20160224 AM1MIAMI BEACH
City Gommission Meeting
ADDENDUM MATERIAL 1
Gity Hall, Commission Chambers, 3rd FIoor, 1700 Convention Center Drive
February 24,2016
Mayor Philip Levine
Comm issioner John Elizabeth AlemSn
Commissioner Ricky Arriola
Com m issioner Kristen Rosen Gonzalez
Com missioner Michael Grieco
Com m issioner Joy Malakoff
Comm issioner Micky Steinberg
City Manager Jimmy L. Morales
City Attorney Raul J. Aguila
City Clerk Rafael E. Granado
Visrt us at www.miamibeachfl.gov for agendas and video "streaming" of City Commission Meetings.
ATTENTION ALL LOBBYISTS
Chapter 2, Article Vlt, Division 3 of the City Code of Miami Beach entitled "Lobbyists" requires the
registration of all !obbyists with the City Clerk priorto engaging in any lobbying activitywith the City
Commission, any City Board or Committee, or any personnel as defined in the subject Code
sections. Copies of the City Code sections on lobbyists laws are available in the Gity Clerk's office.
Questions regarding the provisions of the Ordinance should be directed to the Office of the City
Attorney.
ADDENDUM AGENDA
R9 - New Business and Gommission Requests
RgC CityAttorney's February 22,2016, Request ForAn Opinion From The Florida Commission On
Ethics Concerning Whether Mayor Levine Has A Voting Conflict On The Ordinance Seeking
To lncrease The Maximum Height And Reduce Setbacks ln Sunset Harbour.
(Sponsored by Commissioner Kristen Rosen Gonzalez)
1 The sponsor of the addendum agenda item deems that such item either constitutes a public emergency affecting life, health,
property, or public safety and should be considered immediately; or does not constitute a public emergency, but should be
considered immediately. See MiamiBeach Code Sec.2-12 (c)(3).
1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2
g MIAMIBEACH
February 23,2016
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
TO:Jimmy Morales, City Manager
FROM: Kristen Rosen Gonzalez, Commissioner
Date:
SUBJECT:n Ooin
Florida Commission on Ethics Concerninq Whether Mavor Levine has a
votinq Conflict on the ordinance Seekinq to lncrease the Maximum
Heiqht and Reduce Setbacks in Sunset Harbour
I would like to discuss the City Attorney's February 22,2016 request for an opinion from
the COE regarding whether Mayor Levine has a voting conflict on the Ordinance seeking to
increase the maximum height and reduce setbacks in sunset Harbour.
The reason I am adding this item to the agenda as an addendum is because the City's
Attorney's letter was just sent on February 22,2016, several days after the deadline for
submitting agenda items passed. Also, the City Attorney has requested the COE to issue
its opinion before February 29,2016, and this is the last City Commission meeting before
that deadline. Finally, and most importantly, material facts were omitted from the City
Attorney's letter which are necessary for the COE to be aware of before they can issue
accurate opinion. I have a legitimate interest, as does the rest of the City Commission, in
the COE issuing an opinion based on allthe facts before voting on an Ordinance that may
benefit Mayor Levine.
I have reviewed the letter from the City Attorney to the COE. lt states in part that "only one
property owner meets the threshold 200+ square foot of property (via its assemblage
ownership of seven (7) adjacent properties), leaving three (3) properties on the block facing
Purdy Avenue which do not satisfy the 200 square foot threshold, and who would thus not
qualify forthe increased height and reduced setback requirements of the Ordinance," and
that "The City's Mayor, Philip Levine, is one of these three (3) property owners... which lot
is directly adjacent to the above-referenced (200+ square foot) property that is affected by
the Ordinance."
The way the facts are described, it has the potential to confuse the COE into believing that
Mayor Levine's property is automatically disqualified from receiving the benefits of tne
Ordinance, which is not the case.
