2004-3454 Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. 2004-3454
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL ZONING DISTRICT MAP, REFERENCED IN
SECTION 142-72 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING PARCELS, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
ATTACHED AS EXHIBITS HERETO: 1) A PORTION OF A
PARCEL OF LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "FEDERAL
TRIANGLE," APPROXIMATELY 450 SQUARE FEET, FROM
THE CURRENT GU, "GOVERNMENT USE," TO THE
PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATION MR, "MARINE
RECREATION;" AND 2) A PORTION OF LOT 18 AND THE 10
FOOT STRIP OF LAND ADJACENT THERETO, AND A
PORTION OF LOTS 29 AND 30 AND THE 10 FOOT STRIP OF
LAND ADJACENT THERETO, BLOCK 51 OF THE PLAT OF
OCEAN BEACH FLA. ADDITION NO.3, FROM GU,
"GOVERNMENT USE," TO THE PROPOSED ZONING
CLASSIFICATION CPS-l, "COMMERCIAL LIMITED MIXED-
USE;" PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, REPEALER,
SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, East Coastline Development, Ltd. ("East Coastline") and West Side
Partners, Ltd. ("West Side"), among others which have initiated litigation against the City
of Miami Beach (the "City") and the Department of Community Affairs claiming
damages and rights under the Bert J. Harris Jr. Private Property Rights Act, other civil
rights violations and other relief in Circuit Court Case No. 98-13274 CA 01(30), and
United States District Court Case No. 01-4921-CIV-Moreno, and Florida Divisions of
Administrative Hearing Case No. 02-3283GM West Side Partners, Ltd., and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission have approved a Settlement
Agreement, in concept, between the City and East Coastline, West Side and others with
respect to the above-noted litigations, pursuant to Resolution No. 2004-25509, adopted
on February 25,2004; and
WHEREAS, that Settlement Agreement provides, among other things, a Concept
Plan for the properties known as the Alaska Parcel, the Goodman Terrace and Hinson
Parcels, Blocks 51 and 52 and Block 1 (the "Affected Properties"), to be considered by
the Mayor and City Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Concept Plan has undergone citizen review and numerous
public meetings and workshops through an ad hoc committee of concerned citizens and
has also been reviewed by the staff and has been considered and approved by the City
Commission through the adoption of Resolution N02004-25651; and
WHEREAS, a review of the Concept Plan and the Settlement Agreement
indicates the necessity for modifications of the City zoning designations for the following
properties: 1) a portion of a parcel of land commonly known as the "Federal Triangle,"
approximately 450 square feet, from the current GU, "Government Use," to the proposed
zoning classification MR, "Marine Recreation;" and 2) a portion oflot 18 and the 10 foot
strip of land adjacent thereto, and a portion of lots 29 and 30 and the 10 foot strip of land
adjacent thereto, Block 51 of the plat of Ocean Beach Florida addition No.3, from GU
"Government use," to the proposed zoning classification CPS-l, "Commercial limited
Mixed-Use," in order to effectuate the Concept Plan and the Settlement.
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is being adopted to allow implementation of that
Settlement Agreement and Concept Plan through the adoption of certain changes to the
zoning designations of the above-noted parcels to permit the developments contemplated
in such Agreement and Plan to proceed; and
WHEREAS, these amendments to the Land Development Regulations were not
required by the Settlement Agreement but were independently determined and
recommended appropriate for adoption by the City staff and the Planning Board, based
upon public input after public hearing, following all requirements of procedural due
process attendant thereto; and
WHEREAS, full legal descriptions of the Affected Properties are contained in
Exhibits attached to this Ordinance, and shortened descriptions of such properties will be
codified in the amendments below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. The following amendments to the City's zoning map designations for the
properties described herein are hereby approved and adopted and the Planning Director is
hereby directed to make the appropriate changes to the zoning map of the City:
a) A portion of a parcel of land commonly known as the "Federal Triangle,"
approximately 450 square feet, from the current GU, "Government Use," to the proposed
zoning classification MR, "Marine Recreation;" and b) A portion of lot 18 and the 10
foot strip ofland adjacent thereto, and a portion oflots 29 and 30 and the 10 foot strip of
land adjacent thereto, Block 51 of the plat of Ocean Beach Florida addition No.3, from
GU "Government use," to the proposed zoning classification CPS-I, "Commercial
limited Mixed-Use." See legal descriptions attached as Composite Exhibit "A."
SECTION 2, REPEALER. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith
be and the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this
Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
SECTION 4. CODIFICATION. It is the intention of the City Commission that this
Ordinance be entered into the Code, and it is hereby ordained 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. The Exhibits
to this Ordinance shall not be codified, but shall be kept on file with this Ordinance in the
City Clerk's Office.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinanc shall take effect ten days after
adoption.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 28th day
,2004.
