20130313 SM1MIAMI BEACH
City Commission Meeting
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL 1
City Hall, Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, 1700 Convention Center Drive
March 13, 2013
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower
Vice-Mayor Jonah Wolfson
Commissioner Jorge R. Exposito
Commissioner Michael Gongora
Commissioner Jerry Libbin
Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
Commissioner Deede Weithorn
Interim City Manager Kathie G. Brooks
City Attorney Jose Smith
City Clerk Rafael E. Granado
Visit us at www.miamibeachfl.gov for agendas and video "streaming" of City Commission Meetings.
ATTENTION ALL LOBBYISTS
Chapter 2, Article VII, Division 3 of the City Code of Miami Beach entitled "Lobbyists" requires the
registration of all lobbyists with the City Clerk prior to engaging in any lobbying activity with 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 City Clerk's office.
Questions regarding the provisions of the Ordinance should be directed to the Office of the City
Attorney.
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA
C7 -Resolutions
C?B A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The Neighborhood/Community Affairs
Committee To Automatically Withdraw Items Referred To City Commission Committees If Not
Heard Within Six (6) Months From Their Referral Date And Recommending Inclusion Of A
Report In City Commission Agendas Transmitting A List Of Withdrawn Items.
(City Manager's Office)
(Resolution)
C?F A Resolution Approving, Pursuant To Section 2-367(d) Of The Miami Beach City Code, The
Sole Source Purchase Of Beach Access Accessibility "Mobi-Mats" From Deschamps Mat
Systems, Inc. (D.B.A. OMS), The Exclusive Distributor Of The Access Mats, In The Annual
Estimated Amount Of $86,731.68, For A Period Of (3) Three Years.
(Property Management/Procurement)
(Resolution)
1
Supplemental Material 1, March 13, 2013
C7 -Resolutions (Continued)
C?H A Resolution To Accept The Recommendation Of The Finance And Citywide Projects Committee To
Execute An Amendment To The Lease Agreement Between The City Of Miami Beach And Damian J.
Gallo & Associates, Inc. D/B/A Permit Doctor, Dated July 30, 2003, Involving The Use Of
Approximately 1 ,269 Square Feet Of Ground Floor Retail Space Located At 1701 Meridian Avenue,
Unit 4 (A/KIA 775 17th Street), Miami Beach, Florida; Said Amendment Authorizing An Additional Use
Of The Premises And Further Authorizing The City To Negotiate A Concession Agreement Allowing
For An Outdoor Eating Area, Adjacent To The Leased Premises.
(Real Estate, Housing & Community Development)
(Resolution)
C?l A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The Finance And Citywide Projects Committee And
Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute An Amendment To The Lease
Agreement Between The City And MDGLCC Foundation, Inc., Dated March 10,2010, Involving The
Use Of Approximately 2,543 Square Feet Of Office Space Located At Historic City Hall, 1130
Washington Avenue, 1st Floor North, Miami Beach, Florida; Said Amendment Providing A Rent
Reduction.
(Real Estate, Housing & Community Development)
(Resolution)
C?M A Resolution Approving And Authorizing The City Manager To Utilize Contract No. 12-20-0905 With
The Florida Sheriffs Association For The Purchase Of 23 Vehicles At A Total Cost Of $419,377.00
And Waiving, By 5/?th Vote, The Formal Competitive Bidding Requirements, Finding Such Waiver To
Be In The Best Interest Of The City.
R5E Hotel Parking Requirements
(Fleet Management)
(Memorandum & Resolution)
R5-Ordinances
A Ordinance Amending The Code Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida, By Amending Chapter 130
"Off-Street Parking," Article II, "Districts; Requirements," By Amending The Off-Street Parking
Requirements For Hotels In All Districts; Providing For Repealer, Severability, Codification And An
Effective Date. 5:15p.m. Second Reading Public Hearing
(Requested by Land Use & Development Committee)
(Ordinance: Revised Version Based Upon Discussion at First Reading)
2
ii
Supplemental Material 1, March 13, 2013
R7 -Resolutions
R7A A Resolution [Granting Or Denying] An Appeal Request Filed ByW. Tucker Gibbs, P.A., On Behalf Of
Sunset Islands 3 And 4 Property Owners, Inc. And Olga Lens, Of The Design Review Board's Order
Relative To ORB File No. 22889 For 1201-1237 20th Street, Palau At Sunset Harbor.
(Planning Department)
(Memorandum & Resolution)
R71 A Resolution Adopting The Second Amendment To The Capital Budget For Fiscal Year 2012/13.
(Budget & Performance Improvement)
(Resolution)
R7K A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The Neighborhoods And Community Affairs
Committee, Regarding The Relocation Of The Property Management Facility From The Sunset
Harbour Neighborhood To The Public Works Operations Yard, Located At 451 Dade Boulevard, And
The Relocation Of Property Management Vehicles And Employee Vehicles From The Sunset Harbour
Garage To The 42nd Street Garage.
(Public Works)
(Memorandum & Resolution)
R7L A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The Finance And Citywide Projects Committee
Pertaining To That Certain Retail Lease Agreement By And Between The City Of Miami Beach, The
Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency And Penn 17, LLC (Lessee), Dated September 16, 2011,
Involving The Lease Of Approximately 7,655 Square Feet Of Ground Floor Retail Space At The
Pennsylvania Avenue Garage, 1661 Pennsylvania Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida; Granting The
Lessee The Following Amended Schedule Of Rent: 1) Applying One Third (1/3) Of The Lessee's
Existing Security Deposit, Representing $47,844, Toward Base Rent Owed For The Month Of
November 2012; 2) Deferring $8,474 For Common Area Maintenance (CAM) For November 2012,
And Base Rent, Plus CAM, For December 2012, In The Total Amount Of $64,792 (Hereinafter
Referred To As The Back-Due Rent); 3) Approving An Abatement Of Fifty Percent (50%) Of The
Base Rent And CAM Due For The Six (6) Month Period Commencing January 13, 2013 Through July
12, 2013; 4) Deferring Fifty Percent (50%) Of The Base Rent And CAM For The Six (6) Month Period
Commencing July 13, 2013 Through January 12, 2014; And, 5) Providing For Re-Payment By Lessee
Of The One Third Security Deposit And Re-Payment Of The Back-Due Rent For November And
December, 2012; All In Accordance With The Payment Schedule Attached As Exhibit "A" Hereto;
Further Setting Of A Public Hearing By The City For April17, 2013, Regarding Lessee's Proposal To
Add An Entertainment Component As A New Proposed Use On The Lease Premises (And As Part Of
Lessee's Proposal To ''Re-Brand" And Re-Open The Premises), And As Required By Section 142-
362 Of The City Code. Joint City Commission and Redevelopment Agency
(Real Estate, Housing & Community Development)
(Resolution)
R9 -New Business and Commission Requests
R91 Selection Of The City Manager.
(Requested by Mayor Matti Herrera Bower)
(Corrected Title)
3
Supplemental Material 1, March 13, 2013
Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency
1 A A Resolution Of The Chairperson And Members Of The Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency
(RDA), Accepting The Recommendation Of The City's Finance And Citywide Projects
Committee Pertaining To A Proposed Amendment No. 3 To That Certain Retail Lease
Agreement By And Between The City Of Miami Beach, The Miami Beach Redevelopment
Agency, (Collectively, Lessor) And Penn 17, LLC (Lessee), Dated September 16, 2011,
Involving The Lease Of Approximately 7,655 Square Feet Of Ground Floor Retail Space At
The Pennsylvania Avenue Garage, 1661 Pennsylvania Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida;
Recommending That, As Part Of Said Amendment, The Chairperson And Members Of The
RDAApprove The Following Amended Schedule Of Rent: 1) Applying One Third (1/3) Of The
Lessee's Existing Security Deposit, Representing $47,844, Toward Base Rent Owed For The
Month Of November 2012; 2) Deferring $8,474 For Common Area Maintenance (CAM) For
November 2012, And Base Rent, Plus CAM, For December 2012, In The Total Amount Of
$64,792 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Back-Due Rent); 3) Approving An Abatement Of
Fifty Percent (50%) Of The Base Rent And CAM Due For The Six (6) Month Period
Commencing January 13, 2013 Through July 12, 2013; 4) Deferring Fifty Percent (50%) Of
The Base Rent And CAM For The Six (6) Month Period Commencing July 13, 2013 Through
January 12, 2014; And, 5) Providing For Re-Payment By Lessee Of The One Third Security
Deposit And Re-Payment Of The Back-Due Rent For November And December, 2012; Allin
Accordance With The Payment Schedule Attached As Exhibit "A" Hereto; Further, Ratifying
The Setting Of A Public Hearing By The City For April17, 2013, Regarding Lessee's Proposal
To Add An Entertainment Component As A New Proposed Use On The Lease Premises
(And As Part Of Lessee's Proposal To ''Re-Brand" And Re-Open The Premises), And As
Required By Section 142-362 Of The City Code. Joint City Commission & Redevelopment
Agency
(Real Estate, Housing & Community Development)
(Resolution)
4
iv
RESOLUTION NO.-----
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE TO
AUTOMATICALLY WITHDRAW ITEMS REFERRED TO CITY COMMISSION
COMMITTEES IF NOT HEARD WITHIN SIX (6) MONTHS FROM THEIR
REFERRAL DATE AND RECOMMENDING INCLUSION OF A REPORT IN
CITY COMMISSION AGENDAS TRANSMITTING A LIST OF WITHDRAWN
ITEMS.
WHEREAS, the Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee discussed City
Commission Committee referrals at its February 19, 2013 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Committee requested all items referred to various City Commission
Committees should be heard as soon as possible regardless of whether the referring City
Commissioner is present for the discussion; and
WHEREAS, the Committee also requested elected officials should be noticed of when
their items will be discussed at committee and agreed that one courtesy deferral should be
accommodated if the Commissioner is out of town or unable to attend; and
WHEREAS, the Committee unanimously passed a motion recommending that items
referred to City Commission Committees be automatically withdrawn if not heard within six (6)
months from their referral date and a report be included in the City Commission agenda
transmitting a list of withdrawn items.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED THAT THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, hereby accept the
recommendation of the Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee automatically withdrawing
items referred to City Commission Committees if not heard within six (6) months from their
referral date and recommending inclusion of a report in the City Commission agenda
transmitting a list of withdrawn items.
PASSED and ADOPTED this ____ day of ____ , 2013.
ATTEST:
RAFAEL GRANADO
CITY CLERK
MATTI HERRERA BOWER
MAYOR
T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\Accepting NCAC recommendation -Withdrwn Committee Referrals RESO.doc
Agenda Item C 7 B
5 Date 3-16-13
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
6
RESOLUTION NO.------
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA APPROVING, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2-367 (d) OF THE MIAMI
BEACH CITY CODE, THE SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF BEACH ACCESS
ACCESSIBILITY "MOBI-MATS" FROM DESCHAMPS MAT SYSTEMS, INC. (D.B.A. OMS),
THE EXCLUSIVE DISTRIBUTOR OF THE ACCESS MATS, IN THE ANNUAL ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF $86,731.68, FOR A PERIOD OF (3) THREE YEARS.
WHEREAS, each year the City participates in Miami-Dade County's Parking fines
Reimbursement Program; and
WHEREAS, the Program is based on Section 316.008, Florida Statutes, and Section 30-
447 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, which authorizes the charging of fines for misuse of
specially marked parking spaces for people with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2008, the City of Miami Beach entered into a new lnterlocal
Agreement with Miami-Dade County for the distribution of these funds; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the proceeds from the Parking Fines Reimbursement Program
is provided to the City by Miami-Dade County for projects that benefit people with disabilities, in
accordance with the lnterlocal Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach Disability Access Committee ("the Committee")
recommends the purchase and location of Mobi-Mats as the need arises; and
WHEREAS, the Mobi-Mats will make beach area accessible and meet ADA and
Disabled Discrimination Act ("DDA") requirements; and
WHEREAS, "Mobi-Mats" by Deschamps Mats Systems, Inc. (OMS) is a durable,
outdoor, light-weight access matting system, and the only other products on the market that
resemble Mobi-Mat are the roll-up walkways that are made of heavy plastic lath; and
WHEREAS, Mobi-Mats are only available for purchase from OMS; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2-367(d) of the Miami Beach Code, the City
Commission, may enter into contracts for goods and/or services where only one source for the
products or service is evident; and
WHEREAS, the Procurement Director has determined that Deschamps Mats Systems,
Inc. (OMS) is the sole source of supply of the Mobi-Mats; and
WHEREAS, additionally, the Administration has complied with the requirements for sole
source purchases, pursuant to Section 2-367(d) of the Miami Beach City Code; and
WHEREAS, in its due diligence, on February 11, 2013, the Procurement Division issued
an "Intent to Award Pursuant to Sole Source Exemption" notifying interested parties that the City
intended to make a non-competitive award for the acquisition of the Mobi-Mats. No responses
were received.
7
Agenda Item C. 7 F
Date 2-13-13
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, hereby approve, pursuant to Section 2-367 (d) of
the Miami Beach City Code, the sole source purchase of beach access accessibility "Mobi-
mats" from Deschamps Mat Systems, Inc. (d.b.a. OMS), the exclusive distributor of the access
mats, in the annual estimated amount of $86,731.68, for a period of (3) three years.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this __ day of ____ , 2013.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK MAYOR
T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\Mobi-Mats Sole Source RESO.doc
8
RESOLUTION NO. __ _
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
FINANCE AND CITYWIDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE TO EXECUTE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH AND DAMIAN J. GALLO & ASSOCIATES, INC. D/B/A PERMIT
DOCTOR, DATED JULY 30, 2003, INVOLVING THE USE OF APPROXIMATELY
1,269 SQUARE FEET OF GROUND FLOOR RETAIL SPACE LOCATED AT 1701
MERIDIAN AVENUE, UNIT 4 (A/KIA 775 17TH STREET), MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA; SAID AMENDMENT AUTHORIZING AN ADDITIONAL USE OF THE
PREMISES AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO NEGOTIATE A
CONCESSION AGREEMENT ALLOWING FOR AN OUTDOOR EATING AREA,
ADJACENT TO THE LEASED PREMISES
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2009, the Mayor and City Commission passed Resolution No. 2009-
27071, approving a Consent to Assignment and Assumption of Lease Agreement whereby the
Dade County Federal Credit Union assigned its lease to Damian J. Gallo & Associates, Inc. d/b/a
Permit Doctor ("Tenant") for the use of approximately 1 ,269 square feet of ground floor retail space
in the City-owned building located at 1701 Meridian Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Lease automatically renewed on February 1, 2011, and expires on January 30,
2016, with no additional renewal options; and
WHEREAS, as stated in Section 7.1 of the Lease Agreement, the Demised Premises shall be
used by Tenant solely for the purpose(s) of providing building plan and permit processing services;
and
WHEREAS, the Tenant has requested permission from the City to expand the use of the
Demised Premises to include a cafe in approximately the eastern 2/3's portion of space, to be
separated by partition walls from the space within which Tenant will continue to operate its plan
and permit processing services (d/b/a Permit Doctor); and
WHEREAS, the Tenant further requested to use the outdoor walkway, immediately outside and
to the east of the Premises (perpendicular to the 17th Street sidewalk), as an outdoor eating area,
containing four (4) tables/umbrellas and eight (8) chairs; and
WHEREAS, the Tenant is currently paying a market rental rate of $36.63 per square foot, on a
triple net basis; and
WHEREAS, the additional use and outdoor eating area was discussed at the January 24, 2013
Finance and Citywide Projects Committee meeting, and the Committee recommended in favor of
allowing the Tenant to use the Demised Premises for the dual purpose of plan/permit processing
services (d/b/a Permit Doctor) as well as a cafe, subject to regulatory approvals at every level; and
WHEREAS, the Committee further recommended that the Tenant negotiate with the City
Administration and the Legal Department on a concession agreement to use the outdoor space for
an eating area, and that any such agreement should be subject to the City having the right to
revoke said agreement.
