Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransmittal Letter VuLV 2-g/ 2aX(-{~ 5' E. t/l.AIlIS/Jllrr/l L CITY OF MIAMI BEACH 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 DAVID DERMER MAYOR August 9, 2004 VIA DHL Mr. Ray Eubanks Florida Department of Community Affairs Division of Community Planning Plan Processing Team 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 Re: DOAH Case No. 02-3283GM East Coastline Development, Ltd. v. The City of Miami Beach and the Florida Department of Community Affairs; Transmittal of Compliance Agreement and Remedial Plan Amendment Adopted Pursuant to a Compliance Agreement; City of Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County Dear Mr. Eubanks: On July 28, 2004, the Miami Beach City Commission unanimously voted to approve a Compliance Agreement with East Coastline Development, Ltd., (the "Compliance Agreement") and, pursuant to this Compliance Agreement adopted a remedial amendment to the Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan (the "Remedial Plan Amendment"). In accordance and compliance with the requirements of Section 163.3187(1)(c), F.S. and Rules 9J-11.011(1), 9J-11.0131, and 9J-l1.015 F.A.C., enclosed please find three (3) copies of the transmittal package for the Compliance Agreement and Remedial Amendment. The transmittal package is being simultaneously provided to the appropriate agencies as required by Rule 9J-11.0131(3), F.A.C., under the cover of a copy of this letter. The transmittal package includes the following: 1. Executed City Commission Ordinance No. 2004-3455 (Remedial Plan Amendment) and Resolution No. 2004-25649 approving the Compliance Agreement. 2. Three (3) Compliance Agreements signed by East Coastline Development, Ltd. and the City of Miami Beach, pending Department of Community Affairs execution. Mr. Ray Eubanks August 6, 2004 Page 2 3. Copies of the entire revised Future Land Use Element with new text indicated in double underline and deleted text indicated in strikethrough, 4. Copies of the entire revised Future Land Use Element, clean without underlining of new text. 5. Copies of the new cumulative table of contents pursuant to Rule 9J-I1.011(5)(b)7, FAC. 6. Copies of the applicable public hearing advertisements which were published in The Miami Herald on June 6, 2004 and July 11, 2004. The Miami Herald is a newspaper of general circulation which complies with the size and circulation requirements of Section 163.3184(15)(e), F,S, which would also make it the appropriate newspaper for publication ofthe Notice of Intent. 7. Copies of the Supporting Documentation and Analysis provided to the Miami Beach Planning Board and City Commission. The comprehensive plan amendment was adopted without revision from the proposed amendment and no objections were raised by an affected party and the amendment was reviewed by the Assistant General Counsel for the Department. Based upon these facts, we request expedited publication on a Notice of Intent pursuant to Section 163.3184 (8). Should you have any questions regarding these transmittal materials, please contact: Jorge G. Gomez Planning Director City of Miami Beach 1700 Convention Center Drive, 2nd Floor Miami Beach, Florida 33139 (305) 673-7550 (telephone) (305) 673-7559 (fax) Thank you for your assistance with these matters Mr. Ray Eubanks August 6, 2004 Page 3 Enclosures cc: Carolyn Dekle, South Florida Regional Planning Council (via DHL) Leslie Anderson-Adams, Department of Community Affairs (via DHL) Clifford A. Schulman, Esq., Greenberg Traurig (via hand delivery) Catherine Colonnese, TRG-Alaska I, Ltd. (via hand delivery) Carol McGuire, Florida Department of Transportation, District VI (via DHL) Tim Gray, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (via DHL) Lee Hefty, Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Protection (via DHL) P.K. Sharma, South Florida Management District (via DHL) Ivan Rodriguez, Miami-Dade County School Board (via DHL) ORDINANCE NO. 2004-3455 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 2002-3370, WHICH CLARIFIED THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCERNING THE "MR-MARlNE 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; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 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 D~artment of Communi tv 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 has been approved 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 2002-3370 of the City of Miami Beach is hereby amended by amending the text of the adopted City of Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, as follows: Marine Recreation (MR) Purpose: To provide development opportunities for existing and new recreational boating activities. recreational facilities. accessory uses and service facilities. Uses which tnay be Permitted: Marinas; boat docks; piers; etc., for noncommercial or commercial vessels and related upland structures; aquarium, restaurants, commercial uses~ parks. bay walks. public facilities required parking for adiacent properties not separated by road or alley:. Dance halls and entertainment establishments are not permitted as a main pennitted or accessory use. Intensity Limits: Intensity may be limited by such setback, height, floor area ratio, and/or other restrictions as the City Commission acting in a legislative capacity determines can effectuate the purpose of this land use category and otherwise implement complimentary public policy. However, in no case shall the intensity exceed a floor area ratio of 0.25. except that required parking for adiacent properties not separated by road or alley shall not be included in permitted floor area. SECTION 3. REPEALER. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. 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. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. Within 30 days after receipt of this ordinance pursuant to the transmittal set forth below, the Department of Community Affairs shall determine whether this ordinance was adopted in accordance with the Compliance Agreement adopted this same date by the City Commission. If the Department so determines, it shall issue and publish a Notice of Intent to find the ordinance in compliance, after which East Coastline Development, Ltd., has 21 days within which to file a voluntary dismissal in litigation pending against the City before the Department of Administrative Hearings, styled East Coastline Development. Ltd.. v. City of Miami Beach, Case no. 02-3283GM. This ordinance shall take effect one day following the filing of the notice of voluntary dismissal, or the resolution of any timely filed legal challenges to this ordinance. SECTION 6. TRANSMITTAL. The City Clerk within 10 days of adoption of this ordinance shall transmit 3 copies to the Department of Community Affairs, and one copy each to the South Florida Regional Planning Council, any other unit of local or state government that has filed a written request for a copy of the ordinance, and a co y to East Coastline Development, / Ltd. / ( PASSED and ADOPTED this 28th day of ATTEST: r -Jl- )t (.(.,.1- L.~ '.)zf a:;;(..UAA .e CITY CLERK. 6' r APPROVED AS TO FORM & LANGUAGE & FOR EXECUT VERIFIED 7/lf/PY iIh/h-- ~rJN: CITY ATTORNE DATE PLANNING DIRECTOR T:\AGENDA\2004\JuI280 IRegular\1669 - MR comp plan text ord rev 7-12-04.DOC 2 7 fi 1/"'1 DATE 8 ... o o '" '" >- =, ."" w Z :J <Il a ...J <l: 0: W :I: w :I: >- CITY OF MIAMI BEACH NOTICE Of PUBUC HEARINGS ON COMPUANCEAGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT TO PART II: GOALS OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES Of THE CITY Of MIAMI BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ro ... NOTICE IS HEREBY given that public hearings will be held by the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, In the Commission Chambers, 3rd floor, City Ha11, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Mial]11 Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, Jult 28, 2004, st 5:15 p.m., to consider the following: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA APPROVING A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 163.3184(16), FLORIDA STATUTES FOR SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE lITIGATION STYLED E IA ,CASE NO. 02-3283GM INY ING THE APPROPRIATE GE IN THE TEXT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AFFECTING THE MR-MARINE RECREATION DISTRICT. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, 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 PERMJnED USES AND ADDING PROHIBITED USES, AND ClARIFYING THE RELATIONSHIP OF REQUIRED PARKING TO FLOOR AREA WITHIN SUCH DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Inquiries may be directed to the Planning Department at (305) 673-7550. INTERESTED PARTIES are invited to appear at this meeting, or be represented by an agent or to express their views In writing addressed to the City Commission, clo the City Clerk, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. Copies of the agreements and ordinance are availabie for pUbilc Inspection during normal business hours In the Planning Department Office, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 2nd Floor, City Hail, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This meeting ma1 be continued and under such circumstances additional legal notice would not be provided. E o u .,; ro W ~ ~ ~ ~ Robert E. Parcher, City Clerk City of Miami Beach Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Fla. Stat, the City hereby advises the publiC 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 person must ensure that a verbatim record of the 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 bylaw. To request this material in accessible formal, sign language Interpreters, information on access for persons with disabilities, and/or any accommodation to review '"y document or participate in any city-sponsored proceeding, please contact (305) 6v.