feet of bui maintain,* requirem (a) The trea in •- an (b) The us= (2) Where a I. has less th following (a) If t less str: c. that, gre:. adj• (b) If t fi str: (65. alo gre• set. is !- the. fee. (31 Above a point on lineofa point ab shalt not from the (4) INTERln yard is r extendin, provided wide. Fo portions veal{ whi an interi than (1 /61, of whidiev: may be lot line l park. F• which c • uses. the measur story u (51 REAR (a) F y- notwithstanding the provisions of the definition of usable open space as set fdrth in Article I1, Section 2, the require- ments on distribution of usable open space by level are as follows: (1) vs: ition :et care At least 50 percent at or below the floor level of the lowest residential story containing dwelling units. (2) Not more than 20 percent at a level higher than either: (a) 120 feet above ground level, or (b) the floor level of the lowest residential story containing dwelling units, whichever level is higher. Not Tess than 50 percent of total usable open space shall be landscaped including trees and shrubbery. ;foie (The following provisions are all new material.) 3t of ARTICLE XV-4: RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE CENTRAL e COMMERCIAL-C-3D DISTRICT area. to as id t of • with Section re ren ie lot cot of in urban area is to seS pen graphs free exceed Portions ling calking inslt entrance [stance ions of deboth ortions: tof its District, Purpose: This District is designed as a residential -office -commercial district for parts of the central business district enjoying the special advantages of proximity to waterfronts and parks. Residential development is encouraged in this district for the purpose of accommodating people disposed to urban living close to places of employment. The following regulations shall apply in the C-3D District: Section 9: the 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: (1) Any use permitted in an R-3 District, subject to the USE, AREA, and YARD regulations specified in said district. (2) Apartment building and apartment hotel not exceeding a density of one (1) dwelling unit for each 220 square feet of lot area. (3) Hotel or Motel. (4) Office for the conduct of real estate, mortgage financing, accountants, tax consultants, engineers, dental or medical (including clinics), or office of other professions, or businesses not involving sale or handling or merchandise on the premises. (5) Bank and Finance Offices, exclusive of drive- in tellers. (6) Broadcasting Stations for Radio and TV. I(7) The following retail or service uses: Art Galleries Art Supply Store Bake Shop Barber Shop Beauty Parlor Camera Shop Delicatessen FloristShop Gift and Card Shop Health Spa Jewelry Store Laundry and Dry Cleaning Agency Medical and Dental Laboratory Museum Music Store Newsstand Optical Service Photographer Stationery Store Travel Agency Private Club, lodge, fraternity, sorority, and other similar uses, not operated for profit Restaurants, Tea Rooms or Cafes (Excluding dancing or entertainment) Drug Store Book Store —for use by the general public Food, meat, fruit or vegetable market, limited to 2,000 square feet of floor area per establishment Duplication center, not including typesetting and letterpress (8) Accessory parking facilities for apartment buildings, with vehicle capacities not exceeding 60 percent of the number of dwelling units. (9) The following accessory parking facilities, parking lots or parking garages, subject to approval by the City Commission in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article XXVI-1: (a) Accessory parking facilities for non- residential uses or hotels. (b) Accessory parking facilities for apart- ment buildings, with vehicle capacities exceeding 60 percent of the number of dwelling units. (c) Parking lots or garages for the parking of automobiles by the public. (10) Accessory Uses or Structures Section 2: Limitations. on Uses isplay, pre- (1) All paration'and storage, shall hall beg sales, dconducted entirely within a completely enclosed building. (2) No second-hand or used offered for sale, displayed or stored.merchandise shall be (3) All products shall be sold at retail on the premises. Section 3: Area (All New Material) There shall be no minimum required area or width of lot in this District. Section 4: Yaws and Minimum l Buildings Distance between (1) FRONT AND STREET -SIDE SETBACKS: In all instances, except as provided for Arcades in Article XXVI-1, Section 5 and except as provided,hereafter of ten (10)feet or the first n nefront setback (9) feetf building height and a minimum street -side setback of five (5) feet for the first nine (9) feet of building height, shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the following requirements: (a) The required setback area shall be treated with landscaping so as to present, in perpetuity, a neat and orderly appear- ance. (b) The required setback area shall not be used for off-street parking. ined by a ing which (2) has less than thehere a lot is e above requiredd setback, the following exceptions shall be made: (a) If the lot has a lot line dimension of less than fifty (50) feet abutting any street, then the setback required along that particular street shall not be greater than the deeper of either adjoining setback. (b) If the lot has a lot line dimension of fifty (50) feet or more abutting any street, but not greater than sixty-five (65) feet, then the setback required along that particular street shall not be greater than the deeper of any adjoining setback, unless such adjoining setback is less than five (5) feet, in which case the required setback shall be five (5) feet (3) Above a height of 100 feet above grade, no point on a building shall be closer to the center- line of a street than one-half ('%) the height of said point above grade, orovided that such restriction shall not require a setback greater than 25 feet from the street line. (4) INTERIOR SIDE YARD: No interior side yard is required. However, if any open area extending along an interior side lot line is provided, it shall be at least ten (10) feet wide. For residential buildings or residential portions of buildings, any portion of a building wall which has windows shall be set back from an interior side lot line a distance of not less than twenty-five (25) feet or one -sixth (1/6) of the height of said building wall, whichever is greater. The minimum setback may be reduced by one-half (%) when the lot line is immediately adjacent to a public park. For residential portions of buildings which combine residential and non-residential uses, the height of the building wall shall be measured from the floor level of the lowest story used for residential use. (5) REAR YARD: (a) For non-residential buildings, no rear yard is required except where a let in the C-3D District abuts upon a lot in any "R" (Residential) District; a yard at (east ten (10) feet in width shall be provided adjacent to the "R" District - 14 However, if any open area along a rear lot line is provided, it shall be at least ten (10) feet wide. (b) For residential buildings or residential portions of buildings, a rear yard shall be provided having a minimum depth of twenty-five (25) feet, and any portion of a building wall which has windows shall be set back from a rear lot line a distance of not less than twenty-five (25) feet or one -sixth (1/6) of the height of said building wall, whichever is greater. The minimum setback may be reduced by one-half (Y) when the lot line is immediately adjacent to a public park. For residential portions of buildings which combine residential and non-residential uses, the required rear yard for the residential portion may be provided at any level not higher than the floor level of the lowest story used for residential use, and the height of a building wall containing windows shall be measured from such floor level of the lowest story used for residential use. (6) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN RESIDEN- TIAL BUILDINGS: The provisions of Article IV, Section 15 shall apply in this District except that the formula for determining minimum horizontal distance between any two buildings on the site is modified to read as follows: S LA plus LB plus HA plus HB 6 All provisions of Article IV Section 15 which refer to the formula in said Section shall instead refer in this District to the formula as modified herein. Sections: Height There shall be no absolute height limit in this District, except as required by Article IV, Section 37. Section 6: Floor Area Ratio (1) Non -Residential Uses Except as provided in Section 7, the floor area ratio for non-residential uses shall not exceed 1.5. (2) Residential Uses Except as provided in Section 7, the floor area ratio for residential uses shall not exceed 1.5. 13) Except as provided in Section 7, the floor area ratio for all uses in a building shall not exceed 2.5. Section 7: Floor Area Premiums T.hefIoorarea ratios permitted in Section 6 may be increased in accordance with the provisions of this Section. (1) For lots having an area of at least 20,000 square feet, the floor area ratio for residen- tial uses and the floor area ratio for all uses in a building may be increased by 1.0. (2) For lots on which public facilities are specific- ally mandated by the provisions of Article XXVI-1, floor area bonuses, if any, shall be in accordance with the provisions of said Article, except that bonus floor area allowed there- under and allocated for residential uses may be increased by 50 percent. (3) Optional features not specifically mandated by the provisions of Article XXVI-1 will entitle the lot to bonus floor area as follows: (a) For arcades conforming to the definition of arcade as set forth in Article II, Section 2: four square feet of non- residential floor area or six square feet of residential floor area for each square foot of arcade area within 20 feet of the street line or urban open space boundary which it adjoins. (b) For through block connections con- forming to the definition of through block connection as set forth in Article II, Section 2: 6 square feet of non-residential floor area or 9 square feet of residential floor area for each square foot of through block connection area. (c) For urban open spaces conforming to the definition of urban open space as set forth in Article II, Section 2 and receiving approval by special permit of the City Commission in accordance with the provisions of Article XXXII-1, Section 1: 8 square feet of residential or non- residential floor area for each square foot of urban open space area. (d) For that portion of total usable open space in excess of 50 percent of the lot area, four square feet of residential floor area for each excess square foot of usable open space, provided that an urban open space for which bonus floor area is allowed shall not be included in the total usable open space for purposes of determining the excess usable open space eligible for bonus. (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (1). (2) and (3) of this Section, total floor area ratios including all premiums shall not exceed the limits set forth as follows: (a) For non-residential buildings or portions of buildings: 2.4. (b) For residential buildings or portions of buildings: 5.0. (c) For entire buildings which include both residential and non-residential portions: 6.0. Section 8: Usable Open Space For each dwelling unit a minimum of 120 square feet of usable open space shall be provided on the site. In this District, notwithstanding the provisions of the definition of usable open space as set forth in Article II, Section 2 the requirements on distribution of usable open space by level are as follows: (1) At least 80 percent at ground level or not more than 50 feet above ground level (2) Not more than 20 percent above a height of 50 feet Not Tess than 50 percent of total usable open space shall be landscaped including trees and shrubbery. (The following provisions are all new material.) ARTICLE XV-5: MIXED CENTRAL COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL - C-3E DISTRICT Purpose The purpose of this District is to provide for medium density residential development in parts of the central business district which are presently developed in a mixed pattern of whole- saling, services and residential uses. The preponderance of wholesale and service uses require that they be recognized as permitted uses, although many will be replaced by residential development in the future. The following regulations shall apply in the C-3E District. Section 1: 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 (3) in accordance with the limitations hereafter specified: (1) Any use permitted in the C-2 District, except department stores, other retail stores haying more than 10,000 square feet of floor area per establishment, auditoriums, parking lots, parking garages or accessory parking facilities when provided on a site other than the site of the main use, subject to the USE REGU- LATIONS specified in the said District. (2) Bowling alleys limited to not more than 16 lanes per establishment. (3) Electrical, glazing, heating, painting, paper Section 3: Are4 hanging, plumbing, roofing, or ventilating contractors' establishments, limited to 2,500 OF Non41 square feet of floor area per establishment. (ak (4) Pest control agency (5) Refreshment stands, drive-in (6) Sign painting shops, limited to 2,500 square Section 4: Verdi feet of floor area per establishment (1) Nan R (7) Taxidermist shops (8) Venetian blind, window shade, or awning Fa) 1 shops, custom, limited to 2,500 square feet of floor area per establishment (9) Window cleaning contractors' establishments, including floor waxing and other similar building maintenance services. (10) Wholesale establishments. limited to 5,000 square f (11) Upholst. consum (12) Access() (13) Parking parking other th to the a accorda of Artic (14) The foil "COND fa) A c• C� su x 0 (b) C A Section 2: Limi (1) Except parking all actht; and sto a comp) (2) Allpr.. premi limitati estabf) paraflr.,. Storage be per buildirt ofan:• 10C11, buildi tat mg a rear at least asidential yard shall im depth of y portion windows lot line a inty-five of the whichever back may Bitten the ent to a portions of sidential .required portion may higher than story used height of a ndows shall er level of isidential use. N fIESIDEN- ns;of Article District *mining Moen any fied to read HA afusl18 ion 15 which ion shall instead ale as )istrict,'except ', the floor es Mall not r, the floor roll 4tot )', the floor ing Shall not way be.incrOased )on. (1) For lots having an area of at least 20,000 square feet, the floor area ratio for residen- tial uses and the floor area ratio for all uses in a building may be increased by 1.0. (2) For lots on which public facilities are specific- ally mandated by the provisions of Article XXVI-1, floor area bonuses, if any, shall be in accordance with the provisions of said Article, except that bonus floor area allowed there- under and allocated for residential uses may be increased by 50 percent. (3) Optional features not specifically mandated by the provisions of Article XXVI-1 will entitle the lotto bonus floor area as follows: la) For arcades conforming to the definition of arcade as set forth in Article I1, Section 2: four square feet of non- residential floor area or six square feet of residential floor area for each square foot of arcade area within 20 feet of the street line or urban open space boundary which it adjoins. (b) For through block connections con- forming to the definition of through block connection as set forth in Article II, Section 2: 6 square feet of non-residential floor area or 9 square feet of residential floor area for each square foot of through block connection area. (c) For urban open spaces conforming to the definition of urban open space as set forth in Article 11, Section 2 and receiving approval by special permit of the City Commission in accordance with the provisions of Article XXXI I-1, Section 1: 8 square feet of residential or non- residential floor area for each square foot of urban open space area. (d) For that portion of total usable open space in excess of 50 percent of the lot area, four square feet of residential floor area for each excess square foot of usable open space, provided that an urban open space for which bonus floor area is allowed shall not be included in the total usable open space for purposes of determining the excess usable open space eligible for bonus. (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of this Section, total floor area ratios including all premiums shall not exceed the limits set forth as follows: (a) For non-residential buildings or portions of buildings: 2.4. (b) for residential buildings or portions of buildings: 5.0. (c) For entire buildings which include both residential and non-residential portions: 6.0. Section 8: Usable Open Space For each dwelling unit a minimum of 120 square feet of usable open space shall be provided on the site. In this District, notwithstanding the provisions of the definition of usable open space as set forth in Article II, Section 2 the requirements on distribution of usable open space by level are as follows: (1) At least 80 percent at ground level or not more than 50 feet above ground level (2) Not more than 20 percent above a height of 50 feet Not less than 50 percent of total usable open space shall be landscaped including trees and shrubbery. (The following provisions are all new material.) ARTICLE XV-5: MIXED CENTRAL COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL - C-3E DISTRICT Purpose The purpose of this District is to provide for medium density residential development in parts of the central business district which are presently developed in a mixed pattern of whole- saling, services and residential uses. The preponderance of wholesale and service uses require that they be recognized as permitted uses, although many will be replaced by residential development in the future. The following regulations shall apply in the C-3E District. Section 1: 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 the limitations hereafter specified: (1) Any use permitted in the C-2 District, except department stores, other retail stores having more than 10,000 square feet of floor area per establishment, auditoriums, parking lots, parking garages or accessory parking facilities when provided on a site other than the site of the main use, subject to the USE REGU- LATIONS specified in the said District. (2) Bowling alleys limited to not more than 16 lanes per establishment. (31 Electrical, glazing, heating, painting, paper hanging, plumbing, roofing, or ventilating contractors' establishments, limited to 2,500 square feet of floor area per establishment. (4) Pest control agency (5) Refreshment stands, drive-in (6) Sign painting shops, limited to 2,500 square feet of floor area per establishment. (7) Taxidermist shops (8) Venetian blind, window shade, or awning shops, custom, limited to 2,500 square feet of floor area per establishment. (9) Window cleaning contractors' establishments, including floor waxing and other similar building maintenance services. (10) Wholesale establishments, limited to 5,000 square feet of floor area per establishment. (11) Upholstering shops dealing directly with consumers. (12) Accessory uses and structures. (13) Parking lots, parking garages or accessory parking facilities when provided on a site other than the site of the main use, subject to the approval of the City Commission in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article XXVI-1. 