Loading...
2004-25618 ResoRESOLUTION NO. 2004-25618 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, SETTING PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 163.3184, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2002-3370, WHICH CLARIFIED THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCERNING THE "MR-MARINE RECREATION" LAND USE DESIGNATION, BY AMENDING PERMITTED USES AND ADDING PROHIBITED USES, AND CLARIFYING THE RELATIONSHIP OF REQUIRED PARKING TO FLOOR AREA WITHIN SUCH DISTRICT. WHEREAS, on May 29, 2002, the City Commission of the City of Miami Beach adopted Ordinance No. 2002-3370, which amended the text of the City of Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan by adding a description of acceptable uses and densities and intensities of use, among other things, for certain property within the City that is designated "MR" (Marine Recreation) on the Future Land Use Map of the City; and WHEREAS, thereafter, East Coastline Development, Ltd., pursuant to Section 163.3184(9) of Florida Statutes, initiated an administrative challenge to that Ordinance in the case styled East Coastline Development, Ltd. vs. City of Miami Beach and the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Case No. 02-3283GM; and WHEREAS, both the City and East Coastline desire, without either admitting or denying any legal positions in the administrative proceeding, to avoid the expense, delay, and uncertainty of lengthy litigation and to resolve this proceeding under the terms set forth herein, and agree it is in their respective mutual best interests to do so and have agreed on a "Remedial Amendment" to the previously adopted text amendment; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 163.3184(16), Florida Statutes, a proposed Compliance Agreement is submitted for consideration by the Miami Beach City Commission at a public hearing advertised at least 10 days prior to the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the manner prescribed for such advertisements in Section 163.3184(15)(c), Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and following adoption of the Compliance Agreement an amendment to the text of the City's Comprehensive Plan is submitted for consideration by the City Commission at a public hearing. File No. 1669 - Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments 5-25-04 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA THAT public hearings are authorized to be set on the proposed Compliance Agreement and accompanying Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to be held before the City Commission on July 28, 2004. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7ch CITY CLERK day of July 2004. MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM & LANGUAGE & FOR EXECUTION Ci~y'At~omey ~ Date T:\AGENDAX2004XJuI0704XConsent\1669 - MR comp plan reso set pbl hrg 7-7.rev. DOC Condensed Title: CITY OF MIAMI BEACH COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, SETTING PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 163.3184, FLRIDA STATUTES, AND AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 2002-3370, WHICH CLARIFIED THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCERNING THE "MR-MARINE RECREATION" LAND USE DESIGNATION, BY AMENDING PERMITTED USES AND ADDING PROHIBITED USES, AND CLARIFYING THE RELATIONSHIP OF REQUIRED PARKING TO FLOOR AREA WITHIN SUCH DISTRICT. Issue: IShould the City Commission amend the uses in the Future Land Use category MR "Marine Recreation," of the Comprehensive Plan in order to effectuate a settlement agreement for certain pending litigations with the Portofino entities? Item Summary/Recommendation: Pursuant to a settlement agreement, the City Commission will consider amending the text of the MR, "Marine Recreation," Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by including among other permitted uses: parks, bay walks, residential, and required parking for adjacent properties not separated by road or alley, prohibiting other certain uses and to provide that in no case shall the intensity exceed the current floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.25, except that required parking for adjacent properties not separated by road or alley shall not be included in permitted floor area. The Administration recommends that the City Commission set two public hearings for the July 28, 2004 meeting to make this determination, one for the Compliance Agreement and one for the Comprehsenisve Plan text amendment. Advisory Board Recommendation: IThe Planning Board at its June 22, 2004 meeting made the following Motion: Summarize comments, create a model that shows massing of the concept plan and recommend approval of proposed settlement agreement. Unanimously approved 5-0. Financial Information: City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: IMercy Lamazares/Jorge G. Gomez n-Offs: TtAGENDA~004~Ju10704\Consent\1669 - MR text change set pbl hrg 7-7 sum.doc AGENDA ITEM DATE C75 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 www.miamibeachfl.gov To: From: Subject: COMMISSION MEMORANDUM Mayor David Dermer and Members of the City Commission Jorge M. Gonzalez (~ ~ City Manager Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments Date: July 7, 2004 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, SETTING PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 163.3184, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 2002-3370, WHICH CLARIFIED THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCERNING THE "MR-MARINE RECREATION" LAND USE DESIGNATION, BY AMENDING PERMITTED USES AND ADDING PROHIBITED USES, AND CLARIFYING THE RELATIONSHIP OF REQUIRED PARKING TO FLOOR AREA WITHIN SUCH DISTRICT. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION The Administration recommends that the City Commission set the two public hearings for the July 28, 2004 meeting. BACKGROUND The applicant, TRG-Alaska I, Ltd. is requesting to amend the text of the MR, "Marine Recreation," Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by including among other permitted uses: parks, bay walks, residential, and required parking for adjacent properties not separated by road or alley, prohibiting other certain uses and to provide that in no case shall the intensity exceed the current floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.25, except that required parking for adjacent properties not separated by road or alley shall not be included in permitted floor area. In 1994, there was a proposal to reclassify and rezone this parcel from a Future Land Use category of MR to C-PS3. At the time of second reading, the City Commission did not approve the change and subsequent to the hearing in which the change was denied, MR was inadvertently not re-instated in the text of the Comprehensive Plan. On May 29, 2002, the City Commission of the City of Miami Beach adopted Ordinance No. 2002-3370, which amended the text of the City of Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan by adding a description of acceptable uses and densities and intensities of use, among other things, to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), for certain property within the City that is designed "MR" (Marine Recreation) on the Future Land Use Map Commission Memorandum July 7, 2004 MR text change Page 2 (FLUM) of the City. This text amendment cured that scrivener's error and was approved by the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The Notice of Intent to find the plan amendment in compliance was published in the Miami Herald on July 19, 2002. Thereafter, East Coastline Development, Ltd., pursuant to Section 163.3184(9)of Florida Statutes, initiated an administrative challenge to that Ordinance in the case styled East Coastline Development, Ltd. vs. City of Miami Beach and the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Case No. 02-3283GM, one of the various judicial challenges filed by the Portofino Entities. The proposed amendment to the text of the MR, "Marine Recreation," seeks to avoid the expense, delay, and uncertainty of lengthy litigation and to resolve this proceeding which is believed to be in the mutual best interests of both parties. ANALYSIS The proposed ordinance to change the text of the MR, Marine Recreation land use element of the City's Comprehensive Plan is the result of a proposed settlement of litigation against the City and the Department of Community Affairs by one or more of the Portofino Entities. The background information for this particular case is listed on the first page of this report. The means by which this case would be settled is through a "Compliance Agreement," which would be advertised in accordance with Florida law, section 163.3184(16), Florida Statutes, and presented to the City Commission for consideration on July 28 at a public hearing, after which the City Commission will hold a public hearing to consider the text amendment itself. This proposed text amendment adds recreational facilities and accessory uses to the purpose of the element; and adds parks, bay walks, public facilities, residential uses and required parking for adjacent properties as permitted uses. It also includes a prohibition for dance halls and entertainment establishments in this FLUE. The existing FAR of 0.25 does not change. There is proposed an exemption for the required parking for adjacent properties, which would not be included in permitted floor area. As part of the settlement agreement with the Portofino Entities, the City will receive a portion of the "Alaska" parcel. The proposed amendment to the text of the FLUE will accomplish the parking needs of the adjacent property owner in accordance with the settlement agreement and at the same time benefit the city by adding other uses such as bay walks and public facilities, and prohibiting others such as dance halls and entertainment establishments. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS The proposed ordinance should have a minimal, if any, adverse fiscal impact to the current condition as MR at the present time. In the future, the proposed text changes will facilitate the development of the area, inclusive of South Pointe Park, for public use, Commission Memorandum July 7, 2004 MR text change Page 3 The Planning Board, as the City's Land Planning Agency, reviewed the proposed ordinance on June 22, 2004 and provided the following comments to the City Commission relative to the Concept Plan and accompanying LDR amendments, recommending adoption of the ordinance. The Design Review Board also reviewed the proposed concept plan on June 15, 2004; their comments are included below. PLANNING BOARD ACTION The Board reviewed the items related to the Portofino-related settlement agreement on June 22, 2004 and had the following comments: Summary of Board Comments: Allowing upzoning with a trade of land is in the best interest of the City and mitigates the density increase in other places. Concerned about the height of Block 1 as it creates an inconsistency with the rest of the neighborhood. The massing should be at Collins and South Pointe Drive and not distributed throughout the entire block. Boat basin - filling or leaving as is needs to be looked at again when there is a cohesive plan for the park. With respect to commercial uses, there is an anomaly at the base of Portofino Tower if nothing else happens. Some consideration should be given to placing a transitional element at the corner of South Pointe and Alton Road. The pedestrian access to the waterfront through Murano should be enhanced to work more like a public access and not a private road. There should be a transitional use between the pedestal and the park. Residential uses are preferred. Would like to see limited concessionary uses in the park. Park uses should not be micromanaged. Important to realize the land trade; there should not be large scale commercial uses in the park. When the park design and its programmatic uses have been developed, the plan should be brought back to the Planning Board for review. Points of consensus: Importance of land swap to create bigger corridor next to basin. Need to redistribute heights and FAR in Block 1 and deal with open court regulations. The open courtyards in concept plan do not enhance the design of structures. City's use of development rights at the park's edge should be limited to civic uses and perhaps very limited concessions that are accessory to park uses (rest rooms, roller blade rental, water). Need for some transitional element between pedestal and the park. Commission Memorandum July 7, 2004 MR text change Page 4 Points of less unanimity: · Re-consider distribution of uses on Block 51, in particular uses on Commerce Street, massing and revisiting open court regulations. · Limited commercial uses along South Pointe Drive on Goodman/Hinson. Individual concerns: · Closing alley on Block 1. · Public access from Alton Road to the park. · Commercial development on Block 52. Motion: Summarize comments, create a model that shows massing of the concept plan and recommend approval of proposed settlement agreement. Unanimously approved 5-0. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD COMMENTS The following is a summary of the comments given by the Design Review Board at the June 15, 2004 meeting regarding the South Pointe Concept Master Plan. Regarding the City's portion of the Alaska Parcel: All members were strongly opposed to filling in the Boat Basin. The Boat Basin is a valuable amenity. There was a strong consensus against commercial development. Available space should be used for a park and green space amenities. Regarding the developer's portion: Residential uses are preferred, with the exception of an accessory restaurant. The placement of residential uses on the south side of the parking structure on the Alaska Parcel facing the park is not desirable. Architectural development of the parking garage elevations is the preferred method to screen the parking on the Alaska Parcel. The safety of the public must be addressed regarding the dead end alley which will be created on Block 52. The vehicular bridge connection created on Block 51 is not desirable. Summary of Collaborative Planning Process Comments relative to Concept Plan: As provided for in the term sheet approved by the parties on February 25, 2004, and finalized on March 8, 2004, the Concept Plan was to be developed in coordination and collaboration with Neighborhood Representatives. Meetings were held with the Developer and Neighborhood Representatives on March 31, April 7, May 20, June 14, 22 and 28, 2004 in addition to public review at the Design Review Board on June 15, 2004 and at the Planning Board on June 22, 2004. Commission Memorandum July 7, 2004 MR text change Page 5 The DRB and Planning Board recommendations listed above were not adopted as formal amendments to the Land Development Regulations. The City Commission should discuss and consider the recommendations provided by both Boards. If further changes to the Concept Plan are desired, the corresponding policy direction will need to be reflected in the proposed Land Development Regulations before 2nd reading. In summary, the Concept Plan reflects the following: Goodman/Hinson/Alaska: A rounded footprint of the tower and pedestal to be constructed on Goodman/Hinson/Alaska, that allows for an expanded setback of 70 feet from and retention of the boat basin. The City Commission should address the proposed use of the approximately 9,500 sf of allocated FAR retained by the Developer on the Alaska parcel and determine if: a) the Developer retains the 9,500 square feet + on the Alaska parcel as permitted marine recreational use to be located at the south side of the tower's parking pedestal, deeding the originally contemplated 80,450 sf of the Alaska parcel to the City, or b) implement the preferred neighborhood option which is to re-allocate the 9,500 square feet of FAR on Alaska to be included in the developable FAR within the tower to be constructed on Goodman/Hinson as residential use, (resulting in an increase width of 4 ft on each side of the building) i.e. increasing the permitted FAR from 296,000 square feet to 305,500 square feet, without any increase in the height of the proposed building, and thereby eliminating the 9,500 square feet of potential commercial use by the Developer within the Alaska parcel. In this scenario, the Developer would then increase its contribution of land to the City by an additional 7,100 square feet for a total of approximately 87,550 square feet of land to be deeded to the City. In either scenario, the City would still retain its development rights for approximately 28,000 square feet of FAR within Alaska; such uses to be determined as part of the planning process for the design and development of South Pointe Park. Block 1,51 & 52: The DRB and Planning Board also commented on massing concerns on Block 1 and Block 51 and they discussed the activation of the ground floor (or facades) facing Commerce Street on Block 51 and Collins Avenue on Block 1. The neighborhood sentiment is to limit any further commercialization of the area. Again, the City Commission should consider any further changes to the Concept Plan and the corresponding policy direction that should be reflected in the proposed Land Development Regulation amendments before 2nd reading. Commission Memorandum July 7, 2004 MR text change Page 6 CONCLUSION The request is to set public hearings to consider a compliance agreement and an amendment to the Goals, Policies and Objectives, of the Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 163.3184 F.S. requires that the local governing body hold one advertised public hearing for the compliance agreement, and then a public hearing for the comprehensive Plan text amendment. The public hearing shall be held at least 10 days after the day that the advertisement is published. Under Section 163.3184(16), Florida Statutes, the Comprehensive Plan text amendment approved pursuant to the Compliance Agreement, is exempt from the traditional requirements of Sections 163.3184(2)-(7), including the usual procedures of transmittal; intergovernmental review; regional, county and municipal review; state land planning agency review; and local government review of comments. Instead, the local government adopts the Compliance Agreement, and then adopts the amendment, both after public hearings. The local government then circulates the approved Compliance Agreement for execution, and transmits the amendment to the state land planning agency, which has 30 days to determine whether it is in compliance with state law. The agency transmits its notice of intent to the parties, and the State Administrative Law Judge. The City publishes the notice of intent and any interested party will have 21 days to challenge the amendment. If no challenge is filed, the case is dismissed, and the amendment becomes final. JMGICMC/JGGIML T:~AGENDA~004~Ju10704\Consent\1669 - MR tex amend set pblc hrg 7-7.doc