- 2489 (voice), (305) 673-7218 (TTY) five days In advance to initiate your request. TTY users may also call 711 (Fiorida Relay Service). 1M #02731 CllY OF MIAMI BEACH COI\IMISSION ITEM SUMMARY m Condensed Title: A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida approving a Compliance Agreement, Pursuant to Section 163.3184(16), Florida Statutes for settlement of certain administrative litigation styled East Coastline Develooment. LId.. vs. Citv of Miami Beach and the Florida Deoartment of Communitv Affairs, Case No. 02-3283gm involving the appropriate language in the text of the Comprehensive Plan affecting the MR-Marine Recreation District. An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, 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; Providing for Repealer, Severability and an Effective Date. Issue: Should the City Commission approve a Compliance Agreement and amend the uses in the Future Land Use category MR "Marine Recreation," of the Comprehensive Plan in order to effectuate a settlement aQreement for certain oendinQ IitiQations with the Portofino entities? Item Summa IRecommendation: 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, 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 approve the Compliance Agreement and adopt the ordinance amendin the text of the Com rehensive Plan that would fulfill the Com Iiance A reement. 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 Funds: . ,Amount. , Account..' Approved D Finance Dept. Ci Clerk's Office Le islative Trackin Mercy Lamazares/Jorge G. Gomez Si n-Offs: Depart",,,nt. Director L T:\AGENDA\2004\JuI2804\Regular\1669 - MR text change sum.doc AGENDA ITEM R S E. DATE 7-J,8-()rj CITY OFIMIAMI 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 Jbrge M. Gonzalez ~ ".;v~- City Manager U !J Date: July 28, 2004 From: Public HearinQs Subject: MR Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments and approval of Compliance AQreement A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA APPROVING A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 163.3184(16), FLORIDA STATUTES FOR SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE LITIGATION STYLED EAST COASTLINE DEVELOPMENT, LTD.. V5. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, CASE NO. 02-3283GM INVOLVING THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE IN THE TEXT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AFFECTING THE MR-MARINE RECREATION DISTRICT. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, 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; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the Compliance Agreement and adopt the ordinance amending the text of the Comprehensive Plan that would fulfill the Compliance Agreement. BACKGROUND 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 Commission Memorandum July 28, 2004 Compliance Agreement and MR text change Page 2 was inadvertently not re-instated in the text of the Comprehensive Plan. On May 29,2002, the Commission 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 lintensities of use among other things, to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), for certain property within the City that is designated "MR" (Marine Recreation) on the Future Land Use Map (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 Develoement. Ltd. vs, City of Miami Beach and the Florida Deeartment of Community Affairs, Case No. 02-3283GM, one ofthe various judicial challenges filed by the Portofino Entities. At this time, the applicant, TRG-Afaska I, Ltd. is requesting to amend the text of the MR, "Marine Recreation," FLUE of the Comprehensive Plan by including among other permitted uses: parks, bay walks, 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 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 FLUE 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. Two public hearings will be conducted: one for the resolution approving the Compliance Agreement, and one for the adoption to the changes to the text of the Comprehensive Plan. During the first public hearing, the Commission will consider the resolution approving the Compliance Agreement. The second public hearing can be held immediately after approving the Compliance Agreement. At this second public hearing the City Commission will consider the Comprehensive Plan text amendments which are referenced in the Compliance Agreement, and adopt the ordinance that makes these changes. This proposed text amendment adds recreational facilities and accessory uses to the purpose of the element; and adds parks, bay walks, public facilities, and required parking Commission Memorandum July 28, 2004 Compliance Agreement and MR text change Page 3 for adjacent pfoperties 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 thf 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. The original proposal included "residential use" as one of the permitted uses in MR; however, after the Commission voted to approve Option #2 of the Concept Plan, the inclusion of residential uses in MR is eliminated. (Note: Option #2 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 of 3 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.) . 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. 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: Commission Memorandum July 28, 2004 Compliance Agreement and MR text change Page 4 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 s~ould 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. 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. Commission Memorandum July 28, 2004 Compliance Agreement and MR text change Page 5 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 th~ 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 structu re 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 ofthe 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. 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 ORB 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: Good man/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. Commission Memorandum July 28, 2004 Compliance Agreement and MR text change Page 6 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 of the Alaska parcel to the City, or b) implembnt 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 sr.uare 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, 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. Commission Memorandum July 28, 2004 Compliance Agreement and MR text change Page 7 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 hearings for these items during the Consent Agenda. Later that day, during the discussion of the settlement agreement, a motion was made and seconded to approve Option #2 of the Concept Plan as it refers to the Alaska Parcel. By approving this option, the need to include residential use in the MR, "Marine Recreation" FLUE is eliminated. The ordinance accompanying this memorandum reflects the change. I CONCLUSION 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. 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 thr newspaper published on July 11, 2004. 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. Within 10 working days after adoption of the plan amendment, the local government transmits 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. JMG/CAA'B-/JGG/ML T:\AGENDA\2004\JuI2804\Regular\1669 - MR text amend .doc RESOLUTION NO. 2004-25649 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA APPROVING A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 163.3184(16), FLORIDA STATUTES FOR SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE LITIGATION STYLED EAST COASTLINE DEVELOPMENT. LTD.. vs. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, CASE NO. 02-3283GM INVOLVING THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE IN THE TEXT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AFFECTING THE MR-MARlNE RECREATION 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 City's Future Land Use Map; and WHEREAS, thereafter, East Coastline Development, Ltd. ("East Coastline"), pursuant to Section 163.3184(9) of Florida Statutes, initiated an administrative challenge to that Ordinance in East Coastline Development. Ltd. vs. City of Miami Beach and the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Case No. 02-3283GM; and I 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 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 163.3184(16), Florida Statutes, a proposed Compliance Agreement has been reviewed by the 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the City Commission hereby approves the Compliance Agreement, in s stant'. y the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The Mayor and City Clerk are hey a rized to execute the Compliance Agreement on behalf ofthe City. PASSED and ADOPTED this ~ day of July ATTEST: h,4-<4.' E,J1.1 tl..,d!;t~1_i:7 ~ CITY CLERK -S' APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LANGUAGE ~EXEcurlON . '](2(101 CITY ATTORN DATE T:\AGENDA \2004VuI2804\Regular\Portofino ComplIance Agreement adoption reso.DOC ~ CllY OF MIAMI BEACH COM\llISSION ITEM SUMMARY tD Condensed Title: A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida approving a Compliance Agreement, Pursuant to Section 163.3184(16), Florida Statutes for settlement of certain administrative litigation styled East Coastline Develooment. Ltd.. vs. City of Miami Beach and the Florida Deoartment of Communitv Affairs, Case No. 02-3283gm involving the appropriate language in the text of the Comprehensive Plan affecting the MR-Marine Recreation District. An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, 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; Providing for Repealer, Severabilitv and an Effective Date. Issue: Should the City Commission approve a Compliance Agreement and amend the uses in the Future Land Use category MR "Marine Recreation," of the Comprehensive Plan in order to effectuate a settlement a reement for certain end in Iiti ations with the Portofino entities? Item Summa IRecommendation: 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, and required parking for adjacent properties not separated by road or alley, prohibiting otl'\'er 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 approve the Compliance Agreement and adopt the ordinance amendin the text of the Com rehensive Plan that would fulfill the Com Iiance A reement. 