114) The following uses if approved as a "CONDITIONAL USE". (a) An addition to a conforming or non- conforming building or structure which contains a non -conforming RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USE, subject to the provisions of ARTICLE XXVIII, Section 1, (1)(a) through (f) or Section 2, (2)(a) and/or Section 2, (3)(a). (b) Catering Service, Social, Home or Airline. Section 2: Limitations on Uses (1) Except for drive-in businesses, parking lots, parking garages or accessory parking facilities, all activities, including sale, display, preparation and storage, shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed building. (21 All products shall be sold at retail on the premises or at wholesale subject to the limitations on size applicable to wholesale establishments as set forth in Section (1) paragraph (10). (3) Storage of merchandise and/or materials shall be permitted within the rear portion of a building when in conjunction to the operation of an office, store, or other commercial use, located within the front portion of the same building, and provided that: (a) The office, store, or commercial use occupies a minimum of twenty-five 125) percent of the total floor area of the building or structure. Section 3: Area (1) Non -Residential Use (a) There shall be no required area or width of lot for non-residential use. Section 4: Yards (1) Non -Residential Use (a) INTERIOR SIDE OR REAR YARDS: No interior side yard or rear yard shall be required, except that, where a lot in a C-3E District abuts a lot in an "R" District (Residential), a yard of at least ten (10) feet in width shall be provided 16 on the site adjacent to the "R" District. In addition, the building shall be set back one (1) foot for every two (2) feet of building height above twenty-five (25) feet on sides adjacent to an "R" District. (b) FRONT AND STREET -SIDE SETBACKS: In all instances, except as hereafter provided, a minimum front setback of ten (10) feet for the first nine (9) feet of building height and a minimum street - side setback of five (5) feet for the first nine (9) feet of building height, shall be provided and maintained in accord- ance with the following requirements: 1. If not used for off-street parking, the required setback area shall be treated with landscaping so as to present, in perpetuity, a neat and orderly appearance. 2. If used for parking, the required setback area shall be enclosed, except for permitted driveway openings, by either a living hedge, or a decorative wall of at least three (3) feet in height. (c) Where a lot is adjoined by a building which has less than the above required setback, the following exceptions shall be made: 1. If the lot has a lot line dimension of less than fifty (50) feet abutting any street, then the setback required along that particular street shall not be greater than the deeper of either adjoining setback. 2. If the lot has a lot line dimension of fifty (50) feet or more abutting any street, but not greater than sixty-five (65) feet, then the setback required along that particular street shall not be greater than the deeper of any adjoining setback, unless such ad- joining setback is less than five (5) feet, in which case the required set- back shall be five (5) feet. (d) In no instance shall any point on a building be closer to the centerline of a street than one-half ('h) the height of said point above grade. Section 5: Height There shall be no absolute height limits in this District except as required :by Article IX/Section 37. 1.ctione: floor Area Ratio The floor area ratio shall not exceed 2.0. iln the following, provisions matter underlined .matter in brackets 11is old, to be deleted.) is new, ARTICLE XXIII OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING Section 1: Off -Street Parking Required (1) Every use or structure instituted, constructed, erected or structurally altered after the ef- fective date of this Ordinance shall provide off-street parking facilities in accordance with provisions of this Article for the use of occupants, employees, visitors, or patrons [, except within the C-3 (Central Commercial) District] . * Section 2: Location, Character and Size (1) LOCATION (a) In C-3, C-3A, C-3B, C-3C, C-3D and C-3E Districts, the location of the follow- ing categories of required accessory off- street parking facilities shall be subject to the approval of the City Commission in accordance with the provisions of Article XXVI-1, Section 8: 1. In C-3, C-3A, C-3B, C-3C or C-3D Districts: a. off-street parking facilities acces- sory to apartment buildings where provided off the site of the main use. b. off-street parking facilities acces- sory to non-residential uses or hotels whether provided on or off the site of the main use. 2. In C-3E Districts, off-street parking facilities accessory to any use where provided off the site of the main use. (b) In all districts other than C-3, C-3A,C-3B, C-3C. C-3D and C-3E Districts, the off- street parking facilities required by this Article shall be located on the same lot or parcel of land that they are intended to serve, provided, however..... Section 4: Amount of Off -Street Parking Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (34), the off-street parking required by this Article shall be provided and main- tained on the basis of the [following] minimum requirements set forth in paragraphs (1) to (33), inclusive, as follows: • * a (34) The required amount of off-street parking for non- residential uses and hotels in C-3, C-3A, C-3B, C-3C or C-3D Districts shall be as determined for each development by the City Commission in accordance with the provisions of Article XXVI-1. The required amount of off-street parking for apartment buildings or residential portions of combined residential and non-residential buildings shall be 0.4 parking space per dwelling unit. w r • (The following provisions are all new material.) Section 10: Access Restrictions for Off-Streat Parking and Loading Facilities Vehicular access or egress for permitted or required off-street parking facilities shall in no case be located on the streets listed below. Vehicular access or egress for permitted or required accessory off-street loading berths or for the service entrance to a building may not be located on the streets listed below, unless the zoning supervisor of the Building De- partment certifies that there is no way to provide such berths or entrances with access or egress on some other street. (1) Biscayne Boulevard between Biscayne Boule- vard Way and N.E. 20 Street (2) S.E. 2 Avenue between the Miami River and Flagler Street (3) N.E. 2 Avenue between Flagler Street and N.E. 20 Street (4) Flagler Street between Interstate Highway 95 and Biscayne Boulevard (5) South Miami Avenue between the Miami River and Flagler Street (6) North Miami Avenue between Flagler Street and N.W. and N.E. 20 Street (The following provisions are all new material.) ARTICLE XXVI-1: SPECIAL CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Section 1: Purpose and General Provisions The purposes of the regulations which follow are: (1) To implement a plan for improved pedestrian circulation and amenities in the City's central business district, including grade separation of major pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow, optimum upper level pedestrian access to rapid transit stations and to public open space and sitting areas, and wider and shadier pedestrian ways at street level and maximum public use and enjoyment of the waterfront; (2) To implement a parking policy which is based on the traffic capacity of the street system and which will accommodate the growth and development of the City's central business district; (3) rTpromote desirable elfunctional ationships of budings to steets andthetic i (4) Thus to promote orderly development of the central business district, enhance its attractive- ness and economic vitality, avoid excessive traffic congestion, and thereby promote safety, health and general welfare within the City. The provisions of this Article supplement but do not other- wise modify the applicable district regulations except as specifically provided in Sections 5 and 6 below. Section 2: Central, (1) The Spec I„ hereinaft Plan, ide be provi Plan is se mediatel and is ve which fo District part of t contain Miami R 5th St of the bl 150 feet Avenue, East C and: pars feet no the cent Court or the sou Cemete north of N.E. 4th easterly Biscayn Bay. (21 The phy the Dist hensive ities. It i1 the de locatio Central include station& for in, t vided (a) A Rt, (b) A. (c) (3) TheS set fo Section 3: (1), Ades requir elemen such, p the feet SACKS: ;of eet street - first all ;ord- ;nts: ng, be to and ed ,except ngs, by orative in (ding squired ►ns nsion butting : required shall not of either ension of tting any sixty-five fequired t shall not of any ucI sd- five (51 'tiered set- t .on.a terlite of e beight of 'strict ARTICLE XXIIi OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING Section I: Off,StreetParking Required (1) Every use or structure instituted, constructed, erected or structurally altered after the ef- fective date of this Ordinance shall provide off-street parking facilities in accordance with provisions of this Article for the use of occupants, employees, visitors, or patrons [, except within the C-3 (Central Commercial) District) • Section 2: Location, Character and Size (1) LOCATION (a) In C-3 C-3A C-3B C-3C C-3D and C-3E Districts the location of the ollow- in cafe ones of re• wired accessory off- street parking facilities shall be sub act to the a roval of the Cit Commission in accordance with the rovisions of Article XXVI-1 Section 8: 1. In C-3 C-3A C-38 C-3C or C-3D Districts: a. off-street arkin is:new, facilities acces- s rov did off he site of the main e use. b. off-street arkin facilities acces- so to non-residential uses or hotels whether rovided on or off the site of the main use. 2. Inc 3E Districts off-street parking facilities accesso to an use where rovided off the site of the main use. (b) In all districts other than C-3 C-3A C-3B, C.3 C-3D and C-3E Districts, the off- street parking facilities required by this Article shall be located on the same lot or parcel of land that they are intended to serve, provided, however.... . * • Section 4: Amount of Off -Street Parking the off-street pace n as otherwise th�Art cle shall be provided and main- tained g minimum requirements on the basis of the 'following) . set .forth .in r ra hs 1to 33 inclusive as follows: The -required amount of off-street parking for non- residential uses and hotels in C-3 C-3A C-3B C-3C or C-3D Districts shall be as determined for each ,develo ment.b theCi Commission in accordance with -the rovisions of Article XXVI-1. The r uired amount of off-street arkin fora artment buildin s or residential ortions of combined residential and non-residential buildin s shall be 0.4 arkin s ace oer;dwellin9 unit. A34) L [ 'gill Section 2: • t r (The following provisions are all new material.) Section 10: Access Restrictions for Off -Street Parking and Loading Facilities Vehicular access opebrequired off-street parking facilities shall egress ocase located on the streets listed below. Vehicular access or egress for permitted or required accessory bff-street loading berths or for the g may not be located on the streets ry�ce entednbe to a ut d n listed below, unless the zoning supervisor of the Building a- partment certifies that there is no way to provide such tees on some other berths or entrances with access or e9 other Boule- vard street. (1) Biscayne Boulevard between Biscayne Way and N.E. 20 Street (2) S.E. 2 Avenue between the Miami River and Flagler Street (3) N.E. 2 Avenue between Flagler Street and N.E. 20 Street (4) Flagler Street between Interstate Highway 95 and Biscayne Boulevard (5) South Miami Avenue between the Miami River and Flagler Street (6) North d amiv between Flagler Street nN Miami N.E.20 Street (The following provisions are all new material.) ARTICLE XXVI.1: SPECIAL CENTRAL ENTRAL BUSINESS Section 1: Purpose and General Provisions The purposes of the regulations which for improved are: r :Pedestrian (11 To implement a p s central circulation and amenities in he ity's ent of business district, including grade major pedestrian and vehicular situ toraffic w, optimum upper level pedestrian rapid transit stations and to public opend space ceand sitting areas, and wider and shadier ede use ways at street level and maximum public and enjoyment of the waterli o Which is based (2) To implement a parking Po on the traffic capacity of the street system and which will accommodaten rel e rowtesand development of the City (3) To promote desirable functional and aesthetic district; and relationships of buildings to street% e t of the (4) Thus to promote orderly develop central business district, enhance its attractive- nesseand economic vitality, thereby promote traffic congestion, and welfare within the safety, City. but do not other The provisions of this Article supplement wise modify the applicable district regulations except as specifically provided in Sections 5 and 6 below. Central Business District Plan (1) The Special Central Business District Plan, hereinafter also referred to as the emects to District Plan, identifies the physical imp be provided on lots in the District The District Plan is set forth in theform pis Section im- mediately following paragraph 3 of and is verbally described in the Sections which follow. The Special Central Business District Plan is hereby incorporated and made part of this Ordinance. The District Plan is contained within an area bounded by the Miami River, Interstate Highway g 5th Street, N.W. 1st Avenue, the center line of the block between N.W. 5th Street, a line 150 feet west of and parallel to N. Miami Avenue, the south property line of the Florida East Coast Railroad, a line 150 feet west of and parallel to N.E. 2nd Avenue, a line 100 feet north of and parallel to N.E. 12th Street, the center line of blocks between N.E. 1st Court or its extension nd Miami 2nd dCAvenue, the south boundary of ty Cemetery, N.E. 2nd Avenue, a line 100 feet north of and parallel to N.E. 18th Street, N.E. 4th Avenue, N.E. 18th Street, the t to easterly extensionand the shoreline of Biscayne Biscayne Bayy 121 The physical improvements provided for in Bay. the District Plan are elements of a compre- hensive system of pedestrian ways and amen- ities. It is the intent of this Article that upon the determination of alignments and station locations for rapid transit routes serving the Central Business District the system shall include elements related to the rapid transited stations. The kinds of imp pro- vided for in the District Plan or which may for by amendment thereof are as follovvs level. (a) A system of interconnected ground pedestrian spaces and arcades. (b) A system of landscaped streets and paths at ground level. upper level (c) A system of interconnecting pp r on pedestrian spaces, rapid plazas, pedestrian ways and bridges, and vertical circulation round {evil systems.�ng upper level and ground (3) The Special Central BUSineSS f Diows.t Plan is set forth on the map whichSection 3: Adoption of Design Plans and Parking Policy and Guidelines (1) A design plan, such as a landscape plan, whose requirements apply to the provision of plan elements by developers may be adopted for such purpose by the City Commission following the same procedure required for amendments 18 v \` MEL _ s NAME aLlts\\ \ mat =r+ SPECIAL CENTRAL BUST\ ESS DISTRICT PLAN - • -- &r1dng Walls ;Along Street :Lines -----District Subject to Retai Requirements(Art xv-i) Area Subject to Waterfront Area ^M^^v Arcade Development 'Controls --Restricted Access(Artxxa4 ,10) tz= -Landscaped Street ' Visual Corridor 11111 1 1 1 1 I i i iT a° Landscaped Path Along �IVaterfront—B=t3istr Central 19 ETI [TI [ secti°n4: 111 { I 1 12) (3) (2) to the Zoning Ordinance as set forth in Article XXX. For the purpose of requiring and regulating the provision of off-street parking facilities by developers a Parking Policy and Guidelines may be adopted by the City Commission following the same procedure required for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as set forth in Article XXX. The Parking Policy and Guidelines shall be concerned among other things with the impact of parking facilities, existing and proposed, on the capacity of the street system, with off-street parking demand and need generated by developments or en- largements, and with the compatibility of such facilities, considering their amount as well as Location, with the optimum future use and development of surrounding areas. At least once each year, a list of all such plans, policies and guidelines currently in force shall be compiled, published and made available to the public in the same manner that this Ordinance is made available. Every such plan, policy or guideline currently in force shall be available for public inspection in the office of the Planning Department. Landscaped Streets and Paths Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (3) hereof, landscaping conforming to the require- ments of paragraph (2) shall be provided by the developer of any lot having street frontage or Miami River or Biscayne Bay frontage shown on the District Plan as the location of a landscaped street or landscaped path along waterfront. Landscaped streets or paths required by the provisions of this Section shall either conform to a landscape plan for an area which includes the lot for the development, which plan shall have been adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of this Article, or, in the case of a lot not included in such an adopted landscape plan, shall conform to the following requirements: (a) For developments on the south side of any east -west street or on either side of any north -south street, for each 40 feet of frontage there shalt be planted within the street right of way abutted by the development one shade tree 12 or more feet in height and of two and one-half inch caliper or more. (b) For developments on the north side of any east -west street, for each 30 feet of frontage there shall be planted within the street right of way abutted by the development one shade tree 12 or more feet in height and of two and one-half inch caliper or more. (c) For developments with frontage on the Mian' path along with meast such j video) by t the Mi equi the t provii the n augrr! perci (3) The requir; forth in pal modificati� Works and( any side o of less tha tree for quired in I the provisi width or inimical taj any street of this Ar! (4) All plantirr shall be suj of Public of the Git1 shall be in plans. Ain upon corn approving planted trr root systel continuity( itself or 131 paths alorl waterfrorj owner. (5) For thosal paths alo waterfro applicabl includin incr foot of t Iandscap including( maximu regulatiod Section 5: Arcade* I (1) An areal and con pap by the d E e6 [UM Ain Inil al., II ia •lila IS Irt ,y OPP— y tnsnMst G !RIM Lli." RI k 11 " 0r1 nNNNI1!Y111wl )inen4l-FINO 0 :721r t !I {I riski�� i.1t i('I I1!u li •t sriii I I I ssl II J InttE nmmnyj went j`,+�`R' .. u W.YYIf I' nl� B 111� •I.'ntLmnrl ...nl i.lt I-1.II Ii .�_-- ir�uj I__- L.