9
Agenda Item C 7 H
Date 3~13-13
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED THAT THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA that the Mayor and City Commission
hereby accept the recommendation of the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee and approve
and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Amendment to the Lease Agreement
between the City of Miami Beach and Damian J. Gallo & Associates, Inc. d/b/a Permit Doctor,
dated July 30, 2003, involving the use of approximately 1,269 square feet of ground floor retail
space located at 1701 Meridian Avenue, Unit 4 (a/k/a 775 1 yth Street), Miami Beach, Florida; said
amendment authorizing an additional use of the Premises and further authorizing the City to
negotiate a concession agreement allowing for an outdoor eating area, adjacent to the Leased
Premises.
PASSED and ADOPTED this __ day of-----2013.
ATTEST:
Rafael Granado, CITY CLERK Matti Herrera Bower, MAYOR
T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\Damian J. Gallo Lease Amendment RES (3-13-13).docx
10
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR ~PUTION
,~1-\'3
Date
RESOLUTION NO. __ _
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
FINANCE AND CITYWIDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND
MDGLCC FOUNDATION, INC., DATED MARCH 10, 2010, INVOLVING THE
USE OF APPROXIMATELY 2,543 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE
LOCATED AT HISTORIC CITY HALL, 1130 WASHINGTON AVENUE, 1ST
FLOOR NORTH, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA; SAID AMENDMENT PROVIDING
FOR A RENT REDUCTION
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2010, the Mayor and City Commission passed Resolution No.
2010-27354, approving a Lease Agreement between the City and MDGLCC Foundation, Inc.
("MDGLCC") for the use of approximately 2,543 square feet of City-owned property, located at
1130 Washington Avenue, 1st Floor North, Miami Beach, Florida; and
WHEREAS, MDGLCC has expressed a need for a rent reduction in order to offset the cost
of hiring additional staff, increase its hours of operation, and broaden its advertising; and
WHEREAS, MDGLCC currently pays annual rent, in the amount of $20.57 per square foot,
payable in monthly installments of $4,360, consisting of $2,065 for base rent ($9. 7 4/sf), $1,950
for common area maintenance ($9.20/sf), and $345 for insurance ($1.63/sf); and
WHEREAS, MDGLCC requested a rent reduction from $4,360 monthly to $2,500 monthly,
representing a reduction in rent from $20.57 per square foot to $11.80 per square foot; and
WHEREAS, the requested rent reduction was discussed at the January 24, 2013 Finance
and Citywide Projects Committee meeting, and the Committee recommended in favor of
granting MDGLCC's request for a rent reduction from $20.57 per square foot to $11.80 per
square foot.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED THAT THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby accept the recommendation of the Finance and Citywide Projects
Committee and approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Amendment to
the Lease Agreement between the City and MDGLCC Foundation, Inc., dated March 10, 2010,
involving the use of approximately 2,543 square feet of office space located at Historic City Hall,
1130 Washington Avenue, 1st Floor North, Miami Beach, Florida; said amendment providing for
a rent reduction.
PASSED and ADOPTED this __ day of-----2013.
ATTEST:
Rafael Granado, CITY CLERK Matti Herrera Bower, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO
T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\MDGLCC Lease Amendment RES (3-13-13).docx fORM & LANGUAGE
Agenda Item C.1 I
111ate 3~t3-J3
6f0R CUTION
)-I-\:;
~Date
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
12
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title·
A Resolution Of The Mayor And City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida, Approving And
Authorizing The City Manager To Utilize Contract No. 12-20-0905 With The Florida Sheriffs Association
For The Purchase Of 23 Vehicles At A Total Cost Of $419,377.00 And Waiving, By 5/ih Vote, The
Formal Competitive Bidding Requirements, Finding Such Waiver To Be In The Best Interest Of The City.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Increase visibility of Police; Maintain crime rates at or below national Improve cleanliness of MB rights-
of-way; Ensure compliance with code enforcement within a reasonable timeframe; Maintain MB public areas
and rights-of-way, Citywide; Ensure safety and appearance of building structures and sites; Increase
satisfaction with family recreational activities; Ensure well-maintained facilities; and Maintain City's
infrastructure.
~ .. nnnrti Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
A total of one hundred and twenty seven (127) vehicles are being replaced due to a combination of factors that
include age, condition, and maintenance/repair/collision expenses, including forty-two (42) vehicles and
equipment scheduled to be replaced in prior years, and eighty-five (85) vehicles and equipment scheduled to
be in FY 2012/13. All of the vehicles to be replaced have exceeded their life expectancy by an
average of 2.4 years. Forty vehicles, or thirty two percent (32%) of the total vehicles and equipment being
replaced, have exceeded their life expectancy by two or more years. Maintenance and repair expenses to date,
as a percent of vehicle and equipment original acquisition cost, average 52%.
Item Summary/Recommendation:
Based on approved funding, Fleet Management Division ("Fleet Management") purchases vehicles for all City
of Miami Beach departments and divisions. The City has historically pursued the purchase of vehicles through
competitively awarded contracts by the State of Florida (State) and the Florida Sheriffs Association (FSA). Both
the State and the FSA have staff dedicated to the complex tasks of developing specifications, aggregating
volume from agencies across the state, competitive soliciting awards and managing contracts used by most
public agencies in the State for the purchase of vehicles. Through the use of these contracts, the City benefits
from the expertise and staff resources of the State and the FSA and the leveraged buying power of public
agencies in the State resulting in cost-effective vehicle purchases.
In the due diligence process, vehicle pricing from both the FSA (Attachment A) and State (Attachment B)
contracts was analyzed. While in most cases, the State pricing was more cost-effective, in the instances noted
in the table below the pricing from the FSA contract was more cost-effective. However, as the FSA is not one of
the named in the City code as an agency from whose contracts piggyback purchases may be
exercised, the City Manager's authority does not extend to purchases from the FSA. The City Attorney's Office
has determined that, since City code does not explicitly allow for purchase from the FSA, approval of purchases
from the FSA contract will require the waiver of competitive bidding requirements, by a 5/ih vote. Accordingly,
this is a request for the City Commission to approve utilizing of the FSA contract 12-10-0905, a competitively
awarded contract, for the purchase of those vehicles noted above as more cost-effective than prices in the
State contract as noted in Attachment A.
Based on the analysis of the need for vehicles by various City Departments, the due diligence of staff, and
pricing available through competitively awarded contracts established by the State and the FSA, it is
recommended that the City Commission approve the purchases of the vehicles from the FSA contract as the
most cost-effective alternative identified by the City. In addition to the cost-effective pricing, purchases through
the FSA contract will allow the City to benefit from subject-matter expertise and dedicated staff resources of the
FSA.
FmanCiallnformatron·
Source of
Funds: 1
~ 2
3
OBPI Total
Amount
$367,887
$33,954
$17,536
$419,377
Account
Fleet Management FY 2012/13 Capital Account No. 510-6173-000673
Fleet Management FY 2011/12 Capital Account No. 510-1780-000673
Stormwater Fund Capital Account No. 520-1720-000673
KGB
13
AGENDA llEM _,_,;;:'----'-'--..,...,.--
DATE -"""---'-gF--L"""""'-
/v\IA.MI BEA H
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Kathie G. Brooks, Interim City Manager
DATE: March 13, 2013
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO UTILIZE CONTRACT NO. 12-20-0905 WITH THE FLORIDA SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF 23 VEHICLES AT A TOTAL COST OF
$419,377.00 AND WAIVING, BY 5/7TH VOTE, THE FORMAL COMPETITIVE
BIDDING REQUIREMENTS, FINDING SUCH WAIVER TO BE IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF THE CITY.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve the purchase.
FUNDING
Fleet Management FY 2012/13 Capital Account No. 510-6173-000673-$367,887
Fleet Management FY 2011/12 Capital Account No. 510-1780-000673-$33,954
Stormwater Fund Capital Account No. 520-1720-000673-$17,536
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Fleet Management Division ("Fleet Management") provides vehicles and equipment for all
City of Miami Beach departments and divisions. In coordination with the various departments,
Fleet Management develops a list of replacement vehicles and equipment which is submitted to
the Commission for funding during the City's budget process each fiscal year. Replacement
considerations are based on a combination of factors that include age, condition,
maintenance/repair/collision expenses, and operating environment. The list of replacement
vehicles and equipment, as well as any new vehicles and equipment submitted by a department
as part of a service level enhancement initiative, are subject to approval by the City Commission
during the annual budget process.
Upon approval of funds, the City has historically pursued the purchase of vehicles through
competitively awarded contracts by the State of Florida (State) and the Florida Sheriffs
Association (FSA). The State, through its Department of Management Services, competitively
awards a comprehensive vehicle contract yearly to be used by all agencies and political
subdivisions of the State. The FSA also competitively awards a vehicle contract yearly, based on
the requirements of law enforcement agencies state-wide, for use by law enforcement and
political subdivisions in the State. The FSA, founded in 1893 to promote effective law enforcement
and public safety programs, is one of the largest law-enforcement associations in the nation. Both the
State and the FSA have staff dedicated to the complex tasks of developing specifications,
aggregating volume from agencies across the state, competitive soliciting awards and managing
contracts used by most public agencies in the State for the purchase of vehicles. Unlike the State and
the FSA, the City does not have the internal expertise, staffing resources or buying power of these
14
Commission Memorandum
Request for Approval of Vehicles from the Florida Sheriffs Association Contract 12-10-0905
Page 2 of3
agencies. Nonetheless, through the use of these contracts, the City benefits from the expertise and
staff resources of the State and the FSA and the leveraged buying power of public agencies in the
State resulting in cost-effective vehicle purchases.
Based on budgeted requirements, the list of the 127 vehicles budgeted to be purchased from these
contracts is included in the attachments to this memo. In the due diligence process, vehicle pricing
from both the FSA (Attachment A) and State (Attachment B) contracts was analyzed.
While in most cases, the State pricing was more cost-effective, in the instances noted in the table
below the pricing from the FSA contract was more cost-effective.
Description
2013 Ford Focus P3F
2013 Ford F-150 Crew
Cab 4WD
Qty
18
State of Florida
071-000-13-0
Price Total
$17,134.00 $308,412.00
$29,778.40 $29,778.40
Florida Sheriffs Association
12-20-0905
Price Total
$16,977.00 $305,586.00
$29,654.00 $29,654.00
> > > •• '> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0 0 0 .... > "> > > > > > > >h~ >+>+>>>>OS S''' H> ''' .,.,_., •••• ,.., .................... uu~+ .. HHHH•H~ n '"'0"'<"-doO<o»H<-'> ·~ >> HH>o o o o o o'''' • • • • • • • • • • • • o o o o H « < <' < H ••• HHHO.OH••• •• '' '' ''' O+'> +H++++HHHH.OOHH+O~<HHOO 0 HH
2013 Ford F-150 Reg
Cab 2WD
2013 Ford F-150 Reg
Cab 2WD
$18,519.00
$17,584.00
$18,519.00 $18,162.00 $18,162.00
$17,584.00 $17,536.00 $17,536.00
<h<-H ... HH+H+HHMMU>>HH+uuuoo•••••••••••'><~<<<<O <<<•<•<•<<<<<•<•OhHH• oooo••••·············~~··~~·-~·~~hU H**HHHHM+++++++++++++++++++H<~ n•~~~~q<<<o•••H~o••±HH•UH••<• ''''''ooOO<o<••~···········•,<-<-H•••«
2013 Ford F-350 Super
Duty DRW Util. Body 1 $22,567.00 $22,567.00 $22,238.00 $22,238.00
. .J.~.~_q) .......... ,.,.,. .. ,.,,,.,,,,., ....................... "'"'"'"'' ,.,,,,, ................................ ,,,,,,,,, ..... ,,, ........................................................ ,.. ........ .,., .. ,,,, ..... .
2013 Ford F-350 4x4
Dump Body
23
$27,803.80
"1".
$27,803.80 $26,201.00 $26,201.00
Pursuant to Section 2-369 of the Miami Beach City Code, purchases from State contracts may
be approved by the City Manager. Those vehicles to be purchased from State contract are
included in Attachment B. However, as the FSA is not one of the agencies named in the City
code as an agency from whose contracts piggyback purchases may be exercised, the City
Manager's authority does not extend to purchases from the FSA. The City Attorney's Office has
determined that, since City code does not explicitly allow for purchase from the FSA, approval of
purchases from the FSA contract will require the waiver of competitive bidding requirements, by
a 5/71h vote. Accordingly, this is a request for the City Commission to approve utilizing of the FSA
contract 12-1 0-0905, a competitively awarded contract, for the purchase of those vehicles noted
above as more cost-effective than prices in the State contract as noted in Attachment A.
All of the vehicles for which replacements are included in either Attachment A and Attachment B
have exceeded their life expectancy and currently average 2.4 years, or 17% beyond originally
projected replacement date, with maintenance and repair expenses to date, as a percent of
vehicle and equipment original acquisition cost, averaging 52%.
The following describes the 127 vehicles being replaced at this time:
Police: Of the seventy-three (73) vehicles being replaced, sixty-six (66), or 90% of the
total, target Patrol and Criminal Investigation Division vehicles. Eight (8) of the sedan patrol
vehicles are being replaced with Police Interceptor (PI) SUVs, as part of an effort to to provide
vvho and in our
15
Commission Memorandum
Request for Approval of Vehicles from the Florida Sheriffs Association Contract 12-10-0905
Page 3 of3
supervisory personnel with pursuit-rated vehicles that can also perform under the seasonal
flooding and adverse post-storm conditions experienced in the City of Miami Beach. During the
current budget process, the Police Department will discuss an initiative proposing to eventually
convert as much as 40% of its patrol vehicles to SUVs.
Fire: Fourteen (14) vehicles are being replaced, including four (4), Ocean Rescue
vehicles, seven (7) Fire Support Services and Fire Suppression vehicles, and one (1) utility cart.
Sanitation: Ten (1 0) vehicles are being replaced, including one (1) sweeper vacuum,
three (3) utility carts, and six (6) pick-up trucks, including one addition approved as service
enhancement during the FY 2013 budget process.
Other: Public Works is replacing six (6) vehicles, including four (4) pick-up trucks and
two sedans. Parks and Recreation is replacing six (6) vehicles, including three (3) heavy duty
trucks and three {3) utility carts. Property Management is replacing six (6) vehicles, including five
(5) vans and one (1) pick-up truck. Neighborhood Services is replacing a passenger van. The
balance of the total vehicles is for sedan replacements in the Planning, Parking, IT, Building and
Code Enforcement Departments.
An additional eighty-two (82) vehicles and equipment are budgeted to be replaced later thjs
year. However, Fleet Management and Procurement are still evaluating pricing and vendors.
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis of the need for vehicles by various City Departments, the due diligence of
staff and pricing available through competitively awarded contracts established by the State and
the FSA, it is recommended that the City Commission approve and authorize the City Manager
to utilize Contract No. 12-20-0905 with the Florida Sheriffs Association for the purchase of 23
vehicles at a total cost of $419,377.00 and waiving, by 517th vote, the formal competitive bidding
requirements, finding such waiver to be in the best interest of the City.