Agendaltem R9C
We ore commilteC to providing excellent public service ond sofety to oil who live, work, ond ploy in our vibront, tropicol, histor
Date l-l({J63
The letter omits the materialfact that Mayor Levine's property can be aggregated into the
development. This is of vital importance because the developer seeking the height
increase submitted the attached Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (which incorporates
by reference a set of plans known as Sunset Harbour Architectural Concept Design
February 11,2016 forthe development of the aggregated lots on the block) which explicitly
provides that the floor area is restricted to what is shown on the plans "unless additional
land is incorporated into the Property described by the Declaration." This language is
specifically designed not to exclude but rather to potentially include the lot in which Mayor
Levine has an interest allowing greater floor area in the development.
Because Mayor Levine's property can be aggregated into the development, he benefits
from the Ordinance and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants.
The City Attorney should send a supplemental letter to the COE clarifying that Mayor
Levine's property is not automatically disqualified from receiving the benefits of the
Ordinance and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants because his property can be
aggregated into the development.
Kristen Rosen Gonzalez
We are cammtlted to providing excellent public senice ond sofety to oll who live, work, ond ploy ln our vibront, t'roprcol, hist'oric commun6y'
4
DRAFT _ LAND USE COMMITTEE
SUNSET HARBOR CD.2 ZONING
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE CITY CODE, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142,..ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS,* ARTICLE II, "DISTRICT
REGULATIONS", DIVIS|ON 5, "CD-2, COMMERCTAL, MEDTUM-INTENSITY
DISTRICT," SEGTION 142.306, "DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS," BY
AMENDING THE SETBACKS AND MAXIMUM PERMTTTED HEIGHT AND
NUMBER OF STORIES FOR MIXED.USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE SUNSET
HARBOUR AREA; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; REPEALER;
SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach has the authority to enact laws which promote the
public health, safety and generalwelfare of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach Land Development Regulations ("LDRs") provides
for the regulation of land within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City seeks to encourage well-designed mixed-use projects on parcels
fronting on southern Purdy Avenue and Dade Boulevard in the Sunset Harbour neighborhood
WHEREAS, the Planning Board, at its meeting dated XXXX XX, 2016, by a vote of X-X,
recommended in favor of the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are necessary to accomplish the above
objectives.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 142, "Zoning Districts and
Regulations," Division 5, "CD-2 Commercial, Medium
Development Regulations of the Code of the City of Miami
as follows:
*
Sec. 142-306. - Development regulations.
Regulations," Article ll, "District
lntensity District," of the Land
Beach, Florida is hereby amended
(fl The heiqht and setbacks of mixed-use buildinqs in the Sunset Harbour Neiqhborhood.
generallv bounded bv Purdv Avenue. 20th Street, Alton Road and Dade Boulevard. shall be
further qoverned as follows. Mixed-use buildinqs on lots with a platted frontaoe equal to or
Page 1
5
DRAFT - LAND USE COMMITTEE
qreater than 200 feet with a lot line on Purdv Avenue south of 18th Street shall have a
maximum heioht of 90 feet and nine (9) stories. Setbacks for the residential uses in mixed-
to or oreater than 200 feet with a lot
Aven 142-307 exceot that residenti
pedestal or tower floors shall have a fifteen (15) foot front setback. five (5) foot rear
setback. and ten (10) foot interior side setbacks.
SECTION 2. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances and all section and parts of sections in conflict
herewith be and the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. CODIFIGATION.
It is the intention of the City Commission, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of
this ordinance shall become and be made part of the Code of the City of Miami Beach as
amended; that the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish
such intention; and that the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section" or other appropriate
word.
SECTION4. SEVERABILITY.
lf any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the
remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect ten days following adoption.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2015.