ATTEST:
~'~M~
CITY CLERK cr
r
VERIFIED
~ ftr'TI-&..-
PLANNING DIRECTOR
7/fftJ/OF
DATE
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUT
//"IIOf
DATE
T:\AGENDA\2004\Ju12804\Regular\1668 - ZONING MAP ord 7-I4-04.alternate.DOC
COMPOSITE EXHillIT "A"
lEGAL DESCRIPTION:
A Parcel of land lacated in Section 10, Township 54 South, Range 42 East, City of Miami Beach,
Miami-Dade Caunty, Florida, and being more particularly described as fallaws:
Commence at the Nartheast corner af Lat 3, Black 8, South Beach Subdivisian as recorded in Plat
Book 6 at Page 77 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida; Thence S10'47'.31" W
along the Easterly line of soid Block 8 for 111.76 feet to the southeost corner of Lot 1 of said
Block 8;Thence N 65'35'12" W along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 1 for 64.44 feet; Thence S
87"37'54" W along the southerly line of lots 1 and 3 of said Block 8 for 208.59 feet to the Point
of Beginning of the hereinafter described parcel of land; Thence S 57'41'41" W alang the
Northwesterly line of Parcel II as shown on Fortin, Leavy, Skiles, Inc. survey drawing number
2001 D-061 -1 for 41.05 feet to a non-tangent point on a circular curve concave to the northeast
and whose radius point bears N62'37'08"E; Thence northwesterly along a 104.49 foot radius curve
leading to the right through a central angle of 11'54'26" for an arc distance of 21.72 feet to a
point on the South line of said lot .3, Block 8; Thence N 87'37'54" E along said South line for
42.66 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 445 square feet, more or less.
SURVEYOR'S NOTES:
- This site lies in Section 1 0, Township 54 South, Range 42 East, City of Miami Beach,
Miami-Dade County, Florida.
- Bearings hereon are referred to an assumed value of S 87"38'57" W for the south right-of-way
line of South Pointe Drive.
- Lands shown hereon were not abstracted for easements and/or rights-of-way of
records.
- This is not a "Boundary Survey" but only a graphic depiction of the description
shown hereon.
- Dimensions shown hereon are based on Fortin, Leavy, Skiles, sketch #2001-061-1.
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that this "Sketch of Description" was made under my responsible charge
on July 21, 2004, and meets the Minimum Technicol Standords as set forth by the
Florida Board of Professional Surveyors and Mappers in Chapter 61 G 17 -6, Florida
Administrative Code, pursuont to Section 472.027, Florida Statutes.
"Not valid without the signature and the original raised seal of a Florida Licensed Surveyor and Mapper"
FORTIN, lEAVY, SKilES, INC., lB3653
By:
Daniel C. Fortin, For The Firm
Surveyor ond Mapper, LS2853
State of Florido.
Drawn By JJB ( SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION I Date 7/21/04
Cad. No. 031069 FORTIN, LEA VY, SKILES, Scale as shawn
INC.
Ref. Dwg. 2001-061-1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & MAPPERS Job. No. 041300
FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER: 00003653 Dwg. No. 1004-091
180 Northeast 168th. Street / North Miami Beach, Florida. 33162
Plotted: 7/2t/04 11:090 Phone: 305-653-4493/ Fax 305-651-7152/ Email fIs@fIssurvey.com Sheet 1 of 2
I 0 III
I ~ ~
I ~ ~
I lli <(
I .,
I SB7.3B'5D"________, -/ t=====
L-__-;----------- I I
I I Z /
I I 0 /
I POINT OF I /-liJ I
I COMMENCEMENT I OJ ,,/
I NORTHEAST CORNER OF I I? Z 11/
I LOT 3, BLOCKS --I- _ I liJ ~"'f- - - c--
________ ~)~ I~~ce
__\---,-~~;;-",_..L- [b--@ - ~- ~ ~---1-;: ((~/ \ \1"..,,.
\ \ aB ...., "'" . "'" >7 I LOT 2;; io~ I LOT 5 LOT
3 If...'"' LOT . I
\ NSr37'54'E LOT R3'- - - -t- - -' / I
\ 42.66' "- SOUTHERLVlINEOF:-'-. MONUMENT "'9v. T 1. 1 I', ::: / I \
\ \ _ '\", LOTS 1 AND 3 BLOCKe ....... SS7037'54 6$ Cij 0.00'
\ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - "- 20S.59' 'S',.?" R/~~or-z.. _ _1_ _....L-
'\ - - A=W54'~6" ~ "--- .'/'/,
\ ~=~~.~:9 ~,~ 0 '" POINT OF / ~ HAR\;.E,\
\ ,/~ 41.05' BEGINNING I --IIlLTCC,
\ ,/ NORTHWESTERLV LINE OF MONUMENT 'WEST' /' .LOTOT . I
/' PARCEL II OF FORTIN LEAVY / /"' (P~B~ 6~ PIJ~
\ ,/ SKILESORAWING,2OQ1.06I., SOUTHEAST CORNER I / 'I, I
\ ,/,/ /\ OF LOT 1, sloCKS / / ',I
\,/ ,/,/ \ /
/\,/ \ / II "'ov~o<y"
\/,/) I f -0,'11
~ r-~~
\ ,/,/ / / 1~
\ ,/ / /
'v'/ /
\ / /
PARCEL II I
\ OF FORTIN LEAVY SKILES I //
DRAWING #2001-061.1 /
\ /
\ / /
\ I /
\ / /
\ / /
, / /
......, / /
Gov~ ", I /
~tvll4 " / /
l:2tv..,. , ..... ..... -..!:.. ,,/
00..,.