Attachment A-List of Vehicles from Florida Sheriffs Contract
Attachment B -List of Vehicles from Florida State Contract
KGB/JGG/A~«
T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\Comm. Memo Florida Sheriffs Vehicle Purchase
We are committed to providing excellent public service and safety to all who live, work, and play in our vibrant, tropical, historic community
16
ATTACHMENT A· VEHICLES PROPOSED FOR REPLACEMENT UTILIZING THE FSA CONTRACT
Life to Date
Mod <>I Description Replacement
Cost
-150 TRUCK 2WD 112 TON $8,135
2 CAVALIER CAR COMPACT $6,775
3
1 CAVALIER
5 TAURUS iCAI11NITIERMEDIATE
CAB $8,043 $29,654
T I Cmmli<3f !Car· Compact $6,076 $16,977
8
9 FORD 1. 1~3so lnwcK-DUMP SMALL
10 CAR INTERMEDIATE
11 Taurus CAR COMPACT
12
13
M TAURUS CAH INTERMEDIAIE
16 TAURUS CAR INTERMUJIATE
16
17 600 CAH FWD FULL SIZE-ADMIN
I HP\NGEH I TRUCK 2WD COMPACT
19
20 CAVALIEH !CAR COMPACT
21 n 1 t::A\IALIER leAH COMPACT
22 T j CAVI\Ut::R jCAR COMPACT
23 CAVALIER CAR COMPACT
TOTAL $41 9,377
17
5
21
..
a:
5
0 w
ATTACHMENT B-VEHICLES TO BE REPLACED UTILIZING STATE CONTRACTS
g. Department
c Name Year Make
BOBCAT
BOBCAT
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
Life to Date
Model Description Meter Maintenance, Replacement
Repairs & Cost
Accident Cost
UTILITY CART-GAS 1280
UTILITY CART-GAS I2H
$4,880
$6,103
ISPIDRTTRI\CI Tf,UCK4VVD1/2TON I 16,0781 $3,917
500 I C.II.RFW'D FULL SIZE-ADMIN
N SUV 4WD LARGE
SUV 4WD MEDIUM
CROWN VIC
CROWN VIC
104,176 $11,
CAR FULL SIZE-PURSUIT 75,321 $12,271
1 ofS
18
Life to Date
Make Model Description Meter Maintenance, Replacement
Repairs & Cost
Accident Cost
FORD CAR FULL SIZE-PURSUIT 9
CAR FULL SIZE-PURSUIT 7, 14
CAR FULL SIZE-PURSUIT 92,645 $15,592
CAR FULL SIZE-PURSUIT $12,"113
PURSUIT $8,629
CAR FWD FULL SIZE-$9,029 1,7
PURSUIT
FORD CAR FWD FUl.L SIZE-ADMIN 8 $9,527 1.1
ROWNVIC LL SIZE-PURS
WNVIC LL SIZE-PURS
CROWN VIC LL SIZE-PURSUI 1,312
Crown Victoria SIZE-PURS
For ia CAR FULL SIZE-PURSUIT
Fo CAR FULL SIZE-PURSUIT
For tori a CAR FULl .. SIZE-PURSUIT
For a CAR FULL SIZE-PURSUIT
Cmwn Victor' ,6
AR FULL SIZE-PURSUIT 67,
CA 4
Ford CAR FULL SIZE-PURSUIT
41 Ford CAR FULL SIZE-PURSUIT
AR
Crown Victor R FULL SIZE-PURSUIT
19
Life to Date
Model Description Meter Maintenance, Replacement
Repairs & Cost
Accident Cost
IZE-P f) $1
IZE-P 76
CAR FULL SIZE-PU
CAR FULL SIZE-PU $
CAR FULL SIZE-PU $7
CAR FULL SIZE-PU ,585 $13,"
CAR FULL SIZE-PU ,740
CAR FULL SIZE-PURSU
CAR FULL SIZE-PURSUI
CAR INTERMEDIATIE I 1:2,4LIO I
jcnowr:1 Vi,;toria I CAR FULL SIZE-PUR:SUITI 56,8!57 I
CAR FULL SIZE-PURSUITI1:22,:':41 I
CAR FULL SIZE-PIJRSIJIT I 77',664 I
FClRD jTI\URUS 11 CA.R I~HEI'<MEDIAn:: js9,CI05j $10,240
F<)RCI ITAUf~us: I c;ARINTERMEDIATI~ 166,1161 $9,6'/8
I H"{Ul;'K 4WD 1/2 TOI'l 144,292 I
I CAR INTERMEDIATE. I '12,4198 I
TRUCK
:3ot5
20
Life to Date
Description Meter Maintenance, Replacement
Repairs & Cost
Accident Cost
CAR COMPACT $7,635 $19,074 5 1.2
FORD CAR INTERMEDIATE 80,850 $6,771 $20,568 5 3.4
$11,884
FORD CAR INTERMED
71 CHEVROLET CAR FWD F 1,105-
,592
CAR INTERMEDIAT 007
TERM 637
TERME
TERMEDIATE 74,963
89
Dl ,486
CAR INTERMEDI $fl,4()2
rus
Taurus CAR INTERMEDIATE
CAR INTERM
Ford Taurus CAR INTERMEDIATE
Ford Taurus CAR INTERMEDIATE $4,253'
Taurus $10,775
4of5
21
Model
E-250
89 E-250
90 E-250
9'1 E-250
93
94
F-150
101
ord F-250
Description
VAN
VAN
VAN
VAN
VAN
SUV4WD
CUV FWD
TRUCK 2WD 1 TON RAT
BED
I TFtUCI< 2VVD :J/4 1roN CREW
CAB
SWEEPER VACUUM
UTILITY CART-GAS
Meter
UTILITY CART-GAS 50
22
life to Date Past
Maintenance, Replacement
Repairs & Cost Life,
Accident Cost Years
$/,987
$7,81
$6,51
$7,87
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO UTILIZE CONTRACT NO. 12-20-0905 WITH THE FLORIDA
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF 23 VEHICLES AT A
TOTAL COST OF $419,377.00 AND WAIVING, BY 5/7TH VOTE, THE FORMAL
COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS, FINDING SUCH WAIVER TO BE IN
THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY.
WHEREAS, upon approval of funds, the City has historically pursued the purchase of
vehicles through competitively awarded contracts by the State of Florida (State) and the
Florida Sheriffs Association (FSA); and
WHEREAS, the State, through its Department of Management Services,
competitively awards a comprehensive vehicle contract yearly to be used by all agencies
and political subdivisions of the State; and
WHEREAS, the FSA also competitively awards a vehicle contract yearly, based on
the requirements of law enforcement agencies state-wide, for use by law enforcement and
political subdivisions in the State; and
WHEREAS, the City benefits from the expertise and staff resources of the State and
the FSA and the leveraged buying power of public agencies in the State resulting in cost-
effective vehicle purchases; and
WHEREAS, in some cases, the City has the opportunity to purchase a number of
vehicles more cost effectively by utilizing the FSA contract versus utilizing the State contract;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2-369 of the Miami Beach City Code, certain
purchases from State contracts may be approved by the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, since the City Code does not explicitly allow for purchase from the FSA,
approval of purchases from FSA Contract No. 12-20-0905 for 23 vehicles at a total cost of
$419,377.00 will require the waiver of competitive bidding, by a 5/th vote.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby approve and authorize the City Manager to utilize Contract No. 12-20-
0905 with the Florida Sheriffs Association for the purchase of 23 vehicles at a total cost of
$419,377.00 and waiving, by 5/th vote, the formal competitive bidding requirements, finding
such waiver to be in the best interest of the City.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS ___ DAY OF ____ ,2013.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK MAYOR
T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\Fieet-FSA Vehicle Purchases RESO 2013-03-13.docx
23 '
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LM~GUAGE
& FO ·xECUTION
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
24
HOTEL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
[REVISED VERSION BASED UPON DISCUSSION AT
FIRST READING]
ORDINANCE NO. _____ _
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 130
"OFF-STREET PARKING," ARTICLE II, "DISTRICTS;
REQUIREMENTS," BY AMENDING THE OFF-STREET PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR HOTELS IN ALL DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR
REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, current parking requirements for hotels, and for convention hotels
contain a requirement for parking spaces based upon the number of rooms within the
hotel and additional parking requirements for accessory uses within hotels; and
WHEREAS, a review of parking requirements for hotels in other Florida cities
and in other tourist destination cities throughout the country show that most of them
have a lower parking requirement for the dense, walkable, urban districts than our
current requirement of one parking space per hotel room (1: 1 ); and
WHEREAS, parking requirements for accessory uses within hotels, such as
retail, restaurants, clubs, etc., actually draw a large percentage of patrons from outside
of the hotel, and would rationally need more parking than those that were primarily used
by hotel guests and, therefore, such parking is necessary for the operation of a hotels,
such requirements are not being amended; and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes are necessary in order to promote good hotel
development.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA.
Section 1. Sections 130-32, "Off Street parking requirements for Parking District No. 1,"
and 130-33, "Off-street parking requirements for parking districts nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5," are
hereby amended as follows:
Section 130-32-Off-street parking requirements for parking district no. 1.
Except as otherwise provided in these land development regulations, when any building
or structure is erected or altered in parking district no. 1, accessory off-street parking
spaces shall be provided for the building, structure or additional floor area as follows:
* * *
(26) Hotel, suites hotel, motel or motor lodge: 1 space per unit. except as follows:
25
Agenda Item e 5 E
Date 3-15-( 3
ProQerties located within a local historic
district or National Reaister Historic District
Retaining , {;!reserving and restoring .5 SQaces Qer unit, UQ to a maximum of
a building or structure that is 100 units and 1 SQace Qer unit for all units
classified as 'Contributing' as of in excess of 100 units.
£date of ordlnancel~ as defined
Other (e.g. new construction or 1 SQace Qer hotel unit.
substantial demolition of
contributing building)
ProQerties bounded by 62nd Street on the .5 SQaces Qer unit, UQ to a maximum of
south, 73rd Street on the north, Indian 100 units and 1 sQace Qer unit for all units
Creek on the west and the Atlantic Ocean in excess of 1 00 units.
on the east
ProQerties located south of Fifth Street and 1 SQace Qer unit
QrOQerties zoned residential and located
south of 1 ih Street, west of Alton Court,
east of Biscavne Bav and north of 61h Street
Prooe1 ties not listed above
Hotels of 100 units or less, limited .5 SQaces Qer unit
by covenant to no restaurants or
QOols OQen to the QUblic, no
outdoor bar counters,
entertainment or SQecial events ,
and located in a commercial zoning
district within 1,000 feet of the
boundarv of an area that is (1)
zoned CD-3 and (2) Qart of a
historic district
Within 150 feet of a single-family 1 SQace per unit
district or RM-1 district,
1 space per unit
~hsta~dina t~e above.
For purposes of th1s sect1on. "reta1mng , preservmg and restonng a butldtng or structure
that is classified as 'Contributing'" means that the following portions of such building or
structure must remain substantially intact:
i. At least 75 percent of the front and street side facades;
ii. At least 75 percent of the original first floor slab;
iii. For structures that are set back two or more feet from interior side
property lines, at least 66 percent of the remaining interior side walls: and
iv. All architecturally significant QUblic interiors.
In addition to the above, in order for any hotel to receive the reduced rate of .5 spaces
per unit, a hotel employee parking plan is required. which shall be subiect to the review
and approval of the Planning DeQartment. Such hotel employee parking plan shall
include mandatory measures to address employee parking, including but not limited to
provision of transit passes, carpool or vanpool programs, off-site parking when available,
monthly City parking Qasses. and/or other measures intended to limit the imQact of
emQioyee parking on surrounding neighborhoods.
2 of6
26
t=lHowever, suites hotel units as defined in section 142-1104 that are greater than 550
square feet and that contain full cooking facilities on lots that are greater than 50 feet in
width, shall have the same parking requirement as apartment buildings in (6) b. and c.
above. Required parking for hotel accessory uses shall be as follows:
a. Retail-Required parking shall be computed at 1 space per 400 square feet,
minus 7.5 square feet per unit.
b. Auditorium, ballroom, convention hall, gymnasium, meeting rooms or other
similar places of assembly-Required parking shall be 1 space per 4 seats or 1
space per 60 square feet of floor area where there is no seating, minus 1 seat or
15 square feet per unit.
c. Restaurant or other establishment for consumption of food or beverages on the
premises-Required parking shall be 1 space per 4 seats minus 1 seat for every
2 units.
d. Required parking for all other uses shall be as set forth in this section.
These parking requirements for hotel accessory uses are only applicable to structures
that are being newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated as hotels.
The zoning board of adjustment may grant a variance for the total amount of parking
required for a hotel and related accessory uses by up to 20 percent.
*
Section 130-33 -Off-street parking requirements for parking districts nos. 2, 3,
4 and 5.
Except as otherwise provided in these land development regulations, when any building
or structure is erected or altered in parking districts nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 accessory off-
street parking spaces shall be provided for the building, structure or additional floor area
as follows. There shall be no off-street parking requirement for uses in this parking
district except for those listed below:
* * *
(3) Hotel, convention: For structures with less than 250 units, one space per two (2)
unit§; for structures with 250 to 499 units, 0.75 space per unit; for structures with
500 units or more, 0.50 space per unit. Required parking for convention hotel
accessory uses shall be as follows:
* *
(4) Hotel, suites hotel, motel or motor lodge: One space per unit, except as follows:
Properties located within a local historic
·c Distr'
north of 63 eet
Retaining , preserving and restoring
a building or structure that is
classified as 'Contributin ' as of in excess
3 of 6
27
of ordinance as defined
Other (e.g. new construction or
substantial demolition of
contributing building)
Properties bounded by 62nd Street on the
south, 73rd Street on the north, Indian
Creek on the west and the Atlantic Ocean
on the
Properties located south of Fifth Street and
properties zoned residential and located
south of 1 i 11 Street west of Alto
Hotels of 1 00 units or less, limited
by covenant to no restaurants or
pools open to the public. no
outdoor bar counters.
entertainment or special events .
and located in a commercial zoning
district within 1,000 feet of the
boundary of an area that is (1)
zoned CD-3 and (2) part of a
historic district
Within 150 feet of a single-family
district or RM-1 district.
notwithstandin the above
1 space per hotel unit.
.5 spaces per unit, up to a maximum of
100 units and 1 space per unit for all units
in excess of 100 units.
1 space per unit
.5 spaces per unit
1 space per unit
r 1
For purposes of this section, "retaining , preserving and restoring a building or structure
that is classified as 'Contributing'" means that the following portions of such building or
structure must remain substantially intact
L At least 75 percent of the front and street side facades;
ii. At least 75 percent of the original first floor slab;
liL For structures that are set back two or more feet from interior side
property lines, at least 66 percent of the remaining interior side walls; and
iv. All architecturally significant public interiors.
In addition to the above, in order for any hotel to receive the reduced rate of .5 spaces
per unit a hotel employee parking plan is required, which shall be subiect to the review
and approval of the Planning Department Such hotel employee parking plan shall
include mandatory measures to address employee parking. including but not limited to
provision of transit passes, carpool or vangool grog rams, off-site parking when available,
monthly City parking passes. and/or other measures intended to limit the impact of
employee parking on surrounding neighborhoods.
-AHowever, suites hotel units as defined in section 142-1105 that are greater than 550
square feet and that contain full cooking facilities in buildings on lots that are greater
than 50 feet in width shall have the same parking requirement as apartment buildings in
(1)b. and c. above. Required parking for hotel accessory uses shall be as follows:
4 of6
28
a. Retail: Required parking shall be computed at one space per 400 square feet of
floor area, minus seven and one-half square feet per unit.
b. Auditorium, ballroom, convention hall, gymnasium, meeting rooms or other
similar places of assembly: Required parking shall be one space per four seats
or one space per 60 square feet of floor area where there is no seating, minus
one seat or 15 square feet per unit.
c. Restaurant or other establishment for consumption of food or beverages on the
premises: Required parking shall be one space per four seats minus one seat for
every two units.
d. Required parking for all other uses shall be as set forth in this section.
These parking requirements for hotel accessory uses are only applicable to structures
that are being newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated as hotels. The zoning
board of adjustment may grant a variance for the total amount of parking required for a
hotel, suites hotel, motel or motor lodge and related accessory uses of up to 20 percent.