--r, nnYNi LHL:1 li.I U1 11E::::11 �.ro fit :� \ BUSINESS DISTRICT PLAN Subject 10Rawl 13eg1iremerts(Artxv-I) mew,(Arcede (AitoS�C10) CtWI I I I I i to the Zoning Ordinance as set forth in Article XXX. (2) For the purpose of requiring and regulating the provision of off-street parking facilities by developers a Parking Policy and Guidelines may be adopted by the City Commission following the same procedure required for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as set forth in Article XXX. The Parking Policy and Guidelines shall be concerned among other things with the impact of parking facilities, existing and proposed, on the capacity of the street system, with off-street parking demand and need generated by developments or en- largements, and with the compatibility of such facilities, considering their amount as well as location, with the optimum future use and development of surrounding areas. (3) At least once each year, a list of all such plans, policies and guidelines currently in force shall be compiled, published and made available to the public in the same manner that this Ordinance is made available. Every such plan, policy or guideline currently in force shall be available for public inspection in the office of the Planning Department. Section 4: Landscaped Streets and Paths (1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (3) hereof, landscaping conforming to the require- ments of paragraph (2) shall be provided by the developer of any lot having street frontage or Miami River or Biscayne Bay frontage shown on the District Plan as the location of a landscaped street or landscaped path along waterfront. (2) Landscaped streets or paths required by the provisions of this Section shall either conform to a landscape plan for an area which includes the lot for the development, which plan shall have been adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of this Article, or, in the case of a lot not included in such an adopted landscape plan, shall conform to the following requ i rernents: (a) For developments on the south side of any east -west street or on either side of any north -south street, for each 40 feet of frontage there shall be planted within the street right of way abutted by the development one shade tree 12 or more feet in height and of two and one-half inch caliper or more. (b( For developments on the north side of any east -west street, for each 30 feet of frontage there shall be planted within the street right of way abutted by the development one shade tree 12 or more feet in height and of two and one-half inch caliper or more. (c) For developments with frontage on the Miami River or Biscayne Bay, a landscaped path for pedestrians shall be provided along the waterfront in a public easement with a minimum width of 20 feet measured from the water's edge. Within such easement landscaping shall be pro- vided in accordance with a plan approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Department of the City of Miami and consisting of, or generally equivalent in cost and overall effect to, the tree plantings required under the provision of paragraph (b) hereof for the north side of east -west streets, augmented by shrubbery valued at 30 percent or more of the trees' total value. (3) The requirements for landscaped streets set forth in paragraph (2) shall be subject to modification by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Department along any side of a street having a sidewalk width of less than ten feet. In such instances one palm tree for each 13 feet of frontage may be re- quired in lieu of the shade trees required by the provisions of paragraph (2), or, if the sidewalk width or other conditions are found to be inimical to the satisfactory development of any street tree in furtherance of the purposes of this Article, the requirement may be waived. (4) All planting plans and plant materials selection shall be subject to approval by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Department of the City of Miami. All tree and other planting shall be in accordance with such approved plans. Approval of plans shall be conditioned upon compliance with requirements of the approving authorities for bracing of newly planted trees and for access of water to the root systems and upon approved program for continuing maintenances whether by the City itself or by the property owner. Landscaped paths along the Miarni River or Biscayne Bay waterfront shall be maintained by the property owner. (5) For those developments providing landscaped paths along the Miami River or Biscayne Bay waterfront, the floor area permitted by the applicable district floor area ratio regulations, including any premiums earned, may be increased by one square foot for each square foot of the area of the easement for such landscaped path. However, the floor area ratio including all premiums shall not exceed the maximum established by the applicable regulations of the underlying district. Section 5: Arcades (1) An arcade as defined in Article I1, Section 2 and conforming to the requirements of paragraph (2) of this Section shall be provided by the developer of any lot that includes 20 street frontage or urban open space frontage on which an arcade is shown on the Special Central Business District Plan. (2) An arcade required by the provisions of this Section shall conform to the following special design requirements: (a) Its minimum depth exclusive of building columns shall be 12 feet measured per- pendicular to the street line or urban open space boundary which it adjoins. (b) At least 10 percent of the arcade area shall be landscaped with ornamental plants, shrubs, grass or other suitable vegetation, which shall be so arranged that a minimum clear width of at least 10 feet remains for pedestrian circula- tion along the length of the arcade. (3) For those developments providing required arcades the floor area permitted by the applicable district floor area ratio regulations may be increased by four square feet, or such greater amount permitted by the applicable district regulations, for each square foot of arcade area. However, the floor area ratio including all premiums shall not exceed the maximum limit established by the applicable district regulations. Section 6: Waterfront Area Development Controls (1) Any development on land which is shown on the Special Central Business District Plan as an Area Subject to Waterfront Area Develop- ment Controls shall comply with the provisions of this Section. (2) For the purpose of this Section a Visual Corridor is an open space whose purpose is to extend an existing corridor of space formed by an existing street from the street's terminus in the upland area to the waterfront of the Miami River or of Biscayne Bay and whose boundaries are prescribed in paragraph (3)(f) hereof. A visual corridor shall be open and unobstructed from its base plane to the sky except for the following permitted obstructions: trees, shrubs or other plant materials, flagpoles, ornamental fountains, statuary, kiosks -or playground equipment. The base plane of a visual corridor shall be either (a) the established grade of the street extended by such visual corridor at the point where the street terminates, or (b) the ground level of any waterfront park or public ease- ment traversed by the visual corridor, which- ever is higher. (3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), the following provisions shall apply to develop- ments in Areas Subject to Waterfront Area Development Controls: la) Above ground buildings shall not ex- ceed 200 feet in maximum horizontal dimension. (b) Above ground buildings shall maintain a minimum setback of 18 feet from interior side and rear lot lines. (c) The combined lot coverage for the principal building and any above ground accessory parking structure shall not be more than fifty (50) percent of the total lot area, unless the lot is at least one hundred and fifty (150) feet in width or depth, and forty-five thousand (45,000) square feet in area, in which case lot coverage may be increased to fifty-five (55) percent; a one (1) percent increase will be allowed for each addi- tional seventy-five hundred (7,500) square feet of lot area up to a maximum of sixty (60) percent lot coverage. (d) The uncovered portions of the lot, including the roof of any underground parking structure. shall be landscaped with trees, shrubs, grass or other suitable ground cover so that such vegetation covers at least 40 percent of the area not covered by buildings, and access drives and convenience parking shall be limited to not more than 35 percent of such uncovered portions of the lot. (e) No part of an underground parking structure shall be higher than the average established grade of the nearest abutting street or the nearest abutting landscaped path, if any, provided along the Miami River or the Biscayne Bay waterfront. (f) No building shall be erected within the following visual corridors: 1. The visual corridor bounded by the easterly extension of the north and south street lines of N.E. 8th Street, the east street line of Biscayne Boulevard and the U.S. Pierhead Line. 2. The visual corridor bounded by the easterly extension of the north and south street lines of N.E. 10th Street, the east street line of Biscayne Boulevard and the U.S. Pierhead Line. (4) The provisions of paragraph (3) of this Section, except subparagraph (f) thereof, or the yard or distance between buildings regulations of the underlying district may be waived or modified by authorization of the City Com- mission, provided that development complies with a development plan which has been approved by the Planning Board and the City Commission and with all applicable provisions of the underlying district and of this Section not specifically waived or modified by the Commission. Such waivers or modifications shall be limited to those which are necessary or desirable in order to achieve the following purposes: (a) better protection of views from the upland area. (b) better arrangement of landscaped open space without sacrifice of view protection. The Board shall not approve such development plan unless it finds that adequate protection and separation are provided for contiguous and nearby residential property. The Board may attach to its approval of a development plan any reasonable conditions, limitations or requirements which are found necessary in its judgment to effectuate the purpose of this section and to carry out the spirit and purpose of this Ordinance. The Commission may waive the provisions of paragraphs (3)(a) or (3)(b) of this Section if it finds that the lot for the development is separated from the water's edge by an existing building or buildings which does not conform to the maximum horizontal dimension set forth in paragraph (b) and which blocks views of the water in a manner found by the Planning Board to be inconsistent with the purposes of this Section. Section 7: Building Walls Along Certain Street Lines (1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Article or regulations of the underlying Districts, where a building is erected on a lot with frontage on a street listed in para- graph (2) of this Section and indicated on the District Plan by the symbol for "Building Walls Along Street Lines", such building shall have an exterior wall which: (a) Coincides with the street line on such frontage for the entire length of the street line except any segment thereof to be adjoined by an urban open space authorized by special permit in accord- ance with the provisions of Article XXXII-1, Section 1, and (b) Rises for a height of at least one story above an arcade or other ground level setback. (2) The provisions of this Section apply to all lots with the following street frontages: (a) Frontage on either side of East or West Flagler Street between N.W. 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard. (b) Frontage on the west side of Biscayne Boulevard between East Flagler Street and Interstate Highway 395. (c) Frontage on either side of Biscayne Boulevard between Interstate Highway 395 and a point 100 feet north of N.E. 18th Street. Section 8: Off -Street Parking in Central- Business District (1) PERMITTED PARKING Off-street parking facilities in C-3, C-3A, C-3B, C-3C, C-3D or C-3E Districts, to the extent not permitted by other provisions of this O ance wit subject (2) REQUI For all n ings or h C-3D Di spaces the prin• Comm' Policy a Section such req of this S off -scree precede or enlars (3) CONDI (a) A by an B• th pr sis G (b) A pa th PI. pi it p m th sh C' re P• 0 9.' Cj (c), (d) m. ontage pecial of this kg special f building ired per - urban open 1s. ode area nental uitable arranged f at least circula- rcade. equired the egulations et, or such applicable 'foot of ra ratio ;teed the applicable ntrOls ,sown on acttelan as ea Oevelop- the;prorisions Visual purpose is apace :formed setts terminus ont+of the and whose graph hall open plane to the •nfitted :her plant 'fountains, equipment for shall be cif the street rat the:point (b) the ground ublicease- rrridor, which- 14), the y to dev+elop- ertron'tArea slhall ►otex- umshorizontal (b) Above ground buildings shall maintain a minimum setback of 18 feet from interior side and rear lot lines. (c) The combined lot coverage for the principal building and any above ground accessory parking structure shall not be more than fifty (50) percent of the total lot area, unless the lot is at least one hundred and fifty (150) feet in width or depth, and forty-five thousand (45,000) square feet in area, in which case lot coverage may be increased to fifty-five (55) percent; a one (1) percent increase will be allowed for each addi- tional seventy-five hundred (7,500) square feet of lot area up to a maximum of sixty (60) percent lot coverage. (d) The uncovered portions of the lot, including the roof of any underground parking structure, shall be landscaped with trees, shrubs, grass or other suitable ground cover so that such vegetation covers at least 40 percent of the area not covered by buildings, and access drives and convenience parking shall be limited to not more than 35 percent of such uncovered portions of the lot. (e) No part of an underground parking structure shall be higher than the average established grade of the nearest abutting street or the nearest abutting landscaped path, if any, provided along the Miami River or the Biscayne Bay waterfront. (f) No building shall be erected within the following visual corridors: 1. The visual corridor bounded by the easterly extension of the north and south street lines of N.E. 8th Street, the east street line of Biscayne Boulevard and the U.S. Pierhead Line. 2. The visual corridor bounded by the easterly extension of the north and south street lines of N.E. 10th Street, the east street line of Biscayne Boulevard and the U.S. Pierhead Line. (4) The provisions of paragraph (3) of this Section, except subparagraph (f) thereof, or the yard .or distance between buildings regulations of the underlying district may be waived or modified by authorization of the City Com- mission, provided that development complies with a development plan which has been approved by the Planning Board and the City Commission and with all applicable provisions of the underlying district and of this Section not specifically waived or modified by the Commission. Such waivers or modifications shall be limited to those which are necessary or desirable in order to achieve the following purposes: (a) better protection of views from the upland area. (b) better arrangement of landscaped open space without sacrifice of view protection. The Board shall not approve such development plan unless it finds that adequate protection and separation are provided for contiguous and nearby residential property. The Board may attach to its approval of a development plan any reasonable conditions, limitations or requirements which are found necessary in its judgment to effectuate the purpose of this section and to carry out the spirit and purpose of this Ordinance. The Commission may waive the provisions of paragraphs (3)(a) or (3)(b) of this Section if it finds that the lot for the development is separated from the water's edge by an existing building or buildings which does not conform to the maximum horizontal dimension set forth in paragraph (b) and which blocks views of the water in a manner found by the Planning Board to be inconsistent with the purposes of this Section. Section 7: Building Walls Along Certain Street Lines (1) (2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Article or regulations of the underlying Districts, where a building is erected on a lot with frontage on a street listed in para- graph (2) of this Section and indicated on the District Plan by the symbol for "Building Walls Along Street Lines", such building shall have an exterior wall which: (a) Coincides with the street line on such frontage for the entire length of the street line except any segment thereof to be adjoined by an urban open space authorized by special permit in accord- ance with the provisions of Article XXXI I-1, Section 1, and (b) Rises for a height of at least one story above an arcade or other ground level setback. The provisions of this Section apply to all lots with the following street frontages: (a) Frontage on either side of East or West Flagler Street between N.W. 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard. (b) Frontage on the west side of Biscayne Boulevard between East Flagler Street and Interstate Highway 395. (c) Frontage on either side of Biscayne Boulevard between Interstate Highway 395 and a point 100 feet north of N.E. 18th Street. Section 8: Off -Street Parking in Central Business District (1) PERMITTED PARKING Off-street parking facilities in C-3, C-3A, C-3B, C-3C, C-3D or C-3E Districts, to the extent not permitted by other provisions of this Ordinance, may be provided in accord- ance with the provisions of this Section and subject to approval by the City Commission. (2) REQUIRED PARKING For all new or enlarged non-residential build- ings or hotels in C-3, C-3A, C-3B, C-3C, or C-3D Districts, accessory off-street parking spaces shall be provided on or off the site of the principal use as required by the City Commission in accordance with a Parking Policy and Guidelines adopted pursuant to Section 3 of this Article. Compliance with such requirements and all other provisions of this Section relating to required accessory off-street parking facilities shall be a condition precedent to the use of such development or enlargement. (3) CONDITIONS FOR APPROVALS (a) A parking facility may be approved by the Commission after public hearing and recommendation by the Planning Board, if the Commission finds that the parking facility complies with the provisions of this Section and is con- sistent with the Parking Policy and Guidelines. (b) An application for approval of a parking facility under the provisions of this Section shall be submitted to the Planning Board. It shall include a site plan showing the location of such facility, its layout according to City of Miami standards, in the case of an accessory parking facility its relationship to the main use, and such other information as the Board may require. All applications shall be referred by the Board to the City of Miami Parking Authority for its report on its relationship to the Parking Policy and applicable Guidelines. If such agency shall report thereon within one month from the date of referral, the Board in its recommendation and the Commission in its determination shall give due consideration to such report and may substantiate their findings on the basis of such report. If such agency does not report within one month, the Commission may make a final deter- mination without reference thereto. (c) In no case shall an accessory off-street parking facility be located more than one -quarter mile walking distance from the nearest entrance to the building occupied by the main use, except that location at a greater distance may be permitted if a people mover system approved by the Commission permits the distance to be covered by pedestrians in six minutes or less. (d) The number of spaces in an approved accessory off-street parking facility, 22 whether provided on or off the site of the main use, will be credited toward the satisfaction of the minimum off- street parking requirements as set forth in Section 4 of Article XXI I I for uses in C-3, C-3A, C-3B, C-3C and C-3D Districts or as stipulated by the Com- mission in accordance with the Parking Policy and Guidelines. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for that portion of the main building's floor area subject to the provision of parking spaces in an off -site parking facility until such off - site parking facility has been completed and has received the approval of the Building Department. Where a people mover system is required for qualifica- tion of the off -site parking facility under the provisions of this Section, the issuance of the certificate of occupancy shall also depend upon completion and Building Department approval of the people mover system. (e) Accessory parking facilities may be collectively provided to serve two or more buildings in accordance with the provisions of Article XXII I, Section 5. (The following provisions are all new material.) ARTICLE XXXII-1: SPECIAL PERMITS Those regulations of the "COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE" controlling bulk or intensity of use include in some districts special allowances in the form of premiums or floor area bonuses for facilities, amenities or other attributes of a development which lessen or compensate for the impact ofa given level of bulk or intensity of use. Certain facilities or amenities may or may not be beneficial in a local area, depending on their location, siting or treatment, and therefore require special consideration as to their qualification for premiums or bonus floor area. Approval may be granted by SPECIAL PERMIT of the City Com- mission after recommendation by the Planning Board and a Public Hearing, provided that the Commission makes the special findings required by this Article. The Commission may attach any conditions to its approval of an application for Special Permit under the provisions of this Article which it determines to be necessary for the proper functioning of such facility or amenity in relation to surrounding development or for achieving the purposes of this ordinance. The grant of a SPECIAL PERMIT by the City Commission shall tie .BY RESOLUTION and shall not be by Ordinance amending the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Section 3: Urban Open Spaces {1) forurban :open spaces in C-3, C-3B, C-3C or C-3D District, the Commission, after Public Hearing and review of recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Board, may grant 111 special permits for bonus floor area in the amounts set forth in the applicable district regulations, provided that the following findings are made: (a) That the location of the urban open space and its design will satisfy a public need in the local area. (b) That the location and siting of the urban open space is consistent with functions of predominant importance in the local area, including but not limited to existing or potential retail development. (c) That the development and its urban open space are in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the MIAMI PLAN. (2) Development plans for urban open spaces may be submitted by owners of single lots or jointly by owners of two or more adjacent lots who undertake to provide a common urban open space and distribute total allow- able floor area in accordance with the develop- ment plan as for a single lot. Where such a development plan is submitted jointly by owners of two or more adjacent lots, devel- opment rights may be transferred from one owner to another so that one or more of the lots will have more than the floor area that would otherwise be permitted on such lot or lots by the applicable district regulations, provided that the total floor area permitted by the district regulations for all the lots is not exceeded. Approval of jointly submitted plans shall be conditioned upon submission to the Planning Board of certified copies of: (a) The transfer instrument legally suf- ficient in form and content to effect such transfer and establishing mainten- ance responsibilities for the urban open space, and (b) A notice of restrictions which shall be filed by the owners of the respective Tots in the place designated by law for the filing of deeds and restrictions on real property, which notice shall set forth the restrictions upon further development of each lot. (3) In reviewing plans for urban open spaces and arriving at a recommendation or determination the Board and the Commission shall be guided by the following considerations: (a) Location and Siting Urban open spaces should be well distributed throughout areas of high activity. They should be spaced a reason- able distance apart and occupy limited lenghts of street frontages so as to prevent excessive breaks in the street line and, where retail shopping is im- portant so as to cause minimum inter- ruption of street frontage devoted to l-- r shopping uses. (b) Design Considerations Urban open space boundaries should be defined in so far as possible by enclosing building walls without neces- sarily precluding ground level openings through and under such walls for breeze- ways, through block connections or other pedestrian circulation. Urban open spaces should be landscaped with trees, shrubs, grass or other suitable ground cover. Shade trees should be planted so as to give shade to at least 50 percent of the open space, and a greater percentage may be required depending on sun exposure or other conditions. Fountains are to be en- couraged. Sitting areas should be provided, with at least one seat for each 150 square feet of urban open space. "Seats" may be liberally interpreted to include not only benches or chairs but also such sitting spaces as may be provided by retainers around plantings or by steps designed for sitting and not required for circula- tion. Urban open spaces located at street corners should normally be of moderate size and limited to a depth not greater than 50 feet from each street They should provide landscaped buffers from the street consisting principally of shade trees. (4) EXCEPTIONS TO REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING TO THE STREET LINE Along streets where building walls are re- quired to coincide with street lines in accordance with the provisions of Article XXVI-1, Section 7, the Commission in appropriate cases may waive such requirement to permit an urban open space which qualifies for bonus floor area under the provisions of this Section. Where such a waiver is required and granted, an urban open space may not occupy more than 40 feet of the street frontage, may not be located less than 100 feet from the nearest intersecting street or less than 500 feet from the nearest park, public open space or other urban open space fronting on the same street. In addition to making the findings required for granting a special permit for bonus floor area, the Commission, in granting a waiver of the provisions of Article XXVI-1, Section 7, shall find that the advantages to the public of the proposed urban open space will outweigh any adverse effects resulting from interruption of the building line. (In the provisions which follow, matter underlined is new.) ARTICLE XXIV: SIG * . Section 4: Signs in C-3C C Signs, illuminated or non accessory uses as follows (2) Projecting not exc premises, (40) squa jecting sig District Maximu Face of B Two (2) f More th less than More th but not (4) feet (3) DETAC (a) In Dis (b) In or off the site of credited toward e minimum off- aments as set forth le XXIII for uses 3C and C-3D iced by the Com- e with the Parking is. No certificate of ssued for that, portion 's floor area subject %asking spaces in an ity until such off - has been completed approval of the It. Where a people uired for qualifica- )arking facility under is Section, the ificete of occupancy on completion and at approval of the m. Facilities maybe id to serve two or ccordance with the le XXIII, Section 5. aterial.) AIM ISIV£ ZONING nsity of use include heform of premiums pities or other in or compensate for %tensity of use. lay-notbe beneficial tion, siting or treatment, tion as to their oor area. Approval of the City Com- Planning Board and a :mission makes the e. litions to its approval der theprovisions he ,necessary for the amenity in relation hieving the purposes the City Commission not be by Ordinance Ordinance. l in G3, C-3B, C-3C 2ommission, after Public recommendations by ing$oard, may grant special permits for bonus floor area in the amounts set forth in the applicable district regulations, provided that the following findings are made: (a) That the location of the urban open space and its design will satisfy a public need in the local area. (b) That the location and siting of the urban open space is consistent with functions of predominant importance in the local area, including but not limited to existing or potential retail development. (c) That the development and its urban open space are in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the MIAMI PLAN. (2) Development plans for urban open spaces may be submitted by owners of single lots or jointly by owners of two or more adjacent lots who undertake to provide a common urban open space and distribute total allow- able floor area in accordance with the develop- ment plan as for a single lot. Where such a development plan is submitted jointly by owners of two or more adjacent lots, devel- opment rights may be transferred from one owner to another so that one or more of the lots will have more than the floor area that would otherwise be permitted on such lot or lots by the applicable district regulations, provided that the total floor area permitted by the district regulations for all the lots is not exceeded. Approval of jointly submitted plans shall be conditioned upon submission to the Planning Board of certified copies of: (a) The transfer instrument legally suf- ficient in form and content to effect such transfer and establishing mainten- ance responsibilities for the urban open space, and (b) A notice of restrictions which shall be filed by the owners of the respective lots in the place designated by law for the filing of deeds and restrictions on real property, which notice shall set forth the restrictions upon further development of each lot. (3) in reviewing plans for urban open spaces and arriving at a recommendation or determination the Board and the Commission shall be guided by the following considerations: (a) Location and Siting Urban open spaces should be well distributed throughout areas of high activity. They should be spaced a reason- able distance apart and occupy limited lenghts of street frontages so as to prevent excessive breaks in the street line and, where retail shopping is im- portant so as to cause minimum inter- ruption of street frontage devoted to shopping uses. (b) Design Considerations Urban open space boundaries should be defined in so far as possible by enclosing building walls without neces- sarily precluding ground level openings through and under such wal Is for breeze- ways, through block connections or other pedestrian circulation. Urban open spaces should be landscaped with trees, shrubs, grass or other suitable ground cover. Shade trees should be planted so as to give shade to at least 50 percent of the open space, and a greater percentage may be required depending on sun exposure or other conditions. Fountains are to be en- couraged. Sitting areas should be provided, with at least one seat for each 150 square feet of urban open space. "Seats" may be liberally interpreted to include not only benches or chairs but also such sitting spaces as may be provided by retainers around plantings or by steps designed for sitting and not required for circula- tion. Urban open spaces located at street corners should normally be of moderate size and limited to a depth not greater than 50 feet from each street. They should provide landscaped buffers from the street consisting principally of shade trees. (4) EXCEPTIONS TO BUILDING TO THE STREET REQUIREMENTS FOR LINE Along streets where building walls are re- quired to coincide with street lines in accordance with the provisions of Article XXVI-1, Section 7, the Commission in appropriate cases may waive such requirement to permit an urban open space which qualifies for bonus floor area under the provisions of this Section. Where such a waiver is required and granted, an urban open space may not occupy more than 40 feet of the street frontage, may not be located less than 100 feet from the nearest intersecting street or less than 500 feet from the nearest park, public open space or other urban open space fronting on the same street. In addition to making the findings required for granting a special permit for bonus floor area, the Commission, in granting a waiver of the provisions of Article XXVI-1, Section 7, shall find that the advantages to the public of the proposed urban open space will outweigh any adverse effects resulting from interruption of the building line. (In the provisions which follow, matter underlined is new.) ARTICLE XXIV: SIGNS Section 4: Signs in the C-1, C-1A, C-2, C-3, C-3A, C-3B, C-3C, C3D, C-3E, W-R and W- I Districts Signs, illuminated or non -illuminated are permitted as accessory uses as follows: . . * (21 Projecting signs, owner -identification, shall not exceed one (1) for each business on the premises, with the sign area limited to forty (40) square feet for each face. However, pro- jecting signs erected in the C-3 or the C-3A District may be increased in area as follows: Maximum Projection from Face of Building Area Two (2) feet or less 80 square feet More than two (2) feet but less than three (3) feet 60 square feet More than three (3) feet but not more than four (4) feet 40 square feet (3) DETACHED SIGNS (a) In C-3, C-3A, C-3B, C-3C and C-30 Districts detached signs are not permitted. (b1 In C-1, C-1A, C-2, C-3E, W-R and W-I Districts, detached signs, owner -identification, shall be limited to one (1) sign and to forty (40) square feet of area (for each face) for each business or for each fifty (50) feet of street frontage. The per- mitted sign area for detached signs may be cumulative, but no one (1) sign shall exceed one -hundred (100) square feet in area for each face. 24 APPENDIX B 1.0 SUMMARY OF GOALS 1.1 MAGIC CITY CENTER - ECONOMIC APPRAISAL AND PROJECTIONS Published April 1960, by the City of Miami and Metropolitan Dade County, this report followed the publication Magic City Center Goals and rep- resented what were considered realistic goals to guide community action. 1. OFFICE EMPLOYMENT: Increase C.B.D. office employment at the same rate as the region. In 1954 the CBD employed 5.8% of the Dade County labor force in CBD office work (18,189). Given regional growth projections to 1985, the plan proposed 49,700 office workers in 1985 representing 7,960,000 square feet of space. 2. GOVERNMENT AND CIVIC: Centralize Government services in CBD in- cluding civic and educational use (totaling 1,765,000 square feet). 3. RESIDENTIAL: Encourage the CBD to become the residence for a sizeable proportion of those employed there. The goal for 1985 is 12,500 units, most of which would probably be rental. 4, RETAIL: Goals for increase in CBD retail sales include $400,000,000 sales by 1985, which is triple the 1954 volume but conservative as compared to regional estimate of $5.7 billion by 1985 (6.5% in the CBD). 5. PORT REDEVELOPMENT: A major objective of the report indicated some increase in manufacturing and wholesale trade as related to port development; however in comparison to other land use categories, growth of this sector was projected to be the smallest. Key assumptions behind the goals include the following: 1. Region will grow to a population of 2,500,000 by 1985, an increase of 176% over 1960 (more recent projections indicate closer to 1,800,000). 2. Hotel -motel space will remain the same as in 1960 (7,700 hotel -motel rooms in Core Area). 3. 25% of CBD employees will choose to live near work. 4. Rates of office employment to total CBD em- ployment will remain at approximately 3 to 5 (18,000-30,000 employees). 5. Growth of CBD retail will be dependent on growth of CBD itself. 6. No assumptions regarding transportation variables. l t 1.2 DOWNTOWN MIAMI MASTER PLAN This Plan was prepared by Doxiadis and Asso- ciates, Incorporated, in June 1967, for the Down- town Development Authority. The objectives of the Plan are as follows: 1. Exploit the Study Area's central location and resources to create a strong commercial center. 2. Concentrate Government activities so as to achieve maximum efficiency of service and to attract new ancillary uses. 3. Increase opportunity for employment. 4. Establish a homogeneity of function through a clarified concept of land use and hierarchy of functions. 5. Modernize transportation patterns so as to avoid conflicts between movement of people, goods, and vehicles. 6. Create an overall frame emphasizing the district character of the Study Area. 7. In addition, project goals were developed for special areas including: the Bayfront Area, the Government Center, the Convention Center, the Transportation Center, major streets and places. Key assumptions behind goal statements include the following: 1. Between 1959 and 1969 CBD employment dropped from 9.8% of the region to 6.8%. The Master Plan projects growth by comparing this ratio to other cities. 2. The Study Area includes the CBD and areas. north to 20th Street. In 1959 there were 11,000 people residing in this area. The Master Plan assumes 25% of the future employees will live near work and projects 18,000 residents in 1972, 32,000 in 1985 and 51,000 by the year 2000. (The resident population in the area has decreased since 1959.) 1.3 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR N.D.P. AREA 3 The following objectives of the N.D.P. Plan are specific parts of a very elaborate list of goals and objectives for N.D.P. Area 3, as prepared by Candeub, Fleissig and Associates for the Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development and Metro- politan Dade County, Florida. 1. HOUSING: Demolish substandard units (a total of 2,319 structures have deficiencies), and create new neigh- borhoods with the f 2,500 units of housing or rent 3,600 units of income (235-2 1,000 units of 1,100 units of I the elderly. 2. COMMERCE: Provide servic non-residential struc sites for the foliowin Transportation Cent and hotels. 3. EDUCATION: Provide incre with the addition of 1-9 for 2,500 studen 4. RECREATION', Provide addition acres associated with large playfield associ 5. HEALTH' AND Expand health: and add multi-purpo 14th Street and N. 6. TRANSPORTP Provide super b network for pedestri residential and non: ri reserve R.Q.W. for fu Key assumption) include: 1. The Garment C grow some 70% in t retail area. 2. Jackson Hospi 3. The Miami Riv income families; 4. Residential cdev income families must changes. 