b J = .L =I=.J. =:: -1 = .L ='= .J. = L -1 == =I:r .= j
SOUTH POINTE DRIVE
- BISCAYNE AVENUE
(PLAT BOOK e PAGE 77)
~
\1'10
""9.L.
1,~
~
""9.L.
G
GRAPHIC SCALE
50 100
I I
200
I
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 100 ft.
Drawn By JJB ( SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION I Date 7/21/04
Cad. No. 031069 FORTIN, LEA VY, SKILES, Scale 1"=100'
INC.
Ref. Dwg. 2001-061-1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & MAPPERS Job. No. 041300
FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZA nON NUMBER: 00003653 Dwg. No. 1004-091
180 Northeast 168th. Street / North Miami Beach, Florida. 33162
Plotted: 7/21/04 11 :090 Phone: 305-653-4493 / Fax 305-651-7152/ Elnail fls@t1ssurvey.cOln Sheet 2 of 2
End Parcels
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
A portion of Lot 18 and the 10 foot walk adjacent thereto. Block 51 of the
plat of OCEAN BEACH FLA. ADDITION NO. 3 as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page
81 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, more particularly
described as follows:
That portion of said Lot 18 and the 10 foot walk adjacent thereto lying
Easterly and Northerly of the following described line; begin at a point
on the Northerly line of said Lot 18, said point being 0.39 feet Easterly
of the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 18; thence S , 2"-46' -OS" E,
parallel with and 0.39 feet Easterly of the Westerly line at said Lot 18
for 74.85 feet to a point of non-tangential curve leading to the left and
concave to the Northeast, having a radius of 47.50 feet and whose radius
point bears N 68'-24'-46" E; thence Southerly and Easterly through a
central angle of 37'-27'-59" for an arc' distance of 31.06 feet to a point
on the Southerly line of said Lot 18 and. on. the Northerly line of a 10
foot walkway as shown on said plat of OCEAN BEACH FLA. ADD,ITION NO. ~,
said point being also a point of compound curve having 0 radius of 45.00
feet; thence Southerly and Easterly through 0 central angle of
23'-25'-51" for on arc distance of 18.40 feet to a point on the Southerly
extension of the Easterly line of said Lot 18, said point being 9.78 feet
Southerly of the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 18 and the TERMINAL
POINT of the herein described line.
All of the above lying and being in Section 3, Township ~j4 South, Range 42
-Eost,-City-6r-"MiaiTiIBeoch, Dade County, Florida.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
A portion of Lots 29 and 30 and the 10 foot walk adjacent .thereto, Bloc.k 51
of the plat of OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO. 3 as recorded in Plot Book 2, Page
81 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, more particularly
described os follows:
Begin at the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 29; thence N 77'-13'-28" E
along the Northerly line of said Lots 29 and 30 0 distance of 55.15 feet to
o point; thence S 00' - 37'-13" W for a distance of 112.35 feet to a point
on the Southerly line of a 10 foot walk shown on said IJlat of OCEAN BEACH
ADDITION NO.3; thence S 76' -52' -58" W along the Southerly line of said 10
foot walk 0 distance of 31.51 feet to its intersection with the Southerly
extension of the Westerly line of said Lot 2S; thence N 12'-46'-09" W
along the said Southerly extension and along the Westerly line of said Lot
29 a distance of 110.02 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
All of the above Iy[ng and being in Section 3, township 54 South, Range 42
East, City of Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
m
Condensed Title:
An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, amending the Official
Zoning District Map, by changing the zoning district classification for a portion of a parcel of land commonly
known as the "Federal Triangle," from the current GU, "Government Use," to the proposed zoning
classification MR, "Marine Recreation;" and a portion of Lot 18 and the 10 foot strip of land adjacent
thereto, and a portion of Lots 29 and 30 and the 10 foot strip of land adjacent thereto, Block 51 from GU,
"Government Use," to the proposed zoninq classification C-PS1, "Commercial Limited Mixed-Use."
Issue:
Should the City Commission amend the Official Zoning Map for these parcels of land in order to effectuate
a settlement agreement for certain pending litigations with the Portofino entities?
Item Summary/Recommendation:
As part of a settlement agreement, accepted in concept by the City Commission on February 25, 2004, a
"concept plan" has been developed. The plan would require certain modifications to the Official Zoning
Map for a portion of a parcel of land commonly known as the "Federal Triangle," from the current GU,
"Government Use," to MR, "Marine Recreation;" and a portion of Lot 18 and the 10 foot strip of land
adjacent thereto, and a portion of Lots 29 and 30 and the 10 foot strip of land adjacent thereto, Block 51
from GU, "Govern merit Use," To The Proposed Zoning Classification CPS-1, "Commercial Limited Mixed-
Use."