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 Funds: :O;1J{pproved;!'I>: \:0..,.,<,.:...,.,:....'"., ~:: ,,_,:,_..:'_: ,,_,::_,::"':: :',':: :,' D Finance Dept. c T:\AGENDA\2004\JuI2804\Regular\1669 - MR text change sum.doc AGENDA ITEM RSE. DATE 7-;)8-() V CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 www.miamibeachft.gov COMMISSION MEMORANDUM To: Mayor David Dermer and Members of the City Commission Jorge M. Gonzalez ~ _ ~ City Manager U ~ D Date: July 28, 2004 From: Public Hearinas Subject: MR Comorehensive Plan Text Amendments and aooroval of Comoliance Aareement A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA APPROVING A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 163.3184(16), FLORIDA STATUTES FOR SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE LITIGATION STYLED EAST COASTLINE DEVELOPMENT. LTD.. V5. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY . AFFAIRS, CASE NO. 02-3283GM INVOLVING THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE IN THE TEXT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AFFECTING THE MR-MARINE RECREATION DISTRICT. I AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, 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; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, ISEVERABILlTY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the Compliance Agreement and adopt the ordinance amending the text of the Comprehensive Plan that would fulfill the Compliance Agreement. BACKGROUND 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 Commission Memorandum July 28, 2004 Compliance Agreement and MR text change Page 2 was inadvertently not re-instated in the text of the Comprehensive Plan. On May 29, 2002, the Commission 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 designated "MR" (Marine Recreation) on the Future Land Use Map (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. At this time, the applicant, TRG-Alaska I, Ltd. is requesting to amend the text of the MR, "Marine Recreation," FLUE of the Comprehensive Plan by including among other permitted uses: parks, bay walks, 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. I 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 FLUE 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. Two public hearings will be conducted: one for the resolution approving the Compliance Agreement, and one for the adoption to the changes to the text of the Comprehensive Plan. During the first public hearing, the Commission will consider the resolution approving the Compliance Agreement. The second public hearing can be held immediately after approving the Compliance Agreement. At this second public hearing the City Commission will consider the Comprehensive Plan text amendments which are referenced in the Compliance Agreement, and adopt the ordinance that makes these changes. This proposed text amendment adds recreational facilities and accessory uses to the purpose of the element; and adds parks, bay walks, public facilities, and required parking Commission Memorandum July 28, 2004 Compliance Agreement and MR text change Page 3 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. The original proposal included "residential use" as one of the permitted uses in MR; however, after the Commission voted to approve Option #2 of the Concept Plan, the inclusion of residential uses in MR is eliminated. (Note: Option #2 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 of 3 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.) FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS I 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. 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 Juner15, 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: Commission Memorandum July 28, 2004 Compliance Agreement and MR text change Page 4 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. Points of less unanimity: I . 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. Commission Memorandum July 28, 2004 Compliance Agreement and MR text change Page 5 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 1. · The vehicular bridge connection created on Block 51 is not desirable. Summary of Collaborative Planninq 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?, May 20, and June 14,22 and 28, 2004 in addifion 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 ORB 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 Lard 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 ?O feet from and retention of the boat basin. Commission Memorandum July 28, 2004 Compliance Agreement and MR text change Page 6 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 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 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. Block 1, 51 & 52: The ORB 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 repidents participating in the collaborative process was not to have any retail uses 6n 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. I Commission Memorandum July 28, 2004 Compliance Agreement and MR text change Page 7 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 hearings for these items during the Consent Agenda. Later that day, during the discussion of the settlement agreement, a motion was made and seconded to approve Option #2 of the Concept Plan as it refers to the Alaska Parcel. By approving this option, the need to include residential use in the MR, "Marine Recreation" FLUE is eliminated. The ordinance accompanying this memorandum reflects the change. CONCLUSION 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. 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. 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. Within 10 working days after adoption of the plan amendment, the local government transmits 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. JMG/CM'&/JGG/ML T:IAGENDA\2004WuI2804\Regularl1669 - MR text amend .doc STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARlNGS EAST COASTLINE DEVELOPMENT, LTD., Petitioner, Case No. 02-3283GM vs. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Respondents. COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT For purposes of settling the above-referenced case, Petitioner East Coastline Development, LTD., and Respondents the City of Miami Beach ("City") and the Department of Community Affairs ("Department") hereby stipulate and agree as follows: RECITALS WHEREAS, Petitioner has challenged the Department's determination that the comprehensive plan amendment adopted by the City on May 29, 2002, by Ordinance No. 2002- 3370 , is "in compliance" with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 91-5, Florida Administrative Code; and WHEREAS, the Department is the state land plamling agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes; and WHERE.}S, the City is a local government with the duty to adopt comprehensive plan amendments that are "in compliance;" and Exhibit "A" STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS EAST COASTLINE DEVELOPMENT, LTD., Petitioner, Case No. 02-3283GM vs. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Respondents. COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT For purposes of settling the above-referenced case, Petitioner East Coastline Development, LTD., and Respondents the City of Miami Beach ("City") and the Department of Community Affairs ("Department") hereby stipulate and agree as follows: RECITALS WHEREAS, Petitioner has challenged the Department's determination that the comprehensive plan amendment adopted by the City on May 29, 2002, by Ordinance No. 2002- 3370 , is "in compliance" with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code; and WHEREAS, the Department is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the City is a local government with the duty to adopt comprehensive plan amendments that are "in compliance;" and WHEREAS, the Department, which published its Notice of Intent in the Miami Herald on July 19, 2002, contends that the amendment is "in compliance"; and the Petitioner contends that the amendment is not "in compliance," as stated in its' Petition; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, Petitioner initiated the above-styled formal administrative proceeding challenging the amendments; and WHEREAS, the City and the Department dispute the allegations of the Petition regarding the amendment; and WHEREAS, the parties wish 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; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein set forth below, and in consideration of the benefits to accrue to each of the parties, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby represent and agree as follows: GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Definitions. As used in this agreement, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: a. Act: The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, as codified in Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. b. In compliance or into compliance: The meaning set forth 111 Section 163.3 1 84(l)(b), Florida Statutes. c. Remedial Plan Amendment: An amendment to the plan or support document, the need for which is identified in this agreement, including its exhibits. Remedial 2 plan amendments adopted pursuant to this agreement must be consistent with and substantially similar in concept and content to the ones identified in this agreement or be otherwise acceptable to the Department and the Petitioner. 