Philip Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk
First Reading: September 2,2015
Second Reading: October 14,2015
Verified by:
Thomas R. Mooney, AICP
Planning Director
Underline denotes new language
S+i*e+nreugh denotes deleted language
Page 2
6
MIAMIBEACH
C,r, ol lliomi Booch, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33 139, www,miomibeochll.gov
RAUL J. AGUIIA, CITY ATTORNEY
I el: 30 547 3 -7 47 O, t ox'. 30 5.{.7 3-7 OOz
February 22,2016
Virlindia Doss, Executive Director
The Florida Commission on Ethics
P. O. Drawer 15709
Tallahassee, FL 323 17 -57 09
Via E-MaiI: doss.virlindia@les.state.fl.us
RE: Request for CEO Opinion
Dear Ms. Doss:
Pursuant to Florida Statute Section 1L2.322(3)(a), as Crty Attomey for the City of Miami
Beach, I hereby request with the consent of and on behalf of Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine, an
opinion from the State of Florida Commission on Ethics conceming the applicability and interpretation
of the Florida Ethics Code within the context of the following described factsr:
I. F'actual Backcround
At its March 9,2016 meeting, the Miami Beach City Commission will be considering an
ordinance amending the City's Land Use Regulations for the CD-2 Commercial Zoning District in the
City's Sunset Harbour Neighborhood. The Sunset Harbour Neighborhood is a growing community
which has undergone (and continues to undergo) public and private revitalization due to the increased
demand for residential and commercial uses within the Citf, and the subject zoning Ordinance is
being proposed in fi:rther recognition ofthe public's demand for such increased residential uses in the
area.
The Ordinance applie s expressly to those properties within one square block of the Neighborhood
which front Prudy Avenue by a minimum of 200 linear feet, and proposes to increase said properties'
maximum height from 50 feet to 90 feet, and decrease minimum setbacks thereon. Although there are
l0 properties on the subject block which directly face Purdy Avenue, only one property owner meets
the threshold 200+ square feet of property (via its assemblage ownership of seven (7) adjacent
properties), leaving three (3) properties on the block facing Purdy Avenue which do not satisS the 200
square foot threshold, and who would thus not qualiff for the increased height and reduced setback
requirements of the Ordinance. The City's Mayor, Philip Levine, is one of these three (3) property
owners, being owner/manager of Purdy Partners 1787 LLC, which entity owns a lot with 50 feet of
frontage along Purdy, and which lot is directly adjacent to the above-referenced (20Gt- square foot)
property that is affected by the Ordinance.
' My Office has discussed this matter with Christopher Anderson, General CounseVDeputy Executive Director, State
Commission on Ethics, informing him of my rcquest for written opinion.
'The City's response to this public demand has bien addressed in iart by its Sunset HarbourNeighborhood Improvement
Project, created in order to address the area's infrastmcarrc and above-ground improvements.
We ore committed lo providtng excellenl pvblic service ond sofely lo oll who live work ond ploy,n ou vrbonl hopical, h6lorrc communty
7
Virlindia Doss, Executive Directorfor the Florida Commission on Ethics
February 22, 2016
Page 2
Inasmuch as, absent a conflict of interest, the Mayor is required to vote on the subject upcoming
agenda item3, the issue arises of whether, under the facts provided, the Mayor has a voiing conflict o1
interest. As explained more fully below, it is my legal opinion that a voting conflict does not exist.
II. Lesal Issues
The Florida Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees provides in relevant part:
No county, municipal, or other local public fficer shall vote in an fficial capacity upon any measure
which would inure to his or her special private gain or loss; which he or she btows would inure to the
special private gain or loss of any principal by whom he or she is retained or to the parent
organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained" other than an
agency as defined in s. I 12.3I2(2); or which he or she lmows would inure to the special private gain
or loss of a relative or business associate of the public fficer. Such public fficer shall, prior to the
vote being taken, publicly state to the assembly the nature of the fficer's interest in the matterfrom
which he or she is abstainingfrom voting and, within I 5 days afier the vote occurs, disclose the nature
of his or her interest as a public record in a memorandum filed with the person responsible for
recording the minutes of the meeting who shall incorporate the memorandum in the minutes. Section
I 12.3143(3)(a), Florida Statutes.
This provision prohibits a local public officer from voting upon a measrre which inures to his special
private gain or loss or which he knows would inure to the special private gain or loss of a relative.
