RESOLUTION 91-20239 RESOLUTION NO. 91-20239
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH DECLARING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1749
JEFFERSON AVENUE TO BE SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO NEGOTIATE AND
PREPARE A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE
OF THE PROPERTY TO THE DAUGHTERS OF ISRAEL, INC.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach (the "City") is the owner of
the following described property (the "Subject Property") :
Lot 13 , Block 21, Amended Golf Course Subdivision
according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 6,
Page 26, of the Public Records of Dade County,
which is located at 1749 Jefferson Avenue, Miami Beach; and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is vacant and of little use to
the City, and the City has no need for the Subject Property, and
the Subject Property is therefore surplus to the needs of the City;
and
WHEREAS, the Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency instituted
eminent domain proceedings against the property located at 151
Michigan Avenue and owned by the Daughters of Israel, Inc.
("Daughters of Israel") and which contained thereon a ritual bath
(a "Mikvah") ; and
WHEREAS the Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency entered into a
settlement for the taking of the property at 151 Michigan Avenue
and the City agreed to assist the Daughters of Israel in locating
another site for a Mikvah; and
WHEREAS, the Daughters of Israel have indicated to the City
that the property located at 1741 Jefferson Avenue would be a
suitable location for a Mikvah; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board, at its meeting of January 29,
1991, pursuant to public hearing, took the following actions:
1) Voted to recommend disposal of the Subject Property as
surplus, and
2) Approved a conditional use permit for the use of the
Subject Property for a Mikvah, subject to the City
Commission declaring the Subject Property surplus and
selling the Subject Property to the Daughters of Israel.
1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, as follows:
1) The foregoing recitations are hereby incorporated
herein by reference.
2) Lot 13, Block 21, Amended Golf Course Subdivision
according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 6,
Page 26, of the Public Records of Dade County, is hereby
declared surplus property for the reasons stated herein.
3) The requirement for two appraisals as set forth in
Resolution 86-18491 is hereby waived and instead only
one appraisal shall be required because it is anticipated
that the appraised value will be below $100, 000.
4) The City Manager and the City Attorney are hereby
authorized to negotiate and prepare a Purchase and Sale
Agreement for presentation to the City Commission at a
future date which sale shall be subject to
a) the City ultimately prevailing in any
appeal of the conditional use granted by the
Planning Board on January 29, 1991, and
b) receipt of a title opinion which does not
contain an exception for, or provides a means
of curing, the restrictive covenant set forth
in the deed dated November 24 , 1919 under
which the City took title to the Subject
Property.
5) The City Manager is authorized to obtain an appraisal
for the Subject Property.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 6th day of February , 1991.
ATTEST:
/1 io010e
4,,vrtAA---__. A A ♦ /
City Clerk ay•r
PNB: lm
FORM APPROVED
LEGAL DEPT.
Date
2 •
s•'
RESOLUTION NO. 86-18491
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROCEDURES BY WHICH PUBLIC
PROPERTIES WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR SALE AND/OR LEASE WITHIN THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH EXCLUSIVE OF THOSE PROPERTIES LOCATED
WITHIN THE SOUTH POINTE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND GOVERNED BY
THE PROVISIONS OF ACT 163 OF FLORIDA STATUTES AS AMENDED.
WHEREAS, the City Commission has reviewed methods by which the City will consider
disposal of public property either through sale or lease and;
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach Is desirous of establishing standards and guidelines
by which public properties shall be considered for disposition;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT DULY RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of
Miami Beach, Florida, that the following procedures shall be adhered to In considering City
property for sale and/or lease:
A. A legal opinon, Including a title search to determine If there are deed
restrictions, covenants, or subdivision restrictions to whether or not the
property can be disposed of shall be prepared. If the City Is Initiating a
property for consideration, then it shall be the City's responsibility for
obtaining the legal opinion including title work. If the City is approached by
a private party for the use of certain City properties, then It shall be the
responsibility of the private party for obtaining legal opinion and necessary
title search.
B. There shall be a determination as to whether or not adjacent property
owners have vested interests In the property, and whether or not a Request
for Proposal is necessary prior to entering Into sale and/or lease
negotiations. If the City is initiating a property for consideration, then It
shall be the City's responsibility for obtaining the determination. If the City
is approached by a private party for the use of certain City properties, then
it shall be the responsibility of the private party for obtaining the
determination.