The Administration recommends that the Citv Commission adoot the ordinance.
Adviso Board Recommendation:
The 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
a reement. Unanimousl a roved 5-0.
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account Approved
Funds: 1
D 2
3
4
Finance Dept. Total
Ci Clerk's Office Le islative Trackin
Mercy Lamazares/Jorge G. Gomez
Si
ent Director
Assistant City Manager
City Manager
L
04\JuI2804\Regular\1668 - zoning map pblc hrg 7.28 sum.doc
AGENDA ITEM
DATE
RSD
7-2'8 -DC{
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
To:
Mayor David Dermer and
Members of the City Commission
Date: July 28, 2004
From:
Jorge M. Gonzalez \.'!I.~
City Manager .. fI v (J
Zoning Map Change U
Public Hearina
Subject:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING
DISTRICT MAP, REFERENCED IN SECTION 142-72 OF THE CODE OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING PARCELS, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
ATTACHED AS EXHIBITS HERETO: 1) A PORTION OF A PARCEL OF
LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "FEDERAL TRIANGLE,"
APPROXIMATELY 450 SQUARE FEET, FROM THE CURRENT GU,
"GOVERNMENT USE," TO THE PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATION
MR, "MARINE RECREATION;" AND 2) A PORTION OF LOT 18 AND THE
10 FOOT STRIP OF LAND ADJACENT THERETO, AND A PORTION OF
LOTS 29 AND 30 AND THE 10 FOOT STRIP OF LAND ADJACENT
THERETO, BLOCK 51 OF THE PLAT OF OCEAN BEACH FLA, ADDITION
NO.3, FROM GU, "GOVERNMENT USE," TO THE PROPOSED ZONING
CLASSIFICATION C-PS1, "COMMERCIAL LIMITED MIXED-USE;"
PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the ordinance which
reflects the reduced Federal Triangle area as accepted by the Commission on July 7,
2004.
BACKGROUND
After a series of down-zonings citywide in 1998, and the denial of a request in 2001 for the
re-zoning of the "Alaska" parcel, a number of the Portofino Entities initiated litigation
against the City and the Florida Department of Community Affairs claiming damages and
rights under the Bert J. Harris Jr. Private Property Rights Act, other civil rights violations
and other relief in Circuit Court, U.S. District Court and the Florida Division of
Administrative Hearings.
This zoning map change is necessary because of the transfer of government-owned land
in compliance with a proposed "settlement agreement" with the various entities, collectively
known as the Portofino entities. The "agreement" contemplates, among other things,
resolution of pending litigations in Circuit Court, U.S. District Court and the Florida Division
Commission Memorandum
July 28, 2004
Zoning Map change
Page 2
of Administrative Hearings for consideration of a concept plan for the properties known as
Alaska, Goodman Terrace, Hinson Parcel, Blocks 51 and 52, and Block 1.
ANALYSIS
~.
~
~
"=b
<P
~
GU
o
The proposed amendments to the
zoning map were as follows:
1) A portion of a parcel of land
commonly known as the "Federal
Triangle," approximately 4,178
square feet, from the current GU,
"Government Use," to the
proposed zoning classification MR,
"Marine Recreation;" and
2) A portion of lot 18 and the 10
foot strip of land adjacent thereto,
and a portion of lots 29 and 30 and
the 10 foot strip of land adjacent
thereto, Block 51 of the plat of
Ocean Beach Florida addition No.
3, from GU "Government use," to
the proposed zoning classification
C-PS1, "Commercial limited mixed-
use."
It should be noted that at the July 7, 2004 meeting, the City Commission set the public
hearing for the proposed ordinance, and in reviewing the Settlement Agreement and
Concept Plan approved the following:
. Approved Option #2 of the Concept Plan as it refers to the Alaska Parcel. This option re-
allocates 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 of3 ft. on each side of the building and increasing the permitted FAR from 296,000
square feet to 305,500 square feet, without any increase in the height of the proposed
building. This option also eliminates 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.
Based on this option, the Developer would require only +/- 450 square feet of the Federal
Triangle. The map above reflects this change.
The proposed change for a portion of the Federal Triangle from GU to MR would be
required because of the proposed exchange for a portion of the Alaska parcel that the City
will receive which will complement the balance of the Alaska parcel and the proposed
residential use in the adjacent Hinson parcel. With regard to Block 51, it should be noted
that City property automatically converts to GU zoning; however, the current zoning map
~
f
d
Commission Memorandum
July 28, 2004
Zoning Map change
Page 3
has reflected the parcels as C-PS1 and not GU. Therefore, the proposed changes are
already reflected and the proposed ordinance will officially codify the change.