2. Department Powers. The Department is the state land planning agency and has the power and duty to administer and enforce the Act and to determine whether the plan amendments are "in compliance." 3. Negotiation of Agreement. The Department issued its Notice of Intent to find the plan amendment "in compliance." Petitioner requested an administrative hearing to determine the consistency of the plan amendment. The parties conferred and agreed to resolve the issues in the Petition through this agreement. It is the intent of this agreement to resolve fully all issues between the parties in this proceeding. 4. Dismissal. Within 21 days of the state land planning agency's publication of its notice of intent to find the remedial plan amendments in compliance, and assuming that no petition is filed during that time challenging the remedial plan amendments, the Petitioner shall withdraw its' Petition by filing with DOAH a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. 5. Adoption or Approval of Remedial Plan Amendments. No later than 60 days after execution of this agreement by the parties, the City shall consider for adoption the remedial plan amendments described in Exhibit A. Within 10 working days after adoption of the remedial plan amendments, the City shall transmit 3 copies of the amendments to the Department as provided in Rule 9J-l1.011(5), Florida Administrative Code. The City also shall submit one copy to the South Florida Regional Planning Council and to any other unit of local or state government that has filed a written request with the governing body for a copy of the remedial plan amendments and a copy to the Petitioner. 3 6. Department's Review of Remedial Plan Amendments and Notice of Intent. Within 30 days after receipt of the adopted remedial plan amendments, the Department shall issue a Notice of Intent pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, for the adopted remedial plan amendments in accordance with this Agreement. If the adopted remedial plan amendments satisfy this agreement, the Department shall issue a Notice of Intent addressing the remedial plan amendments as being in compliance. This agreement constitutes a stipulation that ifthe remedial plan amendments are accomplished, the plan amendments will be in compliance. 7, Effect of Amendment. Adoption of any remedial plan amendments shall not be counted toward the frequency restrictions imposed upon plan amendments pursuant to Section 163.3187(1), Florida Statutes. 8. Purpose of this Agreement: Not Establishing Precedent. The Parties enter into this agreement in a spirit of cooperation for the purpose of avoiding costly, lengthy and unnecessary litigation and in recognition of the desire for the speedy and reasonable resolution of disputes arising out of or related to the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The acceptance of proposals for purposes of this agreement is part of a negotiated agreement affecting many factual and legal issues and is not an endorsement of, and does not establish precedent for, the use of these proposals in any other circumstances or by any other local government. 9. Approval bv City Council. This agreement has been approved 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 advertisements in Section 163.3184(l5)(c), Florida Statutes. This agreement has been executed by the City Manager of Miami Beach as provided in the City's charter or other regulations. 4 10. Changes in Law. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to relieve any party from adhering to the law, and in the event of a change in any statute or administrative regulation incbnsistent with this agreement, the statute or regulation shall take precedence and shall be deemed incorporated in this agreement by reference. II. Other Persons Unaffected. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to affect the rights of any person not a party to this Agreement. This Agreement is not intended to benefit any third party. 12. Attomev Fees and Costs. Each party shall bear its own costs, including attorney fees, incurred in connection with the above-captioned case and this agreement. 13. Effective Date. This agreement shall become effective immediately upon execution by the Petitioner, the Department and the City. 14. Filing and Continuance. This agreement shall be filed with DOAH by the Department after execution by the parties. Upon the filing of this agreement, the stay that has been ordered in this matter shall remain in effect until the Petitioner files its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as outlined in Paragraph 4 of this agreement. In the event that a petition is filed challenging the remedial amendments, then this proceeding shall be held in further abeyance pending the final determination and outcome of the challenge to the remedial amendments. This proceeding shall, thereafter, be dismissed, upon final administrative or judicial determination as to the validity of the remedial amendments. 15. Retention of Right to Final Hearing. Both parties hereby retain the right to have a final hearing in this proceeding in the event of a breach of this Agreement, and nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of such right. Any party to this Agreement may move to 5 have this matter set for hearing if it becomes apparent that any other party whose action is required by this Agreement is not proceeding in good faith to take that action. 16. Governmental Discretion Unaffected. This Agreement is not intended to bind the Local Government in the exercise of governmental discretion which is exercisable in accordance with law only upon the giving of appropriate public notice and required public hearings. 17. Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in any number of originals, all of which evidence one agreement, and only one of which need be produced for any purpose. 18. Captions. The captions inserted in this Agreement are for the purpose of convemence only and shall not be utilized to construe or interpret any provision of this Agreement. 19. Construction of Agreement. All parties to this Agreement are deemed to have participated in its drafting. In the event of any ambiguity in the terms of this Agreement, the parties agree that such ambiguity shall be construed without regard to which of the parties drafted the provision in question. 20. Entire Agreement. This is the entire agreement between the parties and no verbal or written assurance or promise is effective or binding unless included in this document. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their undersigned officials as duly authorized. PETITIONER By: CLIFFORD A. SCHULMAN, ESQ. Attorney for Petitioner Date 6 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS By: Name: Date CITY OF MIAMI BEACH BY: DAVID DERMER MAYOR DATE: ATTEST: ROBERT PARCHER, CITY CLERK (SEAL) DATE: APPROVED AS TO FORM & LANGUAGE & FOR EXECUTION BY.~~ . crr A TORNEY /1If DATE: ~ ,...1/- rh 1 T:IAGENDA\2004\Ju12804\RegularlPortofino Compliance agreement 07282004.rev.DOC 7 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 2002-3370, I WHICH CLARIFIED THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCERNING THE "MR-MARlNE 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; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. r 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. Citv of Miami Beach and the Florida Department of Communi tv 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 has been approved 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 2002-3370 of the City of Miami Beach is hereby amended by amending the text of the adopted City of Miami. Beach Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, as follows: Marine Recreation (MR) Purpose: To provide development opportunities for existing and new recreational boating activities. recreational facilities. accessory uses and service facilities. Exhibit "A" Uses which may be Permitted: Marinas; boat docks; piers; etc., for noncommercial or commercial vfssels and related upland structures; aquarium, restaurants, commercial uses, parks, bay walks, public facilities required parking for adiacent properties not separated by road or alley;. Dance halls and entertainment establishments are not permitted as a main permitted or accessory use. Intensity Limits: Intensity may be limited by such setback, height, floor area ratio, and/or other restrictions as the City Commission acting in a legislative capacity determines can effectuate the purpose of this land use category and otherwise implement complimentary public policy. However, in no case shall the intensity exceed a floor area ratio of 0.25, except that required parking for adiacent properties not separated bv road or alley shall not be included in permitted floor area. SECTION 3. REPEALER. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. 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. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. Within 30 days after receipt of this ordinance pursuant to the transmittal set forth below, the Department of Community Affairs shall determine whether this ordinance was adopted in accordance with the Compliance Agreement adopted this same date by the City Commission. If the Department so determines, it shall issue and publish a Notice of Intent to find the ordinance in compliance, after which East Coastline Development, Ltd., has 21 days within which to file a voluntary dismissal in litigation pending against the City before the Department of Administrative Hearings, styled East Coastline Development, Ltd" v. City of Miami Beach, Case no. 02-3283GM. This ordinance shall take effect one day following the filing of the notice of voluntary dismissal, or the resolution of any timely filed legal challenges to this ordinance. SECTION 6. TRANSMITTAL. The City Clerk within 10 days of adoption of this ordinance shall transmit 3 copies to the Department of Community Affairs, and one copy each to the South Florida Regional Planning Council, any other unit of local or state government that has filed a written request for a copy of the ordinance, and a copy to East Coastline Development, Ltd. PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of ,2004. ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM & LANGUAGE & FOR EXECUTION VERIFIED CITY ATTORNEY DATE PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE T:\AGENDA\2004\JuI2804\Regular\1669 - MR camp plan text ard rev 7-12-04.DOC 2 ST ATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS EAST COASTLINE DEVELOPMENT, LTD., Petitioner, I Case No. 02-3283GM vs. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Respondents. COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT For purposes of settling the above-referenced case, Petitioner East Coastline Development, LTD., and Respondents the City of Miami Beach ("City") and the Department of Community Affairs ("Department") hereby stipulate and agree as follows: RECITALS WHEREAS, Petitioner has challenged the Department's determination that the comprehensive plan amendment adopted by the City on May 29, 2002, by Ordinance No. 2002- 3370 , is "in compliance" with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code; and WHEREAS, the Department is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the City is a local government with the duty to adopt comprehensive plan amendments that are "in compliance;" and WHEREAS, the Department, which published its Notice of Intent in the Miami Herald on July 19, 2002, contends that the amendment is "in compliance"; and the Petitioner contends that the amendment is not "in compliance," as stated in its' Petition; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, Petitioner initiated the above-styled formal administrative proceeding challenging the amendments; and WHEREAS, the City and the Department dispute the allegations of the Petition regarding the amendment;1 and WHEREAS, the parties wish 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; NOW, TfIEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein set forth below, and in consideration of the benefits to accrue to each of the parties, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby represent and agree as follows: GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Definitions. As used in this agreement, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: a. Act: The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, as codified in Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. b. In compliance or into compliance: The meaning set forth III Section 163.3184(1 )(b), Florida Statutes. c. Remedial Plan Amendment: An amendment to the plan or support document, the need for which is identified in this agreement, including its exhibits. Remedial 2 plan amendments adopted pursuant to this agreement must be consistent with and substantially similar in concept and content to the ones identified in this agreement or be otherwise acceptable to the Department and the Petitioner. 2. Department Powers. The Department is the state land planning agency and has the power and I duty to administer and enforce the Act and to detennine whether the plan amendments are "in compliance." 3. Negotiation of Agreement. The Department issued its Notice ofIntent to find the plan amendment "in compliance." Petitioner requested an administrative hearing to determine. the consistency ofthe plan amendment. The parties conferred and agreed to resolve the issues in I the Petition through this agreement. It is the intent of this agreement to resolve fully all issues between the parties in this proceeding. 4. Dismissal. Within 21 days of the state land planning agency's publication of its notice of intent to find the remedial plan amendments in compliance, and assuming that no petition is filed during that time challenging the remedial plan amendments, the Petitioner shall withdraw its' Petition by filing with DOAH a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. 5. Adoption or Approval of Remedial Plan Amendments. No later than 60 days after execution of this agreement by the parties, the City shall consider for adoption the remedial plan amendments described in Exhibit A. Within 10 working days after adoption of the remedial plan amendments, the City shall transmit 3 copies of the amendments to the Department as provided in Rule 91-11.011(5), Florida Administrative Code. The City also shall submit one copy to the South Florida Regional Planning Council and to any other unit of local or state govemment that has filed a written request with the governing body for a copy of the remedial plan amendments and a copy to the Petitioner. 3 6. Department's Review of Remedial Plan Amendments and Notice of Intent. Within 30 days after receipt of the adopted remedial plan amendments, the Department shall issue a Notice ofIntent pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, for the adopted remedial plan amendments in accordance with this Agreement. If the adopted remedial plan amendments satisfy this agreement, the Department shall issue a Notice of Intent addressing the remedial plan amendments as being in compliance. This agreement constitutes a stipulation that if the remedial plan amendments are accomplished, the plan amendments will be in compliance. 7. Effect of Amendment. Adoption of any remedial plan amendments shaH not be counted toward the frequency restrictions imposed upon plan amendments pursuant to Section 163.3187(1), Florida Statutes. 8. Purpose of this Agreement: Not Establishing; Precedent. The Parties enter into this agreement in a spirit of cooperation for the purpose of avoiding costly, lengthy and I unnecessary litigation and in recognition of the desire for the speedy and reasonable resolution of disputes arising out of or related to the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The acceptance of proposals for purposes of this agreement is part of a negotiated agreement affecting many factual and legal issues and is not an endorsement of, and does not establish precedent for, the use of these proposals in any other circumstances or by any other local government. 9. Approval bv City Council. This agreement has been approved 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 advertisements in Section 163.3184(15)(c), Florida Statutes. This agreement has been executed by the City Manager of Miami Beach as provided in the City's charter or other regulations. 4 10. Changes in Law. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to relieve any party from adhering to the law, and in the event of a change in any statute or administrative regulation inconsistent with this agreement, the statute or regulation shall take precedence and shall be deemed incorporated in this agreement by reference. 11. Other Persons Unaffected. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to affect the rights of any person not a party to this Agreement. This Agreement is not intended to benefit any third party. 12. Attomey Fees and Costs. Each party shall bear its own costs, including attorney fees, incurred in connection with the above-captioned case and this agreement. 13. Effective Date. This agreement shall become effective immediately upon I execution by the Petitioner, the Department and the City. 14. Filing and Continuance. This agreement shall be filed with DOAH by the Department after execution by the parties. Upon the filing of this agreement, the stay that has been ordered in this matter shall remain in effect until the Petitioner files its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as outlined in Paragraph 4 of this agreement. In the event that a petition is filed challenging the remedial amendments, then this proceeding shall be held in further abeyance pending the final determination and outcome of the challenge to the remedial amendments. This proceeding shall, thereafter, be dismissed, upon final administrative or judicial determination as to the validity of the remedial amendments. 15. Retention of Right to Final Hearing. Both parties hereby retain the right to have a final hearing in this proceeding in the event of a breach of this Agreement, and nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of such right. Any party to this Agreement may move to 5 have this matter set for hearing if it becomes apparent that any other party whose action is required by this Agreement is not proceeding in good faith to take that action. 16. Governmental Discretion Unaffected. This Agreement is not intended to bind the Local Government in the exercise of governmental discretion which is exercisable in accordance with law only upon the giving of appropriate public notice and required public hearings. 17. Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in any number of originals, all of which evidence one agreement, and only one of which need be produced for any purpose, 18. Captions. The captions inserted in this Agreement are for the purpose of convemence only and shall not be utilized to construe or interpret any provision of this Agreement. 19. Construction of Agreement. All parties to this Agreement are deemed to have participated in its drafting. In the event of any ambiguity in the terms of this Agreement, the parties agree that such ambiguity shall be construed without regard to which of the parties drafted the provision in question. 20. Entire Agreement. This is the entire agreement between the parties and no verbal or written assurance or promise is effective or binding unless included in this document. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their undersigned officials as duly authorized. By: CLIFFO A. Attorney for Petitioner 1Mgustul)Oa~ 6 ~ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS By: Name: D DERMER MAYOR I DATE: f-1~ 0 V ATTEST: I /I/~' E/ /Z!