* * *
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. Codification.
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.
SECTION 4. Severability.
If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid,
the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
5 of 6
29
SECTION 5. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect ten days following adoption.
PASSED and ADOPTED this __ day of _______ , 2013.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
First Reading: February 6, 2013
Second Reading: March 13, 2013
Verified by:---------
Richard G Lorber, AICP, LEED AP
Acting Planning Director
Underscore denotes new language
Revised 3-8-13
T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\Hotel Parking revised admin ORO 2nd reading rev.docx
6 of6
30
MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO
FORM AND LANGUAGE
R EXECUTION
Date
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A resolution, pursuant to Section 118-262 of the City Code, to review the Design Review Board order relative
to ORB File No. 22889, rendered on October 8, 2012, as requested by W. Tucker Gibbs, PA on behalf of
Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc. and Olga Lens, as affected persons.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
IN/A
Item Summary!Recommendation:
Pursuant to City Code Section 118-262, W. Tucker Gibbs, PA on behalf of Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property
Owners, Inc. and Olga Lens, as affected persons, is requesting that the City Commission review a Design
Review Board decision rendered on October 8, 2012 (ORB File No. 22889) pertaining to the approval of a 5-
story, mixed-use development project located at 1201-1237 20th Street-Palau at Sunset Harbour.
On January 16, 2013, the City Commission set the public hearing for March 13, 2013 to review the order of
the Design Review Board pertaining to ORB File No. 22889 {1201-1237 20th Street-Palau at Sunset
Harbour).
Based upon the issues raised in the petition, the Administration recommends that the City Commission deny
the appeal.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
The Design Review Board approved the subject development project on October 2, 2012, subject to the
conditions of the Final Order.
Financial Information·
Source of Amount
Funds: 1
I I 2
3
OBPI Total
Financial Impact Summary:
Cl Clerk's Office Le islative Trackin
Richard Lorber or William Cary
Si n-Offs:
Department Director
//' / //
T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\Palau Project DR~ F:ne No. 22889 Appeal -SUM :f.-1
c.,····-"/
MIAMI BEACH
31
Account
Manager
AGENDA ITEM _(<\..::...7'":-f\~
DATE .3-13-\3
~ MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachll.gov
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Cqmmission
p'l
Kathie G. Brooks, Interim City Manager /~ ·
March 13, 2013 /
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: Palau Appeal
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, [GRANTING OR DENYING] AN
APPEAL REQUEST FILED BY W. TUCKER GIBBS, P.A., ON
BEHALF OF SUNSET ISLANDS 3 AND 4 PROPERTY OWNERS,
INC. AND OLGA LENS, OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S
ORDER RELATIVE TO ORB FILE NO. 22889 FOR 1201-1237 20TH
STREET, PALAU AT SUNSET HARBOR.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the issues raised in the petition, the Administration recommends that the
City Commission deny the appeal.
BACKGROUND
On October 2, 2012, the Design Review Board (ORB) approved DRB File No. 22889,
pertaining to a 5-story, mixed-use development project located at 1201-1237 201h Street
-Palau at Sunset Harbour.
On October 23, 2012 a "Petition for Rehearing" was filed by MAC SH, LLC, and Sunset
Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc. Such re-hearing request was considered by the
DRB on December 4, 2012. Following denial of a motion to continue the hearing (which
failed due to a tie vote), and denial of a motion to deny the Petition for Rehearing (which
failed due to a tie vote), there being no further motions, it was determined by the
attorney for the Board that the last decision of the Board stands as the decision of the
Board (which was for approval of the application).
Pursuant to City Code Section 118-262, W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A., on behalf of Sunset
Islands 3 and 4 Property owners, Inc. and Olga Lens, as affected persons, filed a
"Request For City Commission Review of the Design Review Board Decision"
("Request") rendered on October 8, 2012 (ORB File No. 22889) pertaining to the
approval of Palau project.
Section 118-262 of the Miami Beach City Code allows the applicant, the City Manager
on behalf of the City Administration, the Miami Design Preservation League, Dade
Heritage Trust or an 'Affected Person,' to seek review of any order of the Design Review
Board by the City Commission. For purposes of Section 118-262, an "affected person"
shall mean either:
(i) a person owning property within 375 feet of the applicant's project reviewed by
the board, or
32
Commission Memorandum
Palau Appeal-Public Hearing
March 13, 2013 Page 2of 4
(ii) a person that appeared before the design review board (directly or
represented by counsel), and whose appearance is confirmed in the record of the
design review board's public hearing(s) for such project.
The Request alleges that the definition of 'affected person' has been satisfied because
the named appellants appeared at the hearing before the ORB. (Request para. 4).
Pursuant to Section 118-262 of the Miami Beach Code, the review by the City
Commission is not a "de novo" hearing, and it must be based upon the record of the
hearing before the ORB. Section 118-262(b) states the following:
In order to reverse, or remand for amendment, modification or rehearing any
decision of the Design Review Board, the City Commission shall find that the Design
Review Board did not do one of the following:
1) provide procedural due process;
2) observe essential requirements of law; or
3) base its decision upon substantial, competent evidence.
In order to reverse or remand a decision of the ORB, a 5/ih vote of the City Commission
is required.
ANALYSIS
The ORB's review of the subject project was based upon the information and exhibits
submitted by the applicant, and the Board had before it the recommendation for approval
with proposed conditions presented by its professional staff in the form of a
comprehensive staff report, all of which constitute competent, substantial evidence in
support of the decision. The Board agreed with the staff recommendation in the report.
The Request claims that several issues justify reversal or remand. This is not the case,
as all issues raised were discussed and considered by the ORB as outlined below.
The Petition raises the following arguments on appeal:
1. ORB members failed to disclose ex parte communications as required by
sections 2-511 through 2-513 of the City Code. (at Petition, page 14).
2. Palau failed to meet its initial burden to show that it met ORB review criteria
requiring that it created or maintains important view corridors. (at Petition,
page 18).
3. The ORB failed to evaluate the elimination and/or diminution of four view
corridors as required by section 118-251 (a)(12). (at Petition, page 19).
4. The design review staff report fails to address specific criteria requiring a
building's massing to create or maintain important view corridors is not
competent and substantial evidence of compliance with that review criteria (at
Petition, page 21 ).
5. The ORB improperly delegated to design review staff its authority to evaluate
and approve plans pursuant to ORB review criteria (at Petition, page 23).
These issues are each discussed below.
1. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AS REQUIRED BY
SECTION 2-511 THROUGH 513 OF THE CITY CODE
33
Commission Memorandum
Palau Appeal-Public Hearing
March 13, 2013 Page 3of 4
Ex-parte communications were discussed at the August 7, 2012 meeting. At the
beginning of the Board discussion, the Board Chairman indicated "We have met, most of
us have met with your team to go over the project," Transcript at p. 150, (referring to the
Palau development team), and another Board member individually indicated that she
had not met with the applicant (see Transcript at p. 170). These statements by Board
members satisfied the disclosure requirement in the City Code. If Appellants wanted the
"reasonable opportunity to refute or respond to the communication," as provided by
Section 2-512(a)(4), they should have taken this opportunity at the hearing. Further, if
they thought ex parte contacts had occurred but had not been disclosed, they should
have raised this possibility and objected at the hearing. Otherwise, this objection should
be considered waived.
2. FAILURE TO MEET ITS INITIAL BURDEN TO SHOW THAT IT MET ORB
REVIEW CRITERIA REQUIRING THAT IT CREATED OR MAINTAINS
IMPORTANT VIEW CORRIDORS.
Appellants assert that "the applicant has the initial burden to show that it has met the
ORB approval requirements," and "Palau failed to meet that burden by its failure to
address the DRB review criteria and how it met each of those standards." Petition at 18.
Palau, however, satisfied the requirement to meet its initial burden by providing the plans
that showed which view corridors were provided and to what extent. There is no
requirement that a separate document or explanation be provided showing how each
design review criteria is satisfied. With respect to view corridors, the plans themselves
are evidence of such proof.
3. THE ORB FAILED TO EVALUATE THE ELIMINATION AND/OR DIMUNITION
OF FOUR VIEW CORRIDORS PURSUANT TO SECTION 118-251{a)(12).
Section 118-251 (a)(12) provides: "The proposed structure has an orientation and
massing which is sensitive to and compatible with the building site and surrounding area
and which creates or maintains important view corridor(s)."
First, it is important to understand that not all view corridors are protected. View
corridors across or over another person's or entity's property are not always protected.
View corridors in setback areas, or along sidewalks are likely protected. Each one is
evaluated on its own merits. Views to the water from the adjacent property across the
Palau property is not a protected view corridor, and a property owner does not have an
inherent right to water views through another owner's property.
All relevant view corridors referenced in the Petition were discussed and reviewed by the
DRB. The Board, at the August 7, 2012 meeting, did require that the northeast corner of
the building be further setback in order to lessen the impact on the historic Sunset Island
bridge, this change was made in the plans presented to the Board for the October 2,
2012 meeting, and the change fully satisfied the Board's request. The Board's review
and discussion of views in the plans satisfied the design review criterion on this point.
4. THE DESIGN REVIEW STAFF REPORT FAILS TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC
CRITERIA REQUIRING A BUILDING'S MASSING TO CREATE OR MAINTAIN
IMPORTANT VIEW CORRIDORS IS NOT COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THAT REVIEW CRITERIA.
34
Commission Memorandum
Palau Appeal-Public Hearing
March 13, 2013 Page 4 of 4
The staff evaluation contained in the staff report is competent substantial evidence. It is
fact based, because it is based on a review of the application and its accompanying
plans and surveys and accompanying documents, and is based upon field inspections,
and thus is competent substantial evidence upon which the ORB can base its decision
under Florida law. City of Hialeah Gardens v. Miami-Dade Charter Foundation, Inc., 857
So.2d 202, 204-05 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) ("the Chief of Police, the Director of Public
Works, and the Chief Zoning Official, gave specific fact-based reasons for their
recommendations that the application be rejected."); Metropolitan Dade County v.
Sportacres Development Group, 698 So.2d 281, 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ("maps,
reports and other information which, in conjunction with the testimony of the neighbors, if
believed by the Commission, constituted competent substantial evidence."); Dade
County v. United Resources, Inc., 374 So.2d 1046, 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
("recommendations of professional staff'); Norwood-Nor/and Homeowner's Ass'n v.
Dade County, 511 So.2d 1009, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) ("Dade County Development
Impact Committee report"); Metropolitan Dade County v. Fuller, 515 So.2d 1312, 1314
(Fla. 3d DCA 1987) ("staff recommendations").
5. THE ORB IMPROPERLY DELEGATED TO DESIGN REVIEW STAFF ITS
AUTHORITY TO EVALUATE AND APPROVE PLANS PURSUANT TO ORB
REVIEW CRITERIA.
The inclusion of conditions in the ORB Order that allows staff to make specific decisions
on plans to be submitted is not an unlawful delegation of authority. These are minor
matters within the scope of staff's authority, including materials, finishes, glazing
(windows), railings, architectural projections, landscaping, walkways, fences, facades
between buildings, and the compliance of the applicant with a condition imposed to
enlarge a plaza and connect to a walkway. The ORB need not involve itself in every
minor detail of the design of a proposed development. These matters are included in
board orders to emphasize staff's review of them when the project is submitted for
building permit. Unlawful delegations arise when insufficient standards are set out for
the implementation of delegation by the person to whom authority was delegated. The
design review criteria remain the standards against which either the Board at the time of
design review approval, or the design review staff at time of building permit, and are
sufficient to provide a lawful delegation of authority on these minor points.
A review of the transcripts for the ORB hearings indicates that the ORB observed the
essential requirements of law, made its determinations based on substantial, competent
evidence, and afforded all parties involved due process. Additionally, the Board held
public hearings during which members of the public were afforded the opportunity to
testify and present evidence. Based upon all of the competent, substantial evidence
submitted, the Board determined that the proposed project would meet the Criteria for
Design Review Approval in Section 118-252 of the Code, subject to the conditions in the
Final Order.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the issues raised in the petition, the Administration recommends that the
City Commission deny the appeal.
KGB/JGG/GMH/RGLrrRM
T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\Palau Project ORB File No 22889 Appeal-MEMO 3-13-2013 rev2.docx
35
MIAMI BEACH
City Clerk's Office MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM, Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk -~
DATE: February 27, 2013
SUBJECT: Petition to Reverse Design Review Board (ORB) Decision Relative to File
22889, Palau Sunset Harbor.
Attached is the Petition to Reverse Design Review Board Decision regarding Palau Sunset
Harbor filed by W. Tucker Gibbs, Esq., attorney for The Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property
Owners, Inc. and Olga Lens. In addition, Mr. Gibbs has filed a lengthy Appendix (Volumes I
& II), consisting of 352 pages, which has been be placed in your iPad Dropbox and linked to
the City's webpage. If you would like a printed copy of the Appendix, please call me at
305.673.7411 or email me at rafaelgranado@miamibeachfl.gov.
If additional parties file pleadings on this matter, they will be forwarded to you as well.
This item is scheduled to be heard by the City Commission on March 13, 2013, at 5:01 p.m.
as item R7 A -A Resolution [Granting Or Denying] An Appeal Request Filed By W. Tucker
Gibbs, P.A., On Behalf Of Sunset Islands 3 And 4 Property Owners, Inc. And Olga Lens, Of
The Design Review Board's Order Relative To ORB File No. 22889 For 1201-1237 20th
Street, Palau At Sunset Harbor.
REG/Ic
F:\CLER\$ALL\LILIA\DRB-Palau,docx
\lv'e ore commifled to prov1ding oxl:elleni public service ond sofr",. to o!! who ·'1ve vvork ond ploy rn our vtbronl /ropfcol. hisloric communif'l
36
MIAMI BEACH CITY COMMISSION
REVIEW BOARD 22889
PALAU SUNSET _._ .... ..,. ..... ,._._..
All of Lots 22, 23, and 24, and the north 70 feet of
Lots 25 and 26, Block 15A, Island View Addition
According to the Plat Thereof as Recorded in Plat
Book 9, Page 144 of the Public Records of Miami-
Dade County
1201-1237 20th Street, Miami Beach, Florida
PETITION TO REVERSE BOARD DECISION
The Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc. ("Sunset") and Olga
Lens ("Lens") (collectively "neighbors"), pursuant to section 118-262, City of
Miami Beach Land Development Regulations, requests that the City of Miami
Beach City Commission ("commission") at its March 13, 2013 meeting
reverse the decision of the Miami Beach Design Review Board ("DRB") to
grant the application for design review approval for the Palau Sunset Harbor
development (DRB File No. 22889) ("Palau development"), or in the
alternative remand the matter back to the DRB with instructions for review
consistent with the requests herein.
1
37
INTRODUCTION
Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC, ("Palau" or "applicant") applied for DRB
approval for the Palau development, a large mixed use project proposed for
property it owns at 1201-1237 20th Street, Miami Beach. The project would
abut a well-established single-family residential neighborhood. The Palau
development would not only destroy important view corridors to the water
and from 20th Street to the historic Sunset Islands bridge but also block
abutting neighbors' views even more than does the Sunset Harbor townhouses
immediately to its west. Given the virtually unanimous objection to the
project by its residential neighbors, no one was surprised that the Palau
application consumed hours of contentious public hearings before the DRB.
During the DRB review process not one neighbor spoke in favor of this
massive development. Furthermore, the DRB decision-making process
included: procedural error, a failure to correctly apply the law and on a key
issue a failure to base its decision on competent substantial evidence.