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
The proposed ordinance will change the zoning map of +/- 450 square feet of the Federal
Triangle from the current ROS, "Recreation and Open Space," to MR, "Marine
Recreation." There should be minimal, if any, adverse fiscal impact to the current condition
as MR has a maximum FAR of 0.25 as opposed to ROS, which has a maximum FAR of
0.50. The proposed change to Block 51 should also have minimal fiscal impact as this
change converts a small portion of public property to private use as part of the settlement
agreement and should somewhat increase the future tax base. Furthermore, pursuant to a
Settlement Agreement, the City will also receive a large portion of the Alaska Parcel, which
will then become public property for the enjoyment and general welfare of the residents of
the City.
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:
Commission Memorandum
July 28, 2004
Zoning Map change
Page 4
. 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.
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.
f
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.
Reqardinq the City's portion of the Alaska Parcel:
f
.
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.
.
.
.
Reqardinq 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 1.
. The vehicular bridge connection created on Block 51 is not desirable.
Commission Memorandum
July 28, 2004
Zoning Map change
Page 5
Summary of Collaborative Plannina 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, and 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. An additional meeting was held by the Neighborhood
Representatives and the Developer on July 12, 2004
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 final adoption at 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.
At the July 7,2004 meeting, the Commission addressed the two options described below
and approved b), which was described during the meeting as Option #2:
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 ofthe 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 3 ft on each side of the building) Le. 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.
With this option, the City still retains 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.
Commission Memorandum
July 28, 2004
Zoning Map change
Page 6
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.
At the July 12, 2004 meeting of the Neighborhood Representatives participating in the
Collaborative process, provided the following comments:
. Commercial uses on the ground floor of Block 1 and 51. The stated preference of
the residents participating in the Collaborative process was not to have any retail
uses on the ground floor by a very slight majority (7-6).
. A secondary position was to allow commercial uses in the following areas - Block 1,
facing South Pointe Drive; Block 51, from Washington Avenue up to the residential
entrance (approximately half-way to Alton Road).
. Height on Block 1 - it was unanimously preferred to maintain the maximum height
at 75 feet.
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 final adoption at 2nd reading.
CITY COMMISSION ACTION
At the July 7, 2004 meeting, the City Commission set the public hearing for the proposed
ordinance, and in reviewing the Settlement Agreement and Concept Plan and by approving
Option #2 of the Concept Plan, the zoning map change that is required for the Federal
Triangle will be reduced to +/- 450 square feet. The attached ordinance reflects this
change.
CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Section 118-164(1) of the City Code, when the proposed amendment changes
the actual list of permitted, conditional or prohibited uses in a zoning category, or changes
the actual zoning map designation for a parcel or parcels of land and, in either case, the
proposed amendment involves less than ten contiguous acres, the City Clerk shall notify by
mail the owners of record of land lying within 375 feet. Such notice shall be given at least
30 days prior to the date set for the public hearing, and a copy of such notice shall be kept
available for public inspection during the regular business hours of the office of the City
Clerk.
A notice for the public hearing on July 28, 2004 was mailed to the owners of record of land
lying within 375 feet on June 25, 2004. Additional notice was given in the newspaper
published on July 11, 2004. After the public hearing, the City Commission may adopt the
ordinance by a 5/7ths vote.
Commission Memorandum
July 28, 2004
Zoning Map change
Page 7
JMG/CMC/JGG/ML
T:\AGENDA\2004\JuI2804\Regular\1668 - zoning map pblc hrg 7 -28.doc
~... 4l
L
-
<
o
LL
:r
LL
I
f-
E:
c
L
-c
"
"'
.c
?
~~
;
. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH "......
NOTICE OF AMENDMENTS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP ~
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, .....
ZONING MAP AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
THE cm OF MIAMI BEACH CIlY COMMISSION will hold publio hearings on the following
ordinances on WEDNESDAY, July 28, 2004 al5:15 P.M. in the City Commission Chambers, Third
Floor, City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, or as soon thereafter
as these matters can be heard:
FLUM Amendment
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LANO USE CATEGORY FOR THE
FOLLOWING PARCELS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTIDNS ATTACHED AS EXHIBITS HERETO: 1) A PORTION OF A PARCEL OF
LAND COMMDNLY KNDWN AS THE "FEDERAL TRIANGLE," APPROXIMATELY 4,178
SQUARE FEET, FROM THE CURRENT ROS, "RECREATION AND DPEN SPACE," TO THE
FUTURE LAND USE CATEGDRY OF MR, "MARINE RECREATION;" AND 2) A CITY-
OWNED PARCEL 5Q,fEET WIDE FRONTING ON BISCAYNE BAY, QF APPROXIMATELY
4,600 SQUARE FEET, ON BLOCK B, SOUTH BEACH PARK SUBDIVISION (A/KlA
HINSON PARCEL) FROM THE CURRENT CPS-3, "COMMERCiAl INTENSIVE MIXED-
USE," TO THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY ROS, "RECREATION AND OPEN
SPACE;" PROVIDING FOR INCLUSIDN IN THE COMPRF~ENSIVE PLAN,
TRANSMmAl, REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DAT.:.