~4 ROBERT PARCHER, CITY CLERK /1/ It) y , / (SEAL) DATE: APPROVED AS TO FORM & LANGUAGEr& FOR EXECUTION BY: CIT A TORNEY?1f DATE: 'i ,... v-- rJt I T:\AGENDA \2004V uI2804\Regular\Portofino Compliance agreement 07282004.rev.DOC 7 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, 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; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 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 WHE~AS, 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 tenns 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 previousl~ adopted text amendment; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 163.3184(16), Florida Statutes, a proposed Compliance Agreement has been approved 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 163.3 184(15)( c), Florida Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA: I SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 2002-3370 of the City of Miami Beach is hereby amended by amending the text of the adopted City of Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, as follows: Marine Recreation (MR) Purpose: To provide development opportunities for existing and new recreational boating activities. recreational facilities. accessory uses and service facilities. Exhibit "A" Uses which may be Permitted: Marinas; boat docks; piers; etc., for noncommercial or commercial vessels and related upland structures; aquarium, restaurants, commercial uses, parks. bay walks. public facilities required parking for adiacent properties not separated by road or alley;. Dance halls and entertainment establishments are not permitted as a main permitted or accessory use. Intensity Limits: Intensity may be limited by such setback, height, floor area ratio, and/or other restrictions as the City Commission acting in a legislative capacity determines can effectuate the purpose of this land use category and otherwise implement complimentary public policy. However, in no case shall the intensity exceed a floor area ratio of 0.25. except that required parking for adiacent properties not separated bv road or alley shall not be included in permitted floor area. SECTION 3. REPEALER. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. 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. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. Within 30 days after receipt of this ordinance pursuant to the transmittal set forth below, the Department of Community Affairs shall determine whether this ordinance was adopted in accordance with the Compliance Agreement adopted this same date by the City Commission. If the Department so determines, it shall issue and publish a Notice of Intent to find the ordinance in compliance, after which East Coastline Development, Ltd., has 21 days within which to file a voluntary dismissal in litigation pending against the City before the Department of Administrative Hearings, styled East Coastline Development. Ltd.. v. City of Miami Beach, Case no. 02-3283GM. This ordinance shall take effect one day following the filing of thb notice of voluntary dismissal, or the resolution of any timely filed legal challenges to this ordinance. SECTION 6. TRANSMITTAL. The City Clerk within IO days of adoption of this ordinance shall transmit 3 copies to the Department of Community Affairs, and one copy each to the South Florida Regional Planning Council, any other unit of local or state government that has filed a written request for a copy of the ordinance, and a copy to East Coastline Development, Ltd. I . PASSED and ADOPTED thIS _ day of ,2004. ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM & LANGUAGE & FOR EXECUTION VERIFIED CITY ATTORNEY DATE PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE T:\AGENDA\2004\JuI2804\Regular\IGG9 - MR comp plan text ord rev 7-12-04.DOC 2 MaritJe Recreation (MR) Purpose: To provide development opportunities for existing and new recreational boating activities. recreational facilities. accessory uses and service facilities, Uses which may be Pennitted: Marinas; boat docks; piers; etc., for noncommercial or commercial vessels and related upland structures; aquarium, restaurants, commercial uses. parks. bav walks. public facilities required parking for adiacent properties not separated by road or alley;. Dance halls and entertainment establishments are not pennitted as a main pennitted or accessory use. Intensity Limits: Intensity may be limited by such setback, height, floor area ratio, and/or other restrictions as the City Commission acting in a legislative capacity detennines can effectuate the purpose of this land use category and otherwise implement complimentary public policy. However, in no case shall the intensity exceed a floor area ratio of 0.25. except that required parking for adiacent properties not separated by road or alley shall not be included in pennitted floor area. Marine Recreation (MR) Purpose: To provide development opportunities for existing and new recreational boating activities, recreational facilities, accessory uses and service facilities. Uses which may be Permitted: Marinas; boat docks; piers; etc., for noncommercial or commercial vessels and related upland structures; aquarium, restaurants, commercial uses, parks, bay walks, public facilities required parking for adjacent properties not separated by road or alley;. Dance halls and entertainment establishments are not permitted as a main permitted or accessory use. Intensity Limits: Intensity may be limited by such setback, height, floor area ratio, and/or other restrictions as the City Commission acting in a legislative capacity determines can effectuate the purpose of this land use category and otherwise implement complimentary public policy. However, in no case shall the intensity exceed a floor area ratio of 0.25, except that required parking for adjacent properties not separated by road or alley shall not be included in permitted floor area. F:\PLAN\$ALL\Comprehensive Plan\Current Comp PlanlMR chugs 7-28-04.doc LIST OF MIAMI BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Round 98-D1, FLUM & Text - FLUE Objective. 9, Policy 9.2 - Ordinance # 98-3118, adopted April 15, 1998 Round 98-1 ER/99-1, SPE added to FLUC, ordinance #99-3200, adopted July 20, 1999 Round 99-PS1, small scale FLUM, and text Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Co- location of Schools - Ordinance # 99-3203, adopted September 17, 1999 Round 99-2, RM-PRD amended, Ordinance #99-3228, adopted December 15, 1999 Round 00-1, environmental language adopted, Ordinance 2000-3255, adopted July 12, 2000 Round 00-1, modifying RM-2language, and Capital Improvement Element 5.2A - Ordinance No. 2000-3256, adopted July 12, 2000 Round 00-1, TCMA's adopted, Ordinance #2000-3258, adopted July 12, 2000. Round 02-1, MR added, adopted by Ordinance No. 2002-3370 on May 29, 2002 Round 03-1, adopted language modifying FLUC's Other Uses, ordinance #2003-3392, adopted February 5, 2003. F:\PLAN\$ALL \Comprehensive Plan\Current Comp Plan\UST OF COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS.doc E o u 'ri e " .s: :;: ;: ;: ai 2.:. ... o o '" cD w z ::> -, >' <t o Z ::> (f) Torn between a Caribbean cruise and r.iver rafting? Find Travel Solutions in -Sunday~ "'erald. o .J <t n: w J: w J: .... ro - NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Miami Beach Planning Board will hold a meeting on TIJESDAY, June 22, 200fl in the City Commission Chambers, Third Floor of City Hall, located at 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. During this meeting, the Planning Board will hold diSCussions and pUblic hearings on the following matters, not necessarily in the same order as listed below: 1:30 - Discussion of Planning Issues 1. Planning Board by-laws - adopllon of proposed amendments. 2. Presenlallon and discussion of a drafl ordinance relallve to Single Family Demolition. 3. Discussion only: An Ordinance pertaining to demolition procedures for non-designated mutti-family and c9mmercial properties. 4. DiSCUSSion regarding an amendment to the City COde increaSing the Minimum unit size for new construction _ Referred by the City Commission 5. DiscuSSion of issues relative to nlghlllfe/residential conflicts. PDRTDfIND SmlEMENT-RElATED ITEMS: TIME CERTAIN AT 3:00 P.M. 1. Review of PrOposed Concept Plan. Referred to the Planning Board by the City Commission on May 26, 2004. 2. File No. 1687. FlUM Amendmenl The applicant, TAG-Alaska I ltd., Is requesting to amend the Fulure Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Miami Beach by changing the Future Land Use Designation for the follOWing parcels: 1) a POrtion of a parcel of land more Commonly known as the "Federal Triangle," of approximately 4, 17B SQuare feet, from the current RDS, "Recreabon and Open Space," to the Future Land Use Category MA, "Ma~ne Recrealion:"and 2) a City-owned paree' of land fronting on Biscarne Bay, 01 approXimately 4,600 square feet, being the west 50 feet of Block B, South Beach Park Subdivision (alk/a Hinson Parcel) from the current CPS-3, "Commerclat Intensive Mixed-Use, " to the Future Land Use Category ROS, "Recreation and Open Space. 