5. East -west anvil needs improvement 6. First activities fashion center and n 1.4 CITY OF Mt Program- for C prepared in /9E37 to 1.1 MAGIC CITY CENTER - ECONOMIC APPRAISAL AND PROJECTIONS Published April 1960, by the City of Miami and {Metropolitan Dade County, this report followed the publication Magic City Center Goals and rep- resented what were considered realistic goals to guide. community action. 1. OFFICE EMPLOYMENT: Increase C.B.D. office employment at the same rate as the region. In 1954 the CBD employed 5.8% of the Dade County labor force in CBD office work (18,189). Given regional growth projections to 1985, the plan proposed 49,700 office workers in 1985 representing 7,960,000 square feet of space. 2. GOVERNMENT AND CIVIC: Centralize Government services in CBD in- cluding civic and educational use (totaling 1,765,000 square feet). 3. RESIDENTIAL: Encourage the CBD to become the residence for a sizeable proportion of those employed there. The goal for 1985 is 12,500 units, most of which would probably be rental. 4, RETAIL: Goals for increase in CBD retail sales include $400,000,000 sales by 1985, which is triple the 1954 volume but conservative as compared to regional estimate of $5.7 billion by 1985 (6.5% in the CBD). PORT REDEVELOPMENT: A major objective of the report indicated some increase in manufacturing and wholesale trade as related to port development; however in comparison to other land use categories, growth of this sector was projected to be the smal lest. Key assumptions behind the goals include the following: 1. Region will grow to a population of 2,500,000 by 1965, an increase of 176% over 1960 (more recent projections indicate closer to 1,800,000). 2. Hotel -motel space will remain the same as in 1960 {7,700hotel-motel rooms in Core Area). 3. 25% of CBD employees will choose to live near work. 4. Rates of office employment to total CBD em- ployment will remain at approximately 3 to 5 {18,000-30,000 employees). 5. Growth of CBD retail will be dependent on growth of CBD itself. 6. No assumptions regarding transportation variables. L L 1.2 DOWNTOWN MIAMI MASTER PLAN This Plan was prepared by Doxiadis and Asso- ciates, Incorporated, in June 1967, for the Down- town Development Authority. The objectives of the Plan are as follows: 1. Exploit the Study Area's central location and resources to create a strong commercial center. 2. Concentrate Government activities so as to achieve maximum efficiency of service and to attract new ancillary uses. 3. Increase opportunity for employment. 4. Establish a homogeneity of function through a clarified concept of land use and hierarchy of functions. 5. Modernize transportation patterns so as to avoid conflicts between movement of people, goods, and vehicles. 6. Create an overall frame emphasizing the district character of the Study Area. 7. In addition, project goals were developed for special areas including: the Bayfront Area, the Government Center, the Convention Center, the Transportation Center, major streets and places. Key assumptions behind goal statements include the following: 1. Between 1959 and 1969 CBD employment dropped from 9.8% of the region to 6.8%. The Master Plan projects growth by comparing this ratio to other cities. 2. The Study Area includes the CBD and areas north to 20th Street. In 1959 there were 11,000 people residing in this area. The Master Plan assumes 25% of the future employees will live near work and projects 18,000 residents in 1972, 32,000 in 1985 and 51,000 by the year 2000. (The resident population in the area has decreased since 1959.) 1.3 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR N.D.P. AREA 3 The following objectives of the N.D.P. Plan are specific parts of a very elaborate list of goals and objectives for N.D.P. Area 3, as prepared by Candeub, Fleissig and Associates for the Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development and Metro- politan Dade County, Florida. 1. HOUSING: Demolish substandard units (a total of 2,319 structures have deficiencies), and create new neigh- borhoods with the following mix: 2,500 units of new or rehabilitated public housing or rent supplement; 3,600 units of new of rehabilitated moderate income (235-236) housing; 1,000 units of middle income housing; and 1,100 units of low and moderate housing for the elderly. 2. COMMERCE: Provide services for rehabilitation of existing non-residential structures, off-street parking and sites for the following in the CBD: Junior College, Transportation Center, offices, shops, apartments and hotels. 3. EDUCATION: Provide increased educational improvement with the addition of one "Super School", grades 1-9 for 2,500 students. 4. RECREATION: Provide additional recreation including thirty acres associated with the Miami River and one large playfield associated with the Super School. 5. HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES: Expand health facilities at Jackson Hospital and add multi -purpose center programs on N.W. 14th Street and N.W. 1 1 th Street. 6. TRANSPORTATION: Provide super block system with greenway network for pedestrian circulation. Separate residential and non-residential movement and reserve R.O.W. for future mass transit. Key assumptions behind the goal statements include: 1. The Garment Center south of 29th Street will grow some 70% in the next ten years as a wholesale - retail area. 2. Jackson Hospital Area will continue to expand. 3. The Miami River frontage will attract middle income families. 4. Residential development for low and moderate income families must come before major land use changes. 5. East -west arterial movement to Downtown needs improvement. 6. First activities will be in the area south of the fashion center and north of 14th Street. 1.4 CITY OF MIAMI - CRP Program for Community Renewal, which was prepared in 1967 for the City of Miami. 2 1. HOUSING: Increase supply of dwelling units including 27,000 low and moderate income units. Of this 17,000 should be new construction. Provide tech- nical assistance to neighborhood groups for property maintenance and expand base of non-profit sponsors. 2. PUBLIC FACILITIES: With primary emphasis on improvement of sewer systems and recreation facilities an objective of capital improvements from 1965 to 1973 totalled $44,825,000. 3. ECONOMIC: Encourage planned industrial districts, possibly by non-profit development corporation; strengthen Miami's position as a marketing center through development of a planned wholesale produce market; encourage prestige office develop- ment in Downtown, Brickell Avenue, Biscayne Boulevard, and Coral Way; promote tourism by development of a convention -cultural center and tourist information area in Downtown; enhance Downtown by internal improvements to its traffic circulation, parking facilities, and physical appear- ance; and provide public and supporting facilities for educational programs including Miami -Dade Junior College. Key assumptions behind goals include the following: 1. Two segments of the Miami population will continue to grow: young (under 18) primarily Cuban and Black; elderly (over 65) with a sizeable proportion being low income. 2. There is, and will continue to be, a high mobility in Miami which generates a lack of com- munity consciousness. 3. Summary of conditions in 1967 indicates in- creasing population, increase in family income, increase in demand for services. Sources of revenue have remained constant. Municipal spending has been governed by limitation of available funds rather than by the need for public facilities. These conditions necessitate extensive public programs. 4. in the City there has been a general increase in total assessed value of 73% (1957-67) offset by a decrease in tax rate. 1115 MIAMI URBAN AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY Prepared by Metropolitan Dade County Plan- ning Department. The Dade County Master Plan h'� developed a series of very general goals and objec- tives for a projected growth to 1,955,000 by the year 1985. Of three alternative growth models only Alternative 11 recommended a "Superurban" density in Central Miami. The final MUATS Report indicated a Downtown Study Area population of 16,000 and an employment force of 58,700 by 1985, a slight reversal of existing trends. Summary of the Master Plan objectives include: 1. A new emphasis on mass rapid transit. 2. An increase in airport use and site. 3. An increase in Port use. 4. Industrial parks in outlying areas. 5. Commercial centers spread throughout the region. Key assumptions behind goals are as follows: 1. Key to the Dade County Plan and the transpor- tation plan which follows is the statement of a "Freedom of Choice" goal which implies possible second home life styles, new town developments and continuing suburban expansion. 2. There is no stated goal for reinforcing the CBD. In fact, the assumption of a need for 130 square miles of land for residential expansion implies much more emphasis on "estate" density of 0 to 1.9 dwelling units per acre and low density 2.0 to 12.9 dwelling units per acre than a sizeable pro- portion of moderate or higher density residential use. 3. The recommendation of 34 square miles for industrial parks further reinforces geographic expansion and assumes that the major thrust of new industrial employment will be outside the city limits of Miami. 1.6 BRICKELL AVENUE STUDY A planning and zoning study of the Brickell Avenue Area south of the Study Area; it was pre- pared by the City of Miami Planning Department. The primary objectives of the Study were to develop zoning strategies to encourage office and residential development which would have more open space than the CBD, and incentives for land- scaping, parking and other "natural amenities". The Study does not indicate any competition between the CBD development and Brickell Avenue. In fact, the objectives tend to indicate an addition to Central Miami rather than taking from. 1.7 SUMMARY OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE STUDY AREA In general there are four non -conflicting goals which are published in nearly every planning report concerning the Study Area: Increase Downtown employment; Increase Downtown residential development; improve the Downtown environment; and Improve movement within and through Downtown. In measuring these goals and specifying objec- tives, the reports vary. MUATS recommended a modest employment increase from 43,047 in 1964 to 58,700 in 1985. The Doxiadis Plan recom- mended 81,100 employees in the Study Area by 1985. The residential growth of the Study Area has been the exact opposite of all recommendations. Where the region grew from 935,000 in 1960 to 1,268,000 in 1970 and the City of Miami grew from 295,000 to 335,000; the Study Area decreased by over 1,000. In general all plans recommend maxi- mum public use of waterfront areas and improve- ments to the Downtown pedestrian environment. Most plans indicate some desire for traffic separa- tion especially in the area of Biscayne Boulevard. All plans suggest a more varied and active Downtown than now exists. There are significant sections of the Study Area which have no recommendations except the Doxiadis Land Use Plan. These areas include nearly all the area south of 1-395 and north of the Munici- pal Railroad (shown residential on the Doxiadis Plan), the area around Dade County Junior College (shown public use in NDP-3 Plan), the area west and east of the Midtown Core (shown residential and office on the Doxiadis Plan). At the present time these areas are governy the existing nflictwitzoning the Doxiadis in nearly all the areas indicated above. An evaluation of the current status of proposals recommended for the Study Area reflect imple- mentation activity to date. Since 1967, Central Miami has proceeded rapidly toward implementation of some of the for the Miamirecommendationsproposed Ara. in the plans prepared 1. BAYFRONT PROJECT: Presently underway. Plans have been prepared by Edward D. Stone, Junior, showing public use for the entire Bayfront from the The a myodifer to cation, McArthur Causeway.he plans ar however, of the Doxi�, and residential use fod 2. MIAMI RIVER Presently unde the walkway plan ha present, the YMCA i the river and propose discussed. The propoo along the river is still i. mended by both the Avenue Study. 3. TRANSPORTA The key to the 1 posed by the Doxiadii various transportation arterial highway movi for bus routes. The TI cently been funded a Causeway. 4. DOWNTOWN M The Doxiadis, PI tions in terms of strem walkways. The key tQ second level pedestriai cayne Boulevard an a pedestrian mall alo action has been take The Dade Wilbur Smith and Asj revision to street rigfj Ferre Report, September 1970, r both proposals rely modest street impro of Biscayne Bouleval underway. 5. CONVENTIO Doxiadis reco Miamarina and the convention and cuatl consideration since 1 D. Stone, Jr. and Al mendation. The St Commission Septa program of recreati ,. but minimum corn facilities. At present the will become part 0 6. GOVERNME Since 1960 r=, ment Center have site has changed a g units including re units. Of this tion. Provide tech- d groups for property 3f non-profit sponsors. I improvement of sewer s an objective of 55 'to 1973 totalled trial districts, iment corporation; a marketing center fined wholesale estige office develop - \venue, Biscayne smote tourism by cultural center and )wntown; enhance vements to its traffic and physical appear - supporting facilities uding Miami -Dade l goals include the iami :population will der 18) primarily rer65) with a sizeable s. lue-to be, ahigh orates a lack of com- sin 1967 indicates in - in family income, nes. Sources of revenue nicipal spending has rof available funds public facilities. These isive public ,programs. eerie ;general increase in (1957-67) offset by EA TRANSPORTATION lien Dade County Plan- e minty Master Plan developed a series of very general goals and objec- tives for a projected growth to 1,955,000 by the year 1985. Of three alternative growth models only Alternative II recommended a "Superurban" density in Central Miami. The final MUATS Report indicated a Downtown Study Area population of 16,000 and an employment force of 58,700 by 1985, a slight reversal of existing trends. Summary of the Master Plan objectives include: 1. A new emphasis on mass rapid transit. 2. An increase in airport use and site. 3. An increase in Port use. 4. Industrial parks in outlying areas. 5. Commercial centers spread throughout the region. Key assumptions behind goals are as follows: 1. Key to the Dade County Plan and the transpor- tation plan which follows is the statement of a "Freedom of Choice" goal which implies possible second home life styles, new town developments and continuing suburban expansion. 2. There is no stated goal for reinforcing the CBD. In fact, the assumption of a need for 130 square miles of land for residential expansion implies much more emphasis on "estate" density of 0 to 1.9 dwelling units per acre and low density 2.0 to 12.9 dwelling units per acre than a sizeable pro- portion of moderate or higher density residential use. 3. The recommendation of 34 square miles for industrial parks further reinforces geographic expansion and assumes that the major thrust of new industrial employment will be outside the city limits of Miami. 1.6 BRICKELL AVENUE STUDY A planning and zoning study of the Brickell Avenue Area south of the Study Area; it was pre- pared by the City of Miami Planning Department. The primary objectives of the Study were to develop zoning strategies to encourage office and residential development which would have more open space than the CBD, and incentives for land- scaping, parking and other "natural amenities". The Study does not indicate any competition between the CBD development and Brickell Avenue. In fact, the objectives tend to indicate an addition to Central Miami rather than taking from. 1.7 SUMMARY OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE STUDY AREA In general there are four non -conflicting goals which are published in nearly every planning report concerning the Study Area: Increase Downtown employment; Increase Downtown residential development; Improve the Downtown environment; and Improve movement within and through Downtown. In measuring these goals and specifying objec- tives, the reports vary. MUATS recommended a modest employment increase from 43,047 in 1964 to 58,700 in 1985. The Doxiadis Plan recom- mended 81,100 employees in the Study Area by 1985. The residential growth of the Study Area has been the exact opposite of all recommendations. Where the region grew from 935,000 in 1960 to 1,268,000 in 1970 and the City of Miami grew from 295,000 to 335,000; the Study Area decreased by over 1,000. In general all plans recommend maxi- mum public use of waterfront areas and improve- ments to the Downtown pedestrian environment. Most plans indicate some desire for traffic separa- tion especially in the area of Biscayne Boulevard. All plans suggest a more varied and active Downtown than now exists. There are significant sections of the Study Area which have no recommendations except the Doxiadis Land Use Plan. These areas include nearly all the area south of 1-395 and north of the Munici- pal Railroad (shown residential on the Doxiadis Plan), the area around Dade County Junior College (shown public use in NDP-3 Plan), the area west and east of the Midtown Core (shown residential and office on the Doxiadis Plan). At the present time these areas are governed by the existing zoning code which is in conflict with the Doxiadis uses in nearly all the areas indicated above. An evaluation of the current status of proposals recommended for the Study Area reflect imple- mentation activity to date. Since 1967, Central Miami has proceeded rapidly toward implementation of some of the recommendations proposed in the plans prepared for the Miami Core Area. 1. BAYFRONT PROJECT: Presently underway. Plans have been prepared by Edward D. Stone, Junior, showing public use for the entire Bayfront from the Miami River to McArthur Causeway. The plans are a modification, however, of the Doxiadis Plan which showed hotel and residential use for a substantial part of this area. 2. MIAMI RIVER WALKWAY: Presently underway. Funds for first stages of the walkway plan have been appropriated. At present, the YMCA is being constructed north of the river and proposals for a Latin Center have been discussed. The proposal for residential development along the river is still a strong possibility, recom- mended by both the plan for NDP-3 and the Brickell Avenue Study. 3. TRANSPORTATION CENTER: The key to the Transportation Center as pro- posed by the Doxiadis Plan was interchange of various transportation modes including rapid transit, arterial highway movement, and terminal facilities for bus routes. The Transportation Center has re- cently been funded and is located near the McArthur Causeway. 