At the core of any quasi-judicial body's review of an application is the
basic guarantee that the process is fundamentally fair.1 DRB members failed
1 The city commission's review of this matter pursuant to section 118-262
also fails to provide a party seeking its review with the due process one would
expect in a quasi-judicial proceeding. In this process, the party initiates the
commission's review by filing the petition (if represented by counsel) and
must file "appropriate legal briefs" setting forth argument and facts in support
2
38
to make required disclosures of meetings with Palau representatives prior to
the meetings of August 7 and October 2, 2012. Such ex parte communication
is contrary to a fair and impartial quasi-judicial hearing process and a breach
of the city's obligation to provide basic procedural due process.
The failure of the applicant and design review staff to address
compliance with the specific DRB review criteria, and the failure of the order
to show compliance with those criteria shows that the DRB did not observe
the essential requirements of law when it approved the application. This
warrants reversal of the DRB decision.
of case. The petitioner must show that the DRB failed to provide due
process, or did not observe the essential requirements of law, or failed to base
its decision on competent substantial evidence. This mirrors the process and
review standards of an appellate court. But that is where the similarities end.
In an appellate proceeding, the petition is followed by a response to the
arguments in the petition from the other side and that response brief is
followed in many cases by a reply to those arguments. This process insures
that all parties (and the court) know and understand all the arguments. This is
transparent and open process that is fair and provides all parties procedural
due process. Therefore, it leads to few if any surprises to either The
Miami Beach process guarantees a closed and opaque process and is designed
to keep information away from the petitioner. the city and the applicant
have all the information regarding the petitioner's arguments. But because
there is no reciprocal obligation for the city or applicant to provide a response
to the petition, the petitioner has no information regarding the city or
applicant's arguments. The city commission is equally in the dark. All of this
makes for a process that is skewed toward one side. That is a process that fails
to meet the standards of basic fairness in order to afford all parties a fair, open
and impartial hearing. In that hearing the" ... the opportunity to be heard must
be meaningful, full and fair, and not merely colorable or illusive." Rucker v
City of Ocala, 684 So. 2d 836, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
3
39
Design review staff's conclusory statements on compliance with
required review standards without any stated factual basis are not competent
substantial evidence. Therefore, the DRB decision order regarding the
project's compliance with all the review criteria is not based on competent
substantial evidence.
The has no authority to delegate to city staff any of its duties to
evaluate and make final determinations about whether the application meets
DRB review criteria. This authority is vested only in the DRB, but that board
through its order incorrectly delegated that power to the city's design review
staff.
These fundamental failures on the part of the DRB warrant the reversal
of that board's approval of the Palau application.
Sunset represents its members who are property owners on both Sunset
Island 3 and Sunset Island 4 across the waterway from the proposed Palau
development site. Its members include property owners within 375-feet of the
site.
Lens owns the property at 2000 North Bay Road, across Sunset Drive
from and within 375-feet of the proposed Palau development site.
4
40
Palau owns the property located at 1201-1237 20th Street, Miami
Beach, Florida. applied for and received DRB approval for the Palau
development on that site.
On August 7, and October 2, 2012, the DRB held a publicly-noticed,
quasi-judicial hearing and reviewed the application for design review
approval for the Palau development. At that hearing the neighbors
individually and through counsel appeared before Design Review Board.
Exhibit N, 68:15-70:1, 93:5-94:5,71:10-77:11, 182:9-184:11, August 7, 2012
Transcript. Exhibit 0, 56:14-59:23,60:10-70:10,72:7-76:12, 103:17-104:19,
130:21-146:12, October 2, 2012 Transcript Volume 1.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In late 2011, Palau applied to develop the property abutting the Sunset
Islands and its historically-designated entrance. Exhibit A, Aerial map of area.
The applicant proposed a bulky, 5-story, 109,279 square-foot (including
approximately 13,056 square feet of commercial space) mixed-use
development on this CD-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity zoning district)-
zoned site. Exhibit B, Planning Board Staff Report, April24, 2012.
The Palau site abuts RS-3 (property on N. Bay Road and Sunset Drive)
and RS-4 (Sunset Island 4) single family residential neighborhoods to the east
5
41
and north and RM-3 multi-family property (Sunset Harbour Townhomes) to
the Exhibit C, Zoning Map.
At the planning board the applicant sought a conditional use approval
to allow development '"'"""'~'"''"' 50,000 square-feet plus the use of
mechanical parking lifts, among other things. Exhibit D, Planning Board Staff
Report, April24, 2012.
Faced with strong neighborhood opposition, the planning board
continued the matter several times. Neighbors sought a project that was less
bulky and more in scale with the abutting single-family residential
neighborhood. In particular, the neighbors cited monolithic massing of the
building and requested that the board require increased setbacks and more
articulation to lessen the impact of the massive structure on neighbors.
Ultimately on May 22, 2012, the planning board approved the conditional use
for a modified development with a specific condition relating to Design
Review Board approval:
"5. The applicant shall work with Design Review Staff to further
modify the proposal to address the following, subject to
review and approval of the Design Review Board:
(a) Pulling back the mas sing, east of the World Savings
Bank property, with emphasis on upper floor setback and
the northeast comer of the building and adding more
green space.
6
42
(b) Further modifying the ground floor area along the canal
(terraces) to minimize the hardscape and increase the
amount of open, landscaped area at grade level.
(c) Adding more canopy trees for increased shade to the
landscape plan particularly along Sunset Drive. Also
work with Sheryl Gold on this item.
(d) Removing parking on Sunset Drive.
(e) Reducing encroachment on the line of sight from Sunset
Island 4.
(f) Working with Public Works staff to limit u-tums at the
guardhouse."
Exhibit D, August 7, 2012 Design Review Board Staff Report.
With this directive from the planning board, the applicant made
revisions to its plan and submitted it to the Design Review Board. That board
held its initial hearing on the application on August 7, 2012.
At that hearing the neighbors focused on the zoning code charge to the
DRB to examine development plans for consistency with the criteria in
section 118-251 regarding aesthetics, safety and function of the structure and
the physical attributes of the project in relation to the site, adjacent structures
and the surrounding community. According the DRB review criteria,
development must not have a negative impact on adjacent neighborhoods.
Under these standards, the developer must eliminate or mitigate aspects of the
proposed project that adversely affect the surrounding area.
7
43
Neighbors presented expert testimony addressing the impacts of the
project on the adjacent properties. Their expert and the city's design review
staff found that the project failed to meet eight of the fifteen applicable
standards. Exhibit E Alvarez Power Point Presentation, and Exhibit D, August
7, Design Review Board staff report). Neighbors also submitted a transcript of
the expert testimony of University of Miami Professor of Architecture
Francois J eune at the May 20 Planning Board hearing on Palau's
conditional use application. Professor J eune stated that the project should
be redesigned to reduce its mass and scale and maintain the view corridor
from West A venue toward the water and Sunset Island 4. Exhibit Excerpt
of Francois Le J eune Testimony, May 22, Planning Board hearing.
In their discussion of the 's neighborhood compatibility criteria
the neighbors addressed the Palau project's impacts on the historic Sunset
Islands neighborhood and the historic Sunset Island Bridge. In particular, the
neighbors cited the 1996 Historic Designation Report. The report discussed
the importance of "sensitive new construction" in the context of the
neighborhood's character, which is defined by the elements of
proportion, massing, materials and details. Exhibit G Designation Report, 2L
report also examined "compatibility with the character of the Historic
Sunset Islands Neighborhood," which positively influences proportion and
8
44
scale, massing and materials. Id., 22. In particular, the report noted: "When
there is a combination of structural building types surrounding a project site,
scale and proportion of the buildings closest to the proposed construction
should be observed." Id.
The DRB voted to continue the item to its October 2 meeting based on
the staff recommendation for a continuance so that the applicant could
address staff's concerns about the proposaL
Prior to October 2, 2012, DRB hearing, planning department staff
had asked neighbor representatives to provide it with their concerns and how
those concerns could be resolved. The neighbors submitted a proposed
resolution approving the application with conditions. The proposed resolution
set forth specific findings and the following conditions for approval:
a. The entire length of the building abutting and east of the
World Savings ank property shall be set back an additional
15 feet.
b. The entire length of the fifth floor of the northern side of the
building facing Sunset Island No.4 shall be set back an
additional feet.
c. entire length of the eastern portion of the building along
Sunset Drive shall be stepped back as follows:
1. First floor an additional ten feet (current proposed
setback plus ten feet);
9
45
n. Second and third floors an additional five feet (current
proposed setback plus 15 feet);
111. Fourth and fifth floors an additional five feet (current
proposed setback plus 20 feet).
Exhibit H, Sunset Islands 3 &4 Proposed Resolution, October 2012.
Design review staff included the proposed resolution as an attachment
to the October 2, 2012 staff report, noting that the neighboring residents
continue to have serious concerns with the application. Exhibit I, 7, Staff
Report, Design Review Board, October 2, 201 In its analysis staff
discussed one proposed finding regarding the comparison of the Palau project
with the Sunset Harbor Townhomes development to its west but failed to
address the other findings and conditions, including those relating to the
Sunset Drive view corridor and the proposed setbacks. ld.
The applicant presented its revised plans to the DRB at the October
2012 hearing. Design review staff determined that these plans adequately
responded to their concerns and recommended approval of the application.
Notwithstanding the staff's position, the neighbors addressed the failure
of the application to adequately address three of the
focus on neighborhood compatibility:
review criteria that
a. Criteria 6 requires that the proposed structures must be
compatible with adjacent structures and enhance the appearance
10
46
of surrounding properties. Yet neither the applicant nor the
design review staff explained how this massive project is
compatible with the abutting single-family properties and in what
way it "enhanced" the appearance of these properties.
b. 7 states that the site plan layout must show efficient
arrangement of land uses, especially the relationship with the
surrounding neighborhood, impacts on adjacent buildings and
lands, pedestrian sight lines and view corridors. But the plan for
the project shows that existing site lines and view corridors are
degraded or eliminated. applicant did not address how it met
this criterion. Design review staff also did not discuss or address
and how the revised plans met this criterion in their written
report2 or in their presentation.
c. Criteria 12 says that the massing and orientation of structures
must be sensitive to and compatible with the surrounding area
and also create or maintain important view corridors. However,
the massing and placement of the building fails to "create or
maintain" important view corridors as it degrades the view
corridor along Sunset Drive from 20th Street to the historic
entrance to Sunset Islands 3 and 4.
Neighbors proposed a simple solution that would meet the three criteria
at Step back the proposed building along Sunset Drive an additional ten
feet at the ground floor, an additional five feet on the second and third floors
2 The staff report merely stated that the criterion is "satisfied". Exhibit I, 3.
11
47
and an additional five feet on the fourth and fifth floors. Exhibit H, 2,
Proposed Resolution.
On October 8, 2012, the board rendered its order granting design
review approval to the Palau pursuant to design review criteria set forth in
section 11 1 of the Miami Land Development Regulations and
subject to conditions set forth therein.
On October , 2012, Sunset and another entity petitioned the DRB to
rehear the matter pursuant to section 118-261.
On December 4, 2012, with only four of the seven members present,
the DRB considered the petition for rehearing:
a. The DRB considered and denied a motion to continue the
hearing by a 2-2 tie vote.
b. Without hearing argument or testimony and without any
presentation of evidence the DRB considered and denied a
motion to deny the petition for rehearing by a tie vote.
c. There were no further motions. Therefore, the DRB counsel
interpreted the DRB rules to determine that the last decision of
the DRB shall stand and the request for rehearing be denied even
though there was not a majority vote for such denial of the
rehearing.
The DRB Order denying the rehearing was rendered on December 10,
2012, and Neighbors filed their request for city commission review of the
12
48
DRB decision pursuant to section 118-262. The city commission
subsequently set request for hearing on its March 13, 2013 agenda.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This city commission's standard of review requires a determination of
whether (1) the proceedings before the DRB afforded procedural due process;
(2) the DRB observed the essential requirements of the law; and (3) the
DRB's decision was supported by competent substantial evidence. Sec. 118-
262(b ), Miami Beach Land Development Regulations.
ARGUMENT
The DRB consideration of this matter was characterized by procedural
errors. Its order fails to show that it correctly applied the DRB
that its decision was supported by competent substantial evidence:
· and
a. The failure to disclose ex parte communications pursuant to
sections 2-511 through 513 of the Miami Beach Code of
Ordinances is a failure to provide procedural due process and a
failure of the DRB to observe the essential requirements of law
in its evaluation of the Palau development application.
13
49
b. The applicant failed to meet its initial burden to show that it met
the DRB review standards, warranting reversal of the DRB
approval.
c. The failure of the DRB to evaluate the elimination and/or
diminution of four view corridors pursuant to section 118-251 (a)
(12), is a failure to observe the essential requirements of law.
d. A staff report and presentation, which failed to examine or
address the specific requirement for "the proposed structure" to
have "an orientation and massing ... which creates or maintains
important view corridors" is not competent substantial evidence
of compliance with that review criteria.
e. The DRB improperly delegated to design review staff its
authority to evaluate and approve plans as meeting DRB review
criteria.
Members Failed Ex Communications as
by Sections 2-511 through City Code
Section 2-511 defines a prohibited ex parte communication as any
written or oral communication with any member [of a city quasi-judicial
board], which may directly or indirectly influence the disposition of an
application, other than those made on the record during a public hearing.
Section 2-512(a) establishes a procedure "for all ex parte
communication" with a board member of a quasi-judicial board, such as the
Design Review Board. Section 2-512(a)(l) requires that "[t]he subject matter
14
50
of any ex parte communication, together with the identity of the person,
group or entity with whom the communication took place, shall be disclosed
and made a part of the record on file with the city prior to final action on the
matter."
Section 12(a)(4) requires that "[a]ny ex parte communication or
activity regarding a pending quasi-judicial matter and not physically made a
part of the record on file with the city and available for public inspection prior
to the public meeting on matter shall be orally stated and disclosed on the
record at the public meeting prior to the vote on the matter ... "
Based on information and belief, prior to the Design Review Board's
hearings on the Palau matter (August 7, and October 2, 2012) representatives
of the applicant Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC, met with and communicated with
a member or members of the Design Review Board regarding the disposition
of the Palau application. Design review staff acknowledges that such
communication did indeed take place. And staff states that such meetings
were disclosed by the chairman who stated at the August 7, 2012 meeting:
"We have met --most of us have met with your team to go over the project.
We have heard everything everybody has to say here." Exhibit N, Transcript
150:14-19.
15
51
According to design review staff this general statement by the chair is a
disclosure for all DRB members (despite lack of any legal authority for the
chairman to speak DRB members on their ex parte communications) and
meets the code's requirement for "[t]he subject matter of any ex parte
communication, together with the identity of the person, group or entity with
whom the communication took place, shall be disclosed and made a part of
the record." Exhibit 3, Staff Report, Design Review Board, December 4,
2012. This is a fundamental misreading of the code and law in that it assumes
that the chairman has knowledge of each DRB member' ex parte
communications. The chairman as a .u ....... ""'"'-'-of law cannot speak for the
members of the regarding their ex parte communications. Such
knowledge only can be gained either through ex parte discussions,
discussions with staff, or discussions with fellow DRB members. Therefore,
this staff interpretation3 itself is an admission by the chair of a violation of the
"Sunshine Law," which prohibits communication between two or more DRB
members (including through third parties) on issues related to official DRB
business. Section 286.011, Fla. Stats.
3 Palau accepts staff's interpretation that the chairman's statement is an
accurate disclosure of the board members' ex parte communications. Exhibit
M, 5, Palau Response to Petition for Rehearing.
16
52
Astoundingly, Palau erroneously claims that the incorporation of the
August 7, hearing record at the October 2, 2012 DRB hearing applies to the
disclosure of ex parte communications made after that August 7 meeting.
This mocks any idea that this quasi-judicial process was fundamentally fair
and that neighbors and other participants in this process had adequate notice
of these post August 7 communications.