3. Rfe No. 1688. Zoning Map Change. The applicants. TRG-Alaska I ltd., and mG-Alaska III, LLC., are requesting 10 amend the Official Zoning District Map, referenced in Section 142-72 of the Code of the City or Miami Beach, Florida, by Changing the Zoning District Classification for the follOWing parcels: 1) a POrllon of a pareel of land, approximately 4,178 square feet, more COmmonly known as "Federal Triangle," from the current GU, "Government Use," to the prOpOsed Zoning Classification MR, "Marine Recreation:" and 2) a portjon of Lot 18 and the 10.foot walk adjacent thereto, and a pOrtion of Lots 29 and 30 and the 10-foot walk adjacenlthereto, Block 51 of the Plat of OCEAN BEACH FLA. ADDITION NO. 3, from GU, "Government Use," to CPS-l, "Commercial limited Mixed-Use." 4. File No. 1669. Comprehensive Plan Texl Amendments. The applicant, TRG-Alaska I. ltd. is requesting to amend the text of the MR, - "Marine Recreation," Land Use Element 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 10 provide that In no case shall the Intensity exceed the current floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.25, except Ihat required parking for adjacent properties not separated by road or alley shall not be included in permitted floor area. 5. Fife No. 1670. Amendments to the Land Development Regulations. An Ordinance of !he Mayor and Clly Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, amending the Code of the City of Miami Beach, by amending Chapter 142, "Zoning Districts and Regulations," Article II, "District Regulations," Division 12, "MR-Marlne Recreation Dlstrlct,"prOVidlng for additional main permiUed uses, and Prohibif other certain use., and exclusion from calculation of floor area for required parking from certain adjacent properties; and Division 18, "PS Pel10rmance Standard Dislrlct, "modifying height, number of stories, setbacks, floor area ratios and allowing required parking In the CPS-l and CPS-3 Zoning Districts for defined properties, clarifying how such required parking relates to far and Is allowed through Covenants in Ueu of Unity of Tille; Providing for Repealer, Severability, Codification and an Effective Date. 6. Rle No. Ian. Portol/no DRI- Notice of Proposed Change. The applicants, TRG-Alaska I ltd., and TRG-Alaska iii, liC. are requesting to amend lhe Porloftno Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Development Order, as adopted by City of Miami Beach Ordinance No. 98-3121, by 1) filling and bulkheadlng the existing boat basin on Ihe Alaska Pareel and 2) adding aPProximately 7,200 SQuare feet of lands to lhe DRf. REGULAR AGENDA - 4'00 P.M., Proaress rennJj 1. Rle No: 1653 - 1300 Ocean Drive _ Caf. Cardozo Prevlouslv Continuedltems I. Rle No, 1666- Minimum and Maximum Lol RegUlations In the RM-l Within the West Avenue Ove~ay DIsI~cL An Ordinance of Ihe Mayor and City Commission of the City Of Miami Beach, Florida, amending the Code of the City 0' Miami Beach, florida, by amending Chapter 142, "Zoning Distncts and Regulations," Article iii, 'Overlay Districts," DIvision 5, "West Avenue Bay Ftunt Overlay," Sectfon 142-842, "Location and Purpose," and Section 142-843, "Compliance with Regulations," to Include Minimum and Maximum Developable Lot RegUlations Within the underlying RM-l Residential MUIll-Famlly Low Intensity Zoning District of the subject Overlay Area; Providing tor COdification; Repealer; Severability; and an Effective Date. 2. Ffle Ne. 1609 - 205-237 20th Street, 21JOD..203B Collins Avenue and 22D 21st Stlllel- Extenslonof time. The appllcanls, Just Around the Comer, LLC, TGNC Development, LLC, and POP Development, LLC, are Il!questlng a one-rear extension of time to obtain a building permit for a preViously aPProved Conditional Use Permit. New ADDlicatinn::i t. . File No. 1672 - 1031 4th S1reel. The applicant, Florida Power and Light Co., is requesllng a COndillonal Use Permtt to construcl an enclosed electrical distribution substation. . 2. File No. 1673 -1691 Michigan Avenue. The applicant, Lucky Strike Miami, LLC Is requesting a Condillonal Use Permit for a Neighborhood Impact Establishment consisting of an upscale restaurant, lounge, bar and bOwling alley. 3. Rle No. 1674 - 1761 Cleveland Road. The applicant, David Ellman, Is requesting a COnditional Use Permit to construct an "L "-shaped dock, a boat "" extending eastward from the dock 14.25 feet from the side lot line as extended Outward Into the waterway, and mooring plies extending northward from Ihe terminal plaflorm, for a total projection of B3 feet from the seawall. 4. File No. 1675 - 6475 P1netree Drive. The applicants, Todd and Madeline Brandon, are requesting a Division of LandlLot Split of the one buildable parcel Into two lots. . 5. File No, 1876 - 14 Ferrey Lane, The applicant, Chabad Lubavltch of Venetian Causeway and Surrounding ISlands, Inc., Is requesting a Condltionel Use Permit to operate a religiouS Institution In the RM-l zoning district In an existing single-family structure in Belle Isle. All persons are invited to aPPear at this meeting or be represented by an agent, or to express their views In Wrlllng addressed to the Planning Board c/o the Planning Department ("Department"), 1700 Coovenllon Center Drive, 2nd Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Flonda 33139. The apPlications, Ordinances, and all documents related thereto are available for pUblic Inspection during normal business hours in the office of the Department. Inquines may be dlll!cled to the Department al (3051 673-7550. Any of the above lIems may be conbnued to another meebng dale and, under such circumstances, further advertised legal nOllee may nol be provided. Items continued from Previous meetings are listed above for Informational purposes. Pursuanl to Section 286.0105, Fla. Stal., the City hereby advises the public that If a person decides 10 appeat any decision made by lhls Board wllh respect to any matter considered at its meeting or its hearing. such person must Insure that a VOfbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which record inclUdes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal Is 10 be based. This nobce does not constiMe consent by the City for !he introdL<:tion or admission of othOlWise inadmiSSible or Irrelevant evidence, nor does It authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law. In accordance With the Americans wtth Disabllltles Act 011990, persons needing special accommodation to participate In this proceeding should contact the board's administrator no later than four days Prior 10 the proceeding. Telephone (305) 673-7550 tor assistance: If hearing-Impaired, telephone the Roode Aetay Servlce numbers, (800) 955-8771 (TOO) or (800) g55-8770 (Voice), tor assJstance. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH PLANNING BOARD '. '. It' ~ ~~"-_~"_"h~''''''''"",_",,, ....,___~_~.,,_ _....--....--:...___. -_.._~,_....',.. ~-""-._,-~,,-,, """"- .~".,~,~ "'~""-"'."" NORTH BEACH 63rd St flyover be torn III The state will proceed with plans to demolish the 63rd Street flyover despite . a Beach commissioner's last-mlntJte proposal to save It" BY CAROLINA ZAMORA CZamora@heraid.com The Florida Department of Transportation will move ahead with its plans to remove the 63rd Street t1yover in North Beach despite a last- minute effort by Miami Beach Commissioner Richard Stein- berg to keep the flyover intact. Steinberg, who has previ- ously supported tearing down the tlyover - while on the city's Transportation Board and as a member of the North Beach Development Corp_ Board - said.he changed his mind after discovering many "inconsistencies" with the DOT's study. "The impacts of the removal of the tlyover Would . be so horrific that North Beach and everything that has been done to revitalize it will be thrown out the window," Steinberg said at the May 26 City Commission meeting, where he unsuccessfully pro- posed a motion to cut off the county's Metropolitan Plan- ning Organization'S funding for the project. "The entire area would be set back for years." Steinberg said drawbacks to the project include a con- struction window of at least two years that would extend the average COmmuter's travel time by at least 30 minutes, limit residents' access to a nearby hospital and effectively cut off the area from other communities. "Restaurants like Las Vaca! Gordas and Prima Pasta Won'f be there in two years," he said. "Those restaurants won't bE able to survive with half OJ Dining out? Get rev 8673 8 . ~: o' N 0:=, ')-1 ...J. ::J --, . u z' ::>' V1: 0: ..;1 <t' a:: Ul' J:; Ul. J:' I--l -( E : o ' v, ,;' 16 ~ .s: ~ it ~ ~ ~ CITY OF MIAMI BEACH .r ~Gr_ON AND_TO PART It GOALS. 08lCTlVES AND POLICIES OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BUCH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NlJI1CE IS HEREBY lIMln that public he8IInOB wtlI be hllId by the ~ and City Comml8Slon oIlha City 01 MIamI Bead1, Flortd8, In the Commlslllon Chambers, 3rCIftoor, CIty .., 1700 ConwnIlon Canter OIIV8, MI8I!Ii Beaeh, Florida, on WedI..... JuIt 28, 2lIIM, lit 5:15 p.m., to consider the foIlowtnlI: A IIESIIUITION OF TIE MAYOR AND em COIIIIISSIlltIlIF THE CITY Of MIAMI BEACH, FUIRtIIA APPIIOVIN8 A COMPLWICE AGREEMENT, PURSUANl'TO SEC11OII113.1184(181, AJIRIIIA IJAMES FOIl smLEMENT OF CERTAIN ~ LITIGA110II mLED NG OF TIE CIJIIIREIIMM PlAN ~ 11IE.....1lECIIEA1ION 18R1C1'. All OIiDIIWICE OF TIlE MAYOR AND em .111.StGN OF 11IECITY OF IIAMI IEACII, R.OIIIIIA. ABIJIIIA lJIIIlIIWICE 110. 21102...... WHICH CI.NIHII TIE TEXT OF 1IIE em OF IlUlllIEACIIClM'RB- PlAN CONCEIII_II TIE .... IIAII1IE RB:REA1IIII" U. IIIE IIES8W1DN. BY AMBllIII PERM111ED IllES AllDA1III1N6PR011UED IE, AND CLAR1fY1IIG 11IE ~111' OF IIBMB NIIDI8 TOAJIOR AREA WII1III SUCH D1STIIICT; PIlOVIIIIIl8 fOR IIEPEALEII. SEVERABIJIY AND All EFFBmVE om. InquIrIeI mav be dIt8c\8d lD the P\aMlng DeparlmeI1IBl (305) 673-7550. IMlttdlED PARTIES are bWIIBd lD 8JlIII8I' BlINI meeting, or be reprwMIIl8d by an gent, or lD __ their YIewIIn WI'IllIlll adcIr.-d \II the CIty ComIn\a8lOIl, &10 the CIty Clerk. 