4. DOWNTOWN MIAMI STREETS AND PLACES : The Doxiadis Plan made major recommenda- tions in terms of street closings, plazas and elevated walkways. The key to these recommendations was a second level pedestrian walkway system above Bis- cayne Boulevard and at the Government Center with a pedestrian mall along Flagler Street. At present no action has been taken on these recommendations. The Dade County. Florida Tropics Program by Wilbur Smith and Associates of 1971 recommends revision to street right-of-way and the Maurice A. Ferre Report, Miami-3 Proposals for Downtown in September 1970, recommends "sky bridges" but both proposals rely on public financing. Only modest street improvements including landscaping of Biscayne Boulevard and Flagler Street are underway. 5. CONVENTION AND CULTURAL CENTER: Doxiadis recommends the area adjacent to Miamarina and the existing public library become a convention and cultural center. This is no longer a consideration since the most recent plan by Edward D. Stone, Jr. and Associates changes this recom- mendation. The Stone plan submitted to the City Commission September 21, 1972, recommends a program of recreation, civic and cultural activities but minimum commercial and no convention facilities. At present the Convention Center, if funded, will become part of the Government Center. 6. GOVERNMENT CENTER: Since 1960, recommendations for a Govern- ment Center have been strongly stated. The specific site has changed and the program modified in the 4 1970 Miami -Dade County Governmental Center Study by Geddes, Brecher, Qualls and Cunningham. At present more detailed studies are underway; but funds for the first building (Police Building) are appropriated, and the policy of centralizing local Government in Downtown Miami remains. 7. MASS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM: The recent passage of the bond issue assures implementation and begins the next stages of design. 8. COMMUNITY COLLEGE: The construction of Dade County Community College was part of the recommendations included in the plan for NDP-3 Area. This facility is nearly complete as a Community College on N.E. 2nd Avenue. C B-2.O ECONOMIC FORECAST (Prepared by Gladstone Associates) 2.1 INTRODUCTIO This report sum phase of the Downto objective has been to extent of the market development of the (CBD). Though Miam building of office buil phenomenon which high vacancy rates in indicate that in the I tials remain strong fo for the Central Busin Specifically, ne Core will be generate of which will be loca yard. As in the past, spurts with some slac exceeds demand, but favoring continuedd of new office space for retail space (grou and an increased de houses and condomi types of people wor These findings, detail in the followi bination of sources: and economic trend a review of relevant Miami CBD; intervie investors, and busin Associates' experien development. 2.2 OFFICE DEV The key to d Core lies in new off the primary generat values, and subsidia following table sh construction durin While on the aver constructed during;: variation frorn year square feet of s a low of 132,000' Also duringt costruct office s Informedsources. iita1 center d Cunningham. underway; but iilding) are aIiz ng *local mains. EVE issue assures stages of Ay Community *Mons included is nearly n*I.E.2nd B-2O ECONOMIC FORECAST (Prepared by Gladstone Associates) 2.1 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes findings for the first phase of the Downtown Miami Zoning Study. The objective has been to determine the nature and extent of the market forces affecting the future development of the Miami Central Business District (CBD). Though Miami is experiencing some over- building of office buildings at the present time, a phenomenon which will probably be reflected in high vacancy rates in the months ahead, the findings indicate that in the long -run, development poten- tials remain strong for the greater Miami Area and for the Central Business District as well. Specifically, new development in the Downtown Core will be generated by office buildings, most of which will be located on or near Biscayne Boule- vard. As in the past, the development will occur in spurts with some slackening off when supply exceeds demand, but with the long-term trend favoring continued development. The development of new office space will also generate potentials for retail space (ground level in new office buildings) and an increased demand for high-rise apartment houses and condominiums serving a variety of types of people working in the Downtown Core. These findings, which are discussed in more detail in the following pages, are based on a com- bination of sources: an analysis of demographic and economic trends based largely on census data; a review of relevent reports and studies of the Miami CBD; interviews with local realtors, developers, investors, and business leaders; and Gladstone Associates' experience in the area of downtown development. 2.2 OFFICE DEVELOPMENT The key to development in the Downtown Core lies in new office space in so much as this is the primary generator of employment, real estate values, and subsidiary real estate development The following table shows the trends of office space construction during the 1960's in the Miami SMSA. While on the average, 413,000 square feet were constructed during the 1960's, there was considerable variation from year to year with almost 1,300,000 square feet of space being constructed in 1969, and a low of 132,000 in 1960. Also during the 1960's, the tendancy was to costruct office space away from the Downtown Core. Informed sources estimate over 70 percent was con- 6 Annual Office Space Construction Miami SMSA: 1960-1970 (Constant 1970 dollars) Year Amountl 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 132,000 sq.ft. 356,000 sq.ft. 329,000 sq.ft. 286,000 sq.ft. 575,000 sq.ft. 293,000 sq.ft. 200,000 sq.ft. 296,000 sq.ft. 307,000 sq.ft. 1,293,000 sq.ft. 479.000 sq.ft. Value2 $ 3,700,000 $ 9,400,000 $ 9,200,000 $ 8,000,000 $ 16,100,000 $ 8,200,000 $ 5,600,000 $ 8,300,000 $ 8,600,000 $ 36,200,000 $ 13.400.000 1960-1970 Total 4,546,000 sq.ft. $126,700,000 1960-1970 Average 413,000 sq.ft. $ 11,500,000 1 Estimate: Gladstone Associates 2Source: Construction Review structed outside of the CBD — mainly in Coral Gables and in the vicinity of the airport. More recently, the pull of development away from the Downtown Area has been increased with the intense development of Brickell Avenue and the development of several suburban office parks loca- ted along expressways. It is interesting, however, that even with the development of offices along Brickell Avenue, the new suburban office parks, and the continued strong attraction of Coral Gables, at the present time development activity in the Downtown Core has reached an all time high. This is due, of course, to two buildings — the First Federal ;Building and One Biscayne Tower. Though not complete, the following table, "New Office Buildings Opening 1972-1973", illustrates the recent upsurge of office development activity. At the present time, over 1,600,000 square feet of leasable new office space are under construc- tion, more than half of which are located in the Downtown Core. This figure represents a supply of more than four times the average annual supply offered during the 1960's. This situation issubject to two possible interpretations. On the one hand, a cautious observer might conclude that 1,609,000 square feet of new office space represents a disasterous over- supply, given past trends in Miami, and that three to five years will pass before demand is able to catch up again with supply. The result could mean a stagnation of office building activity in Miami for a period of two to three years. Furthermore, this observer might add that the potentials for Brickell Avenue, Coral Gables, the Airport, and the office parks continue to outweigh the potentials for the Downtown Core. Consequently, the two new buildings Downtown might be viewed as an aberration and indeed could stifle rather than en- courage further development activity in the Downtown Core. On the other hand, an optimist might view these trends as a sharp break with the past — the beginning of a new vigorous growth period for greater Miami and particularly for the Downtown Core. A number of factors could be cited to support this optimism — the growing Miami economy, the expansion of many existing firms, the relocation of corporate headquarters to Miami, the Waterfront Park, the Port, Dade County Com- munity College, and the rapid transit system. Ac- cepting this thesis, Miami is just coming into its own following such precedents as Atlanta or Wash- ington; and the new construction represents only the beginning of a natural expansion that is simply a few years behind that of other similar cities. In the course of interviews with informed citizens and business leaders in Miami, both views were expressed with certainty and conviction. In the short -run we believe the pessimists may prove correct in that there will probably be high office vacancy rates in the near future as the two major new buildings become available for occupancy. Both of the new buildings, for instance, appear to be attracting their tenants primarily from older buildings currently located in the Downtown Core. Interviews with leasing agents of these buildings revealed that new firms moving to Miami are not yet locating Downtown but elsewhere, and firms which currently rent space in Coral Gables or near to the airport do not wish to change their location. The result is that the only true competitive area with the Downtown Core is Brickell Avenue, which at the current time is taking more tenants away from the CBD than it is returning. Since the firms locating in the new buildings are the typical firms found Downtown — attorneys, banks, CPA's, realtors, stockbrokers — and since they are vacating older space Downtown, the vacancy rates NEW OFFICE BUILDINGS OPENING Miami CBD One Biscayne Tower (Guiterrez) Miami First Federal Subtotal Brickell Area Riverside (Florida East Coast Prop.) Crown Executive Plaza (Sheridan) Brickell Executive Plaza (Halpryn) "700" Brickell Building Subtotal Coral Gables/South Miami Area 5901 Building 1570 Madruga Building (Gonsalos) 1320 South Dixie (Sam Adler) Continental Building (Babcock) Douglas Palermo Subtotal South Dade Area Bank of Kendall Building S.A.C. Construction Subtotal 1972-1973 Stories Total Rentable Tot. affice rea 40 24 605,000 36 19 208.000 815,000 12 10 175,000 10 9 94,000 10 9 — 10 9 73.00Q 343,000 4 3 30,000 41,000 235,000 6 6 32,000 4 3 20.000 358,000 4 3 36,000 3 25.000 0 ,00a Other Areas 550 Lejune Building (Damiano) 4 3 44.000 Total 11,609.000 could increase dramatically in the spring, par- ticularly in the CBD. On the other hand, we believe that the Miami CBD will probably begin to experience a period of new and vigorous growth in the next three to five years generated primarily by office space. In this experience it will replicate a pattern which was established during the 1960's in many other Eastern cities, notably Boston, Philadelphia, Wash- ington, and Atlanta. The fact that two prestige buildings were constructed in this core is prima facie evidence of a change. Furthermore, there are indications that plans are underway for more office buildings Downtown. The mass transit system, the new Waterfront Park, new parking and transportation systems, the Port the attractiveness areas, which also h diminishing amo Our concluaio development poter1 strong, oarticuj tials, if realized„ co( other types of devi fiat development,al ing table puts forte' development projel also presents the p server and the op mi $MSA: 00,000 00,000 00;000 00,000 00,000 00,000 )00,000 300,000 '300,1300 200,000 $00000 700,000 ;500,000 ily in Coral port. 31bpment away increased with I Avenue and the ffice parks loca- ing, however, offices along office; parks, 1,of Coral Gables, Kivity in the ti;me11igh. This _- the first Tower. flowing table, 172-1973", Klee development 1 ,f30O,000 square re tinderoortstruc- located in the asentsa supply geannual supply NO possible ateutiousobserver might conclude that 1,609,000 square feet of new office space represents a disasterous over- supply, given past trends in Miami, and that three to five years will pass before demand is able to catch up again with supply. The result could mean a stagnation of office building activity in Miami for a period of two to three years. Furthermore, this observer might add that the potentials for Brickell Avenue, Coral Gables, the Airport, and the office parks continue to outweigh the potentials for the Downtown Core. Consequently, the two new buildings Downtown might be viewed as an aberration and indeed could stifle rather than en- courage further development activity in the Downtown Core. On the other hand, an optimist might view these trends as a sharp break with the past — the beginning of a new vigorous growth period for greater Miami and particularly for the Downtown Core. A number of factors could be cited to support this optimism — the growing Miami economy, the expansion of many existing firms, the relocation of corporate headquarters to Miami, the Waterfront Park, the Port, Dade County Com- munity College, and the rapid transit system. Ac- cepting this thesis, Miami is just coming into its own following such precedents as Atlanta or Wash- ington; and the new construction represents only the beginning of a natural expansion that is simply a few years behind that of other similar cities. In the course of interviews with informed citizens and business leaders in Miami, both views were expressed with certainty and conviction. In the short -run we believe the pessimists may prove correct in that there will probably be high office vacancy rates in the near future as the two major new buildings become available for occupancy. Both of the new buildings, for instance, appear to be attracting their tenants primarily from older buildings currently located in the Downtown Core. Interviews with leasing agents of these buildings revealed that new firms moving to Miami are not yet locating Downtown but elsewhere, and firms which currently rent space in Coral Gables or near to the airport do not wish to change their location. The result is that the only true competitive area with the Downtown Core is Brickell Avenue, which at the current time is taking more tenants away from the CBD than it is returning. Since the firms locating in the new buildings are the typical firms found Downtown — attorneys, banks, CPA's, realtors, stockbrokers — and since they are vacating older space Downtown, the vacancy rates NEW OFFICE BUILDINGS OPENING 1972-1973 Miami CBD One Biscayne Tower (Guiterrez) Miami First Federal Subtotal Brickell Area Riverside (Florida East Coast Prop.) Crown Executive Plaza (Sheridan) Brickell Executive Plaza (Halpryn) "700" Brickell Building Subtotal Coral Gables/South Miami Area 5901 Building 1570 Madruga Building (Gonsalos) 1320 South Dixie (Sam Adler) Continental Building (Babcock) Douglas Palermo Subtotal South Dade Area Bank of Kendall Building S.A.C. Construction Subtotal Stories Total 40 36 12 10 10 10 Office 24 19 10 9 9 9 Total Rentable Area New Parking Space Rent Range 605,000 750 $8.00+ 208.000 815,000 175,000 94,000 73.000 343,000 4 3 30,000 41,000 235,000 6 6 32,000 4 3 20.000 4 Other Areas 550 Lejune Building (Damiano) 4 Total could increase dramatically in the spring, par- ticularly in the CBD. On the other hand, we believe that the Miami CBD will probably begin to experience a period of new and vigorous growth in the next three to • five years generated primarily by office space. In this experience it will replicate a pattern which was established during the 1960's in many other Eastern cities, notably Boston, Philadelphia, Wash- ington, and Atlanta. The fact that two prestige buildings were constructed in this core is prima facie evidence of a change. Furthermore, there are indications that plans are underway for more office buildings Downtown. The mass transit system, the new Waterfront Park, new parking and transportation 3 3 3 358,000 500 160 300 105 275 64 50 $8.00+ $6.50 $6.50-$8.50 $7.50-$8.00 $7.75-$8.50 36,000 — $7.50-$8.50 25.000 61,000 34.000 1,609,000 systems, the Port — these facilities will increase the attractiveness of this area vis a vis more distant areas, which also have increasing land costs and diminishing amounts of developable land. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the long term development potentials for office space remain strong, particularly in the CBD, and that these poten- tials, if realized, could have a positive effect on other types of development, particularly residen- tial development, as is discussed below. The follow- ing table puts forth our best estimate of office development projections (the medium range) and also presents the projections of the cautious ob- server and the optimistic observer as well. 8 Projected Annual Office Space Demand 1MiamiSMSA: 1970-19851tn Square Feet) High Medium Low Miami SMSA 1,200,000 700,000 450,000 Study Area 400,000 300,000 200,000 source. Gladstone Associates. 2.3 SPIN-OFFS Because a vital Downtown Core is predicated on the continued development of office space, other types of development, called spin-offs, are also dependent upon this development. Unless office development continues, it is unlikely that spin-off development activities will take place on their own. 2.4 RETAIL It is unlikely that the CBD will support addi- tional retail apart from that generated by continued office development. The trend toward the develop- ment of suburban shopping centers, malls, etc., will be too strong to allow for additional CBD retail space. Moreover, the development of Plaza Venetia, which will contain a considerable amount of retail space, will serve the Core and further limit the potentials for other large retail developments Downtown. Retail space will,.however, be constructed on ground levels of new office buildings and will be designed to serve the Downtown work force. For every new building constructed, it is likely that some of the ground floor space will be retail. Given an average annual increase of 300,000 square feet of office space in the ,Downtown Core, 5,000- 10,000 square feet of retail space could be antici- pated on an annual basis. This figure, however, will be larger :if, as we anticipate, high-rise luxury apartments are developed as well. 2.5 RESIDENTIAL It is felt there is a potential market for the development of upper -income housing Downtown, assuming accelerated office development, increased vitality of the business core, the mass transit, and appropriate treatment of the waterfront develop- ment. This upper -income housing would be focused adjacent to the waterfront area and would take the form of medium rise and high rise rental and pur- chase apartments. Residents would include young single and married professionals as well as "empty nesters" in the 45 to 60 age bracket. The table on the following page illustrates residential development trends for the greater Miami Area during the 1960's. On the average, over 15,000 units were constructed each year in the Miami SMSA, almost 70 percent of which were multi- family units. Housing development reached a peak in 1969 when almost 27,000 units were constructed. While these figures do not distinguish between the SMSA and the Downtown Core, it is obvious from inspection that very little new housing devel- opment has occurred Downtown. 