At best, the chairman's "disclosure" is limited to himself. At worst it is
a violation of the Sunshine Law. In either event the chairman failed to
disclose the subject matter of this communication, or the identity of the
person, group or entity with which the communication took place. And no
other board member made these required disclosures.
According to section 2-512(b) without such disclosure a presumption of
prejudice arising from that/those ex parte communication(s) remains attached
to that communication. non-disclosed ex parte communications and the
attached presumption of prejudice effectively impacted the neighbors' ability
to obtain a fair hearing and denied them procedural due process. Furthermore,
this direct violation of the city code and state law (if you accept staff's and
Palau's position that the chairman spoke for the entire board when he made
his "disclosure" statement) is a failure of the DRB to observe the essential
requirements of law. (See also: Jennings v. Dade County, 589 So.2d 1337,
17
53
1339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). "Upon proof that a quasi-judicial officer received
an ex parte contact, a presumption arises ... that the contact was prejudicial.
The aggrieved party will be entitled a new and complete hearing before the
commission [here, the DRB] unless the defendant proves that
communication was not prejudicial.").
Palau Failed Meet Its Initial to Show That Met DRB Review
Criteria Requiring it Created or Maintains Important View
Corridors
In the DRB review of the development proposal, the applicant has the
initial burden to show that it has met the DRB approval requirements. Irvine
v. Duval County Planning Commission, 495 So.2d 167 (Fla.l986). These
requirements are set out in sections 118-251 through 264 of the Miami Beach
Land Development Regulations. However, Palau failed to meet that burden
by its failure to address the DRB review criteria and how it met each of those
standards.
In particular, the applicant did not present any evidence that it complied
with Section 118-25l(a) (12). That criteria requires a showing that the
orientation and massing of the proposed struch1re (among other things)
compatible with the surrounding area and that it "creates or maintains
important view corridors." In its presentation the applicant failed to show that
it complied with this requirement.
18
54
That failure warrants reversal of the DRB 's approval of the application.
The Failed to Evaluate the Elimination and/or Diminution of Four
View Corridors as Required by Section 118-251(A) (12)
Section 118-25l(a) requires the DRB to include the examination of
architectural drawings for consistency with specific criteria with regard to the
aesthetics, appearances, safety, and function of the proposed structure "and
physical attributes of the project in relation to the site, adjacent structures and
surrounding community."
Section 118-25l(a) (12) states: "The proposed structure has an
orientation and massing which sensitive to and compatible with the
building site and surrounding area and which creates or maintains
important view co:rridor(s)." Emphasis added.
There is no indication in record (including the transcripts or staff
recommendations) or the final order of the Design Review Board to show that
the proposed Palau development has an orientation and massing that "creates
or maintains" important corridors.
The orientation and massing of the Palau building eliminates four
existing view corridors: (1) the West Avenue view corridor to the waterway
that extends between the World Bank property and the Sunset Harbor
Townhomes; (2) the view corridor to the waterway that extends between the
19
55
World Savings building and the existing incomplete structure to its east; (3)
the view corridor to the waterway that extends between the existing
incomplete structure and the Mark's Cleaners building to the and (4) the
view corridor along Sunset Drive, from 20th Street to the historic Sunset
Islands Bridge.
Furthermore, the orientation and massing of the proposed Palau
building diminishes the existing view corridor along Sunset Drive, from 20th
to the historic Sunset Islands Bridge.
The failure of the board to apply correctly section 118-251(a) (12),
which requires the orientation and massing of the structures to "create or
maintain important view corridors," is a failure to observe the essential
requirements of law.
Both design review staff and Palau state that the DRB considered "view
corridors" and required "that the northeast comer of the building be further
setback in order to lessen the impact on the historic Sunset Island bridge."
According to staff and Palau this change "fully satisfied the Board's request."
Exhibit L, 2 December 4, 2012 Design Review Board Staff Report. But this
DRB request was never characterized as preserving an important view
corridor. It was a response to the building's impact on the historic bridge
20
56
itself, not the view corridor along Sunset Drive from 20th Street to the historic
bridge.
In fact, there is no reference in the testimony presented by the staff or
the developer at the October 2, 2012 hearing connecting this change in the
plans to the creation or maintaining of important view corridors. There is no
mention of the Sunset Drive view corridor by the staff or Palau
representatives at the August 7, or October 2, 2012 DRB hearings.
Design Review Staff Report Fails to Specific
Requiring a Building's Massing to "Create or Maintain View
is Not and Substantial Evidence of
Compliance With Review
Competent substantial evidence is defined as that evidence relied upon
to sustain the ultimate finding that is "sufficiently relevant and material that a
reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to support the conclusion
reached." De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912, 916 (Fla. 1957). Competent
substantial not opinion unsubstantiated by facts. City of Apopka v.
Orange County, 299 So.2d 657, 660 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
The failure of the applicant and city staff to present evidence to the
board that Palau development meets the specific requirements of section
11 1 (a) (12) --that the orientation and massing of the structures creates or
maintains important view corridors --is a failure to present competent
21
57
substantial evidence to the DRB to support its decision that the Palau
development is consistent with that standard.
The October 2, 2012 staff report's statement that criteria 12 was
"satisfied" is not competent substantial evidence of that assertion because it is
opinion with no stated factual basis.
Any claim of deference to design review staffs interpretation of the
design review criteria fails where the staff has not even addressed a key
component of the criteria at issue. Note that the staff report of October 2 only
states that the criteria is "satisfied." There is no reference or mention of "view
corridor" in the staff report despite the clear language of the provision
requiring that the building create or maintain important view corridors.
Deference to the staffs interpretation is not unlimited, and the city
commission's role is not unquestioning. This is especially tnw where there is
no mention of "view corridor" in the context of this criterion in the staff
report or in the transcripts of the DRB hearings.
Furthermore, any deference claimed by staff or Palau is overcome by a
showing that has been a departure from the essential requirements of
law. Bell South Telecommunications v. Johnson, 708 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla.
1998). the DRB failed to apply the correct law by failing to apply each
of the elements of criteria 12 --in particular requirement to create or
22
58
maintain important view corridors. When the agency's construction clearly
contradicts the unambiguous language of a rule, the construction is clearly
erroneous cannot Woodley v. Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services, 505 So.2d 676,678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). See also,
Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc. v. Board of County
Commissioners of Brevard County, 642 So.2d 1081, 1083-1084 (Fla. 1994).
The Improperly Delegated to Design Review Staff Authority to
Evaluate Approve Plans Pursuant to Review
city commission has delegated certain authority to the DRB to
approve design review applications subject to specific criteria set forth in
section 118-251. This authority, spelled out sections 118-251 through 265,
does not allow the DRB to delegate to design review staff its responsibility
and duty to make decisions based on those criteria. 4
Yet that is what DRB did when it approved the Palau development.
According to the final order of the DRB, it approved the project subject to
conditions, including:
4 While section 118-260 authorizes the planning director to approve, approve
with conditions or deny an application for eight specific all associated
with minor public improvements, and rehabilitation, alterations and
demolition of structures or portions of structures, it does not authorize the
DRB to delegate its authority to approve an application (or any portion of an
application) for new development such as the Palau project.
23
59
a. The final design and details, including materials, finishes,
glazing, railings, and any architectural projections and
features, be provided in a manner to be
approved staff. Emphasis added. Exhibit I,
2012 Design Review Board Staff Report.
and
October 2,
b. The final design and details, including landscaping, walkways,
fences, and architectural treatment of west elevation facing the
former bank building shall be provided, in a manner to
reviewed and by Emphasis added. Exhibit I, 2,
October 2, 2012 Design Review Board Staff Report.
c. The plaza at the northeast corner of the site shall further
studied and enlarged to improve visibility
functionality, and shall be added to the waterfront walkway
easement for public access, subject to and approval
of staff. Emphasis added. Exhibit I, 3, October 2, 2012 Design
Review Board Staff Report ..
While there is authority for the to prescribe conditions of
approval, there is no authority for DRB to delegate its review and
approval authority for new development to staff. Section 118-264, Land
Development Regulations. Each of these conditions transforms design review
decisions into staff-level determinations, without any authority in the land
development regulations.
Florida law provides that a legislature may not delegate the power to
24
60
make law or the right to "exercise unrestricted discretion in applying the
law." Sims v. State, 754 So.2d 657, 668 (2000). The DRB, without any
legislative authority, gave staff the power to approve plans as a condition of
DRB approval. That power is reserved to the and cannot be delegated
absent specific legislative authority. There is no such authority in the city
code.
Therefore, the DRB order is invalid because the DRB review
incomplete. Any changes to the plans must be approved by the DRB and not
staff. While staff may review these plans and make recommendations, it is
the DRB that has the sole authority to approve new development for
compliance with the design criteria. This final DRB review has not occurred.
this reason, this order must be quashed.
CONCLUSION
The neighbors request the city commission to (a) review the decision of
the DRB and (b) reverse or in the alternative, remand this matter to the DRB
with instructions that the DRB require additional setbacks along Sunset Drive
as set forth herein .
25
61
Furthermore, neighbors seek a waiver and refund of the filing fees for
the rehearing and appeal, both of which would not have been necessary, had
the DRB process been proper to afford them a full fair hearing.
Respectfully Submitted,
26
62
W. TUCKER GIBBS, ESQ.
Attorney for Neighbors
P.O. Box 1050
Coconut Grove, Florida 133
Tel (305) 448-8486
Fax (305) 448-0773
Email: tucker@ wtgibbs.com
RESOLUTION NO..._. -----
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, [GRANTING OR DENYING] AN APPEAL
REQUEST FILED BY W. TUCKER GIBBS, P.A., ON BEHALF OF SUNSET
ISLANDS 3 AND 4 PROPERTY OWNERS, INC. AND OLGA LENS, OF THE
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S ORDER RELATIVE TO ORB FILE NO. 22889
FOR 1201-1237 20TH STREET, PALAU AT SUNSET HARBOR
WHEREAS, a process for review by the Mayor and City Commission of decisions
rendered by the Design Review Board when requested by an applicant or any affected person
has been established under Section 118-262 of the Miami Beach City Code; and
WHEREAS, Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC was the applicant for a proposed 5-story, mixed-
use development project, which was approved by the Design Review Board on October 2, 2012
and the Order for such approval was rendered on October 8, 2012 (ORB File No. 22889, 1201-
1237 20th Street -Palau at Sunset Harbour); and
WHEREAS, a request for a re-hearing of the DRB decision pertaining to File No. 22889,
which was requested by MAC SH, LLC, and Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc, was
denied by the Design Review Board on December 4, 2012 and the Order for such denial was
rendered on December 10, 2012; and
WHEREAS, W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A., on behalf of Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property
Owners, Inc. and Olga Lens, has requested a review of the Design Review Board order
rendered on October 8, 2012, pertaining to the proposed 5-story, mixed-use development
project, (ORB File No. 22889, 1201-1237 20th Street-Palau at Sunset Harbour).
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 118-262, the review by the City Commission is not a
"de novo" hearing; it must be based upon the record of the hearing before the Design Review
Board. Furthermore, Section 118-262 (b) provides: In order to reverse, or remand for
amendment, modification or rehearing any decision of the Design Review Board, the City
Commission shall find that the Design Review Board did not do one of the following: 1 )provide
procedural due process; 2)observe essential requirements of law, or 3)base its decision upon
substantial, competent evidence; and
WHEREAS, Section 118-262(a) requires the appellants to file with the City Clerk a
written transcript of the hearing before the Design Review Board two weeks before the
scheduled public hearing on the appeal; the transcript and associated material were transmitted
to the Mayor and City Commission via LTC; and
WHEREAS, on January 16, 2013, the City Commission set the hearing for this appeal to
be held on March 13, 2013, and the City Clerk was directed and did notice such hearing; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2013 the City Commission heard the parties, and pursuant to
the argument given, the written materials submitted, and having been duly advised in the
premises determined that the October 2, 2012 decision of the Design Review Board [did or did
not] result in, respectively, 1) a denial of due process, 2) a departure from the essential
requirements of law, nor 3) a decision that was not based upon substantial, competent
evidence; and
63
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2013 a motion was made by the City Commission to [grant or
deny] the appeal by W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A., on behalf of Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property
Owners, Inc. and Olga Lens of the October 2, 2012 decision of the Design Review Board
pertaining to ORB File No. 22889; and
WHEREAS, the motion to [affirm or reverse] the decision of the Design Review Board
was made and seconded, and approved by a vote of __ _
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and City Commission hereby
[grant or deny] the appeal filed by W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A., on behalf of Sunset Islands 3 and 4
Property Owners, Inc. and Olga Lens and [reverse or affirm] the October 2, 2012 decision of the
Design Review Board pertaining to ORB File No. 22889.
PASSED and ADOPTED this ____ day of March, 2013.
ATTEST:
RAFAEL GRANADO, CITY CLERK
MATTI HERRERA BOWER
MAYOR
T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\Palau Project ORB File No. 22889 Appeal-RESO 3-13-2013.docx
64
THE MIAMI HERALD I MiamiHerald.com NE
H
CITY OF MIAMI-BEACH
THURSDAY, FEB~UARY 7, 2013 I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that a public he~ring will be held by the Mayor and City Commission of the. City of
Miami Beach, Florida, in the-Commission Chambers, 3rd floor, City Hall, I 700 Convention Center Drive, Mlaml Beach,·
Florida. ·Otl Wednesday; Maroh '13, 2013, at 5:01 p,m. pu~uant To ~ct!on 118~262 Of The City Code, For An Appeal
Filed By W, :rucker Gibbs, RA, On Behalf Ot Sunset ls!af!qs, 3 And 4 Property Ownere, Inc. And Olga Lens, Of The
Design Review Board's Order Relative To ORB Fl!e No .• 22889 For i 20i ~ 1237 20th Street, Palau At Sunset Harbor
Inquiries may be dlrecte,>l to the Pla~n!ng Depart~~rit at (305) 673-7550.
' '\-
Parties to the appeal are Invited to appear at this hearing; or be represented by an agent, or to express their views
in writing addressed to the City Commission, c/o the City Clerk, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall,
Miami Beach, Florida 33139. The revlew shall be based on the record of the hearing before the Design Review Board,
' · shall not be a de novo hearing, and no new, additional t~stimony shall be taken. This hearing may be qpened and
continLied and under such notice would not be provided.
,-;-'
of Miami Beach , ,_.
Pursuant to Section 286.01 05, Fla. Stat., the CitY hereby adv,ises the public th~t: if, a person d~cides to appeal any
·decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at its meeting or its hearing, such person
must ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is ma~e. which record includes the testimony and evic:Jence
upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not constitute consent by the City for the introduction or
admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise
allowed by law. ·
To request this material in accessible format, sign language interpreters, information on access fqr persons
with disabilities, and/or any accommodation to rev,iew any document or participate in any· City-sponsored
proceeding, please contact us five days in advance at (305) 673-7 411 (voice) or TIY users ma'y also call the
Florida Relay Service at 711.
Ad# 763
65
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
66
RESOLUTION NO.-----
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
CAPITAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012/13.
WHEREAS, the Miami Beach Capital Budget for FY 2012/13 was approved and
appropriated via Resolution No. 2012-28017 on September 27, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the first amendment to the Miami Beach Capital Budget for FY 2012/13 was
approved and appropriated via Resolution No. 2013-28116 on January 16, 2013; and
WHEREAS, it is recommended the FY 2012/13 Capital Budget be amended to add
appropriations totaling $3,401 ,008 to three projects highlighted in "Attachment C -Projects";
and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the FY 2012/13 Capital Budget are included in
"Attachment A-Source of Funds" and "Attachment B-Program".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, that the Mayor and City Commission hereby adopt the
Second Amendment to the Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2012/13 as shown in Attachment A
(Source of Funds), Attachment B (Programs) and Attachment C (Projects).
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 131h day of March 2013.