1700 Co/IVII1tlOII CenlIr tlIIv8, .181 Floor. CIty Hal. Miami Beach. Florida 33139. CopIeII of lhe IGIIIfIl8IIlB 8Ild orcIInln:e we MIIable far public Insp8CliOn dtlring normal buItIlIII holn In the PtannInlJ Depa/1IIIIIII 0IIIce, 1700Conventlon Cenl8r llIIve, 2nd Floor, CIty HaD, MllImIIle8ch, RarIda 33139. ThIs meelInlI may 118 conllnUlld IIld under IUCh cIn:Um8tBIlC8S addIIIon8I Ieg8I notice wOuld not 118 I provided. . . Robert E. ParcI1er, CIty Clerk CIty 01 MIamlIl8llCll PuIIU8nllD SIIcIIon 288,0105, Fla. StBt., the CI\y heI8lrt IIdvI888 the pubIlc that W a pel8Ol1 dIcIdes lD IJPPIIIIIIIY dact8Ion IlUIde by the CIty COmm/ll8lOll wtl/IllISpect to any ma1l8r considered at 111 rneatIng or 111 hearing, IUCh PlIfllO/IIIIlIlIl18lJllIhat a 'l8rba11m rani 01 the proceedIng8 IS 1IIId8, which raconIlncludeB the l8slImDny and evtdance upon whIcI1the IJPPIIII,IS to be bBBId. ll1IS notice does not' constitute COII88nt by tile CI\y lor tile IillroducllDn or edmlS8lon 01 olherw\a8 In8dmI88Ible or IIr8Ie'I8nt evidence, nor does ft authortze challengaS or appaeIs not olIierwlSe alIowad by~ ' . ' To requast thIS maIeIlaIln BCC8I8IbIe formal. sign language InI8Ipr8lBI8. information on _ lor persons wlIh dlsabllltlas, and/or any accommodation 10 review "ny documant or PlI1IcIpm In any cIly-aponsored proceeding, plaa8a conlacl (305) 604- 2489 (voice), (305) 673-7218 (TT'I) fivB dayB In advanca to InlllBte your request. m uteIlI mav a/eO call 711 (florida IIefay Service). . iA<I fIIl273) CITY OF MIAMI BEACH PLANNING BOARD Staff Report & Recommendation m To: Chairperson and Members Planning Board Jorge G. Gomez, AICP ~ Planning Director \~ Date: June 22, 2004 From: Subject: File No. 1669 - Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments The applicant, TRG-Alaska I, Ltd. is requesting to amend the text of the MR, "Marine Recreation," Land Use Element 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. BACKGROUND 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 that 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, for certain property within the City that is designated "MR" (Marine Recreation) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the City. This text amendment cured that scrivener's error and was approved 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. Citv of Miami Beach and the Florida Department of Communitv Affairs, Case No. 02-3283GM, one of the many 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. REVIEW CRITERIA In reviewing a request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the board shall consider the following when applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change is consistent and compatible with the comprehensive plan and any applicable neighborhood or redevelopment plans. Planning Board File No. 1669 - MR Text Amendment June 22, 2004 Page 2 Consistent. The proposed change would continue to foster the goals to develop Ule City in an appropriate manner as directed in Policy 1.1 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This policy states that the land development regulations should regulate the use of land to ensure the compatibility of adjacent land uses. The proposed uses would be compatible with the adjacent land uses and would also be in the best mutual interest of the City and applicant. 2. Whether the proposed change would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent or nearby districts. Consistent - The proposed uses would complement the adjacent park uses and proposed residential uses on adjacent properties. 3. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the city. Consistent - The proposed change expands the list of uses in the MR FLUE, which complements the adjacent park and residential FLUC. In addition, the proposed changes would facilitate the recommendations of the South Shore Revitalization Strategy for beachfront parks to be connected by a linear waterfront walk system which would utilize their unique locations and vistas to the fullest extent. 4. Whether the proposed change would tax the existing load on public facilities and infrastructure. Partially Consistent - The proposed text change by itself would not tax the existing load on public facilities and infrastructures; however, the proposed new construction on adjacent parcels falls under a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) approved by the City Commission on April 15, 1998 (Ord. No. 98-3121). At the time of approval, the DRI reserved issues of concurrency (traffic, water, sewer capacity, etc.). 5. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Not applicable - The proposed text change does not change the district boundaries. 6. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed change necessary. Consistent - 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. 7. Whether the proposed change wi/I adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Partiallv Consistent - The proposal to place the required parking for the upland properties on the MR-designated land may have some detrimental impact on the Planning Boa:'d File No. 1669 - "AR Text Amendment clune 22, 2004 -.E'age 2 surrounding neighborhood; however, this possible impact would be mitigated by the greater amount of public land that would be available for public use. 8. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion beyond the levels of service as set forth in the comprehensive plan or otherwise affect public safety. Partiallv Consistent. The proposed text changes would create uses that would not increase traffic, or degrade levels of service beyond the levels set forth in the Comprehensive Pian. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. Partiallv Consistent - The proposed changes would permit the construction of the required parking for the adjacent property owner in a portion of the MR-designated property; however, the height of the structure would not be any taller than what that land development regulations would permit - 40 feet. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Consistent. It is not expected that the proposed change would adversely affect the property values in the area. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations, Consistent . It is not expected that the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property. 12. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. Consistent. This property has been the subject of long and costly litigation. The proposed changes and the filing of a subsequent "Compliance Agreement" with the State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings will bring to an end the Administrative challenge filed by the applicant. 13. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the city for the proposed use in a district already permitting such use. Not applicable. 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 litigation against the City and the Department of Community Affairs by one or more of the Portofino Entities, and an agreement reached by both Planning Board File No. 1669 - MR Text Amendment June 22, 2004 Page 4 parties. The background information for this particular case is listed on the first page of this report. The proposed text amendment includes recreational facilities and accessory uses to the purpose of the element; and includes 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. Although the existing FAR of 0.25 does not change, there is 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 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 prohibiting other such as dance halls and entertainment establishments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In view of the foregoing analysis, staff recommends that Planning Board recommend approval of the proposed ordinance to the City Commission. JGG/ML c: Gary Held, First Assistant City Attorney F:\PLAN\$PLBI2004IPB06 20041Partafina items\1669 - MR camp plan text rpt.dac DRAFT - 5-24-04 ORDI'\TANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE i\IA YOR AND crry COMMISSlON OF THE CITY OF MIA1VIl BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 2001-3370, WHICH CLAIUFIED THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF 1\I1AMI BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCER'XING THE ".'\fR-MARINE RECREATION" LAND USE DESIGNA TION, BY AMENDING PERl\HTTED USES AND ADDING PROHIBITED USES, AND CLARIFYING THE RELA TIONSHIP OF REQUIRED PARKING TO FLOOR AREA WITHIN SUCH DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 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. Citv of Miami Beach and the Florida Department of Communi tv 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 has been approved 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY C01VIMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 2002-3370 of the City of Miami Beach is hereby amended by amending the text of the adopted City of Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, as follows: Marine Recreation (l'I'1R) Purpose: To provide development oppOltUl1Itles for eXIsting and new recreational boating activitie5~gcationa1 facilities. accessory uses and service facilities. Uses which may be Pennitted: Marinas; boat docks; piers; elc., for noncommercial or commercial vessels and related upland structures; aquarium, restaurants, commercial uses, residentiat parks, bay walks. public facilities, required lJarkinl?: for adiacent lJropcnies not separated by road or alley;. Dance halls and entertainment establishments arc not pennitted as a main permitted or accessory use. Intensity Limits: Intensity may be limited by such setback, height, floor area ratio, and/or other restrictions as the City Commission acting in a legislative capacity determines can effectuate the purpose of this land use category and otherwise implement complimentary public policy. However, in no case shall the intensity exceed a floor area ratio of 0.25. except that required lJarking for adiacent prolJerties not selJarated by road or alley shall not be included in pemJitled floor area. SECTION 3. REPEALER. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. 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. SECTION 5, EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect ten days after adoption. PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of ,2004. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORl\1 & LANGUAGE & FOR EXECUTION VERIFIED CITY ATTORNEY DATE PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE F:lattoIHELGILlTIGA TIIAlaskalSettJementlResos and OrdinanceslMR comp plan text ord 5-24-04.DOC F:IPLANI$PLBI2004\PB06 2004,Portofino Items\1669 - MR comp plan text ord 5-24-04.DOC 2