0n the contrary, as illustrated in "Population Trends, Miami SMSA: 1950-1970", the population of the Downtown Study Area has declined from 32,000 to 29,000 persons during a period when the Miami SMSA has experienced strong population gains. As indicated by past trends, it is obvious that greater Miami had strong growth trends in housing and population during the 1960's, while the Downtown Core Area was experiencing declines. While a dramatic reversal of these trends occurring is unlikely within a natural market framework, the exodus should slow down, with the possibility of a moderate population increase occurring by 1960. (See "Population Trends Miami SMSA: 1950-1970" and "Population Forecasts Miami SMSA: 1970- 1985".) Our projections are predicated on the assump- tion that living Downtown in close proximity to one's employment appeals to a small but significant minority of people - "empty nesters", young single and married professionals, and other groups accustomed to urban living - and that given an attractive living environment Downtown, these people can be attracted back to the City. They are predicated also on the belief that a view of Bis- cayne Bay yields a strong market attraction. While apartments or condominiums constructed along Biscayne Boulevard would compete with similar developments along Brickell Avenue, in the long - run there is a market for residential developments in both locations. In addition, assuming a major public inter- vention in the form of land assembly, financing and public incentives, a possibility exists for a low density, mixed income residential community in the Northern area of the CBD. This possibility is Annual Multi -Family and Single Family Unit Construction Miami SMSA: 1960- in le F.mil Value* Year Units $000's 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 7,498 5,993 4,621 4,128 3,858 3,716 3,007 3,777 4,733 4,980 �.602 Average* Value Multi-F.mil Value* Aver Units ($000's Valu 146,516 102,132 84,090 80,959 71,015 72,356 61,718 76,278 102,095 132,006 104,023 19,541 17,042 18,197 19,612 18,407 19,466 20,525 20,195 21,571 26,507 18,569 1960-1970 Total 51,913 1,033,188 1960-1970 Average Annual 4 719 93 926 19 904 •Constant 1970 dollars. Source: U.S. Census; Gladstone Associates. again contingent upon accelerated office develop- ment in the CBD. In this analysis we have discussed housing in terms of natural market forces. We have assumed that no public intervention will take place and that the current factors which affect development will not change. Another way of phrasing these conclusions is to say - unless there is substantial public intervention regarding housing in the Study Area, it is likely that some moderate development of luxury high-rise buildings will take place - but nothing more. Population Trends Miami SMSA: 1950-1970 Miami SMSA A- Source: U.S. Census: WMRT. 4,031 4,092 5,665 5,639 8,632 13,065 10,750 11,127 18,028 21,940 13.241 40,257 45,575 59,975 47,875 74,876 117,951 100,847 132,139 209,949 311,670 157 720 9,9 11,1 10,5 8,4 8,6 9,0 9, 11,8 11,. 14,2 11,9 116,210 1,298,834 10565 118076 11 1 2.6 MOTELS AN As a tourist ce more hotelspace t size. Nevertheless, a. probably result in a number of hotel un likely, however, wil ment of older hotel affect construction increase the numbe town. Average Annual Change 50-60 6OE 1.70 mber Pe 495,084 935,047 1,267,792 43,996 8.9% 3.tr0 4.+ro 33 td Peet) Low ment. This upper -income housing would be focused adjacent to the waterfront area and would take the form of medium rise and high rise rental and pur- chase apartments. Residents would include young 450,000 single and married professionals as well as "empty nesters" in the 45 to 60 age bracket. The table on the following page illustrates residential development trends for the greater Miami Area during the 1960's. On the average, over 15,000 units were constructed each year in the Miami SMSA, almost 70 percent of which were multi- family units. Housing development reached a peak is predicated in 1969 when almost 27,000 units were constructed. ice space, While these figures do not distinguish between >in -offs, are the SMSA and the Downtown Core, it is obvious it. 'Unless from inspection that very little new housing devel- ilikely that opment has occurred Downtown. On the contrary, 3ke.place on as illustrated in "Population Trends, Miami SMSA: 1950-1970", the population of the Downtown Study Area has declined from 32,000 to 29,000 persons during a period when the Miami SMSA has experienced strong population gains. As indicated by past trends, it is obvious that support addi- greater Miami had strong growth trends in housing idby-continued and population during the 1960's, while the 'd the develop- Downtown Core Area was experiencing declines. malls, etc., will While a dramatic reversal of these trends occurring CBD retail is unlikely within a natural market framework, the (Plaza Venetia, exodus should slow down, with the possibility of fount of a moderate population increase occurring by 1980. further limit (See "Population Trends Miami SMSA: 1950-1970" levelopments and"Population Forecasts Miami SMSA: 1970- 1985".) onstructed on Our projections are predicated on the assump- send will be tion that living Downtown in close proximity to >rk force. For one'semployment appeals to a small but significant >likely that minority of people - "empty nesters", young single be,yEtail, and married professionals, and other groups 300,000 square accustomed to urban living - and that given an in Core, 5,000- attractive living environment Downtown, these mild be antici- people can be attracted back to the City. They are e, however, predicated also on the belief that a view of Bis- gh-riseiluxury cayne Bay yields a strong market attraction. While apartments or condominiums constructed along Biscayne Boulevard would compete with similar developments along Brickell Avenue, in the long - run there is a market for residential developments in both locations. arket for the In addition, assuming a major public inter- lingiDowntown, vention in the form of land assembly, financing event, increased and public incentives, a possibility exists for a low ass transit, and density, mixed income residential community in front -develop- the Northern area of the CBD. This possibility is 200,000 Annual Multi -Family and Single Family Unit Construction Miami SMSA: 1960-1970 Single Family Multi -Family Value* Average* Value* Average* Year Units ($000's) Value Units ($000's) Value 1960 7,498 146,516 1961 5,993 102,132 1962 4,621 84,090 1963 4,128 80,959 1964 3,858 71,015 1965 3,716 72,356 1966 3,007 61,718 1967 3,777 76,278 1968 4,733 102,095 1969 4,980 132,006 1970 5,602 104.023 1960-1970 Total 51,913 1,033,188 1960-1970 Average Annual 4,719 19,541 17,042 18,197 19,612 18,407 19,466 20,525 20,195 21,571 26,507 18,569 93,926 19,904 *Constant 1970 dollars. Source: U.S. Census; Gladstone Associates. again contingent upon accelerated office develop- ment in the CBD. In this analysis we have discussed housing in terms of natural market forces. We have assumed that no public intervention will take place and that the current factors which affect development will not change. Another way of phrasing these conclusions is to say - unless there is substantial public intervention regarding housing in the Study Area, it is likely that some moderate development of luxury high-rise buildings will take place - but nothing more. Population Trends Miami SMSA: 1950-1970 Miami SMSA Study Area 4,031 4,092 5,665 5,639 8,632 13,065 10,750 11,127 18,028 21,940 13,241 40,257 45,575 59,975 47,875 74,876 117,951 100,847 132,139 209,949 311,670 157,720 9,989 11,138 10,587 8,490 8,674 9,028 9,381 11,876 11,646 14,206 11,911 116,210 1,298,834 10,565 118,076 11,176 2.6 MOTELS AND HOTELS As a tourist center, Miami has considerably more hotel space than other regions of similar size. Nevertheless, a revitalized Downtown will probably result in a substantial increase in the number of hotel units in Miami Proper. More likely, however, will be the renovation and replace- ment of older hotels, a phenomen which will affect construction activity but not substantially increase the number of rooms available Down- town. Average Annual Change 50-60 60-70 1950 1960 1970 Number Percent Number Percent 495,084 935,047 1,267,792 43,996 8.9% NA 32.000 29.000 - - Source: U.S. Census; WMRT. 33,275 3.6% -300 -1-0% 10 Population Forecasts Miami SMSA: 1970-1985 Average Annual Change 70-75 75-80 80-85 1970 1975 1980 1985 Number % Number % Number % Miami SMSA 1,267,792 1,423,857 1,574,357 Study Area 29,000 28,500 29,500 Source:Gladstone Associates 2.7 CONCLUSIONS The key to a revitalized Miami CBD lies in office development. While CBD office construc- tion took place at a moderate rate during the 1960's, a major breakthrough may be at hand through a substantially accelerated pace of activity. In the short -run, relatively high vacancy rates may occur. In the medium -term, these are likely to be offset by recent developments such as the proposed rapid transit, the proposed development of the waterfront, and the proposed improvements along the Miami River. Spin-offs from office development will include moderate increases in new development devoted to retail and residential. The tables on the following pages show past employment trends for the Miami Area, and forecasts in the Study Area to 1985. 1,711,857 31,213 2.5 30,100 2.1 27,500 1.75 32,000 -100 -0.4 200 0.7 500 1.7 Projected Annual Residential Demand Miami SMSA: 1970-1985 1970 -1971 1975 - 1980 1980 - 1985 Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Single "Family 2,659 Multi:Family 8,421 TOTAL 11,080 24% 76% 100% 2,420 8,580 11,000 22% 78% 100% 2,090 8,360 10,450 20% 80% 100% Note: Assumes a 5.0 percent vacancy rate over 1.5 percent demolition rate. Source: Gladstone Associates. 1! Non -Agricultural Employment Trends by Industry Miami SMSA: 1960-1970 Industrial Category Contract Construction Manufacturing Transportation, Communication and Other Utilities Wholesale and Retail Trade Finance, Insurance and Real Estate Services Government TOTAL Employment 1960 1966 1967 1968 23,300 23,900 24,800 27,90 41,700 59,500 65,700 71,4Q 35,300 39,600 45,300 49,9Q 87,600 104,100 111,500 119,2 20,800 26,100 27,500 28,8 63,300 82,000 88,800 97,70 35,600 50,400 53,100 54,30 307,600 385,600 416,700 449,20 Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Average Annual Employment Change Miami SMSA: 1960-1971 Industrial Category Number Contract Construction 100 Manufacturing 2,967 Transportation, Communication & Other Utilities 717 Wholesale & Retail Trade Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Services Government TOTAL 1960 - 1966 1967 -1970 Percent Rate of Percent Rat of Total Growth Number of Total Grc 0.8% 0.4% 2,430 8.4% G.8 22.8% 7.1% 3,333 11.6% 5.1 5.5% 2.0% 3,733 13.0% 8.2 2,750 21.1% 3.1% 7,066 24.5% 6, 883 6.8% 4.2% 2,133 7.4% 7.7 3,116 24.0% 4.9% 8,633 29.9% 9 7 2,467 19.0% 6.9% 1,500 5.2%• 2.0 13,000 100.0% 4.2% 28,828 100.0% 89 Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Trends and Forecast Miami SMSA, CBD, Study Area: 19804981 1960 1965 1971 1975 Number % Number % Number % Numbers Miami SMSA 307,600 100 385,600 100 517,100 100 585,850 100 CBD 31,00010.07 29,0001 7.5 32,858 6.3 41,004 7,0 Study Area NA NA 42.000210 45.0003 3.7 55Acos 1. This figure is based on 1959 estimate. 2. This figure is also estimate. from 1964 figure of 29.000 for CBD and 41,000 for Study Area, 3. Fi1ure is estimate based on 1972 estimate of 45.558 for Study Area. 4. This is heed on the full occupancy of the First Federal Building and One BiscayneTower. Source: WMRT; Gladstone Associates; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. D-11985 Average Annual Change 70-75 75-80 80-85 1980 1985 Number % Number % Number % 1,574,357 1,711 857 31,213 2.5 30,100 2.1 27,500 1.75 29,500 32,000 -100 -0.4 200 0.7 500 1.7 lies in constr ac- ing the at Shand le of }h vacancy these are cents proposed 3e proposed Spin-offs moderate I;foretell 3siow r+i Area, 85. dnia it ►:1970.11985 ni t. Percent {ASO 78% 1A0 10. 1980 -1985 Units Percent 2,090 20% 8,360 80% 10,450 100% elver 1-5peroent;demolitian rate. r f Non -Agricultural Employment Trends by Industry Miami SMSA: 1960-1970 Industrial Category Contract Construction Manufacturing Transportation, Communication and Other Utilities Wholesale and Retail Trade Finance, Insurance and Real Estate Services Government TOTAL Employment 1960 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 23,300 23,900 24,800 27,900 32,600 32,100 30,800 41,700 59,500 65,700 71,400 76,600 75,700 76,100 35,300 87,600 20,800 63,300 35,600 307,600 39,600 104,100 26,100 82,000 50,400 385,600 45,300 49,900 54,800 56,500 58,100 111,500 119,200 126,600 132,700 137,000 27,500 28,800 31,000 33,900 36,000 88,800 97,700 106,700 114,700 118,800 53,100 54,300 55,700 57,600 60,300 416,700 449,200 484,000 503,200 517,100 Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Average Annual Employment Change Miami SMSA: 1960-1971 1960 - 1966 Contract Construction 100 Manufacturing 2,967 Transportation, Communication & Other Utilities 717 5.5% 2.0% 3,733 13.0% 8.2% 1,600 11.5% 2.8% Wholesale & Retail Trade 2,750 21.1% 3.1% 7,066 24.5% 6.3% 4,300 30.9% 3.2% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 883 6.8% 4.2% 2,133 7.4% 7.7% 2,100 15.2% 6.6% Services 3,116 24.0% 4.9% 8,633 29.9% 9.7% 4,100 29.5% 3.6% Government 2,467 19.0% 6.9% 1,500 5.2% 2.8% 2,700 19.4% 5.0% TOTAL 13,000 100.0% 4.2% 28,828 100.0% 6.9% 13,900 100.0% 2.8% 1967 - 1970 1970 - 1971 Percent Rate of Percent Rate of Percent Rate of Industrial Category Number of Total Growth Number of Total Growth Number of Total Growth 0.8% 0.4% 2,430 8.4% 9.8% -1,300 -9.4% 4.0% 22.8% 7.1% 3,333 11.6% 5.1% 400 2.9% 0.5% Source: U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Trends and Forecast Miami SMSA, CBD, Study Area: 1960-1985 1960 1965 1971 1975 1980 1985 Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Miami SMSA 307,600 100 385,600 100 517,100 100 585,850 100 689,600 CBD 31,00010.07 29,0001 7.5 32,858 6.3 41,009 7.0 44,824 Study Area NA NA 42 10.8 45,0003 3.7 55,0004 9.3 62,064 1. This figure is based on 1959 estimate. 2. This figure is also estimate. from 1964 figure of 29,000 for CBD and 41,000 for Study Area. 3. Figure is estimate based on 1972 estimate of 45,556 for Study Area. 4. This is based on the full occupancy of the First Federal Building and One Biscayne Tower. Source: WMRT; Gladstone Associates; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 111 100 790,050 100 6.5 47,403 6.0 9.0 68.734 8.7 12 Supportable Ground Values, Typical New Office" Building Prime Location, Miami CBD Lot Size Office Space :Parking Retail Private Club Net Leasable Space Unleasable (A/C, elevator, storage, etc.) Total Space Total FAR Office (and dub) FAR Parking (and retail) FAR 37,500 sq.ft. 604,800 sq.ft. 250,000 sq.ft. (750 spaces at 333 sq.ft./space) 25,000 sq.ft. 20,000 sq.ft. 904,800 sq.ft. 100,000 sa,ft. 1,104,800 sq.ft. 29.46 16.6 6.6 Land costs (@$100/sq.ft.) $3,750,000 Less costs for parking (@$1,000/space) $ 750,000 Less costs for retail (@$800/sq.ft.) $ 200.000 Costs for Office :(and Club) $2,795,000 $2,795,000 = $74.53 sq.ft. cost/square foot for office (club) 37,500 sq.ft. $100.00— $74.53 = $25.47 sq.ft. cost/square foot for parking (retail) • Land Cost F.A.R. Office (Club) $75 16.6 $4.50 sq.ft. Parking (Retail) $25 6.6 $1,000/parking space $8/retail sq. ft. Unit Supportable Ground Value 1. While these figures are based on One Biscayne Tower, they are not exact and in some cases, estimates have been made. 3. B-3.O DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING 3.1 TRANSPORTAI The capacity of be measured in numbi be accommodated in town Miami the criti automobile. Thus th trips is the key meas There were over 130, CBD per day in 1971 ceptual Transportatic wenger-Hoch and Ash vehicles were on the I were distributed everil easily be handled. Hai along U.S. 1 and wes1 greater than other del the system are over) diagrams the capacity) typical C.B.D. block: Assume: 3 Ian 1 Ian 50% At a moderate level could be handled per However, addition o the capacity dependi or exit traffic is hea. multiple curb cuts Wilbur Smith capacity of a typical is 1200 cars, based o Many blocks in Dow number and often th exceeds street capaci Capacity for aul now in the Dupont Boulevard. Volume the Study Area is al ment increase tional street capaci • • 3.2 TRANS O NEW DEVE + Of all types; of the greatest demand movement system; t1 office development Flagler Street, V11ilb a series of specific c hour traffic exiting sq.ft. i sq.ft. sq.ft. (750 spaces at 333 sq.ft./space) sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. 1 saft. sq.ft. sgft. 3 3 D a 0 t for office (club) foot for parking (retail) able Ground Value tg space t. ie Tower, they are iot exact and in some B-3.O DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING 3.1 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CAPACITY The capacity of the transportation system can be measured in number of trips per hour, which can be accommodated in any given corridor. In Down- town Miami the critical trips are work trips by automobile. Thus the street capacity to handle the trips is the key measure of the 1973 system capacity. There were over 130,000 vehicles entering the CBD per day in 1971. (Downtown Miami. A Con- ceptual Transportation Plan, September 1973, Beis- wenger-Hoch and Associates.) About 10% of these vehicles were on the street at peak hour. If they were distributed evenly the 13,000 vehicles could easily be handled. However, demand to move south along U.S. 1 and west on the 1-95 distributor is greater than other demands. Thus certain links of the system are overloaded. The following example diagrams the capacity for traffic movements on a typical C.B.D. block: Assume: 3 lane one way streets on all faces 1 lane used for parking 50% timed traffic lights At a moderate level of service 600 automobiles could be handled per lane or 1200 per block face. However, addition of a parking garage could alter the capacity depending upon where curb cuts occur or exit traffic is headed. Weaving motion and multiple curb cuts can add to congestion. Wilbur Smith Associates has indicated that capacity of a typical block for exiting parking is 1200 cars, based on not overloading the street. Many blocks in Downtown already exceed this number and often the peak hour auto volume exceeds street capacity in these areas. Capacity for automobile movement is highest now in the Dupont Plaza Area and on Biscayne Boulevard. Volume of traffic at peak hour within the Study Area is also highest here. New develop- ment will increase this volume and require addi- tional street capacity. (See Beiswenger-Hoch design.) 3.2 TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT 0f all types of land use, high rise office places the greatest demand upon the capacity of the movement system. Using the example of the new office development at Biscayne Boulevard and Flagler Street, Wilbur Smith and Associates developed a series of specific criteria required to handle peak hour traffic exiting from the buildings. The following 14 calculations suggest other impacts when these buildings are fully occupied. 