Attest:
Rafael Granado, City Clerk
APPROVEDASTOFORMAND
LANGUAGE AND FOR EXECUTION
City Attorney
~
Matti Herrera Bower, Mayor
67
Agenda Item B 7 I
Date 3·-13-t3
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
68
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Of The Mayor And The City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida, Accepting The
Recommendation Of The Neighborhoods And Community Affairs Committee Regarding The Relocation Of
The Property Management Facility From The Sunset Harbour Neighborhood To The Public Works
Operations Yard, Located At 451 Dade Boulevard.
Key Intended Outcomes Supported:
I N/A
Item Summary/Recommendation:
At the Neighborhoods and Community Affairs Committee (NCAC) meeting on February 19, 2013, the
administration presented an item requested by the Committee to re-evaluate the option of relocating
Property Management to the Public Works Operations yard. During the discussion, a point was raise about
the present underutilization of the 42nd Street Garage. It was suggested that if all personnel parked their
private vehicles there and were transported between the sites, sufficient space would become available to
enable such a building to be constructed without the expense of another garage.
There is a scheduling issue and a logistical issue associated with this potential relocation. The schedules for
the Property Management Facility in Sunset Harbour, the Public Works Operations Yard Renovation, and
the Flamingo Park Master Plan Improvements could all be delayed. Logistically, it remains to be determined
how the yard could be reconfigured to operate with Property Management co-located there with Public
Works Operations.
It is important to note that currently, the yard accommodates approximately 125 trucks and pieces of
equipment. Furthermore, the 118 employees working in the PW yard do not have designated parking spaces
but instead park informally throughout the facility.
Should it be determined to move the Property Management Facility to the Public Works Operations yard,
there are temporary and permanent issues to be resolved. The construction phase of this type of project
may take up to two years. The equipment stored in the yard, as well as the parking for employees, would
need to be relocated during the construction.
In discussions with the project architect for the Public Works Operations yard, it is his opinion that a parking
garage could be constructed to accommodate the required parking. It would likely need to accommodate
Public Works Operations, Property Management, and the employees of Fire Station #2. In order to avoid
building a parking structure in the lard, the Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee recommended that
evaluate the utilization of the 42n St Parking Garage permanently, wherein 193 spaces would need to be
reserved for employee parking. A shuttle bus would then be needed to transport the employees between the
garage and the yard. During the NCAC discussions, the Legal Department was directed to investigate when
the employees would be considered "on the clock" if they were shuttled to work.
It is not clear that the Property Management facility and accompanying equipment will fit on the site without a
parking structure. A preliminary estimate of $20,000 has been provided for a complete space analysis.
SHOULD THE COMMISSION ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE NCAC TO RECONSIDER
CONSTRUCTING A NEW PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FACILITY AT 1833 BAY ROAD, THE
ADMINISTRATION WOULD RECOMMEND FURTHER SPACE EVALUATION IN THE ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF $20,000 WHICH WOULD BE FUNDED FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS YARD RENOVATION
PROJECT FUNDING FOR DESIGN AND ENGINEERING
Advisory Board Recommendation: N/A
Financial Information:
# Amount Account
384-2313-061357
JJF
T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\Property Management Facility Summary.doc
MIAMI BEACH 69
anager
KGB
AGENDA 1TEM f\1 \.\
DATE .3-13-l3
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the C!fo1 Commission
Kathie Brooks, Interim City Manager 2 ,/: _ __,
/
March 13, 2013
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REGARDING THE
RELOCATION OF THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FACILITY FROM THE SUNSET
HARBOUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS YARD,
LOCATED AT 451 DADE BOULEVARD.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Should the Commission wish to reconsider constructing a new Property Management facility at 1833
Bay Road, the Administration would recommend proceeding with further evaluation prior to
completion of design and permitting of the facility at the Sunset Harbour site.
BACKGROUND
The relocation of the Property Management Facility to a site outside of Flamingo Park has been a
longstanding goal of both the Flamingo neighborhood residents and the City.
In January 1997, as part of the master plan for Fire Station #2, there was a study done by STA
Architectural Group that looked at putting both Property Management along with Public Works
Operations on-site. This included the shared site access drive with the high school and the
construction of a multi-leveled employee parking structure. The conclusion was that the most
appropriate use for this site did not include the relocation of an additional department. In April2007,
STA eliminated consideration to move Fleet Management and Sanitation to the site after concluding
that the site would not support the programmatic requirements of those departments.
On December 10, 2008, Resolution No. 2008-26969 was adopted whereby the City entered into an
agreement to purchase air rights and certain portions of land for the development of a parking
garage, with ground level retail space for approximately $13 million. The Resolution also directed
the Administration to begin the relocation of the Property Management facility from Flamingo Park to
1833 Bay Road. This action was supported by letter from the Townhomes at Sunset Harbour
Condominium Association.
On September 9, 2009, the Commission authorized a request for approval to issue a Request For
Qualifications (RFQ) for the design, bid, award, and construction administration services for the
Property Management Facility (to be located at 1833 Bay Road).
70
City Commission Memorandum-Property Management Facility
March 13, 2013
Page 2 of4
The program requirements for the Property Management yard and facility are as follows:
Building Requirements (16,102 square feet on the 151 floor and 7,423 square feet on the 2nd):
• Administrative offices
• Workshops (A/C-Refrigeration, Electrical, Plumbing, Carpentry, Painting)
• Parts inventory warehouse
• Record storage
• Material storage
• Locker rooms I restrooms
Yard Requirements:
• Outside storage area for playground equipment and other large items
• Lay-down area for small construction activities
• Loading area
• Oversized vehicle parking
The parking needs of the Division are proposed to be addressed in the Sunset Harbour Garage,
located across the street at 1840 Bay Road. The garage will provide approximately 104 parking
spaces for Property Management Division vehicles with a clearance height below 7'-2";
approximately half of this is for employee parking with the remaining half for equipment. Oversized
vehicles are to be parked at the proposed Property Management Facility.
To date, $193,000 has been spent on architectural and engineering services with an additional
$46,000 spent on pre-construction services. The current project construction budget is $3.8 million
and an additional $600,000 is being requested as part of the second amendment to the FY2012/13
capital budget. The documents are 90 percent complete and are ready to be submitted to the
Building Department for review and permitting. Presently, value-engineering discussions are in
progress with the Construction Manager at Risk. Once the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) has
been negotiated, the GMP will be taken to Commission for approval. This is scheduled for June
2013. Thereafter, once the Notice to Proceed is given, the construction is anticipated to take
approximately one year.
The City has hired LIVS Associates to perform architectural and engineering services associated
with the conversion and renovation of the abandoned pump station located in the Public Works
Operations yard, drainage improvements, and a site utilization study. (Public Works Yard aerial is
attached.) To date, $59,000 has been spent on design services and the plans are permitted. The
schedule was to advertise in April 2013 for a contractor to construct the improvements. The
advertisement and procurement process takes approximately four months, and the construction is
scheduled for six months. Therefore, it was anticipated that this work would be completed
approximately one year from now.
ANALYSIS
On February 19, 2013 the Neighborhoods and Community Affairs Committee (NCAC) meeting
heard a discussion regarding the notification of of Property Management Facility for its proposed
location at 1833 Bay Road and recommend that the administration evaluate the option of relocating
the facility to the Public Works Operations Yard, located at 451 Dade Boulevard, and to consider
parking for employees at 42nd Street Garage. It was suggested that if all personnel parked their
private vehicles there and were transported between the sites, sufficient space would become
available to enable such a building to be constructed without the expense of another garage.
71
City Commission Memorandum-Property Management Facility
March 13, 2013
Page 3 of4
There is a scheduling issue and a logistical issue associated with this potential relocation. The
schedules for the Property Management Facility in Sunset Harbour, the Public Works Operations
Yard Renovation, and the Flamingo Park Master Plan Improvements could all be delayed.
Logistically, it remains to be determined how the yard could operate with Property Management co-
located there with Public Works Operations.
Scheduling Issues
If the decision on relocating the Property Management Facility to the yard is not be completed by
June 2013, the schedule for the construction of the Property Management Facility in Sunset Harbour
would be delayed as this is the anticipated date for taking the GMP to the Commission.
Furthermore, should the decision be to move the facility to the Public Works yard and if it is
determined that a garage is needed to do so, the delay would most likely be for several years.
Recent garages built by the City have taken approximately 6 years from land acquisition to
completion. Likewise, as the Public Works yard is ready for bid, the schedule would be affected
beginning in April.
The anticipated date for the Flamingo Park Master Plan improvements to be completed is 2015, and
a facility will not be ready for the Property Management Division in the yard by that time. Should the
determination be made to move the Property Management Division of Public Works from its
proposed location in Sunset Harbour, it will need to remain at its present location, or an alternative
location would need to be identified until such time as the proposed facility is ready for occupancy.
Logistical Issues
Should it be determined to move the Property Management Facility to the Public Works Operations
yard, there are temporary and permanent issues to be resolved. The construction phase of this type
of project may take up to two years. During this time, the majority of the yard will need to be fenced
off to segregate the construction area. It is important to note that currently, the yard accommodates
approximately 125 trucks and pieces of equipment. Furthermore, the 118 employees working in the
PW yard do not have designated parking spaces but instead park informally throughout the facility
including double parking, switching out equipment for personal vehicles, etc. As part of the design
for the Public Works Yard renovation project, the consultant has preliminary developed a parking
layout design maximizing efficiency that could accommodate a maximum of approximately 140
vehicles including large trucks and service vehicles.
The trucks and pieces of equipment stored in the yard, as well as the parking for employees, would
need to be relocated during the construction. The warehouse and operations offices, including the
control room would need to stay accessible and operational.
In discussions with the project architect for the Public Works Operations yard, it is his opinion that a
parking garage could be constructed in the open area of the 4.2 acre site to accommodate the
required parking. It would likely need to accommodate Public Works Operations, Property
Management, and the employees of Fire Station #2.
72
City Commission Memorandum-Property Management Facility
March 13, 2013
Page 4 of4
Public Works Operations Trucks and Equipment
Public Works Operations employees
Property Management Vehicles
Property Management employees
Fire Department employees (approximate)
TOTAL
No. of Spaces Required
125
118
51
53
22
369
However, a height waiver would need to be granted by the City Commission as it is envisioned that
the proposed building could require a height of approximately 60 feet which would include an
elevated first floor to accommodate the oversized vehicles, three floors with conventional vehicular
parking, and an upper floor to accommodate office space. Waivers may also be needed for not
meeting the minimum requirements for property line set-backs and for open space.
In order to avoid building a parking structure in the yard, the NCAC suggested that it might be
possible to utilize the 42nd St Parking Garage permanently, wherein 193 spaces would need to be
reserved for employee parking. However, of this amount, the 118 Public Works employee vehicles
would not free up a corresponding amount of space at the yard as explained above. A shuttle bus
would then be needed to transport the employees between the garage and the yard. During the
NCAC discussions, the Legal Department was directed to investigate when the employees would be
considered "on the clock" if they were shuttled to work from the parking facility at 42nd Street to the
yard or the fire station. This could become an issue with the Labor Unions and a possible subject of
contract negotiations.
There are several other obstacles that must be taken into account to permit such construction. The
30 inch force main that traverses the site will need to be relocated. The foot print of the building
would require removing the fence between Public Works Operations and the Fire Department and
sharing the northern driveway to provide for a second means of ingress and or egress. Further, the
yard encroaches into the Par 3 Golf Course, and this area is mandated to be returned, which
reduces the available area.
All considerations being incorporated into the present analysis, it is not clear that the Property
Management facility and accompanying equipment will fit on the site without a parking structure. A
preliminary estimate of $20,000 has been provided by LIVS for a complete space analysis. This
analysis would take approximately five weeks to complete once a purchase order is executed.
CONCLUSION
Should the commission accept the recommendation of the NCAC to reconsider constructing a new
property management facility at 1833 bay road, the administration would recommend further space
evaluation in the estimated amount of $20,000 which would be funded from the public works yard
renovation project funding for design and engineering
Attachment
Aerial of the Public Works Yard
KGB/JGG/FV/JJF/RWS
T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\Property Management Facility Memo.doc
73
City of Miami Beach: Public Works Yard 2012
74
RESOLUTION NO.-----
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, REGARDING THE
RELOCATION OF THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FACILITY FROM THE
SUNSET HARBOUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS
YARD, LOCATED AT 451 DADE BOULEVARD, AND THE RELOCATION OF
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT VEHICLES AND EMPLOYEE VEHICLES FROM THE
SUNSET HARBOUR GARAGE TO THE 42N° STREET GARAGE.
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2008, Resolution No. 2008-26969 was adopted whereby the
City entered into an agreement to purchase air rights and certain portions of land for the
development of a public parking garage, with ground level retail space, in the Sunset Harbour
Neighborhood (the Sunset Harbour Garage); and
WHEREAS, the Sunset Harbour Garage, located at 1840 Bay Road, was proposed to
provide approximately 104 parking spaces for the City's Property Management Division vehicles and
employee vehicles; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2008-26969 also included direction for the Administration to
initiate the relocation of the Property Management Facility from Flamingo Park to the City owned
property located at 1833 Bay Road (across the street from the Sunset Harbour Garage); and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2009, the Commission authorized the issuance of a Request
for Qualifications (RFQ) for Design, Bid, Award, and Construction Administration Services for the
Property Management Facility; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2013, the Neighborhoods and Community Affairs Committee
(NCAC) held a discussion regarding the relocation of the Property Management Facility from its
proposed location at 1833 Bay Road, and also including the relocation of Property Management
vehicles and employee vehicles from the Sunset Harbour Garage; and
WHEREAS, the NCAC recommend that the Administration evaluate the option of relocating
the facility to the Public Works Operations Yard, located at 451 Dade Boulevard, and to consider the
relocation of vehicles to the 42nd Street Garage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission
hereby accept the recommendation of the Neighborhoods and Community Affairs Committee,
regarding the relocation of the Property Management facility from the Sunset Harbour neighborhood
to the Public Works Operations Yard, located at 451 Dade Boulevard, and the relocation of Property
Management vehicles and employee vehicles from the Sunset Harbour Garage to the 42nd Street
Garage.
75
Granado, City Clerk
City Attorney Date
T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\Property Management Facility Reso.doc
76
201
Matti Herrera Bower, Mayor
APPROVED AS
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOA EXECUTION
RESOLUTION NO. _____ _
A RESOLUTION OF MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE FINANCE
AND CITYWIDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE PERTAINING TO THAT CERTAIN
RETAIL LEASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
THE MIAMI BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND PENN 17, LLC (LESSEE),
DATED SEPTEMBER 16,2011, INVOLVING THE LEASE OF APPROXIMATELY
7,655 SQUARE FEET OF GROUND FLOOR RETAIL SPACE AT THE
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE GARAGE, 1661 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA; GRANTING THE LESSEE THE FOLLOWING AMENDED
SCHEDULE OF RENT: 1) APPLYING ONE THIRD (1/3) OF THE LESSEE'S
EXISTING SECURITY DEPOSIT, REPRESENTING $47,844, TOWARD BASE
RENT OWED FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2012; 2) DEFERRING $8,474
FOR COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE (CAM) FOR NOVEMBER 2012, AND BASE
RENT, PLUS CAM, FOR DECEMBER 2012, IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $64,792
(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE BACK-DUE RENT); 3) APPROVING AN
ABATEMENT OF FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF THE BASE RENT AND CAM DUE
FOR THE SIX (6) MONTH PERIOD COMMENCING JANUARY 13, 2013
THROUGH JULY 12, 2013; 4) DEFERRING FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF THE
BASE RENT AND CAM FOR THE SIX (6) MONTH PERIOD COMMENCING JULY
13, 2013 THROUGH JANUARY 12, 2014; AND, 5) PROVIDING FOR RE-
PAYMENT BY LESSEE OF THE ONE THIRD SECURITY DEPOSIT AND RE-
PAYMENT OF THE BACK-DUE RENT FOR NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 2012;
ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PAYMENT SCHEDULE ATTACHED AS
EXHIBIT "A" HERETO; FURTHER SETTING OF A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE
CITY FOR APRIL 17, 2013, REGARDING LESSEE'S PROPOSAL TO ADD AN
ENTERTAINMENT COMPONENT AS A NEW PROPOSED USE ON THE LEASE
PREMISES (AND AS PART OF LESSEE'S PROPOSAL TO "RE-BRAND" AND
RE-OPEN THE PREMISES), AND AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 142-362 OF THE
CITY CODE.