Section I 12.3143(l)(d), Florida Statutes, defines "special private gain or loss" as "an economic benefit
or ham." This provision also clarifies that one consideration when determining whether such gain or
loss would be present is " [t]he degree to which there is uncertainty at the time of the vote as to whether
there would be any economic benefit or harm to the public officer [or], his or her relative . . ." This
statute is consistent with the Ethics Commission's prior interpretations ofthe voting conflicts law, as it
has consistently opined that no special private gain or loss exists in situations where any gain or loss to
a public officer would be remote and speculative. See Fla. CEO opinions 05- I 7, 05-02, 05-03, !4-03 ,
9l-17 and 86-44.
The Florida Ethics Commission has previously considered the specific issue of an elected
official who has an interest inproperty adjacent to property being rezoned, and has held that absent a
clear showing of "special private gain or loss" as a result ofthe vote (per Florida Statute Section 112.
3143), the official's ownership of such property, even if adjacent to the property direcfly affected by
the measure, does not constitute a voting conflict, finding that "...any possibility of gain from the
measure would be remote and speculative, and any actual gain would not be 'special' within the
meaning of the voting conflicts lad':
o Fla. CEO 05-02: ofiicial had no voting conflict regarding a measure to change zoning
requirements for a mobile home district as "...although zoning changes within the district
could affect the local market for mobile homes and thus could affect the member's business, we
find that such an effect (such gain or loss) would be'remote and speculative. See, for example,
CEO 93-7, in which we found no voting conflict, reasoning that it was remote and speculative
to assume that by raising the rent at a city-owned mobile home park a city commissioner would
3 See, Fla. Stat. sec. 286.012.
We ore commilled to providing excellanl pvblic *ruice ond sobly to oll who live wuk tnd ploy in ow vibron! troprcol. historic comniltrtily
8
Virlindia Doss, Executive Directorfor the Florida Commission on Ethics
February 22,2016
Page 3
be able to charge higher rent at his park. See also CEO 93-21 in which we found no voting
conflict, reasoning that any benefit would be remote and speculative in a situation regarding a
developer's special exception request to change the designated uses of two lots located a block
apart from lots owned by a city planning and zoning commissioner and her husband".
o Fla. CEO 05-03: "...fn numerous opinions, we have opined that where the impact of a vote on
the public offrcey's interests is uncertain at the time of the vote, the impact ofthe vote would be
'remote and speculative' and, thus, not a voting conflict. ...we do not believe that votes to
enter into a contract with the developer to build the road as a four-lane road as opposed to a
two-lane road, votes on the comprehensive plan to amend the description of the road, or votes
on comprehensive plan and DRI applications to be submitted by the developer, would inure to
the special private gain or loss of you, your relatives, or your business associates. ...The
possibility that a large-scale retailer may choose to build a 'supercente/ on the developer's 139-
acre parcel instead ofthe 54-acre tact which is presently under option is simply too remote and
speculative to constitute a voting conflict under our precedent. See 80-3. Moreover, there is
already intense development existing and underway in the general vicinity of the
developer's 139-acre parcel and, whether or not he gets the speeific road and
development approvals he seeks from the county, there is no indication that any of this
will inure to your special privete gain or loss or that of your relatives or business associates
for purposes of Section 112.3143(3)(a), Florida Statutes."
o Fla. CEO 9l-17: "A city council member is not prohibited by Section 112.3143(3), Florida
Statutes, from voting on one ofthe road alignments being considered where the member owns
property abutting the road but would not be directly affected by the proposed configuration of
roads. Although property values in the area may increase as a result of the project, any
gain resulting from the project would be too remote and speculative to constitute 'special
private gain' requiring the council member to abstain from voting.'n
o Fla. CEO 14-03 A county commissioner is not prohibited by Section 112.3143(3)(a), Florida
Stafutes, from voting on measures to arnend or approve a management agreement and purchase
and sale agreement for a counf-owned airport adjacent to property in which he has an
ownership interest, as any gain or loss resulting to the commissioner would be remote and
speculative.