9 Biscayne — First federal Block Site Area: 90,000 square feet Parking Spaces: 1400 Office Area: 1.2 million square feet Total Employees: 6150 Assume 1971 modal split will apply to these new employees and that 82% will arrive by auto, with 1.31 persons per car. (The Transportation Impact of a Downtown Miami Government Center, September 1970, Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc.) 4943 auto trips plus visitors 3750 auto arrivals plus visitors This total is 2.8 times the total on site parking available. If other blocks can handle only 1200 autos, two more garages at nearly the size of those on the site will be needed to meet this de- mand. Assume 1985 modal split will be improved by transit, public policy, etc. 50% arrive by auto with 1.5 persons per auto. (Downtown Miami: A Conceptual Transportation Plan, September 1973, Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates.) 3075 auto trips plus visitors 2050 auto arrivals plus visitors This is only 650 cars more than the 1400 on site and could be handled within the capacity of nearby parking facilities. The implications of this example are that parking demand from new office structures will be high before transit systems are in operation. To meet this demand parking concentrations should not overcrowd streets. Peripheral parking and public monitoring of location should begin as soon as possible. Location for such lots is suggested in the Beiswenger-Hoch Report. The One Biscayne —First Federal block pro- vides approximately one parking space per 4 or 5 employees. Any more spaces on site would surely congest S.E. 1st Street at peak hour. Thus for development intensity comparable to this block, no more than 3096 of The 1971 parking demand a5 should be built on site. This means one space per 1000 square feet of office development. A general guideline for new parking should therefore be: provision of on site parking of one space per 1000 square feet not to exceed 1200 total spaces per block. Excess parking demand in the short range must be publicly monitored. 3.3 PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE STUDY AREA Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates prepared a general plan for parking in the year 1985. The following chart shows the yearly parking require- ments for the entire Study Area from 1973 to 1985. Assumptions: 1. In 1972 those desiring parking spaces within the Study Area could find them; thus the supply of 33,000 spaces including curb parking was equal to demand. (Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates, September 1973.) 2. The demand for parking for employees is critical at peak hour. Residential demand and retail demand are off peak and less critical. 3. As new construction is built many of the existing spaces will be removed and the location of demand will change. 4. Projected office development averages one new 400,000 square foot building per year. Before mass transit is built a modal split of .82 is more probable; however, after transit is in operation a modal split of .5 is possible. The chart on the following page indicates that without transit a demand of about 1250 spaces will be added each year. When transit is built a requirement of 685 spaces per year will meet the demand. It is entirely possible therefore that by 1980 all the required parking for 1985 will have been built in the Study Area. The proposed requirement of 30% parking on site maximum would amount to less than 400 spaces per year, leaving over 850 spaces to be monitored by public policy. Careful control of parking locations can stimulate new development without overcrowding streets. The Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates report suggests potential locations for off -site parking; however a more detailed parking program including implementation requirements and administrative policy should be prepared to meet the future demands. Without careful monitoring, street congestion could discourage development Downtown. 60.000 50,000 40.000 Probability 1 Santa 33,000 1972 1975 NET ADDITIONAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS (Assuming 33,000 Total for Study Ana in 19721 904 44,64#'` r 1 these uto, la Center, ociates, parking 200 f s de- oved / auto ;mi : A 3r 1973, 400 Ipacity that s will ition. ins larking min is ck pro- r 4 :ora d;surely for should be built on site. This means one space per 1000 square feet of office development. Ageneral guideline for new parking should therefore be: provision of on site parking of one space per 1000 square feet not to exceed 1200 total spaces per block. Excess parking demand in the short range must be publicly monitored. 3.3 PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE STUDY AREA Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates prepared a general plan for parking in the year 1985. The following chart shows the yearly parking require- ments for the entire Study Area from 1973 to 1985. Assumptions: 1. In 1972 those desiring parking spaces within the Study Area could find them; thus the supply of 33,000 spaces including curb parking was equal to demand. (Beiswenger=Hoch and Associates, September 1973.) 2. The demand for parking for employees is critical at peak hour. Residential demand and retail demand are off peak and less critical. 3. As new construction is built many of the existing spaces will be removed and the location of demand will change. 4. Projected office development averages one new 400,000 square foot building per year. Before mass transit is built a modal split of .82 is more probable; however, after transit is in operation a modal split of .5 is possible. The chart on the following page indicates that without transit a demand of about 1250 spaces will be added each year. When transit is built a requirement of 685 spaces per year will meet the demand. It is entirely possible therefore that by 1980 all the required parking for 1985 will shave been built in the Study Area. The proposed requirement of 30% parking on site maximum would amount to Tess than 400 spaces per year, leaving over 850 spaces to be monitored by public policy. Careful control of :parking locations can stimulate new development without overcrowding streets. The Beiswenger-Hoch .and Associates report suggests potential locations for off -site parking; 4 owever .a more detailed parking program including implementation requirements and administrative r r r r r r I policy should be prepared to meet the future demands. Without careful monitoring, street congestion could discourage development Downtown. 60,000 1972 1975 NET ADDITIONAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS (Assuming 33,000 Total for Study Area in 1972) 1980 1986 16 The four parking Tots in the Dupont Plaza area enjoy excellent access from 1-95, Biscayne Boulevard, S.E. 2nd Avenue and Brickell Avenue. Presently around 1500 cars park in these tots and in the Bayfront Area. The new transportation system proposed by Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates will increase the street capacity in this area to handle all through movements as well as an addi- tional 3500 cars for employee parking. However, any more than these spaces would exceed the peak hour capacity of the new design. The following calculations refer to parking and transit require- ments for new development in the Dupont Plaza area. Site Area excluding ramps, etc. 300,000 sq.ft. Parking spaces per level @ 350 sq.ft.-850 sq.ft.+ Therefore total levels of parking = 6 Parking available for new employees = 3500 At .82 modal split and 1.31 per auto, 3500 cars would be required for 1 million square feet Parking Spaces 6-40 DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY .5 ms floor Area Ratio PARKING REQUIREMENTS AT DUPONT PLAZA of office space. For economic feasibility however, these blocks require over 2.2 million square feet of office space to meet land cost. This would mean that Tess than 50% of the parking demand would be met by the 3500 spaces, and that transit must be designed into the four block area since other parking areas within walking distance are not readily avail- able. The chart on the previous page illustrates the relationship between development intensity (FAR) and parking for new office space at Dupont Plaza. The first six levels of development are parking with office space above. The reference to economic floor refers to development required to support ground value of $60 per square foot and a six level parking garage. This is FAR 8 with office space alone on top of FAR 6 for the garage. Development Intensity Required for $60 Land Assume a typical block is 100,000 square feet with a parking structure of six levels. - Land at $60 per square foot x 100,000 = $6,000,000. If parking pays $1000 per space and in the Dupont Plaza area the six level garage produces 1800 spaces, this wilt produce $1,800,000 revenue. - Six levels x 300 = 1800 spaces x $1000 = $1,800,000 If retail space in the structure occupies 25,000 square feet (according to Gladstone Associates this use can pay $8 per square foot), this will pay $200,000. - 25,000 square feet x $8 = $200,000 If office is constructed at a Floor Area Ratio of 8 (according to Gladstone Associates office can pay $5.25 per square foot on $60 land), this use can produce revenue of $4,200,000. - 8 x 100,000 square feet x $5.25 = $4,200,000 Thus in summary: LDC®ST Less Parking Less Retail Less Office Means that the F ficient to meet land ci 1. The 3500 additi 100% of demand for a1 of office at model spt►>N The 3500 additio 100% of demand for a feet of office at modal Neither of these a 100% of parking cannq modal split. 2. If 50% of demanc, spaces could support F or FAR 14 at a modal This means that IA 50% of parking deman FAR 14 can be support 3. if 1/3 of demand' spacescould support Fl .82. Because of the sh Dupont Plaza for muc 50% of the demand fo site. Therefore, a mini can be obtained for till is the economic floor or hotel. Maximum,. is. transit access reducin the probability of the 1 is in the distant future years should be closer access is assured. Th maximum. Since park hour p factor in Dupont Rani do not contribute too pi residential and commel addition to such uses For example, residentij tional FAR 4 in Dupoll to 1200 dwelling units automobiles for these the traffic peak for to same hour as those en Sims 1 INN 4M11 ! Economic floor 15ens S2ms am",. 12 gas The four parking lots in the Dupont Plaza area enjoy excellent access from 1-95, Biscayne Boulevard, S.E. 2nd Avenue and Brickell Avenue. Presently around 1500 cars park in these lots and in the Bayfront Area. The new transportation system proposed by Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates will increase the street capacity in this area to handle all through movements as well as an addi- tional 3500 cars for employee parking. However, any more than these spaces would exceed the peak hour capacity of the new design. The following calculations refer to parking and transit require- ments for new development in the Dupont Plaza area. 6 Mg $2 ms ia1 Site Area excluding ramps, etc. 300,000 sq.ft. Parking spaces per level @ 350 sq.ft.-850 sq.ft.+ Therefore total levels of parking = 6 Parking available for new employees = 3500 At .82 modal split and 1.31 per auto, 3500 cars would be required for 1 million square feet On.SiteParking 1T ANT PLAZA 3500 Spaces Of site 2500 New Spaces Parking Spaces .� 12,000 8500 5000 ew 1500 r of office space. For economic feasibility however, these blocks require over 2.2 million square feet of office space to meet land cost. This would mean that less than 50% of the parking demand would be met by the 3500 spaces, and that transit must be designed into the four block area since other parking areas within walking distance are not readily avail- able. The chart on the previous page illustrates the relationship between development intensity (FAR) and parking for new office space at Dupont Plaza. The first six levels of development are parking with office space above. The reference to economic floor refers to development required to support ground value of $60 per square foot and a six level parking garage. This is FAR 8 with office space alone on top of FAR 6 for the garage. Development Intensity Required for $60 Land Assume a typical block is 100,000 square feet with a parking structure of six levels. - Land at $60 per square foot x 100,000 = $6,000,000. If parking pays $1000 per space and in the Dupont Plaza area the six level garage produces 1800 spaces, this will produce $1,800,000 revenue. — Six levels x 300 = 1800 spaces x $1000 = $1,800,000 If retail space in the structure occupies 25,000 square feet (according to esquare Gladstone r Associates this use can pay $8P foot), this will pay $200,000. - 25,000 square feet x $8 = $200,000 If office is constructed at a Floor Area Ratio of 8 (according to Gladstone Associates office can pay $5.25 per square foot on $60 land), this use can produce revenue of $4,200,000. - 8 x 100,000 square feet x $5.25 = $4,200,000 Thus in summary: LAND COST = $6,000,000 Less Parking = 1,800,000 Less Retail = 200,000 Less Office = 4,200,000 — 200,000 Means that the FAR 8+6 for parking is suf- ficient to meet land costs at Dupont Plaza. 1. The 3500 additional parking spaces represent 100% of demand for about 1 million square feet of office at model split .82 or FAR 3.5. The 3500 additional parking spaces represent 100% of demand for about 2.0 million square feet of office at modal split .50 or FAR 7. Neither of these are economic, so clearly 100% of parking cannot be met on site with either modal split. 2. If 50% of demand were met on site the 3500 spaces could support FAR 7 at a modal split .82 or FAR 14 at a modal split of .5. This means that with good transit access and 50% of parking demand off site, aneconomic FAR 14 can be supported. 3. If 1/3 of demand was met on site the 3500 spaces could support FAR 12 at a modal split of .82. Because of the shortage of adjacent areas to Dupont Plaza for much additional parking, at least 50% of the demand for parking should be met on site. Therefore, a minimum and maximum intensity can be obtained for the Dupont Plaza area. Minimum is the economic floor of FAR 8 for office development or hotel. Maximum is the FAR 14 with excellent transit access reducing the modal split to .5. However, the probability of the transit stop at Dupont Plaza is in the distant future and the maximum in early years should be closer to the minimum until such access is assured. Thus FAR 11 is the recommended maximum. Since park hour parking seems to be the major factor in Dupont Plaza, those uses which probably do not contribute to peak hour problems such as residential and commercial should be permitted in addition to such uses which produce peak traffic. For example, residential development of an addi- tional FAR 4 in Dupont Plaza would total 1000 to 1200 dwelling units. Although storage of the automobiles for these units might be a problem, the traffic peak for the garage would not occur at the same hour as those entering Downtown for their jobs. 18 The intensity of development in Dupont Plaza therefore shall be FAR 8 for office or 12 for office and residential, or FAR 11 for office and 15 for office and residential with high transit access. In summary, development in Dupont Plaza is based on the economic minimum intensity of FAR 8 for office and FAR 6 for parking. The maximum is governed by the amount of off site parking required and could be increased to FAR 11 for office with good transit access. The addition of residential use which does not add to peak hour traffic could extend the minimum and maximum to the following: Residential and Office Use without Transit: FAR 12 Residential and Office Use with Mass Rapid Transit: FAR 15 The Dupont Plaza area offers the possibility - of maximum development intensity without over- loading street capacity. No other area in the Down- town offers the potential of direct access from parking garage to expressway. Thus the intensity guidelines presented should be the maximum for the entire Study Area. r 19 MIN tidEff_sirP PEDWAY • we. ....ice.. tj iI CFACE MOTEL RESDENMAL Plaza access. Iza of nt of ecl to )es insit: apid ibitty it-over- e Down- *om ensity im tor !I ; ,-,..:.,,_._-,..--1...,_;._. 1 ' . ; '; • i 1 I Ii I II it t II ,•!, 1 „!i ;;._ !i• it 0 _,. _ • ...... ..___ It : , -11 13 , • ' • 771- L:1• ,• . i, :, • ; .._.:_...;.;•1 . 1 i ''. ' ::.;•1',.. _,-.•;',. ,,;.'._..,; . „:',. lil; I. r'•- f-- 1;; ''i - :....:.-':". __:.,_i•i._.„ii ..,!_1t.i...; -• • ;, i i); . ,; , , t i1 i ' ' • 1 "i ' ; .'4 ;, i J. i '.; ',. t, • k 'id , .• • ! !, ' : "' i '',. ‘.., Al,- i t • .,.... tl. _i .il ...t. 1 tt 'ti, , ... , • :.....; -;.y ---''; , 1 I. in• i; •-..--1--J1 r--^ --1 1 1 rt. 0 I i. • _ ( 't: , _ _ . _ ..;1_, .. ' ... •Ii. ; 2...7; ;-‘,. \'• _ ;. . _...t .1 ,. ;.;tt. .1 _ •.... I • .tt al... , • sti ..; • OFFICE gir worn_ nEspelnAL I. I DESIGN CONCEPT1 INN NET SLOP PEDWAY SYSTEM 2nd LE%e. pEmsTRAN wev 20 q/ OFFICE - .MRT STOP A MOTEL .....• PED4W flESOENTIAL r.= 1 PEDESTRIAN WAY AP OFFICE O' MOTEL AP RESIDENTIAL I L. . ...., !'"*.r-'71"1 1,_,:' 1-1;:i 1.) rti 1 • ti , ; t ; '.. ; 11 ?1,57 DESIGN CONCEPT 2 r SKIP MhetilSYSISAPC1.1Bqi„ IESTRAN WAY ' • . L ••• r-_t • ; . •, ` i!ii , • (7_ ci L • • " 1! OFRCE dr MOTEL dr RESIDENTIAL • DESIGN CONCEPT 3 MRT STOP PEDWAY SYSTEM 2nd LEyEL, let\\ PEDESTRIAN WAY 22 31 I 1111111 1 1/2 — ' 1 ' • ' 1 : ' ilLi'l•NE . ---:—. ----- • , , i is. 1 1. ' '. s ' • ... '. :' 7. ''' 1 • ' s it ii.,„_. , ...,,,,.• i 1 \1.'tx — • r • • j 4110 OFFCE • Nora AP fESIENT1AL 23 IC77.1.; I DESIGN CONCEPT 4 Mt STOP ••••••• PET3W/V SYSTEM 2nd LEVEL PEDESTRIAN WAY • — Government Cent Office 31 Govt. Office Ratad On -Site Parking 80, Miami Rived! • Resi. Apts. Retail ..,. On -Si tePark* Midtown Con, Submit Office 778,600 sq.ft. Retail 657.500sq,ft. March. Mart • 232,800 sq.ft Hotel/Motet 240 rooms Residential 200 D.lt On -Site Perking 4,943 spaces • - Subarea .000 sq.fi. .200 sq.ft. 544 550 sullies SUB -AREA SPACE *s* 111 .:—.- !r .mot.►, ,1 1 Government Centel Office 37 Govt. Office 85 Retail 11 On -Site Parking Miami Riverfro Resi. Apts. Retail On -Site Park' .., Midtown Core Office Retail Merch. Mart Hotel/Motel Residential On -Site Parking Subarea 700 D.U. 10,000 sq.ft. SOp,spaces SUB -AREA SPACE Subarea , 778,600 sq.ft. 657.500 sq.ft. 232,800 sq.ft. 240 rooms 200 D.U. 4,943 spaces ituiyite .Bayyrpnt Subarea Rest; Apia. 1,650 D.U. '.'Retail:. 22.000 sq.ft. 'tyrt-Site Parki'ny ' 3.650 spaces BisdeveNfiSainetoiSuberee Offer ;; 3,540.000 sq.ft. Retail 125,500 sq.ft. AtAotet/Hotel 240 rooms ftesi¢+ ial 1,300 D.U. On -Site tkipg 5,629 spaces kWsQra ' Retail' Motel/}Iptel Residential Ori`Sita Parking Dupont Plaza Subarea Office 2,450,000 sq.ft. Retail 81,000 sq.ft. Motel/Hotel 740 rooms Residential 200 D.U. On -Site Parking 5,908 spaces 5,990,000 sq.ft. 256,000 sq.ft. 980 rooms 2,160 D.U. 13,466 spaces lili1111111 24 (11 ALTERNATIVE DOWNICWN MASS RAPID TRANSIT PROPOSALS • Existing E (250) RELA( tU TO 1985 EMPLOYMENT Under Construction and Committed O Proposed (net new) 25 hill Illlli�"" 1 En • • • • • 44 1 I l,...1.44411 • 4 II' SI Ulf a RAM IFIANSIT PROPOSALS RIED 101985 EMPLOYMENT ll _IL ji---_—_ILILLiLl WVI/ii Vll — -- r LJL I il"' \\'''''.' 4 \\..,\I „ 0.;,,,,,,, ,.. 4 \ "*--,,.:----._ i...) 11..ii:FTLY.:2:1.. -----.:=.-___.- - ..,-_---- r - - -.,-, • "... -,. __...?" . \,..„__, 1 '.., YO\ - 7'.----:-------- II 'j, \,,\:,,- •„•,. ,/ \ ... '1 I i .'\:' s.v4 _ ....:.__._ ,...' \. 1 A ' ..-:.-- 1[- iLll \''' r.,.... . ,... - • : ir -IL tx A J_ ILUlilL Tan rnrri ww J WI r- ALTERNATIVE DOWNTOVVN MASS RAPID TRANSIT PROPO- SALS RELATED TO RETAIL STRUCTURE & PUBLIC FAaLMES 111111111mq) 26 *BMW an 1971 dela rllh tec9M sdlee assumed to be assessed al On d sales W m: calcweena eanade long s.nae Oren{ TOTAL ASSESSMENT* *Sped sn 1971 data 9aAtn recent salsa assumed AO be aawereso at iO% d salts pilaw. cat4Llallega exclude fang range Ovens IIIIlIIIIIII IF r anitary Sewer —= Storm Sewer Storm Outfall 1 sat UTILITIES 1 1 I I I VI) 28