Zonino MaD Chanae
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING DISTRICT MAP, RefERENCED
IN SECTION 142-72 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, BY
CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIRCATlON FOR THE FOLLOWING PARCELS,
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE LEGAl DESCRIPTIONS ATTACHED AS
EXHIBITS HERETO: 1) A PORTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS
THE "FEDERAL TRIANGLE," APPROXIMATELY 4,178 SQUARE FEET, FROM THE
CURRENT GU, "GOVERNMENT USE," TO THE PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIRCATION
MR, "MARINE RECREATION;" ANO 2) A PORnON OF LOT 18 AND THE 10 FOOT
STRIP OF LAND ADJACENT THERETO, AND A PORnON OF LOTS 29 AND 30 AND
THE 1 D FOOT STRIP OF LAND ADJACENT THERETO, BLOCK 51 OF THE PLAT OF
OCEAN BEACH FLA. ADDITION NO.3, FROM GU, "GOVERNMENT USE," TO THE
PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATION CPS-1, .COMMERCIAL LIMITED MIXED-USE;"
PROVIDING FOR COOIFICATION, REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECnVE
DATE.
Amendments In Land DeveloDment Reoulations
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CI1Y COMMISSION OF THE CRY OF MIAMI
BEACH, R.ORIIlA, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CRY OF MIAMI BEACH, BY
AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING DISTRICtS AND REGlIATIDNS," AIll1CLE II,
"DISTRICT REGULATIONS," DMSlON 12, "MR-MARlNE RECREATION DISTRICT,"
CLARIfYING PURPOSE, PROVIDING FOR ADDlTIlINAL MAIN PBlMmEO USES AND
PROHlBmNG CERTAIN USES, AND EXCLUDING FROM FLOOR AREA REQUIRED
PARKING FOR ADJACENT PROPERTIES; AND DMSlON 18, "PS PERFORMANCE
STANDARD DISTRICT," MODIFYING HEIGHT, NUMBER OF STORIES, SETBACKS,
FLOOR AREA RAnDS AND AlLOWING REQUIRED PARKING IN THE CPS-1 AND CPS-3
ZONING DISTRICtS FOR DEFINED PROPER11ES, CLARIFYING HOW SIJClI REQUIRED
OR PUBLIC PARKING RELATES TO FLOOR AREA AND IS ALLOWED, AND FlOOR AREA
IS DISTRIBUTED, THROUGH COVENANTS IN LIEU OF UNITY OF T1TLE; PRtMDING FOR
REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Fia. Stat., the City hereby advises the Dublic that: if a person deCides to
appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at its
meeting or its hearing, such p~rson must ensure that a verbatim record of tile proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony and evidence 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
Inquiries may be directed to the Planning Department al (305) 673~7550. Copies of these ordlnance~
are available for publiC inspection during normal business hours in the planning Department oNices
1700 Convention Center Drive, 2nd floor, City HaU, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This meeting may b€
continued and under such circumstances additional legal notice will not be provided.
To request this material in accessible format. sign language interpreters. information on access
persons with disabilities, and/of any accommodation to review any document or participate in ar'~"f
city-sponso~e.d. proceeding, please contact (305)604-2489 (voice), (305) 673-721 B(TTY) five de)'') ;"
adv~nce to Initiate your request. TTY users may also call 711 (FINida Relay Service) (Ad #0274)
/
~s u.L~ )-~J7C-O~
Vll'L. ~i ~S
t7A
!L.7F
. ."
REMARKS AND COMMENTS BY MICKY BISS ~ '7"8
BEFORE THE MIAMI BEACH CITY COMMISSION IL.s- F
AND THE MIAMI BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (l.S G
JULY 28, 2004 /2-~ D l
P-_~E/i..(
My name is Micky Biss. Individually, and through my corporate entity, USA Express, Inc., I
own property in the City of Miami Beach located at 120, 126 and 130 Ocean Drive and my
corporate entity and I are affected parties to this evening's proceedings. I understand that
for certain aspects of these proceedings you are sitting as the Miami Beach Redevelopment
Agency and therefore, where applicable, my remarks are being made to both this agency, as
well as to the City Commission.
I have not been before you for many years. I come here tonight because what is before you
now is one of the most important matters the Miami Beach Commission has ever dealt with.
The plaintiffs and applicants intend this to be the culmination or final act of a development
plan which has been carefully orchestrated and choreographed for over twelve years.
When Thomas Kramer first came to our fine City and started buying up properties some
twelve years ago, I was one of the largest land owners in the area known as South Point -
the area in Miami Beach south of Fifth Street. I became acquainted with Mr. Kramer, we broke
bread together and we shared ideas and visions for a new South Beach and, more
particularly, the redevelopment of South Point. As many of you may recall, one of his earliest
plans was to turn South Point into a beautiful low-rise community with hills and valleys and
green space; resembling as he then said, the Italian City of Portofino - hence the name of
his entity which is now before you.