C. The City or the proponent for lease or sale shall obtain two Independent
appraisals of the fair market value of the property for Its Intended use. The
appraiser shall be selected from a list provided by the City Attorney's
Office. The determination of fair market value shall provide a basis for
negotiation. It is not intended to be a fixed price, since other Clty
objectives may Impact the value, such as offsetting Improvements,
exchanged land, or other considerations that may become part of the sale or
lease agreement.
16
D. Based on the proposed use of the property, the City shall determine the
potential impact of the project on City utilities and other infrastructure
needs and the magnitude of costs associated with needed Infrastructure
improvements. Should It become apparent that further evaluation of traffic
Impact is needed, the proponent shall be responsible for obtaining a traffic
Impact analysis from a reputable traffic engineer.
B. The City Planning Board shall hold at least one public hearing for
consideration of necessary re-zoning and/or amendment to the
comprehensive plan and In order to obtain citizen Input Into theP ossible
lease or sale of City property. The Planning Department shall prepare an
analysis of the proposed sale or lease using the following criteria:
1. Whether or not the proposed use is In keeping with City
goals and objectives and conforms to the City
comprehensive plan.
2. The impact on adjacent property, including the potential
positive or negative impacts such as diminution of open
space, increased traffic, noise level or enhanced property
values, improved development patterns and provision of
necessary services.
3. A determination as to whether or not the proposed use is in
keeping with a public purpose and community needs, such as
expanding the City's revenue base, reducing City costs,
creating jobs, creating a significant revenue stream and
improving the community's overall quality of life.
4. Determination as to whether o the development Is in
* P
keeping with the surrounding neighborhood, will block views,
create other environmental intrusions, and the design and
aesthetic considerations of the project.
5. The impact on adjacent properties, whether or not there is
adequate parking, street, and Infrastructure needs.
6. A determination as to whether or not alternatives are
available for the proposed disposition, including assembly of
adjacent properties, and whether or the project could be
accomplished under a private-ownership assembly.
7. Within the constraints of public objectives, the department
should examine financial issues such as job generation,
providing housing opportunities, and the return to the City
for its disposi tion of property.
17
. .. . - ._- - ., - _. .. .,L..u.-- a:'at_.v.a.........'i.....-:.afi.a.i•:..-:'.-a.ax�. .'S.+. __ o.�1...2r•.".- --<......:..a't..i'n �.i .. _
8. Such other issues as the PlanningDepartment and Planning
P nn Ing
Board may deem appropriate In their analysis of the
appropriateness of the proposed disposition.
F. Should the City or the proponent for the sale or lease not wisho
t undertake
a public bidding process, then the City or the proponent shall obtain the
appropriate legal opinion that a public bidding process Is unnecessarY If the
proponent is unable to obtain the necessary legal opinion, but wishes to
proceed with sale and/or lease negotiations, then the sale or lease
agreement shall be first negotitated, and then made available for others to
bid against.
G. Prior to the final approval by the City Commission of a sale or lease of City
property, and after the amendments to the comprehensive plan or the
Zoning Ordinance have been considered, all necessary variances shall also be
obtained from the Board of Adjustment and incorporated Into the final sale
or lease agreement for the property.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 18th DAY OF June I 1986.
4/4/111Le 11001
Mayor
Attest:
/grit,/City Clerk
FOR
r (. A 1., EftPT.
I✓Fe1 ByMi..40.44-1-61W-a-
R
9 ! � -
t4
9oIS ie .:1_.
r• - 'i
v 5
i - •v
-j..._ - .iJr ••wR
•t:r -. : . .....•., ,i. •.,,.:�- 'a::-._..tet- .r:_7:ted.. ....;i
J• n1
.:t.... .�'.1.'.ri..:Z"..... if:JW. ...._.. "''•'f. - t' - .....r..r.'-T'f...tiv x- ,.-..,.. .•..C. :.a „`a:. _ .,>-.•.r . s.._
eeo ditic veeetme Eeezd
F L O R I A 3 3 1 9
* INCORZATED*5 "V A CA TIONL A NI) U. S. A•
C
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL
ROB W.PARKINS 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE
CITY MANAGER TELEPHONE: 673-7010
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. 51(?ill,
DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 1991
TO: Mayor Alex Da uIand
Members o 'the City Com ssio
FROM: Rob W. Parks - .4/0
City Manager #V►'
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION - DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC
SUBJECT: PROPERTY AT 1749 JEFFERSON AVENUE (FILE NO. 1072)
THE REQUEST
The City Administration has requested that the Planning Board consider recommending the
disposal of a City owned parcel of land located at 1749 Jefferson Avenue as per the procedures
established in Resolution #86-18491 and Zoning Ordinance 89-2665. The purpose of this
request is to allow the relocation of an existing Mikvah, operated by the Daughters of Israel,
from the redevelopment area into the subject property.