The reasoning of the above-cited opinions apply equally to the circumstances presented in this request
for opinion, and it thus appears clear that any impact the proposed City legislation would have on
Mayor Levine's property in the future is too remote and speculative to constifute "special gain."
Accordingly, the Mayor would not be prohibited by Section ll?.3l43,Florida Statutes, from voting on
the subject ordinance.
a See footnote #9 of CEO 9l-17: " Information from the County Property Appraiser's Office supplied by the member
indicates that building ofthe road would not affect the value ofthe corporation's property; and the member represents to us
that the Appraiser's Office staGd that they did not know if or how the road would affect the value. This information
butfresses our determination that any gain or loss to the member's corporation's property occasioned by votes on the road
matter would be remote and speculative." I have similarly contacted the Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser's Office
and can represent that the Appraiser's Offrce confinned the speculative nature of any effect on value of the Mayor's
properly as a result ofthe proposed zoning ordinance.
We ore commilled b provirling excellenl public sruica ond xfety lo oll who live. work ond ploy in our vibronl. hopicol hisloric communily.
9
Virlindia Doss, Executive Director for the Florida Commission on Ethics Page 4
February 22,2016
In light of the upcoming March 9,2016 City Commission meeting, I respectfully seek your
expedited opinion on the above issue of whether the Mayor is presented with a voting conllict of
interest. Subsequent to receipt of your opinion, I must opine on the related issue of compliance with
the Miami-Dade County's Ethics Code, as well as ensure resolution ofthis issue in order to finalize the
Commission's subject agenda item, and would thus request receipt of your opinion by February 29,
2016. I thank you and remain available should you wish to contact me for further discussion.
a"dao{*
RAUL J. AGUILA
CTTY ATTORNEY
JO/RIA:mmm
c: Christopher Andersor, il, General Counsel
and Deputy Executive Director ( ander s o n. c hr i s @ I e g. s t at e.fl . us I
We o@ commlled lo provdmg ercellenl public *rvice ond nlety to oll who hve. work, ond ploy in ou vibronl troptcol histortc commurlty
10
This instrument was prepared by:Name: Graham penn, Esq.
Address: Bercow Radell & F,ernand ezrpA
200 South Biscayne Boulevard
Suite 850
Miami, Florida 33131
(Space reservod for Clerk)
THIS DECLARATION oF RESTRICTIVE covENANTS ("Doclaration,,), made this_ day of 2016,by SH Owner, LLC and Sunset Land Associates, LLC,
(colleetivel}' the 'towner"), in favor of the city of Miami Beach, Florida, a munieipality of the
State of Florida (-City,').
VHEREAS, owner, holds the fee simple title to the land described on the attaohed
Exhibit "A" in Mi,lni Beach, Florida, which is supported by the submitted attorney,s opinion
(the "Property"), &nd
IN oRDER To ASSURE the city that the representations made by the owner concerning
the development of the Property will be abided by, the owner freely, voluntarily and without
duress covenants, and agrees to this Declmation of Restrictions covering and running with the
Property as a covenant, and shall be applicable to and regulate uses and sbuctures on the
Properly-and be binding upon the owners of the Property. whenever the word o,owner,,is used
herein such provision shall refer to all persons and entities with rights of use or any interest in the
Property and their heirs, successors in interest and/or assigns, and includes, but is not limited to,
tenants of the owner' No person or entily shall use or engage in activity on the properly conhary
to the terms of this Declaration.
(1) The recitals and findings set forth in the preamble of this Declaration are hereby adoptedby reference thereto and incorporated herein u, iifrny ,; dth ir;h; ;;;i;"'
@ The owner will file application(s) for and diligently seek Development Review Boardapprovals for a mixed-use development substantially similar to that depicted on the plansentitled "sunset Harbour Architectural concept oesign February ll,zol6-prepared byDoMo Architecture and Design (hereinafter known as the ,,project,). ih" o*n... acknowledges that the City,s Development Review Boards *u1, ,.qoi." .fr*g", to thedesign' unless additional land is incorporated into the property, the floor area of the
11
Declaration of Restrictions
Page2
(Space reserved for Clerk)
Project shall not exceed that depicted on the above-referenced plans. The height of any
development on the Property shall not exceed that depicted on the above-referenced
plans.