The City leaders seemed intrigued. They even participated in Portofino's June 1993 charette
at which time architects and planners from around the globe gathered in Joe's for several
days to exchange ideas and concepts for this Redevelopment Area of Miami Beach.
Unfortunately, soon after, all those beautiful and seductive ideas were no longer being
discussed. Instead, in 1994 we got Portofino Towers and a lot of lawsuits filed against our
fine City by some of the very best attorneys in Florida. One of the most interesting
maneuvers was that Portofino bought, from an out-of-state entity, a judgment which this
entity had against the City of Miami Beach and then Portofino threatened the City with this
judgment and really tried to stick it to us.
About that time, a young man, an attorney in town with a lot of intelligence and charisma and
most importantly, a lot of principles, woke up the citizens of this City through the grassroots
organization he spearheaded known as Save Miami Beach. We all know the rest of the David
and Goliath story of how this small organization with a few dollars defeated Portofino's two
Page 2
million dollar campaign and how this charter amendment was ultimately passed by the
citizens of this City to protect our waterfront property. The little bit of undeveloped
waterfront property we still had was now going to be saved forever from developers doing
the very type of thing Portofino wanted to do in 1997. Later, the charter was further
amended to also protect our non-waterfront inland property.
It is ironic that today the gentleman who spearheaded this charter amendment movement is
our mayor, the honorable David Dermer and it is a travesty that a few months ago in
anticipation of pulling off the Settlement Agreement that is before you tonight, the City
modified the language of the very charter amendments which were to supposed to protect
the City and its citizens from Portofino. Supposedly, these modifications now exempt
Portofino, along with their related companies and entities from the original charter
amendments and thereby from the will of the citizens of this City. This sounds like something
that Chavez would attempt to pull off in Venezuela. Since it seems that he controls the
Supreme Court of Venezuela, he would probably be successful. Fortunately, here in Miami
Beach, USA, this will not fly. In addition to the manipulative intent of the modifications, I
believe that the language on its face does not allow for the actions that you are considering
tonight to be exempt from the charter amendments. Some of the terms of the proposed
Settlement Agreement must go to the voters of this City for approval by the electorate before
you can act.
I have already spent much of the time allotted to me tonight in an attempt to put the twelve
years preceding this Settlement Agreement into perspective and try to have you see that this
Settlement Agreement being quickly approved tonight, along with all of the land use changes
and other actions the City will be compelled to take and approve does not pass the
"reasonable doubt" test - reasonable doubt as to whether all this is in the best interest of
the City and reasonable doubt as to whether, in view of the multiple charter amendments
which should prohibit the commission from these types of actions, all this should really be
approved by you at this late hour on a Wednesday night in the middle of the summer just
before you adjourn for summer recess. Think about it. What do you have to lose by allowing
the citizens to vote on this decision? Even if you do not agree with me that the recent charter
amendments do not exempt what is being contemplated here tonight from the requirements
of the charter, what do you have to lose to err on the side of caution and put this to a public
vote? I urge you to give the voters enough credit to be able to figure out what is really best
for the City. As Mr. Dermer and his Save Miami Beach organization learned in 1997, the
voters were smart enough to figure it out and knew the right thing to do. Give them credit
now, seven years later, for being able to figure it out and do the right thing again.
Page 3
I want to believe that you will heed this advise and not rush to judgment tonight and bind the
City to an agreement regarding our precious waterfront and other land that we will all have to
live with in perpetuity and those that come after us will also all have to live with.
But, just in case my urgings fall on deaf ears tonight, I need, as quickly as possible, in the
time still allotted to me to make some other mentions to, as we say, preserve the record. In
addition to that which I have already stated, much of the process before you tonight is
flawed and I or in violation of: the City Charter, the City Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the
City, State Statutes, State Regulations and even restrictions imposed on you by the Federal
Government.
This evening's proceedings have been, I believe intentionally, a very rushed process. The
Public Hearings were set for tonight by this commission well after the City staff had already
sent out notices of these Public Hearings anticipating that you would rubber stamp what
others had already decided to do.
Regarding these Public Hearings, I want to raise my formal objections to merging or
otherwise consolidating any of the Public Hearings noticed and scheduled for this evening.
Each of these hearings should be held separately. While I recognize that there may be some
related issues, each of these matters are affected by different law, regulations or charter
provisions. There should not be a merger of evidence. I believe you must hold separate and
distinct hearings. Within one day of the time these Public Hearings were set, on July 7th, I
made numerous Public Records Requests to be able to see certain relevant public records
and files in connection with all of the extremely involved and complicated matters that are
before you tonight. It seems my request came as a surprise to City staff. While the process
under City and State law provides for all of what I asked for to be readily available, it was not.