On January 29, 1991 the Planning Board held a public hearing to consider the request.
Following the hearing, the Board voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend that the City
Commission approve the request for the disposal of the property in question. The Planning
Board also unanimously approved (7-0) a Conditional Use permit for construction of a Mikvah
on this site, subject to the Commission approving the disposition of this property.
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE DISPOSITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
On June 18, 1986, the City Commission adopted Resolution #86-18491 (see attached) which
established the following procedures when considering the sale or lease of City Property. A
response is herewith provided for each guideline:
A. A legal opinion, including a title search to determine if there are deed
restrictions,covenants,or subdivision restrictions to whether or not the property
can be disposed of shall be prepared.
The interested private party, Daughters of Israel, is preparing the title
search which will be submitted prior to final disposition of the land.
B. There shall be a determination as to whether or not adjacent property owners
have vested interests in the property, and whether or not a Request for Proposal
is necessary prior to entering into sale and/or lease negotiations.
The interested private party will make this determination based on a
review of the abstract which will be submitted prior to final disposition
of the land.
C. The City or the proponent for lease or sale shall obtain two independent
appraisals of the fair market value of the property for its intended use.
The City is obtaining an independent appraisal of the property. Only one
appraisal is required when the value of the land is pre-determined to be
less than $100,000.
D. Based on the proposed use of the property, the City shall determine the potential
impact of the project on City utilities and other infrastructure needs and the
magnitude of costs associated with needed infrastructure improvements. Should
it become apparent that further evaluation of traffic impact is needed, the
proponent shall be responsible for obtaining a traffic impact analysis from a
reputable traffic engineer.
AGENDA _c
ITEM
DATE
.2- _ G i 1
.. .!. moi.. t. 7'''
• 's J
'.%'I•�i 'i r t' �J.a- ^•ti�.% •`.7tJ -�.L.-._a.1.1'.•l..•`�j►'9i..�.'1 f�i•3ti._. .�_.�. '�_.w•
•
t.^.i a:;:.Y�_..L.v7 7tit.•..:t.lL...[-:%;.::ii..-...<.++..:...r.........%4.i'."•.•s'a.=Sa_r:L..::- -......'-..r�:�.T.:.J:-:... .•,>.2)t'+t:K%+ve'at.•C`.cL;. ....i c=4.'...... ..'4.-.�.::�.+�'..,.• '`. ._....�.....:..�.•`�-•.
The Public Works Department shall determine what burdens, if any,
would result from the proposed use of the land. However, since this
parcel of land could support a multi-family residential development, it
is anticipated that the proposed use(Mikvah) will be less intense and thus
would not place a burden on the City's infrastructure.
E. The City Planning Board shall hold at least one public hearing for consideration
of necessary re-zoning and/or amendment to the comprehensive plan and in
order to obtain citizen input into the possible lease or sale of City property. The
Planning and Zoning Department shall prepare an analysis of the proposed sale
or lease using certain criteria. The criteria and the analysis for each, which
were provided to the Board, follows:
to Whether or not the proposed use is in keeping with City goals and
objectives and conforms to the City Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed use would not require an amendment to the Future
Land Use Map and thus conforms to the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The impact on adjacent property, including the potential positive or
negative impacts such as diminution of open space, increased traffic,
noise level or enhanced property values, improved development patterns
and provision of necessary services.
The property is currently vacant; therefore, any development
would diminish the open space of the surrounding area. Traffic
in the area will be increased, but not to the degree if the site were
to be developed as a multi-family building. The proposed use
would not significantly increase the noise levels. There is no
indication that property values would diminish if a religious
institution were to be built in the area.
3. A determination as to whether or not the proposed use is in keeping with
a public purpose and community needs, such as expanding the City's
revenue base, reducing city costs, creating jobs, creating a significant
revenue stream and improving the community's overall quality of life.