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2011, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No.
2011-27647, approving a Lease Agreement (the "Lease"), between the City, the RDA (collectively,
Lessor) and Penn 17 LLC. (Lessee), having a term of nine (9) years and 364 days, for use of
approximately 7,807 square feet of ground level retail space at the Pennsylvania Avenue Garage,
1661 Pennsylvania Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, for a restaurant (primary use), with ancillary uses
for a bakery, a bar/cafe, and a book and gift shop (the "Premises"); and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2012, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No.
2012-0000, approving a First Amendment to the Lease, correcting the gross rentable retail space
from 7,807 square feet to 7,655 square feet, as well as providing for a corresponding reduction in
annual Base Rent from $585,525 to $574,125, and the cost of Common Area Maintenance (CAM),
from $100,370 per year to $98,850 per year; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2012, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2012-
27925, approving a Second Amendment to the Lease; 1) granting the Lessee a one (1) month
abatement of Base Rent and deferring an additional two (2) months' of Base Rent to be paid by the
Lessee in lump sum or in thirty six (36) equal monthly installments together with regular payments of
rent, taxes and Common Area Maintenance (CAM), commencing in the third year of the Lease Term
and ending on the last day of the fifth year of the Lease Term; 2) increasing the size of the Lessee's
Additional Area (Storage Space), as defined in section 3.11 of the Lease, to include an additional
284 square feet, currently designated for storage of the building's flood panels; 3) increasing the
charge for Common Area Maintenance (CAM) from $98,850 per year to $101 ,690 to reflect the
increase in size of the Additional Area; and 4) constructing, at the Lessee's sole cost and exoense. RN,
77 Agenda Item--,-....;;...:....,,_--=--
Date 3-/3-13
a new replacement enclosure for the storage of flood panels, subject and pursuant to the
satisfaction and approval of the Lessor; and
WHEREAS, the Leased Premises, which housed the Cooper Avenue Restaurant, have been
closed since December 17, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Lessee is now requesting rent relief in connection with certain operational
complications resulting from the failure of its air conditioning system; and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2012, and January 24, 2013, the City's Finance & Citywide
Projects Committee (FCWPC) expressed support for providing some level of relief to the Lessee,
subject to the inclusion of specific release language absolving the City of any liability regarding
Lessee's cost overruns and claims related to loss of business; and
WHEREAS, the FCWPC recommended in favor of the following terms: 1) applying one-third
(1/3) of the Lessee's existing Security Deposit, representing $47,844, towards Base Rent owed for
the month of November, 2012; 2) deferring $8,474 for Common Area Maintenance (CAM) for
November, 2012, and Base Rent, plus CAM, for December 2012, in the total amount of $64,792
(Back-Due Rent); 3) approving an abatement of 50% of the Base Rent and Common Area
Maintenance (CAM) due for the six (6) month period commencing January 13, 2013 through July 12,
2013; 4) deferring fifty percent (50%) of the Base Rent and CAM for the six (6) month period,
commencing July 13, 2013 through January 14, 2014 ("Deferral Period"), to be repaid by the
Lessee in twenty four (24) equal monthly installments, commencing in the sixth year of the Lease
Term and ending on the last day of the seventh year of the Lease Term; and 5) providing for re-
payment by Lessee of the one-third security deposit in the amount of $47,844 and re-payment of
the Back-Due Rent for November and December, 2012, in the amount of $64,791, to be repaid in
twelve (12) equal monthly installments commencing in the fifth year of the Lease Term and ending
on the last day of the fifth year of the Lease Term; all as further set forth in Exhibit "A" to this
Resolution; and
WHEREAS, at the request of the FCWPC, the Lessee has provided the Administration
with a preliminary business plan which proposes "re-branding" and re-opening of the Leased
Premises by July 13, 2012; and
WHEREAS, Lessee proposes that the Premises, when re-opened, will house three (3)
individual concepts: an anchor restaurant facing 1 ih Street, involving the Lessee's relocation of its
Bond Street Restaurant (currently located at the Townhouse Hotel); a celebrity chef late-night fast
casual eatery in the center section of the space; and (subject to City approval), a lounge/bar in the
existing bar area; and
WHEREAS, since the lounge/bar component proposes an entertainment use, which is not
a permitted use in the Civic and Convention Center (CCC) zoning district, a public hearing is
required, under Section 142-362 of the City Code to approve such use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission hereby accept
the recommendation of the City's Finance and Citywide Projects Committee pertaining to a
proposed Amendment No. 3 to that certain Retail Lease Agreement by and between the City of
Miami Beach, the Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency (collectively, Lessor), and Penn 17, LLC.
(Lessee), dated September 16, 2011, involving the lease of approximately 7,655 square feet of
ground floor retail space at the Pennsylvania Avenue Garage, 1661 Pennsylvania Avenue, Miami
Beach, Florida; recommending that, as part of said Amendment, the Mayor and City Commission
approve the following amended schedule of rent: 1) applying one third (1/3) of the Lessee's security
deposit in the amount of $47,844 towards back-due rent amounts owed for the months of
November, 2012; 2) deferring $8,474 for Common Area Maintenance (CAM) for November, 2012,
and Base Rent, plus CAM, for December, 2012, in the amount of $64,792 (Back-Due Rent); 3)
approving an abatement of fifty percent (50%) of the Base Rent and Common Area Maintenance
(CAM) for the six-month period commencing January 13 through July 12, 2013; 4) deferring of fifty
78
percent (50%) of the Base Rent and CAM for the six-month period commencing July 13 through
January 12, 2014; and 5) providing for re-payment by Lessee of the one third security deposit and
re-payment of the Back-Due Rent for November and December, 2012; all in accordance with the
payment schedule attached as Exhibit "A" hereto; further setting of a public hearing by the City for
April17, 2013, regarding Lessee's proposal to add an entertainment component as a new proposed
use on the Lease Premises (and as part of Lessee's proposal to "re-brand" and re-open the
Premises), and as required by section 142-362 of the City Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 131 H DAY OF MARCH, 2013.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
KGB:MS:AP:KOB
T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\Consent Penn 17 LLC CMB RESO.doc
79
MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOt-l EXECUTION
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
80
MIAMI BEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
To: Kathie G. Brooks, Interim City Manager
From: Matti Herrera Bower, Mayor
Date: March 6, 2013
Re: Commission Agenda Item
Please place on the March 131h, 2013 Commission Agenda an item to select the city
manager. This item should be provided a time immediately following the conclusion of
the Consent Agenda.
Should you have any questions, please contact Gabrielle Redfern at Extension 6157.
Thank you.
MHB/fgr
Agenda Item
Date .J-13-13
81
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
82
RESOLUTION NO., _____ _
A RESOLUTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE MIAMI
BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RDA), ACCEPTING THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY'S FINANCE AND CITYWIDE PROJECTS
COMMITTEE PERTAINING TO A PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO.3 TO THAT
CERTAIN RETAIL LEASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, THE MIAMI BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, (COLLECTIVELY,
LESSOR) AND PENN 17, LLC (LESSEE), DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 2011,
INVOLVING THE LEASE OF APPROXIMATELY 7,655 SQUARE FEET OF
GROUND FLOOR RETAIL SPACE AT THE PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE GARAGE,
1661 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA; RECOMMENDING
THAT, AS PART OF SAID AMENDMENT, THE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS
OF THE RDA APPROVE THE FOLLOWING AMENDED SCHEDULE OF RENT: 1)
APPLYING ONE THIRD (1/3) OF THE LESSEE'S EXISTING SECURITY DEPOSIT,
REPRESENTING $47,844, TOWARD BASE RENT OWED FOR THE MONTH OF
NOVEMBER 2012; 2) DEFERRING $8,474 FOR COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE
(CAM) FOR NOVEMBER 2012, AND BASE RENT, PLUS CAM, FOR DECEMBER
2012, IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $64,792 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS
THE BACK-DUE RENT); 3) APPROVING AN ABATEMENT OF FIFTY PERCENT
(50%) OF THE BASE RENT AND CAM DUE FOR THE SIX (6) MONTH PERIOD
COMMENCING JANUARY 13,2013 THROUGH JULY 12, 2013; 4) DEFERRING
FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF THE BASE RENT AND CAM FOR THE SIX (6)
MONTH PERIOD COMMENCING JULY 13, 2013 THROUGH JANUARY 12, 2014;
AND, 5) PROVIDING FOR RE-PAYMENT BY LESSEE OF THE ONE THIRD
SECURITY DEPOSIT AND RE-PAYMENT OF THE BACK-DUE RENT FOR
NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 2012; ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PAYMENT SCHEDULE ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "A" HERETO; FURTHER,
RATIFYING THE SETTING OF A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY FOR APRIL 17,
2013, REGARDING LESSEE'S PROPOSAL TO ADD AN ENTERTAINMENT
COMPONENT AS A NEW PROPOSED USE ON THE LEASE PREMISES (AND
AS PART OF LESSEE'S PROPOSAL TO "RE-BRAND" AND RE-OPEN THE
PREMISES), AND AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 142-362 OF THE CITY CODE.
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2011, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No.
2011-27647, approving a Lease Agreement (the "Lease"), between the City, the RDA (collectively,
Lessor) and Penn 17 LLC. (Lessee), having a term of nine (9) years and 364 days, for use of
approximately 7,807 square feet of ground level retail space at the Pennsylvania Avenue Garage,
1661 Pennsylvania Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, for a restaurant (primary use), with ancillary uses
for a bakery, a bar/cafe, and a book and gift shop (the "Premises"); and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2012, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No.
2012-0000, approving a First Amendment to the Lease, correcting the gross rentable retail space
from 7,807 square feet to 7,655 square feet, as well as providing for a corresponding reduction in
annual Base Rent from $585,525 to $574,125, and the cost of Common Area Maintenance (CAM),
from $100,370 per year to $98,850 per year; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2012, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2012-
27925, approving a Second Amendment to the Lease; 1) granting the Lessee a one (1) month
abatement of Base Rent and deferring an additional two (2) months' of Base Rent to be paid by the
Lessee in lump sum or in thirty six (36) equal monthly installments together with regular payments of
rent, taxes and Common Area Maintenance (CAM), commencing in the third year of the Lease Term
and ending on the last day of the fifth year of the Lease Term; 2) increasing the size of the Lessee's
Additional Area (Storage Space), as defined in section 3.11 of the Lease, to include an additional
284 square feet, currently designated for storage of the building's flood panels; 3) increasing the
charge for Common Area Maintenance (CAM) from $98,850 per year to $101 ,690 to reflect the BJ Agenda Item .........Jiu:.A.l:----
Date 3 .. t~l3
increase in size of the Additional Area; and 4) constructing, at the Lessee's sole cost and expense,
a new replacement enclosure for the storage of flood panels, subject and pursuant to the
satisfaction and approval of the Lessor; and
WHEREAS, the Leased Premises, which housed the Cooper Avenue Restaurant, have been
closed since December 17, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Lessee is now requesting rent relief in connection with certain operational
complications resulting from the failure of its air conditioning system; and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2012, and January 24, 2013, the City's Finance & Citywide
Projects Committee (FCWPC) expressed support for providing some level of relief to the Lessee,
subject to the inclusion of specific release language absolving the City of any liability regarding
Lessee's cost overruns and claims related to loss of business; and,
WHEREAS, the FCWPC further recommended in favor of the following terms: 1) applying
one-third (1/3) of the Lessee's existing Security Deposit, representing $47,844, towards Base Rent
owed for the month of November, 2012; 2) deferring $8,47 4 for Common Area Maintenance (CAM)
for November, 2012, and Base Rent, plus CAM, for December 2012, in the total amount of $64,792
(Back-Due Rent); 3) approving an abatement of 50% of the Base Rent and Common Area
Maintenance (CAM) due for the six (6) month period commencing January 13, 2013 through July 12,
2013; 4) deferring fifty percent (50%) of the Base Rent and CAM for the six (6) month period,
commencing July 13, 2013 through January 14, 2014 ("Deferral Period"), to be repaid by the
Lessee in twenty four (24) equal monthly installments, commencing in the sixth year of the Lease
Term and ending on the last day of the seventh year of the Lease Term; and 5) providing for re-
payment by Lessee of the one-third security deposit in the amount of $47,844 and re-payment of
the Back-Due Rent for November and December, 2012, in the amount of $64,791, to be repaid in
twelve (12) equal monthly installments commencing in the fifth year of the Lease Term and ending
on the last day of the fifth year of the Lease Term; all as further set forth in Exhibit "A" to this
Resolution; and
WHEREAS, at the request of the FCWPC, the Lessee has provided the Administration
with a preliminary business plan which proposes "re-branding" and re-opening of the Leased
Premises, by July 13, 2012; and
WHEREAS, Lessee proposes that the Premises, when re-opened, will house three (3)
individual concepts: an anchor restaurant facing 1 ih Street, involving the Lessee's relocation of its
Bond Street Restaurant (currently located at the Townhouse Hotel); a celebrity chef late-night fast
casual eatery in the center section of the space; and (subject to City approval), a lounge/bar in the
existing bar area; and
WHEREAS, since the lounge/bar component proposes an entertainment use, which is not
a permitted use in the Civic and Convention Center (CCC) zoning district, a public hearing is
required, under Section 142-362 of the City Code to approve such use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS
OF THE MIAMI BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RDA), that the Chairperson and Members
of the RDA hereby accept the recommendation of the City's Finance and Citywide Projects
Committee pertaining to a proposed Amendment No. 3 to that certain Retail Lease Agreement by
and between the City of Miami Beach, the Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency (collectively,
Lessor), and Penn 17, LLC. (Lessee), dated September 16, 2011, involving the lease of
approximately 7,655 square feet of ground floor retail space at the Pennsylvania Avenue Garage,
1661 Pennsylvania Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida; recommending that, as part of said Amendment,
the Chairperson and Members approve the following amended schedule of rent: 1) applying one
third (1 /3) of the Lessee's security deposit in the amount of $47,844 towards back-due rent amounts
owed for the months of November, 2012; 2) deferring $8,474 for Common Area Maintenance
(CAM) for November, 2012, and Base Rent, plus CAM, for December, 2012, in the amount of
$64,792 (Back-Due Rent); 3) approving an abatement of fifty percent (50%) of the Base Rent and
84
Common Area Maintenance (CAM) for the six-month period commencing January 13 through July
12, 2013; 4) deferring of fifty percent (50%) of the Base Rent and CAM for the six-month period
commencing July 13 through January 12, 2014; and 5) providing for re-payment by Lessee of the
one third security deposit and re-payment of the Back-Due Rent for November and December,
2012; all in accordance with the payment schedule attached as Exhibit "A" hereto; further, ratifying
the setting of a public hearing by the City for April 17, 2013, regarding Lessee's proposal to add an
entertainment component as a new proposed use on the Lease Premises (and as part of Lessee's
proposal to "re-brand" and re-open the Premises), and as required by section 142-362 of the City
Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013.
ATTEST:
SECRETARY
KGB:MS:AP:KOB
T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\Consent Penn 17 LLC RDA RESO.doc
85
CHAIRPERSON
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
86