To this date, I still have not received a substantial part of the relevant public records I
requested; even though I have considerably modified my request so as to not burden the
City. The delays in my receiving the requested public documents and the constant last-
minute modifications to the documents has contributed to my difficulty in trying to analyze
the nature and effect of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the related approvals
and ordinances before you this evening, and interpret and analyze the ordinances, the
actions of the Planning Board and how all of this affects my property. Only yesterday
afternoon was I finally able to receive a copy of the deed the city received from the Federal
Government for the coveted piece of property known as the Federal Triangle and only
yesterday was I able to confirm what I suspected. There are covenants and restrictions in that
deed given to the City by the Federal Government, which specifically prohibit the actions that
Page 4
you are contemplating to take tonight. Clearly, the deed from the Federal Government does
not allow this property to be a pawn in the settlement of a lawsuit, nor does it allow for any
of it to be part of a commercial undertaking or enterprise.
As for the delays in receiving the final documents, even the actual Settlement Agreement
which is the primary document before you and which drives everything else here tonight, was
not ready for public viewing after notices of these hearings went out and after you set the
Public Hearings. The best the City was able to provide me with days after my Public Records
Request was a document entitled "Draft - 6/28/04 - Settlement Agreement." It was not until
just a few days ago that I was able to finally get a copy of the Settlement Agreement which
no longer said draft and which was now dated July 21st 2004. But even this document does
not contain all of the various exhibits referenced in the agreement.
Even the actual ordinances before you tonight were not in final form well after notice of
these hearings was sent to the affected property owners and you scheduled these Public
Hearings. As late as Monday July 19th, I personally was in the Planning Office and received
directly from the Planning Director copies of the ordinances which he claimed were the final
versions of the five ordinances. But, it seems they were not - or at least nobody really knew
what the final versions were. A couple of days later I received different versions of the
ordinances from the City Attorney's Office and at that point realized that the notices that
went out did not conform to the so-called final ordinances which the Planning Director gave
me on July 19th and which I believe may be before you tonight - but, I really don't know
because just like the Planning Department and the City Attorney's Office, I am at this point
totally confused as to which version of these ordinances are before you tonight.
A few days ago I received a notice postmarked July 19th for yet another Public Hearing this
evening regarding the conveyance of two parcels of City owned land and the vacation of a
street - the alleyway between Collins Avenue and Ocean Drive -indicating that you're
considering tonight, among other things, giving a public street away and closing off access
to the rest of the public. Certainly, it seems to me that the notice is deficient and I believe
incorrectly identifies the Department of Community Affairs as a party to the Settlement
Agreement, which is inconsistent with other notices and with the identified parties to the
Settlement Agreement. Here too, I do not believe that all of the regulations have been
followed correctly.
Then, we have the 1992 Shapiro Ordinance regarding giving away City owned land. You
might recall that I was quite involved regarding the Shapiro Ordinance in 1994. I believe you
Page 5
have also not fulfilled the requirements of this ordinance regarding the actions you are
contemplating this evening.
I also have questions and concerns as to whether or not the prerequisites for your
contemplating any of the ordinances and other matters you are considering this evening
have been properly done and accomplished. If the Planning Director himself was not certain
which proposed ordinance was final as recently as last Monday, I question what the Planning
Board reviewed and voted on and whether there were deficiencies regarding those
proceedings. And, of course, the Design Review Board was supposed to opine on some of
this, but I question whether those requirements could have been properly fulfilled in view of
all the uncertainties and changes that have been taking place up to, it seems, the very last
moment.
I also have additional questions and concerns. Why was the public not clearly notified that
the Settlement Agreement involved Bert J. Harris claims and thereby allowing the affected
property owners to receive legal advice regarding their rights in this matter?
Can the proposed ordinances and Settlement Agreement really be changed or modified after
the 30-day notice to the affected property owners?
Can the City really have Contract Zoning? I think what is being proposed here this evening
constitutes Contract Zoning.
Is it legal and proper to provide for conditional revocation of the zoning, land use and other
ordinances if future other approvals are not granted?
I also have concerns and questions regarding the consistency of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan changes with the remaining sections of the Comprehensive Plan.
And, I still have many other questions and concerns for which I have not been able to receive
legal counsel on due to the abundance of what is before you and the public this evening, the
shortness of time the City has given me to examine the public records and the unavailability
of some of the records to date.
Are all of the procedures required by State Statute such as, without limitation, 166.041;
Chapter 163 and the City Charter and City Code, for example, without limitation, Section 118
- 164 being correctly followed and complied with in connection with the proceedings before
you this evening? And, did the content of the Notices published and mailed comply with all
Page 6
the requirements? For example, I see no reference to the intended compliance agreement
procedure being sought for the Comprehensive Plan text amendment.
I thank you very much for allowing me the time to speak before you this evening and present
my reasons why you should not this evening rush to approve the Settlement Agreement, as
well as all the other ordinances and resolutions, being asked for by the plaintiffs and
applicants. If there is an opportunity for settlement of disputes which have gone on for over
a decade, I urge you to do it carefully, in compliance with all City, State and Federal
regulations and with the public's best interest being of utmost importance.