The proposed use is in keeping with the Community's need to
relocate the existing Mikvah from the Redevelopment Area. The
City's revenue base would not be affected; however, the
redevelopment of the existing Mikvah site will ultimately generate
property tax revenue.
4. Determination as to whether or not the development is in keeping with
the surrounding neighborhood, will block views, create other
environmental intrusions, and the design and aesthetic considerations of
the project.
The surrounding neighborhood is single family in character with
multi-family infill, as the area is zoned for apartments and
condominiums. The design of the proposed use will need further
refinement in order to' create a single-family residential
appearance; it is appropriately designed in terms of scale and
siting. Since the structure would be low-rise and landscaped, it
should not block views or create other environmental intrusions.
5. The impact on adjacent properties, whether or not there is adequate
parking, street, and infrastructure needs.
Adequate parking has been provided on site. No infrastructure
burdens are foreseen by the development of the site.
6. A determination as to whether or not alternatives are available for the
proposed disposition, including assembly of adjacent properties, and
whether or not the project could be accomplished under a private-
ownership assembly.
This project could conceivably be accomplished under private
ownership assembly, but time is of the essence to relocate the
existing Mikvah and prepare the site for the Cobb Townhome
project in a timely manner. Under private ownership, adhering
to such a close timetable would be difficult, if not impossible.
2 •
12 a
.. .. ...__... ...>..._..n'..Y.' ..>._ • _... ♦ . -_ -s....--. r.?t� ..f .-� Y�..s... .�'f.'....�. ...... >,� . - ..�� _
7. Within the constraints of public objectives, the department should
examine financial issues such as job generation, providing housing
opportunities, and the return to the City for its disposition of property.
The property would be sold at fair market value. The project
would not generate permanent new jobs, but would create
temporary construction jobs.
8. Such other issues as the Planning Department and Planning Board may
deem appropriate in their analysis of the appropriateness of the proposed
disposition.
It should be noted that the analysis of the disposition of this
parcel is based on the proposed use of the site as a Mikvah. Should
any other use be contemplated by any private interested party, a
separate public hearing shall be required.
Should the sale of land be approved, the applicant is required to
obtain Conditional Use approval for the use of the site as a
religious institution. Design Review Board approval is also
required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
F. Should the City or the proponent for the sale or lease not wish to undertake a
public bidding process, then the City or the proponent shall obtain the
appropriate legal opinion that a public bidding process is unnecessary.
The City Attorney's Office shall make this determination prior to final
disposition of the land.
G. Prior to the final approval by the City Commission of a sale or lease of City
property, and after the amendments to the comprehensive plan or the Zoning
Ordinance have been considered, all necessary variances shall also be obtained
from the Board of Adjustment and incorporated into the final sale or lease
agreement for the property.
The proposed use does not require an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan. Zoning Ordinance 89-2665 states in Section 6-12,B.2.
Upon the sale of public property,
the zoning district classification
shall be determined by the Planning
and Zoning Director whose decision
shall be based upon the adjacent
districts. The new zoning district
classification shall be effective upon
the recordation of the property on
the public records.
All lots fronting on Jefferson Avenue of Block 21 are zoned RM-1,
Residential Multi-family Low Intensity. Should the subject property be
declared surplus and disposed it shall also be zoned RM-1.
Two variances have been identified. One is the encroachment in the
north and south sideyard setback (by 1.5 ft.) of the parking spaces. The
other variance is the encroachment of the walkway, along the side of the
building, into the south side setback. It is important to note that the
applicant agreed at the Planning Board public hearing to modify the site
plan to eliminate the need for variances.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Based on the Planning and Zoning Department's analysis of the guidelines as set forth in
resolution 86-18491 and the Planning Board's recommendation for approval to the City
Commission on the disposition of the subject parcel of land for the purposes of constructing
a Mikvah on the site, the Administration recommends approval of the disposition.
RWP:DJG:JG:jm
Attachment
commisn\1072.91
3
•
..3
URC NAL
RESOLUTION NO. 91-20239
Declaring the property located at
1 749 Jefferson Avenue to be surplus and
authorizing the City Manager and City
Attorney to negotiate and prepare a
purchase and sale agreement for the sale
of the property to the Daughters of Israel,
Inc.I