(3) Following Development Review Board approvals for the Project, modifications to the
Project may be approved by the Director of the City's Planning Department, provided the
Director finds that the modification is in compliance with the City Code. Should the
Director withhold such approval, the then Owner shall be permitted to seek such
modification by application to modi$ the plan at public hearing before the appropriate
Development Review Board or the City Commission of Miarai Beach, Florida,
(whichever by law has jurisdiction ovor such matters). Such applioation shall be in
addition to all other required approvals necessary for the modification sought. proposed
modifications to the Property's use, operation, physical condition or site plan shall also
be required to retum to the appropriate development review board or boards for
consideration of the effect on prior approvals and the affirmation, modification or release
of previously issued approvals or imposed conditions.
(4) CoveFant Runnine with the Land. This Declaration on the part of the Owner shall
constitute a covenant rururing with the land and shall be recorded, at Ovrmer's expense, in
the public records of Miami-Dade County, Florida and shall remain in full force andeffect and be binding upon the undersigned Ovmer, and its heirs, successors and assignsuntil such time as the same is mod.ified or released as provided for herein. Thesereshictions during their lifotime shall be for the benefit oe *A fimitation upon, all
present and future owners of the real property.
(5) Term, This Declaration is to run with the land and shall be bind.ing on all parties and all
percons claiming under it for a period of thirly (30) years from the d-ate this beclaration is
recorded, after which time it shall be extended automatically for successive periods of ten(10) years each, unless an instrument signed by the then-owner(s) of the property has
been recorded agreeing to change the covenant in whole, or in part.
(6) Modiflcltion..Ame$dment. Rpleqse. This Declaration of Restrictions may be modified,
amended or released as to the land horein described, or any portion thereof, by a wriueninstument executed by the then owner(s) of all of the Property, including joinders of all
mortgagees, if any, providing that same has been approved by the City o}tr,tiami BeachCity Commission, or such other board with jurisdiction over the matter, at a public
hearing, whioh public hearing shall be applied for by and at the expense oi trr. o\ulers.
Should this inshument be so modified, amended oi released, tfre city Manaler, or his
12
Decla ration of Restrictions
Page 3
(Space reserved for Clerk)
suocessor, or other adminishative officer with jurisdiction over the matter, shall execute awitten instrument in recordable form effectuating and acknowledging such modification,
amendment or release.
(7) nnforggmen! An action to enforce the terms and conditions of this Declaration may bebrought by the City and may be, at faw or in equity, against any party or person violating
or attempting to violate any provision of this Declaration or provision. of th" building]
zoning or land development regulations, either to restrain- violations or to recoverdamages. The prevailing party in the action shall be entitled to recover costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees, at all levels of hial and appeal This enforcement provision
shall be in addition to any other remedies available under the law.
(8) Qev.grabilitv. Invalidation of any provision of this Deolaration by judgment of Court
shall not affect any of the other provisions of this Declaration, whici rfruji *ouin in full
force and effect.
(9) Scordiqg. This Declaration shall F fitd in the pubtc records of Miami-Dade County,Florida at the cost of the Owner. This Declaration shall becor,ne effective immediateiy
upon recordation.
(10) I.nspection. It is understood and agreed that any official of the City of Miami Beach has
the right at any time during normal businoss hours of entering and investigating the use ofthe Property, to determine whether the conditions oi thir Declaiatioi and therequirements of the City's building, zoning and land development regulations are being
complied with,
Approved
Planning Director Date
Approved as to form and language and for
execution
City Attornoy
Dated:
[Execution Pages Follow]
13
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14